Sitting of 8 July 2002

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

    Prison Estate
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What is the (a) design capacity of the prison estate and (b) number of prisoners therein. [64745]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): On 5 July 2002, the in-use certified normal accommodation of the prison estate was 64,232, and the usable operation capacity was 71,653. As of this morning, the total prison population was 71,360.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that my constituents will find it much easier to support his proposal for a fourth prison on the Isle of Wight if he can promise to recruit staff and to source supplies locally, to bring the street lights and sewers on the prison estate up to adoptable standard, and—most importantly—to guarantee that released prisoners will not jump local people in the housing queue, but will be re-housed where they committed their offences?
    Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current planning application follows on from existing planning permission for a 416-place prison on the site. I understand that, next week, he will meet Home Office officials to talk about the matters that he has raised today. I am very happy to give him the assurance that, as ever, the Prison Service does all that it can to ensure that local materials are used and local sourcing is undertaken when new prison places are provided. I am aware of the particular issues relating to lighting, highways and so on that he raises. Officials are looking at them, and it certainly is our intention that prisoners will be returned to their home area when they complete their sentence.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Although this Government have many excellent policies, is not the worst that which locks up increasing numbers of children and young people in prison? Should we not abandon that policy and ensure that the very small number of young
    590
    people from whom society needs to be protected are maintained in secure accommodation under the auspices of the Children Act 1989?
    Hilary Benn: As my hon. Friend will be well aware, the Government have made a particular priority of their youth justice reforms—both to speed up the time between the committing of an offence and sentencing, and to develop effective alternatives to custody for those for whom such alternatives can prove successful. I hope that he accepts that the most effective thing that we can do is to ensure that we bring effort, resources and reform to bear on reducing the chances of young people reoffending. If that proves successful, it will not be necessary for such young people to remain in custody, and they can go on to lead what we hope will be useful lives.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: How far does the prison estate's design capacity take into account the need to avoid harm and self-harm among prisoners? In particular, when does the Minister propose to respond to the urgent request that I made three weeks' ago for him to look at conditions in Wandsworth jail? One of my constituents recently fell from, or was thrown from, the top storey of the building to the floor beneath, leading to critical injuries because of the lack of safety facilities.
    Hilary Benn: I am aware of the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is being looked into, and I shall respond as quickly as I can. However, he raises an even more important and fundamental point—the work that the Prison Service is doing to reduce the incidence of self-harm under the safer custody initiative. At Winchester prison last week, I chaired a meeting of the round table group that is considering self-harm and suicides in prison. There has undoubtedly been a real change in the approach of prison staff, particularly in the six prisons in which the new safer custody initiative is being piloted. However, both sides of the House will share the genuine regret that, so far this year, the number of suicides in prisons has been higher than for the same period last year.
    Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment, and that, having punished them by taking away their liberty, we should concentrate on policies that will ensure their rehabilitation in the community? In keeping with the point that was made earlier about housing, is not the rehabilitation of prisoners, rather than simply punishing them, key to ensuring that we keep prison populations down?
    Hilary Benn: I agree. The deprivation of liberty is clearly part of society's way of saying to offenders that they must be held to account for what they have done. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the best long-term public protection measure is to reduce the chances of such people reoffending. That is precisely why we have undertaken work in prisons to increase drug treatment and testing. Ten years ago, there was almost no such provision in prisons. It was prison officers and staff in the pioneer prisons who, by looking at the offenders before them, recognised that that was what was needed if we were to have any hope of reducing reoffending in the

    591
    way that my hon. Friend has described. We are investing to make that happen, but we need to do more because, in the end, that is the best way to protect the public.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: While I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said, is it not the case that 1 million crimes a year are committed by prisoners who have been released early? Perhaps they do not spend enough time in prison. Surely that point must be considered when assessing the broad canvas of prison sentencing policy.
    Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, under the home detention curfew scheme the average period of early release is six weeks, and the scheme has a more than 90 per cent. success rate. He is right in one respect: prison is the place where we need to put dangerous, violent or persistent offenders who do not respond to the rehabilitation work that we are trying to develop. The great majority of prisoners will come back into the community and that is why it makes sense to invest in effective rehabilitation as the best way to protect the public.
    Simon Hughes: Can I assume that the Minister regards the record number of prisoners in England and Wales—which has been announced in the same week as I understand we will see a further increase in crime figures—as a sign of failure, not success? If that is the case, in addition to reducing the number of young people in prison, do the Government put a high priority on taking many mentally ill prisoners out of prison and putting them into secure health service accommodation? Are the Government willing to endorse the view of the Lord Chief Justice and Mrs. Cherie Blair that courts should not send non-violent women offenders to prison at the present rate of near record numbers—to great harm to them and to society at large?
    Hilary Benn: First, we will have to wait for the crime figures to be published this week. Secondly, I endorse the statement made by the Lord Chief Justice and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who—while they recognise that decisions about sentences are properly matters for the courts—have made it clear to sentencers that they should look carefully at the choice of custody for those offenders for whom prison may not be the most effective form of sentence. The hon. Gentleman's point about women and other prisoners reinforces the argument about the need for effective rehabilitation, having regard to family ties and job prospects on leaving prison. Compared to the population as a whole, prisoners are more likely to have low skills, little previous employment and a record of exclusion from school. That legacy of social exclusion does not excuse their crime, but it makes a powerful case for trying to address those causes of crime to try to reduce the chances of reoffending.

    Illegal Immigration
    Mr. Hugo Swire: What steps he is taking to deal with clandestine immigration. [64746]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We are working closely with the
    592
    French Government to deal with the problem of illegal immigration from France, and the trafficking networks which bring so many of these illegal immigrants across Europe. We are making efficient use of intelligence to target resources against organised immigration crimes, and we are investing in new technologies to detect and deter those attempting to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely in road freight vehicles.
    Mr. Swire: Does the Minister accept that the measures now proposed, which have still yet to be implemented, are too little, too late? Will she acknowledge the unacceptable strain that that inactivity has placed on the rail freight operators and the hauliers? Is this not just another example of a failure of Government policy?
    Beverley Hughes: That is a bit rich coming from a member of the Conservative party, which does not seem to want us to co-operate with France or other EU countries on those measures. I do not accept for a moment that it is too little, too late. We are working co-operatively with the French in a staged and programmed way to implement increased security at Frethun and to introduce a range of measures, including improved security and identification of illegal immigrants, a joint reporting system and shared intelligence. Some of the measures that the French have worked with us to institute, including juxtaposed controls, demonstrate their commitment to work with us to tackle a joint and shared problem.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Does the Minister recognise that many of her hon. Friends are fully aware that one of the major pull factors that makes this country—and especially the south of England—a target for illegal immigration is the lack of an effective ID card system? That is something about which the Conservatives appear to be ambivalent. I contend that many of my hon. Friends would welcome a compulsory system and cannot wait to see it implemented.
    Beverley Hughes: The Labour Government have agreed that we need to address all the pull factors. An entitlement card, if the public wish to go down that route, could play an important role in tackling the potential for illegal working. However, my hon. Friend is right about the ambivalence of Opposition parties towards such measures. We are trying to make illegal working more difficult under measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which the Conservative party opposed. Through the institution of non-suspensive appeals for clearly unfounded cases, we are making it possible to remove people very quickly—again, the Opposition parties opposite will not support us.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should not worry about the parties opposite.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: It appears that the Minister has a very short memory. Until 1997, thanks to the negotiations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), there was a very effective system for returning illegal immigrants to France. The present Government changed

    593
    the system, and it has taken the election of a right-of-centre Government in France to make any progress.
    Does the Minister accept that what concerns the man in the street is not only that the problems have got worse since 1997 but that the arrangements that the Government are making will introduce new procedures on French soil, paid for by the British taxpayer? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said in the original question, is it not clear that what the Government have done is too little, too late, and that we do not even know whether it will work?
    Beverley Hughes: At the very least, if the hon. Gentleman is going to ask a question, he should get his facts straight. The 1995 agreement—the content of which was determined by the previous Conservative Government—gave precedence to the Dublin convention in relation to asylum cases. In fact, the 1995 agreement in relation to non-asylum cases is still operational and under it we are removing more than 7,000 people a year to France. That compares with a few hundred who were removed from 1995 to 1997. This Government are bringing in effective measures to remove people, unlike the previous Tory Government, who were totally ineffective.

    Rape
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What plans he has to propose reforms to the law on rape; and if he will make a statement. 164747]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We all accept that rape is a particularly heinous crime. The legislative framework must enable us to take firm action wherever and whenever we can. We intend to publish our proposals for strengthening legislation on sex offences and sex offenders in the autumn, and to legislate as soon after that as parliamentary time allows.
    A working group has been formed with representatives from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the court service, in response to the joint report published on 8 April on the investigation and prosecution of rape. We recognise that there is a great deal more to do and I am very pleased that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are giving us their full support in dealing with the present very low prosecution and conviction rates.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and am pleased to hear that a working party has been set up. However, as he is aware, only between 2 and 5 per cent. of rape cases result in a conviction. Research shows that as many as 80 per cent. of people who suffer this crime do not report it to the police. That is not good enough. Just last week I spoke to staff at the Rape Crisis offices in Barnsley and in Yorkshire, and was told that three factors really worry them—cross-examination procedures; the use of past histories to denigrate the character of the victim and make it appear that she encouraged the rape; and the increase in the date rape
    594
    drug. Will my right hon. Friend consider referring these matters to the Sentencing Advisory Panel with a view to making progress and ensuring protection for rape victims?
    Mr. Blunkett: The figure for reported rapes resulting in conviction to which my hon. Friend referred is 7 per cent. The number of those taken to court is staggering: in 1977, 68 per cent. of defendants were found guilty; by 2000, the figure had dropped to 29 per cent. There are clearly serious issues: first, encouraging people to report; secondly, the way that they are handled; and, importantly, finding the right balance for both the male and female involved.
    My hon. Friend's question was partly dealt with by the Sentencing Advisory Panel when, earlier this year, it came down firmly on avoiding differentials between one type of rape and another, and we accept the panel's judgment. The proposed sentencing guidelines council will assist us in taking a broader look at both crime and sentences so that, we hope, we can get things right.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Home Secretary accept that recent high profile cases have made it clear that both the alleged victim and the person accused should remain anonymous throughout a trial, otherwise there is dreadful adverse publicity for people who are often found innocent? That cannot be right.
    Mr. Blunkett: It would be a great mistake if we made a judgment on the back of one case. In the case of Mr. Hann, we should be prepared to think a little during the summer and, when we make our proposals on the revision of sex offences, we should do so in the light of all the evidence. I do not think that there is disagreement about the fact that victims should remain anonymous; the real issue for all of us is whether, in the transparent society where the media expect us to be honest and open about what is taking place in relation to criminality, it would be acceptable for a particular type of perpetrator to remain anonymous when that was not the case for others. In the light of the campaign for a free society, I shall be interested to hear from Opposition spokesmen whether they feel that is the case.
    Vera Baird: The cross-departmental inquiry reporting on the thematic investigation into rape was announced in April and it was said that it would report at the end of June or the beginning of July. Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of when there will be a report as to how the three relevant departments intend to take forward the recommendations made by the inspectors? Can he tell us what input the Lord Chancellor's Department had in that cross-departmental inquiry, given that the report was highly critical of the judiciary, especially its excessive readiness to include previous sexual history?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. and learned Friend is right: the report announcing the inquiry was published on 8 April. The action plan has been completed and we will shortly be able to publish it. I am convinced of the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers to join the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and me in ensuring that we get this right. Given that the Lord

    595
    Chancellor, the Attorney-General and I are males, we should keep the lack of understanding of many men strongly in mind when addressing this critical issue.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Home Secretary agree that the most tragic and awful rapes are those affecting children, and that we need to reconsider the operation of the court process, since it delivers an even lower conviction rate for those accused of those even more terrible offences? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be more training for judges and, in particular, that they should be discouraged from allowing defence barristers to bully and confuse already extremely frightened children and from using points of order to get the case deferred from day to day and hour to hour in order to break down a frightened and demoralised child?
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman and I are in entire agreement: we should and will address the need to avoid the adversarial judicial system being applied to juveniles, and I look forward to all-party support.

    Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
    Ms Ann Coffey: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of acceptable behaviour contracts. [64748]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We believe that acceptable behaviour contracts have proved extremely useful in preventing or restraining antisocial behaviour before formal legal sanctions are taken. We have commissioned a survey of schemes in England and Wales, while conducting a thorough evaluation of the original scheme in Islington. We would certainly want to encourage the wider use of acceptable behaviour contracts.
    Ms Coffey: I thank the Minister for that reply. The youth offending team in Stockport has been very active in drawing up such contracts, particularly with youth offenders whose criminal activities are accompanied by threats and intimidation. Thirty of those contracts have been signed already, and only five have been breached. I believe that they are very effective because, on one hand, the breaches have serious consequences and, on the other, a lot of positive help is given in dealing with underlying problems such as drug or alcohol abuse, or indeed school attendance problems. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those in the youth offending team in Stockport on the very good work that they are doing? Has he any plans to apply that approach to the probation service's work with adult offenders?
    Mr. Denham: We are happy to congratulate those in the youth offending team in Stockport on their work. People tackling antisocial behaviour in many parts of the country are certainly using acceptable behaviour contracts in a way that makes it very clear what behaviour is required and what action—possibly eviction from a tenancy, or a formal antisocial behaviour order—will follow if the contracts are breached. They are very effective. Acceptable behaviour contracts can certainly be used with adults, and that is being pioneered in several
    596
    parts of the country. In the right circumstances, they can be as effective with that group as they can be with young offenders.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Does not the welcome use of acceptable behaviour contracts simply underline the complete failure of the bureaucratic antisocial behaviour orders, which the Government also pioneered? When will the Government get a grip on the rising tide of petty vandalism and aggressive behaviour in our neighbourhoods and parishes and introduce more local solutions such as those contracts?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Antisocial behaviour orders have been used with great effectiveness. They are particularly effective where they are used alongside acceptable behaviour contracts. The Police Reform Bill, which is currently before the House—in fact, we shall discuss it on Report tomorrow—contains a series of measures to make antisocial behaviour orders more widely and flexibly available and to enable courts to introduce interim antisocial behaviour orders so that they can be used quickly. I certainly hope that Opposition Members will do nothing else tomorrow or in another place to delay those measures being placed on to the statute book as quickly as possible, but I fear that that is their intention.

    Animal Experiments
    Mr. David Watts: If he will introduce stronger controls on animal experiments. [64749]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Our existing controls, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and various regulations passed since then, are widely regarded as the most rigorous in the world, and we currently have no plans to change them.
    Mr. Watts: The Minister will be aware that many people are opposed to any animal experiments, but the majority believe that they should be carried out provided that they are strictly controlled. Will he assure me that the introduction of genetically modified animal technology will not increase the number of experiments carried out?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I am sure that he will be aware that there are various pressures on both sides of the equation. On one hand, the use of robotics in testing chemicals is removing the need for animal experimentation in many cases, but, on the other, he is absolutely right to suggest that the potential of some genetic procedures to develop cures for illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, cancer or Alzheimer's puts a great deal of pressure on the medical establishment. There may well be a growth in experimentation as a result of those opportunities, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members would not want that development to be slowed down.
    Tony Baldry: Is it not also important to underline the fact that doctors and scientists do not carry out scientific procedures on animals gratuitously and for fun? They do so because it is for the benefit of both

    597
    veterinary and medical science. Many years ago, my father was research secretary of the British Tuberculosis Association. A cure would not have been found for killers such as TB if researchers had not been able to carry out scientific procedures on animals.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Every establishment, every procedure and every individual who is involved in animal experimentation must be licensed under our current procedures. I would hate to think that anyone was prepared to carry out unnecessary testing on animals. I am sure that that is not the case, but we need to be ever-vigilant. We need to make absolutely sure that the procedures that we have in place are rigorously enforced if we are to maintain the necessary confidence in such work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also understands that there are very strong feelings about that work.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did Home Office Ministers welcome as enthusiastically as I did the implied statement by the Government when an award was given of a CBE to Dr. Brian Cass of Huntingdon Life Sciences, which renders such important service to medical advance in this country?
    Mr. Ainsworth: Some of the procedures that are carried out at Huntingdon Life Sciences, at other companies and at our universities the length and breadth of the country are absolutely vital to the development of medicines that will ultimately be in the interests of humanity. We should never be slow in coming forward and saying so, and in recognising some of the truly magnificent work that is done in this area. I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Norman Baker: Does the Minister share my concern that the number of animal experiments in this country—to return to an earlier point—has remained virtually unchanged since the Government came to power five years ago? We have not even properly sorted out cosmetics testing yet. Is it not time that we tried to eliminate duplicated experiments, of which there are many; that we tried to promote alternatives such as computer modelling and cell culture; and that we eliminated those experiments that are unethical, such as those that are still being carried out to test tobacco smoke?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman and I have many dealings together in the portfolios that we share on behalf of our two parties. If he has any evidence of unnecessary duplication of animal testing, he should bring it forward. It is no good making allegations in the House without bringing forward specifics. If he can do so, we should examine the matter and do what we can to eliminate it. We are doing our very best in the areas of publication and data sharing to make absolutely certain that unnecessary duplication does not take place. No evidence has been presented to me that suggests that it is taking place in the UK. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence, he should bring it to my attention.

    Police Service
    Mr. Iain Luke: What plans he has to reform working practices in the police service. [64751]
    Mr. Tony Colman: What plans he has to reform working practices in the police service. [64757]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Alongside the Police Reform Bill, we were successful in reaching an historic agreement in May with the Police Negotiating Board, which has resulted in substantial proposals for reforms. Those include: competency-related pay; a deal to reduce police overtime and to switch 15 per cent. over the next three years into front-line services; the scrapping of the old roster system; changes to overtime notice periods; the introduction of extra rewards for jobs at the sharp end; a £400 uplift per increment and a shorter promotion scale; more flexible arrangements to enable officers to work part-time; and new measures to improve the management of ill-health, among other things.
    Mr. Luke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will agree that the introduction of special priority posts in the package of reforms to which the Police Negotiating Board agreed on 9 May will do much to help police forces up and down this country to focus more on front-line services, and to concentrate on issues and areas of significance, importance and concern to the communities and constituencies that they serve.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree: people want to see the police on the streets—they want that reassurance—but they also want police time to be targeted and the intelligence methodology to ensure that we can bear down heavily on what all of us accept is a major problem for modern society. Many of the issues that were targeted in the first five years of this Government have been successful, and we are now succeeding with street crime and robbery. We need to be equally successful in bearing down on violence. Targeting rewards and support for those at the sharp end is part of that process.
    Mr. Colman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching an agreement with the Police Federation—a long awaited and long overdue agreement. Does he agree, however, that more action needs to be taken to reduce bureaucracy in police working practices, so as to get more officers out on to the streets of Putney where my constituents value them most—that is, at the sharp end?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I do. Sir David O'Dowd's interim report has given us a lead in enabling us to take immediate action, but much more still needs to be done. We have slimmed down the performance indicators; we have put out for consultation slimmed-down proposals for the police and criminal evidence codes; we are introducing new technology that will be a major boon for the police on the beat and in the community; and we have introduced the back-up support necessary for forensic science. All that will enable the police to do their job more effectively.

    599
    An extra 4,500 policemen and women have also been put in place over the past two years, and they will make, and are making, a difference in reducing crime.
    Mr. George Osborne: Will the Home Secretary explain the change to police working practices that finds police officers in south Yorkshire reporting to a junior Education Minister who represents a north London seat and police officers in Nottinghamshire reporting to a junior Treasury Minister who represents a seat in Bolton? I know that the Home Secretary is keen on empire building, but is that not a bit ambitious?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes—very amusing. My only advice—I need to take it myself when I read the Sunday newspapers—is not to believe a word one reads. The truth is that Ministers are not overseeing the policing of any area. They were asked if they would work with local partners—the Crown Prosecution Service, the court service, the police and those working in education and youth offending teams—to see whether we could remove any obstacles to those organisations working together. I challenge Conservative Members and any reporter who cares to do so to give me the name of anyone working at local level who has found the work of those Ministers anything but helpful.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Home Secretary agree that a fundamental feature of working practices is that they are based on the tripartite system of chief officers, the police authority and the Home Secretary working together? As we approach the Report stage of the Police Reform Bill, to which he and the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety have referred, will the Home Secretary accept that there remains a fundamental belief that, especially under clause 5, he is seriously damaging the tripartite arrangement? Does he understand that, contrary to the comments that the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety just made, we are not seeking confrontation. The crux of our concern is who runs the police service. Its independence is derived from the tripartite system. Even at this late stage, may I invite the Home Secretary to come to the House with amendments to clarify that he will not seek further powers to direct or overrule chief officers or police authorities as they carry out their duties?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very happy to come to the House with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to ensure that we clarify exactly what is meant so that there is no mischievous misunderstanding. Let me get the position absolutely clear. Chief constables are operationally independent, and no one is challenging that. Police authorities have a role. I understand that Opposition Members wish to enhance that role, and I am happy to assist in that. As Home Secretary, I am responsible to the British people for the resources used and the statistics bandied about, and there have to be some levers to pull. That includes being able to ask for an action plan, to comment on an action plan and to expect the police authority to work with the chief constable on
    600
    implementing an action plan. Anyone who challenges that simple and perfectly innocent approach is simply causing mischief rather than helping us to do the job.
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I remind my right hon. Friend that on Friday evening, Mr. Alan Musgrove, a constituent of mine, was gunned down on his doorstep in front of his family? It was the fourth such assassination in my part of east London, Forest Gate, but no one has been brought to justice for any of the incidents. The newspapers say that he was "shot by mistake", which gives rise to the question whether anyone can be correctly gunned down on their own doorstep.
    May I inform my right hon. Friend that in certain parts of this country, including east London, guns have become almost a fashion accessory that people carry for fun? Is it not time that the Government considered the routine arming of all police officers throughout the country?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, although I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As a result of the growth in gun crime, it is necessary in London and elsewhere to reinforce Operation Trident. We need to work with the communities that are most affected by gun crime and those most likely to be the perpetrators of gun crime. We must ensure that we clamp down on the ownership of guns, but arming all our police force would not help us in that endeavour in any way.
    Mr. David Cameron: Further to the baffling reply that the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), if individual police forces are not reporting to individual Ministers, and if those Ministers do have a role in the street crime initiative, will he tell us, as someone who is keen on making announcements, when that was announced to the House, and how that novel form of accountability is meant to work?
    Mr. Blunkett: Some people are more difficult to baffle than others. Ministers do not have to report to the House on a day-to-day basis to demonstrate how helpful they can be in ascertaining facts from a local level—after all, that is what we are here for. They receive messages on how to unlock blockages and ensure that mistakes are overcome rather than repeated. Ministers ensure that legislation comes before the House to make the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the court service work better.

    Prisoner Rehabilitation
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If he will make a statement on his plans to ensure resettlement and rehabilitation opportunities for former prisoners. [64752]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): We are investing, on average, some —60 million a year in education and offending behaviour programmes in prisons. We are working closely with Jobcentre Plus on increasing the number of prisoners who find work or training on release. We are also piloting support for short-term prisoners and

    601
    those who misuse drugs. Accredited programmes have been shown to reduce reoffending by between 5 and 15 per cent.
    Mr. Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that as long ago as 1993 organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders became increasingly concerned about the dramatic increase in the number of women sent to prison? Although we know that the Government cannot intervene in the sentencing of individuals, will the Department continue to have an input into sentencing policy? Given that a fairly large number of young children are put in care because their mothers are sent to prison, does he accept that the problem calls for the utmost sensitivity, not ideological backlashes?
    Hilary Benn: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend's point. One of the saddest features of the female prison population is that 37 per cent. of sentenced women prisoners have attempted suicide. Women prisoners have access to the full range of programmes available in prison and we are looking for ways to make those more appropriate to their particular needs.
    My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the particular burden of caring responsibilities faced by women prisoners, and ideas such as intermittent custody, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about in his speech earlier this year, would be particularly appropriate for them given what we know about the importance, both for the prisoners and for their families, of maintaining family links wherever possible.
    Alistair Burt: Will the Minister do all that he can to recognise and support the work of Christian groups such as the Kainos community, which operate in prison with the support of prison authorities to ensure that the spirit and character of prisoners is not neglected in their preparation for successful release?
    Hilary Benn: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. One really heartening development in the past few years has been in the links between the Prison Service and the voluntary sector, which works in many prisons providing a wide range of support. One of the pleasures that I had in this job recently was attending a conference organised by CLINKS at the Design Centre in Islington, where 500 people came together to talk about that work. They discussed how the Prison Service can learn from the contribution of the voluntary sector in maintaining precisely the qualities and sense of spirit that the hon. Gentleman talked about and also how the voluntary sector can learn from the Prison Service.
    Glenda Jackson: Are not existing rehabilitation programmes closed to many prisoners who are repeat offenders by virtue of the fact that they are usually in prison for a very short time? Another factor, particularly for women prisoners, is the fear that they may lose their home as well as their family. Does not the Home Office need to work closely with other Departments to ensure that such a situation does not arise?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. These are matters that the recent social exclusion unit report
    602
    drew to our attention. We need to do more, particularly for prisoners serving short sentences. When I was at Winchester prison last week, I was very impressed by the team of three prison officers who are delivering the custody-to-work programme in that institution. They are enthusiastic and hard working, and they are making links with employers outside the prison because they recognise as much as anybody else does the importance for prisoners of finding employment opportunities once they leave their care.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the Minister will agree that no group requires resettlement and rehabilitation more than 18 to 20-year-olds, of whom some 72 per cent. commit further offences within two years of release. Does the Minister agree that structured programmes are needed and that they must be consistent? If early release is brought on by overcrowding rather than being planned and if we have "going straight" contracts that are not part of an integrated programme, we are going in the wrong direction because we are pushing young offenders back out into the community before they have been properly prepared for it.
    I am happy to hear that the Minister likes Kainos. Why, then, are Kainos programmes being closed down?
    Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we do not have integrated programmes for young offenders, we will not make the progress that is required. That is precisely the point that was made in the social exclusion unit's report. That is why the community sentences developed by the national probation service can include intensive supervision, offending behaviour programmes, drug treatment and testing orders, work in the community and the use of tagging. The availability of those instruments enables us to construct a sentence in the community that is effective in working with young people.
    We need to learn from the lessons of the youth justice programme, which in its first year, as hon. Members will be aware, has led to a reduction in reoffending of 14.6 per cent., whereas the target was for a 5 per cent. reduction over the first four years. All hon. Members will take pleasure in the fact that, on those initial indications, the approaches seem to be working, and we need to develop them elsewhere in the offending and prisoner population.

    Refugee Resettlement
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on his plans to develop a refugee resettlement programme with the UNHCR. [64753]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): In the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill now going through Parliament there is a provision to introduce a resettlement programme that will enable those refugees whose life, liberty or security cannot be protected to be brought safely to the United Kingdom and provided with protection. That will provide a legal route for those seeking international protection and is further evidence of our practical support of the refugee convention.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank the Minister for that response. Does she agree that that programme can be one of the

    603
    ways by which we cut off the supply to unscrupulous human traffickers, opening up a legal migration route within the country of origin? Over the longer term, will that not reduce the number of unfounded asylum claims in this country, and does not the programme demonstrate the need for more effective international co-operation on these issues?
    Beverley Hughes: Resettlement is a humanitarian measure to provide protection and a legal migration route, and it has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by refugee organisations. My hon. Friend is right that it will help to keep people out of the clutches of the organised criminal gangs who are fuelling almost all the illegal immigration across the EU. In the longer term, and in the context of international co-operation and common systems, it could have a beneficial impact on levels of illegal immigration and unfounded claims. We need to keep up the pressure to bear down on illegal immigration and people trafficking, and that, too, requires international co-operation, including co-operation with source and transit countries.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Lady tell the House how she intends to respond to the high commissioner's offer to visit Sangatte to see which refugees should come to this country? Against the background of £5 million being made available to improve the security fence at Frethun, what guarantee have the Government been given that Sangatte camp will close?
    Beverley Hughes: We welcome the offer of assistance from the UNHCR and the fact that it sees a potential role for itself in such situations. Decisions about the way forward will of course be taken by the UK and French Governments together.
    The financial contributions to accelerate the provisions at Frethun and in northern France represent a good investment, because they will enable British business to get its freight through much faster.
    On the closure of Sangatte, both Governments have said that they foresee that that will be necessary as part of the package of measures that we are working towards.
    Ann Clwyd: May I say how pleased I am that the Government are taking seriously the offer made by Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when he was here last week? He came to the House to talk to us about refugees, and offered to break the deadlock between Britain and France on that issue.
    I was in Sangatte—not in the camp, but the village—just a few weeks ago. I walked around and talked to little groups of people, mostly men, on the beach and in the streets. They were mainly from Afghanistan and Iraq. When I asked why they had left, some of them said in the little English that they spoke that Saddam was a bad man; one man held two fingers to his head. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we sort out who is and who is not a refugee as quickly as possible?
    Beverley Hughes: If there was a deadlock, it was broken a few weeks ago when my right hon. Friend met his French counterpart and introduced the first package of measures.
    604
    Those discussions have been continuing at official level and will be resumed on Friday this week at a meeting between my right hon. Friend and French Ministers.
    As I said, I welcome UNHCR's seeing a potential role for itself. I have to say to my hon. Friend that that must include help with some of the most difficult aspects of the situation, especially in relation to returning people and to the growing problem of children and young people arriving unaccompanied in the area. That is a very difficult issue. If UNHCR is willing to help us with those two matters, we will be glad to receive that help.

    Drug Awareness
    John Robertson: What initiatives he is taking to promote drug awareness. [64754]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Raising awareness of the dangers of drugs is a main focus of the national drug strategy. Educating young people and protecting them from the risks and harm of drug misuse is a high priority. Most schools now provide substance misuse education and parents are given information about where to get help. In December, I launched the first in a series of drug awareness campaigns promoting the national drugs helpline. The campaign resulted in substantial increases in numbers of young people contacting the helpline for advice and assistance.
    John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that 50 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds have at some stage indulged in illegal drugs. As he said, one aim of the national drugs strategy is to reduce drug taking among that age group. Does he agree that former addicts are sometimes the best people to explain—rather than preach about—the pitfalls of taking drugs? Will he ensure that that will become an undertaking of this Government, and that such people will be allowed to go into schools to explain the problems?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend hits on a very important area. I do not believe that preaching to young people works or has the desired effect. I know from personal experience, having listened to a former addict explain some of the difficulties that they had experienced and managed to overcome, that such intervention is one of the most powerful weapons. I am sure that people with such communication skills would be happy to help where we could use them appropriately. They could have a great effect on the young people to whom they manage to talk.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Is the Minister aware that he and the Home Secretary have indeed taken a huge initiative to promote drug awareness? Has not his Brixton experiment promoted awareness among young people that the Government want to send mixed messages on the persistent use of cannabis, and promoted awareness among drug dealers that Brixton is the place to be? How will either of those forms of awareness contribute to reducing drug dependency in this country?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We have had quite a debate on drugs over the past year since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee and asked for an adult debate on the issue. In some ways,

    605
    we have managed to increase awareness of the effect of different substances and the harm that they cause. By misrepresenting the situation in Lambeth, the right hon. Gentleman is not helping the debate at all.
    The overwhelming consensus is that both the police and the residents of Lambeth face most difficulty with the class A drug market. We need to take effective measures against that, and we are doing precisely that. There is no mixed message. The message is this: all drugs are harmful but class A drugs are particularly dangerous—and that is where our main attention should be aimed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and ought to behave responsibly during the debate.
    Mr. Letwin: Is there not one other form of drug awareness that the Minister would accept that he and the Home Secretary have failed to promote: the awareness of the public about the true nature of what they are proposing? The Home Secretary has leaked that he will double sentences for cannabis dealers. At present, cannabis is a class B drug, and the maximum sentence is
    606
    14 years. If, as leaked, he universalises the Brixton experiment by moving cannabis to class C, the maximum sentence for dealing in it would naturally be reduced to five years. If the Minister multiplies that by two, the maximum sentence will, I gather from mathematicians, be 10 years. Will he explain to those of us who are not mathematically inclined how a move from a 14-year maximum sentence to a 10-year maximum sentence constitutes doubling sentences for cannabis dealers?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman ought to try to concentrate on the issues of substance instead of playing games with figures. The position is clear and has been for a long time. There has been an extensive debate in the Home Affairs Committee, in which members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party participated, where evidence was taken from everybody. Advice has also been given by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, and we shall discuss with the police and announce to Parliament in the near future our exact proposals on reclassification and all its ramifications. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman making a constructive response to that.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry not to have given advance notice, but have you received any information on whether the Government intend to make a statement on progress on the Palestine-Israel peace process? Are we to get an opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary on the continuing export of arms to Israel via the United States or any other country? Those matters are important and the House will want some discussion of them before the recess.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had any approach from any Minister.
Mr. Tony McWalter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given prior notice of my point of order, albeit late—I was still hoping to hear from the Member involved. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a meeting in Room 8 at 6 pm, organised by someone styling himself as the parliamentary spokesperson for Hemel Hempstead. The invitation, bearing the portcullis of the House of Commons, has gone out to every new elector in my constituency from a Member representing another constituency. I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would inform me that such a prima facie breach of privilege should at least result in my being invited to that meeting so that I can meet my own constituents.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has sent me a letter, which my secretary received while I was dealing with questions. I promise to look into the terms of his letter with urgency.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), Mr. Speaker. Given the
608
importance of the issue which, I believe, has been dealt with in a written answer by the Foreign Secretary, is it still in order to seek to ask a private notice question on the issue tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: Any hon. Member is entitled to submit a private notice question before 12 o'clock, but it is at my discretion whether I grant that.

BILL PRESENTED
  HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS) (No. 2)
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, supported by Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. David Wilshire, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. John Randall and Miss Anne McIntosh, presented a Bill to make provision for research and development, and dissemination of information and advice, relating to flight-related deep vein thrombosis and other medical conditions affecting air travellers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 165].

EMPLOYMENT BILL [LORDS](PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Employment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 27th November:

EMPLOYMENT BILL [LORDS](PROGRAMME)
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1 Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  Subsequent stages
  2 The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Orders of the Day

  Employment Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 to 15, 17, 21 to 24, 76, 77 and 79, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Employment Bill
    Clause 2

      STATUTORY PATERNITY PAY
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      3.34 pm
      The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) voiced concern that the Bill as drafted may not clearly give effect to our policy intention on an employer's liability to pay paternity pay to an employee in certain circumstances. Such circumstances were those in which an employee leaves his employer's employment at some point before the child is born, or placed in the case of adoption.
      I undertook at the time to examine clause 2 closely to ascertain whether any amendments were needed to give effect to our policy intention in that regard. I do not think that there was or is any disagreement about the fundamental policy intention—that is, that it would not be right for an employer to be liable for payment of paternity pay to an ex-employee who had left his or her employment some time ago. However, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a valid point, and we agree that the Bill as drafted did not set out the policy unambiguously.
      The hon. Gentleman will have noted that our package of amendments subsumes some of those that he suggested in Committee, but that, to give full effect and ensure consistency throughout the Bill, they are somewhat more comprehensive. We tabled this group of amendments in the other place, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they make it crystal clear in the Bill that an employee will be entitled to statutory paternity pay from an employer only if he or she is working for that employer up to the date of birth or placement of the child, and not if he or she has left that employer's employment at some point beforehand.
      Amendment No. 22 stands slightly apart and simply tidies up part of new section 171ZE to ensure greater consistency with statutory maternity pay and statutory adoption pay.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks so far. He is right that this set of amendments clarifies beyond doubt the aim of the Bill. The concerns expressed in Committee arose because the language used in drafting the Bill had been picked up from other legislation dealing with statutory maternity pay.
      610
      Statutory maternity pay covers a considerably longer period than that proposed for statutory paternity pay, and some of the expressions used in the original drafting language implying that a person who went on statutory leave had ceased their employment might be appropriate phraseology where the person will be away from the workplace for a period of months, but members on both sides of the Committee, including the Minister, felt that the wording was not appropriate if the person is to be absent from the workplace for a maximum of two weeks. The Minister said at the time that he would study the wording carefully and ensure that what was written into the Bill did indeed give effect to the policy intention, about which there was never any doubt in anybody's mind.
      That is a good example of the way in which consideration in Committee often throws up valuable insights into drafting. The draftsman clearly understood what he was being asked to do, and for understandable reasons modelled the wording on that for the statutory maternity pay regime, but it was evident to those of us who were not involved in the drafting process and who were reading the Bill as laymen that there was the possibility of misinterpretation of the language used in the clause. I am pleased to say that the amendments tabled by the Government in the other place, which went rather farther than the amendments proposed by the Opposition in Committee, clarify eligibility in relation to former employment and leave anyone who reads the Bill in no doubt about the intention.
      Graciously acknowledging the validity of the points that we had raised, the Minister said in Committee that, having considered the matter,
      "we will either table the hon. Gentleman's amendment"—
      that is, my amendment—
      "giving him the credit and royalties that he deserves, or a similar amendment that will clarify what we are saying."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 January 2002; c. 328.]
      The Minister is generous in the extreme, but I have to tell him that no brown envelope has yet come winging its way to me with any royalties.
      Alan Johnson: Blame the post.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister anticipates the remark that I was about to make. He is, of course, an expert on these matters, and with or without credit and royalties, I am delighted that we have resolved the issue.
      However, a second substantive point arises from this group of amendments. I will call it the motive test. One of the amendments deletes subsection (2)(c) of new section 171ZA to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which stated:
      "that he has ceased to work for the employer, and done so for the purpose of caring for the child or supporting the mother".
      The same provision is deleted in relation to birth and adoption entitlements. Clearly, the primary reason for such deletion is that the reference to ceasing to work for the employer is no longer relevant as a result of the substantive amendments in the group, to which the Minister referred. On the face of it, however, that leaves us without a motive test. It was always intended that paternity pay would be payable only where the purpose of taking the leave was caring for the child or supporting the mother in the case of birth, and caring for the child or supporting the adopter in the case of adoption.

      611
      The amendments provide an alternative method of introducing a motive test, but they include it in a different provision: new section 171ZE to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which deals with rate and period of pay. It seems that we are being asked to delete the concept of a motive from the definition of entitlement and to put the motive test back into the new section that deals with the rate and period of pay. As I understand it, the effect is that under new section 171ZA—and, indeed, under new section 171ZB in relation to adoption—somebody could be entitled to maternity pay, but might not receive it because section 171ZE reintroduces the concept of a motive test at the point at which payment is dealt with.
      Has the Minister thought through the question whether there are any implications of moving the motive test from the sections dealing with entitlement and including it instead in new section 171ZE? The provision could have been left where it was; there is no reason at all why the motive test could not have remained in new sections 171ZA and 171ZB. Presumably, somebody has taken a conscious decision to reinsert it in a different place, and before we decide how to proceed, I would like to be sure that that has no significance.
      While we are dealing with these amendments, perhaps we could again touch on the issue of policing and enforcement, about which we had a little discussion in Committee. Clearly, new section 171ZE includes a motive test that will apply before payment is to be made. I am concerned to ensure that employers are not required to police the test and make what could be very difficult subjective judgments about whether the employee intends to care for the child, mother or adopter in taking statutory leave and receiving statutory pay.
      In particular, will the Minister explain how he intends to ensure compliance with that motive test? For example, will a self-certification requirement be included in regulation, so that an employee who announces his intention to take statutory paternity leave and asks his employer to pay statutory paternity pay will make some form of simple declaration to the employer to the effect that he intends during the course of that leave to care for the child, mother or adopter? In those circumstances, I would imagine that the employer would be exonerated if it turned out that the employee had gone on a fortnight's holiday to Las Vegas during the period of statutory paternity leave. Any redress against the individual would be a matter between the Inland Revenue as the reimbursing authority and the person taking the statutory leave and receiving the statutory pay.
      3.45 pm
      I hope that it is clear that the Government are not seeking to place employers in the invidious position of having to delve into the personal living and family support arrangements of their employees. There must be some arrangement whereby the employer can be clear as to the course of action that he has to follow, without any risk of redress, or of finding that the Inland Revenue has refused to reimburse an amount that he has paid in good faith following an employee taking statutory paternity leave, on the ground that the employee did not satisfy the motive test now being removed from the new section.
      612
      I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with those questions. Then we can see how to proceed.
      Alan Johnson: Apart from the royalties question, I did give due credit to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It was an exemplary Committee in the way in which various items were raised. It was scrutiny at its best—[Interruption.] "Hear, hear" say members of that Committee.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the point about the motive test. As he mentioned, amendment No. 21 seeks to ensure that pay, like leave, should be available only where the employee has taken time off work for the purpose of supporting the mother or caring for the child, which would otherwise have been lost from the drafting. That provision is reinstated in the new section relating to the rate and period of pay. It would be unusual for someone to seek to take two weeks off work and not seek to be paid for those two weeks. We have looked at this very carefully and we are confident that the change does not lose the important point that we were trying to preserve: there has to be a genuine motive for taking the leave.
      On the issue of self-certification, we do not believe that this is different from any other form of leave. Employers should not be asked to delve into the private concerns of their employees; it was an important principle that we established. Would someone claim for two weeks paternity leave and take that two weeks in Las Vegas? That it is unlikely. Even when we have finished applying the biggest increase in maternity leave, which is mirrored in paternity leave and maternity pay, since 1948, paternity leave will still be up to the grand total of £100 a week.
      It is unlikely that someone would seek to use paternity leave to holiday in Nevada. Nevertheless, if they do try to do that, it will be a matter for the employer to deal with in the normal way—as a disciplinary matter. People who seek to take other forms of leave when they are misleading the employer are in the same position.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that it would be a matter for the employer to deal with as a disciplinary issue, but to the extent that the employer is being reimbursed by the Inland Revenue, it strikes me that it is more a question of fraud against the Revenue than a matter of direct economic concern to the employer. Is the Minister saying that it will be left entirely to the employer to police the provision and to take any necessary action?
      Alan Johnson: No, I am not. I am saying that, in terms of the checks that are carried out, if an employer obtains evidence of an employee taking leave in a way that is not covered by the Bill, it would be a disciplinary matter for the employer to deal with. The Inland Revenue, on the other hand, would use the cruel and unusual punishments that are open to it to pursue an individual along those lines. I am not saying what the hon. Gentleman suggested at all.
      Mr. Mark Prisk: There will clearly be a transfer of money in terms of payments. Has the Minister made a regulatory impact assessment of the administrative costs to businesses—particularly small businesses—of the changes?
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman returns to a theme that we know well from Committee. I remind him that the response from small businesses was overwhelmingly positive in respect of adoption leave, to which the provisions also apply, because an adoptive parent can take two weeks paternity leave. In fact, their biggest single comment was that this should have happened a long time ago. On paternity leave, there was complete acceptance that it was right that fathers should have time to spend with their new-born babies. The basic point that businesses made was that they should not be expected to pay paternity leave. They also made the point that the Government should expand the number of small businesses that would be able to claim back 105 per cent. of maternity and paternity pay—the two rules are mirrored. We have taken into account the views of small businesses in all those respects.
      Mr. Prisk: My question was on administrative costs, not on the pay itself. I understand what the Minister has said on that point, and I share those motivations, but I am seeking an answer on the costs and administrative burdens now being put before the House that have come from the other place.
      Alan Johnson: On the amendments carried in the Lords, we are doing precisely what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked us to do, which is to make it absolutely clear that when individuals take such leave, the only responsibility that the employer will have will be for existing employees. There was some ambiguity in the previous wording, but small businesses will welcome the changes.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister has just referred to employers being able to recover 105 per cent. of the amounts paid to employees. For the avoidance of any ambiguity, will he confirm for the record that that is 105 per cent. of the amount paid, to include the employer's national insurance contribution, so that it will, in fact, be less than 100 per cent. of the cost to the employer that is being recovered?
      Alan Johnson: Yes, I confirm that. It will work out at about 104 per cent. when the complex statistics are taken into account.
      I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for recognising that we have sought carefully to take his views into account and incorporate them into the amendments. He should be reassured by the fact that our moving the provision on motivation from amendment No. 21 to another part of the Bill still secures the basis of that motivation.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister is obviously about to finish, may I ask him specifically to give an assurance that an employer acting in good faith making a payment of statutory paternity pay will not find himself unable to get reimbursement because the Revenue has determined that the employee does not satisfy the motive test now being inserted into new section 171ZE?
      Alan Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give him an answer now; I will look into the matter to make sure that that is the case, and I will write to him.
      Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 24 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

    CLAUSE 16

      Interpretation
      Lords amendment: No. 25.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 45, 61, 76, 77, 79 and 81 to 87.
      Alan Johnson: The amendments, although not related, are all technical, which is why they have been grouped together.
      Lords amendment No. 25 corrects an oversight on our part by including the equivalent of the Department of Trade and Industry in Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning, in the data-sharing provisions. The Department for Employment and Learning, like the DTI, may need access to high-level statistical information to assess how the schemes are working. The term "the Department" is defined in clause 16; our amendment simply includes the Department for Employment and Learning, as well as the Department for Social Development, in the data-sharing provisions.
      Although many of the Bill's provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland, we expect that Northern Ireland will make its own provisions for paternity and adoption leave and pay. We also expect that the Inland Revenue will be responsible for the operation of those schemes, as it will be in Great Britain. Because the Inland Revenue's responsibilities are UK-wide, however, we have to legislate in a Westminster Bill to enable it to take on these responsibilities. Clause 16 is one of the provisions that must therefore extend to Northern Ireland.
      The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland has responsibilities equivalent to those of the Department for Work and Pensions in Great Britain, and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland is the equivalent of the DTI in Great Britain. The same good reasons why the Inland Revenue and Departments in Great Britain may well need to exchange information on statutory paternity and adoption pay apply equally to the Inland Revenue and Departments in Northern Ireland. The amendment ensures that Departments in Northern Ireland will be able to take a joined-up approach to statutory paternity and adoption pay, in the same way as Departments in Great Britain.
      Lords amendment No. 38 is a technical amendment that reverses the order of clauses 32 and 33. Clause 33 deals with the presentation of complaints to tribunals. It makes sense for it to precede clause 32, which is about consequential changes to time limits for making complaints to tribunals. Clause 32 also refers consequentially to schedule 4, but it is clause 33 that introduces that schedule.
      Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 45 are minor technical amendments to clause 37, which allows employers to use a letter of engagement or a contract of employment to satisfy the requirement to provide employees with a written statement of employment particulars. As a written

      615
      statement must give a date by reference to which it operates, an alternative document intended to fulfil the same function must also give such a date. However, the original text of clause 37 refers only to
      "the date of the document".
      That might have led to uncertainty, as the date of any particular contract of employment may not always be clear.
      Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 44, taken together, clarify the position. They provide that when an alternative document is intended to fulfil the written statement requirements, the date by reference to which it operates for that purpose is the date on which it is given to the employee. New section 7B(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 serves no useful purpose once the date of the alternative document has been clarified by Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 44, and it is therefore removed by Lords amendment No. 45.
      Lords amendment No. 61 provides that clauses 45 and 46, relating to fixed-term work, will come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, thus allowing the fixed-term regulations to be laid immediately. That will give employers and employees more time to prepare for their coming into force, which should ensure compliance with the regulations. Lords amendments Nos. 76 and 81 to 84 are technical amendments to schedule 7. They simply ensure that the appropriate minor and consequential amendments concerning statutory paternity and adoption pay are made to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996.
      4 pm
      On Report in the other place, Lord Sainsbury of Turville introduced five amendments—Nos. 77, 79 and 85 to 87—relating to clause 47, which deals with flexible working. They concern an exemption for the armed forces, and the provision by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of binding arbitration in cases where employer and employee cannot agree.
      Lords amendments Nos. 85 to 87 relate to the proposed exemption of the armed forces from the flexible working provisions. As was explained in the Lords, the Bill as previously drafted applied those provisions to the armed forces, but because all members of the armed forces are—uniquely—liable to operational deployment at little or no notice if national interests so require, it was impractical to apply long-term flexible working arrangements, as envisaged in the new right to request. Accordingly, we concluded that the new provisions should not apply to them.
      It is worth noting that the armed forces will continue to seek to comply with the spirit of the legislation, subject always to overriding operational requirements. They fully recognise the benefits of flexible working to individuals and their organisations.
      Mr. George Osborne(Tatton): I understand that the armed forces have overriding operational requirements, but does the Minister accept that many private businesses
      616
      also have such requirements, and that they cannot simply give time off to employees who want to take a holiday at a given moment?
      Alan Johnson: The work and parents taskforce—which consisted of representatives not only of business, but of small businesses in particular—recommended that the right to request be extended as widely as possible. I accept that there are difficulties for businesses, but we and the taskforce successfully overcame them all in formulating these proposals. In the jargon of the day, the taskforce thought small first, and the legislation includes provisions that are aimed at helping small businesses in particular. However, we and the taskforce felt that allowing flexible working for parents of children up to the age of six was beneficial to businesses. In many cases, skills were lost from the workplace because women, in particular, could not combine the pressures of their domestic lives with their professional responsibilities.
      Mr. Hammond: We have rehearsed this argument many times, but I still cannot understand how it benefits a firm that already operates good practice to impose such practice on its competitors. Surely we should encourage a climate in which good practice generates competitive advantage, thereby creating a virtuous spiral of employers competing with each other in offering such practice.
      Alan Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have rehearsed this argument many times, and I agree with him completely in terms of work-life balance and people's ability to care for elderly parents, or to pursue hobbies. We are dealing with those issues through measures such as the work-life balance challenge fund. Employers For Work-life Balance—an organisation that was set up three years ago, and which is completely independent of Government—is also playing an important role. However, we decided that, for parents of small children, it would take a generation for best practice to work in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      We decided that everyone has a stake in bringing children up properly and that wider social issues are involved. The introduction of a measure that is not a right to work flexibly, but a right to request to work flexibly—and that puts a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously—is a balanced approach. It will give thousands of parents the opportunity that they have not had before—or perhaps in some companies, such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the courage and the confidence—to suggest to their employers that if they started work at 9.15 am rather than 9 am, they could drop their kids off at school, which would make their working lives much easier. We have a difference of view in relation to working parents, but the proposals were widely supported in two years of exhaustive consultation.
      Mr. George Osborne: Surely the armed forces wish to be family-friendly employers. Since an employer may turn down a request for flexible working, why should not the armed forces face the same burden that the Government will put on private business?
      Alan Johnson: As I said, the armed forces intend to comply with the spirit of the legislation. They raised some practical concerns in relation not to their civilian staff, who will be governed by the measures, but to their

      617
      military staff. Even in a case in which a member of staff has put forward a perfectly reasonable request, the armed forces may not have the luxury of granting it, because circumstances may mean that they cannot implement those arrangements. As hon. Members will know from discussions in Committee, we thought that we could apply the provisions to the armed forces, but in practice and after consultation with them it was felt that it would not be possible. That is why we have introduced the exemption.
      Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 79 provide for ACAS conciliation and ACAS binding arbitration schemes for disputes concerning flexible working. The main priority of the flexible working provisions is to foster dialogue between parents and employers to find a flexible working pattern to suit them both. As part of that commitment, we always intended that there should be a binding arbitration scheme prepared by ACAS to deal with disputes regarding requests for flexible working that cannot be resolved in the workplace. The minor and technical amendments introduced in the Lords allow us to do this.
      The provision for a scheme relating to flexible working also helps to ensure that as few cases as possible end up at employment tribunals. Because the arbitration is binding, those who opt to use the scheme also waive their right to have their case heard at a tribunal.
      Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister confirm for the record—because the bigger picture is sometimes not visible when we consider Lords amendments—that we are talking about arbitration on whether the proper procedures have been followed, not on the substance of the request for flexible working or the employer's decision that he cannot accede to it?
      Alan Johnson: We are talking about whether the request was given serious consideration. Arbitration may also address questions of fact. We are not asking a tribunal or ACAS to second-guess an employer's decision.
      I believe that the flexible working provisions lend themselves very well to an ACAS scheme. Disputes arising under the provisions will be relatively straightforward, concerning whether procedures have been contravened or if a decision by an employer to reject an application has been made on the basis of incorrect facts. Those are essentially factual rather than legal issues.
      Lords amendment No. 79 will have the additional effect of ensuring that conciliation is also an option in the resolution of any disputes arising out of the flexible working provisions. Again, that is entirely consistent with a key approach of this Bill: ensuring that alternative avenues of dispute resolution are available and contributing towards keeping employment tribunals to a minimum.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister said, these are largely technical and drafting amendments. I shall return to flexible working arrangements in view of the Minister's comments and the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), but first I should like to deal with two minor points that the Minister will no doubt be able to resolve very simply.
      Lords amendment No. 61 would insert into clause 55 two additional clauses, 45 and 46, to be excepted from the general rule that the provisions will come into force
      618
      on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by order. When will they come into force? Will it be immediately after Royal Assent?
      Secondly, a substantial number of changes to schedule 8 are contained in Lords amendments Nos. 88 to 95. They would remove pieces of legislation that were originally listed as repeals and revocations in schedule 8. Have those changes been made necessary as a result of amendments to the Bill during its passage in the other place, or are they errors that are being corrected? It would be useful to know.
      On flexible working arrangements, and the changes being made under the slightly misleading heading of "minor, technical and drafting" amendments to exempt the armed forces from the provisions, I do not have the reports of the Committee's proceedings with me, but it would not surprise me if, in Committee, Opposition Members had asked the Minister about arrangements for the armed forces. On the face of it, I agree with the Minister. I understand that in employment law, the armed forces are often a special case that must be dealt with differently. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, the right that is being granted is a right only to request flexible working and to have one's request seriously considered. The employer, whether it is the Army, the Air Force, the Navy or, indeed, Smith and Jones auto repairs down the road, can properly consider the employee's request and reject it on the ground that it cannot reasonably be accommodated within the working arrangements of the business. In many cases, the armed forces might legitimately turn down a request for flexible working arrangements, certainly for front-line staff. It is not quite so obvious that a member of the armed forces who is assigned to London-based office duties or cooks the meals in Admiralty House would be subject to the same considerations.
      My hon. Friend made a good point: it is not obvious, on the face of it, why the armed forces must be treated differently. Throughout the consideration of these relatively new provisions, Conservative Members have been concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge. The right to have a request for flexible working considered could become—as a result of negotiations between the Government and trade unions, for example—something more, such as a prima facie right to flexible working unless the employer demonstrated why he could not deliver it. In other words, the burden of proof would shift to the employer.
      4.15 pm
      If one adopts the conspiracy theorist approach—that the Government may have in mind moving the horizon, or removing the boundaries, in their forthcoming review of employment legislation—one can readily see why, at this stage, they might want to exclude the armed forces. There might not be a significant burden on the armed forces in considering a request from a person currently serving with the Royal Marines in Afghanistan and denying the request on the ground that it is not compatible with the working arrangements of that service man or woman. However, unless the armed forces were exempted, they could obviously be in some difficulty if the Government have it

      619
      in mind to extend the provisions further. Will the Minister consider that point? Can he reassure me and my hon. Friend?
      Mr. George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way just before he concludes his remarks. May I put a point to the Minister, who has, as my hon. Friend said, exhibited some muddled thinking? The Minister tells us that the armed forces are special and that there are operational considerations. We all understand that, but surely those reasons would be taken into account in the provisions, which—as we understand the Minister's comments—will also apply to businesses. They, too, will be able to claim that there are special circumstances and that they cannot give an employee time off.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend made his point succinctly. I am only sorry to disappoint him by telling him that I was not about to conclude my remarks.
      It is easy for the Government always to decide that all these good ideas will not—apparently—impose serious burdens on private businesses or employers and are even good for them in some cases if they only were smart enough to realise it. Yet sectors under the Government's control, mysteriously, need to be exempted. We can see that from history: when sex discrimination legislation, for example, was introduced, the Government said, "Oh, but it can't apply to public services such as the police and the armed forces".
      We are talking about a service for which the Government have direct responsibility. The senior commanders are, in effect, employers, and have privileged access to the Government and the ability to put their point across. Lo and behold, after arguing in Committee that there was no need to exempt the armed forces, the Minister has seen the light and decided that there is a need for such exemption. If Ministers were as close to, and received such direct communication from, the many hundreds of thousands of businesses that fear that they may be adversely affected by the measures, they might realise that there are equally pressing needs—not reasons of national security, but certainly reasons of business survival—that other employers would pray in aid.
      Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend mentioned the Minister's rather late-in-the-day approach. Is my hon. Friend also concerned about the extraordinary costs? As he will recall, in Committee, it was slipped out that the net extra cost would be £173 million? Does he agree that those costs should have been made explicit from the beginning?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right: that is another £173 million on the additional burden of billions of pounds that the Government have imposed on business. It is a small sum compared with the total burden, but a significant one for individual businesses.
      Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hammond: I am happy to do so. I wondered how long it would be before we provoked an intervention from the Labour Benches.
      Rob Marris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain something, because there seems to be a contradiction in
      620
      what he says. When he intervened on the Minister, he said that the proposal represents best practice and that it will give business a competitive advantage, but he now seems to suggest that it represents a burden on business. I think that it is a good thing for business and that it should be made statutory. Can he make up his mind and tell the House which way he is going on this issue?
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister's case is that this is a good thing for business and that the Government will therefore statutorily impose it on business.
      Rob Marris rose—
      Mr. Hammond: Let me finish. The Minister's case seems wholly illogical. It is logical to say that this is a good thing for workers and therefore that we will statutorily impose it on business. In relation to another matter, it might be a good argument to say that it is a good thing for business and we will therefore statutorily impose it on workers. However, it cannot be logical and sensible to impose by statute something that is a good thing for the person who will be subject to it. What has happened to the concept of encouraging best practice to generate competitive advantage?
      In Committee, we spoke at length about Investors in People. The Minister would readily acknowledge that employers who adopt best practice and achieve Investors in People awards gain a competitive advantage in the recruitment and retention of employees. That is a very important competitive aspect of business these days.
      Rob Marris: Of course the Minister can reply for himself, but I do not remember his specifying that the proposal was a good thing for business; he referred to the work-life balance.
      Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, would he take the same line with health and safety at work? It is a good thing for employers that their workers do not get killed at work, but he seems to be saying, "We'll just leave that to best practice." I do not want to put words into his mouth—he will tell the House what he thinks—but there seems to be a clear analogy with health and safety.
      Mr. Hammond indicated dissent.
      Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, indicating that he broadly supports health and safety legislation. I am pleased to see that, as I am sure the House is, but there seems to be an analogy between the two issues. Which way is he going on this issue?
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's analogy stretches the point. Legislation for health and safety in the workplace is primarily intended to protect employees, and it is obviously right that it should be imposed by statute. All I suggest to the Minister is that he should not seek to shelter behind the somewhat spurious argument that these measures are being imposed on business because they are good for business. The same argument was adduced in relation to union learning representatives.
      It is suggested that business should not be worried because the proposal is good for business and therefore that those in business should be delighted that the

      621
      Government are imposing it on them. Business will consider those issues. There is a very competitive marketplace for skilled labour and all sorts of labour that is in short supply.
      Rob Marris: Because of a Labour Government.
      Mr. Hammond: No, because of the legacy left to the Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
      A primary issue on the agenda of any business, certainly in large parts of the country where the supply of labour, good quality employees—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. These are minor amendments, and the hon. Gentleman is straying into making a more general point. The best course of action would be to get back to the minor amendments and move on.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I could not resist being provoked by the Minister's remarks into widening the debate, but the points that needed to be made have been made. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can answer the specific questions that I have asked.
      Alan Johnson: I hope to deal with all the specific questions. First, on Lords amendment No. 61, clauses 45 and 46 will, indeed, come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, which may happen as early as tonight. We could then table the regulations, which would allow us to give businesses plenty of time to deal with fixed-term regulations.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked a rather mischievous question about whether some of the other Lords Amendments were intended to deal with errors.
      Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any particular reason why clauses 45 and 46 will now come into effect on Royal Assent, rather than on a date to be specified by the Secretary of State? Is there a European Union deadline to comply with, or something of that nature?
      Alan Johnson: There is, but we are going beyond that anyway, as we have announced that, instead of introducing these measures on 10 July, we will introduce them on 1 October to give businesses more time. The Commission understands that a proper period to consider the matter will ensure better compliance.
      On the technical amendments, all that I can tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is that they put right inaccuracies that have crept into a few of the paragraphs that amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. For "inaccuracies", one should read "errors", but the Lords stage was the opportunity to tidy them up. We believe that the Lords were absolutely right in agreeing to those amendments.
      The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) raised in an intervention the issue of the cost assessment being sneaked in in Committee. I want to make it clear that the work and parents part of the Bill—the flexible working part—was subject to the taskforce report. That report came out after the Bill was published,
      622
      so it was not part of the original Bill. The cost assessment therefore came later. We published it as soon as we published the amendment, and, when we dealt with it in Committee, it was four or five days after the taskforce report had been published—
      Mr. Prisk: Two days.
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman says two days. I am sure that that is right.
      The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) raised some issues about the Ministry of Defence, and made the point that it and the armed forces are no different to other parts of business. They are different. Their circumstances are very different, as they are constantly on call. If other parts of business have the same problems, the Bill allows them the opportunity and the flexibility to quote those as reasons why they cannot accept the proposals.
      Mr. George Osborne rose—
      Alan Johnson: I ask the hon. Member for Tatton to bide his time for a moment. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggested that the provision was related to the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999. As it is not part of the Employment Relations Act, it will not figure in the review of the operation of that Act. The hon. Member for Tatton will have an opportunity to argue that the provision has been such a roaring success that it ought to apply to the armed forces, however, when we review these measures in 2006, which was what the taskforce asked us to do, we will consider again whether to extend the provision, as I am sure that, in the meantime, it will have been a success.
      Mr. George Osborne: The Minister says now that the armed forces are a completely different kettle of fish when it comes to this legislation. That is not what he said in Committee. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I have found the Hansard report of that Committee. The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds)—who, sadly, is not present to hear how perceptive his question was—whether the armed forces were different, and he replied that they were not. To paraphrase the Minister, he continued to say that they include many personnel who do not work on the front line, and that regulations will deal specifically with the problem of front-line troops, who would probably not have a request granted to them. Why has the Minister changed his mind so completely? Who has got at him?
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Tatton must have been dozing off. When he reads the Hansard report of this debate, he will read that, when I replied on this point about 10 minutes ago, I stated that I said in Committee that I initially thought that the armed forces could be included. Indeed, I well remember the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) raising the issue as we belted through a series of amendments at 100 mph, and I remember saying precisely that. What I am saying again is what I said 10 minutes ago: our initial view was that the provision could be extended to the armed forces. Following consultation and discussion with colleagues in the MOD, we have decided that the exemption is right, but we will, of course, review that in 2006.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I have just been rifling through the provisions to see whether there are any other exemptions in the Bill. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that there are. Will he explain to the House why the position of service men is different, for example, from that of merchant seamen? It might seem obvious that merchant seamen should also be exempted from the flexible working provision. However, before we discussed this amendment, I would have expected him to have said that merchant seamen would not be exempt because their employers would rightly be able to deny a request for flexible working because of the nature of the work. Why is that argument used in the case of merchant seamen but not in the case of Royal Navy personnel?
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman gave the answer himself. The armed forces are exempt because of their unique working conditions. Personnel are liable to be deployed operationally right across the world at little or no notice if the national interest requires that. They may also be required to be available at any time.
      The position of the Merchant Navy and the fishing fleet is precisely as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Employees in those sectors can make claims for flexible working, but the employer can, if he believes that he cannot meet the terms, reject the request by referring to a number of reasons that are set out in the legislation. The armed forces are different. I genuinely believe that they are unique. As I said earlier, civilian members of the Army will be governed by the provisions, but the armed forces are in a particularly unique position—if one can have a particularly unique position.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provisions would be good for business. We think that they will he good for business. In a world of work that has changed almost unbelievably over the past 30 years, never mind the past 50, many businesses are dealing with other issues and do not necessarily focus their attention on how they are better able to improve staff morale and reduce absenteeism. That point was certainly made to the work and parents taskforce. The provisions will be good for business.
      However, there is a point about individuals and we touched on it in Committee. Plenty of people in a time of low unemployment and a tight labour market—the so-called "war for talent"—have the skills and qualifications that allow them virtually to dictate their own terms and conditions. That point was made time and again in our consultation with companies. However, another group of people are not in that happy situation. We are trying to take people who are not particularly well qualified off benefit and into work, but such people might be feel less empowered to go to their employer to make suggestions. For example, we must legislate for parents with small children, because they often have a greater need for flexibility and for a job that will enable them to tackle social and financial exclusion. That group is important, too.
      It is not a question of competitive advantage. We are seeking to bridge the productivity gap between this country and our main competitors, so the issue is the United Kingdom, rather than individual companies, having a better competitive advantage. For all those reasons, I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 22

      EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
      Lords amendment: No. 26.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 30.
      Alan Johnson: The amendments concern the ability to pay employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal cost orders and preparation time payments. The other place discussed a recent Court of Appeal case, Kovacs v. Queen Mary and Westfield college and the Royal Hospitals NHS trust, which ruled that a tribunal cannot take into account a party's ability to pay when making an award of costs.
      It has long been a feature of the employment tribunal system that ability to pay can be a consideration in deciding whether to make a costs award or in setting the level of an award. The Court of Appeal decision effectively removed the tribunal's discretion in that respect, but we believe that it should be able to take ability to pay into account if it considers that appropriate.
      Throughout our deliberations, we heard that tribunal rules and procedures differ from those of other courts because their nature is different and distinct. A large number of applicants may be in a vulnerable position because they have lost their jobs or are pursuing redundancy or wages complaints. We must be careful to ensure that the costs regime takes proper account of that.
      Amendment No. 26 provides that tribunal regulations may include provision authorising a tribunal to take ability to pay into account when making a costs award. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 do the same for preparation time awards and the employment appeal tribunal respectively. A tribunal will have the option of making a full award of costs, no award or a reduced award as it sees fit.
      We have provided for a discretion, not a requirement. Making it a requirement that the tribunal must take into account a party's ability to pay when making a costs award would mean that a party of very limited means could bring or conduct a tribunal case wholly unreasonably with absolute impunity. That cannot be right. There would be no deterrent to unreasonable behaviour, we would weaken the tribunal's powers to control such behaviour and there would be no means of compensating a party who suffers as a result.
      There may be circumstances, albeit rare and extreme, in which a party of limited means has behaved in such an unreasonable or vexatious way that a costs award may still be justified. I mentioned in an earlier debate that a tribunal concluded that a woman had brought a costs case against her husband purely as an extension of their matrimonial dispute. Such cases are of course rare, but they happen occasionally and tribunals must be able to deal with them.

      625
      Amendment No. 27 is a technical amendment to the new provision for preparation time awards. It replaces
      "the time spent by that other party in preparing his case to"
      with
      "time spent in preparing that other party's case".
      It has always been our intention that awards of preparation time that are made to respondents who employ staff should be able to take account of time spent by those staff who work on the case. Although the original wording of the clause would have allowed for that in the case of a corporate respondent because it can only act through its employees, the position of a sole trader who employs staff was less clear because it might imply that the provision for preparation time would apply only to time spent by him or her personally. The wording has therefore been amended to read "that other party's case" rather than "his".
      The new wording also refers to "time spent" rather than "the time spent". That is a minor change. It reflects the fact that although parties will have to show that they have spent time on a case in order to be eligible for an award, they will not be required to produce detailed evidence of the actual time spent on it.
      Amendment No. 29 is a substantial amendment. It provides that if regulations are made on costs and preparation time, they must include a provision that the tribunal may not award both costs and preparation time to the same person in the same proceedings. Throughout the Bill's proceedings, we heard from a number of highly respected organisations who work with applicants, such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Society and the Trades Union Congress, that the threat of costs is increasingly being used to intimidate applicants into withdrawing their complaints regardless of whether the case is without merit or whether the applicant's behaviour has been unreasonable. They are concerned that awards could be higher as a result of the new provision for preparation time and that representatives would use that to intimidate applicants genuinely seeking redress for an infringement of their employment rights.
      Mr. George Osborne: Although these individual points may be good ones, the Minister seems to be straying from the original point of the Bill, which is to deter people from bringing various cases to an employment tribunal. Indeed, the Government originally had the idea of charging people to bring a case which they dropped before the Bill was even introduced. Is the Minister aware that he is in danger of watering down the proposals so much that they will not have any effect on the number of cases brought to a tribunal?
      Alan Johnson: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has heard the case he will feel differently. As he said, these are laudable amendments. It was never our intention to deter people who have a grievance or a claim against their employer from going to a tribunal, nor was it the intention of anybody in the Standing Committee to frighten people so that they would not pursue their case. The whole ethos behind the Bill stems from the fact that many disputes that go to employment tribunals could be sorted out in the workplace. That was the main thrust of our argument. We felt that between 30,000 and 40,000 cases could be solved in the workplace.
      626
      On this clause, we argued that in a system designed to discourage legal representation—the whole basis of the system is its informality—it would be ridiculous to award costs only to people who were legally represented, so that people whose time had been equally wasted but who represented themselves would receive no compensation. That is the basis of the amendment.
      Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in Committee, those of us who were concerned about preparation costs were seeking to protect not those trying to make a vexatious claim but the most vulnerable people? They would easily be intimidated by somebody with a phalanx of people working for him whose time could be costed, and they would therefore be vulnerable to the argument that they could be landed with a bill for, say, £10,000 in costs.
      Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She, along with other colleagues, raised those concerns in our debates. The amendment deals with them by providing that when the regulations on costs and preparation time are drawn up, they must include provision that a tribunal cannot award compensation for both costs and preparation time. We will consider many of the other points made about the limit on costs, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), which will be dealt with in the regulations.
      The amendment has been welcomed by the Law Society as being fairer than the existing provisions. It has also acknowledged that
      "given the nature of employment tribunals it may be legitimate to allow tribunals to include awards for non-legal costs".
      We will consider how best to set that out in the regulations, and we will of course consult on those.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister said, the amendments do two things. They introduce changes that empower tribunals to take account of a person's financial circumstances in setting awards of costs or of compensation for preparation time and, separately, they introduce a prohibition on awards being made for both costs and preparation time.
      On the latter point, I understand the concerns, expressed by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) in Committee and again today, that people should not be denied access to a tribunal by the threat of exceptionally high costs being sought against them. The Government have gone about it in the wrong way, and in a moment I shall suggest to the Minister another way in which it could have been done.
      4.45 pm
      First, I want to deal with the taking into account of a person's financial circumstances. On the face of it, the Minister's case for the amendment sounds reasonable—that in making an award of costs, the financial circumstances of the person against whom the costs are awarded should be taken into account. However, he did not underline the fact that costs are not routinely awarded in employment tribunal cases. We are talking only about cases where the applicant or defendant has acted frivolously or vexatiously: the ordinary applicant with a perfectly reasonable case who happens to lose it will not be clobbered for an enormous amount of costs. The

      627
      Minister gave us the figures in Committee. In the most recent year for which figures were available, awards of costs were made in about 400 or 500 of the many tens of thousands of tribunal cases. In the vast majority of cases, the issue of costs will not arise, because it arises only where the applicant, defendant or respondent is judged to have behaved frivolously or vexatiously. It is not clear to me that in those circumstances the pecuniousness or otherwise of the applicant should be a principal consideration.
      Another issue is involved. The ability to recover an award of costs is a protection for the innocent victim of such vexatious or frivolous behaviour. That could be an employer who is faced with a claim that is scandalously improper—I think that scandalous is one of the terms used, as well as vexatious and frivolous—but he still has to defend it. It could be an applicant with a rock-solid, cast-iron, open-and-shut case who is forced to argue their way through a completely implausible and vexatious defence mounted by the respondent. The ability to recover costs is an important protection for people who are involuntarily caught up in these matters as a result of having been on one end or the other of such behaviour. Employers in particular are forced to defend actions brought against them in the employment tribunal. In Committee, I quoted comments made to me by the chairman of a relatively large publicly quoted company, who would not want to be named for obvious reasons. He said that his company invariably settles any employment tribunal claim brought against it if it can settle it for less than £2,000. The company does that not on the merits of the case brought, but simply on a cold, hard analysis of the fact that it will cost it at least £2,000 to investigate the facts and to allow the employee time to prepare a case and mount a defence.
      It is a pretty serious indictment of the employment tribunal system that for some people, at least, it is essentially a free ticket to small claims, because employers feel that they have to settle them. The Minister seems implicitly to have recognised that problem, in that the Bill tightens up on access to the tribunal and ensures that cases that are brought are proper cases. I suggest to him that this provision does not move in that direction by trying to discourage vexatious and frivolous cases.
      Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hammond: I first give way to the hon. Member for Amber Valley.
      Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment would only authorise an employment tribunal to have regard to a person's ability to pay, rather than requiring them to take account of it, so cases such as those that he described would be taken account of by the tribunal in making its award of costs? There is an aspect of costs that is broader than simply what happens in the tribunal itself. It is involved in cases where someone in the workplace is intimidated by the idea that when they reach an employment tribunal they could be landed with
      628
      a very high bill, regardless of whether that would be so. Such a person may not have access to advice telling them that they would not in fact be landed with such costs.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady is right in that the amendment proposes that the rules should authorise tribunals to take into account the circumstances of the person against whom the award is made.
      In the letter sent to my noble Friend Baroness Miller when the amendment was before the other place, Lord Sainsbury seemed to imply that there was no cause for concern because in the really bad cases the tribunal would still be able to award costs against someone without regard to their financial circumstances. The point that I was trying to make is that the question of an award of costs arises only in the really bad cases—only if the case is vexatious, frivolous or scandalous. In the vast majority of cases, win or lose, the issue of costs will not arise.
      Rob Marris: My recollection of the debate in Committee is similar to the hon. Gentleman's, but I seem to remember the Minister citing figures suggesting that, in about one third of cases where costs were awarded, they were awarded against the respondent employer. That employer might be a badly advised small business, or there could have been a personality clash in a small company. Is the champion of small business now saying that we should not have regard for such businesses' ability to pay, and that those businesses might be put out of operation as a result?
      Mr. Hammond: Although I am happy to be referred to on the record by the hon. Gentleman as the champion of small business, I also like to be thought of as the champion of fairness. We must think very carefully about the person who did not ask to become involved in a process but who must incur costs—either in time or in external costs—in responding. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I hope that it will be clear to those listening that I am not making a partisan point. This is not a point made exclusively on behalf of employers.
      I can perfectly easily envisage an employer deciding to fight tooth and nail an application which he knows in his heart—and which it is perfectly apparent to everybody else—cannot be defended. It is wholly reasonable that the person making such an application should have the opportunity to recover the costs that they have properly incurred as a result of being put to all the trouble by the vexatious actions of the other party—be it the employer or the employee. In equity, the pecuniousness or otherwise of that other party is not the principal issue.
      I am certainly not a blind champion of anybody. I recognise, and have recognised, that there are rotten apples in every barrel, and I would never pretend otherwise.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I completely fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. Had costs been a permanent deterrent and had the possibility of incurring them been known from the beginning, or had costs been a routine way of recovering expenditure by the state and others, it might have been argued that the provision should apply equally to everybody. However, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting rather arbitrarily that

      629
      those who are super rich—either respondents of claimants—should he able to go to a tribunal knowing full well that they can absorb easily any costs incurred, but that those who are much less well off, because they come from a small firm or they are acting individually, should be penalised disproportionately. I do not see the sense of justice in that. Is not the balance about right?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is rather long.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's old Labour credentials often come through impeccably. Such payments are a fact of life in our society—unless he advocates making every penalty and award proportionate to the income of the person forced to pay it. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement, but we are straying from the amendment, which would not have any impact on the problem that he raised. He is right: with or without the amendment, a rich employer, determined to go head to head with an applicant with an unanswerable case, would be able to do so with impunity, knowing that he could absorb the award of costs. The point made by the hon. Gentleman is therefore not particularly relevant to our discussion of the amendment.
      Earlier in our debate, an important general point was made about the inexorable rise in tribunal applications. The Government's underlying intention in introducing the legislation was not to deter people with well-founded claims from making them, but to ensure, first, that claims that do not need to go to a tribunal to be settled, do not do so, and secondly, that the tribunal does not become the subject of a growing number of vexatious and frivolous claims brought by people who believe that they can test the water. Who knows, perhaps they are in the fortunate position of working for someone like the anonymous employer whom I cited earlier, who will settle anyway to avoid hassle and expense. There is no doubt that a bit of that has been going on.
      The Minister has accepted the underlying purpose of clause 22 is not to sweep claims under the carpet so that people do not have access to a settlement, but to achieve settlement in the workplace wherever possible. In our early consideration of the Bill, the Minister talked about reducing the number of tribunal applications, but in more recent exchanges, he has talked about arresting the rise in the number of tribunal applications. That is an important distinction—the Government's original, laudable objective in the provision has been abandoned before the Bill has even completed its parliamentary passage. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House up-to-date figures on employment tribunal applications, together with the Government's revised target.
      Are the Government expecting a reduction in the number of employment tribunal applications as a result of the passage of the Bill, or are they, as I believe is the case, projecting a rise in the number of employment tribunal applications? If so, how many applications are involved? I fear that many of my hon. Friends and many people outside the House will regard that as an acknowledgement of failure of the Government's objectives. Can the Minister confirm that if the trend continues to rise inexorably, he will review the evidence, particularly in relation to vexations and frivolous claims, and reconsider the Government's position if it becomes apparent that such claims are not being adequately prevented by the amendment?
      630
      The second substantive point arising from this group of amendments is slightly different.
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point concerning the philosophy of the tribunal. Does he believe that the rise in the number of people applying to tribunals is driven by either vexatious claimants or vexatious respondents? If that is the case, we would need to look into it. However, if the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that the rise in the number of tribunal cases may be arrested by more satisfactory procedures, which my hon. Friend the Minister has tried to introduce into the law, and reflects the nature of the modern world of employment, we are faced with a different situation. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about deterring legitimate claims from going to tribunals.
      5 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the Bill achieves the original objective set out by the Government—to reduce the number of applications to tribunals by improving the procedures for dealing in the workplace with what might otherwise become employment tribunal applications.
      I believe I am right in saying that the Minister has already acknowledged—he will clarify this when he speaks again—that we will not see a reduction, and that the best we can hope for is a diminution in the rate of growth. I do not have the figures. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuckling on the Bench; perhaps he has them now. I am not suggesting to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) that the increase that we have witnessed is driven entirely by vexatious or frivolous claims, in the technical sense in which the employment legislation defines those. However, I do think, and I am not afraid to say this, that there has been an element of gold digging.
      There is a perception in some quarters that some employers will buckle in the face of modest claims, because of the expense and disruption of defending themselves against claims. As I understand it, the Government recognise that phenomenon and, while wishing to protect the right of the genuinely aggrieved party to have access to the tribunal, do not wish to encourage frivolous or trivial use of the tribunal in the hope of making a quick buck. I should not have thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central wanted to encourage that either.
      The second substantive point to which the present group of amendments gives rise relates to the ability to recover legal costs and own-preparation time. The Government are right in the original drafting of the Bill to remove any discrimination against parties who prepare and mount their own case, rather than using expensive external legal resources. That will benefit parties on both sides of the industrial equation, and we welcome it.
      However, the Government in their wisdom have now decided that people can be awarded costs in respect of only one or the other form of expense—external third-party costs, typically of engaging a lawyer, or the person or firm's own costs in mounting a defence internally. Almost invariably, there will be both forms of cost. Even if an employer faced with a claim immediately engages a law firm to act for him, as many do, he will find that the law firm is unable to act without a great

      631
      deal of information being collated internally in the firm, a considerable amount of time and energy being spent to produce basic information, and probably somebody from the firm attending the tribunal.
      The proposal in the Government amendment is particularly disadvantageous to smaller businesses. In practice, a large firm will be used to receiving and dealing with employment tribunal applications, not because it is a bad firm or because it has particularly litigious employees, but by its nature as a large firm. It will have a procedure in place, and will probably have in-house lawyers who can deal with the matter. If not, it will have a retained external law firm to which it will immediately pass the matter. In either case, the large majority of its costs will fall under one of two headings—own costs or third-party legal costs—and it will therefore be able to cover them under the amendment.
      Let us consider a typical small business such as a sole trader. On receiving an application from an employee in respect of an employment tribunal, the employer in such a business will probably seek first to deal with the issue himself. Small businesses are usually reluctant to incur external costs and especially to hire lawyers, because they know that lawyers typically do not come cheap. The employer will probably struggle with the case for some time on his own, but if it becomes apparent that it will be tested in a tribunal, he may well feel that he does not have the presentational and adversarial skills and so on that he requires to appear there in person as the principal representative for the respondent. When it becomes apparent that the matter is serious and will go to a tribunal, he will therefore be likely to engage a lawyer.
      I suggest to the Minister that many smaller firms will find that they have costs under both the headings to which I referred, as they will have started by trying to deal with the matter themselves and to keep their legal costs down by doing as much of the work as they can, but will still have had to engage expensive legal support in the latter stages, bearing in mind that nobody knows in preparing a response to a tribunal application whether they will be awarded costs. The statistical evidence suggests that it is more than likely that they will not.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Surely, if the employer thinks that the claim is frivolous and vexatious, the law allows them to ask for a pre-hearing assessment before the chairman of the tribunal. The chairman can determine that the claim is frivolous and vexatious, and direct that, if the case is taken forward, the other party will have to cover the costs if they lose.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right; I think that the law currently allows a deposit to be requested at the pre-hearing. I think that the deposit is typically £150, although perhaps I am wrong, in which case the Minister will correct me.
      Such remedies may be available, but I am seeking to make a more general point. As I said, I am not indifferent to the point made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley. I have firmly lodged in my mind the example cited in the Standing Committee involving a lawyer sending out a threatening letter suggesting that costs could be as high as £50,000, in an attempt to scare an applicant off. Such behaviour is clearly unacceptable.
      632
      If the Minister recognises that there is a problem, he must address the issue of the maximum quantum of costs that can be incurred in mounting a response to an application. It seems perverse and illogical to suggest that it is okay to incur £10,000 of legal costs by going to an expensive legal firm for advice or £10,000 of own costs by using one's internal resources, such as an in-house lawyer, but that an employer who spends £4,000 internally and another £4,000 by taking the case in its latter stages to an external lawyer will be eligible only for reimbursement of a maximum of £4,000. If the Minister wants to address the concerns of the hon. Member for Amber Valley, he would best do so by introducing some means of capping the total cost and not by imposing a grossly unfair and discriminatory prohibition on firms or applicants who incur costs under both headings and may therefore suffer by comparison with someone who has incurred all their costs under one head.
      I urge the Minister to think very carefully about his logic for introducing such provision, as it does not seem fair, equitable or appropriate.
      Ms Joan Walley: I do not wish to detain the House long on this issue. I am relieved that there is an amendment from the other place that will require or at least give discretion to an employment tribunal to have regard to ability to pay. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's acceptance of the amendment. These issues are at the core of the way in which we are taking forward employment tribunal procedures, and relate as much to regulations that were introduced some 12 months or so ago that changed the way in which costs were introduced so that any case that was unreasonable, as opposed to vexatious or frivolous, could incur costs. How can we say that something is reasonable or otherwise without the benefit of hindsight? How else can case law be established?
      At the heart of this debate are the changes that were introduced a year ago, which increased the upper limit in respect of costs. I do not think that we would be having this precise debate now, with the statements that the shadow Minister has just made to the House, if we had not had those changes.
      The changes in the regulations still give me some concern as to whether the Government's proposals will deal with people being deterred from taking cases to employment tribunals, or ensure that more is dealt with within the work force itself. Of course, we want particular concerns to be dealt with in the workplace. We do not want them to have a go to a tribunal, but there is still some failure to tie up the implications of those changes.
      Comments have been made about how many cases are going to tribunals. How is the Minister monitoring the cases that are going to tribunals? Have we seen a change in the number of cases going forward since those regulations were introduced last July?
      I am relieved that we have this amendment from the Lords. I wrote to the Minister on 26 June 2001 pointing out that there was still no requirement on tribunals to have regard to the ability to pay and drawing attention to the Kovacs case. In his response in a letter dated 16 July, the Minister said that that was correct
      "but case law has established that in making a costs order it will usually be desirable to look into the means of the party concerned, and of course tribunal chairmen are well aware of this."

      633
      As the Minister has pointed out, we now have the decision of the employment appeals tribunal, which sets out that there is no way in which a chairman of an employment tribunal could have any discretion as to whether costs should or should not be awarded—there is no way in which that could take place. Therefore, I am relieved that, finally, after 12 months of correspondence—and having raised the matter on Second Reading—we have an acknowledgement in the other place that that has to be taken into account.
      The Minister said that chairmen of employment tribunals and indeed employment tribunals themselves should take into account ability to pay where it is appropriate to do so. Given that we do not have a requirement—we have only a discretion—I still have some concerns. I wonder whether the Minister could spell out in a little more detail for the record exactly which circumstances he is thinking of in which the chairman could have regard to ability to pay. That is a critical point.
      The changes brought in 12 months ago could do far more to deter people from taking claims to employment tribunals because they were afraid. I am not thinking about the businesses, the employers; I am thinking about those who have valid cases, but who may he deterred from taking their cases to tribunals simply because they fear substantial costs may be awarded against them. I should be grateful if the Minister would give further attention to that when he replies.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: May I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I welcome the amendments and the fact that the Government want to see them incorporated into the Bill? I think that it was the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) who talked about deterrence. Let us make it clear that, while most of us would accept the legitimacy of deterrence to prevent frivolous, vexatious or, indeed, scandalous claims—although these are sometimes quite subjective concepts—there is always a concern that deterrence will be applied to legitimate claimants. Not only might such claimants be deterred when they find themselves saddled with costs but they might not even dare to exercise their right of access to the tribunal. While we want to deter those who abuse the system, we certainly do not want to deter those who should have proper recourse to the tribunal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it quite clear that that is the Government's approach, and that we are not here to deter legitimate claimants.
      Mr. George Osborne: The Minister said in Committee that it was his objective to reduce by 30,000 or 40,000 the number of cases coming before employment tribunals. Does the hon. Gentleman share that objective? It is not entirely clear from what he is saying that he does.
      Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it quite clear. If no one ever exercised their right of access to a tribunal because the internal mechanisms worked well, we would all be delighted. Conservative Members should not work themselves into a frenzy saying that the existence of the tribunals is, of itself, a bad thing, or that the use of an existing tribunal is a bad thing. Sometimes a society such as ours needs such provisions—I do not want to use the term "case law", because it would almost give tribunals too much of a legalistic nature, which we want to avoid.
      634
      We need the tribunals to examine where the balance lies in industrial relations in our society; they perform an important role above and beyond the simple resolution of individual cases. We do not want the idea to go out from the Chamber tonight, or from anywhere else, that we regret either the existence or the operation of the tribunals. They are a necessary part of a modern, efficient society.
      We are talking about how we should fine-tune the tribunals' function, and make them work better. In that context, the Minister has genuinely made progress. The opportunity for the tribunals to reflect on the ability of an individual to pay—whether it be the claimant or the respondent—is an important one, and the Minister is right to put it into the Bill and into regulations. It is also right that we should cap the number of avenues under which costs of different kinds can be given, because the whole idea of the granting of costs should not involve fines or penalties. The provisions may be there to deter the vexatious, but they are not there to say, "This person got it right, and the other one, who got it wrong, is therefore subject to this fine."
      It is important that the ability to pay—even for the vexatious—is taken into account. We all have constituents who are, quite frankly, obsessive. Of course it is right and proper that we should deter them, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) correctly pointed out that the pre-hearing scrutiny normally provides the most efficient way of taking out those cases. However, we do not want to end up with a fundamentally ridiculous situation in which even an obsessive is so burdened by debt that they cannot pay, which would make a mockery of the system.
      Judy Mallaber rose—
      Mr. Hammond rose—
      Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall give way to my hon. Friend first.
      Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend recall the cases that were brought before us in Committee, which showed that this is not just a question of cases being vexatious and frivolous? We were told about a number of cases that it would have been perfectly reasonable for the applicant to think were well founded, but that were found to be vexatious or frivolous. Those applicants would not necessarily have thought that that would be the outcome when they entered the tribunal. We were told of several cases that illustrated that point.
      Mr. Lloyd: That is an important point. We are not trying to saddle people with debts; that is certainly not what the tribunal process is intended to be about.
      Mr. Hammond: I think that the hon. Gentleman just described the award of costs as a fine. Is that how he sees such awards throughout our tribunal and legal systems? I see them simply as compensation paid to injured parties for costs they have incurred.
      Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that awards should not come to be seen as fines. Of course they can constitute recompense to injured parties.

      635
      Let us consider the origin of the tribunal. It was about low-cost justice; it was not about encouraging highly paid lawyers to represent one side or the other. The aim was to retain common sense and a sense of proportion, and I think the Minister has tried to strike that right and proper balance.
      I hope, though, that the Minister will reflect on concerns that have been expressed throughout about the deterrent effects. It is in everyone's interests for fewer cases to go to tribunals, but only if that is because disputes are resolved at an earlier stage or, even better, because an industrial relations climate develops in which problems do not arise in the first place. What we do not want is a fall in the number of tribunal cases that merely masks injustice and unfairness. That is why I want the Minister to monitor the situation. We need to be sure that people who really need access to tribunals, in order to resolve genuine problems in the workplace, are not deterred.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has succinctly identified what needs to be done, but I can think of no method of distinguishing between the two possible causes of a fall in the number of applications to tribunals. Has the hon. Gentleman any ideas for how the Minister might undertake the monitoring that he has suggested?
      Mr. Lloyd: There are many ways of doing it. Opposition Members will disagree profoundly with this, but I believe that a growth in trade unionism would provide a much better way of determining whether workers are being treated properly. If the number of applications falls, it will of course be possible to note the number of successful claims and the number of unsuccessful claims. A massive rise in the number of unsuccessful claims, or a proportionate rise against the background of an overall reduction, would tend to suggest that something was going wrong—that people with real claims were not going to tribunals.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Might not one way of reducing the number of applications be to educate small business and other employers to use proper procedures?
      Mr. Lloyd: Absolutely. We can argue later about whether the code mentioned elsewhere in the Bill will prove effective, but, as my hon. Friend says, it may be possible to resolve many problems long before even mentioning tribunals if employers and, indeed, employees work within the context of properly structured grievance and disciplinary procedures.
      The Government have made progress. They have taken an important step, but we need to make it clear that we do not intend to deter legitimate claimants, and we need to monitor the situation to ensure that the spirit of what the Minister wants to achieve is translated into practice throughout the country.
      Rob Marris: I begin by declaring that, among my registered interests, I am a non-practising solicitor. I want to ask the Minister about two disjunctions. First, under amendment No. 29, an award could be made either for legal costs or for preparation time in respect of
      636
      employment tribunals. Can he assure me that that provision will also apply to employment appeal tribunals? Secondly, clause 23 states:
      "For section 34 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (costs and expenses) there is substituted"
      a new clause 34, subsection (1) of which states:
      "Appeal Tribunal procedure rules may include provision for the award of costs or expenses."
      Will the Minister clarify that wording, which suggests that such a tribunal could award either costs or expenses?
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that, in principle, the Opposition accept the thrust of the Government's efforts in respect of preparation costs, but he suggested that there is another approach. The basis of the Bill as debated in Committee was that some money could come from preparation costs, and some from actual legal representation. Various arguments have been advanced time and again. The point made by my hon. Friends—that in addition to having costs awarded against them, people could also have to bear the huge expense associated with a company's putting time and effort into defending a case—was raised by the Law Society and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
      Mr. Hammond: Yes, but the Minister has not dealt with it. Under the amendment, a company could still rely entirely on its own resources, and its internal costs could still be the subject of an award.
      Alan Johnson: Yes, but the fear that considerable costs would be imposed on top of legal charges was a separate issue. The central argument is that, in a system that tries to discourage legal representation, it is ludicrous that those who sit at their kitchen table night after night, prepare their own case, represent themselves and win should get no recompense. On that central point, people said to me, "Why don't you introduce one thing or the other?" If the issue is ensuring that those who do not use legal representation are no worse off—we must remember that, in terms of wasted costs, we are talking about 4 per cent. of cases—surely the award should be made in respect of either preparation costs or legal costs.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned frivolous cases, but I should rebuke him mildly. In fact, because those who chair employment tribunals thought that the word "frivolous" was entirely inappropriate to the legal profession, it was removed. It was replaced by the word "misconceived", and in respect of wasted costs, reference is now made to misconceived, vexatious and unreasonable claims.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is absolutely right: last year, a third of recipients were respondents, not applicants; in fact, the year before that the ratio was 50:50. Some 50 per cent. of such costs were awarded to businesses—probably small businesses—which, if they represented themselves, could not claim back the costs incurred.
      It is important to get the matter into perspective. We have not sought to widen the basis of costs awards, and nor should we. The existing definition—which refers to misconceived, vexatious and unreasonable claims, and to abusive behaviour during a tribunal—presents no problem and relates to only 4 per cent. of cases.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister has addressed his remarks to the own costs element. He painted a picture of the fear of the own costs that a vast firm might incur internally as a deterrent to the applicant. In the next breath, he talked of an own costs applicant slaving away at his kitchen table night after night. I thought that the Minister's objective was to encourage people not to be legally represented at tribunals. Would not the simple and logical approach have been to limit the award of costs to own costs, not legal costs?
      Alan Johnson: No, I think that we have got the balance right. We will consult on the regulations and take into account the points that were made about putting a cap on costs, although that will be less necessary if the House accepts the amendments. If the central argument is that those people who are not legally represented cannot claim wasted costs, we shall give them the choice between own costs and legal costs. That has met the requirements of the Law Society and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. We all duck and dive with our arguments, but I mentioned small businesses because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West pointed out—they made up a third of the parties that were awarded costs last year, and 50 per cent. the year before.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also asked for some indication of the number of cases. In 2001–02, there were between 115,000 and 120,000 applications. In the year before, there were 130,000. However, I would counsel hon. Members against drawing any conclusions from those figures, because in the year before last many one-off cases were brought, including EU cases in which a whole group was settled at a time. Those included some famous cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will remember. It is those special circumstances that have led to that reduction, not my year as the Minister responsible for employment relations.
      We believe that the Bill will mean that some 30,000 to 40,000 cases will be settled outside employment tribunals which would have otherwise gone before them. Part of that reduction will be those disputes settled in the workplace, and part will be those settled during the fixed period of conciliation. Part will also be accounted for by those cases that were struck out at the pre-hearing stage, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) mentioned. At the moment, vexatious, misconceived or unreasonable cases cannot be struck out at the pre-hearing stage and the tribunal can only require a deposit of £500—an increase from £100. A later amendment will allow cases to be struck out at that stage.
      Hon. Members have asked how we may further reduce the number of cases, and we have introduced the ACAS arbitration scheme, which was agreed by both sides of the House. It has not been totally successful so far, with only 14 cases using the scheme, but we can do much more work to advertise its availability.
      Mr. George Osborne: The Minister was careful in the way he put his estimate. He said that he hoped to reduce by some 30,000 to 40,000 the number of cases that would otherwise have gone to an employment tribunal, but he did not say that he hoped for an absolute reduction in the
      638
      number of cases going to employment tribunals. Given that other provisions in the Bill, such as flexible working rights, may lead to an increase in cases going to employment tribunals, can he clarify whether he hopes to see an absolute reduction in the number of cases going to employment tribunals, and by how much?
      Alan Johnson: As I said on Report, people are more aware of their rights now, which is healthy. They have more rights to be aware of.
      Mr. Prisk: Absolutely.
      Alan Johnson: Indeed, but it is not absolute. Given that we are committed to tackling discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religion and sexual orientation, it would be crazy for me to predict an absolute fall in employment tribunal cases. I picked my words very carefully. Of the disputes that might go to employment tribunals, about 30,000 to 40,000 can be settled outside, and I think that that is a worthy ambition.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) expressed her concerns eloquently. I recognise that she has long been concerned about the £10,000 costs award. Of course, awards could go as high as £10,000 before, but it needed a separate court order and could not be done at the employment tribunal.
      My hon. Friend asked how we will gauge or monitor the situation in relation to the introduction of the £10,000 award last July. That was last July—a year ago today—so we have 12 months' worth of information. We are expecting to begin a study of the employment tribunal cost regime in the next year, and we will look very closely at the result. Some evidence has already emerged at the employment tribunal system taskforce, but we will certainly look at it again.
      My hon. Friend also spoke about ability to pay, which is the other important issue in this group of amendments. We made it a discretion rather than a requirement in order to restore the status quo. It was always a discretion, not a requirement, until the time of the Court of Appeal case. We did not make it a requirement because, as I said earlier, there could be circumstances in which someone of limited means knew that they had absolute indemnity to raise these cases. We believe that the discretion should be placed with the tribunal. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked whether that should be a principal consideration. We are not saying that, but the employment tribunal should have the ability—the discretion—to make a full award, no award or a reduced award. We are simply returning to the previous situation.
      Ms Walley: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, does he anticipate issuing guidance to employment tribunal chairmen on how the discretion is to be applied, following the decision of the Court of Appeal?
      Alan Johnson: We will certainly issue guidance and it will be part of the regulations. However, the judiciary and the employment tribunal chairs will be very familiar with the regime, as it existed until just a few months ago, following the Court of Appeal decision. I do not think that there will be any problems there.
      Mr. Hammond: I sense that the Minister is coming towards the end of his remarks. Have the Government any

      639
      evidence to suggest that the total sum of costs is higher in cases where both internal and external resources have been brought to bear, compared with those where the matter has been dealt with entirely by an external law firm or in-house? If not, I do not believe that he has made the case for refusing to recognise a mixed base of costs.
      Alan Johnson: No, I do not have that evidence, but we know that the average award over the past year has been £300. There is a big gap between £300 and £10,000. That suggests three things: there are not many of these cases; tribunals take into account ability to pay; and the fact that the award is only £300 but could go as high as £10,000 is part of the fear factor about which we hear time and again from people who deal with these cases day in, day out. The hon. Gentleman made a valid point and his argument is logical. We considered the establishment of a mixed system but were persuaded to move away from it—hence the amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) pointed out that we were not dissuading people from going to employment tribunals. I said that earlier—as I have on other occasions—and I am happy to repeat it: we are not about denying people justice. To be fair to the Opposition—certainly those Members who sat on the Committee—I do not think that was their objective either.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked, first, whether the provision would apply to the employment appeal tribunal. There is no provision for preparation time in the tribunal, although there is provision for litigants in person, so we need to apply the provision either for preparation or legal costs.
      My hon. Friend's second point—
      Rob Marris rose—
      Alan Johnson: If my hon. Friend wants to intervene, perhaps he could remind me of his second question.
      Rob Marris: My point referred to page 33 of the Bill and the revised section 34 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which states:
      "Appeal Tribunal procedure rules may include provision for the award of costs or expenses."
      Expenses are different from preparation time—they relate to the cost of a witness attending a tribunal hearing or, in this case, an appeal tribunal. Given that on page 32 there is a reference to costs and expenses, I wanted to ensure that no problem would arise. It might help those in the judicial system who have to interpret the measure if the Minister could give some clarification.
      Mr. Hammond: I may be mistaken but my recollection of our discussions in Committee is that the word "expenses" relates to Scotland. Is that correct? The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, so he may be able to assist us.
      Rob Marris: A Scottish lawyer.
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge helps me enormously. As I said, there is no preparation time in the EAT and the Scottish term for costs is indeed expenses.
      640
      On that note, I hope that the House will support the motion.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 30 agreed to.

    Clause 24

      CONCILIATION
      Lords amendment: No. 31.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 32, 33, 78, 80 and 91.
      Alan Johnson: Amendment No. 31 deletes subsection (3)(a). It is a minor amendment that relates to the processing of tribunal claims between the Employment Tribunals Service and ACAS. Our intention was to provide through regulation a circumstance where uncontested applications would not be passed to ACAS, so that its resources could be better focused on applications where both parties acknowledged the dispute.
      As a result of debates in the other place, however, it became clear that valuable conciliation time could be lost if, rather than sending an application to ACAS immediately, we waited to find out whether the respondent would contest it. The consequence would be a delay before ACAS could begin work and thus a delay to the processing of claims, which is not in the best interests of tribunal users. We believe that the overall user interest should take priority over a small saving of ACAS's time and that, on balance, subsection (3)(a) is undesirable. Accordingly, we drafted amendment No. 31 to delete it.
      The amendment will have the effect that an originating application to an employment tribunal that falls within the duty of ACAS to conciliate will continue to be sent to ACAS immediately. The same applies to notices of appearance.
      Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are technical and consequential on Lords amendment No. 31. Lords amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 91 are also technical and consequential on the removal of section 19(c) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which is affected by clause 24(3)(b). I commend these amendments to the House.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The essential point is that Lords amendment No. 31 will remove the discretion to create exceptions by regulation. As the Minister will know, we are always delighted when the scope for discretion by regulation is reduced—something for which we always argue in Committee. It is interesting that the Government appear to have been more readily persuaded of the merits of removing such discretion in the other place. I wonder whether that has something do to with the simple arithmetic that prevails there.
      I am pleased to say that we are delighted with the Lords amendment, which will improve the Bill. I wish that the Minister were able to tell us that many similar amendments would remove such discretion in regulations, but sadly this is the only such change.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 33 agreed to.

    Clause 28

      PRE-HEARING REVIEWS
      Lords amendment: No. 34.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
      Alan Johnson: These amendments were made in response to the concern that the power to strike out at a pre-hearing review should be included in the primary legislation, rather than in employment tribunal procedure regulations. In particular, the concern was that striking out at the pre-hearing review stage might be permissible in circumstances that go beyond those in which striking out is possible at other stages in the proceedings.
      We had always intended that strike-out at the pre-hearing review would be possible on very limited grounds, not going beyond those permitted elsewhere in the tribunal rules. Those grounds are failure to comply with an order or direction imposed by the tribunal, or when the originating application or notice of appearance or anything in it is scandalous, misconceived or vexatious. Hence we were content to spell that out in the Bill, which is what these amendments do, so I ask the House to support them.
      Lords amendment No. 34 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 agreed to.

    Clause 31

      NON-COMPLETION OF STATUTORY PROCEDURE: ADJUSTMENT OF AWARDS
      Lords amendment: No. 37.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 55.
      Alan Johnson: Amendments Nos. 46 to 55 simplify the compensation regime, as originally set out in clause 38, for failure to comply, in certain circumstances, with the requirement to provide employees with a written statement of employment particulars. They necessitate a consequential amendment to clause 31, which is why they are being discussed now.
      Clause 38 provides that when an employee brings a successful claim to a tribunal under one of the jurisdictions set out in schedule 5 and the tribunal finds that his employer failed to comply with the written statement requirements, the employer will be liable to a financial penalty for that failure. That policy is unchanged. As the clause was originally drafted, however, the penalty would normally take the form of a 5 to 25 per cent. uplift to the employee's award. If compensation was not the remedy chosen by the tribunal, or was not
      642
      available for a particular jurisdiction, the employee would instead receive one or two weeks' pay, depending on whether the statement was incomplete, inaccurate or had not been supplied at all.
      One or two weeks' pay also served as the floor for any percentage uplift. That was never an easy system to explain, and it was criticised in another place for its complexity. We are confident that the underlying policy is right—the policy of encouraging employers to recognise the importance of the written statement in the employment relationship. Indeed, it was welcomed by the majority of respondents to consultation. On reflection, however, we agree that the penalty regime as originally drafted was needlessly complex.
      Taken together, these amendments therefore replace the percentage uplift system with a simple fixed-rate penalty of two or four weeks' pay. As before, the penalty will be awarded if the written statement is incomplete, inaccurate or absent, or if notification of any change to the particulars had not been given. Whether two or four weeks' pay is awarded, however, will not be linked to the particular failure. Whether to award the higher or lower penalty will be at the tribunal's discretion. If the tribunal thought that it was right in particular circumstances, it could award a higher penalty for an inaccurate statement than for failure to issue one at all. We believe that tribunals will find the fixed-rate penalty regime considerably easier to administer than the percentage system. Moreover, we believe that it will fulfil our policy aims just as effectively.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister said, the substantive amendments are to clause 38. I recognise that the Government were criticised in the other place for the complexity of the penalty regime that would apply when an employer failed to deliver particulars of employment as required by the law. The original scheme involved a percentage uplift of the award that was made by the tribunal. The cost that the employer would suffer for the failure to deliver particulars would be determined by reference to the award that was made against him. That seems to have a lot of attraction to it. I accept that it is a little more complex but, as I understand it, the intention is not to fine the employer for having failed to deliver particulars of employment. Were that the purpose, the sensible way to proceed would be to introduce a mechanism into the relevant primary legislation to impose a fine on an employer for failure to deliver particulars—that fine would go to the court and not to the employee in question.
      The purpose, however, is to ensure that when an employee has a legitimate grievance, and that grievance is recognised by the tribunal in making an award, the aggravation of that grievance by the failure to deliver a proper statement of particulars is recognised in a percentage uplift in the award. The degree to which the monetary sum by which the employer's failure to deliver the statement of particulars translates into an award to the employee would therefore be related to the severity of the underlying legitimate grievance, if the tribunal finds that there has been a legitimate grievance and it makes an award to recognise it. One would at least hope that the size of the award will reflect the seriousness of the grievance. Moving away from that arrangement, the Government are introducing a fixed penalty for failure to deliver a notice of particulars of employment in the proper form.

      643
      I have no problem with the Minister's view that employers should deliver the proper particulars of employment. We discussed that in Committee, and the view across the Committee was that, if clearly set out statements of particulars are delivered, there is scope for avoiding significant numbers of disputes by making sure that everybody is very clear about the terms on which they are employed. I am not sure, however, that a fixed fine going into the pocket of the employee—let us say that the employee earns £200 a week, and the fixed penalty is therefore £200 or £400—is particularly appropriate if the substantive grievance is deemed to be worth only £100. It would seem odd if the employee were awarded £100 in respect of the substantive grievance, but had that uplifted by perhaps £200—a week's pay—because the employer has not delivered the statement. Has the Minister thought through how that will work, and the different relationship between the basic award and the amount of uplift that the amendment introduces?
      Another point needs to be made. Under the Bill that was originally passed by the House, the appropriate amount was one or two weeks' pay. The Minister, in his remarks a few moments ago, glibly doubled that to two or four weeks' pay. That is a substantial movement of the goalposts. What has caused the Minister to decide that two or four weeks' pay is appropriate now, given that when the Bill left the House on Third Reading some four or five months ago, one or two weeks' pay was the appropriate amount?
      Will the Minister also comment further on the abandonment of the concept—which was clearly enshrined in the Bill and considered in great detail in Committee—of two levels of wrongdoing associated with particulars of employment? As he said earlier, the first level is a gross failure to deliver a statement of particulars, and the second, lesser mischief, is delivery of a statement that is inaccurate or that fails to comply with the requirements of the legislation. Suddenly, that is to be swept away, and the two levels—the higher levels of two or four weeks' pay—are to be awarded entirely at the discretion of the tribunal.
      A significant change of position seems to have taken place: two or four weeks' pay is now the penalty, instead of one or two weeks' pay, and the two-tier approach has been removed in favour of a single-tier approach, with the tribunal having discretion beyond that. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain further the thinking behind those two changes.
      Alan Johnson: I shall try to do so. The important point to remember is that, as the hon. Gentleman said, concerns have been expressed about complexity. He referred to the original proposal for a penalty of one or two weeks' pay. First, that served as the floor for any percentage uplift—it was the minimum. Secondly, as I said in my opening comments, if compensation was not the remedy chosen by the tribunal, or was not available for a particular jurisdiction, the employee would instead receive one or two weeks' pay, depending on whether the statement was incomplete, inaccurate or had not been supplied at all. On top of that, there was a percentage uplift of between 5 and 25 per cent.
      The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are punishing employers too much by turning to a simple compensation formula of two or four weeks' pay rather than the old
      644
      formula, which had a fixed element and a percentage award on top. I do not think that we are doing that. Let us not forget that the maximum payment is £250 a week and is based on the statutory payments written into the redundancy and other legislation. A tribunal will have the discretion to decide to go to the top or bottom end of the range of compensation, and the maximum compensation will be £1,000. Last year, the average award for unfair dismissal was £2,700.
      6 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that the average compensation for unfair dismissal was £2,700, but he suggested earlier that the average award at a tribunal was somewhat lower than that. We therefore need to consider the uplift in the context of the average award made at tribunals and not just for one particular class of action.
      Alan Johnson: The average cost award was £300, but I am now referring to the average compensation for unfair dismissal. That is not the same. I am referring not to vexatious or even frivolous litigation, but to a clear-cut case found against an employer in which it was discovered that no written statement of particulars was issued. In that context, the average award of £2,700 for unfair dismissal is perhaps more relevant than the average cost award of £300.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister is missing my point, but I may be missing something too. Let my try to clarify my question. Claims other than those for unfair dismissal go to tribunals and I was hoping that the Minister would give the House the average award—not the costs and not just the average award made at cases of unfair dismissal-that tribunals made in the last year for which figures are available.
      Alan Johnson: That is a fair point. I do not have the figures for average awards across the board. However, I know that the majority of cases—about 51 per cent.—are for unfair dismissal. In a sense, however, this issue is irrelevant to the argument.
      The argument is whether the system was needlessly complex when it left the House. We were convinced by the debates in the House of Lords that it was and that we could simplify the system. We do not believe that we have taken away a tribunal's discretion to decide, and the provision is not linked as closely as it was to failings in the statement of employment terms and conditions. We have given more discretion to the employment tribunals but in a different way, with the matter being based on between two and four weeks' pay. I urge the House to agree to this sensible amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 55 agreed to.

    Clause 39

      COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 56.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 88 to 90 and 92 to 95.
      Alan Johnson: The lead amendment will delete clause 39, which is on the expansion of the scope of

      645
      compromise agreements. Grouped with it are a number of consequential amendments that undo various repeals and revocations that we would have had to make through schedule 8 had the clause remained in the Bill.
      Clause 39 was debated in great detail in Committee in the other place in March, and some serious concerns were raised about potentially damaging effects. The Government promised to consider those arguments, which we duly did. On 30 April, in answer to a question from Lord McCarthy, my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury announced that the Government had decided to delete the clause. That was done on Report in the House of Lords. We explained in that debate that we did not necessarily agree with all the legal arguments advanced by Lord Wedderburn about the meaning of the case law, and especially with his interpretation of the recent BCCI v. Ali case in regard to the scope of compromise agreements.
      In a sense, it is a question of risk assessment. In our view, Lord Wedderburn rather overstated the risk that widening the compromise agreements might enable employers to draw up general waivers preventing their employees from ever enforcing their employment rights. We continue to think that that would have been invalid and illegal even if clause 39 had remained. However, we acknowledge the risk, and any risk of such an undesirable outcome is unacceptable. It is undeniable that recent case law has created uncertainty.
      Even more important, we recognise the risk that, even though such an agreement would in our view be invalid, a small minority of employers might none the less attempt to persuade their employees to sign one. If that happened, the fact that its legal validity was highly questionable would not alter the fact that, having signed the agreement, an employee would be most unlikely ever to go to a tribunal because he would believe that he no longer had the right to do so.
      As we have now made clear on several occasions, the Government are adamant that no employee should be deterred in that way. That was not what clause 39 was about. Its aim was simply to address the concerns of a number of employment lawyers that the scope of compromise agreements was unnecessarily restrictive and that it should be widened to match the scope of settlements conciliated at ACAS. That is a reasonable enough aim, and one with which we agree—but not at the risk of jeopardising employees' rights.
      We considered amending the clause in a way that addressed all the concerns while retaining the original policy objective. In our judgment, there was no legally watertight way of doing that without also having to tinker with the scope of ACAS-conciliated settlements—the so-called COT 3 agreements. COT 3s have worked very well for several years and we had no wish to change their legal scope. We therefore concluded that we should delete the clause completely.
      I hope that the House will agree to Lords amendment No. 56 and to the others grouped with it.
      Mr. Hammond: I have no quarrel with the substance of what is being done, but it is worth the House taking a moment to consider how near we came to what might have been a legislative disaster. Clause 39 was not debated in Standing Committee in the Commons, because of the operation of a timetable. That meant that the Bill went to the Lords without the clause having been
      646
      discussed in the minute detail that it was in the other place. By the Minister's own admission, Government legislation went through the House of Commons essentially on the nod. Fortunately, the intervention of Lord Wedderburn in the other place drew to the Government's attention what the Minister acknowledges are possible dangers with the clause.
      I have nothing to say about the substance of the issue. I am prepared to defer to Lord Wedderburn's analysis and to assume that the Government, having had the problem drawn to their attention, have considered the matter carefully and decided, on the balance of potential harm, that it is better to delete the clause. However, I ask the House to consider what would have happened had the regime of rigorous timetabling that now dominates and controls all proceedings in this place already been extended to the other place. The House of Lords frequently annoys the Government's business managers by voting when they would like it not to vote and, occasionally, by winning Divisions that they did not sanction it to win. Sadly, except on Fridays, this place seldom does that.
      I hope that, in announcing the Government's decision to remove clause 39, the Minister acknowledges the vital role that the other place often, sadly, has to perform on its own because we do not have the opportunity to do our job properly under the timetabling regime. Having recognised that vital role, I hope that the Minister will at least place on the record his determination never to support any attempt to curtail debate in the other place.
      Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he might want to reflect on a couple of things, one of which is the role of Opposition and Labour Back Benchers in ensuring that time allocated in a timetable motion is used to concentrate on the most important aspects of a Bill. If there is a failure, it is a collective one for which the Opposition themselves have to take some responsibility. One way to avoid the problem is to consider seriously pre-scrutiny of legislation. I know that discussion of that would take us wide of the amendments and I do not want to detain the House on such matters, but the hon. Gentlemen should consider whether pre-scrutiny would have helped the House enormously on clause 39.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's first point. By and large, the Committee managed its time well. Very few clauses were not discussed as a result of the guillotine. The fault and responsibility must lie with those who needlessly impose a guillotine on a Bill's consideration in Committee.
      I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on pre-legislative scrutiny. I intend to watch with great interest the Government's response to the communications Bill, which is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny. Their response to the previous Bill that went through pre-legislative scrutiny was not to change it, notwithstanding the Committee's hard work. I hope that the Government will respond constructively to the recommendations this time. However, I am surprised that I have managed to say so much on that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not try your patience further.
      I look forward to what the Minister has to say about what was a narrow escape. I hope that he will give credit where it is due to our noble Friends collectively—Lord

      647
      Wedderburn of course sits on the Labour Benche—for rescuing the Government from what could have been a serious embarrassment.
      Mr. Prisk: I share my hon. Friend's surprise at the pattern of events. In all the consultation and during the Bill's proceedings in this House, clause 39 did not divide opinion, although unfortunately we did not have much time to discuss it. Its sudden last-minute removal suggests either a fundamental flaw that was overlooked or that some undue pressure, to which I hope the Minister did not succumb, was brought to bear.
      I have a couple of points to raise. The Government's original case for clause 39 was that it would create consistency with ACAS's conciliation process. Indeed, the Government's explanatory note states:
      "The Government's objective in making this change is to ensure that compromise agreements are as effective and as wide in extent as ACAS conciliated settlements."
      There was a clear intent to bring the two together. The clause's deletion suggests that one part of the Bill is going in a different direction from the rest of it. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
      My second point relates to the benefit that many business representatives thought would arise. The clause provided closure because it meant that there would be a complete settlement. For example, had a severance package been settled for a redundancy, the clause would have allowed it to hold and it could not have been challenged subsequently. It appears that, out of the blue, unexpected case law has railroaded the clause to one side. Why has the Minister decided not to amend the clause? Is it because it is unamendable, or at least unamendable in the time remaining? Do the Government intend to reintroduce the substance of the clause at a later stage? It would help us all to hear answers to those questions.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate the Government on listening to our noble Friend Lord Wedderburn. Clearly there was sufficient uncertainty, as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept, and it would have been imprudent to proceed with the clause. My hon. Friend was right to remove it. Sometimes it is better to be kind to a Minister, and we should recognise that he reached the right conclusion as a result of intense debate in the House of Lords. We will improve the Bill by accepting the amendment, and he deserves credit for his approach.
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has had a bee in his bonnet about the timetable from day one. The timetable is not a matter for me, but if we had had all the time that he wanted—we did manage to fit in a few extra Committee sittings—I doubt whether hon. Members would have focused on clause 39 to the extent that he suggests.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister mentions the extra sittings, the House should know that the Government introduced a major new clause. Two eminently well qualified and experienced employment lawyers—one Liberal Member and one Labour Member—served on the
      648
      Committee. I do not share the Minister's doubts about whether one of them would have picked up the problem with clause 39.
      Alan Johnson: I am trying hard to pay a compliment to the hon. Gentleman. All Committee members, including the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), did their job properly. Scrutiny has been mentioned. I think that clause 39 was the only provision on which there was unanimous agreement in the consultation. We agreed that it was a small, sensible tidying-up measure. It allowed compromise agreements, which happen rarely and require the endorsement of, for example, a trade union official or solicitor, to bring a dispute to a conclusion. Such decisions would not go through conciliation, ACAS arbitration or an employment tribunal.
      Lawyers explained that it was crazy that such decisions did not have the same scope as ACAS-conciliated settlements. It is a minor point. Opposition Members may not have debated that clause, but they would have read it. The hon. Member for North Norfolk and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) were keen on reading every esoteric part of every clause, for which I give them due credit, and I doubt whether they turned a hair when they read clause 39.
      We should pay tribute to Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy. Hon. Members may remember that the matter was portrayed, not by them but by a journalist, as part of a covert agenda by the Government to get employees to sign away their right to go back to an employment tribunal in any future case. When the press reacts like that to a clause whose ramifications seem to us so minimal, we need to consider carefully whether to withdraw it on the basis that it is more trouble than it is worth or to amend it. It is not a central element of the Bill, and no party ever suggested that it was.
      Norman Lamb: I join the Minister in paying tribute to Lord Wedderburn for identifying the disaster that could have occurred if the provision had been accepted. Clearly, it could have led to many employees losing basic rights under pressure from their employers, so it is right that it has been deleted. However, the Minister was wrong to say that compromise agreements are rarely used. In fact, they are frequently used, and were being used every week in our office to conclude agreements. These days, they are a common way of settling a case.
      As the Minister rightly said, the sensible purpose behind the clause was to bring compromise agreements into line with ACAS agreements. Does he intend to return to the issue to address the concerns that led to the clause being included in the first place, or will he simply leave the law as it stands?
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) asked whether we considered alternative amendments, and we did. It was too great a risk to leave the Bill as it was, and the amendments would have resulted in a cure that was worse than the disease. If we amended the Bill to deal with ACAS-conciliated settlements and left the so-called COT 3 agreements as they were, there would have been a feeling that the latter did not provide the same protection, so we would have had to amend them. Given that the provision is not central

      649
      to the aims of hon. Members on either side of the House, we ask the House to support the amendment to delete clause 39 in its entirety.
      We are consulting ACAS about what we can do to redress the situation. I accept what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about compromise agreements being more frequent than I had thought, although that is not a big deal. They will remain as they are, and we will encourage their use. All that is missing is this minor but sensible tidying up to give them exactly the same status as ACAS-conciliated settlements.
      We should not talk about close shaves but commend the Houses of Parliament for having done their job of scrutiny. The Law Lords have a particular locus in dealing with such issues, and the points made by Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy related to a recent case, BCCI v. Ali. We should not suggest that the fact that the clause passed through the Committee was in any way indicative of a lack of scrutiny in this House.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) asked the Minister whether the Government will return to compromise agreements. It became apparent, as the Minister acknowledged, that the Minister may have been misinformed about the extent to which they are used. It is slightly alarming that the Government are legislating without being aware of the basic facts. Can the hon. Gentleman's Department collect data about the number of compromise agreements being reached, because it is difficult to see how, without it, the Government can make an informed decision about what needs to be done?
      Alan Johnson: Hon. Members should not take that error as any reflection on my Department; it was my error. I did not read my brief correctly and mixed up one aspect of employment law with another. I am sure that we do know the number of compromise agreements, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know what it is.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    New clause

      POWER TO CONFER RIGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS: AMENDMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 57.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment that does not in any way alter the scope of the power in section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The power enables the Secretary of State to confer employment rights on individuals who do not currently have them. The amendment's effect is that we would need to confer rights on individuals by an order that amended existing legislation and not by an order that just spelt out the rights to be extended. It would not alter the rights that we could confer, the individuals on whom we could confer them or the way in which any rights conferred would work in practice.
      We listened to the opinions of the noble Lords in debating this issue. They argued strongly that the words "or otherwise" were not appropriate and gave the Secretary of State additional powers to extend rights other than by a statutory instrument. On balance, we considered
      650
      that since the words "or otherwise" had been understood in that way, we should not retain the current wording simply on the basis that it gave us some flexibility. The advice of Lords Ackner and Brightman cannot lightly be set aside.
      The amendment may not please the draftsman should we decide to use the power under section 23, but I hope that it will alleviate concerns raised in the other place that we were intending to circumvent Parliament by use of the words "or otherwise". Removing those words will not limit the scope for conferring statutory employment rights on individuals to whom the rights do not currently apply. As Members will be aware, a review of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights is under way, and we intend to publish a discussion document on employment status this month.
      Mr. Hammond: The story behind the amendment is extraordinary. I take issue with the Minister when he says in one breath that this is a technical amendment and in the next that the opinions of Lords Ackner and Brightman cannot be lightly dismissed. Lord Ackner opened his speech on Third Reading in the other place by saying:
      "This is not a small and technical matter, as the Minister said".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 1530.]
      Ministers in the other place sought to present this as a technical matter, and the Minister has repeated that this afternoon, but that is not so.
      The Minister, like his noble but sometimes discourteous Friend Lord Sainsbury, also managed to avoid giving any credit to my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, without whose unstinting determination this amendment would not have been brought to the attention of Lords Ackner and Brightman and, ultimately, accepted by the Government. Indeed, Baroness Miller had to table the amendment three times and put up with a good deal of rather ungentlemanly ridicule from the Government Dispatch Box before the wisdom of what she was advocating came to be recognised. She apologised on Third Reading when she introduced this amendment for the third time, explaining that she was
      "compelled to do so by the Government's obdurate refusal"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 1528.]
      to accept the deletion of the two offending words from the Employment Relations Act 1989.
      When I read the Lords debate, I was disappointed and, frankly, surprised to note the patronising tone with which Ministers in that place, who seem to be far less courteous than their counterparts in this place, dealt with my noble Friend. Many of my hon. Friends will know Baroness Miller well, and would know better than to step in her way when she is determined to achieve something. Terriers with bones have nothing on my noble Friend.
      6.30 pm
      Apparently, Lord Sainsbury was not aware of my noble Friend's reputation and determination. The first time that she tabled the amendment, he sought to dismiss it by making repeated spurious references to someone called Doreen, then essentially telling her to go back to her kitchen sink and stop meddling in matters that did not concern her. The second time that she tabled it, the noble Baroness was told that the matter was trivial and technical, and that she had failed to understand it. It is

      651
      remarkable that she was prepared to persist as she did, ultimately engaging the eminent and learned Lords Ackner and Brightman in considering the matter more carefully. In their speeches on Third Reading in the other place, they made it clear that the issue needed to be dealt with.
      The original provision in section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 says that the Secretary of State has the power to confer certain rights on individuals. Subsection (5) states:
      "An order under this section may make provision in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, whether by amending Acts or instruments or otherwise."
      Several months ago, my noble Friend brought that section of the 1999 Act to the shadow Department of Trade and Industry meeting and asked all of us around the table if any of us had any idea what "or otherwise" meant. I have to confess that we were unable to help her. She went the Library and asked them to search for any elucidation as what the phrase "or otherwise" means, but they told her that they were unable to help. On 4 December, the Minister, Lord Sainsbury, told the noble Baroness that the purpose of the words "or otherwise" was:
      "'intended to ensure that an order under section 23 could also apply to rights to individuals by means of a free-standing provision rather than an amendment.'"
      So my noble Friend, tenacious as ever, went back to the Library and asked them to look up a legislative device known as a free-standing instrument, but they could not find one, and we came to the conclusion that the law knows of no such instrument.
      On Third Reading, my noble Friend tabled the amendment yet again, albeit to a different part of the Bill. Originally, with typical humility, she tabled it as a minor and consequential amendment, but having listened to Lords Ackner and Brightman she realised that it should not relate to the clause entitled "Minor and Consequential Amendments" because it was not a minor change, but a very significant one. She therefore moved the amendment to the appropriate part of the Bill. When the Minister responded to the debate, he appeared at first to be sticking to his guns. He said:
      "However, it is still my view that it does no such thing."
      That is, that the provision did not have the implications that the noble Baroness was suggesting. But the Minister was visibly affected by the interventions of Lords Ackner and Brightman, and I understand that a scurry of paper support was forthcoming during the time when he was on his feet. Having spent nearly two columns of Lords Hansard explaining why my noble Friend was wrong, at the end he capitulated in one paragraph by saying:
      "In view of the very strong pleas by both noble and learned Lords"—
      no reference to my noble Friend—
      "that they do not believe the Government's measure is appropriate, on balance we are prepared to accept the amendment."—[Offcial Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 1529–34.]
      That was after taking up some 15 minutes of the House's time explaining why my noble Friend was still wrong.
      Rob Marris: I am slightly confused, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could elucidate something for me. He referred to a free-standing provision and said that when
      652
      the noble Lady looked for it in the Library she found that there was no such instrument. Did the Law Lords suggest that a constitutional innovation had been made in the Bill, or did they say something else that persuaded the learned Lady and the hon. Gentleman that the provision needed to be changed?
      Mr. Hammond: My noble Friend is not learned in the technical sense. It was Lord Sainsbury who said:
      "'The use of 'or otherwise' was intended to ensure that an order under section 23 could also apply to rights to individuals by means of a free-standing provision rather than by an amendment.'"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 1529.]
      The Minister himself introduced the concept of the free-standing provision, which, as it turned out, did not take the debate much further.
      Mr. Prisk: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the apparent confusion there seems to be a direct contradiction in what Lord Sainsbury said? In December he wrote to the noble Baroness saying that the words do not extend the powers of the Secretary of State, yet he told the Grand Committee on 22 April:
      "'The noble Baroness's amendment would simply take away the current flexibility for the Secretary of State to extend rights in a way that is best from a drafting point of view.'"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 701.]
      Does my hon. Friend share my concern that such contradictions undermine confidence in the way in which the Bill is being presented?
      Mr. Hammond: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There were several contradictions in what the Minister in the other place said in the course of debates on the amendment. We may be talking about an unusual case in the other place and an unusual Standing Committee in this place, but in reading the debates I was struck by the fact that the courtesy that was extended by and to hon. Members on both sides during the Committee looks rather good in comparison to what went on in the Lords, where one typically expects to see higher standards of courtesy than those that we extend to each other in this place.
      The substantive point that concerns me is that on three occasions the Minister sought to rubbish my noble Friend's amendment, both in terms of its substance and his argument against it and of the rather patronising and disparaging remarks that he made during his speeches. On three occasions he said that the amendment was misguided, unnecessary and did not do what the noble Baroness thought it did, yet at the end of the third such dismissal of her amendment, he capitulated, saying to the House:
      "In view of the very strong pleas by both noble and learned Lords … on balance we are prepared to accept the amendment"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 1534.]
      That is not the way to conduct legislation. Either the noble Lord believes that the amendment is unnecessary, argues his case and stands his ground, or he accepts, with some humility, that he was wrong on the two previous occasions, that he owes my noble Friend an apology, and that the Government were accepting the amendment on the basis of solid argument, not as an afterthought because it was nearly dinner time and they could not be bothered to argue the case any longer. The way in which the matter was conducted in the other place has not enhanced the reputation of Parliament and compares unfavourably with

      653
      the way in which the consideration of the Bill—I do not say all Bills, but this Bill—has been conducted in this place.
      Given that I am happy again to put on record that the Minister has been far more gracious than his noble Friend appears to have been to my noble Friend, I hope that he will place on record an acknowledgement that it was her hard work and persistence, in the face of repeated and sometimes rather unsavoury stonewalling by the Minister in the other place, that ensured that this important amendment has been made to the Bill.
      Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman took about 12 minutes to make a meal of what happened in the Lords. He told a fascinating story of intrigue, conflict and passion which set the blood racing through my veins. I am very happy to pay tribute to Baroness Miller, whose role is clearly set out in my brief, although I did not mention her contribution in my speech.
      Just as Baroness Miller personifies tenacity, my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury personifies courtesy and politeness. The picture of my noble Friend painted by the hon. Gentleman is unrecognisable. I would have thought that Baroness Miller would be the last person to suggest that my noble Friend was in any way discourteous or patronising. It is not in his blood to be that way. He would probably find it physically impossible to behave like that—unlike me; I am just a ruffian.
      Mr. Hammond: Baroness Blatch was moved immediately the Minister sat down on Third Reading in the other place to say that, in not acknowledging the role of my noble Friends,
      "the Minister has been extremely ungracious"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 1534.]
      This is not just my view; it was that of my noble Friend and, I suspect, other Members of the other place at the time.
      Alan Johnson: It all sounds like a rowdy evening down at the Red Lion. The House of Lords doubtless gets into that state occasionally.
      I will pay tribute to Baroness Miller for her contribution. I also pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury and his colleagues for doing an exceptional job on this Bill in the House of Lords for many weeks and even months. I am happy that on this issue we have reached a sensible conclusion, and I hope that the House accepts the Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 43

      UNION LEARNING REPRESENTATIVES
      Lords amendment No. 58
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
      Alan Johnson: Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 deal with the order-making power under subsection (6). They make that order-making power subject to the affirmative procedure. That should ensure adequate scrutiny.
      654
      Amendment No. 60 has a similar effect. It ensures that the issuing of a code of practice under the clause is always subject to affirmative procedure. We think that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the codes. Amendment No. 60 therefore ensures that if ACAS produces one or both of the codes, their issuing would always be subject to the affirmative procedure.
      These are largely technical amendments, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Hammond: Once again, the Minister tells us that the amendments are largely technical, but if I understand it correctly—I stand to be corrected by the Minister—the effect of the principal amendment in the group is far from technical. It means that the procedure by which orders made by statutory instrument giving effect to the proposed rights for union learning representatives will be made under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
      All Ministers and Under-Secretaries who have to deal with the Opposition's persistent attempts to amend legislation in Committee will know that one of the routine amendments tabled by Opposition Members is to invoke the affirmative procedure, in order to ensure that proper scrutiny of the measures introduced by statutory instrument is available to Members of both Houses of Parliament. We believe that that is extremely important. So, for the Minister simply to suggest that moving from the negative to the affirmative procedure is a technical matter is slightly disingenuous.
      If the Minister had been able to concede a change from the negative to the affirmative procedure in other parts of the Bill, and indeed if Ministers in general had been able to do so for parts of other Bills, their opposite numbers on the Opposition Benches would have acknowledged that their concession was far from technical and in fact significant.
      This is not an uncontentious area of policy. By means of statutory instrument, orders will be made to give effect to the proposed new rights for union learning representatives. I know that the House would not wish me to rehearse in their entirety the arguments in Committee about the wisdom or otherwise of imposing union learning representatives by statute. We acknowledge that in some workplaces they provide a constructive addition to the machinery of employee-management co-operation, and often play an important role in ensuring that skills and learning in the workplace are properly attended to. However, we and many outside organisations have expressed serious reservations about whether the same beneficial effects can be achieved when their role is imposed by statute as opposed to being negotiated between the parties in the workplace. So there is a great deal of attention focused on this clause.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend remember from our Standing Committee debates that, according to the Government, the clause will lead to a massive expansion in the number of union learning representatives from just 3,000 now to 22,300 in eight years' time? (HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The cheers from Labour

      655
      Members confirm that when their campaigns are funded by the trade unions, they pay back the favour when they are elected.
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right; the proposal represents a massive expansion of trade union power. No one would argue with the introduction of learning representatives by consensus, where they will be able to deliver genuine benefit to workers and employers alike, as they have in many workplaces. The Government tell us that such representatives have had a positive effect in workplaces—ergo, if they are imposed by statute in all workplaces where unions are recognised, they will have a positive effect. I must tell the Minister that that is a serious non sequitur. We have severe doubts about the overall impact that the legislation will have if learning representatives are imposed in workplaces where industrial relations are not mature enough for them to prosper and serve the intended purpose.
      The Economic Secretary countered the argument by telling the Committee how good the imposition of learning representatives would be for businesses and how all sensible, forward-looking employers would welcome their imposition by statute. I should make it clear that it was not the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions who dealt with this clause in Committee.
      When the Economic Secretary was challenged to say how many union learning representatives there were in his Department, as an enlightened employer, the answer turned out to be zero. One is bound to ask why, if it is so self-evident that introducing union learning representatives into a workplace is of huge benefit to the employer, Government Departments have not done so and, it appears, will do so only when required by statute. Perhaps these representatives are of such huge benefit to the employer that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, should consider whether Departments are passing up an opportunity to make themselves more efficient and effective.
      Mr. Prisk: The Minister said that the proposals have been warmly welcomed, yet we have learned of opposition on a number of occasions. For example, the Engineering Employers Federation said:
      "The statutory imposition of this privilege will not improve employer relations, productivity or the learning levels of employees".
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward, as the federation suggests, is to act co-operatively? Is it not time that the Minister was honest and admitted that there has been clear opposition from many employers' groups?
      Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right—there has been clear opposition from many employer groups, and it is pretty obvious that union learning reps can play a useful role in the workplace when they are introduced by consensus. They cannot deliver the same beneficial effect if they are imposed by statute. The Government's agenda in introducing statutory union learning reps is about repaying debts to their trade union paymasters. British business will pay the Labour party's election debts.
      Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hammond: No, because I think that the hon. Gentleman will want to catch your eye in a moment,
      656
      Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] He has indicated that he intends to do so, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
      The issues to be dealt with by statutory instrument are significant for employers, so it is very important indeed to ensure that the Government are not pushed by trade union pressure beyond the point that they have agreed on. I therefore very much welcome the decision to make the measures subject to the affirmative procedure.
      Rob Marris: All I wanted to ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was where does the Bill say that union learning reps are being imposed? It simply talks about time off for union learning reps—it does not talk about their imposition, which the hon. Gentleman fears may damage industrial relations. Surely, the provision is about time off, not the fact that they exist, which may be one reason why, in a country with independent trade unions, the Minister could not say how many union learning reps there are in his Department?
      Alan Johnson: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) supports the amendment which, I am afraid, is definitely technical. I did not say that it was a small or insubstantial technical amendment; I merely said that it was technical.
      This general issue has been debated many times, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did a tremendous job of dealing with it in Committee. I shall be as gentle as possible to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, as my criticism is not about him personally but about his party. The Opposition will have returned from the planet Zog when they no longer describe a modest proposal such as this amendment as a massive extension of trade union power. They should go and lie in a dark room, take a couple of tablets, and take another look at our proposal.
      Mr. Prisk: The Minister knows perfectly well, from Committee and Second Reading, that all the employers' organisations have said that this measure is of grave concern for large businesses and particularly for small ones. To sweep that concern aside, as the hon. Gentleman has tried to do, is not representative of his contribution to the Bill. It is a shame that he has adopted that attitude today.
      Alan Johnson: Yes, I know of employers' concerns. However, I merely make the point that the proposal is not about a massive extension of trade union power.
      Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amazing fuss about this in Committee seemed to demonstrate that the Opposition think that 20,000 trade union members are desperate to spend all their time organising all that learning? Of course, it is valuable to have union learning reps to assist and encourage trade unionists and workers in the workplace to take up learning opportunities, but it is often difficult to get people to take on that responsibility, even though they may wish to do so, because they can feel that they will be under even

      657
      more pressure at work as they will not be given any assistance at all by their employers. In fact, if they knew—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know the difference between an intervention and a speech.
      Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who made an eloquent point. This is a modest proposal, which seeks to build on something that we initiated in 1997, which has become extremely popular with employers. It adds a new dimension to opportunities for lifelong learning, which were a manifesto commitment. We have met many employers' concerns and we shall look back—even Opposition Members will—in five years' time and wonder what all the fuss was about. I hope that the House supports the amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments 59, 60 and 61 agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      STATUTORY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
      Lords amendment: No. 62.
      Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 63 to 74.
      Alan Johnson: Schedule 2 contains the text of the statutory dispute resolution procedures, which are the cornerstone of part 3, and have naturally attracted much discussion both here and in another place.
      During and after the Committee stage, I said that we were prepared to look further at two aspects of the statutory procedures in response to points made by hon. Members—whether the statutory procedures could refer in some way to the need to investigate complaints, and whether they could refer to the right to be accompanied. We have since considered those issues in detail, and the Government introduced amendments in the other place, which deal adequately with those concerns.
      Valerie Davey: In that further consideration, is the issue of bullying at work taken seriously by the Government?
      Alan Johnson: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is. A private Member's Bill has been introduced on bullying, and we are pursuing the issue with the Health and Safety Executive, which is the right forum for tackling the problem.
      We considered the issues in detail, and the Government introduced amendments in the other place which deal adequately with Members' concerns. In addition, their lordships raised new issues about the statutory procedures, to which we responded with amendments to the schedule. For example, they expressed concern that the procedures may inadvertently interfere with employees' rights to make protected disclosures about wrongdoing.
      658
      I shall describe in a little more detail the changes to be made by the amendments. First, Lords amendments Nos. 62, 63, 66, 67, 71 and 72 ensure that where the statutory procedures require the parties to write to each other, they can do so by sending either a copy or the original of the written communication. Previously, the schedule required them to send a copy on all occasions. That is a sensible change, which removes the possibility that parties may accidentally fail to follow the procedures. Lords amendment No. 68 is a technical amendment, which removes inconsistent wording from the standard grievance procedure. Where the statutory procedures require parties to meet, they refer to the holding of "a" or "the" meeting. However, the text of step 2 in the standard grievance procedure refers to the holding of "at least one" meeting. That was unintended, and the amendment ensures that meetings are described in a consistent fashion across the procedures.
      Lords amendments Nos. 64, 65, 69 and 70 deal with investigations, and all arise from the many debates during the passage of this Bill about investigations. We have resisted the idea that the statutory procedures should refer to the investigatory process. The procedures are written as a series of concrete and verifiable actions. The investigatory process cannot be described in similar terms or in a way which would generally apply to many different cases and circumstances. None of the amendments therefore uses the word "investigations". Instead, we have approached the issue from a different angle. Our amendments refer to the outcome of the investigatory process—the information or evidence which it typically uncovers. Accordingly, the amendments place obligations on the parties to disclose the information on which they initiated their action against the other. The requirement to assemble and convey such information would in practice be a strong encouragement to the parties to ensure that an investigation occurs.
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on the Lords Amendments to a conclusion.
      Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 95 agreed to [some with Special Entry].
      Mr. Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that today the Government published their consultation paper entitled "Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution". There was coverage of that document in today's media, which is hardly surprising, as 40 copies of the document were sent last night to various local newspapers. However, no copies of the document were available to Members of Parliament this morning in the Vote Office, and only by lunchtime today were four copies of the document available in the Library.
      Since the document is 194 pages long, it is clearly difficult for the 659 Members of Parliament to have photocopied versions of their own. The only way that I was able to obtain a copy was by sending a member of my staff to sit and camp at the doorstep of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Can you advise me whether it is appropriate for such a document to be made available to the press, but not made available in sufficient quantity to Members of Parliament, who have a real interest in this vital subject?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have no immediate answer to that matter, beyond pointing out that it is a consultation document at this stage. I am sure that his point has been heard and that the matter will be remedied as soon as possible.

Opposition Day
  17TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Care Homes
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on the Opposition motion. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.2 pm
    Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the Government's failure to address the crisis facing care homes for the elderly, which has resulted in the closure of a large number of care homes, with damaging consequences for the sector and for many other aspects of the work of the NHS; remains concerned that the combined impact of the levels of fees paid to care homes by local authorities and the National Minimum Standards will continue to have an adverse impact upon small to medium size care homes in particular, leading to further losses in capacity; regrets that the terms under which the Government introduced 'free nursing care' on 1st October 2001 differ very markedly from those laid out when the draft legislation was under consideration; deplores the increase in the number of elderly people receiving inappropriate care and the large number of hospital beds being blocked and operations being cancelled because of the loss of care home beds into which to discharge hospital patients once their treatment has been completed; and calls on the Government to recognise the damaging effects of this crisis in care on the most vulnerable members of society and swiftly and decisively to end the suffering, disruption and distress that is being caused to the elderly by the Government's policies.
    Society, and each and every one of us, has a duty to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in our community are properly looked after and that they are entitled to a high quality of life, with dignity and proper care. One of the most vulnerable groups in our society are the elderly—many of them frail or infirm, often alone, sometimes confused and frequently worried about their ability to cope and look after themselves.
    Society owes a debt of gratitude to the dedicated people who spend their time and energies looking after those highly vulnerable members of our community, and who devote their lives to enhancing the quality of life of the elderly, and ensuring that they receive the best quality care available and that their homes are indeed "home from home."
    That is why it is so distressing that the Secretary of State for Health expressed the Government's contempt for care homes and the excellent care that they provide when he referred in the House on 26 March to the elderly being "banged up" in care homes. It is deeply offensive and callous for the Secretary of State to denigrate their work in such a demeaning way. Elsewhere, the Government frequently use the language of blame, accusing the elderly of being bed blockers. We in the Opposition are sick and tired of Ministers blaming everyone but themselves for the problems that they cause.
    The Secretary of State and his Ministers may be in a perpetual state of denial, but the sad fact of life is that care of the elderly in this country is in crisis. As the Coalition for Care recently said:
    "Private home owners are on their knees and facing widespread bankruptcy."

    661
    The care home sector has lost more than 2,000 homes—nearly 15 per cent.—and more than 8 per cent. of its capacity since 1997, and there is no sign of care home closures abating. Meanwhile, despite Government promises to help the elderly to live independently, the number of people receiving care in their own homes has declined by 12 per cent. over the past five years.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), seems to disagree. I remind her that the number of people receiving domiciliary care has declined, although the hours that they receive have increased. Ironically, as the supply of care is dramatically reduced, demand is set to increase radically. We are approaching the stage where families might even have two generations needing care. That reflects the fact that the number of elderly people in Britain is growing rapidly.
    In particular, the number of very elderly—the over-85s, who require the most care—is rising the most rapidly. In 1952 there were 500,000 people over 85. This year there are 1.2 million, and in the next decade the number of over-85-year-olds will increase by a further 250,000.
    One of the greatest threats to long-term care has been the dramatic closure of homes. Both residential and nursing homes have been hit heavily. Indeed, there were more than 2,000 fewer care homes in 2000 than in 1997, with areas such as the south-west and London and the south-east being particularly badly affected.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister's own figures show that in Bournemouth alone, between 1997 and 2001—that is, last year—the number of care homes has gone down from 261 to 166? That is a 40 per cent. reduction in Bournemouth.
    Mr. Burns: Sadly, my hon. Friend is right. His example typifies the problem, which I shall elaborate on shortly. That is happening all over the country, as a result of the closure of homes.
    Small homes have been particularly badly hit and the effect of this trend has been greatly to reduce the choice of homes for elderly people, who as a result have to be moved further and further away from where their homes were, and where their families and their friends are. These closures have inevitably resulted in a radical and unprecedented decline in the supply of long-term care places. All over the country, homes are closing and are being lost.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Burns: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall give way in a moment.
    To give the House some idea of the magnitude of the problem, in the Secretary of State's constituency, Darlington, over the past 18 months, 17 homes have closed, with 499 beds lost. In the region represented by both the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), the number of beds fell by 18 per cent., with a loss of almost 5,400 beds over the past four years. In the region represented by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch, the number of beds fell by
    662
    10 per cent., with a loss of almost 2000 beds. In the region represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), the number of homes fell by 21 per cent., with a loss of 1,350 beds. Since 1998 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), 29 residential and care homes have closed, with a loss of 1,683 beds.
    Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for the quality of care in the private sector. I agree with him, but there is also excellent public sector care. However, is he seriously suggesting that the only form of care that we should support for older people is residential care? Surely there is a duty on the part of people who work in residential care to work in clear partnerships with local authorities and health departments to produce new models of flexible care.
    Mr. Burns: I am certainly not saying what the hon. Gentleman suggests. He can rest assured that I shall shortly deal with his county, Lancashire.
    Sadly, the future looks bleak. A survey that I have carried out over the past two weeks suggests that there is no abatement in the pressures forcing homes to close. Cheltenham, which has already lost 700 beds, is facing a further six home closures. BUPA is carefully considering two of its homes; Devon is losing its last two nursing homes; and three homes are in the process of closing in Kirklees. Reading is facing the closure of a 48-bed home by its own local authority, and South Shropshire has 12 homes under threat of closure. To answer the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), Lancashire is considering closing all its 32 care homes. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), whom I am glad to see in his place, said in this House on 26 February that there was
    "tremendous anxiety for the many elderly people in my constituency. They … are fearful about what is to happen."
    He went on to say:
    "We read … of people's despair about the proposed closures, yet the area has a Labour MP, a Labour Government, a Labour district council and a Labour county council, so no one else's fingerprints are on it."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 177WH.]
    Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is correct: the closures indeed bear the fingerprints of this Labour Government. They are all over them, and like a rabbit blinded in the headlights of an oncoming car, this Government do nothing except bandy around disingenuous statistics.
    If we are going to talk about statistics, the truth is that the overall number of beds lost in this country since 1997 is 46,700—a loss of more than 8 per cent. of capacity in only five years. Independent research commissioned by the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Health has confirmed those figures, which coincide with those produced by an equally independent source—Laing and Buisson.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my hon. Friend also realise that the Labour Government's fingerprints are to be found in Conservative Market Harborough? Lenthall House, a Leicestershire county council home, is threatened with closure as a direct result of this Government's policy of introducing what they

    663
    ludicrously call "best practice". Several people will be thrown out of the home during the next few months if the policy is allowed to stick.
    Mr. Burns: My hon. and learned Friend describes a problem that is sadly all too well known throughout this country, as more and more homes are being closed and beds lost because of the actions of this Government.
    Mrs. Joan Humble rose—
    Mr. Burns: I will just make the point about the figures, and then I will move on to the hon. Lady.
    Some of those beds have been lost in the independent sector, and the figure also includes 26,000 lost in the public sector: 13,500 from local authorities and 12,500 from long-stay NHS provision.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I remind him that he supported the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 under the previous Conservative Government, who said that too many people were in residential care and would be better supported in their own homes. Is he now saying that they got it wrong?
    Mr. Burns: No, I am not. What I am saying is that this Government are hitting those people with a double whammy: they are closing the homes, the beds are being lost and the amount of domiciliary care provided has declined by 12 per cent. The hon. Ladies on the Labour Back Benches nod their heads in chorus, but they do not listen. The number of people getting domiciliary care has fallen since 1997. The number of hours that they are receiving has risen, but the total number of people who are getting the care has been cut.
    To return to the figures, the Government keep claiming that the overall number of beds lost is 19,000, but in the true spin mode to which we are all accustomed, they seek to massage bad news and have used a different and highly disingenuous basis for calculating those figures. To try to massage that bad news, they have used a different period and a different basis for their calculations. Their figures are based solely on the independent care homes sector and exclude the beds lost from local authority and NHS provision. Remarkably, they totally exclude any figures for 2001. As if that were not enough, they use a late year base of November-December for their figures, rather than the year ending in March-April.
    For the NHS, the closures are having serious consequences on delayed discharges from hospitals. The total number of delayed discharges is still above the 5,000 level, and a growing minority of delayed discharge patients are staying longer in hospital, with more than 36 per cent. staying for more than 28 days. The knock-on effect is that the number of cancelled operations is rising, as it has done each year since this Government came to power. More worryingly, the rate for readmission within 28 days of discharge is rising and is especially high for over-75s. It is also worrying that a number of trust chief executives are again beginning to see rising pressures in terms of delayed discharge. They are all fearful that
    664
    further anticipated home closures will significantly and adversely affect their ability to reduce the numbers in the next 18 months.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Burns: No.
    Another reason for the problems facing care homes is fee levels. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted the fact that the average cost per week for nursing care of older people in a home is £459, and that the cost for residential care is £353. Those costs are about £75 to £85 higher than the average fees paid by local authorities. In addition, there is the looming problem of the estimated £300 million increase in national insurance contributions from next April, which will be a crippling blow to the sector.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for a very long time, but if I were a Conservative supporter, I would still be wondering which way to vote; I would want to know what he was going to do about the problem.
    Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman must think the House is stupid if he expects us to believe that he is still thinking about how to vote. We all know that, like every other clone in the Labour party, he will be voting with the party tonight, in defiance of what is going on in this country.
    Ironically, it is estimated that local authorities are paying fees to place residents in their own homes that are up to 40 per cent. higher than they pay in the independent sector. That is unfair, it is a short-term catastrophe and it is one of the major contributing factors to the closure of care homes, and especially the small and medium-sized ones.
    Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Burns: No.
    A significant number of self-funding residents are now in effect subsidising local authority-placed residents. The Government's introduction of free nursing care is doing very little to help to reduce the problems that were identified before that happened.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Burns: No; I need to make progress.
    Another major factor in home closure has been the mass of regulations imposed on care homes and the unsatisfactory manner in which they are being implemented, despite the promise of a carrot rather than stick approach. The Prime Minister seems rather confused about the implementation of the new care standards. My hon. Friends will remember that, last Wednesday in Prime Minister's questions, he told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the care standards regulations
    "do not come into effect until 2007."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 221.]

    665
    He was quite dogmatic about that—and he is equally wrong. Let me explain to the House what his Government are doing.
    There are 38 minimum standards covering seven topics and comprising 246 individual rules. Two provisions will operate from 2004 and four provisions will operate from 2007, but what the Prime Minister does not seem to understand is that 240 provisions operated from 1 April 2002. The Prime Minister's ignorance typifies how out of touch his Government are on this sensitive subject.
    Of course, everyone supports the principle of raising standards and the quality of care but it must be done in a sympathetic, sensible and sensitive way.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the answer that the Prime Minister gave last week. The figures that my hon. Friend has just given us were confirmed to me this morning by the House of Commons Library. Given all the regulations that they have had to implement from 1 April this year, with the more expensive ones to come, and the fact that housing and the property market are at a high, is it not the case that many owners are selling up in order to get out and to realise their capital before there is even more of the same to come?
    Mr. Burns: Sadly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the major problems facing the care homes sector is what is going on as a result of the Government's policies and their lack of preparedness to take action to rectify the problem.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Burns: No, I will not give way. I am going to make progress.
    Some of the requirements in respect of room sizes and other structural changes are unnecessarily over-prescriptive and ludicrous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] If hon. Members listen, I will. For example, one large care home provider with more than 200 homes told me that the standards require doors in the homes to be a minimum of 80 cm wide, but the doors in the homes happen to be 78 cm wide and it will cost £2.5 million to meet the required standards.
    A care home owner in East Sussex who has been running her home for 18 years told me:
    "The inspector said the rooms were the wrong size and the social needs of the residents were not being met because not every resident was taken out every day."
    Ironically, many of the residents chose their own rooms as they were happy with their size and
    "preferred a smaller and more cosy room to a large vacuous one."
    [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but that is what the residents of care homes want. All Labour Members can do is laugh at their wishes.
    The owner was left in tears by the inspectors. She said that she was left feeling
    "undermined, undervalued and demoralised by them".
    Her home now has to close because she cannot afford to meet the minimum room size standards. She told the inspectors that the next time they visited she would be working in Tesco's.
    666
    A home owner in North Tyneside told me that his family had run their home for 31 years and had been highly regarded for providing high-quality care. Now they are having to close, with the loss of 21 beds, because they cannot run the home on the occupancy levels that the new standards will mean.
    A home in Kent for elderly people with learning disabilities, which has 32 beds, will be closing in August because of the upgrading requirements in the care standards regulations. One resident has been there for 35 years. The uncertainty and confusion of residents at having to leave their home is causing shock and deep distress. The manager has said that 95 per cent. of those residents have no family, relatives or friends, and regard the staff as their family. Their lives and security will be destroyed.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Burns: No, I will not.
    Another home owner, in Somerset, said of the Government's over-regulation:
    "It's not about care anymore—it's about bureaucracy. They don't care! It broke my heart to close my home and move my residents out."
    Why did she have to move them out? Because she was required to install a lift to accommodate five people, even though she only had a seven-bed home. She lamented to me:
    "One elderly lady phones me all the time saying how unhappy she is and misses the home. She tells me 'this isn't my home.'"
    That quote sums up the deeply distressing impact the Government's policy is having on so many elderly vulnerable people.
    Even the constituency of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch, is affected. She may be familiar with the Stonebridge nursing home, with 41 beds. The Minister nods; she is clearly familiar with it. I wonder how good her memory is.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The home has applied for planning permission.
    Mr. Burns: The Minister is very good at memorising things, so I hope that she remembers what I am about to tell her.
    When the owner, Mrs. Jean Jones, went to see her then Labour prospective parliamentary candidate, Jacqui Smith, in 1997, she was assured—and I quote from what Jacqui Smith said at the time—
    "Under a Labour Government, bureaucracy would decrease".
    Mrs. Jones notes with some dismay that since 1997 the opposite has happened. The home even had to employ an extra member of staff to deal with questionnaires and forms from the National Care Standards Commission and the inspectors. As the Minister said, the home has applied for planning permission. Of course it has—to comply with the care standards and to make the necessary changes. It will cost the owner £350,000 to do so.
    The distress and the disruption to vulnerable people's lives caused by the impact of these regulations is totally unacceptable and in many cases totally unnecessary. There is no point in Ministers chanting the mantra that

    667
    the inspection teams have been instructed to work in a sympathetic and sensitive way, because in the real world—not in the ivory tower of the Department of Health—that is not happening. Too many elderly, frail and confused residents are seeing their homes and security destroyed in an act of bureaucratic vandalism. No one would disagree with the need to raise standards where that is necessary or to enhance the quality of life of residents, but Ministers cannot and must not hide behind that to allow elderly people's lives to be ruined and destroyed in the name of heavy-handed bureaucracy.
    Quality care is not provided by enforcing arbitrary bureaucracy. Quality care is not provided by officious inspections. Quality care is not provided by pretending that there is not a crisis. There is a crisis in care—a crisis for the elderly, a crisis for the defenceless, a crisis for the frail and a crisis for the vulnerable. They deserve better, but the Government are failing them. It is time for the Government to listen, to take note and to act now.
    7.28 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    welcomes the Government's strategy for modernising social care services through unprecedented real terms increases in resources; condemns the Opposition for opposing this investment; welcomes the improved joint working between the NHS, social services, and the independent care sectors which has seen a reduction in levels of delayed discharges of over 1,000 since September 2001; recognises Government action to provide real choice for older people in long term care and to place a greater emphasis on users and patients in the design and delivery of services; notes the confusion, inconsistency and lack of independence in previous registration and inspection regimes and welcomes the Government's national framework for standards and quality; further notes that the extra funding is enabling local councils to increase fees paid to care homes and that providers are continuing to open new homes; and recognises that the number of people receiving intensive home care support is increasing, enabling more people to live independently at home for longer.'.
    Improving services for older people is one of the Government's highest priorities. For that reason, I welcome this debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss how we deliver the right type of care and support for older people at the right time and in the right setting, whether that setting be a care home, sheltered accommodation or assisted living within a person's own home. Ensuring choice and good quality care for vulnerable people is about more than care homes.
    I also welcome today's debate as I can share with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) my respect and praise for those who work in all our care settings for the contribution that they make to vulnerable people. I will focus on care homes, not least to counter some of the disinformation and scaremongering that have characterised the hon. Gentleman's contribution. The old and vulnerable people who depend on our care system deserve more than that.
    Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this early stage. During this debate, she will have heard interventions from the hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr.
    668
    Dawson), and she will be aware of the concern that the hon. Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and I have about Lancashire county council's proposals to close 35 of its 43 care homes. The Minister said that she would keep in close touch with the county council and monitor that situation. Will she now tell us precisely what she has done, and what comfort she can bring to the elderly people of Lancashire with regard to the actions of this Labour-controlled council?
    Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right—my hon. Friends have taken a close interest in care homes in Lancashire. I have, as I said I would, asked the social services inspectorate to keep a close eye on the matter, and the inspectorate has worked with the local authority to secure a better relationship between the independent care sector and the local authority than there had previously been, as was rightly argued for by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
    Some people will continue to need and choose residential and nursing care. We need to continue to build a system that translates the needs and choices of older people into the commissioning of a suitable range of both residential and other options for long-term care. This approach puts older people and their choices at the centre of planning. Unfortunately, our long-term care has not always been planned in that way.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a survey that Age Concern Cymru has just given to me, which illustrates that 40 per cent. of people in residential care suffer from clinical depression? Will she bear in mind, when she talks about choices, what people really want is to be supported in their homes?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the choice and the independence that we need to provide for older people, and I shall explore that subject later.
    As I was saying, we have not, unfortunately, always planned our long-term care by putting older people's needs at the centre. There was a huge expansion in the number of care homes throughout the 1980s, when uncapped budgets from the then Department of Health and Social Security were available for publicly funded people entering residential care. Entry to a care home was not based on need or user choice, but was too often driven by the interests of providers and, more significantly, by Government dogma. Profits were high but the standard of care was too often too low. Indeed, it has already been pointed out that it was the Conservatives—then in power—who, having created this unplanned and uncontrolled growth, sought severely to limit it. As I recall, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was introduced as much to stem this flow of money as it was to improve the lot of those using public services.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If it is true, as the Minister says, that there was an explosion in the number of homes in the 1980s—and, therefore, an explosion in the amount of money following those homes—will she take the time to tell that to her colleague the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Tottenham

    669
    (Mr. Lammy), who made his first ministerial visit to the west country the other day? When he was confronted with the problems of Devon care homes closing, he replied that that was due to 18 years of chronic underfunding.
    Jacqui Smith: My point—and that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—is that decisions were made on the basis of funding streams; they were not made on the basis of investment in assessment and real care for older people, which is what this Government have done.
    Fuelled by huge expansion in the 1980s, the care home market peaked in 1996, when there were too many beds to be sustainable in the long term. Indeed, a recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, written by Mr. William Laing of the independent care consultants Laing and Buisson, states that
    "a decline in care home capacity was to be expected—and, indeed, broadly welcomed."
    Gregory Barker: Does the Minister therefore welcome the closure of seven care homes in my constituency in the last 12 months, and the concomitant 13 per cent. bed blocking in the East Sussex NHS Hospital trust, which has resulted in 131 beds being blocked because places cannot be found in the community?
    Jacqui Smith: I was quoting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, rather than myself. I was, however, going to go on to say that I recognise the concerns that come with managing this change in the care home market. As hon. Members have heard me say on numerous occasions, there has been a small loss of care home beds since 1997—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members continue—because they lack the sophistication of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—to chant about 50,000 care beds being lost.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
    Jacqui Smith: I will give way in a moment.
    Although 50,000 beds were deregistered, more than 31,000 beds entered the care home market during the same period, making a loss of just 19,000. That is just 4 per cent. of the stock, which means that there is roughly the same number of care homes today as there was in 1997.
    Mr. McLoughlin: If the Minister regards the loss of some 50,000 beds as "small", will she tell us what she regards as large?
    Jacqui Smith: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little less excited about jumping up, he would have heard me say that there had not been a loss of 50,000 care beds, but a net loss of 19,000. I also said that I was concerned about that. These are the facts—not according to the Department of Health, but according to Laing and Buisson, which Conservative Members are so keen on quoting.
    Conservative Members have proved to me today how difficult it is to get the message over to the Opposition. I have outlined these figures to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford across the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions, and I went through them with him step by step at the Select Committee on Health. Either Conservative
    670
    Members are very slow learners, or they have decided not to let the facts get in the way of a political campaign, which is a pretty cheap way of treating the older and vulnerable people who need us to have an informed debate and put forward practical suggestions for improvement.
    Mrs. Browning: Does the Minister accept that in rural areas such as my constituency in Devon, geographical spread and availability are important to choice? In many of my larger villages, there is only one residential home. If that home closes, the people in that local community will have to live much further away from their friends and relatives. We are going to end up with Trust House Forte-style care homes with colour co-ordinated bedrooms in urban areas—[Interruption.] It is happening now, and people in rural areas have no choice but to be divorced from their local communities.
    Jacqui Smith: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns about care homes in rural areas. As I was about to say, we need to ensure that the fees paid to them reflect their operating costs. I shall come to fees in a moment; I am looking forward to doing so.
    Kali Mountford: On the point made by Conservative Members about delayed discharge, is it not time that we looked at new ways of dealing with that issue? The Moorlands Grange home in Netherton, which my hon. Friend the Minister visited recently, is now an assessment centre. People stay there for a limited period, often a period of their own choosing, while they decide for themselves whether they want to go into a care home or return home with some support. Would that not be a better way of dealing with this problem?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right, and I enjoyed my visit to her constituency. That kind of practical suggestion and positive forward thinking will get us so much further than a slanging match about statistics. Of course, any closures that result in people having to move are worrying for those people and their families. I understand that at first hand, not least as a result of a campaign that I ran, before being elected to Parliament in 1997, to prevent the Conservative-controlled Worcestershire county council from closing a home in my constituency. We won that battle, and I was delighted to open the upgraded home just a few weeks ago.
    If we are to maintain the necessary care home capacity and provide new services, of course we will need investment. Fees must reflect the costs of residential and nursing care and the improvements that we want.
    Mr. McCabe: Issues other than fees may arise in relation to the introduction of new standards in various parts of the country. Tonight's tragedy, however, is that given the tone set by the uninterrupted rant from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the House has lost any opportunity to recognise the existence of geographical differences—differences relating to fees, but also to how zealously standards are interpreted. There is room for debate about such matters, but that earlier rant has obscured it.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to deal with the subject of fees.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will the Minister give way?
    Jacqui Smith: No.

    671
    This is tricky territory for Conservative Members. The fees paid by local authorities depend on how much they receive. The amount has risen by more than 3 per cent. a year in real terms since 1997; it rose by only 0.1 per cent. a year under the Conservatives. Moreover, we recognised the concerns of local government last year—
    Mr. Butterfill: Will the Minister give way?
    Jacqui Smith: No. I have already been far more generous than the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, and I want to make some progress.
    As I was saying, we recognised the concerns of local government last year. Over that year and this, we have provided £300 million to help stabilise the care market and cut the number of delayed discharges. I have been asked where the money went. More than 50 per cent. of what councils received was spent on care homes. It is because of those additional funds that local councils have been implementing fee increases. According to independent care consultants, the vast majority of councils recently agreed to fee increases in excess of 3 per cent., and some have agreed to much bigger increases. A third of them have increased fees by more than 10 per cent.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) spoke of problems in East Sussex. My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that while her generosity and that of her colleagues was welcomed by those in East Sussex who received an extra £1.2 million, the Tory county council cut its social services budget by £4 million, thus taking more out than the Government put in.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has ably illustrated the Conservatives' attitude to investment. I spoke of difficult territory; even more difficult for them to accept is the fact that we are committing resources in the long term. I said that funds for social services were rising by 3 per cent. over inflation each year. As the Chancellor announced in the Budget, from next April we will double that, delivering an average real-terms increase of 6 per cent. a year from 2003–4 to 2005–6. That is very good news for those who need the support of care services—and, as reaction to the Budget has shown, there is overwhelming public support for the extra investment. It is a pity that the Conservatives do not feel the same; it is a pity that they voted against that investment on 1 May. I hope that those who call for higher fees for care homes tonight will also tell us which way they voted on the provision of the necessary funds.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I have considerable sympathy with the Minister's argument, and I support the Government's aim of improving care home standards. Let me point out, however, that in forthcoming years not private homes but local authority homes will find it most difficult to meet those standards because, for reasons that the Minister has given, they have suffered from underinvestment for many years.
    Will the Minister say something about the Welsh Assembly's call for the Government to make personal care freely available in Wales?
    Jacqui Smith: I shall deal with the issue of care standards later but, as the hon. Gentleman says, investment is important.
    672
    I think that we have made our position clear. We think it important to ensure that there is free nursing care, but also to provide new services by means of the extra investment we are making. Decisions being made in Wales are of course a matter for Wales, and I know the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in them.
    Money is important, but so is better commissioning of care for older people. The ad hoc and distorted relationships of the past are being replaced by partnership at local level between health organisations, social services organisations and the independent and voluntary sector. We have established a new, more positive partnership between the statutory and the independent social, health care and housing sectors at national level. That is being built on locally as authorities implement our agreement, published as "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care".
    We need a whole systems approach. The care home sector does not exist in isolation from the overall health and care economy and the reforms that are happening elsewhere. Councils, care home providers and others need to get round the table, listen to what older people say they want in the future and work together to commission and provide it.
    Once again, we are focusing on the issue of standards for care homes. Standards in that sector are not new. The system of standards introduced by the present Government replaced a system under which care homes were regulated by about 250 local authorities and health authorities, each applying its own standards. The old regulatory system had been criticised for many years for lacking independence, consistency and coherence. Many people, not least members of care home provider organisations, have been calling for national standards for some time. We responded to those calls: we outlined our proposals in the 'White Paper "Modernising Social Services", we consulted widely and we debated the proposals at length in Parliament. The Conservative party supported them.
    I have spoken to care home owners who are worried about meeting some of the standards. We have already acted on that and will continue to listen. The more challenging environmental standards will not be implemented until 2007 and providers will be given realistic timetables to meet them.
    Mr. David Borrow: I am sure that my hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) criticise the care standards that have been introduced. The hon. Gentleman did not, however, list the standards that he would not implement were he in a position to do so. Has my hon. Friend managed to secure such a list from him, and has she been able to assess the effect on care for the elderly if those standards were not implemented?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, to which I shall return shortly.
    In January I issued instructions to the National Care Standards Commission to ensure that inspectors consider whether care homes could fulfil the needs of service users without making environmental changes—for instance, to room sizes, lifts, baths and shared rooms—to meet the standards. I made it clear that failure to meet them should be used as a reason to deregister a home only when services posed a danger to vulnerable people. We believe

    673
    that people's safety and well-being is paramount and the new standards will help to ensure that poor quality care is a thing of the past.
    It is true that only one of the seven categories of standard is environmental. I have mentioned our common-sense approach, but I make no apology for the expectation that those who care for our most vulnerable people should have some training; that those going into homes should have information about terms and conditions and a plan of care; that they should be given regular nutritious meals; and that medicine should be controlled and supervised. If Conservative Members cannot support those standards, I hope that they will explain why to the families of vulnerable people in their constituencies.
    Brian Cotter: May I make a constructive point? It is being said in my area that inspection is being rigorously enforced in some parts of the country, but not in others. Will the Minister pay serious attention to that? It seems that in some regions standards to which the Minister committed herself are being implemented sensibly, while in others, such as mine, they are being implemented too zealously.
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. Of course, we need to continue to work with the National Care Standards Commission to ensure consistency in the way in which inspectors operate.
    The emphasis in the standards will be on ensuring people's safety. Of course, there is a balance to be struck. Our aim is to set standards at a level that will improve the quality of life for people whose home is a care home. We will continue to watch developments carefully and—as we have done to date—we will not hesitate to act if we become convinced that the balance is wrong.
    Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
    Jacqui Smith: No, it is time for me to make some progress.
    Long-term care is not just about care homes; increasingly, older people want to be able to choose to stay at home. We are giving them that independence through the development of alternatives such as extra care housing and the provision of more intensive home care packages to keep people in their own homes for longer. Since 1998, the number of intensive home care packages—people supported in their homes, in many cases instead of through residential care—has increased by nearly 16,000. Intermediate care services are making a difference to the independence of, and choices available to older people. "Hospital at home" teams can give antibiotics to older people with chest infections in their own homes, rather than their having to be admitted to hospital. The other day, I met a lady who thought that she would have to go into a home following a hip replacement, but instead she was receiving intensive rehabilitation in an intermediate care centre that was developed within a care home. She was already making plans to go back to her flat. The plans for intermediate care that are spelt out in the NHS plan are becoming a reality for thousands of people.
    New services and investment are achieving results. The issue of delayed discharges was raised, and I am pleased to announce that significant progress has been made in
    674
    respect of the serious problems that the Tory Government left us. The rate of delayed discharges for patients aged over 75 stood at 13 per cent. in March 1997. In other words, nearly 7,000 older people were stuck in hospital when they should have been discharged. By March 2002, that figure had fallen to 9.4 per cent.—nearly 2,300 fewer. With investment and reform, we are ensuring that more vulnerable people get the right care in the right place, and at the right time.
    This evening, we have been treated to the latest incarnation of compassionate conservatism. That is quite a transformation for the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, given his record in government. However, he has also allowed us to see what compassionate conservatism really means. It can be summed up in three easy sentences: "We're sorry that there are social problems and challenges for our public services. We're really sorry that we were responsible for causing them. Sorry, but we're not going to do anything to put them right."
    What the people who depend on our care services really need is not Conservative crocodile tears, but a Labour Government who are providing more investment, higher standards, more services, more choice, more independence and more hope for the most vulnerable people in our society. I commend the amendment to the House.
    7.53 pm
    Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to begin by referring to some of the evidence—perhaps the Minister did not wish to hear it this evening—on the crisis in the care system. The reality is that the problems from which care homes, home care and the care system in general are suffering have been well documented not just by political parties in this House but by organisations such as Help the Aged. In particular, I want to mention some of the evidence that has been drawn to the Minister's attention time and again by the fair rate for care campaign. There is overwhelming evidence that the care system—not just the care home sector but the home care sector—is reaching a critical point. Indeed, as the Minister herself pointed out, since the care home market peaked in 1996, the number of care home beds has declined. The Prime Minister said during last week's Question Time that we have lost 19,000 beds, but I suspect that, on the evidence from Laing and Buisson, the figure is higher. I shall not get into the semantics of whose figures are most accurate.
    The fact is that registrations have plummeted and deregistrations have rocketed in the past five years, which is why we have a serious problem with capacity across the sector. Having listened to today's exchanges across the Dispatch Box and the Minister's response to the Conservative Opposition motion, my feeling is that this remains an issue on which the Government are being remarkably complacent. It is almost as if the Government want a loss of capacity in the care home sector. Ministers cannot be unaware of the concerns that give rise to this debate. Through numerous Adjournment debates in the past two years, Members on both sides of the House have sought to bring to the Government's attention their concerns about the loss of capacity, the closure of care homes and the knock-on effect on the wider local health and social care economy.

    675
    The Minister let the cat out of the bag when she spoke in an Adjournment debate last week. She said that various parts of the country
    "experienced a significant, but unplanned and unmanaged, expansion in the independent care home sector as a result of the use of an uncapped Department of Social Security budget throughout the 1980s."—[Official Report, 4 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 508.]
    Indeed, she has restated the point today. That expansion was certainly unplanned and unmanaged, but could not those terms be applied to what is happening now? To a considerable degree, the loss of capacity in the care home sector was completely unforeseen by the Department of Health.
    Mr. Dawson: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a recent report by the King's Fund, entitled "Partnerships under pressure", which acknowledges that partnerships are developing the whole systems approaches that the Conservatives failed to recognise at all? Crucial ways of working together to integrate health and social care are beginning to be developed. Is that not the way forward for this sector?
    Mr. Burstow: I agree that whole systems are undoubtedly the way forward, and I welcome the work being done to that end by the Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation. However, I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues appear to be pursuing individual quick-fix gimmicks such as the introduction of fines for local authorities that fail to facilitate early discharge from hospital. Such a provision misses the point entirely, and simply treats the symptoms rather than the underlying causes.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in Royal Bournemouth hospital, for example, at any given time, an entire ward—some 30 or 40 beds—is blocked by this problem? Although we are anxious to have home care as well, that cannot be achieved because this Government have cut the social services budget in Bournemouth—a budget that was designed for this purpose—by £3 million every year since coming to power in 1997. How are we expected to stop bed blocking in the light of such cuts?
    Mr. Burstow: The Local Government Association has made a detailed analysis of the implications of the settlement announced in the Budget, about which we will probably get more details in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. The 6 per cent. real-terms growth—we will have to wait and see how much of that will be passed on to council tax payers, rather than being picked up directly through the Exchequer—will not lead to anything like the improvements that Ministers claim. The reality is that the Government have considerably underestimated the cost of providing care, and I shall discuss in due course the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report on that subject.
    The hon. Gentleman is right: the shortage in social services resources is passed on to the care home sector and to other care providers. Indeed, that is an important reason for the loss of capacity across several different care sector providers. That unsustainable squeeze in fees over at least the last seven years—it predates this Government—has been a serious cause of the reduction in capacity.
    676
    The Minister was right to identify the introduction of the NHS community care legislation in the early 1990s as one of the triggers for the downward pressure by local authorities. The Conservative Government recognised that they had set in train a runaway budget funded through the Department of Social Security—as it then was—and they wanted someone to cap it. Central Government do not like to take responsibility for capping expenditure, so they turned to local authorities to do the dirty work for them. Over the past seven to 10 years, local authorities have been effective at their job, and that is why we see the current problems in the care home sector and well beyond.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Liberal Democrat-run East Sussex was, year after year, bottom of the national league tables for how much it paid the private sector, while it squandered millions of pounds on paying hundreds of pounds more a week for beds in its own homes?
    Mr. Burstow: I hope that, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman will stay to make his own speech, which he did not when he made that point in an intervention on my speech in January, when we initiated the debate. The answer is the same as it was to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Social services were underfunded by the Conservative Government for far too many years. It is hardly surprising that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) can make that point. The reality is that since the Conservatives returned to power in East Sussex, matters have not significantly improved.
    In January, I published evidence of the squeeze in fees. In the charitable care home sector, charities are having to make payments to top up local authority fees to provide decent care. That costs the charitable sector £185 million a year to provide decent pay and conditions for staff and decent quality care for care home residents. A recent letter from a charitable care home provider goes to the heart of the problem and states:
    "The demand for nursing and residential care remains high—we don't have any vacancies in our London homes but at a rate of as low as £247 a week we cannot afford to continue. A week's stay in a Travel Lodge in London without any meals or service from staff will cost you in excess of £400, what does this say about how the Government value the care of older people in our society?"
    That letter was sent to the Minister in May and is further evidence that the sector is underfunded and undervalued. We are trying to get care for the elderly on the cheap.
    Standards are an important part of the equation and the Liberal Democrats were committed to improving them during the passage of the care standards legislation. Indeed, some research into the quality of life in residential and nursing homes gives serious cause for concern. A report last year by the British Medical Journal found that in a six-hour daytime period, in several care homes in both the public and private sectors, residents spent half their time asleep, socially withdrawn or not actively engaged. Only 50 minutes were spent talking or communicating, and fewer than 12 minutes were spent in everyday constructive activities. We must all be concerned that that is the quality of life that far too many suffer in care homes.
    Last month, Rowntree published a report by the leading market analyst, William Laing, which found a £1 billion black hole in the funding of the care home sector.

    677
    The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), prayed that report in aid but did not say whether she supported the central thrust of its argument that the sector is under-resourced. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), can say whether the Government will seriously consider the model for costing care in care homes set out in the report, discuss it with the Local Government Association and representatives of the care home sector and start applying it. In that way, we might bridge the gap between what the sector says and what the Government say is needed to fund the sector properly.
    Laing and Buisson also produced a local report for Birmingham city council, and I am sure that the Minister will be aware of it. In May, Councillor Susanna McCorry, the Birmingham cabinet member for social services and health, wrote to the Minister saying:
    "63 care homes have closed in Birmingham and many more face an uncertain future in the current climate. The City Council does not have the funds to be able to support the sector to the degree that it requires in order to bring about stability. There is a potential crisis looming for Birmingham unless there is some immediate financial support forthcoming from the Government. In doing so, I firmly believe that this will boost the confidence of the sector and the City Council to work together to achieve the longer term goals that we have set ourselves."
    That was in May.
    Just last week, I received an e-mail from the Birmingham care consortium that said that more than half the care homes in the city have now declined the contract from the city council. As a consequence, many homes will turn away local authority-funded placements, exacerbating the problems of bed blocking in the city. That is one consequence of the underfunding of the system.
    Low pay and morale and poor staff retention are also serious problems. Many people get better paid stacking shelves in Tesco or working in a local IKEA. Providing care is a demanding and stressful job and we are rightly talking about requiring that more staff are trained, with 50 per cent. trained to national vocational qualification level 2 by 2005. But what happens when better trained staff work in a low-paid environment? They take their skills elsewhere, to the NHS or another public sector employer. There is no money in the system to recognise that level of training in the care home sector. What do the Government propose to do about that?
    The standards have been the final straw for many care home owners. That is not because they are wrong in principle, or indeed in many aspects of their practice—although my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) was right when he asked the Minister about the lack of consistency in the interpretation of standards by inspectors across the country. It would be a serious weakness in the system if we had national arrangements for regulating and inspecting care, only to find that individual inspectors still had far too much latitude in interpreting them on the ground.
    The Minister talked about the softly, softly approach that the Government announced at the beginning of the year to try to reassure the care home sector. The later implementation of many of the physical standards is certainly welcome, but removing the need to change room sizes until 2007 does not address the problem that care
    678
    home owners face when they see their bank managers to secure the loan to pay for the changes. It does not alter the fact that care home owners are asking for loans to remodel their homes to reduce the number of beds and therefore to receive less income. Bank managers will laugh in their faces and certainly will not provide the resources to facilitate the changes.
    Mr. Dawson rose—
    Mr. Burstow: I have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take another.
    Another problem that is causing great anxiety is the massive backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau. Any new member of staff at a care home has to be checked before they can start working. We have been told that that requirement has been put back to 1 August, but what will happen on 2 August to the care home manager or owner who has not been able to have the checks done? Will they go to prison? Will they have to close the home because they do not have the staff to keep it running? What will happen to the people in the home if it has to be shut down temporarily? How will that difficulty be overcome? Many care home owners want to know the answers and would welcome some detail from the Minister tonight.
    When I surveyed care homes earlier this year, it is no wonder that I found that seven out of 10 were considering refusing to take on local authority-funded placements and more than half had seriously considered closing their doors and going out of business in the past year. As the cabinet member from Birmingham told the Minister, confidence in the sector has collapsed. It is not only the poor quality homes that are closing but the homes that have invested in making changes to improve the quality of their facilities. They now have to pay more in interest charges to repay their debts and are struggling the most.
    The crisis is widening and deepening because of the crisis that is also developing in the home care sector where there are similar financial and staffing strains. Over the past few years, there has been a significant change in who receives home care. To manage their limited resources, social services departments have tightened their eligibility criteria year after year so that they exclude all but the most frail and desperately dependent people from staying in their homes.
    The Minister regularly trots out the fact that there are now more high dependency packages, but glosses over the fact that in the past five years, care packages have ceased for 109,900 people or they no longer receive care at home. That is a 22 per cent. reduction. What has happened to those people? Have they miraculously become independent? Do they miraculously no longer need any services? Or is it simply that their local authority has defined them out of eligibility for care? That is what the Government really mean by choice; it is no choice for people who do not quite qualify because their social services department cannot quite afford to provide them with the care that they need.
    What has struck me most in all the debates on this issue is that Ministers largely ignored the problem until it started to hit the national health service. When the statistics on delayed hospital discharge began to rise, Ministers became concerned and wanted to do something about it. The announcement last autumn about extra cash

    679
    was not really to deal with stabilising the sector but to do withtackling the Government's concern about the headline delayed discharge figure. It is nothing to do with choice—it is all about Government targets. The Government are concerned only about what they are directly responsible for and quite happy to leave social services to clear up the mess in relation to things that are not their responsibility.
    Delayed discharges are just a symptom—the result of the pressure on the care system as a whole. The Minister says that we need a whole system approach, but it is not happening.
    In the past two years, we have seen an 18 per cent. rise in emergency readmissions. People are being discharged prematurely because care home packages are no longer available for them. They turn up in accident and emergency departments, needing more care and support.
    The Government have failed to take a whole system approach, and the Wanless report, which was published on the day of the Budget, said as much. I hope that in his reply, the Under-Secretary will say that funding is at the root of the problem. Higher standards are not cost free. We were kidded when the regulatory impact assessment to the Care Standards Bill implied that everything could be done on a cost-neutral basis. It was nonsense then, and it is demonstrable nonsense now.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that the Minister of State admitted last week—only after a question that I tabled in March this year—that the regulatory impact assessment, which she signed off in December last year, was inaccurate in one very substantial measure?
    Jacqui Smith: In the annexe.
    Mr. Turner: That was part of the assessment, as far as I can tell. The estimated cost was given in the annexe as £52,000 per establishment, whereas in fact it was £52,000 per room.
    Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman highlights one of the errors in the regulations relating to disabled people in care homes. The regulations to which I am referring concern care homes for the elderly. However, he is right, and the figures had to be withdrawn as a result of that error. They caused anxiety across the sector when they were published because they did not add up. They did not add up when the Care Standards Act 2000 was implemented and the regulatory impact assessment was published. The figures were partial and did not give a true picture of what would happen after the Bill was implemented.
    We could continue to argue how much extra the social services sector does or does not need. The Government say that it is 6 per cent., while the SPAIN—social policy ageing information network—group and others argue for more.
    The Government deserve credit for the Wanless report, which studied and analysed the case for extra investment in the health system. We supported the recommendations with our votes when the legislation went through. We believe that there needs to be a Wanless report for social
    680
    care. Indeed, the Wanless report said time and again that there was a need for such an analysis, but it was not within its brief.
    Mr. Dawson: Liberal Democrat Members believe that there needs to be such a Wanless report; Wanless himself says so in the report.
    Mr. Burstow: I think that that was what I just said, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman endorses it. I hope that, despite the fact that Ministers have so far rejected that request, they will consider it. What do they have to hide? Why would they be concerned about having a detailed independent assessment of what is needed to provide quality social care?
    Dr. John Pugh: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in 1999 the Government changed the assessment of elderly people in the population from total elderly population to elderly population living in private accommodation. That put undue pressure on authorities with high numbers of residential homes and will continue to do so. While standard spending assessments are under review by the Government, is there not a case for them to take that factor on board?
    Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised a point of order earlier today in which he said that a consultation document was published today which deals with some of these issues. However, only four copies were lodged in the Library and there was a long queue at the photocopier so that Members could study it properly.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us why the Government have set their face against having a detailed independent assessment of the true resource needs to provide social care at the level that we expect.
    In the meantime, we believe that we need to strike a different balance in the resources going into the health system. Unless we inject additional resources into home care and care homes, difficulties with delayed discharges and emergency readmission will continue.
    Mr. David Drew: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on funding. However, there is also a systematic failure that I have not heard mentioned in the debate so far—the belief that the private sector alone can pick up the problems of the care sector. We need to look at other forms of organisation, principally mutual organisations, which are growing around the country. That must be emphasised as a solution at the centre of the situation rather than at the margins.
    Mr. Burstow: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about considering how to develop new models for the provision of care, such as co-operative and mutual organisations. We want to explore this area, which is an interesting way to ensure that there is a wider choice in the future.
    The Minister says that the seeds of today's crisis were planted with the unplanned, unmanaged expansion in the 1980s. However, Ministers today are presiding over yet another unplanned, unmanaged situation, this time a collapse. If they fail to address the concerns that have been brought to the House's attention tonight and in many previous Adjournment debates, they will, by their

    681
    complacency and denial of the facts, show that they are more interested in facilitating the loss of capacity through stealth in this sector and much more concerned about the headline delayed discharge figures than they are about choice, care and the dignity of people in old age.
    8.18 pm
    Dr. Howard Stoate: It gives me great pleasure to be called tonight, because I believe that I am the only Member of the House who carries on any medical practice. It always pleases me greatly to be able to enter into a debate about which I hope I know a certain amount.
    How elderly people are looked after is of great importance to doctors. Many of my patients end up in the nursing or care home sector sooner or later, and it is important to me to know that they are being looked after properly. Right hon. and hon. Members may be pleased to know that a number of elderly residents who have moved off my list into care homes still write to me once a year to let me know how they are getting on. It has probably more to do with letting me know that no one has managed to kill them off yet than with any care that I gave them. They certainly seem to want to keep in touch with their former general practitioner, which is pleasing.
    The majority of care homes give an excellent quality of service and live up to the expectations of many of their residents.
    Nevertheless there are significant problems in the care home sector and we must not underestimate or belittle them. The trouble with tonight's debate is that although the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was long on rhetoric and gave a passionate speech, to which I listened carefully, there was not a word about what his party would do in a similar situation. We heard only how terrible things were; there were lists of the numbers of places closing down and beds lost but not a word about what his party would do to address the situation, let alone to put it right.
    On the other hand, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) gave a thoughtful and careful exposition of the problems. I have great sympathy with much of what he said; many of the problems that he raised were entirely correct. At least he had some sensible questions and suggestions as to how we might address them.
    The debate is important and the subject is worthy of careful consideration; it should not be trivialised and turned into a party political rant. Sooner or later, many people in this place will probably need care of one sort or another in their old age. It is important to ensure that that care is of good quality.
    We have heard that there was a massive expansion of care homes in the 1980s. Indeed there was. I was practising then and an amazing number of care homes opened up all over the place. To paraphrase the slogan from a well-known supermarket, "Pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap", those care homes, under the auspices of the previous Conservative Government, were packing them in and selling them cheap. Many of those homes were providing low quality care, in small and shared rooms, with low staff numbers, inadequate training and poor nutrition. The standards of care in some of those homes were horrifying. The bottom line was profit—massive profit for the owners, but not necessarily good care for the residents.
    682
    That situation was not universal; many homes did a good job even then. However, the Government are trying to ensure that minimum standards are available for all residents, so that they can expect a minimum level of care wherever they go. The only way to do that is to raise standards, but all that we heard from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford was that we must not introduce higher standards too quickly; we must rein them back and dilute them. We never heard which standards he wanted to dilute and rein back or which ones he did not want to introduce. Perhaps he wants to put partitions across rooms to make them smaller. Perhaps he wants to do away with lifts. Perhaps he wants to reduce the quality of food available to the residents. All that we heard from him was how terrible things were and how much bureaucracy there was; neither he nor his party made a suggestion as to how we could address the problem.
    The vast majority of people who go into care homes do not actually choose to do so. Over the years, a large number of my patients have gone into care homes and I cannot remember one who said, "I am looking forward to going into a care home." The majority of them went into care because they or their families felt that there was no alternative. That is one of the problems that we have to face.
    Many people would much rather have a different type of care. They would prefer to be looked after by their own family in their own home, close to their friends. It is a tribute to the Government that they are at least prepared to address that issue and to try to provide care packages for people in their own home.
    As a GP, I think it is a tragedy when I occasionally have to send people to hospital, not because it is the right place for them but because it is the only place for them in the circumstances.
    Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman refers to care in the home. The Griffiths report, suppressed initially by the Conservative Government, suggested that there should be more such care. Care in the home was introduced in the 1990s—the Conservatives eventually adopted the recommendation—but it is restricted by cash. Social services departments throughout the country would like to establish more care in the home but they cannot afford to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should give more money to enable that to happen?
    Dr. Stoate: Yes. Of course more money should be going into the health service in general. Of course more money is needed for social services. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health told us that there would a real-terms cash increase of 6 per cent. next year and, hopefully, in subsequent years. Of course it is important that we put more money into the sector. Of course there must be more money for social services. Of course we need more money for hospitals. There is no question about that. We are suggesting more money, but we do not hear anything from the Conservatives about more money—and we hear very little from the Liberal Democrats, who are long on ideas but short on delivery. Of course more money is needed. Labour is finding more money, but it is important to spend it wisely and carefully.
    In our society, people are living longer, and that is right. Thanks in small part to people like me, people are living longer than they used to. Medical care is improving,

    683
    as it should be. Many people will have a long and—I hope—reasonably fruitful old age, but they will need increasing levels of care.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman referred to the 6 per cent. increase promised by the Minister. Does he agree that the money will be swallowed up almost immediately. First, the increase in staff wages is approximately 3 per cent. Many local authorities have been offering care homes only half the inflation figure. Secondly, the regulations require more and more staff, reducing staff-patient ratios, so the money will be completely eaten up and there will be no improvement in care standards.
    Dr. Stoate: The hon. Lady makes a fair point and I would be much more sympathetic if she were able to explain how her party could deliver more than 6 per cent. At least the Government are putting in 6 per cent., although I agree that it will probably not be enough and that we will need to put in even more. The Conservatives do not plan to put any money into the sector, so how will they achieve improved standards?
    During the 1990s, the Conservative Government awarded the social services real-terms increases, year on year, of about 0.1 per cent. At least we have put in considerably more than that. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that the increase will be swallowed up by increased staffing, higher care standards and improvements to the homes, but it is much more than we are being promised by the Opposition.
    Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of making the best of the available money would be to pool resources between social services, the health service and other partners in local health trusts, as in the pilot schemes initiated by the Government? Is that not a better way forward? We are finding imaginative and innovative ways of spending money wisely on behalf of our constituents.
    Dr. Stoate: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point—as always. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Health, we examined the relationship between health and social services to try to break down what we described as the Berlin wall between social and health care. We considered how health and social services could pool budgets and work collaboratively in the community to deliver care packages. We made some sensible suggestions that the Government were pleased to address and to adopt. My hon. Friend is right: we need more of that collaborative working because that is one of the ways that we can deliver better packages of care in the community.
    People are living longer and they will need longer periods of care. Local authority funds are stretched; their money will always be tight and we have to ensure that they can live within their budgets.
    The costs of providing decent care will always be high, however. The main thrust of my argument is to explore what we can do to reduce dependency on the care home sector. As a GP, when someone goes into hospital, I do not think it is a success—to a large extent I consider that
    684
    a failure. When I see an elderly person who is not coping in their own home, I do everything that I can to institute a care package in that person's home. If the nursing and social care facilities are available we can set up that package in the majority of cases. That work is unsung; it is not heroic or recognised. It is not even necessarily counted statistically. However, a vast amount of work is undertaken in people's homes—small amounts of nursing or social care, help from relatives and friends and so on—which can make a massive difference to people and can prevent them from having to go into a care home.
    Mr. Burstow: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could develop that point. Does he agree that we need to make progress on preventive strategies? One of the main problems is that the cuts that local authorities have made in those low-level home help services have devastated the moves towards preventive care. People have to do more for themselves and are putting themselves at risk of falls; a person has mucky nets and falls off a ladder trying to change them. Every year, the NHS spends £1.7 billion on hip fractures. Surely, we could recycle some of that money to provide low-level preventive measures.
    Dr. Stoate: That is an excellent suggestion. The hon. Gentleman has made some sensible proposals during the debate. He is right. A person aged over-75 who suffers a hip fracture has only a 25 per cent. chance of regaining independent life. The majority of people of that age who go into hospital with a fractured hip will end up in institutional care, which is a great tragedy. With proper rehabilitation, intermediate care beds, step-down facilities and care packages in the home, many of them could be rehabilitated to their own homes, but often they are not.
    Often, an elderly person may be coping nicely—although perhaps on the verge of early dementia—but if they are taken away from their home and put into hospital, they become institutionalised in almost no time at all. It is completely impossible for them to go back to their own home because they have lost the ability to cling on to their home circumstances and their little networks. When that goes, it is the end of their chance to be rehabilitated.
    Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend is making a very carefully constructed speech, but no one has so far mentioned the other part of the tripod, which is, of course, housing itself. One of the major reasons why people return to hospital is not necessarily their mental condition, but the fact that they live in inadequate or inappropriate housing. The unsung heroes are often the home improvement agencies, which do very minor alterations, such as fitting handrails or handles on baths. That is where we need to invest. It is not rocket science and it does not involve huge sums, but steady investment in such work could make an enormous difference. Does my hon. Friend agree?
    Dr. Stoate: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the sort of thing that we need to do; it is cheap, easy and quick. It does not involve huge waiting lists or create huge problems. It can often be done in a matter of days or weeks, and it can make the difference. As I have said, when vulnerable people lose contact with their surroundings, many of them can never live independently again.
    Mrs. Browning: As the hon. Gentleman is collecting good ideas, I hope that he thinks that it would be a good

    685
    idea to return to a policy that was in place across the country when the Conservatives were in office: instead of delivering a month's block of frozen food to elderly people in their homes, more hot, cooked meals should be delivered daily. I have just had the experience of having no alternative but to place an elderly relative in a residential home simply because she could no longer cope with cooking a meal at home on her own. That is exactly the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman is talking about in referring to the small things that make all the difference between life being sustainable independently and having to go into residential care.
    Dr. Stoate: I thank the hon. Lady for that very thoughtful contribution. I have a great deal of sympathy with what she says. I entirely agree that even a short daily visit from the meals-on-wheels service, providing a hot meal, can keep people more cheerful and gives them much more to look forward to each day than taking something out of the freezer and putting it into the microwave. Often the daily meal delivery is the only source of contact that an elderly person might get, tragic though that may sound. The daily visit from the meals-on-wheels service can make all the difference to the contact with the outside world.
    A two-minute chat about something of interest can make the difference. Small, simple things such as that save money. Although it may seem as though money is saved by giving elderly people a month's frozen food, the overall cost can often be much greater if they have to go into a residential home instead of looking after themselves at home.
    Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, but there is a further issue: diet and nutrition. There is evidence to show that a lot of the people who are delivered their meals in advance en bloc simply do not feed themselves regularly during the period that the food is intended to last them. Of course that has long-term effects and probably throws them back into the system.
    Dr. Stoate: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes another useful point. What he suggests is sometimes the case, but one hopes that the food provided by social services is of nutritionally good quality. I am sure that most of it is, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point: it is important that elderly people get good nutrition because, again, that can make the difference. Some research that I have done certainly suggests that many people—in particular, vulnerable elderly people—suffer from a form of malnutrition. They may not be calorie poor, but they are often nutrient poor, which can make a big difference to their mental and physical functioning and their overall strength and well-being.
    Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but we cannot honestly blame the frozen food because many of those meals are of nutritionally good quality, provided that people also supplement them with other food of their own. Nevertheless, that intervention is useful because what matters is looking after people in their own homes and getting people through the hospital sector as quickly as possible and back into their own homes. That is the right way forward.
    In Dartford, Darent Valley hospital, which is brand new, has fewer beds than the hospitals that it replaces, so there is greater pressure on those beds. That hospital will
    686
    flourish and provide a good service only if we can reduce bed occupancy lengths and have a faster throughput of patients. Often the problem, as many hon. Members will be aware from their own constituencies, is that too many of those beds are occupied by those whose discharge has been delayed. That effectively holds up the system, slows throughput, increases the mean length of occupancy and therefore causes problems in the acute and casualty end of the system. That is very difficult to manage.
    In the modern hospital sector, it is very important that hospitals are used for acute stays, lasting as short a time as possible, and that patients are moved through and into the community as quickly as possible.
    I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who was in the Chamber earlier, and I have been working on trying to get a step-down, intermediate facility in his constituency that will provide 100 beds for exactly that reason. People can be moved from the acute sector to the intermediate sector for rehabilitation and step-down care before being transferred to a residential home or, preferably, back to their own homes. We need to encourage that sort of initiative, and I am pleased that the Government are supporting that type of project. It is important that we do so because we can take the pressure off the acute sector and the care home sector.
    Clearly, we have a problem. I am not trying to diminish the fact that we have to face up to the problem, but it is what we do about it that really matters. I can honestly say that I have heard nothing from Conservative Members about what they would do about it. They have not produced a single solution or said what they would do if they were in this situation. They can rant and rave; they can make a fuss about what we are doing, but none of them has yet produced a sensible proposition. Liberal Democrat Members seem to have a rather more thoughtful approach, and I have been pleased to hear much of what they have said. I hope that they will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. DawsonMy hon. Friend is praising them too much.
    Dr. Stoate: I do not like to butter them up too much. My hon. Friend is right; it has to stop somewhere, but let it be said that we are an inclusive party and, if any Liberal Democrat Member wants to cross the Floor of the House and join us in our endeavours, they will be made very welcome.
    The important thing is that society has to face up to the fact that we have a problem. People are getting older. The cost of care is increasing. Thankfully, standards of care are also increasing, which we must surely all applaud. It must be right that those standards increase. It must also be right that the staff are paid and trained better and that the facilities in some of those homes are dramatically better than they were 20 years ago. That has to be the way forward.
    Clearly, money must be found and we have to find a way for the system to provide that sort of care. Clearly, we have to balance permanent, long-term care in residential homes with care in the community. All those things must be taken into account. That is why I am so pleased about this debate, and I hope that we can throw around some of those ideas.
    Richard Younger-Ross: We have heard a list of things to help reduce the need for people to go into care homes,

    687
    but would there not be less pressure on those relatives and families who are trying to get a relative moved into a care home if there were more support for carers and a greater recognition of their role?
    Dr. Stoate: That is an excellent point. We need to give carers more support. The figures that I have seen show that carers save the country many billions of pounds a year because of the care that they provide. Of course that must be recognised. Often carers have given up their own careers, sacrificed their own family life and made huge difficulties for themselves by being carers, but many of them are pleased to have done so.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we recognise the enormous contribution that carers make and that we support them as much as we can. We certainly need to give them all the help that we can. If we are to produce sensible solutions to the long-term care problem, all of us—carers, social services, the health service and the Government—have to work together, so I shall be pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say later in reply to some of my remarks.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I make a plea for shorter speeches? Many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye this evening, and I am afraid that an awful lot of them will be disappointed if speeches continue to be so long.
    8.37 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) this evening. He seemed to spend a lot of his speech telling us that the Opposition had no suggestions, but he seemed to spend the other half of his speech agreeing that we were making fair points in our interventions. He can't have his cake and eat it. He seemed to be short on suggestions, but he seemed to understand the problems that were articulated so well by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in opening this important debate.
    Buckinghamshire is not the sort of place that one thinks of as being in great need. Mention of my constituency conjures up visions of leafy lanes and expensive housing: it is not the first place that springs to mind as having a problem. One would be completely wrong about that, however, since in common with the rest of the country at the moment, my constituency has an enormous problem with the sick and the elderly. Like other constituencies, Chesham and Amersham is suffering from a great crisis in the care homes sector.
    In Buckinghamshire, there is an association called the Buckinghamshire Association of Care Homes—BACH. I do not know whether the Minister has come across it, but it has established itself as a very strong voice for the sector. I would like to put on record my gratitude to Peter Hall, Peter Beard, Georgina Rixon, Paul Fletcher, Graham Faulkner and particularly Councillor Hugh Carey, who have briefed me and my colleagues in Buckinghamshire and who accompanied us to see the Minister earlier this
    688
    year about a large catalogue of problems. The Minister was courteous, but, sadly, powerless to stop the disaster that faces us all.
    Over the past few years, there have been substantial changes in this sector: mounting labour costs, new standards and regulations, and a lack of confidence in the future viability of the care homes market. Most of those problems can be laid at the feet of Government. If I am generous with my interpretation, I would say that the Government have tried. In reality, however, they do not have the foresight, experience or expertise to realise the unintended consequences that their actions have caused.
    The national minimum wage, the working time directive, increases in pay awards to NHS nurses and staff shortages—of nurses, care assistants and domestics—are all wreaking havoc. The other day, a constituent told me that the care home in which her husband now lives starts putting residents to bed at 3 pm, as there are often only two staff to put 16 people to bed. What a humiliating ordeal for people in their final years.
    The new standards and regulations, as we have heard, have rolled over the care sector like a smothering blanket—new national minimum standards, codes of practice from the General Social Care Council and European legislation. Individually, they make great sense and afford protection, as many people have acknowledged. Put together over a short period, however, they have had a disastrous effect—forcing local authorities to withdraw from running residential care homes, and closing non-compliant homes that could not cope.
    The Minister may be aware that the National Society for Epilepsy is based in my constituency. It has written to me, stating:
    "The new national care standards place considerable pressures on care homes to upgrade accommodation."
    Indeed, the NSE has evaluated that it will cost some £15 million to put the establishment in my constituency into the condition now required by the Government. No one can argue with the aims of the new standards—they are highly commendable and have the best interests of clients at their heart. No money has been allocated, however, to enable care homes that are already under financial pressure to undertake the required improvements. As a result, care homes are closing because they do not have sufficient funds to enable them to meet the new standards. Other care homes are having to draw on reserves to enable them to undertake the work, but it is putting them under increasing financial pressure. As far as the National Society for Epilepsy is concerned, the £15 million that it must find will come out of money that could be spent on valuable research.
    In addition, the care standards require higher levels of training for care staff. By 2005, 50 per cent. of all staff will be required to have achieved NVQ level 2 or above, or be working towards that qualification—all at a cost to the organisation. That is in addition to a raft of other mandatory training on moving and handling, fire, food and hygiene. Furthermore, all housing managers will in future have to have a registered manager's qualification or equivalent. The Minister must appreciate that the training will be very costly and time-consuming. Again, nobody can argue against the desirability of having those standards. The demands that are being put on the sector, however, are virtually unbearable.
    The lack of confidence is only too apparent. Investors and corporates are increasingly viewing the care homes market as financially unstable and offering insufficient

    689
    returns on capital invested. Many voluntary and charity operators are also adopting that view. There have been massive bed losses—whether the loss is 50,000 or a net loss of 19,000 is irrelevant. Not least because of this Government's drive to concrete over the south-east, existing home owners are finding that a higher value is placed on their land than on the business that they operate. Selling for housing development causes less sleepless nights and puts money in the bank. Private and voluntary operators run 85 per cent. of the care home market; if there is little incentive for them not to sell up and withdraw, what will happen?
    What has been the effect on the care homes market? Over the past five years, local authority fees have fallen below open market fees. In Buckinghamshire, the usual fee is running at approximately £100 a week down. The budgetary and central Government restraints will not enable our local authorities to purchase bed spaces at levels necessary effectively to reduce delayed discharges in hospital services such as respite and intermediate care.
    Many care homes survive because their private-paying clients subsidise the lower fees paid by the state-funded clients. However, voluntary sector and charity operators estimate that they subsidise local authority-funded clients in their homes by about £185 million, and that will prove to be a problem in itself. The Charity Commission has stated that charities such as the National Society for Epilepsy cannot use their funds to finance the care costs of local authority-funded placements.
    For many years, the NSE, like many other care providers, has consistently subsidised the provision of care services, because there has been insufficient funding from Government and local authorities and thence to care homes. In the case of the NSE, that has meant subsidies of about £1 million per annum in recent years. The Charity Commission has made it clear that such subsidies constitute an illegal use of funds, and that means that charities cannot use charitable funds to subsidise what is a statutory responsibility of the funding authorities.
    That has led the NSE to review its fee structure and, in turn, led to detailed assessments being made of all residents to ensure that individual fees realistically cover the level of care provided. The average increases are about 40 per cent, but I am sad to say that some are much higher. In some instances, 100 per cent. increases have had to be made. Throughout the year, the NSE has negotiated with local authorities across the country to introduce the new fees and it has largely been successful. It has skilled negotiators. However, the negotiations are still going on with some authorities that continue to claim that they are underfunded themselves.
    In some instances, the fee increases are for residents who have been at the NSE for many years—some for several decades. Some authorities have threatened to move residents of long standing by saying that they are able to provide care more cheaply elsewhere. But are such decisions being made in the best interests of the clients, or are they being made purely on the ground of funding? I hope that the Minister will answer that question, because some funding authorities appear to be using clients as pawns.
    According to the NSE, there is a lack of clarity between health and social services. Up to 70 per cent. of the subsidies made over recent years have been to cover the health needs of individual clients. Fees are currently paid
    690
    by the local authority which, in turn, claims the health component from the NHS via the local primary care trust. However, there are no clear pathways as to how that funding can be acquired. It is evident from feedback from local authorities that there are inconsistencies in the response from the health authorities over what constitutes health care for individual clients. Clarification and clearer pathways are required.
    I also wish to mention fairer charging, because my local authority has raised the issue with me. The Government have required that all local authorities review their charging policies to ensure that those people on basic levels of income support plus 25 per cent. are not charged for non-residential services after 1 October 2002. The Government intended that to be cost neutral, but that is patently not the case and no transitional funding is available to help local authorities.
    Buckinghamshire county council has put in £1.2 million of local taxpayers' money into the base this year to offset the potential loss of income through implementing fairer charging and I have to tell the Minister that—may well not be enough. As a result, it is likely that some people will pay more than they currently do, and some will pay considerably more. Those on modest incomes will be hit the hardest. Carers may decide that enough is enough and ask social services departments to take over the responsibility for caring. What will happen then? That will add stress to the system, and high costs now may mean that many individuals will have insufficient provision for their old age.
    My county council is in crisis. Its standard spending assessment for the past two years was the second lowest in the country. In 1999–2000 and 2000–01, it was the lowest. Even in the year before-1998–99—it was the second lowest. Two nursing homes closed last year in Buckinghamshire—another may close shortly—and we lost 58 places as a result. Laing and Buisson says that by 2010 there will be a 16.9 per cent. increase in the demand for residential nursing places which by 2021 will be 51.8 per cent.
    Buckinghamshire has an average number of older people, but that is changing. There is some variation in demand in different parts of the county, but beds for the elderly mentally ill are in short supply across the area. Overall demand for care home places will increase significantly. In 2006, cumulative growth demand since 2001 will be 7.3 per cent., which compares with the estimated figure of 3.3 per cent. for the rest of the United Kingdom. The growth is projected to rise by nearly 20 per cent. by 2011. Despite that, we have the second lowest standard spending assessment allocation. The shortages of beds will be most critical in the Chiltern and Wycombe area.
    I could go on about the difficulties in gaining access to beds, their costs, the increasing delays in hospital discharges and the choices of which my constituents are deprived, but it is only fair to let other hon. Members speak. My constituents want dignity for the elderly in our community. The pressures on the county council, the charities, the residential homes and the families in my constituency are almost unbearable. I ask the Minister to halt the crisis and stop it deepening. I ask him to provide practical solutions to the catalogue of problems.
    I am a fair woman and will say that perhaps the Government's intentions have been good, but the consequences have been disastrous. Sadly, Ministers

    691
    appear incapable of taking responsibility. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), to the Front Bench for the first time tonight. I hope he will not add to the catalogue of shame created by his Government's policies on care homes and will rise above the policies that have been so damaging.
    8.52 pm
    Laura Moffatt: Frankly, the speech by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was a disgrace. The debate is important and anyone with an interest in care of the elderly would not take his view. When I finished my training as a nurse, I chose care of the elderly as my specialism because it is the most challenging, difficult and fulfilling sector of nursing care. That is also true of ensuring the quality of life for older people in our community, but the Conservatives reduce that to a mere issue. The motion refers to fees and standards, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was only about standards.
    Mr. Burns: It was not.
    Laura Moffatt: The hon. Gentleman should look at Hansard. I take issue with him on another matter, too. When asked what he would cut from care standards, he said that that was not what he was saying, but he cannot quote such sources and expect people to think that he is arguing for something else. Care homes are important and we need to have a reasonable debate on them. The debate has improved no end since he spoke, and hon. Members need to consider the problem properly.
    We are not daft: we know there are difficulties. We participate in and assist our communities by working with Age Concern and nursing homes. There is an increasing number of older people in our communities and we are trying to understand the problems that that creates. I welcome the fact that they have better health care and live longer and happier lives. If this debate had been entitled "The quality of life for older people," we might have heard a slightly better contribution from the hon. Gentleman.
    Even if some members of our community are having difficulties, there is another way to approach this debate, which is to be reasonable and honest, as we were in Crawley. We got together everybody in the care sector and talked about how we could improve the quality of life for older people, no matter whether they are in residential care or being cared for in the community. We included GPs and nurses from the primary care trust, representatives from the acute trust, social services, the Alzheimer's Disease Society, ethnic minorities, Health Watchdog, Age Concern and Carers UK, the son of an elderly person in a nursing home, a private care home manager and, to advise on benefits issues, Crawley borough council. I am glad to say that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), also came to the conference.
    Mrs. Gillan: What would the hon. Lady say to the Buckinghamshire Association of Care Homes, whose representatives came with me to see the Minister on 4 December to set out a catalogue of problems they are
    692
    facing, since when not one thing has been done to alleviate any of those problems, which I have also set out today? My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has expressed very well the depth of anger in this country. The hon. Lady should appreciate that all in the garden is not rosy and people are deeply angry about what is happening.
    Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, I think. I hope that I was demonstrating that there is another way to achieve something better. I achieved something better through that conference, and I should like to explain how its achievements are taking pressure off our care homes. Among other things, the Government gave several million pounds to increase fees in West Sussex, which were a difficulty. We had been campaigning on that issue to ensure that the county council could pay adequately for people's care. There are ways to campaign, and it is not a solution for care home managers simply to say, "I want more money." We have to be a bit more active to achieve what we want in our communities.
    Mrs. Browning: Like the hon. Lady, I have regular meetings in my constituency, and have done for the past 10 years, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that the meetings held in recent years have signalled the crisis in care homes which we are now facing.
    If I asked the Minister to come to such a conference in my constituency, would Devon county council receive sums like those given to the hon. Lady's area?
    Laura Moffatt: It is for the hon. Lady to make her own representations to Ministers, and I hope that she is able to achieve something different in her community—a more co-operative way of working that I have found helpful. I do not say that it has produced everything that I wanted, but it has certainly ensured that we work together more closely and more effectively.
    We looked at our priorities and at specific problems. Nobody is saying that there is no difficulty in the sector; that is precisely why we held the conference in Crawley. We were looking at solutions, not just shouting about the problems. Of course we had to listen to uncomfortable comments, and we talked about money.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problem was the previous Conservative Government? I was a councillor 10 years ago, and I saw the effects of their policies on the care sector. They brought in differential charging, which allowed private sector care homes to charge higher fees than local authority homes, and that led to the boom of profiteering at the expense of elderly people and forced local councillors to close residential sectors. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
    Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Anyone who was a state registered nurse at the time could tell us that they were approached by several people saying, "I've got some money to put into this nursing home—would you be keen to head it up?" There would be no investigations into how committed they were—it was just about getting a figurehead so that money could be made. Of course that situation had to end—it was

    693
    ludicrous and inhumane. So we moved on to think about solutions, and we came up with worthwhile proposals to help to reduce the pressure on the care home sector. The pressure is not caused solely by care standards—it comes from our relatives and friends who want to ensure that they are getting the best. Anyone would think that some strange organisation was attempting to put pressure on nursing homes. We want to ensure that our people have the very best in care.
    One of the most important comments that the nurse from the acute sector made was that they have too many admissions from older people who have not had their medicines reviewed for a long time. They become unsteady on their feet and fall over, then—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said—they become disoriented and find it difficult to go back to their homes. A lot of work is going on in Crawley to consider that issue with the PCT. The aim is to have a mobile team that goes around assessing older people in their own homes to ensure that they are on the right sort of medication. That is a practical approach to keeping people out of the care sector and reducing the pressure.
    We know from our constituencies about the suffering that is caused by dementia problems. That cannot be cured just by saying, "Everybody must go into residential care." That is not the answer. Carers want to keep their friends and family at home so that they can care for them there. So we considered respite care—using the care home sector for shorter stays, so that the carer could have a holiday while their loved one was cared for by others for a while. Giving carers the proper rest that they need helps to ensure that people can be kept at home. It is important to provide extra care homes—fantastic facilities that give people a front door and allow them to receive the care that they need, such as having a hot meal during the day, being properly bathed and being cared for around the clock. We have one in Crawley and more are to be provided. Having a health partnership manager has proved to be enormously helpful in reducing the number of delayed discharges from care. The post is jointly funded by the trust and west Sussex social services.
    All sorts of measures can be taken: improved joint working; increased capacity to deal with the increasing numbers of older people; more intermediate care; sustained funding increases that mean that is possible to predict increased finances, which we could never do in the past; improved discharge planning; and increased medical checks. There is plenty that we can do. Age Concern is setting up a new advice centre to help people to stay in their homes for as long as they possibly can.
    I shall sit down now to allow other hon. Members to speak. I hope that the rest of the debate reflects our understanding that there is plenty that can be done and that solutions can be found; we do not have to return to trotting out the line that there is just not enough money in the care sector. If we are imaginative, we can do it, and I hope that other hon. Members are prepared to be so.
    9.3 pm
    Sir George Young: The House was interested to hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) talk about the partnership approach that she helped to promote in her constituency. I am sure that the same is true in many other constituencies. However, I disagree with what she said
    694
    about my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). He made a fine and impassioned speech, and I hope that it is placed in residents' lounges in care homes around the country.
    One of the claims made by this Administration was that they would introduce joined-up government, but this area of policy is marked by serious discontinuity. We were told that the comprehensive spending review would introduce stable, generous and confident financial regimes for public sector services, but this area is riddled with one-off payments to meet continuing crises, with no sustainable solution in sight.
    We have been told that the way forward is partnership, but the Government have proposed entitling one partner to fine the other, although not the other way round, and have passed a Bill enabling one partner, the NHS, to take over the other partner, social services, at the whim of the Secretary of State. We have seen substantial and welcome increases in the budget of one partner, the NHS, at the same time as we have seen unsustainable settlements for the other, social services departments.
    The point where the two systems meet now has a name of its own: DTC—delayed transfer of care, which is an epitaph to policy failure. I want to speak from three perspectives—that of the NHS, social services and care home owners—and then outline a way forward.
    First, on the NHS, cash for change has not solved the bed-blocking problem. I shall quote from the minutes of the North Hampshire Hospitals trust of 11 June:
    "There are now 60 Delayed Transfer of Care patients that are also causing pressure on staff. The number of long term delayed transfer of care patients was a cause for concern."
    Those minutes concerned Basingstoke hospital, where bed blocking is still an issue. I asked the other major hospital that serves my area, which is run by the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare trust, about its experience. Its bed-blocking figures are down from last winter, but at the same level as a year ago, totalling 59. If one looks at the reasons why, one sees that the problem is not going away.
    Last year, at the worst, there were 25 cases of bed blocking owing to lack of funding. That number has now gone down to one. However, there are now 17 bed blockers due to there being no vacancy in a nursing home, as against one a year ago. On top of those 18, there are three bed blockers because of no vacancies in residential homes. Thirteen are still looking for suitable placements and 12 self-funders either have no vacancies or are looking for suitable placements.
    Cash for change will not solve that strategic problem of undercapacity. A series of one-off payments simply builds up problems for the future. In Southampton, for example, the top-ups that the city paid for discharges from acute beds in 2001–02 out of cash for change produced an ongoing financial commitment into 2002–03, which means that there are no top-ups in the current year. So one blockage—shortage of cash—has been partially and temporarily cleared, but the logjam has simply moved to the next bend in the river: shortage of beds.
    That brings me to social services. Hampshire county council has a competent, caring department that is struggling to do its best with the resources available, but it is caught between the rock of the revenue support grant and the market realities of care home provision. I asked Hampshire county council how its expenditure on social services compared with its standard spending assessment.

    695
    In 1988–89, it spent £1 million under its SSA. The next year, it spent £5.1 million over its SSA, and that has gone up ever since until this year, when the budget is £11 million over the SSA.
    I know that SSAs are simply a means of distributing grant, but if a council overspends on social services, it must either underspend on education or put up the rates faster than the Government would like. If the Government were open about the matter, they would recognise that they are increasingly vulnerable to the accusation of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others that they have got that part of the settlement seriously wrong.
    Of course we must develop intermediate care services in order to try to divert demand, and Hampshire county council is doing that. However, that is unlikely to be wholly effective, especially when one takes into account the most dependent and vulnerable older people who need nursing care. The demography time bomb is ticking away; the population of over-65s will increase by 3 per cent. by 2007, and the over-85s by 6 per cent. The demand for nursing home places continues to rise. Over the past three years, the number of publicly supported nursing placements has risen by 9 per cent.
    While demand increases, supply is falling. All the underfunding has affected the market. Between April 2001 and March 2002, 252 residential beds and 103 nursing beds net were lost to closures. In the previous year, the numbers lost were 89 and 75 respectively, so the losses are accelerating. Specifically in relation to nursing homes, there has been a reduction of 400 beds over the past three years—about 10 per cent. of total capacity.
    That leads me to my final ingredient: care home owners. They feel isolated and vulnerable. That wholly understandable emotion feeds through to their staff—who read the papers and listen to the radio—and of course to the residents and their relatives. There is now a crying need for stability and confidence, to which I shall return in a moment.
    I received an e-mail on Saturday from my constituent Mr. Chalmers, who lives in Tadley. He said:
    "What is causing care homes for the elderly to keep closing at the rate they are at the moment? … My elderly aunt aged 95 is now being forced to look for another home (3 in 2 years) as they keep closing and being sold off."
    Like other Members, during the election I visited most of the care homes in the constituency and, in preparation for this debate, I returned to one, a well-run, 2 I -bed home with an owner-manager. To get to the bottom of the figures, I asked her what the costs were. Allowing for no return on capital at all, and allowing the owner-manager £35,000 as salary, the weekly costs are £348 per resident—£273 is paid by Hampshire county council for the residents whom it sponsors, with self-funders paying £375. That is an indefensible cross-subsidy. I have no objection to residents on low incomes who are sponsored by social services being subsidised, but they should be subsidised explicitly from the public purse, not by their fellow residents and their families.
    The basic wages in the home are £4.50 an hour, with more for qualified staff. The owner would like to pay more, but she cannot. It is difficult to retain staff, given the buoyant labour market in North-West Hampshire. The owner is grappling with extra costs, such as those incurred
    696
    by complying with new regulations on radiator covers. There are 42 radiators in the home, and she has had quotes of up to £10,500 to cover them. I am sure she will do so, but in the meantime she has had to build a new cupboard and buy more ringbinders to store the growing amount of paper she has to keep—circulars, regulations, staff assessments, residents' assessments and so on. I am sure that other Members have found that some owners are beginning to resent the growing number of better-paid people who check, supervise and monitor them and tell them how to run their business.
    Mr. Swire: Has the person in my right hon. Friend's constituency suffered from the same problem as a care home owner in Exmouth, who contacted me to say that he and his wife, who own the home, and their daughter, the matron, have had a letter from the National Care Standards Commission, inviting them to apply to the Criminal Records Bureau for enhanced clearance. They have been given until 1 August to comply, otherwise they will have to close down, but they have been unable to get through to the bureau.
    Sir George Young: We must have sensitive and sympathetic application of the regulations if good people are to stay in the market. In Hampshire, there are homes that are having to remove en suite bathrooms to meet the space requirements, which cannot be right.
    The argument that the crisis is less of a crisis because implementation of some regulations has been deferred sounds plausible, but is invalid if we want to achieve a confident care home market. For those who are not going to meet the standards for whatever reason, it simply postpones the day of reckoning and ultimate closure. Those who would like to stay want to know that staying in the market will be worth while and that fees will rise, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said.
    Many owners need funding to invest, but the banks read the newspapers and are growing more cautious. An inadequate revenue flow will not permit home owners to borrow the necessary capital to fund changes. Earlier this year, at the behest of the Department, the personal social services research unit carried out research into the reasons for closures. It concluded that a number of factors were at work, but describe two as being "decisive" in the owners' decision to close—low prices and the belief that they would not increase sufficiently.
    To sum up, there is a clear picture of continued increases in demand led by demography, coupled with a reduction in supply. Costs are rising and are likely to go on rising, driven by higher standards and better treatment of staff and residents. Insufficient funds, however, are being made available to meet market prices. The gap is far wider than the Government seem to recognise. The system survives by low returns on capital; indefensible cross-subsidy; underpaying of staff; moral pressure on families to top up funding; bed blocking; and delays in assessment.
    Although the Government pay lip service to the need for a healthy and well-run care sector, they have not done enough to secure it. They should make crystal clear what they expect from the sector in the long term and clarify the role of residential and nursing home care in the overall scheme of community care. They should make it clear

    697
    that they want good people to stay in the sector and that they want more good people to invest in it. They should work out the likely level of demand, and then, in discussion with local authorities and the industry, put a price on what that is going to cost. That should then be factored into the SSA so that the resources are made available. In the meantime, the Government should abandon their policy of taking social services departments into the NHS. They are not running the NHS efficiently, and I do not believe that they would do it any better if they took on extra responsibilities for community care.
    It is legitimate to ask where the money should come from. I would shave it off some of the growth money aimed at the NHS. We simply cannot limp on as we are. That is not fair on owners, residents or staff, so I urge the Government to recognise the scale of the problem that confronts them and to come up with an effective response.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate, not least because I do so under the eyes of 22,000 older constituents and a vigorously active mother, who will no doubt scrutinise every word that I say. I shall speak for only five minutes in order to allow others to get in, but it is a pleasure to take part in a debate which has featured some excellent contributions.
    It is worth pointing out that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was the first speaker from the Opposition Benches who, in stressing the important issues facing the private sector, started to move the debate along a little and to recognise that health and social care are a system and need to be a partnership, and that all elements of that partnership need to work together. That view has not come over from earlier Opposition speeches, which characterises the Opposition's approach to the matter. They emphasise one part of the system over the other parts and miss the essence of what the debate should be about.
    There are huge issues to consider and desperately important issues to resolve. In difficult circumstances, the Government are taking on the matter properly and working along the right lines. We have the national service framework for older people, which emphasises person-centred care, choice and respect for individuals. I believe that residential care can be a positive choice. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) about that.
    The Government have emphasised investment in major resources for health and social care and high standards across the entire field of care—in people's own homes, in the community, and in residential care, nursing care and hospital. They have emphasised partnership across the various elements of the public sector—health, county and district councils, and the private and voluntary sectors. They have emphasised flexibility in meeting the needs of older people, irrespective of who provides the care.
    There are a host of issues involved, but the urgent imperative is to build a partnership culture, moving way beyond the sort of systems that were in place under the previous Government, to develop a robust working relationship between the public, private and voluntary sectors, and above all to place older people, their relatives and carers at the heart of the system, at the forefront of concern and at the centre of the debate.
    698
    We have faced a terribly difficult situation in Lancashire over the past few months. Various speakers have referred to that already. It has been a traumatic experience for hundreds of older people in residential care and their families. I hope that we are coming through that now. The clear message that Lancashire county council must have got from listening to older people and from the work of inveterate campaigners, such as Bob and Ann Trafford of Poulton le Fylde in my constituency, is that the public sector services that the council provides are of very good quality and are highly valued by the people who use them.
    I hope that the consultation to which Lancashire county council will respond on 25 July will seek to build on those resources, build on partnership, use those resources flexibly and create a continuum of care based in the communities that need them, for the older people who require them. I think that the Government have laid down a very good structure for the future of care, that they are clearly inspecting what is going on and keeping their ears to the ground and that they are concerned to ensure that partnerships grow and develop. The work of the King's Fund, which I mentioned earlier, emphasises that progress is being made.
    We are talking about huge cultural change. We need to ensure that local authorities and health services show evidence of progress in terms of sustainable partnerships and improved services that impact on people's lives. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in the Department of Health will maintain very close scrutiny of what is going on in Lancashire. On the basis of primary care trust areas engaging properly with the private and voluntary sectors, district councils and older people as firm partners, we have the opportunity to develop services and move on, but we need to maintain tight scrutiny of what is going on and to ensure that the system works in future and that it does so very well.
    9.21 pm
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate.
    It is clear that we have twin national crises: the problem of care homes and the interlinked problem of bed blocking. We have heard about almost 50,000 beds being lost nationally, the problems of bed blocking throughout the country and the £1 billion black hole in funding identified by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, but I should like briefly to consider the local scene in East Sussex and Eastbourne in particular.
    Eastbourne has a high proportion of elderly residents, and we have the highest proportion of over-85s in the whole country. We have already been disadvantaged once by the standard spending assessment formula changes to which one hon. Member has referred. It is important to say, although it is almost a footnote in this debate, that care homes and nursing homes are a significant part of the local economy.
    The problem has been growing for years and the number of homes closing has grown steadily. As I said earlier, we have been bottom of the league table in East Sussex for many years in terms of our payments to the private sector. At the same time, under the Liberal Democrats, millions of pounds were wasted year after year on the ruinous cost of keeping open homes run by the county council purely for reasons of political dogma.

    699
    I have raised that matter over and over again in the House. I first did so in a 1996 debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) responded as Under-Secretary of State for Health. Most recently, I secured a debate in late 2000 in which I raised many of these issues.
    We know that the homes have been hit by a triple whammy: the low rates paid by many councils; the funding of new regulations such as the minimum wage and the working time directive; and, of course, the requirements of the Care Standards Act 2000. The direct consequence has been the growth in bed blocking, or delayed discharges. The other day, I saw a press release from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), in which she trilled about how wonderful things were and about how many older people would be able to leave hospital on time. That was not the picture that I saw when I recently visited my local district general hospital. It is doing all the right things; it has opened a medical assessment unit, which is doing very well, and has just officially opened a surgery assessment unit. However, all those efforts to make best use of resources are being distorted by the number of bed blockers in the hospitals.
    The very latest figures, which I received only today, show that across the East Sussex Hospitals NHS trust, there are currently no fewer than 131 bed blockers. That is an enormous number, especially in the light of the already stretched resources of the hospitals. In the winter of 1999–2000, there was virtually no bed blocking at all, so it is a relatively recent phenomenon, one entirely presided over by this Government and produced by their policies.
    I acknowledge that there has been some extra Government funding but it has not produced the desired effect. I am pleased that, under the leadership of Councillor Keith Glazier and his team, there is now much closer working with social services and other relevant agencies but the problem still shows no sign of improving; it seems to be continually getting worse.
    As I have touched on already, the problem we had over some eight years in East Sussex was the Liberal Democrat administration, which, as I have explained, squandered money on its own homes. One that has closed is Parker House in my constituency. Despite the dedication and care provided by the staff there, it was not meeting the old standards, let alone the new ones.
    By the time the Liberal Democrats were thrown out of office about a year ago, some 800 people had been assessed as needing care who were not receiving it. God knows how many had not been assessed. Now that figure is less than 200, and it is expected to be zero by the end of this month. For the information of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative administration, despite a very tight budget, has increased its payments to the private sector by 8 per cent. above inflation in the current year.
    These are not just dry statistics. I remember the case of the elderly lady who contacted me and whose husband was at home dying from cancer. She could get no help at all in looking after him and lifting him; she damaged her own back. I finally managed to get social services to take an interest. I received a very touching letter from the lady
    700
    saying that she was grateful for all my help but by the time they had come to talk about a package or putting her husband in residential care, he had sadly passed away. One wonders how many such cases there are of which we are as yet unaware.
    Only recently, we received the joint report on East Sussex from the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate, which gave services zero stars. It included damning indictments of the previous Liberal Democrat administration—so damning in fact that a number of leading local politicians, myself included, have called for Councillors Tutt and Rogers to withdraw from public life as they were the ones who presided over that disaster. Typically, we have not received a word of apology or regret from either of those gentlemen. They have shown the same unwillingness to accept responsibility that they showed when they were running social services in East Sussex.
    As I have said, it is a matter not just of statistics but of people's lives—cases such as the one to which I have referred and others that we may never hear of. Those are the real reasons why those councillors should go. If they had a shred of decency or responsibility, they would have left by now.
    I am pleased to say that the new administration has put more than £4 million extra into the budget to support older people and to tackle hospital discharge, but the question that I still need the Minister to answer is how on earth the Government will tackle the fact that 131 people are still in hospitals in my area with no prospect of being discharged.
    9.28 pm
    Kali Mountford: In the short time now allowed me, I would like to put the record straight. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) told the House that three care homes were closing in Kirklees, which covers my constituency. The House should know what is happening in Kirklees. There are 14 residential homes and three of them are indeed due to be closed, but what is going to happen to them bears some examination.
    One home is to be taken over by the Housing Corporation and will become 40 new flats for elderly people. It will include day services, a medical centre and all the ongoing help that those elderly people will need. The second will be turned into an intermediary care facility. Conservative Members have shown a great deal of interest in deferred discharge from hospital. People will be able to go into that centre to receive the assessment and help that they need after a period of ill health, an accident or a crisis in the home, and to move on to the sort of care that is most appropriate for them. So, to present this as a simple case of closure is inaccurate and wrong.
    The House should also be aware of other facilities that are available in the area. I have already mentioned Moorlands Grange, which my hon. Friend the Minister has visited, and which represents the way forward for integrated care for elderly people. We need to examine what is taking place in Kirklees, where a whole system approach is being used. Moorlands Grange is a resource centre where people can have an assessment of their needs, then—properly supported—move out into the community and back into their own homes. We have heard much from Conservative Members today, but in my constituency 453 people received intensive care in their

    701
    homes last year; this year, the figure will go up to 533, and we have set a challenging target of more than 850 people in two years' time. We are seeing a growth in supporting people in their homes, and that is the way forward. Let us use our homes for what they are best used for; let us keep people in their homes, where they are most safe and secure and feel most comfortable.
    9.31 pm
    Tim Loughton: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), to his debut at the Dispatch Box, which we eagerly await. I look forward to many other opportunities to debate with him in the future. I am only sorry that he is making his debut in a debate on a serious matter on which his Government have such a lousy record.
    We have had a good debate, which was excellently and passionately opened by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). In contrast, the response from Labour Members was the usual fake indignation, as if it were a bit of a cheek for hon. Members to raise this issue again tonight. I was particularly surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who has expertise in this area. She knows how my own county of West Sussex has been coping exceedingly well in very difficult circumstances with one of the highest number of elderly people in the country, and how it received a two-star rating in the latest social services rating list.
    I am afraid that we heard the usual complacency from the Minister, as well. She talked about scaremongering and said that, apparently, there were "too many" care home beds in 1996, and that we have had only a "small" number of bed losses since then. I would hate to see what she regards as a large number of bed losses. This is a serious problem. The ageing time bomb that we all face is perhaps one of the most significant problems affecting our constituencies today.
    According to the Government Actuary, there were 7.8 million people over the age of 65 in 1996 and, by 2031, that figure will have risen by 60 per cent. The biggest rise will be among the over-85s, who receive no additional funding through the health authorities once they reach 75, but who incur many extra health costs. By 2007, for the first time ever, pensioners in this country will outnumber children under 16. A man aged over 65 has a 9 per cent. chance of requiring residential care for the rest of his life, or a 5 per cent. chance of requiring nursing care. For women, the figures are much higher: 13 per cent. and 37 per cent. respectively. That is why this is such a serious matter, and why we are quite deliberately raising it again in the House this evening.
    By any measure, the population is ageing. However much we may do to enable older people to live active lives in their own homes, with the support of carers, relatives and social services, we shall still require a big increase in the amount of residential care and nursing care beds. In fact, the Office for National Statistics estimates that the number of places will have to expand by about 65 per cent. over the next 30 years just to keep up. That is a very different picture from that painted by the Minister, who still thinks that there are too many beds—especially, apparently, in Redditch.
    It is absurd and bizarre that the trend in the provision of care home beds should be downward rather than rising to keep up with demand. We have heard the figures from
    702
    Laing and Buisson: there were 575,000 care home beds five years ago; that figure is now down to 525,000, and 2,095 care homes out of 14,600 have closed across the country. We have heard stories, particularly from Ministers' own constituencies, of how beds are being lost week after week.
    It is particularly absurd and disgraceful that the Government should be so dismissive about the problem and that Members should apparently resent our raising it here. There was the disgraceful contempt shown by the Secretary of State for Health back in March when, during Question Time, he described elderly people as being
    "banged up in a care home".—[Official Report, 26 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 691.]
    Equally alarming has been the complacency of the Prime Minister who, only last week at his own Question Time, brushed aside the concerns of a number of Members by claiming extra money was going in, and that new regulations would not come into force until 2007, so it was all sorted—and in any case the loss-of-beds figure was only 19,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and others have demonstrated, that was absolute nonsense.
    Of course, to the Prime Minister the cry of "Geriatric residential facility, geriatric residential facility, geriatric residential facility" may not sound quite as sexy, or be as good a soundbite, as "Hospitals, hospitals, hospitals"; but such facilities are no less important to the bigger picture of health care.
    Where does the Prime Minister acquire figures allowing him to make his calculations? Laing and Buisson is the recognised leader in research on care homes and is retained by the Department of Health. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report mentioned by the Minister, which was published only last month, repeated its figure of 50,000 lost beds in five years, and it reiterated that care homes for older people were underfunded by more than £1 billion a year—a fact that adds to the woes of social services departments throughout the country about which we know so much.
    I believe, however, that the actual figure is worse. In my constituency, those running residential homes have decided that they simply cannot comply with the regulations and stay in business, and are therefore closing their homes. Alternatively, they are running down beds and not accepting new residents—but such homes are still counted as having full availability of beds until they have closed entirely, although those beds are not technically available. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), all those numbers represent real lives. Of course being shunted around three homes in the space of two years will affect the health and well-being of elderly, vulnerable people.
    However, the situation is much more complex and worrying than either the Prime Minister or the Minister is willing to admit, and it does not help to reduce it to a dishonest, political numbers game. The problem is caused by a combination of factors: additional and in some cases excessive regulation, a shortfall in funding through local authorities, declining margins making the whole business less attractive at a time of rising property prices—a decline caused by increased costs of regulation, increased staffing costs and staff shortages—and pressure on social services, along with shifting responsibilities.

    703
    Let us begin with the problem of regulation. The Care Standards Act 2000 started with good intentions, but has succeeded in driving some of the best homes out of business simply because they operate in older buildings that would prove prohibitively expensive to convert by 2007. That is certainly the case on much of the south coast. We heard about the rise in land values from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
    Larger room dimensions, single occupancy, en-suite facilities and the radiator covers mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire are desirable—but the time and attention given to residents by staff, the conditions available to them, the quality of their food and how well their medication is dealt with are what count.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Mrs. Diana Self? Writing about her grandmother, she observed:
    "Elderly people don't care very much about ensuite bathrooms, single rooms or dimensions of lifts. They do care about friendly gentle care…and someone to hold their hand when they don't feel well. The outcome for her"—
    the grandmother—
    "seems uncertain—the move may kill her".
    Does my hon. Friend also agree that if the Minister's contention was correct, and if old people's choices were indeed at the centre of policy, there would be far fewer closures and far more people living happily in the same homes?
    Tim Loughton: That is a good point. What makes the difference is whether people are in an all-round caring environment geared to provide a home life for elderly residents, or merely on a conveyor belt for those who are no longer able to look after themselves.
    I received an e-mail from a nursing home owner in my constituency who has been running her business for 20 years. She says
    "Care is the most important ingredient of a Care Home…Larger rooms wider doors etc will not improve care."
    How right she is. The problem is that the regulations are too inflexible. They do not differentiate between quality care homes and those that simply provide a service—homes that happen to have the right environmental specifications, but without the right care environment. To add insult to injury, Anne Parker, chairman of the National Care Standards Commission, warned owners who are unable to comply with the new standard to
    "start preparing an exit strategy."
    Some solution! On the shortfall in funding, a nursing home owner in my constituency pointed out that the suggested amount for a nursing home bed is £460, yet our local West Sussex authority pays the not untypical rate of £375. As she says:
    "We cannot continue subsidising these people."
    There are big differentials throughout the country. In Islington, for example, the Government's elderly residential standard spending assessment per resident is £917, yet in Kent it is £351. That leads to distortion in prices and to London boroughs placing their residents
    704
    in care homes on the south coast, thereby pricing local people out of the market. Local people will be unable to live in care homes near their families and near where they were brought up, thereby adding to their vulnerability in old age.
    Some 80 per cent. of care home costs are staff costs. The minimum wage alone added £90 million to those costs; according to Sir Jeremy Beecham, of the Local Government Association, national insurance increases added £300 million; and BUPA added £50 million. Of course, none of that money was refunded through additional spending on the national health service. That will have a big impact on the 5 per cent. margin on which many independent home owners operate, and on their viability.
    Staff shortages and the consequent reliance on agencies is leading to great increases in the costs payable by such homes. For example, in the north of West Sussex, an unqualified 18-year-old can walk into a job at the Gatwick airport branch of Burger King and get paid £6 an hour. However, some care homes down the road can pay only £4.50 to £5. It is a no-brainer. An added problem is the bureaucracy associated with vetting by the Criminal Records Bureau. As a result, those who would work in care homes have to wait at least 13 weeks. In the meantime, they give up and go elsewhere.
    It is little wonder that many people in the care home business are giving up the ghost, taking advantage of rising property prices and converting their care homes into luxury apartments or back into family homes. Pressure is being applied to social services departments that are already suffering through the accumulated shortfall of £1 billion. Eligibility criteria are being tightened in most social services departments throughout the country. Two thirds of local authorities predict that they will be unable to look after the same number of residents next year as this year. For many authorities, it has become more a question of shifting responsibility between local authority departments and the health services.
    As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, we certainly need greater working together, but the Government's only response is to fine local authorities that happen to have high bed-blocking figures. What impact does the hon. Gentlemen think that that has on working together in partnership? It is the good social services departments, many of which achieved a three-star rating, that have the greatest number of delayed discharges in their areas. That shows that the problem is not their fault, but one of the Government's own creation. The Government should solve it, but they are failing to do so.
    This is a crucial and complex problem that demands much more serious attention from Ministers on all fronts, rather than the complacency and contempt that we have seen from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister. All hon. Members have an increasing number of elderly constituents, and however sophisticated we become at looking after people properly in their own homes, more care home beds will be needed over the next 30 years. A measure of how in touch we are with our constituents, and how effective we are on their behalf, is the concern that we show for our older citizens, translated into practical action to make their lives more comfortable and to allow them to live with dignity and choice.

    705
    For all the show of fake concern and indignation by Labour Members, we have heard nothing from them to give a crumb of comfort to any of our elderly constituents that this Government are doing anything to address the problem. Yet again, we see a Government in denial, who claim credit for every success, but who say, "Not me, guv" in respect of every problem. This is a growing problem that will not go away, and they could make a start in grasping the magnitude of it by backing our motion.
    9.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to the House to debate this serious subject, but it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) chose to raise it in such an appalling manner. His tone was completely out of place and, frankly, he showed his disrespect for elderly people.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in her opening remarks, the Government intend to create a system of care that offers choice to those who need it. Opposition Members seem incapable of grasping that point and we have seen tonight that they are preoccupied with scaremongering.
    It is worth reminding ourselves how we got into this position. It is important to remember that we experienced a significant but unplanned and unmanaged expansion in the independent care home sector as a result of the use of an uncapped Department of Social Security budget throughout the 1980s. That led to the unnecessary and completely avoidable admission of many older people and others into institutional care. From what Opposition Members have said, it is clear that they believe that elderly people are always best placed in institutional care. They do not understand that there are many modes of care—
    Mr. Burns: We do understand.
    Mr. Lammy: Why then did no Opposition Member choose to mention care at home, and the role of nurses, sisters and others?
    Mr. David Cameron rose—
    Tim Loughton rose—
    Mr. Lammy: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).
    Mr. Cameron: Does the Minister think that there are too many residential care homes or too few?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. [Interruption.] I intend to assist him with the answer in the course of the debate, if he will let me make some progress. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I call for some calmness on both sides of the House?
    Mr. Lammy: There are many modes of care and ways of entering care for our elderly population, and that is the major thrust of the Government's policy. I agree that some people will of course always need residential care, and we need to ensure that they get it. However, the Opposition have been all too quick to scaremonger about the crisis in the home sector. Their approach is at best cynical and at worst schizophrenic. Much of what they talk about requires investment in the NHS and our social care system, but how did they vote on the Budget? They voted against that investment.
    Mrs. Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I have a feeling that it is not a point of order, but I had better hear the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Browning: Is it right for people with mental health problems to be abused in that way by a Minister from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister is in order.
    Mr. Lammy: Care homes have always closed. The Opposition choose to ignore the fact that new homes are opening and existing homes are expanding. Some 31,000 new beds have opened since 1997. That is a 4 per cent. drop, which roughly matches the figure in 1997.
    The Conservatives' focus is in the wrong place. We need to move the debate on from the sterile argument about numbers to the challenge of delivering a full range of social care services to meet people's needs. There is undoubtedly a need for residential and nursing care, but it is one of many options.
    We are supporting more people to live at home than in the past. For every 1,000 older people, 82 were supported to live at home in 1998–99 and by 2000–01 the figure had risen to 84. That includes people receiving support in the form of home care, community equipment, home adaptations and repairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) talked about partnership and the ways in which care is provided in the home in her constituency. The number of contact hours has increased.
    Mrs. Gillan: What would the Minister say to my constituents in National Society for Epilepsy homes who have lived in them for many years but may face relocation? Will he guarantee that no constituent of mine will be forced into relocation from NSE homes by the measures introduced by the Government?
    Mr. Lammy: It is up to the local authority to talk to inspectors and others. I cannot guarantee what the Conservative local authority does in the hon. Lady's patch—that is not my job.
    According to the independent care consultants, Laing and Buisson, there has been a drop of about 19,000 places since 1997, which is a far cry from the figure of 50,000 that some hon. Members were bandying about but which Front-Benchers have chosen to drop. [Interruption.] Oh, they have not dropped it. That is another example of

    707
    schizophrenia. We have no policy from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who cannot decide what he has or has not said.
    Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lammy: Time is pressing, and I should like to make some progress.
    Mr. Gray rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not going to give way.
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made an appalling attack on minimum standards for elderly people. It was quite unbelievable. What do Conservative Members have against minimum standards? They cannot be compassionate Conservatives without believing in some minimum care. It is a case of the emperor having new clothes but not bothering to check the quality.
    Minimum standards are important. Conservative Members claim that the care home sector has been thrown into crisis by the introduction of the national care standards. That is an extraordinary suggestion. Do they oppose the introduction of training for staff in care homes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Do they oppose medicine management for all and personally managed care plans? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Clearly they do. So if the answer is yes, they oppose—
    Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman did not give way during his speech. I have given way twice and I should like to make some progress.
    If the Conservatives' answer is yes, they oppose the introduction of standards to ensure that users, carers and relations can have confidence in the quality and safety of the care that older people receive. Before the Care Standards Act 2000, care homes were regulated by 150 authorities, often with different standards. In the absence of proper checks on individuals, there were many, many cases of the most appalling abuse. Members will be aware that the most appalling physical and sexual abuse was committed in some of our care homes during the 1980s and 1990s.
    Standards will guarantee the best care for the elderly in our community.
    Andrew Selous: Will the Minister tell the House what is compassionate about a standard that causes a home to close when none of the residents needs the introduction of that particular standard? What is compassionate about that?
    Mr. Lammy: Homes are not closing as a result of the standards—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] Hon. Members raised concerns about certain environmental standards and we have made it clear that those standards do not have to be imposed until 2007. We are open to looking closely at that matter.
    Tonight, the Opposition have tried to delude us into thinking that they have suddenly become the party that cares about the vulnerable. That journey began when the Leader of the Opposition turned up in the inner city, in Hackney, to take his path of compassionate conservatism. After 18 years of Tory rule, no Labour Member will take lectures from the Opposition on that.
    We remember the 2 million pensioners who were living in poverty on £68 a week when we came to power. We remember the VAT on pensioners' fuel—[Interruption.] We also remember—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Mr. Lammy: We also remember the Opposition presiding over a growing gap between the poor and better-off pensioners between 1979 and 1997, when the incomes of the best-off fifth of pensioners rose by 80 per cent. while those of the worst-off fell by more than 30 per cent. We shall not accept lectures from Opposition Members about the elderly.
    We are certainly not going to take lectures from the Opposition about investment when they voted against the investment that we intend to make. We are proud of our record in helping the elderly and the vulnerable. We are proud of our free eye tests for the over-60s, which the Tories had abolished. VAT on fuel has been cut, helping pensioners to heat their homes. We are proud of our free television licences and other things.
    On the care sector, when the Government—
    Mr. McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question.
    The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 320.

    Division No. 297]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Brake, Tom

    Allan, Richard

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burnett, John

    Bacon, Richard

    Burns, Simon

    Baldry, Tony

    Bumside, David

    Barker, Gregory

    Burstow, Paul

    Baron, John

    Burt, Alistair

    Barrett, John

    Butterfill, John

    Beggs, Roy

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Beth, Rt Hon A J

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cameron, David

    Bercow, John

    Cash, William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Blunt, Crispin

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Boswell, Tim

    Chidgey, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Chope, Christopher

    Brady, Graham

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    709

    Collins, Tim

    Moss, Malcolm

    Conway, Derek

    Murrison. Dr Andrew

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Norman, Archie

    Cotter, Brian

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Cran, James

    ÖOpik. Lembit

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Osborne, George (Talton)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Davis. Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Page, Richard

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Paice, James

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Paterson, Owen

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Pickles, Eric

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Price, Adam

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Prisk, Mark

    Evans, Nigel

    Pugh, Dr John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Randall, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Flight, Howard

    Rendel, David

    Flook, Adrian

    Robathan, Andrew

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Francois, Mark

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Gale, Roger

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Garnier, Edward

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Gibb, Nick

    Ruffley, David

    Gillan. Mrs Cheryl

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Goodman, Paul

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gray, James

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Grayling, Chris

    Selous, Andrew

    Green. Damian (Ashford)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Greenway, John

    Simmonds, Mark

    Grieve, Dominic

    Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

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

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hammond, Philip

    Spelman. Mrs Caroline

    Harvey, Nick

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spink, Bob

    Hayes, John

    Spring, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hendry, Charles

    Steen, Anthony

    Hermon, Lady

    Streeter, Gary

    Hoban, Mark

    Stunell, Andrew

    Holmes, Paul

    Swire, Hugo

    Horam. John

    Syms, Robert

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Thurso, John

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Tredinnick, David

    Keetch, Paul

    Trend, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tyler, Paul

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Walter, Robert

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lamb, Norman

    Watkinson, Angela

    Lansley, Andrew

    Webb, Steve

    Laws. David

    Whittingdale, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Letwin, Oliver

    Wiggin, Bill

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Wilkinson, John

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Loughton, Tim

    Willis, Phil

    Luff, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    (Macclesfield)

    Maples, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Younger- Ross, Richard

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Mercer, Patrick

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

    Mr. Julian Brazier and

    Moore, Michael

    Mr. Desmond Swayne.

    710

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    David, Wayne

    Ainger, Nick

    Davidson, Ian

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

    Dawson, Hilton

    (Swansea E)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dobbin, Jim

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Austin, John

    Doran, Frank

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dowd, Jim

    Baird, Vera

    Drew, David

    Banks, Tony

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Harry

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garsten)

    Battle, John

    Edwards, Huw

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Efford, Clive

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bell, Stuart

    Ennis, Jeff

    Benn, Hilary

    Etherington, Bill

    Bennett. Andrew

    Farrelly, Paul

    Benton, Joe

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Best, Harold

    Fisher, Mark

    Betts, Clive

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Flint, Caroline

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flynn, Paul

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Follett, Barbara

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foulkes, George

    Brennan, Kevin

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Gapes, Mike

    (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Bryant, Chris

    Gilroy, Linda

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Godsiff, Roger

    Burden, Richard

    Goggins, Paul

    Cairns, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Grogan, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hain. Rt Hon Peter

    Casale, Roger

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hamilton. David (Midlothian)

    Challen, Colin

    Hamilton. Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hanson, David

    Chaytor, David

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clapham, Michael

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Havard, Dai

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hill, Keith

    Clelland, David

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoon. Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hope, Phil

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coleman, lain

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Colman, Tony

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Crausby, David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cummings, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham. Jim (Cov'try S)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cunningham. Tony (Workington)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    711

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Joyce, Eric

    Organ, Diana

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Owen, Albert

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

    Pearson, Ian

    Kemp, Fraser

    Perham, Linda

    Khabra, Piara S

    Picking, Anne

    Kidney, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pike, Peter

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Plaskitt, James

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pond, Chris

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Pope. Greg

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Laxton, Bob

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lepper, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Leslie, Christopher

    Pumell, James

    Levitt, Tom

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rammell, Bill

    Linton, Martin

    Rapson, Syd

    Lloyd, Tony

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lucas, Ian

    Robertson, John

    Luke, lain

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lyons, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCabe, Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    McCafferty, Chris

    Roy, Frank

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDonald, Calum

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McDonnell, John

    Ryan, Joan

    MacDougall, John

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McFall, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sawford, Phil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McKechin, Ann

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheerman, Barry

    McNulty, Tony

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McWalter, Tony

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McWilliam, John

    Simon, Siôn

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Mann, John

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Marris, Rob

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Southworth, Helen

    Martlew, Eric

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Meale, Alan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Miliband, David

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Miller, Andrew

    Stringer, Graham

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Moffatt, Laura

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mole, Chris

    Tami, Mark

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Moran, Margaret

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mountford, Kali

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Mudie, George

    Tipping, Paddy

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Touhig, Don

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Trickett, Jon

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Truswell, Paul

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    712

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Twigg. Derek (Halton)

    (Swansea W)

    Twigg. Stephen (Enfield)

    Winnick, David

    Tynan, Bill

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Vaz, Keith

    Worthington, Tony

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Ward, Claire

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wyatt, Derek

    Watts, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    White, Brian

    Angela Smith and

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Mr. Phil Woolas.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 185.

    Division No. 298]

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try, NE)

    Clelland, David

    Allen, Graham

    Clwyd, Ann

    Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Coleman, lain

    Austin, John

    Colman, Tony

    Bailey, Adrian

    Connarty, Michael

    Baird, Vera

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Banks, Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry

    Corston, Jean

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Crausby, David

    Battle, John

    Cruddas, Jon

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bell, Stuart

    Cummings, John

    Benn, Hilary

    Cunningham. Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bennett. Andrew

    Cunningham. Tony (Workington)

    Benton, Joe

    Dalyell, Tam

    Best, Harold

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Betts, Clive

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blackman, Liz

    David, Wayne

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davidson, Ian

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dismore, Andrew

    Brennan, Kevin

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Donohoe, Brian H

    (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Doran, Frank

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dowd, Jim

    Bryant, Chris

    Drew, David

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Cairns, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Efford, Clive

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Caplin, Ivor

    Ennis, Jeff

    Casale, Roger

    Etherington, Bill

    Caton, Martin

    Farrelly, Paul

    Cawsey, Ian

    Fisher, Mark

    Challen, Colin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Chaytor, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Clapham, Michael

    Flynn, Paul

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Follett, Barbara

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    713

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Foulkes, George

    McCafferty, Chris

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Gapes, Mike

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gardiner, Barry

    MacDonald, Calum

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McDonnell, John

    Gilroy, Linda

    MacDougall, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    McFall, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McKechin, Ann

    Grogan, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hain. Rt Hon Peter

    McNulty, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hamilton. David (Midlothian)

    McWilliam, John

    Hamilton. Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hanson, David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mallaber, Judy

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Havard, Dai

    Mann, John

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marris, Rob

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hill, Keith

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Hodge, Margaret

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoon. Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hope, Phil

    Meale, Alan

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Miliband, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Margaret

    Hurst, Alan

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Mountford, Kali

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mudie, George

    Illsley, Eric

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Organ, Diana

    Joyce, Eric

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Owen, Albert

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pearson, Ian

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

    Perham, Linda

    Kemp, Fraser

    Picking, Anne

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kidney, David

    Pike, Peter

    Kiffoyle, Peter

    Plaskitt, James

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pond, Chris

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pope. Greg

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Pound, Stephen

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lammy, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Purchase, Ken

    Laxton, Bob

    Pumell, James

    Lepper, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rammell, Bill

    Levitt, Tom

    Rapson, Syd

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Linton, Martin

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Robertson, John

    Love, Andrew

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lucas, Ian

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Luke, lain

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lyons, John

    Rooney, Terry

    714

    Roy, Frank

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Touhig, Don

    Ryan, Joan

    Trickett, Jon

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Truswell, Paul

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Twigg. Derek (Halton)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Twigg. Stephen (Enfield)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Tynan, Bill

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Vaz, Keith

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Ward, Claire

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Watts, David

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    White, Brian

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Southworth, Helen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    (Swansea VV)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winnick, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Worthington, Tony

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Stringer, Graham

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wyatt, Derek

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Tami, Mark

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Angela Smith and

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Mr. Phil Woolas.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Conway, Derek

    Allan, Richard

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Cotter, Brian

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bacon, Richard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Baldry, Tony

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Barker, Gregory

    Djanogiy, Jonathan

    Baron, John

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Barrett, John

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Beggs, Roy

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Beth, Rt Hon A J

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evans, Nigel

    Bercow, John

    Fabricant Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fallon. Michael

    Blunt, Crispin

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Boswell, Tim

    Flight, Howard

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Flook. Adrian

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brady, Graham

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brake, Tom

    Francois, Mark

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Gale, Roger

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Garnier, Edward

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Gibb, Nick

    Burnett, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Burns, Simon

    Goodman, Paul

    Bumside, David

    Gray, James

    Burstow, Paul

    Grayling, Chris

    Burt, Alistair

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Butterfill, John

    Greenway, John

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Grieve, Dominic

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Cameron, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Cash, William

    Hammond. Philip

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Harvey, Nick

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chidgey, David

    Hayes, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Heald, Oliver

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Hendry, Charles

    Collins, Tim

    Hermon, Lady

    715

    Hoban, Mark

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Holmes, Paul

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Horam. John

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot),

    Ruffley, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Selous, Andrew

    Keetch, Paul

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Key, Robert

    Simmonds, Mark

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

    Kirkwood, Archy

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

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Spelman. Mrs Caroline

    Lamb, Norman

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Lansley, Andrew

    Spink, Bob

    Laws. David

    Spring, Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Steen, Anthony

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Streeter, Gary

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Swire, Hugo

    Loughton, Tim

    Syms, Robert

    Luff, Peter

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Maples, John

    Thurso, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Tredinnick, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Trend, Michael

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Tyler, Paul

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Moore, Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waterson, Nigel

    Murrison. Dr Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Norman, Archie

    Webb, Steve

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Whittingdale, John

    Öpik. Lembit

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Osborne, George (Talton)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Page, Richard

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Paice, James

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Paterson, Owen

    Willis, Phil

    Pickles, Eric

    Wilshire, David

    Price, Adam

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Prisk, Mark

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Pugh, Dr John

    (Macclesfield)

    Randall, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Younger—Ross, Richard

    Rendel, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mr. Desmond Swayne and

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Mr. Julian Brazier.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's strategy for modernising social care services through unprecedented real terms increases in resources; condemns the Opposition for opposing this investment; welcomes the improved joint working between the NHS, social services, and the independent care sectors which has seen a reduction in levels of delayed discharges of over 1,000 since September 2001; recognises Government action to provide real choice for older people in long term care and to place a greater emphasis on users and patients in the design and delivery of services; notes the confusion, inconsistency and lack of independence in previous registration and inspection regimes and
    716
    welcomes the Government's national framework for standards and quality; further notes that the extra funding is enabling local councils to increase fees paid to care homes and that providers are continuing to open new homes; and recognises that the number of people receiving intensive home care support is increasing, enabling more people to live independently at home for longer.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Appropriation Act 2002

  National Insurance Contributions Act 2002

  Industrial and Provident Societies Act 2002

  Tax Credits Act 2002

  Employment Act 2002

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
    That the draft Court of Appeal (Appeals from Pathogens Access Appeal Commission) Rules 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That the Motion in the name of Secretary Tessa Jowell relating to the revised Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (LIABILITY AND FEES) BILL [LORDS]
  Motion made,
  That, during the proceedings on the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Dr. Nick Palmer be discharged from the Administration Committee and Julie Morgan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection]

Glenn Howard
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
10.26 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate, which is inspired by the very tragic and totally unnecessary death of Glenn Howard. I have been involved with his case for four years, and my sole purpose today is to call for a public inquiry into the circumstances of his death. As will become apparent, investigations to date, which have lasted for nearly four years, have proved unsatisfactory. Many questions have been left unanswered, leaving Mr. Howard's family to endure unnecessary suffering.
A public inquiry would achieve two valuable aims. First, it would allow Mr. Howard's family to ascertain exactly what happened and to piece together those last few important moments of his life, thereby ending their long-standing torment. Secondly, equally importantly, a public inquiry is required because of the wider issues raised by Mr. Howard's case. It is imperative that an evaluation of police procedures and protocols dealing with the treatment of vulnerable individuals such as those with mental illness takes place. In particular, police procedures dealing with the training of officers, restraint techniques that are employed and the treatment of vulnerable individuals while they are in police custody need to be reassessed. It is hoped that a public inquiry will lead to the proposal of positive solutions, affording increased public confidence in the police and the development of a system whereby tragedies such as that of Glenn Howard can be prevented.
Glenn Howard was a 47-year-old musician who had a long history of mental health problems. He enjoyed not only his music, but tending to his tropical fish, which he kept in a fish tank at his flat. He was described by those who knew him as a very likeable individual—possibly eccentric, but with no previous history of aggressive or violent behaviour. From time to time, Glenn Howard was detained in Sutton hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which allows for mentally impaired individuals to be detained for short periods to alleviate or prevent the deterioration of their condition. In hospital he received the invaluable support and medication that was needed. While he was being detained at the hospital, it was not uncommon for him to abscond to return to his flat and feed his fish. After doing so, he would often return to the hospital of his own volition.
On 8 December 1997, Glenn Howard was detained at Sutton hospital for the 13th time. Two days later, on 10 December, hospital staff noticed that Glenn had absconded. A nurse contacted Sutton police station to report him missing and asked the police to return him to the hospital. Two officers, empowered under the Mental Health Act, responded to the call. They visited Sutton hospital, where it is claimed that nurses informed them that Glenn was not a violent individual, and that if they encountered any difficulties, hospital staff should be called to assist. At two minutes past eight that evening, the two officers attended Glenn Howard's home address. There they were let into the block of flats by a caretaker, where they met Glenn. Witnesses described him at the time as wholly co-operative with the officers. The officers then proceeded to leave the block of flats.
718
It is at that point that the story becomes unclear. The two officers claim that on leaving the premises, Mr. Howard tried to escape. It is claimed that a violent struggle took place. Nine other officers had been called to attend. During the struggle, Glenn Howard was restrained in a bear hug for up to four minutes, which had the effect of constricting his breathing. He was hit with a police baton and placed face on the floor, and his legs were crossed behind him. Officers then restrained him in handcuffs, first to his front and then behind his back.
At no time during the struggle were the officers who were called to assist informed of Glenn Howard's mental impairment. At some point officers noted that Glenn had vomited, but no action was taken in response. Instead, he was carried face down by five police officers and forcibly placed in the back of a police van.
Contrary to initial instructions, Mr. Howard was not returned to hospital. Instead, he was conveyed to Sutton police station. On arrival, Glenn's mouth was seen to be open and his head lolling backwards. He was rushed to the accident and emergency department of St. Helier hospital, where nurses attended to him. He was unconscious and hospital staff noted that he had turned blue and was not breathing. Attempts to resuscitate Mr. Howard were made. Sadly, all was futile; he never regained consciousness. His existence was reduced to a permanent vegetative state, and he was kept alive until 1 January 1999 only by the assistance of a ventilator. Later, doctors stated that Mr. Howard had not been breathing for up to 10 minutes before his arrival. His brain had been starved of oxygen for four minutes and it was said that the restraint techniques employed by the police were likely to have been a significant factor in his death.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Howard's death posed several questions. Why were such restraint techniques employed? Why had the police not called for hospital assistance? Why were the other officers who were called to attend not informed of his condition? Why was Mr. Howard not taken straight to hospital? Perhaps the most important question is this: legal jurisprudence dictates that a mental patient detained in circumstances such as Glenn Howard's commit no criminal offence in absconding. Why was he then treated like an ordinary criminal rather than with the sensitivity that is and ought to be required when dealing with vulnerable individuals who are mentally unwell?
I find it astonishing that those questions have remained unanswered to date. The great difficulty experienced by Glenn Howard's family in acquiring elementary information about the circumstances of his death has made matters worse.
I am calling for a public inquiry because the inquest into his death revealed several outstanding issues. There is legitimate worry over the fact that the testimony supplied by officers contradicts vital evidence supplied by independent witnesses. One example is that police officers continue to deny being informed by hospital staff that Mr. Howard was not of a violent disposition, and that the hospital should be called to assist in the event of any difficulties. Officers have also failed to supply consistent and accurate details on the timing of events as they unfolded. I know that that is of great concern to Glenn Howard's family. The discrepancies are not acceptable and have resulted in unnecessary agony.

719
In fact, such was the nature of the discrepancies that the jury at the coroner's inquest ignored the coroner's direction not to comment on the circumstances of Mr. Howard's death. Confined to a finding of accidental death, the jury unanimously commented that
"excessive restraint followed by an immediate and subsequent neglect of medical care"
and attention was the cause of Glenn Howard's death.
In further recognition of the inadequate handling of the case, disciplinary proceedings behind closed doors commenced under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, which found that one officer had failed in his duty to monitor Mr. Howard.
My call for a public inquiry goes beyond seeking to account for those unanswered questions. An inquiry will inevitably go beyond the scope of Glenn Howard's death, as it is in the public interest to ensure that adequate training and techniques are employed by police officers when dealing with vulnerable individuals. For far too long, that has been a neglected area of public policy, which has led to the undermining of public confidence in the police and accounts for some of the 614 deaths of vulnerable individuals in police custody since 1990.
Never has there been more need to evaluate the protocols in place and their adequacy to deal with mental patients who abscond. I am supported in my cause by the organisation Rethink, formerly the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. The current review of mental health legislation allows an opportunity to adopt a fresh approach to vulnerable individuals. It is hoped that positive solutions can be found to increase police awareness and training for dealing with the mentally ill. Restraining techniques should be examined constructively and modified.
It is hoped that the scrutiny demanded of a public inquiry will lead to the creation or review of nationally agreed protocols backed by the Home Office, which would govern any interaction between the police and mentally ill patients. It is envisaged that nationally agreed protocols on dealing with people suffering from mental illness and other vulnerable individuals who abscond from hospital will require health and social care staff to take lead responsibility for the return of mental patients. Glenn Howard's death demonstrates that there are genuine concerns about the extent to which mental health services have become reliant on the police to implement mental health legislation.
New mental health legislation must ensure that, where possible, the mentally ill and vulnerable individuals are dealt with by people with specific expertise or, alternatively, family members. Police involvement and restraint techniques should be minimised. When police involvement cannot be avoided, measures must be in place to ensure that officers adhere to nationally agreed training standards when dealing with vulnerable individuals. Those standards should include regular refresher courses.
In the aftermath of Glenn Howard's tragic death, the Metropolitan police have implemented new procedures to deal with individuals with mental illness, which I welcome. Such measures, however, must be implemented nationally, not just within the Metropolitan police area.
720
For Glenn Howard's family and other people affected by similar cases, a public inquiry can bring closure, identify failings and establish solutions.
It is worth contrasting Glenn Howard's case with that of another constituent who, after failings by the local authority and a local NHS trust, was placed, with no financial assistance, in a bed and breakfast. He left without anyone noticing and, tragically, was found dead from hypothermia on a local common. After a long battle, and with much sadness and regret, his family have been able to close that chapter in their lives because the local authority and the trust accepted that mistakes had been made, apologised in writing—admittedly, the apology was extracted after much delay—and agreed an action plan with the family of the deceased. They have been able to monitor the progress of the plan; they can see that lessons have been learned from that tragic event and that measures have been implemented greatly to reduce the risk of such a sad event reoccurring.
That has not happened in Glenn Howard's case. Glenn Howard must not be just another statistic—lessons must be learned from his untimely death and his family must have their confidence restored. I trust that in learning of the manner in which he was treated, the Minister will back my call for a public inquiry into his death.
10.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for raising this case in an Adjournment debate; for the manner in which he presented his concerns; and for his diligence on behalf of Glenn Howard's family, to whom I offer my sincere personal condolences on their great loss. Every death in police custody is a death too many and an individual tragedy. It is right that every possible step should be taken to ensure that people are properly cared for in police custody.
For the benefit of Members present in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington set out the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Glenn Howard. Following those events, the Metropolitan police referred the matter to the Police Complaints Authority for supervision of the investigation into Mr. Howard's death, and Detective Superintendent Curtis was appointed as the senior investigating officer. Following consultation between the coroner and the Police Complaints Authority, the file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for its consideration. The CPS decided that there should be no further action for criminal proceedings.
At the subsequent inquest, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the jury returned a verdict of accidental death. However, the inquest jury added that
"Glenn Howard was subjected to excessive restraint followed by an immediate and subsequent neglect of medical care and attention which resulted in a brain injury, as a result of which he later died".
In line with its policy, the Crown Prosecution Service then reviewed the decision that it had taken previously, but remained of the view that none of the police officers should face criminal proceedings.
Following receipt of the investigation report, the Police Complaints Authority—which eventually expressed itself satisfied with the quality of the investigation—directed that four officers face disciplinary charges for neglect of duty in relation to their failure to provide the necessary

721
care to Glenn Howard and, in the case of one officer, to monitor his condition and render care to him in the van on his way to the police station and the hospital. The PCA initially recommended to the Metropolitan police that one officer face a disciplinary charge of using excessive force. Owing to resistance from the Metropolitan police and advice from counsel, the Police Complaints Authority decided against such a charge.
However, at a disciplinary hearing held in April 2002, two parts of one charge were proved against one officer in that he failed to monitor Glenn Howard's condition after he became his responsibility, and failed to make any oral or visual inquiry of Glenn Howard's state of health. The officer was cautioned. All other charges were dismissed.
The Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Ian Blair, wrote to Barry Howard, Glenn Howard's brother, on 10 May this year to acknowledge that the level of care that Mr. Howard received from an officer monitoring his condition was "found to be wanting." Mr. Blair also extended the sympathies and sincere regrets of the Metropolitan police to Mr. Howard's family.
I am aware that, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned, Barry Howard, Glenn's brother, has raised the issue of time discrepancies between the police officers' accounts and other police documentation, particularly the computer aided dispatch—CAD—command and control system. I am also aware that Barry Howard has asserted that his brother was the victim of an unprovoked attack by the police officers.
I understand that a meeting was held in May between Barry Howard and lan Bynoe, of the Police Complaints Authority, supported by police officers from the Metropolitan police service's directorate of professional standards to explain how the timings were obtained. Barry Howard was informed that timings on the CAD message related to when information was entered on the system, not necessarily to when events happened. Although there were differences between the CAD and the police officers' accounts, no evidence was forthcoming to corroborate a suggestion that events were other than described by the officers.
It is also the case that neither the investigation nor the subsequent inquest proceedings produced any evidence which supports the assertion that Glenn Howard was the victim of an unprovoked assault by police officers.
I very much regret that the completion of the case has taken so long. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, a number of factors have contributed to the delay. They include the following: the retirement of the original investigating officer on ill health grounds, which meant that he had to be replaced; Glenn Howard's death more than a year after his arrest meant that the original investigation had to be supplemented by further investigation; an inquest had to be completed; following the inquest, the CPS rightly had to consider the file and the inquest evidence; following the CPS decision not to prosecute, the Metropolitan police had to consider whether disciplinary action was necessary; the Police Complaints Authority disagreed with the proposals of the Metropolitan police and had to direct disciplinary action, as I have described; and the Police Complaints Authority member who initially handled the case and made recommendations to the Metropolitan police left in March 2001, which meant that another member had to familiarise
722
themselves with a lengthy and complex matter in order to take it forward. As I said, I regret that very much, but as a result it was not possible for the PCA to send its concluding letter to Barry Howard until the disciplinary hearing was completed in April.
I note that the hon. Gentleman called for a public inquiry into the death of Glenn Howard, but I have to say that, having regard to all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that that would take us any further forward, given the investigation conducted by the Metropolitan police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, although I want to return to a related point in a moment. That is not to say, however, that there are no lessons to be learned from what happened to Glenn Howard; there are, and I now wish to turn to them.
The most important thing that I can tell the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Howard's family is that we are proposing to change procedures for handling and investigating complaints against the police by introducing the Police Reform Bill. The Bill will replace the Police Complaints Authority with a new body, the independent police complaints commission. Any death involving the police or other serious incidents of possible police misconduct will be referred to the IPCC for it to make a decision on how the case should be investigated. While the IPCC will use its judgment in making that decision, a case of this nature would almost certainly lead to an investigation undertaken by its staff, independently of the police.
Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way. He may be about to deal with this point, but can he give any guarantees or outline as to how long such a process would take? One of the key concerns in this case is the duration of the investigation and the possibility that a body of evidence might have been lost in the four years or more since it began.
Hilary Bean: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the time that has been taken, which is why I have expressed my regret.
In comparison with the current system for investigations under the Police Act 1996, the Police Reform Bill will ensure greater involvement of the complainant or next of kin in the investigation; greater openness in disclosing materials to the complainant or next of kin; more effective powers to direct that disciplinary charges be laid against police officers; the ability to attend the disciplinary hearing and, if the IPCC representative chooses, the option either to present the case against the officer himself or herself or instruct counsel to do so; and, in relation to IPCC investigations, greater independence of the person carrying out the investigation.
Better communication with the family will be achieved by placing a statutory duty on the IPCC and the police to keep the complainant informed throughout the investigation and also by allowing the investigation report to be disclosed to the complainant, subject to a sensitivity test. In this case, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as the law currently stands, the disclosure of the report is entirely at the discretion of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but in view of the nature of the concerns that he expressed, I will convey them to the commissioner in drawing his attention to this debate.

723
While we await those new arrangements, other changes are also occurring. First, within the Metropolitan police, the internal investigations command now has responsibility for the investigation of deaths following contact with the police. The specialist investigations unit now has four teams on call 24 hours a day to respond to and investigate critical incidents. A detective chief inspector who acts as the senior investigating officer leads each team. All the senior investigating officers have attended a development course that includes training in family liaison, exhibit handling and other investigative and detective skills.
Secondly, as I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, last year, the Metropolitan police service launched two initiatives aimed at further reducing the number of deaths. It recruited a nursing manager and six nurses to work in the custody suite at Charing Cross police station to advise custody officers, as well as those undertaking risk assessments, of points that they should bear in mind in relation to detainees. It also produced a training video highlighting some of the medical emergencies that can arise in arrests, such as when prisoners swallow drugs or struggle when restrained.
Thirdly, police forces across the country are taking a wide range of actions to seek to reduce deaths in custody. Those include safer custody facilities, improved training, closed circuit television monitoring and an emphasis on better care, assessment and supervision of detainees.
Fourthly, because since April 1996 there has been a small number of deaths in police custody where restraint may have been a factor, there has been a continuing review of appropriate restraint techniques. Police officers are trained in a number of restraint methods but must use those only within the law: when they have a power to do so and when it is reasonable and necessary to do so. In addition to the skills training they receive, officers are taught about the relevant law and told that they may be called upon to justify their actions.
Finally, in relation to the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised, steps are being taken to seek to improve police practice in relation to mentally ill individuals. The Home Office, the Department of Health and the Association of Chief Police Officers are considering the development of national protocols covering the relationship between the police and health services in dealing with the mentally ill, a point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised.
The current review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice is seeking to strengthen further the protection for mentally ill detainees, particularly in
724
terms of assessing their vulnerability and fitness for interview. In addition, the review of the Mental Health Act which is under way recognises that police cells are not generally appropriate places for assessing whether a person needs medical treatment.
In conclusion—
Tom Brake: As the Minister is about to conclude, I ask a further couple of questions. First, he said that consideration is being given to the development of national protocols. I wonder whether he can give me any idea of the time scale over which that consideration is to take place. Secondly, I was not certain what the Minister said—is he going to ask the commissioner to make the report available to me?
Hilary Benn: On the second of those points, under the law as it currently stands, it is entirely at the discretion of the commissioner as to whether to make the report available, but I have undertaken to draw to the attention of the commissioner the points that the hon. Gentleman has understandably made in relation to this case.
Tom Brake: May I rephrase it then? Will the Minister be suggesting to the commissioner that it would be appropriate perhaps for him to release the report in this case?
Hilary Benn: In drawing the attention of the commissioner to this debate, I will convey to him the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. No doubt the commissioner will also notice, as I am sure he already has, the change in the law that we are in the process of making in the House to change completely the arrangements for the disclosure of information, so that the presumption will be that the information will be disclosed, subject to the sensitivity tests that have been drawn up and are contained in the Bill. I am sure that the commissioner will carefully consider all the points that have been made in the debate.
On the second point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the time scale for the development of national protocols, I cannot answer that question this evening but I undertake to write to him about that to give him further information.
I am very sorry about what happened to Glenn Howard, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman extended my sympathies to the family as they try to come to terms with their terrible loss.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Military Training Budgets
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the budgets for the training of military and security personnel from overseas(a) in the UK and (b) overseas for (i) each of the past two years, (ii) the current year and (iii) future years for which estimates are available. [65261]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Funding for the training of military and security personnel (including police forces, customs and border guards) from overseas comes from a variety of FCO departmental budgets. It supports FCO objectives such as promoting international peace and stability, and improved quality of life world-wide through good governance and crime reduction. A breakdown of approximate expenditure as requested by financial year (f/y) is:

  £

  F/y 2000–01

  F/y 2001–02

  F/y 2002–03

  UK training

  2,964,040

  671,829

  157,431

  Overseas training

  5,676,188

  4,690,909

  4,890,181

  Future estimates are not yet available.

  The reduction of FCO expenditure in f/ys 2001–02 and 2002–03 does not reflect a reduction in activity. It is because the FCO contributed a large part of its military and security training funding to the two cross-departmental Conflict Prevention Pools (involving FCO, MOD, DfID and HMT) established in April 2001 for Africa and the rest of the world. Each of the four Government Departments made a contribution to the pools. Many of the training activities continue to be supported by the pools because they achieve HMG's conflict prevention objectives overseas. In f/y 2001–02, the Africa Pool had a budget of £50 million and this will remain the same through to f/y 2003–04. The Global Pool was allocated £60 million for f/y 2001–02, £66 million for this financial year and will have £76 million to spend in f/y 2003–04.

  Information on the FCO's ASSIST training budget f/y 000–01, which was the principle contribution to the pools is available from an earlier answer given by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 957W.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of his 652W
  Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [65968]

  Mr. Straw
  As a non-regulatory Department, the FCO does not have a dedicated regulatory impact unit. Since 1997 issues relating to regulatory impact have been dealt with by a member of FCO staff as part of his overall duties.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Egyptian students seeking to enter the UK on medical grounds have been refused visas in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [65234]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]We do not maintain statistics on the number of entry clearance applications received, granted or refused on the basis of seeking to enter the UK on medical grounds. Nor do we at present maintain statistics on the nationality of applicants, although we are currently looking at ways of improving our information technology to enable us to do so.

  Export Licences
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Government consider applications for export licences for the supply of military equipment for incorporation into final products for possible onward export; and if he will make a statement. [67534]

  Mr. Straw
  In recent years there have been far reaching changes in the defence industry in the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe and the United States. Against the background of the end of the Cold War and the resulting reduction in defence budgets world wide, the defence industry has been subject to massive rationalisation. One consequence of this change is that increasingly defence goods are manufactured from components sourced in several different countries.

  This restructuring of the defence industry presents new challenges for the Government's approach to export licensing. Many export licence applications are for goods which are to be incorporated in defence equipment in a second country, which thereafter may be exported to a third country.

  The Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria set out in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), Official Report, column 199–203W on 26 October 2000, make clear that they "will not be applied mechanistically" to decisions on export licence applications, but rather "on a case-by-case basis, using judgment and common sense". The criteria do not provide specific guidance on what approach should be adopted in these "incorporation" cases.

  Other EU and NATO member states face the same rapidly changing environment for their defence industries as the UK. Enquiries by Her Majesty's Government suggest, however, that while as yet there is no common policy in such cases, many of our European partners recognise the need to adopt a special approach towards cases involving incorporation for onward export.
  653W
  After very careful consideration, Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, decided that it is necessary to set out how it will in future approach licence applications for goods where it is understood that the goods are to be incorporated into products for onward export. The Government will continue to assess such applications on a case by case basis against the Consolidated Criteria, while at the same time having regard to, inter alia, the following factors:

  (a) the export control policies and effectiveness of the export control system of the incorporating country;

  (b) the importance of the UK's defence and security relationship with the incorporating country;

  (c) the materiality and significance of the UK-origin goods in relation to the goods into which they are to be incorporated, and in relation to any end-use of the finished products which might give rise to concern;

  (d) the ease with which the UK-origin goods, or significant parts of them, could be removed from the goods into which they are to be incorporated; and

  (e) the standing of the entity to which the goods are to be exported.

  Against this background the Government have considered its response to a number of applications for the export of parts, subsystems and components to the USA for incorporation into equipment eventually destined for other countries. These include Head Up Display units (HUDs) for incorporation in F-16 aircraft scheduled for delivery to Israel in 2003. The UK content in F-16s is less than 1 per cent. in value, but the supply of HUDs is part of a long-standing collaboration in this US programme. Any interruption to the supply of these components would have serious implications for the UK's defence relations with the United States.

  The Government continue to be seriously concerned about the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories. There has to be a break to the cycle of violence, which has brought so much misery to both peoples, and a resumption of the peace process. We are working closely with partners including the US to reduce the level of tension and to bring about a sustainable and peaceful settlement through negotiation.

  The United States Government maintains a strong and effective export licensing system. The Quadripartite Committee has noted that the United States' conventional arms transfer policy
  "does not appear to differ in any important way from the EU Code or the UK national criteria. In some respects … it is an improvement"

  (HC 467 xxix 73 (25 July 2000)). Appropriate use of arms exported to Israel by the US is the subject of regular dialogue between the two countries, and when the US have concerns they make these known to the Israelis (as required by Congressional legislation). The State Department has been monitoring Israeli actions carefully and will continue to do so.

  At the same time the Government carefully take into account the importance of maintaining a strong and dynamic defence relationship with the US. This relationship is fundamental to the UK's national security as well as to our ability to play a strong and effective role in the world. The importance of this role has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent months. There are
  654W
  also wider benefits to the UK's national security of maintaining a strong indigenous defence industrial capability.

  Taking account of all these considerations, the Government considered that the applications should be approved, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has today granted licences for the export of the HUDs, and other equipment to the USA. The Government will apply similar considerations to similar applications in future.

  >European Foreign Ministers
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of European Foreign Ministers; and when it is. [67124]

  Peter Hain
  The General Affairs Council meets on 22–23 July.

  The provisional agenda proposed by the presidency includes, under Horizontal Affairs: the work programme for the presidency and for the Commission; progress of work in other council configurations; enlargement; follow-up to the European Council in Seville: and follow-up to the EU Action Plan on terrorism. Under External Affairs the Council is expected to discuss: the EU's priorities in the area of conflict prevention; the middle east; western Balkans; Zimbabwe; EU-US trade (steel); preparation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; Afghanistan and ESDP.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds it was decided not to hand out leaflets on Gibraltar during the overseas territories exhibition organised by his Office on Britain's overseas territories; and who took the decision. [67218]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]No such decision was taken. An updated information leaflet on Gibraltar was prepared specially for the event, and was inserted into all the packs prepared before the event. These packs ran out on the day, due to high demand. Additional packs were prepared but, due to an oversight, these were given out for a short period without Gibraltar leaflets. This situation was quickly corrected.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the status of joint proposals agreed by the United Kingdom and Spain on the future of Gibraltar, should they be rejected by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum; if such proposals would form the basis of future negotiations; and if he will make a statement. [67559]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 276W. As I said in Westminster Hall on 18 June 2002, Official Report, column 38WH, no deal will be implemented unless the people of Gibraltar agree in a referendum.

  Bermuda Boundaries Commission
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Bermuda Boundaries Commission and related supporting written submissions. [672541

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Boundaries Commission has not yet produced its report. When it does appear, a copy will be placed in Libraries of both Houses.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries that(a) have signed the accession treaty to the International Criminal Court, (b) are expected to sign and (c) have deposited the instruments of ratification, giving the date of ratification in each case; and which of the non-ratificants have indicated that they may withhold their ratification. [674751

  Mr. Straw
  Following is a table of countries which have signed, ratified or acceded to the Rome statute, containing relevant dates. I have no specific information about countries expected to sign up to the statute; however, there have been eight ratifications in the last month, bringing the total to 75.

  We are not systematically informed of countries' intentions to withhold ratification. However, on 6 May 2002, the United States declared its intention not to become a party. On 30 June the Israeli cabinet announced that it too would withhold ratification.

  Participants

  Participant

  Signature

  Ratification, Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession (a)

  Albania

  18 July 1998

  Algeria

  28 December 2000

  Andorra

  18 July 1998

  30 April 2001

  Angola

  7 October 1998

  Antigua and Barbuda

  23 October 1998

  18 June 2001

  Argentina

  8 January 1999

  8 February 2001

  Armenia

  1 October 1999

  Australia

  9 December 1998

  1 July 2002

  Austria

  7 October 1998

  28 December 2000

  Bahamas

  29 December 2000

  Bahrain

  11 December 2000

  Bangladesh

  16 September 1999

  Barbados

  8 September 2000

  Belgium

  10 September 1998

  28 June 2000

  Belize

  5 April 2000

  5 April 2000

  Benin

  24 September 1999

  22 January 2002

  Bolivia

  17 July 1998

  27 June 2002

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  17 July 2000

  11 April 2002

  Botswana

  8 September 2000

  8 September 2000

  Brazil

  7 February 2000

  20 June 2002

  Bulgaria

  11 February 1999

  11 April 2002

  Burkina Faso

  30 November 1998

  Burundi

  13 January 1999

  Cambodia

  23 October 2000

  11 April 2002

  Cameroon

  17 July 1998

  Canada

  18 December 1998

  7 July 2000

  Cape Verde

  28 December 2000

  Central African Republic

  7 December 1999

  3 October 2001

  Chad

  20 October 1999

  Chile

  11 September 1998

  Colombia

  10 December 1999

  Comoros

  22 September 2000

  Congo

  17 July 1998

  Costa Rica

  7 October 1998

  7 June 2001

  Cöte d'Ivoire

  30 November 1998

  Croatia

  12 October 1998

  21 May 2001

  Cyprus

  15 October 1998

  7 March 2002

  656W

  Participants

  Participant

  Signature

  Ratification, Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession (a)

  Czech Republic

  13 April 1999

  Democratic Republic of the Congo

  8 September 2000

  11 April 2002

  Denmark2

  25 September 1998

  21 June 2001

  Djibouti

  7 October 1998

  Dominica

  12 February 2001 a

  Dominican Republic

  8 September 2000

  Ecuador

  7 October 1998

  5 February 2002

  Egypt

  26 December 2000

  Eritrea

  7 October 1998

  Estonia

  27 December 1999

  30 January 2002

  Fiji

  29 November 1999

  29 November 1999

  Finland

  7 October 1998

  29 December 2000

  France

  18 July 1998

  9 June 2000

  Gabon

  22 December 1998

  20 September 2000

  Gambia

  4 December 1998

  28 June 2002

  Georgia

  18 July 1998

  Germany

  10 December 1998

  11 December 2000

  Ghana

  18 July 1998

  20 December 1999

  Greece

  18 July 1998

  15 May 2002

  Guinea

  7 September 2000

  Guinea-Bissau

  12 September 2000

  Guyana

  28 December 2000

  Haiti

  26 February 1999

  Honduras

  7 October 1998

  1 July 2002

  Hungary

  15 January 1999

  30 November 2001

  Iceland

  26 August 1998

  25 May 2000

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  31 December 2000

  Ireland

  7 October 1998

  11 April 2002

  Israel

  31 December 2000

  Italy

  18 July 1998

  26 July 1999

  Jamaica

  8 September 2000

  Jordan

  7 October 1998

  11 April 2002

  Kenya

  11 August 1999

  Kuwait

  8 September 2000

  Kyrgyzstan

  8 December 1998

  Latvia

  22 April 1999

  28 June 2002

  Lesotho

  30 November 1998

  6 September 2000

  Liberia

  17 July 1998

  Liechtenstein

  18 July 1998

  2 October 2001

  Lithuania

  10 December 1998

  Luxembourg

  13 October 1998

  8 September 2000

  Madagascar

  18 July 1998

  Malawi

  2 March 1999

  Mali

  17 July 1998

  16 August 2000

  Malta

  17 July 1998

  Marshall Islands

  6 September 2000

  7 December 2000

  Mauritius

  11 November 1998

  5 March 2002

  Mexico

  7 September 2000

  Monaco

  18 July 1998

  Mongolia

  29 December 2000

  11 April 2002

  Morocco

  8 September 2000

  Mozambique

  28 December 2000

  Namibia

  27 October 1998

  25 June 2002

  Nauru

  13 December 2000

  12 November 2001

  Netherlands3

  18 July 1998

  17 July 2001 A

  New Zealand4

  7 October 1998

  7 September 2000

  Niger

  17 July 1998

  11 April 2002

  Nigeria

  1 June 2000

  27 September 2001

  Norway

  28 August 1998

  16 February 2000

  Oman

  20 December 2000

  Panama

  18 July 1998

  21 March 2002

  Paraguay

  7 October 1998

  14 May 2001

  Peru

  7 December 2000

  10 November 2001

  Philippines

  28 December 2000

  Poland

  9 April 1999

  12 November 2001

  Portugal

  7 October 1998

  5 February 2002

  Republic of Korea

  8 March 2000

  Republic of Moldova

  8 September 2000

  Romania

  7 July 1999

  11 April 2002

  Russian Federation

  13 September 2000

  Saint Lucia

  27 August 1999

  Samoa

  17 July 1998

  San Marino

  18 July 1998

  13 May 1999

  Sao Tome and Principe

  28 December 2000

  Senegal

  18 July 1998

  2 February 1999

  Seychelles

  28 December 2000

  Sierra Leone

  17 July 1998

  15 September 2000

  657W

  Participants

  Participant

  Signature

  Ratification, Acceptance (a), Approval (AA), Accession (a)

  Slovakia

  23 December 1998

  11 April 2002

  Slovenia

  7 October 1998

  31 December 2001

  Solomon Islands

  3 December 1998

  South Africa

  17 July 1998

  27 November 2000

  Spain

  18 July 1998

  24 October 2000

  Sudan

  8 September 2000

  Sweden

  7 October 1998

  28 June 2001

  Switzerland

  18 July 1998

  12 October 2001

  Syrian Arab Republic

  29 November 2000

  Tajikistan

  30 November 1998

  5 May 2000

  Thailand

  2 October 2000

  The Former Yugoslav

  Republic of Macedonia

  7 October 1998

  6 March 2002

  Trinidad and Tobago

  23 March 1999

  6 April 1999

  Uganda

  17 March 1999

  14 June 2002

  Ukraine

  20 January 2000

  United Arab Emirates

  27 November 2000

  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  30 November 1998

  4 October 2001

  United Republic of Tanzania

  29 December 2000

  United States of America5

  31 December 2000

  Uruguay

  19 December 2000

  28 June 2002

  Uzbekistan

  29 December 2000

  Venezuela

  14 October 1998

  7 June 2002

  Yemen

  28 December 2000

  Yugoslavia

  19 December 2000

  6 September 2001

  Zambia

  17 July 1998

  Zimbabwe

  17 July 1998

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Afghanistan to ratify the International Criminal Court treaty. [67474]

  Mr. Straw
  This issue of when Afghanistan might ratify the Statute establishing the International Criminal Court is a matter for the Government of Afghanistan. I have no specific information on their approach/timetable, but I will make inquiries and write to the hon. Member.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what costs were borne by the House in respect of the funeral of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [65256]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The costs for the lying in state of HM the Queen Mother will be shared between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons share is estimated at £495,000. I understand that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport have agreed to bear at least part of this cost, and discussions about payment are under way.

WALES

  Postal Services
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next meet representatives from Consignia to discuss postal services in Wales. [63497]
  658W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am due to meet with a senior representative of Consignia in Wales later this month.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) the National Assembly for Wales and (b) airlines about increasing the number of chartered flights in Wales. [64542]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about issues affecting Wales including a wide range of transport matters.

  Assembly officials have been closely involved in the Regional Air Service studies the reports of which are to be published soon. These regional consultation documents will set out options for the development of air services and airports in the UK over the next 30 years.

  The Regional Air Service studies include consideration of all forms of air traffic including charter flights. I understand that Welsh airports are actively marketing the facilities they are able to offer to charter operators.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of his Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [65977]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department was created in July 1999. It does not have a regulatory impact unit.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66928]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Consistent with Government accounting, my Department does not insure its building.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66917]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into existence on 1 July 1999. At page 23 of the Departmental Report 2002 (Cm 5431) is a table showing the number of women at each grade. The overall percentage is 59 per cent.

  Elan Valley SSSI
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures the Government are taking to protect the Elan Valley site of special scientific interest from development. [64707]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In Wales, planning and nature conservation are responsibilities of the National Assembly.

  Bird Habitats
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to safeguard the natural habitat of red kites and golden plovers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [64706]
  659W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is primarily a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  In line with EC Directive (79/409/EEC) on the Conservation of Wild Birds, the Assembly is taking appropriate steps to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for all species of naturally occurring birds.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Building Design
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the timetable is for the publication of each of the departmental design action plans to deliver the Prime Minister's Better Public Building Initiative; [65068]

  (2) if she will list the Ministerial Design Champions. [65041]

  Dr. Howells
  The Ministerial Design Champions group has been chaired by Lord Falconer of Thoroton since October 2000. The group consists of the following:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport—Baroness Blackstone Home Office—Lord Filkin

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-Elliot Morley

  Department of Trade and Industry—Brian Wilson Treasury—Paul Boateng

  Ministry of Defence—Dr. Lewis Moonie

  Department for Work and Pensions—Malcolm Wicks

  Department for Education and Skills—Baroness Ashton

  Lord Chancellor's Department—Minister to be appointed

  Department of Health—Lord Hunt

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Denis MacShane

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—Lord Rooker

  Department for Transport—Minister to be appointed.

  A Better Public Buildings website will be launched on 5 July. The following Departments will publish their action plans either on this website or in hard copy by that date:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Home Office.

  The following Departments have already published action plans:

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of Health

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  The former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was preparing an action plan for publication both in hard copy and on the new website in time for the launch on 5 July. Due to the recent departmental changes, new action plans will now need to be prepared for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and
  660W
  the Department for Transport. The Department for Education and Skills plan to publish an Action Plan later this autumn.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66949]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture Media and Sport does not own the buildings on its estate.

  The majority of properties managed by the Royal Parks Agency are owned by the Sovereign in right of the Crown, and are therefore inalienable.

  The Secretary of State has the following property interests in the Royal Parks Agency.

  1. Pembroke Lodge in Richmond Park is owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners and is leased to the Secretary of State for a term of 99 years and five days from 31 March 1992. Its market value was assessed at £375,000 in March 2000.

  2. The Secretary of State owns the freehold to Watermill House, 213 Uxbridge Road, Hampton. It borders the Longford River (which is managed by the Royal Parks Agency) and its market value was assessed at £67,000 in March 1999.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66931]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture Media and Sport and the Royal Parks Agency do not purchase insurance to cover buildings on their estates.

  Clarence House
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who will meet the bill for the refurbishment of Clarence House; and what the total cost will be to public funds. [66690]

  Dr. Howells
  Detailed surveys are currently taking place to ascertain the extent of the Clarence House refurbishment works, which include work on fire compartmentation, automatic fire detection, upgrade of electrical and mechanical services and some redecoration. It is not possible to provide a firm estimate of the cost of the refurbishment until the completion of these surveys. The refurbishment will be funded from the current level of grant in aid for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the statistics that are collected by her Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if she will make a statement. [67098]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department collects statistics by Parliamentary Constituency on one topic, namely Lottery Awards, and these are based upon information provided by Lottery distributors.
  661W
  A database, which is available on my Department's website at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk, provides details of individual awards along with the total number and value. This can be analysed further by type of good cause, area details and distributing body.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether grants for construction, restoration and refurbishment issued by the Lottery are covered by Government requirements regarding timber procurement; and if she will make a statement. [67033]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not readily available. I will, however, write to the hon. Member as soon as it becomes available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Charitable Status
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on the proposals of the Charity Commissioners to restrict eligibility for charitable status to those sports that in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners are beneficial to physical health; and what discussions her Department has had with the Charity Commissioners over the criteria they are using to determine the eligibility of different sports for charitable status; [67081]

  (2) whether her Department has discussed with the Charity Commissioners the recognition for the purposes of charitable status of those sports already recognised by the Government through Sport England and Sport UK as eligible for Lottery and Exchequer funding; and if she will make a statement. [67082]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Charity Commission has confirmed that no sports are excluded in principle from applying for charitable status. If a sport does not meet the criterion for healthy recreation then the Commission will consider an application on other grounds such as social inclusion or education. Full discussion on the revised guidance for charitable status and sport was carried out with the Charity Commission and representatives from sports bodies.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64652]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not maintain central records of annual leave entitlement for staff so this information could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Staff outside the senior civil service within the Department are entitled to 25 days annual leave per year on joining the civil service and after 10 years service this is then increased to 30 days per year. Members of the senior civil service are entitled to 30 days per year.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the staff of her Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66914]
  662W
  Dr. Howells
  The current percentage of women within the Department is 48 per cent. compared to 43 per cent. in June 1997.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the cost to the tourist industry of the changes in the national insurance regime in the last budget. [67017]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 385W.

  "All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education"
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of the report, "All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education"; and if she will make a statement. [67156]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education reported jointly to the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Education and Employment in 1999 via the report "All Our Futures". The report contained 59 detailed recommendations for action by a range of bodies including Government, schools and higher education institutions. My Department has worked closely with the Department for Education and Skills, and external partners, to implement the recommendations.

  Some of the main steps taken so far include funding of £270 million for the introduction of the Music Standards Fund to protect and expand LEA music services; the establishment of Artsmark, a national awards scheme now in its second year which recognises schools which offer a wide range of arts provision; and the recent joint announcement of £130 million for the Space for Sport and Arts programme which will fund almost 300 primary schools nationwide to modernise or build new multi-use halls and sports facilities and new music and arts studios.

  Other major initiatives in progress include the development of 16 Creative Partnerships pilots, with the aim of building long-term, sustainable relationships between creative professionals and schools. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is undertaking a project focusing on pupils' creativity across the curriculum which will produce guidance for schools on ways to promote pupils' creativity.

  Our Green Paper "Culture and Creativity-the Next Ten Years", published in March 2001, set out our overall vision for culture and creativity, and further underlined the importance we place on creativity and culture in education.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish her assessment of the benefits of access to broadband services for industries within her remit; and if she will make a statement. [61803]
  663W
  Dr. Howells
  The Government believe that the rapid roll-out and adoption of broadband across the UK is important to both their social and economic objectives. The Government and other organisations have conducted studies of the application of information and communication technology and e-commerce to business and small and medium enterprises which suggest that broadband has a range of benefits and that industries stand to gain from productivity improvements. However, an assessment of the specific benefits to each industry within DCMS' remit could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Television
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to take action to require the ITC to ensure that ITV companies in Scotland do not decrease the number of hours of regional programmes which they broadcast annually. [67089]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]On 27 May the Independent Television Commission (ITC) published the Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions, an agreement with the ITV companies to secure a sustainable future for regional programming. The charter includes commitments to guarantee out of London investment, improve scheduling of regional programming and strengthen local accountability. It also involves a greater standardisation of regional programme hours, and therefore some reduction in output that is less well funded and shown at the least accessible times. The ITC considers that the emphasis should be on quality rather than quantity and that the public interest is best served by better funded, more accessible programming. The Department has no plans to intervene.

  Television Cricket
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take measures to require future Ashes cricket series in Australia to be available on terrestrial television. [67247]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]The Government only intervene in the sports broadcasting market to ensure that all television licence holders have free-to-air access (on the BBC, the ITV Network or Channel 4) to those sporting occasions which are considered to have true national resonance. These events are listed under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The list was revised and extended in 1998 and is kept under review.

  Cricket test matches played in England and the final, semi-finals and matches involving Home Nations teams in the Cricket World cup are listed. Test matches played overseas are not listed because, while of great interest to cricket fans, they do not strike a chord with the general viewer in the same way as events which are listed.

  Hockey
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last attended a hockey match in her official capacity. [67938]
  664W
  Tessa Jowell
  I have not yet attended a hockey match in an official capacity, although I did attend an elite training session for hockey goalkeepers at the Summer Performance Camp at Loughborough University on 10 July 2001.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the levels of participation in hockey by persons from ethnic minority backgrounds; and if she will make a statement. [68004]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following figures show participation in hockey by ethnic breakdown.

  Figures only cover affiliated clubs and are taken from an audit by the English Hockey Association.

  Further breakdown by age would be available on request.

  Men

  Women

  White

  29,701

  22,412

  Mixed

  742

  285

  Asian/Asian British

  1,414

  149

  Black/Black British

  136

  205

  Chinese/Other

  132

  76

  Total

  32,125

  23,127

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to encourage the provision of astroturf hockey pitches. [67936]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government recognise the value that synthetic turf pitches have in improving the opportunities to take part in a variety of outdoor sports, including hockey.

  The Government support the provision of sport and leisure facilities, including astroturf hockey pitches, through various means including funding from the Sports Lottery Fund, administered by Sport England. The provision of astroturf hockey pitches is a matter for local authorities to consider, in the light of local needs and the appropriate mixture of public and private provision.

  Sport England has worked with the English Hockey Association in the preparation of a facilities strategy. This strategy deals with the provision of new artificial pitches with particular reference to water-based pitches for performance hockey. The strategy makes recommendations for the number of artificial turf pitches by population base and identifies three categories of artificial pitch provision: regional academies; satellite centres; and premier club centres.

TRANSPORT

  Trackside Debris
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he has taken in respect of reports of sleepers and other debris being left by contractors beside the main east coast railway line in Arlesey, Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement; [58329]
  665W
  (2) if he will raise with the Chief Executive of Railtrack at a meeting in the near future the issue of contractors' debris beside railway lines; and if he will make a statement; [58327]

  (3) what information he has received from the Chief Executive of Railtrack about an initiative designed to ensure contractors clear debris from areas surrounding railway tracks whilst work is in progress; and if he will make a statement. [58328]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]I understand that Railtrack have in hand a national programme to ensure that he lineside is clear from surplus engineering material by October 2002; and that systems are in place by the following month to
  prevent future build-up of such material.

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Birmingham

  0

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Blackburn

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Blackpool

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Bolton

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Bournemouth

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Brighton

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Bristol

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Darlington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Derby

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Devon

  1

  4

  5

  3

  4

  Dorset

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Durham

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Gateshead

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hull

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Isle of Wight

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Kent

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Knowsley

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Leeds

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Leicestershire

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Lincolnshire

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Luton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Manchester

  1

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Medway

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Tyneside

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Newcastle

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Northumberland

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Nottingham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  0

  3

  4

  4

  Oldham

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Peterborough

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Plymouth

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Portsmouth

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rutland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Tyneside

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Salford

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Sefton

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Solihull

  0

  0

  2

  3

  4

  St Helens

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Stockport

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Stoke on Trent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Surrey

  1

  3

  5

  5

  5

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Thurrock

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Trafford

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Home Zones
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities included proposals for home zones in their annual progress reports 2001 finance forms; how many were proposed in each case; what the total length of these roads is; and if he will make a statement. [66002]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the information provided within the local transport plan Annual Progress Reports submitted in August 2001 of those English authorities outside London which included proposals for the designation of areas as home zones. Length of road within each proposal is not recorded centrally.
  667W

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Warrington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Windsor and Maidenheaad

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  York

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Source:

  LTP Annual Progress Report 2001

  10-Year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish revisions to the 10 year plan for transport. [66061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Transport' oral answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on Tuesday 2 July 2002,Official Report, columns 77–78.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains of each train operating company arrived late by(a) more than five minutes and (b) more than 10 minutes in each month from November 2001 to June 2002; and how many' trains in each train operating company were cancelled in each month from November 2001 to June 2002. [66673]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the Strategic Rail Authority Publication 'On Track' which contains the rail performance information he seeks. The document is published every six months, the last one on 6 June and was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Funding Guarantees
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding guarantees have been given to the SRA by his Department. [66496]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the statement about Network Rail made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 27 June 2002 Official Report, columns 971–973.

  Halcrow
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what strategic transport reports he intends to commission from Halcrow; and what fees they will be paid. [66756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department may wish to engage consultants for a wide variety of purposes, including policy development (and implementation), administration, research and development, and the provision of specialist services. I would not want to prejudge who are appointed to undertake such work.

  York-Penzance Rail Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the(a) reliability and (b) punctuality of rail services between York and Penzance. [67212]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Performance figures for each of the train operating companies are published by the Strategic Rail Authority in their quarterly publication "National Rail Trends", and in more detail in their six monthly 668W
  publication "On Track". Copies of these publications are placed in the library of the House. The most recent editions of both documents were published on 6 June.

  Modes of Transport Statistics
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) car, (b) bus and (c) rail journeys were made in the last 12 months. [67213]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Data from the National Travel Survey on main mode of trip show that, over the period 1998–2000, residents in Great Britain made on average:

  (a) 640 car trips per person per year (411 as a driver and 228 as a passenger)

  (b) 58 local bus trips per person per year and

  (c) 19 rail trips per person per year (12 by surface rail and 7 by LT Underground).

  Data are not available for single years.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002, ref 65787, on seat belts, what plans he has to ensure they are used by pupils. [67225]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The law does not require passengers to wear seat belts in the rear seats of coaches but advice in the Highway Code is that they should be worn where available. Unlike the case of drivers of cars, goods vehicles and the smaller minibuses, it would be unreasonable and potentially unsafe for drivers of these larger vehicles also to be responsible for seat belt wearing by passengers under 14 years.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oral questions he has transferred to other Departments in each of the last 18 months. [67050]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002, no oral questions have been transferred to other Departments.

  Five oral questions were transferred by the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as follows:

  Month

  Number of oral questions transferred

  June 2001

  1

  December 2001

  1

  January 2002

  1

  March 2002

  2

  Questions are only transferred when it is more appropriate for another Department to answer, and they accept the question.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 June to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael),Official Report, column 768W, on national air traffic services, what actions with regard to software and equipment have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the problems experienced on 27 March, 10 April and 17 May. [67174]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]Details of the actions taken in response to earlier software and equipment problems at West Drayton and Swanwick are operational matters for NATS.

  Bus Services
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus services in each metropolitan transport authority area for which his Department pays subsidy have been(a) temporarily and (b) permanently suspended in the last 12 months. [66880]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not collect information in the form requested.

  All local bus services following a registered route and timetable are eligible to receive grant from the Department in the form of fuel duty rebate. However, in the vast majority of cases (nearly 90 per cent. of total bus provision in the areas of passenger transport authorities) decisions on service provision are for commercial operators.

  In the remaining cases, the service is provided under contract from the passenger transport authority and subsidised by that authority from its own resources. The resources available to authorities are augmented by payments from the Department's rural bus subsidy grant scheme. I understand that only one service supported by a passenger transport authority with funding form this scheme has been withdrawn in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to increase the take-up of concessionary fares on rural bus services. [66781]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Our minimum requirement for concessionary fares schemes has, since June 2001, guaranteed at least half-fares for pensioners and disabled people on local buses to the benefit of seven million people overall, some of whom will be travelling in rural areas. This is an improvement on the previous position where 16 mostly rural areas had no concessionary travel scheme at all. From April 2003 the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 will ensure that men aged 60–65 will also receive the benefit of concessionary travel. Further, our Rural Bus Subsidy Grant has provided an additional 1,800 services upon which concessionary travel is possible. Many of the innovative schemes supported by our Rural Bus Challenge competition also provide further scope for take-up of concessionary travel.

  Baldock Bypass
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the funding of the Baldock bypass and progress on the project. [67952]
  670W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Hertford county council originally proposed that the Baldock bypass should be funded through the Private Finance Initiative. However, following a re-evaluation of the scheme, Hertfordshire concluded that the Baldock bypass should be procured through conventional funding. They agreed to provide revised cost estimates in support of this view.

  We have been in discussions with Hertfordshire to determine what procurement would represent value for money for this scheme and are currently awaiting information from Hertfordshire. When this information is received I hope to be in a position to make a decision about how the Baldock bypass will be funded.

  John Cordle
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) he and (b) his Ministers spoke to a constituent, Mr. John Cordle of Salisbury, on 18 June. [67202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No.

  Northern Line
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people on average(a) entered and (b) left the Northern Line in each 15 minute period of a working day for each station on the Northern Line in the most recent period for which figures are available. [67713]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the percentage of people, taking the Northern line(a) south from Euston and (b) north from Kennington, who travelled on the (i) Charing Cross branch and (ii) Bank branch in the most recent period for which figures are available. [67714]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None, detailed operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  London Underground
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the length of train, in numbers of carriages, that each station on the London Underground Network(a) can accommodate and (b) is most frequently served by. [67718]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport (Mr. Spellar) gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 196W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) crowded and (b) very crowded links, as defined by London Underground, as at 1 July of each of the last eight years, on the London Underground network. [67721]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground who inform me, furthermore, that it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  671W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times each day(a) a station and (b) a platform, on the London Underground network has been temporarily closed owing to overcrowding in the most recent period for which figures are available. [67716]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 774W, on Network Rail, if he will list the (a) funders and (b) customers to whom he refers; and if he will provide details of the obligations in each case. [66067]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority would fund Network Rail by means of future grants and will provide back-stop credit facilities as set out in the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 June 2002,Official Report, columns 971–989, and in the minutes, mentioned in the statement, which have been laid before the House. In addition to the SRA, Network Rail would have a number of commercial funders. Network Rail's customers would be the train and freight operating companies. Their obligations would be in accordance with the track and station access agreements for each operating company. These agreements are available from the office of the rail regulator.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, under the Network Rail proposal, what call there is on Railtrack Group PLC under the outstanding guarantees in respect of(a) the European Investment Bank facilities made available to Railtrack PLC and (b) the bank facilities which have been made available to London and Continental Railways Limited in connection with the CTRL. [66531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]None.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the incentive arrangements with regard to Network Rail and possible enhancement projects; and if he will make a statement. [66602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Network Rail will prepare and publish an incentive plan annually. The plan will cover both the short and the long run delivery of the business and be focused on delivery of the business plan, including enhancement projects, and on meeting licence and contractual obligations.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which members of Network Rail will be held accountable by(a) customers, (b) the general public, (c) the Executive and (d) Parliament. [66543]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Network Rail would he accountable via its network licence and contractual obligations. Its customers could ensure that the company meets its contractual obligations to them; the Rail Regulator would continue to monitor and enforce delivery against the network licence; and the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will set the framework within which the company would deliver and particularly within which enhancements will be taken forward.
  672W
  The strategic plan is laid before Parliament. The SRA would also appoint a non-executive director to the Network Rail board.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the mechanism for selecting the members of the nominating committee for Network Rail members; [66542]

  (2) by what mechanism people and groups will be appointed to be members of Network Rail; how many will be appointed; and on what date. [66540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Network Rail would have three categories of members: "industry members"—railway licence holders; "public interest members"—drawn from the community at large, with a clear interest in the railway and the ability to make a genuine contribution; and the "SRA member"—nominated by the Strategic Rail Authority. Network Rail expects there to be around 100 members in total.

  Network Rail intends to recruit public interest members by invitation and through advertisement and will appoint a membership selection panel (MSP), with an independent majority, to consider applications against a membership policy. The board would appoint public interest members on the recommendation of the MSP. The detail and timing of these arrangements are matters for Network Rail to determine.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects to make an application to the court for the discharge of the Railtrack administration order; and if he will make a statement. [66539]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member the statement about Network Rail made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 27 June 2002,Official Report, columns 971–73.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis Railtrack Group will waive its claims for compensation against Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State, his Department and others in respect of the making of the administration order; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [66499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]This is a matter for Railtrack Group plc. Their reasoning is explained in the press release they issued on 27 June 2002.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under the administration order, whether Railtrack Group will be permitted to carry out the planned rollover of chargeable gains arising in the year, in connection with certain contingent tax liabilities arising from transactions entered into before 7 October 2001, for which no provision has been made; and if he will make a statement. [66532]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]This is a matter for Network Rail. Railtrack Group and the administrators of Railtrack plc.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Support
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what industrial support resources, including staff and direct financial investment, are invested in the(a) automotive, (b) environmental industry, (c) construction, (d) metals, (e) aerospace, (f) chemicals and (g) water industrial sectors. [63806]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI's role is to work with business, employees and consumers to drive up UK productivity and competitiveness. Our planned expenditure on resources for the promotion of enterprise, innovation and increased productivity is £1.23 billion for 2002–03, as set out in Table 2, Annex A, of the Trade and Industry Expenditure Plans Report 2002, Cm 5416. This will include advice and support for the sectors in question and the development of policy to promote the success of those sectors. The detailed information requested cannot be provided without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of waste produced in her Department was(a) recycled, (b) composted and (c) re-used, broken down into (i) paper, (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans and (iv) other, in each year since 1997; what plans there are to increase the proportions; and if she will make a statement. [65693]

  Ms Hewitt
  Up to June 2002 the DTI used a variety of waste contractors, who operated their own waste minimisation techniques, including minimisation at source, re-use, recycling and energy recovery. An accurate figure for the proportion of waste recycled, composted, reused and segregated from 1997 to date could be obtained only at disproportionate expense. However, I attach a high importance to monitoring arid improving on current waste outputs, and a total waste management tender has been developed and has taken effect from July 1 2002. The successful contractor will be required to report on the percentage of waste streams that are recovered, while ensuring that the following targets are achieved:

  Recovery target (As a percentage of waste handled)

  Recycling/composting target (As a percentage of waste recovered)

  2002–03

  60

  45

  2003–04

  70

  55

  2004–05

  80

  65

  Initially the targets will be achieved through paper and card recycling but the tender specification requires the contractor to investigate innovative techniques for recovering other waste streams, including metals, plastics and glass.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the European Union's negotiating demands for the General Agreement on Trade in Services, indicating which ones her Department(a) supports and (b) does not support. [64719]
  674W
  Ms Hewitt
  In line with the end-June benchmark date set in the WTO Doha ministerial declaration for the exchange of initial requests between WTO members for liberalisation under the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations, the European Community's requests were finalised on 28 June following consultation between the Commission and member states. They are being transmitted this week to individual WTO members to whom they are addressed.

  In the case of the EC's major trading partners, both developed and developing countries, requests are made in most services sectors. The main exceptions are health, education (with the exception of the US, to whom requests are made in the area of privately funded higher education services) and audio-visual services.

  As regards developing countries, requests are made in line with their levels of development. In the case of the least developed countries, requests are in the main limited to three to five sectors, with the sectors identified being those where liberalisation is most likely to contribute to development-primarily business, financial, telecommunications and transport services.

  Throughout the requests, the EC emphasises that it is not seeking the dismantling of public services or the privatisation of state owned companies. The requests also make clear that the EC recognises the importance of liberalisation being underpinned by domestic regulatory frameworks designed to ensure the achievement of public policy objectives.

  The requests are not demands. They are an opening basis for negotiations. Nor, as WTO Director-General Mike Moore has confirmed last week, do requests constitute agreements by WTO members to include such sectors as Part of their commitments.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of each of the regional development agencies, together with any declared party political affiliation. [64454]

  Ms Hewitt
  The names of the board members of each of the eight English regional development agencies outside London, together with any political affiliations declared in response to the political activity questionnaire required by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) are as follows:

  Surname

  First name

  Declared political activity

  Advantage West Midlands

  Stephenson

  Alex

  None

  Barnes

  Richard

  None

  Bhattacharyya

  Kumar

  None

  Bore

  Albert

  Labour

  Davis

  Sue

  Labour

  Harris

  Anthony

  None

  Holmes

  Bill

  Labour

  Kaur Stubbs

  Sukhvinder

  None

  King

  Christine

  None

  Moore

  Isabella

  None

  Price

  Norman

  None

  Sealey

  Tony

  None

  675W

  Surname

  First name

  Declared political activity

  Sparks

  David

  Labour

  Tilsley

  Paul

  Liberal Democrat

  Woods-Scawen

  Brian

  None

  East of England Development Agency

  Watts

  Vincent

  None

  Ali

  Roger

  None

  Bagnall

  Ruth

  None

  Brinton

  Sal

  Liberal Democrat

  Cereste

  Marco

  None

  Cherry

  Alan

  None

  Grant

  Greg

  Labour

  Martin

  Peter

  Conservative

  Murray

  Leo

  None

  Paveley

  Chris

  None

  Powell

  Richard

  None

  Reyner

  Neville

  None

  Shariff

  Yasmin

  None

  Skinner

  Marie

  None

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Mapp

  Derek

  None

  Bilgan

  Kashmir

  Labour

  Bradford

  Jane

  None

  Carr

  Bryan

  None

  Chapman

  Graham

  Labour

  Gadsby

  Peter

  None

  Gardner

  Gill

  Liberal Democrat

  Gemmell

  Samantha

  None

  McLeod

  Jonathan

  Labour

  Morgan-Webb

  Patricia

  None

  Patel

  Rita

  Labour

  Ramsden

  Peter

  Labour

  Scarborough

  Andrew

  Labour

  Whittaker

  Ron

  None

  Wood

  Christine

  None

  North West Development Agency

  Gray

  Bryan

  None

  Chamberlain

  Neville

  None

  Doyle

  Michael

  Labour

  Dunning

  John

  None

  Goodey

  Felicity

  None

  Harris

  Martin

  None

  Jeanes

  Clive

  None

  Lane

  Pauleen

  Labour

  Leese

  Richard

  Labour

  Manning

  Alan

  Labour

  Mendoros

  Dennis

  None

  Reade

  Kath

  Labour

  Ruia

  Anil

  Conservative

  Smith

  Brenda

  None

  Storey

  Michael

  Liberal Democrat

  One Northeast

  Bridge

  John

  None

  Arkley

  Alistair

  None

  Cantle-Jones

  Timothy

  None

  Curran

  Kevin

  Labour

  Dennis

  Barbara

  None

  Edwards

  Christopher

  None

  Fisher

  Jackie

  None

  Hodgson

  Geoff

  None

  Hughes

  Philip

  Independent

  Maudslay

  Richard

  None

  Nolan

  Jane

  None

  Stringfellow

  Rita

  Labour

  Walsh

  David

  Labour

  Williams

  John

  Labour

  Wilson

  Susan

  None

  676W

  Surname

  First name

  Declared political activity

  South East of England Development Agency

  Willett

  Allan

  None

  Bodfish

  Ken

  Labour

  Brighouse

  Elizabeth

  Labour

  Booth

  Clive

  Labour

  Brathwaite

  James

  Labour

  Camfield

  Barry

  Labour

  Douglas

  Robert

  None

  Kong

  Janis

  None

  McAnally

  Mary

  None

  Oliver

  Kit

  Conservative

  Read

  Peter

  None

  Thornber

  Thomas (Kenneth)

  Conservative

  Ward

  Sarah

  Liberal Democrat

  Williams

  Caroline

  None

  Wilson

  Kevin

  Labour

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  Lickiss

  Michael

  None

  Ansari

  Doris

  Liberal Democrat

  Buckland

  Nicholas

  None

  Chalke

  Peter

  Conservative

  Costley

  Nigel

  Labour

  Holland

  Helen

  Labour

  Kemp

  Brian

  None

  Leece

  Michael

  None

  Morris

  Alfred

  None

  Nicholl

  Robin

  Labour

  Pope

  Jeremy

  None

  Porritt

  Jonathan

  Green Party

  Skellett

  Colin

  None

  Yorkshire Forward

  Hall

  Graham

  None

  Ashcroft

  John

  None

  Barker

  Muriel

  Labour

  Bosomworth

  Eileen

  Conservative

  Coburn

  Jeanne

  None

  Cummins

  Julian

  Liberal Democrat

  Gregory

  Richard

  None

  Greenwood

  Brian

  None

  Haskins

  Christopher

  Labour

  Houghton

  Stephen

  Labour

  Jagger

  Paul

  Labour

  King

  Christopher

  None

  Malik

  Adeeba

  None

  Pinnock

  Kathryn

  Liberal Democrat

  Warhurst

  Pamela

  Labour

  The OCPA declaration covers political activities undertaken during the previous five years, including the name of the party or body for which the board member has been active. Political activities are defined by OCPA as follows:

  obtained office as a local councillor, MP, MEP etc;

  stood as a candidate for one of the above offices;

  spoken on behalf of a party or candidate;

  acted as a political agent;

  held office such as chair, treasurer or secretary of a local branch of a party;

  canvassed on behalf of a party or helped at elections;

  undertaken any other political activity which the applicant considers relevant;

  made a recordable donation to a political party (the requirement for publishing a register of recordable donations, as defined under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, became effective from 16 February 2001).
  677W
  No other records are kept of political activities by board members.

  Military Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what deliveries of equipment on the military and dual-use lists have been made to(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Israel in each month since September 2001; and if she will make a statement. [65099]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 54W.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors the Government take into account when deciding whether to issue(a) a Standard Individual Export Licence and (b) an Open Individual Export Licence; and if she will make a statement. [65100]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant export licence applications, whether for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIEL) or Open Individual Export Licences (OIEL), are considered on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply from the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), to right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 199–203W.

  In assessing applications for OIELs, the Government considers whether an OIEL would provide for sufficient control in relation to the goods and countries or end users concerned. If not, SIEL applications will be invited instead. Furthermore, OIELs will normally only be granted to exporters with a proven track record of applications for SIELs, and where the particular nature of their business makes the use of SIELs inappropriate or inefficient.

  Waste Disposal
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the disposal of(a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) liquid form waste. [66098]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is currently no long-term management policy for either high level or intermediate level radioactive waste. Both high and intermediate level wastes are currently stored safely on licensed sites and are subject to strict regulatory control by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. Any discharges relating to the storage of waste are similarly regulated by the Environment Agency. Wastes in liquid form may be high, intermediate or low level. Low level liquid wastes are discharged from a number of sites throughout the country under authorisations granted by the Environment Agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  The Department and the devolved Administrations are working towards finding suitable management solutions for long-lived radioactive waste which have full public
  678W
  support. We recently held a public consultation on the matter, and will be announcing both the results and the next stages of the policy making process very shortly.

  Arms Exports
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to minimise the risk of UK arms exports being diverted from the stated end-use or end-user in Pakistan. [65433]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government focus their efforts on assessment of potential end-use at the export licensing stage, including where needed through checks made by our posts overseas. Carrying out effective risk assessment on end-users before making the export licensing decision is the surest way of preventing arms from falling into the wrong hands. Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to carrying out end-use monitoring in those circumstances where this will genuinely add value to our efforts to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion and where such monitoring is practicable. Our overseas posts have standing instructions to report on allegations of misuse of any UK-origin defence equipment.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Health and Safety Standards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what statutory obligations are in force for inspection of health and safety standards in(a) residential homes, (b) boarding schools and (c) university halls of residence; and if he will make a statement. [66653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) applies to residential homes, boarding schools and university halls of residence. HSWA sets out general health and safety duties which employers, the self-employed and people in control of premises have towards their employees, and others who could be affected by the work activities. It is the 'umbrella' legislation under which other, more specific, health and safety regulations are made. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 allocate inspection responsibility for different types of undertakings to either the Health and Safety Executive or to the Local Authority. Inspectors are appointed under Section 19 of HSWA to carry out inspection and enforcement in relation to health and safety.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 282, what progress has been made with his consultations about the future of nuclear power. [64221]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Responsibility for the consultation on nuclear energy lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The consultation covers the key issues for Energy Policy including the role of nuclear. The Government published a consultation document on

  679W
  14 May, arranged a debate on 20 June in the House of Commons and workshops have been arranged to discuss key issues with energy stakeholders.

  Out-of-town Shopping Centres
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many out of town shopping centres he has visited in an official capacity since 1 January. [66327]

  Mr. Leslie
  None in an official capacity.

  Local Authority Performance
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the future of Best Value as a means of assessing the performance of local authorities; [67446]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the role of Best Value assessments in local authorities and the new comprehensive performance assessment; and if he will make a statement. [67438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Comprehensive Performance Assessments bring together different judgments about a local authority's performance, many of which arise from audits and inspections carried out under the best value powers in the Local Government Act 1999. Such assessments will be used to determine, in consultation with individual councils, the timing and content of subsequent audit and inspection activity. In the case of good performing authorities, we anticipate reduced levels of inspection from next year. All authorities can expect a more proportionate risk based programme of both audit and inspection, and better co-ordination across the range of their functions.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of complying with the comprehensive performance assessment system; and if he will make a statement. [67437]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Comprehensive Performance Assessments make significant use of existing performance information from the following sources:

  inspections;

  audit reports;

  performance indicator data;

  other central Government assessment data;

  together with a corporate governance assessment of the authority as a whole, which includes an element of self assessment.

  Additional inspection fieldwork is kept to the minimum necessary to provide fair and robust judgments. The Audit Commission will undertake the majority of this fieldwork by redirecting their scheduled inspection activities. Because the fieldwork will replace some, or all, of the planned inspection activity for the period up to December 2002, it will be achieved within the existing fee envelope for local councils.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 555W, on the Social Exclusion Unit, what progress has been made in respect of the Social Exclusion
  680W
  Unit's work on (a) mental health issues and prisoners, (b) mental health provision for cared for children and (c) elderly persons' mental health needs to get out of the house; and if he will publish reports in respect of the work. [68005]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: (a) The Social Exclusion Unit's report on reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners was published on 1 July 2002 and copies of the report are in the Libraries of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  The report contains a detailed analysis of the mental health issues facing prisoners. It recommends that the Government develop and implement a national rehabilitation strategy, which should pull together the contributions of all relevant Government Departments. As part of this strategy, the report recommends improvements to key reception and release procedures in prison, and a `Going Straight Contract', which would deliver improvements in mental health outcomes, particularly in how they join up with many of the other factors affecting prisoners. An action plan setting out the Government's response to the report will be published later this year.

  (b) The Social Exclusion Unit has consulted widely on all the factors impacting on the educational attainment of children in care. Mental health has been raised as an important issue, especially with regard to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The project will be published later this year.

  (c) In May 2002 the Social Exclusion Unit published its interim report on transport and social exclusion entitled "Making the Connections". The report is available on the Unit's website and in the Libraries of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  The interim report highlights that one third of older people say that there are one or more activities that they would like to be able to do more often; and that half of these involved family and other social visits. This suggests a significant degree of social isolation, which may have an impact on mental health.

  The Social Exclusion Unit will publish its final report on transport and social exclusion later this year.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many members of his Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [65965]

  Mr. Leslie
  The new Departmental Regulatory Impact Unit was established in October 2001 and it works for both the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport.

  Figures for earlier years are not comparable with the current baseline due to the different policy responsibilities. The resource position for 1997–2001 were parts of a Grade 7, SEO, EO and AO.

  1997–98 (1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998) = 4

  1998–99 (1 April 199 to 31 March 1999) = 4

  1999–2000 (1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000) = 4

  2000–01 (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001) = 4

  2001–02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) = 4 staff, 2 full time, 2 job share.

  681W
  It is the job of Departmental Regulatory Impact Units to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in their Departments. The staff in each unit work closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within their Department and the Regulatory Impact Unit within the Cabinet Office. They focus on those regulations that impact on business, charities, the voluntary sector and public sector front line service deliverers.

  Local Strategic Partnership, Walsall
  David Winnick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on accreditation of the local strategic partnership in Walsall. [68194]

  Mr. Leslie
  Following the decision last February that Walsall's LSP had made insufficient progress to warrant accreditation the partnership's development has been closely monitored. The role of stakeholders in the health, education, police, voluntary and private sectors has been crucial in driving development towards a viable structure and constitution for the partnership. The LSP is now ready to fulfil an important leadership role in the borough, and has now received its accreditation.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in his Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65960]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department was formed on 29 May. For details of energy consumption and cost for the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 384W.

  Procurement of electricity from renewable sources in my Department began in October 2000 and from April 2002 some 40 per cent. of the Departments' total electricity usage was from a renewable source.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions during the last 12 months an official photographer has accompanied him on official visits(a) overseas and (b) within the UK; what (i) travel expenses, (ii) costs of equipment and processing, (iii) staff payment and (iv) other costs were incurred on each occasion; what publications official photographs have appeared in during the last 12 months and what terms and conditions were attached to the publication of such photographs; and whether photographs taken on official visits are available for use in non-governmental literature. [62834]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: In the last 12 months the Deputy Prime Minister has not been accompanied by an official photographer on any visit, whether in the UK or overseas.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what proportion of rural local authorities have used bed and breakfast accommodation to house young people for each of the last 10 years, broken down by region; [66783]

  (2) what proportion of rural districts had emergency accommodation for young people in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region; [66784]

  (3) what measures he is taking to improve the recording of homelessness in rural areas. [66782]

  Mr. McNulty
  Detailed information on emergency accommodation and use of bed and breakfast accommodation for young people in rural districts is not collected centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The new Homelessness Act 2002 will bring about radical change in the way that central and local government, and all other partners, work together to tackle homelessness in all parts of the country including rural areas. For the first time ever, local authorities will be required to carry out a review and develop a strategy for their area that prevents homelessness and provides solutions for people who are, or who may become, homeless. More specifically, the reviews required by the Homelessness Act will require authorities to estimate current and likely future levels of homelessness and audit provision for all forms of homelessness among young people.

  In addition, the quarterly P1E return on which local authorities report activity under the homelessness legislation has been expanded to collect information about the average length of time spent by households in B and B hotels, and hostel style accommodation.

  With effect from April 2002, the form has been further revised, both to seek finer detail about instances of harassment and violence leading to home loss and in anticipation of additional priority need categories proposed in the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) Order 2002 which, subject to parliamentary approval, should come into effect at the end of July.

  Grant Distribution
  Paul Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will consult on reform of the system used to distribute grant to English local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [68477]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to announce that we are today issuing a consultation document covering reform of the system we use to distribute grant to English local authorities. The consultation will run for 12 weeks over the summer. I have placed copies of the document in the Library of the House. It is being sent to all local authorities, as well as other stakeholders, and is available via the internet.

  The system covers key services including education, personal social services, police, fire and a wider range of other responsibilities. It accounts for distribution of over 85 per cent. of the resources government provides for those services, currently about £36 billion per year. Its importance to local government, other stakeholders and

  683W
  public service delivery across the country means that we want a full and open public consultation on the new system.

  The consultation document sets out the Government's broad objectives for the reform. Responses to the 2000 Local Government Finance Green Paper showed that a big majority of the local government respondents wanted the new system to continue to be based on formulae. The Government announced in the 2001 Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" that we agreed. We want new formulae that are fairer, simpler; more intelligible and more stable.

  We are concerned to make sure that the new system is more easily understood that the old one. It is important to improve transparency and accountability. Clearly, it will never be possible to achieve a very simple system; the complexity of the issues it seeks to address see to that. The extremely technical nature of the issues means that there is frequently no clear-cut optimum solution. But we believe it is possible to make improvements.

  In considering how to reflect local authorities' relative needs and circumstances, a range of factors have to be taken into account. Three elements seem fundamental:

  1. a basic amount per head of population (or other relevant unit cost);

  2. an appropriate emphasis on the need to tackle deprivation; and

  3. the variation in pay costs between different areas of the country.

  Because deprivation and pay components are core drivers of the costs authorities face in most areas and the problems the system will need to address, we are particularly keen to see them separately identified in formulae. However, that is not to say that other components (for example sparsity) are unimportant. Indeed, they may be a key consideration in particular instances. They will be clearly identified where they form part of a formula.

  The document sets out options for the various components. These options are detailed to the level of showing the effects on each relevant local authority, comparing against the baseline of 2002–03. This will enable authorities and other interested parties to form views about the desirability of each option.

  However, these figures are not those that will appear in the 2003–04 local government finance settlement later this year. They will differ both because of changes in the overall funding totals (as a result of the spending review) and as a result of changes to data such as population that will not be available until the autumn. Waiting until that information is available would severely restrict the time available for consultation and in any case would not improve the consultation because we want responses to be about the system and the formulae, rather than on the basis of yearly variations in data. So the options are presented in terms of changes from the 2002–03 local government finance settlement.

  We will not necessarily limit ourselves to building the new system from the choices specifically consulted upon here. It is likely that other options will be put forward in response to this consultation, and we will not exclude
  684W
  those before taking decisions. Our conclusions arising from the consultation and further consideration of options will be incorporated in the provisional settlement for 2003–04 that will be published at the usual time, towards the end of the year. Following a further period of consultation, final decisions will be announced in early 2003 in time to take effect in the 2003–04 financial year.

  This is a difficult and important issue. The Government recognise that pragmatic decisions will be needed to produce a workable system, and the complexity and variety of the pressures that are put upon the system from all sides means that it will not be possible for all authorities to get what they want from this process. So no authority should feel that it is guaranteed to get a bigger share of the fixed amount of resources the system can distribute. But the Government are seeking a fairer distribution of resources which takes account of today's pressures on local government and the particular needs of areas of deprivation. We will consider all of the views that are put forward, and weigh them up carefully before decisions are taken.

  Balfour Beatty
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract between the Government and Balfour Beatty for the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall. [55259]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 567W, an initial report on timber procurement for 22 Whitehall has been received and there will be a report to the House when the report is finalised.

  Urban Green Spaces Taskforce
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will respond to the final report of the urban green spaces taskforce; and if he will make a statement. [67846]

  Mr. McNulty
  We welcome the proposals of the final report, which provide a good basis for preparing our policy on provision and management of urban parks and green spaces as proposed in the urban White Paper [Cm 4911].

  Our responses to a majority of the 52 recommendations of the final report rely on other initiatives which have yet to conclude. These include the current spending review, the cross cutting review on improving the public space, and the revision of planning policy guidance on open space, recreation and sports. We also wish to take advice from the Steering Committee set up by the OPDM to consider specific recommendations from the report.

  We plan to integrate our policy on urban parks and green spaces with our strategy and action plan for improving public spaces. The resulting document will address all the recommendations of the final report and deliver our urban White Paper commitments for long-term improvements to urban green spaces. The strategy will be published in the autumn.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in her Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60757]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the increase in domestic recycling required in order to achieve new packaging and packing waste recycling and recovery targets under discussion in the EU; and what discussions she has had with local authorities in relation to increasing domestic and curbside collection of packaging waste to meet recovery and recycling targets by 2006. [62363]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department worked with the task force of the Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP) in the production of a report, published in November 2001, which looked at packaging material flows from raw material manufacturer to seller, and at packaging waste flows from point of discard to ultimate disposal or recovery. This report, which is publicly available, also looked at the likely level of packaging waste arising in the household stream and which would increasingly have to be recovered if likely higher targets are to be met.

  New packaging waste recovery targets have not yet been finalised but for the purposes of the estimates in the task force report an overall recycling target of 60 per cent. is assumed to have to be met in 2006. The tonnage needed to meet such a target would be in the region of 5.7 million tonnes and the task force report concludes that as much as 65 per cent. of the additional tonnage required may need to be recovered from the household waste stream.

  A first meeting to discuss future packaging waste recovery from the household waste stream was held last year between officials in my Department, the ACP task force and local authorities. Further meetings are planned.

  Holsworthy Biogas Project
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public money has been spent on the Holsworthy Biogas project; what steps her Department took to ensure that all licensing requirements were in place before public money was spent; what steps her Department took to vet the business plan for this project and when the steps were taken; what assessment she has made of the(a) viability of the business plan and (b) profitability of the project; and if she will make a statement. [61770]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]£1,870,315 of UK public expenditure and £1,924,985 of European funding has been committed to this project, the total project costs for which are £7,700,000. To date, some £1,515,014 of UK public expenditure has been made. The Department routinely assessed all applications for funding under the Objective 5b programme. Such 686W
  assessment included consideration of the business plan, the environmental impact and the profitability of the project. At the time of assessment and approval of the Holsworthy Biogas project, it was not recognised that restrictions on disposal of waste food would prevent the plant being licensed. However, following the recent risk assessment commissioned by the Government we are reviewing the Animal By-Products legislation with a view to permitting the treatment of catering waste in composting and biogas processes.

  Mobile Recycling Plants
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mobile recycling plants there are in operation in the UK; and what their weekly capacity is. [62976]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]Two mobile recycling plant licensed by the Environment Agency have been operating in the UK. The capacity of each is approximately 4,000 refrigerators per week. In addition one fixed plant was commissioned this week and will begin operating shortly and a further two are due to be operating within a month. All are for the removal of ozone depleting substances from refrigerator equipment, and the combined capacity of all plant will be 1.2 million units per year.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government support the extension of the Kyoto Protocol to cover developing nations. [63519]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to the principle that developed countries, as the biggest emitters, should take the lead in reducing emissions. We are therefore working to secure ratification and early entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, under which developed countries take on legally binding emission reduction targets for the period 2008–12. Developing countries are covered by the Kyoto Protocol. Under its terms, they do not have legally binding greenhouse gas emission targets but must take steps to limit their emissions and to report on their efforts. A number of developing countries have already ratified the Protocol and we hope that as many developing countries as possible will follow that lead. The Government hope that the entry into force of the Protocol will provide the basis on which we can enter into an international dialogue with developed and developing countries (or "all countries") on future action to tackle climate change. In due course, all countries that emit significant quantities of greenhouse gases will need to take action if we are to meet the UN Climate Change Convention's objective of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a safe level.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions the Government have had with(a) US representatives, (b) the IMF, (c) the World bank, (d) the WTO and (e) developing nations regarding emissions reductions and the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries. [66643]
  687W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have discussed a wide range of climate change issues with US representatives this year, including emissions reductions and technology transfer to developing countries. Most recently the importance of tackling climate change was discussed at the G8 Heads of Government meeting on 26–27 June in Kananaskis, attended by the Prime Minister and President Bush. Other Government Ministers and officials take every opportunity to engage constructively with the US on climate change.

  While the Government have had no recent discussions with the IMF on these issues, we are actively encouraging a substantial and successful third replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, the focus of which includes climate change activities in developing countries.

  The Department for International Development has been working closely with the World bank and a number of other agencies to assess the impact of climate change on poverty.

  Climate change is rarely discussed in the forum of the WTO and the Government have had no discussions with it on the particular issues of emissions reductions and technology transfer.

  Government Ministers and officials regularly discuss these and a range of other climate change related issues with representatives from developing countries. We will continue to work constructively on climate change with our international partners in the run up to the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in October, in Delhi.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons who were(a) employed by the former Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (b) employed by other Government Departments and agencies and (c) in the private sector were used by the Government in their campaign to eradicate the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. [64118]

  Margaret Beckett
  The number of veterinary surgeons assisting with the eradication of foot and mouth disease was not static throughout the epidemic. The table identifies veterinary resources as at mid April 2001 during the peak period.

  Veterinary resources as at mid April 2001

  Number

  (a) MAFF veterinarians

  344

  (b) Veterinary surgeons employed by other Government Departments and agencies; including foreign Governments

  122

  (c) Private sector veterinarians1

  1,169

  1Relates to temporary veterinary inspectors

  Local veterinary inspectors (LVIs) assisted in terms of licensing and some sero-surveillance work but remained working for their respective practices. These have not been included in the breakdown of figures.

  Department-sponsored Organisations
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to announce the budget allocation for the financial year 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 for organisations sponsored by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [64280]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department operates a system of delegated budgeting. Budgets for 2002–03 were issued to policy commands during April, for them to allocate as appropriate. Organisations who are sponsored by the Department are part of the delegation process. They are notified of the level of sponsorship once this has been determined.

  Camelids
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the target time is for processing an application for an import licence for camelids from non-EU countries; and if she will make a statement; [64359]

  (2) what plans she has to change the licensing procedure for the import of camelids; and if she will make a statement. [64358]

  Margaret Beckett
  If the application for an import licence is complete and correct and we have up-to-date import conditions in place that have been agreed with the exporting country, we can dispatch a licence within three days. It is, however, more common for us to have to negotiate new or amended import conditions with the veterinary authorities of the exporting country. This can be a slow process and can take several months. For this reason we do not have a target date for such applications.

  The existing licensing procedure will be retained until the European Commission introduces harmonised animal health rules for the importation of camelids into the Community.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards the recruitment of veterinary surgeons to replace those retiring from the State Veterinary Service. [64470]

  Margaret Beckett
  We currently have a temporary moratorium on the recruitment of veterinary staff to replace those retiring from the State Veterinary Service. This will be reviewed following further examination of the funding for consequential work arising from FMD, which is presently underway.

  Due consideration will also be given to any relevant recommendations made by the Lessons Learned and Royal Society inquiries.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons are employed by the State Veterinary Service; how many such posts are vacant; and how many vets are due to retire from the SVS within the next 12 months. [64469]
  689W
  Margaret Beckett
  The total number of veterinary surgeons employed by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) as at 1 April 2002 is 336.8 (full-time equivalent basis).

  The number of vacant veterinary permanent posts was 12.

  It is anticipated that 10 vets will be retiring within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons work for each regional office of her Department. [65471]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]As at 1 April 2002, the State Veterinary Service (SVS) had five regions comprising of 23 divisional offices. Veterinary staff employed in each region is indicated in the table:

  Region

  Number of stuff employed

  East region

  58

  North region

  84

  West region

  67

  Scotland

  57

  Wales

  30

  Ungulates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many ungulates, broken down by species, were imported from non-EU countries into the United Kingdom in each of the past three years; and if she will make a statement. [64360]

  Margaret Beckett
  The number of ungulates, broken down by species, imported from non-EU countries into Great Britain (but not including imports into Northern Ireland) for the period 1999–2001 is shown in the following table.

  Species

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Equine

  1,767

  1,891

  1,732

  Alpacas (and other Ruminants)

  468

  1,194

  29

  Bovine

  1,941

  482

  45

  Caprine

  13

  0

  0

  Ovine

  8

  78

  967

  Porcine

  2

  0

  0

  Rhinocerotidae

  1

  0

  1

  Deer

  0

  3

  0

  Giraffes

  0

  3

  0

  Tapiridae

  0

  1

  0

  The figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she was advised by the European Commission that in the absence of an approved third country list under Directive 92/65/EC ungulates covered by this directive cannot be legally imported into a Community country; [64361]

  (2) what representations she has made to (a) the European Commission and (b) her counterparts in other member states about the implementation of Directive 92/65/EC; [64467]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact of the implementation of EC Directive 92/65/EC on breeders of alpacas and other camelids in the United Kingdom. [64466]
  690W
  Margaret Beckett
  The Commission gave a verbal summary of its views at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 10 April this year. We have not yet received formal notification of any changes to the existing arrangements. We have written to the Commission seeking clarification of their position and have alerted them to the impact a suspension of such imports would have on the UK, not only for the well established trade in alpacas but also for breeding programmes of certain endangered species across the Community. There have been a number of formal and informal discussions in Brussels with the Commission and other member states and the Commission intends to introduce harmonised rules for certain species covered by Directive 92/65/EC.

  Cattle (Artificial Insemination)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average time taken over the last 12 months was to process an application for a bull to be licensed for artificial insemination. [64461]

  Margaret Beckett
  The average time taken over the last 12 months to carry out pre-approval health testing of bulls and issue a licence for artificial insemination was 28 days from receipt of a complete and correct application.

  Red Kites and Golden Plovers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) red kites and (b) golden plovers there were in (i) Scotland, (ii) England and (iii) Wales in each year since 1972. [64709]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested on red kites from 1972 to 2000 is shown in the table.

  Number of pairs of red kites

  Year

  Wales

  England

  Scotland

  1972

  29

  —

  —

  1973

  31

  —

  —

  1974

  33

  —

  —

  1975

  33

  —

  —

  1976

  33

  —

  —

  1977

  35

  —

  —

  1978

  41

  —

  —

  1979

  44

  —

  —

  1980

  43

  —

  —

  1981

  47

  —

  —

  1982

  46

  —

  —

  1983

  47

  —

  —

  1984

  52

  —

  —

  1985

  56

  —

  —

  1986

  58

  —

  —

  1987

  59

  —

  —

  1988

  69

  —

  —

  Reintroduction initiated

  1989

  72

  —

  —

  1990

  85

  1991

  92

  2

  0

  1992

  101

  7

  2

  1993

  115

  12

  8

  1994

  138

  22

  11

  1995

  146

  26

  17

  1996

  161

  137

  22

  1997

  180

  61

  27

  691W

  Number of pairs of red kites

  Year

  Wales

  England

  Scotland

  1998

  200

  87

  30

  1999

  228

  183

  39

  2000

  1203

  1131

  139

  1Information available for Wales in 2000, for England in 1996, 1999 and 2000 and for Scotland in 2000 relates only to numbers of breeding pairs.

  The following table gives information on the golden plover population. Numbers have been monitored only since 1995 and on a GB-wide basis.

  Golden plover

  Year

  Population

  1995–1996

  13,0638

  1996–1997

  10,1255

  1997–1998

  18,1612

  1998–1999

  15,6020

  1999–2000

  17,8959

  Illegal Waste
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action(a) has recently been taken and (b) is planned by her Department to tackle problems from (i) litter, (ii) flytipping, (iii) abandoned vehicles and (iv) other waste disposed by illegal means; and if she will make a statement. [647311

  Mr. Meacher
  Last year I launched three litter initiatives: the £1 million Pathfinder Programme, which calls upon local authorities to come up with innovative ways of tackling litter; the development of a voluntary code of best environmental practice for the fast food industry; and a review of the litter legislation to see what is, and what is not working. The results of Pathfinder will be available this time next year; the fast food code of practice is currently being drafted; and the litter legislative review has been subsumed into the Government's public space cross-cutting review, which will report this autumn.

  The responsibility for enforcing the legislation on fly tipping rests with the Environment Agency and local authorities. The Department fully supports the work and actions taken by these bodies in order to tackle the problem, including prosecutions where appropriate. The Department is currently looking at the legislative framework on fly tipping to see if any changes can be made to help local authorities and the Environment Agency in their role. The Environment Agency are also working to establish an environmental crime unit that will bear down on problems such as fly tipping through, among other things, improved intelligence and surveillance systems.

  In October 2001 we published a joint consultation document with DTLR on measures to remove abandoned and untaxed vehicles from the streets more quickly and, for the longer term, bring forward changes to vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure greater accuracy of DVLA's vehicle record. Regulations to reduce the statutory notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles were laid before the House on 19 March and came into force on 9 April.
  692W
  The Environment Agency has strong existing powers available to take action against illegally deposited waste.

  Human Behaviour and the Environment
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been conducted(a) by and (b) for (i) her Department, (ii) the Environment Agency and (iii) other Government bodies in relation to human behaviour and the environment; and if she will make a statement. [64739]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA undertakes and commissions a large volume of research every year, some of which deals with issues of human behaviour and the environment. At any one time the Department is funding around 1500 research projects supporting around forty individual policy subject areas. Details of all ongoing DEFRA research projects and research results can now be found on the Department's searchable website at: http://www.defra.gov.uldresearch/default.htm. For example, the Domestic Noise Complaints Study published in 1999 can be found on the site. The results of the recent Noise Attitudes Survey (which was published by DEFRA on May 20 2002) will also be available on the site shortly.

  In addition, the Department sponsors the Sustainable Development Research Network (website: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/), which aims to identify and promote research which integrates environmental, social and economic objectives.

  The Environment Agency has completed numerous research projects on various aspects of human behaviour and the environment. A main focus of research to date has been to understand values and perceptions of the environmental business of the Agency, for example in relation to industry, nuclear waste management and water management. The specific themes covered by the research are:
  public participation and involvement: a major project on Evaluating Methods for Public Participation has recently been completed; the Agency is also participating in a European research project on Enhancing Transparency and Public Participation in Nuclear Waste Management. A number of smaller projects have looked at issues such as information provision and public participation in specific decision-making contexts.
  policy advocacy processes: a three-year project is being developed which looks at policy advocacy in different areas, such as waste.
  partnership: as well as a number of local projects, a national project is being developed to equip staff to work better in partnerships with other stakeholders.
  risk communication: research has explored public perceptions of environmental risks and approaches to risk communication. particularly in relation to risks related to industrial pollution and flooding; the Agency also participated in a major project with other government departments and agencies looking at the Social Amplification of Risk.
  social impacts: a number of projects focusing on the impacts of flooding, including health impacts and impacts on vulnerable groups, are due to be completed this year;
  understanding social perspectives on the environmental issues that concern the Agency: the perspectives of different stakeholders were explored in a recent project on Industrial Pollution Communication;

  693W
  social aspects of sustainable development: two projects on integrated appraisal (one on Appraisal Methods and one looking at integrated appraisal in the context of the Water Framework Directive) have contributed to knowledge in this sphere.

  More information on some of these findings are available at "www.webookshop.com/ea/rdreport"

  Additionally, the Agency has recently carried out a research study into people's behaviours and attitudes to household waste. This research showed that people would recycle more of their rubbish if it were made easier to do so by local councils. [Almost 9 out of 10 people claim that they would be likely to separate rubbish for recycling if the council provided appropriate containers]. Results were published in May this year and are available at "www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subect/waste/232021/ 239537/296229"

  DEFRA does not collect or hold data on research undertaken or commissioned by other Government Departments on this issue.

  EAGA
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the list of complaints that she has received from members on the performance of EAGA. [65019]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Between June 2001 and May 2002 I received 111 representations from members regarding the performance of the Warm Front scheme in areas where EAGA is Scheme Manager. These representations cover areas such as delays to installation, communication issues and standards of workmanship.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Advisory Committee for the implementation of the directive on the reduction of the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels is next due to meet; whether any experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66436]

  Mr. Meacher
  Meetings of this Committee are held as and when required. The UK would usually be represented by an official from my Department but the precise representation would be decided in the light of the matters to be discussed. There have been no meetings of the Committee over the last 12 months, and we are not aware of any planned.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the implementation of legislation on ambient air quality assessment and management is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66451]

  Mr. Meacher
  Meetings of this Committee are held as and when required. The UK would usually be represented by an official from my Department but the precise representation would be decided in the light of the matters 694W
  to be discussed. There have been no meetings of the Committee over the last 12 months, and we are not aware of any planned.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the air quality values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66442]

  Mr. Meacher
  This part of directive 80/779/EEC on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particles has been repealed.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of the Directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66443]

  Mr. Meacher
  This part of directive 85/203/EEC on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide as been repealed.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress and the implementation of the directive on the control of volatile organic compound emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66461]

  Mr. Meacher
  Meetings of this committee are held as and when required. The UK would usually be represented by an official from my Department, but the precise representation would be decided in the light of the matters to be discussed. There have been no meetings of the committee over the last 12 months, and we are not aware of any planned.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress of the directive on the limit value for lead in the air is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66429]

  Mr. Meacher
  This part of directive 82/884/EEC on a limit value for lead in the air has been repealed.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the conclusions were of the meeting on 12 June of the Independent Scientific Group on Bovine TB. [65468]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) met on 12 June in London as part of its normal schedule of meetings. The group noted progress on the Krebs field trial, including recent proactive culling operations in Cornwall and Gloucestershire, and discussed future work
  695W
  programmes. There was discussion of arrangements to increase collections in the Road Traffic Accident survey of badger carcases for TB and for clearing the backlog of epidemiological questionnaires (TB99) following delays arising from the foot and mouth disease emergency. Consideration was given to additional measures to combat the spread of bovine TB and action outside trial areas. The group reviewed its programme for analysing and interpreting data from cattle TB 'hotspots' outside trial areas, data on inconclusive reactors and data on the gamma interferon test, and confirmed its intention to finalise a report by the autumn.

  Various research activities were discussed including a report on post genomic research on M.bovis at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and recently published research by VLA on the pathology in cattle following M.bovis BCG vaccination against experimental bovine TB.

  A summary of ISG agendas and notes of meetings is published on DEFRA's website at http://defraweb/animal/tb/tb/.

  Table 1—Tb incidents in Great Britain in 2002—herds

  Date

  Total TB tests on herds1

  Herds under movement restriction2

  Tests on unrestricted herds3

  Of which:New herd incidents4

  Of which:New confirmed herd incidents5

  Tests on unrestricted herds resulting in a confirmed new herd incident6(percentage)

  January 2002

  3,280

  1,107

  2,952

  196

  115

  3.9

  February 2002

  4,747

  1,381

  4,423

  366

  7222–238

  75.0–5.4

  March 2002

  5,012

  1,617

  4,670

  316

  74.0–4.4

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to revision.

  1 Herds for which tuberculin skin testing is carried out on at least one animal during the period shown.

  2 Herds restricted at any time during the period shown due to a TB incident.

  3 Any tests carried out during the period shown on a herd which was not already under restriction due to a TB incident. Also any cases found, during the period shown, by routine inspection at the slaughterhouse of animals from a herd not already under restriction.

  4 Herds which were previously TB free but either had cattle that reacted to a tuberculin test or had a tuberculous animal disclosed by routine inspection at slaughter, during the period shown.

  5 New herd incidents (column 4) for which at least one animal was subsequently confirmed to have TB.

  6 Column 5 as a percentage of column 3.

  7 Estimates for February and March 2002 are given as a range as a number of the test results are still awaited. It is expected that the final figure, when available, will fall within this range.

  Source:

  DEFRA's Animal Health Database

  Table 2—Detailed Tb raw data: 1 January-31 May 2002 Great Britain

  West

  North

  East

  Total for England

  Total for Wales

  Total for Scotland

  Total for GB

  (a) Total number of herd tests

  8,140

  4,271

  1,576

  13,987

  3,903

  2,309

  20,199

  (b) Herds under TB2 restrictions because of a TB incident at some time during the reporting period

  1,454

  171

  32

  1,657

  421

  57

  2,135

  (d) Total new herd TB incidents

  820

  129

  17

  966

  226

  32

  1,224

  (e) of which are considered confirmed new TB incidents (i.e. CNIs)

  472

  69

  5

  546

  116

  9

  671

  Notes:

  In using and interpreting table 2 the following points should be noted:

  A proportion of TB incidents remain unclassified, awaiting the results of culture tests which can take several months. Therefore the number of confirmed incidents, for 2002 in particular, will currently be under-recorded. For instance, 9 per cent. of new TB incidents in January to May 2002 were unclassified when the data were extracted.

  The number of TB incidents depends on the number of tests carried out and on the nature of the testing regime at the time (as well as on the underlying prevalence of the disease). In 2002, testing resources are being concentrated on herds which are overdue their tests (because of the backlog following the foot and mouth disease outbreak) and which have therefore had a longer period than usual in which to contract the disease. Those currently being tested also contain a higher than usual proportion of high risk herds. During the FMD outbreak, TB testing was significantly reduced and necessarily targeted to higher risk herds e.g. those tested following routine inspection of animals at slaughterhouses. At any time, the more herds are tested, the more likely you are to find TB.

  It is therefore very difficult to assess the underlying trends at this time.

  Any reactors, inconclusive reactors and direct contacts still awaiting removal and slaughter on the date of the data download were not included in the tables. These only show the number of reactors, inconclusive reactors and direct contacts that had been slaughtered as at 11 June.
  696W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) total TB tests on herds, (b) herds under movement restriction, (c) tests on unrestricted herds, (d) new herd incidents and (e) unrestricted herds, (d) new herd incidents and (e) new confirmed herd incidents there were in each county between 1 January and 30 March, and what percentage of tests on unrestricted herds in each county resulted in a confirmed herd incident. [65474]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The information is not available in the format requested. A statistical summary for Great Britain as a whole for the period 1 January to 30 March is given in table 1.

  A more detailed breakdown of the information requested in sub-points (a), (b), (d) and (e) is given in table 2. This is broken down by State Veterinary Service region for the period 1 January to 31 May. Statistics for unrestricted herds (sub-point (c)) are not available in the same format.

  All the statistics given are available on the DEFRA website at: http://defraweb/animalh/tb/default.htm.
  697W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with Krebs trials in triplets I and J. [65475]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The planning of work in triplets I and J of the Krebs trial is proceeding in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Under procedures applicable to all triplets designed to safeguard the safety of staff, details of current and future operations are not disclosed until they have been completed. A summary of the completed work for each triplet is shown on DEFRA's website at http://defraweb/animal/tb/tb/

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her target date is for eliminating the backlog of herd tests for Bovine TB. [65473]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The rolling nature of the backlog of herd testing for bovine TB makes it difficult for us to set a specific target for its elimination although we are working hard to address the backlog which currently stands at 20K. As overdue tests are cleared, more fall due and join the backlog. In addition as further incidents of TB are disclosed more testing is triggered.

  Sheep
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of(a) the number of sheep and (b) the proportion of the national flock which were born before the imposition of the ban on feeding animal protein to ruminants and are still alive. [65467]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]BSE-related feed controls relating to ruminants date back to 1988, but the feed ban in relation to mammalian protein is considered to have been effective from 1 August 1996, when mammalian meat and bonemeal was banned from all farmed livestock feed to prevent the possibility of cross-contamination of ruminant feed. It is estimated that the number of sheep still alive which were born before 1 August 1996, is less than 500, representing approximately 3 per cent. of the UK national flock.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when ACRE formed its sub-group to look into the impact of releasing genetically modified organisms on soil ecology; how many times the group has met; which(a) laboratories and (b) trial sites are being used for the monitored research; and when the research findings will be available. [54475]

  Mr. Meacher
  The current workplan of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) as published in their 2000 Annual Report included provision for six workgroups to be established in two phases. Three were established last year. The second phase to start this summer, will include a subgroup to review the impact of GMOs on soil ecology. The group will give consideration to potential hazards and how they might be realised, the current or future GM crops and traits that might give most concern to soil ecology and where the main gaps are in current scientific understanding. The group has not yet 698W
  met and is not carrying out any research in laboratories or in the field. The outputs of this group including minutes of meetings will be published on the ACRE website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/acre/index.htm.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the scientific assessments peer reviews that data from the GM field scale evaluations will undergo; and in what order they will take place. [65517]

  Mr. Meacher
  The data from the farm-scale evaluations will be collated, analysed and presented in the form of a series of scientific papers written by the research consortium conducting the ecological studies. Their work is being overseen by the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) to ensure that it is of the highest scientific standard.

  Once complete and approved by the SSC, the papers will be submitted to a reputable scientific journal for peer review and publication at the discretion of the journal. We anticipate that the report of the spring-sown crops, maize, spring oil seed rape and beet, will be published in summer 2003 and the autumn-sown oil seed rape in 2004.

  Benthic Fauna
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) guidance and (b) legislation is in place with regard to benthic fauna; and if she will make a statement. [65501]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) provides a framework for the conservation of species and habitats, including benthic fauna, as well as the integration of biodiversity into all areas of policy. The UK BAP has some 40 individual action plans for important marine and coastal habitats and species, including mammals, fish, molluscs, sea anemones and algae.

  The EC Habitats Directive requires member states to protect areas that support certain habitats and species, including examples of benthic fauna. My Department is working with the statutory conservation agencies to identify and select special areas of conservation in and beyond the UK's territorial waters.

  Under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, a licence is required before any material can be deposited in the sea for either disposal or construction purposes. As part of the licensing process, a full environmental assessment is carried out taking account of all potential impacts on the marine environment, including benthic fauna.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes there have been to benthic fauna since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [65502]

  Mr. Meacher
  Measurement of the diversity of benthic fauna is a key component in understanding the health of UK coastal waters. We have set in place a National Marine Monitoring Programme that, on an annual basis, assesses the benthic community at a network of sites in our coastal seas.

  DEFRA's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) has found that apart from some reduction in diversity in estuaries due to natural

  699W
  stressors and pollutants, the UK's coastal waters are generally healthy and support diverse benthic fauna showing no detrimental changes.

  CEFAS is currently engaged in a repeat of a detailed 1986 survey of benthic communities across the North sea in association with European Marine Institutes under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the sea. This survey will provide the most comprehensive study to date on changes in benthic communities in the North Sea.

  Environmental Behaviour
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on(a) programmes and (b) campaigns conducted by her Department related to changing individual

  Expenditure by DEFRA and DETR on programmes and campaigns to change individual behaviour 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Period

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  20011

  20022

  Environmental Action Fund, most of which supports individual action

  3,651

  4,260

  3,909

  4,161

  698

  3,492

  DETR/DEFRA support for ENCAMS for core costs and programmes to promote individual action

  3,997

  3,697

  3,763

  3,763

  590

  2,952

  DETR/DEFRA support3 for Energy Saving trust advertising to promote individual action

  3,313

  3,532

  3,726

  4,208

  792

  3,959

  Programme total

  10,961

  11,489

  11,398

  12,132

  2,080

  10,403

  Campaign total4

  —

  3,400

  7,000

  9,300

  100

  5005

  1 1 April to 6 June 2001. Estimated by taking two-twelfths of annual spend.

  2 7 June 2001 to 31 March 2002. Estimated by taking ten-twelfths of annual spend.

  3 It is not possible to disaggregate a small element of Scottish Executive support from this figure.

  4 Representing expenditure on the "are you doing your bit"? campaign launched in 1998.

  5 Most of the campaign's planned resource were allocated in 2001–02 to rural support during the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  Notes:

  (All figures are out-turn, in £000. Figures before 7 June 2002 relate to expenditure by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions).

  Vacant Posts
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which posts in her Department(a) centrally and (b) regionally are vacant; and if she will make a statement. [65632]

  Mr. Morley
  The vacancy position in DEFRA's HQ Units (based in London, York and Guildford) as at 28 June 2002 was as follows (grades are as stated and include equivalent specialist grades):

  Grade

  Administrative Assistants

  12.5

  Administrative Officers

  39

  Executive Officers

  35

  Higher Executive Officers

  38

  Senior Executive Officers

  19

  Grade 7

  30

  Grade 6

  9

  Senior Civil Service

  2

  Action is in hand to fill those posts for which funding has been confirmed.

  The situation in core-DEFRA's regional offices (excluding its Agencies) is also subject to available funding. The regional organisations such as the Rural
  700W
  behaviour in relation to the environment (i) in each year since 1997 and (ii) since 7 June 2001; and if she will make a statement. [65625]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department supports several programmes to change individual behaviours in relation to the environment. They develop work undertaken before the General Election by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. These include work by the Energy Saving Trust, Environmental Campaigns Limited (incorporating the former Tidy Britain Group and Going for Green organisations), and the recipients of Environmental Action Fund grant. The "Are you doing your bit?" campaign was launched by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1998 and covers both environmental and transport topics. We have also consistently taken advantage of opportunities to promote individual action in other projects and public engagements, notably in the build-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  Development Service and State Veterinary Service are currently assessing vacancies in the light of budgets for this financial year.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers Ofwat has to control monopolies in water and sewerage companies. [66627]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Director General of Water Services' powers and duties are set out in the Water Industry Act 1991. He uses his powers to place conditions on companies that, among other things, set their annual price limits. The Director General also has powers to make enforcement orders to secure companies' compliance with their conditions of appointment or with other requirements.

  The Director exercises his powers and duties in a manner which he believes facilitates competition and promotes economy and efficiency. In the absence of a fully competitive market for water and sewerage services, the Director uses proxies for market competition, primarily comparative competition.

  Any mergers between existing water and sewerage companies would result in the loss of a comparator and are automatically referred to the Competition

  701W
  Commission. In considering the effects of the proposed merger on the public interest, the Commission is required by the Water Industry Act 1991 to have regard to the principle of avoiding prejudice to Ofwat's ability to make comparisons between different water enterprises.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers Ofwat has to control the level of charges for services provided by water and sewerage companies. [66628]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Director General of Water Services has powers to set price limits. Within its price limit, each company is responsible for deciding individual charges. Under the Water Industry Act 1999, companies must publish these charges annually in a charges scheme, for which they must obtain the Director General's approval. Companies are prohibited from charging household customers other than in accordance with an approved charges scheme.

  Game Excise Licences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent(a) representations and (b) discussions she has had; what assessment she has made regarding game excise licences; and what plans she has to change them. [67250]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]The Government have received a number of recent representations on game licences. This is a highly complex area, and we are considering these and their implications for the future of the game licensing regime.

  Country Sports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department and its predecessors have spent on country sports, broken down by category, in each of the last 10 years. [67252]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has no provision in its budgets for promoting country sports. Further, I am not aware of any such spending on country sports in respect of MAFF and the parts of the Home Office which came into DEFRA before June 2001.

  With colleagues, I shall do what I can to promote sport in general in rural areas, including fishing and shooting as well as a variety of other sports.

  Earth Summit
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will make up the United Kingdom's delegation to the Rio+10 Summit in Johannesburg. [66742]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are currently in the process of considering the delegation for the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development but the final decision on the make up of the delegation will rest with the Prime Minister. However, both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will attend the summit.

  We have been working closely with various stakeholder groups in our preparations for World Summit on Sustainable Development and representatives have been
  702W
  part of the UK delegation at previous preparatory meetings for WSSD. This will continue to be the case for the summit itself.

  Common Land
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received regarding changes in the value of land registered as common land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; [67940]

  (2) what analysis she has made of changes in the value of land registered as common land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and if she will make a statement. [67939]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has not received any specific representations about changes in the value of registered common land which might be due to the provisions contained in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This was an issue on which comments were invited during consultation on draft regulations under section 68 of the Act relating to vehicular access over common land, but no specific representations were received. As the published regulatory impact assessment makes clear, the Department cannot predict with confidence the detailed impact of the regulations.

  Landfill
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department has advertised for the position of landfill directive manager in her Department since 1997; on what dates the post has been filled; and if she will make a statement. [65626]

  Mr. Morley
  The position of landfill directive manager (now known as 'Head of Landfill and Composting Team') has been advertised and filled as follows since 1997:

  July 2000:
  post advertised internally within DETR. Post filled on 20 October 2000.

  December 2001:
  post became vacant and was advertised internally in DEFRA. Post filled on 18 March 2002.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to meet representatives of the livestock industry to discuss animal welfare. [63001]

  Mr. Morley
  We regularly meet representatives of the livestock industry to discuss animal welfare issues.

  Wildlife Crime
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to tackle crime in relation to wildlife. [63015]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is determined to tackle wildlife crime and we have a number of relevant initiatives under way. For example, I launched the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit at the end of April, and we have begun a review of Control of Trade
  703W
  in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, which will include an assessment of the level of penalties and police powers of arrest for wildlife offences.

  Grassland
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the reasons why the conditions of(a) lowland and upland calcareous grassland, (b) upland acid grassland, (c) upland heathland and (d) bogs in England are generally unfavourable; and what measures she is taking to improve them. [66779]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Assessment of the condition of these habitat types, or of specific features within them, is carried out in a number of contexts.

  Countryside Survey 2000 has provided a national assessment of long-term changes in the extent and condition of habitats. The Department is funding further research to improve understanding of the underlying reasons for this and the results are expected in Spring 2003. The report and related material can be found at www.cs2000.org.uk.

  As part of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) individual action plans have been published for upland and lowland calcareous grassland, upland heathland and bogs. Each plan contains an assessment of the factors affecting the habitat, targets for maintenance or improvement of the habitat condition and actions aimed at achieving these targets. Implementation of the action plans is being led by the statutory conservation agencies in partnership with the relevant Government and voluntary sector bodies. Further information on the plans can be found at www.ukbap.org.uk.

  English Nature also assess the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Where SSSIs are not in a favourable condition, a number of factors may contribute to this. Agriculture is a major factor, particularly grazing intensity. Overgrazing or undergrazing can adversely affect the condition of sites. We are addressing these problems on a number of fronts. For example, we continue to expand agri-environment schemes, which can assist many of these habitats. In addition, the sheep quota purchase scheme announced on 26 June is an example of the development of more direct and innovative measures to help alleviate grazing pressure.

  Grazing regimes also affect these habitats on common land. We shall shortly announce our plans for improving the legislation to enable better management of common land.

  In relation to SSSIs, English Nature are also able to enter into management agreements with land managers to prevent activities which can be damaging to these sites. Currently 201,000 hectares are subject to such agreements.

  Air Pollution
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her 704W
  Department has commissioned into (a) the acute, short-term and (b) the chronic, long-term effects on health of (i) nitrogen dioxide, (ii) carbon monoxide and (iii) particles in regard to air pollution. [64662]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has been commissioning research into the effects of air pollutants on health since 1991. A range of projects dealing with both long-term and short-term effects of air pollutants on health has been funded. Many of these projects deal with more than one air pollutant.

  Decisions regarding a new research programme were taken on 14 June. Nine projects will be funded to a total cost of about £l million. Of the nine projects, three deal with long-term effects, four with short-term effects and one with both long and short-term effects. One project focuses specifically on nitrogen dioxide, the others deal with pollutants in general with a special focus on particles. No work on carbon monoxide has been agreed as yet though a project on long-term effects of exposure to carbon monoxide is being held as a "first reserve".

  Details of the new programme will be placed in the Library.

  A summary list of all work funded prior to the new programme will also be placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's assessment is of the security situation in Nepal; and what effect it has had on her Department's ability to provide development and humanitarian aid. [67037]

  Clare Short
  The security situation has deteriorated sharply since the Maoists abandoned peace negotiations in November last year. Since then an estimated 3,000 people have died as a result of the conflict.

  The Government holds all the district towns, but large parts of the countryside are under effective control of the Maoists. The intensity of the conflict varies, with the Maoist "heartland" areas of the mid-west and far-west most affected.

  The war is generally regarded to be unwinnable by military means alone, as the country is ideally suited to guerrilla warfare. There are growing concerns about human rights violations on both sides. In recent weeks, there has been a noticeable decline in confrontations between the Security Forces and the Maoists, but this lull in the fighting is believed to be temporary.

  While there is no direct threat against development workers, there are indirect risks of being caught in crossfire. Restrictions on movement, especially of people and supplies, and the withdrawal of Government counterparts in rural areas, means that Government development programmes in some remote areas has effectively stopped. None the less, Maoists are allowing continuation of development projects in some areas under their control, particularly where work is strongly supported by local communities.
  705W
  UK funded development assistance is continuing, albeit more slowly. In addition to existing work on rural livelihoods, rural infrastructure, health and governance, my Department is implementing a programme of short-term support for people in conflict affected areas, and are working to re-orientate the entire DFID programme towards conflict resolution.

  We have not yet reached a situation of acute humanitarian crisis except in a few isolated locations, and there are no plans as yet to provide humanitarian assistance although we are monitoring the situation very closely.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department allocated for(a) bi-lateral aid to Nepal and (b) non-Governmental organisations working in Nepal for (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [67428]

  Clare Short
  UK development assistance to Nepal in 2000–01 totalled £17.165 million, of which approximately £2.9 million was channelled through NGOs working in Nepal. In 2001–02 the approximate figure for total expenditure was £20 million, and around £3 million was channelled through NGOs.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 in Montserrat. [67503]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in "Statistics on International Development", (SID), Table 7.2 which shows a breakdown of bilateral aid by country in the Americas for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 in St. Helena. [67501]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in "Statistics on International Development", (SID), Table 7.1 which shows a breakdown of bilateral aid for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Civil Society Challenge Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 2000–01 on the Civil Society Challenge Fund. [67527]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in "Statistics on International Development", (SID),706W
  Table 13 which shows a breakdown of bilateral grants and other aid in kind, including the Civil Society Challenge Fund, for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Oceana Regional
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 in Oceana Regional. [67502]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in Statistics on International Development, (SID), Table 7.5 which shows a breakdown of bilateral aid to the Pacific region for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 in(a) Anguilla, (b) Burma, (c) Jordan and (d) Vietnam. [67504]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in Statistics on International Development, (SID), Tables 7.1 to 7.4 which show a breakdown of bilateral aid by country for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Urban Development Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on water and sanitation in infrastructure and urban development projects. [67521]

  Clare Short
  Annual figures are given in the table.

  £ million1

  Percentage2

  1997–98

  617

  9

  1998–99

  1,168

  11

  1999–2000

  940

  7

  2000–01

  1,388

  7

  2001–023

  1,306

  1

  1 Bilateral commitments total. For projects with a commitment figure greater than £100,000.

  2 Proportion on water supply and sanitation.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on engineering in infrastructure and urban development projects. [67524]

  Clare Short
  My Department's expenditure on engineering in Infrastructure and Urban Development since 1998–99 has been as set out.
  707W

  £000

  Financial year

  Energy

  Transport and Communications

  Water and Sanitation

  Urban and Industrial Development

  Construction

  1998–99

  61,001

  47,673

  29,846

  6,678

  878

  1999–2000

  38,686

  48,820

  35,902

  9,430

  628

  2000–01

  32,279

  40,615

  34,204

  11,241

  479

  Total

  131,966

  137,107

  99,951

  27,349

  1,985

  Joint Funding Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 2000–01 on the civil society bilateral programme entitled the Joint Funding Scheme. [67526]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in "Statistics on International Development", (SID), Table 13 which shows a breakdown of bilateral grants and other aid in kind including the Joint Funding Scheme for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Developing Countries
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the value of property rights for poor people in the economic development of developing countries; what her Department is doing to promote property rights of poor people in the developing world; which projects her Department supports that promote the establishment of property rights for poor people in developing countries; and what the value of each project was in each of the last five years. [66808)

  Clare Short
  Property rights are an important element in poor people's range of livelihood assets and can assist directly in processes that eliminate poverty. My Department has made a series of assessments of property rights, mainly concerning land ownership and housing, in both rural and urban contexts.

  Research has been undertaken, for example, to establish the range of tenure arrangements available to poor people in developing countries that allow people degrees of security and freedom in where they live, from which they can build their livelihoods for the future. The results are published by Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing under the title "Land, Rights and Innovation". This tenure framework is currently being used to observe how poor people manage to establish their property rights in 15 developing countries. The work is being shared with the UN and World bank.

  My Department is promoting better awareness of the role of property rights in poverty reduction through core funding support to UN-Habitat who are running their Global Campaign for Secure Tenure in 11 developing countries, and core funding support to the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions which is based in Geneva. Support is also provided to the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights.

  Secure land and property rights for the poor are essential if they are to contribute to and benefit from economic development, and to unlock access to essential services and to finance for small-scale investment
  708W
  opportunities of all kinds. Many poor people have no or insecure property rights and can fall victim to forced evictions by landlords governments and commercial land development in both town and country.

  Secure rights can be provided through various forms of tenure, and DFID is working actively throughout the world, especially in Africa and with global institutions to help developing countries establish effective policies and institutions to deliver secure property rights to the poor and prevent evictions. In those cases where we have a direct role to play, DFID projects have helped governments to deliver secure rights and land titles to the poor; I would highlight:
  South Africa were we spent £5.9 million up to 2000—a further phase is now being prepared in addition to a project earmarked at £5 million to help the SADC countries strengthen property rights for the poor throughout the Southern African Region
  Guyana where a £4.39 million project is due to end in 2003
  Support to Kenya Land Reform £0.47 million
  Uganda Land Laws (Tenure) £1.35 million
  Asian Coalition for Housing Rights £2.19 million
  Property Rights in Croatia £0.59 million
  10 projects in the former Soviet Union totalling £3.53 million, and
  £295,000 through NGO partners in Bangladesh, directly assisting the poor access land and secure their rights.

  41 projects both small and large with a total value of £34.34 million have been contributing to our overall efforts over the last five years. In addition DFID supports research projects into how best to enable access to land and secure property rights for the poor in different contexts in various countries; in the same period there have been 19 research projects with a total value of £2.5 million.

  Kenya
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) the Government of Kenya and (b) the British high commission in Nairobi regarding political and ethnic violence and human rights abuses in Kenya; and what projects her Government support to promote justice for victims of ethnic and political violence in Kenya. [66812]

  Clare Short
  British officials and I raise these issues regularly in our frequent contacts with the Kenyan Government. Our programme in Kenya includes a project co-funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence to prevent and settle internal conflict. We also support organisations offering legal aid to disadvantaged people including those who may be affected by ethnic and political violence; and we are working with the Kenyan Government to develop a pilot legal aid scheme.
  709W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to promote democratic reform in Kenya. [66810]

  Clare Short
  DFID' s Political Empowerment Programme together with other donors' programmes, aim to strengthen Kenya's political system by enabling poor and marginalised groups to organise and influence government and strengthening democratic institutions including Parliament. In addition DFID and high commission officials have frequent contacts with the Kenyan Government and Opposition on democratic issues.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the level of(a) political violence and (b) human rights abuses in Kenya; and how her Department responds to such violence and human rights abuses. [66811]

  Clare Short
  My officials in Nairobi, working in close consultation with our British High Commission, carefully monitor all reports of political violence and human rights abuses in Kenya and raise any concerns with the relevant authorities.

  Failed States
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is towards failed states; and which countries her Department classifies as failed states. [66807]

  Clare Short
  Our policy is to help resolve the underlying economic, social and political problems by promoting change in government and its policies and to work, where we can, inside and outside government, to achieve our objectives, especially support to poor people.

  Problems of policy, commitment and governance are found in varying degrees in a number of states.

  Human Rights Commissions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries she contributes assistance to the work of a human rights commission; how much has been contributed in the past three years for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total budget of that body this sum represents. [66699]

  Clare Short
  My Department has directly supported the human rights commissions of Rwanda and Zambia. In the former, we financed a review, and in the latter the production of a strategy. This work cost £10,800 in 2000–01 and £27,200 in 1998–99 respectively. I shall write to the hon. Member on the final part of his question, which could not be researched in the time available.

  The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights takes primary responsibility for assisting governments to establish such institutions. Planned funding by my Department of OHCHR amounts to £6 million over three years, under the terms of an Institutional Strategy Paper
  710W
  sighed in 1999. This support is for broad improvement in capacity. Under this arrangement we have provided in the calendar years:

  £ million

  2000

  1.247

  2001

  2.115

  Information on its website, http:/www.unhchr.ch shows that total extra-budgetary expenditure in 2001 by OHCHR was US%48.8 million, of which 0.8 per cent. was allocated to national human rights institutions.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided £100,000 to OHCHR in 2001 for support to national institutions, and plan £150,000 in 2002.

  G8 Digital Opportunities Task Force
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff from her Department are working with the G8 Digital Opportunities Task Force. [67002]

  Clare Short
  The G8 DOT Force was formally wound up in June 2002, but during its two years of existence, my Department was represented by its Director General Resources, who called on appropriate specialist support as necessary in carrying out this role. In practice, this specialist support drew in the additional expertise of at least five other key staff.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support her Department is giving in 2002–03 to the G8 Digital Opportunities Task Force. [67001]

  Clare Short
  The G8 DOT Force was formally wound up in June 2002, but we intend to continue our support for some of its key deliverables, especially those focused on Africa. During the DOT Force's two years of existence, my Department spent over £300,000 in direct support to encourage a strong developing country and civil society voice in the DOT Force.

  Malawi
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the results of the initiative to improve safety, security and access to justice in Malawi. [67005]

  Clare Short
  A formal assessment of progress is not due until April 2003. The MASSAJ programme is working closely with key institutions in the Malawi justice sector—including the Ministries of Justice and Home Affairs, Malawi Police Service, the judiciary and the magistracy; it is supporting the redrafting of the anti-corruption legislation and the roll of pilot juvenile justice initiatives. The programme includes co-operation with (i) the EU on strengthening the independence of the judiciary; (ii) NORAD in reducing the incidence of small arms; and (iii) USAID on strengthening paralegal support which enables poor people to access justice.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66935]

  Clare Short
  Only one of our buildings was previously insured, namely our London headquarters at 94 Victoria Street. Under the terms of the lease, we were required to reimburse the landlord at an annual cost of £40,000. Since vacating these premises in December last year, our buildings insurance costs are nil, since our buildings are self-insured, ie the Crown carries the risk. The specific events of 11 September had no direct consequence on our insurance costs.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66953]

  Clare Short
  The only UK property owned by DFID is our office in East Kilbride. It was last valued at £3.5 million, of which the building itself is £2.9 million and the surrounding land £0.6 million. In addition, we own three freehold properties in Zimbabwe, last valued at £276,000, one property in the Solomon Islands (value: £65,000) and one in Kiribati (value: £17,000).

  International Development Finance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on the African Development Bank; [67511]

  (2) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on the European Development Fund VIII; [67512]

  (3) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on the Caribbean Development Bank; [67507]

  (4) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on the Asian Development Fund; [67508]

  (5) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on the Asian Development Bank; [67509]

  (6) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on the Inter-American Development Bank; [67505]

  (7) if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on IMF funds. [67535]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are available in "Statistics on International Development", (SID), Table 8 which shows a breakdown of gross public expenditure on multilateral contributions for the last five financial years. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Anti-corruption Issues
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost to her Department was of the establishment in January of a resource centre to advise on anti-corruption issues. [66999]

  Clare Short
  The cost of establishing and running the Utstein Anti-Corruption Resource Centre will be approximately £870,000 over three years. Support for the resource centre will be shared between the four Utstein partners of the Netherlands, Norway, Germany and the UK.

  Anti-corruption Commission (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution has been made by her Department to the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Commission in Sierra Leone. [66998]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been involved since 1999 in establishing the Anti-Corruption Commission in Sierra Leone, from initial feasibility studies, detailed organisational design work, refurbishment of office accommodation, and the provision of equipment. We have allocated £1.45 million to the organisation since October 2000. Currently four British anti-corruption experts are attached to the commission providing technical support on prevention, and helping to investigate cases. Publicity and prevention campaigns have been launched in a number of key areas, helping to place corruption at the very top of the political agenda.

  Cameroon
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what international election observers were present at the recent parliamentary and municipal elections in Cameroon; and if she will make a statement on the outcome of the elections. [66809]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Commonwealth, Francophonie, UN and OAU all had election observer teams in Cameroon at the time of the municipal and legislative elections.

  We are concerned at early indications of procedural irregularities in the elections, and now await both the official results of the elections and the reports of the observer missions.

DEFFENCE

  Times Letter
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he was advised, and by whom, that the named authors of a letter to The Times published on 13 May were not serving officers; [58997]

  (2) when his Department informed The Times that the names of the officers purporting to have signed the letter published on 13 May were bogus. [58998]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was advised on the day of publication by the Director News that the signed authors of the letter were not members of the Armed Forces.
  713W
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 757W to the hon. Member for Essex North (Mr. Jenkin).

  Ro-Ro Ferries
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with procurement of roll-on, roll-off ferries requirement as listed in the strategic defence review. [51493]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]Construction of the six ships to meet the Ministry of Defence's requirement is proceeding to schedule. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1038W to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Mr. Laxton).

  HMS Boxer and HMS Brave
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his deployment plans are for HMS Boxer and HMS Brave. [66761]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Boxer and HMS Brave are currently moored at HM Naval Base, Portsmouth.

  The ships have been de-equipped to an unclassified status and all stores have been removed. As part of the disposal process, significant quantities of material have been returned to Ministry of Defence stores to assist with fulfilling fleet shortage requirements.

  The platforms are designated for CINCFLEET High Seas Firing (i.e. Hulk Targets) in 2003–05.

  HMS Victoria
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of repairs being made to HMS Victoria; how much of this cost the UK will bear; and if he will make a statement. [67422]

  Mr. Ingram
  My officials have not received any formal representations from the Canadian Government about the condition of the ex upholder class submarine HMS Unseen, now re-named HMCS Victoria, and as such have no information about the cost of repairs. My officials will of course assist with any Canadian inquiries.

  HMS Monmouth
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the refit of HMS Monmouth will be complete; what the total cost of the refit will be; when she will return to service; and if he will make a statement. [67143]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Monmouth's refit, including associated sea trials, is planned to complete in spring 2003, at which time the ship will be available for operational deployment. The final price of the refit is still in negotiation, and will he based upon the eventual work package that will emerge from ship surveys. However, it is expected to be in the region of £19 million.

  Invincible Class Carriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many days each of the Invincible class carriers were operational in each of the past five years. [67566]
  714W
  Mr. Ingram
  For the past five years the Invincible Class Carriers were operational for the following number of days:

  Invincible

  Illustrious

  Ark Royal

  1997

  333

  244

  0

  1998

  193

  301

  0

  1999

  225

  201

  0

  2000

  264

  263

  0

  2001

  346

  103

  53

  During the period 1997 until late 2001, HMS ARK ROYAL was not available due firstly, to a period of extended readiness, followed by a major refit period.

  84 Squadron
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the establishment of pilots on 84 Squadron is; and how many of these are civilians. [67560]

  Mr. Ingram
  Five pilots are established on 84 Squadron including the Commanding Officer. None of the pilots is a civilian.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ground crew support the operations of 84 Squadron; and how many of these are civilians. [67561]

  Mr. Ingram
  Forty-seven ground crew support the operations of 84 Squadron. None of the ground crew is a civilian.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vessels have been searched by Armilla Patrol warships in each of the past five years. [67564]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy continues to make a valuable contribution to the Multinational Interception Force deployed in the Gulf, in accordance with UN SCR 665, to verify Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions which focus controls on Iraq's attempts to export oil illegally and import defence equipment and weapons of mass destruction related goods.

  MIF operations are a coalition effort and so are not recorded nationally. However, from ships logs, we believe that in the last three years RN vessels have participated in a total of 145 boardings: 36 in 2000; 57 in 2001; and 52 to date in 2002.

  Literacy/Numeracy Rates
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the UK armed forces he estimates have(a) literacy and (b) numeracy problems; and if he will make a statement. [67104]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the deployment of the TA(a) as battlefield replacements and (b) formed units. [52478]
  715W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that the main role of the Territorial Army should be to provide formed units and individuals as an essential reinforcement to their Regular Army counterparts when deployed on operations across all military tasks.

  In keeping with this, both volunteer and regular reservists have contributed significantly to operations at home and overseas in recent times.

  Munitions Depots
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of the closure of the munitions depot at Dean Hill, Wiltshire, what will be(a) the expected annual savings to his Department, (b) the anticipated revenue from the sale of married quarters to (i) sitting tenants and (ii) the market, (c) the estimated cost of connection of the married quarters estate to civilian services for (a) electricity, (b) water and (c) gas, (d) the ongoing annual maintenance of the site broken down into (1) buildings, (2) ground maintenance and (3) security and (e) the estimated market value of the site at sale. [65705]

  Mr. Ingram
  The annual savings from the closure of the Dean Hill site are estimated to be £2.083 million once all one-off expenditure is taken into account.

  We currently estimate the cost of separating as, electricity—£50,000; water—£40,000; sewerage—£90,000. Gas is already supplied from a separate Calor gas tank. All figures exclude VAT. The annual maintenance budget can be broken down as follows: buildings—£894,000; grounds maintenance—£25,000. So far as security is concerned the approximate cost of the Ministry of Defence police presence at DM Dean Hill was £800,000 for financial year 2001–02.

  Although the Ministry of Defence has assessed the disposal value of the West Dean site and associated residential properties, these are likely to be sold on the open market. To release our estimates of value could influence the eventual receipt, and I am, therefore, withholding this information under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49577]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W by the then Chief Secretary (Mr. Smith).

  Armed Forces Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the average annual rise in pay for individuals employed in the armed forces in each year from 1990–91 to 2000–02; what the increase in the defence budget was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [66267]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Information on increase in the pay of the armed forces is not available in the form requested. However, the annual pay awards for the armed forces as recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB), for the years 716W
  1990–91 to 2000–01 are outlined in the table. Overall annual increases in the defence budget for these years are also shown.

  Per cent.

  Financial year

  Pay awards

  Increase/decrease in defence budget

  1990–91

  8.70

  -0.85

  1991–92

  9.50

  3.72

  1992–93

  5.90

  -9.19

  1993–94

  1.50

  -3.06

  1994–95

  3.00

  -2.16

  1995–96

  2.30

  -7.27

  1996–97

  3.20

  0.67

  1997–98

  3.00

  -6.18

  1998–99

  3.75

  1.17

  1999–2000

  3.50

  -2.00

  2000–01

  3.30

  2.50

  The figures for the pay awards reflect the AFPRB recommendations for the majority of service personnel in each year. Within these overall awards, however, some personnel have received higher increases where the review body has targeted specific ranks in a given year. The figures in the table exclude the effects of the staging of the implementation of the awards, increases in the level of X factor and increases due to adjustments to the pension abatement.

  Staging of pay awards for the armed forces took place in 1990, 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998.

  The figures for the defence budget represent the cash outturn in each of the years including the additional costs of operations.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 36W, if he will re-evaluate the terms of the Private Finance Initiative of the new Colchester Garrison; and if he will make a statement. [67090]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 232W.

  Nuclear Missile Defence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure is planned on nuclear missile defence. [66685]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]We plan to spend about £4 million on missile defence-related activities, which consist solely of collaborative research and information exchange between the United Kingdom and the United States on ballistic missile defence technologies.

  Narcotics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the dedicated counter-narcotics activities of the British armed forces and the costs of these activities in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement; [67562]
  717W
  (2) what quantities of narcotics have been confiscated by HM forces in each of the past five years. [67563]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no military assets dedicated to counter narcotics activities and consequently no cost directly attributable to the Ministry of Defence. Military forces are, however, made available upon request, when operational commitments and resources allow, to support the counter drugs activities of the law enforcement agencies. Any additional costs for this support are reimbursed by the agency concerned.

  Counter narcotics operations requiring military support resulted in the seizure of drugs valued at £2.3 billion in 1999–2000 and £40 million in 2001–02. There were no seizures resulting from operations involving military support in 1997–98, 1998–99 or 2000–01.

  Falklands Commemorations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what events he has attended this year in connection with Falklands conflict commemorations. [67570]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the Falklands Islands in March and attended a service of commemoration at the Liberation Memorial in Stanley.

  Following his visit to the islands he also laid a wreath at the memorial in Buenos Aires to commemorate the Argentine service men who died during the conflict.

  I visited the islands in June to represent Her Majesty's Government at commemorations to mark the 20th anniversary of the end of the conflict.

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what British military aid is being given to the FYR of Macedonia; [67182]

  (2) what his policy is on future military aid to the FYR of Macedonia. [67183]

  Mr. Ingram
  There has been no significant change to British military aid being provided to Macedonia or future policy in that respect since the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 26 March 2002,Official Report, columns 854–55W.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's compliance with UN decisions concerning Iraq. [63810]

  Mr. Hoon
  Government policy towards Iraq has been developed within the framework of UN Security Council Resolutions.

  The British armed forces continue to play an important role in enforcing as far as possible, UNSCRs against Iraq. Royal Navy vessels continue to make a valuable contribution to the Multinational Interception Force deployed in the Gulf to verify Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions. Royal Air Force aircraft patrol the Iraqi No Fly Zones in support of UN SCR 688, which demanded an end to Saddam's brutal repression of his own people. We also contribute a small contingent of British armed forces
  718W
  personnel to the UN Iraq Kuwait Observer Mission established under UN SCR 687 to monitor the UN defined border and demilitarised zone between Iraq and Kuwait.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Academic Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the numbers of academic staff on short-term contracts in each university in England and Wales since 1997(a) in total numbers and (b) as a percentage of total academic staff. [62031]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the EU directives relating to her Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64938]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department is currently working on legislation to amend the implementing regulations for directive 92/51/EEC. This has arisen out of directive 2001/19/EC which makes various amendments to several European directives relating to recognition of qualifications. The implementation date of directive 2001/19/EC is 1 January 2003.

  No other EU directives have been amended in 2002, and none has been repealed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through her Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64988]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 April 2002.

  No EU directives or regulations have been implemented through my Department in 2002. There has therefore been no cost to public funds.

  Universities
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the link between staffing levels and the quality of teaching and research in universities. [65205]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department has carried out no specific assessment of links between staffing levels and the quality of teaching and research in universities. However, the recently completed QAA eight-year cycle of subject reviews in higher education, which included an assessment of teaching quality, has identified only 1 per cent. of unsatisfactory provision. In addition, the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise showed that 55 per cent. of research staff now work in departments which contain work of international excellence (rated five or five-star) compared with 31 per cent. in the previous exercise in 1996. Staffing levels in higher education have increased by 10 per cent. over the last five years and so have student numbers.
  719W
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the level of funding provision for the university of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology; and what plans she has to increase funding for UMIST. [65206]

  Margaret Hodge
  The funding of individual institutions is determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which allocated total resources of £36.7 million to the university of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology for the academic year 2001–02. For the year 2002–03, it plans to allocate £36.9 million.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on amalgamation of universities to create centres of academic excellence; and if she will make a statement. [65208]

  Number of students on higher and further education courses-England

  Higher education1

  Further education2

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1992–93

  726,300

  425,900

  1,188,200

  592,000

  1,169,400

  1,761,400

  1993–94

  848,800

  453,100

  1,301,900

  646,300

  1,282,800

  1,929,100

  1994–95

  903,900

  515,400

  1,419,300

  847,100

  2,062,900

  2,910,000

  1995–96

  927,100

  567,200

  1,494,200

  967,900

  2,431,800

  3,399,700

  1996–97

  943,900

  589,900

  1,533,900

  1,019,000

  2,783,000

  3,802,000

  1997–98

  976,800

  591,400

  1,568,200

  979,100

  2,788,200

  3,767,300

  1998–99

  988,400

  603,000

  1,591,500

  961,500

  2,700,700

  3,662,300

  1999–2000

  995,300

  614,700

  1,610,000

  939,300

  2,668,800

  3,608,100

  2000–01

  1,010,200

  641,400

  1,651,600

  922,700

  2,748,700

  3,671,400

  2001/023

  1,040,800

  650,700

  1,691,400

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1 Census count as at 31 December in years up to 1993–94, and as at 1 December in subsequent years. Covers all home and overseas students on postgraduate and undergraduate courses, including HE students in FE colleges and the Open University.

  2 Includes FE students in HE institutions in all years, and sixth form colleges as from 1993–94. Due to a change in data collection, the figures for FE sector colleges for the years 1994–95 to 2000–01 are not comparable with those for earlier years; as from 1994–95 the figures are based on a whole year count of students, whereas in previous years they are based on a snapshot count at 1 November. As from 1994–95, includes funded and non-funded students.

  3 HE figures are provisional.

  4 Not available—the whole year count of students in FE sector colleges is collected retrospectively at the end of the academic year.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred; components may therefore not sum to totals.

  Autistic Children
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many autistic children are statemented in England and Wales; [65674]

  (2) what estimate she has made of changes in the number of autistic children in England and Wales in the past five years. [65677]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received in the past year from parents who have had autistic children placed in mainstream schools against their wishes. [65676]

  Margaret Hodge
  Parents who object to local education authority proposals to place statemented pupils in mainstream schools may appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. In the current school year the tribunal has received 123 appeals from parents who did not wish their autistic children to be educated in mainstream schools.
  720W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Government recognise the importance of having universities able to compete with the best in the world and support higher education institutions in their pursuit of excellence. We will encourage and support universities who wish to choose amalgamation to promote excellence within the constraints of both our powers and availabilities of resources.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time students were in (i) FE and (ii) HE in each of the years 1992–93 to 2001–02. [65398]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The information is shown in the table.

  Departmental Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of waste produced in her Department was(a) recycled, (b) composted, (c) re-used, broken down into (i) paper, (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans and (iv) other, in each year since 1997; what plans there are to increase the proportions; and if she will make a statement. [65681]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The table shows the proportions of waste re-used or recycled by the Department in the last two years. No waste was composted. This information was not collected in the form requested prior to the periods shown.

  Percentage

  Waste type

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Paper/cardboard

  20.4

  17.5

  Plastics

  0.1

  .07

  Cans/glass

  1.5

  .8

  Other

  3.1

  16.2

  1 Percentage of waste re-used or recycled.

  721W
  We will continue to monitor developments in waste management, and work with local authority partners and waste service providers to improve these levels.

  Higher Education Statistics
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people aged under 25 years from each socio-economic group participated in higher education in each of the last 12 years. [65793]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information is not available exactly as requested. The available information relates to the social class breakdown of the Age Participation Index (API) from 1990 to 2000, and is shown in the table. The API is defined as the number of UK domiciled under

  Participation in higher education by social class

  Percentage

  Academic year beginning:

  Social class

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  I Professional

  —1

  55

  71

  73

  78

  80

  82

  79

  72

  73

  76

  II Intermediate

  —1

  36

  39

  42

  45

  46

  47

  48

  45

  45

  48

  IIIN Skilled non manual

  —1

  22

  27

  29

  31

  31

  32

  31

  29

  30

  33

  IIIM Skilled manual

  —1

  11

  15

  17

  18

  18

  18

  19

  18

  18

  19

  IV Partly skilled

  —1

  10

  14

  16

  17

  17

  17

  18

  17

  17

  19

  V Unskilled

  —1

  6

  9

  11

  11

  12

  13

  14

  13

  13

  14

  I to IIIN

  37

  35

  40

  43

  46

  47

  48

  48

  45

  45

  48

  IIIM to V

  10

  11

  14

  16

  17

  17

  18

  18

  17

  17

  18

  All classes

  19

  23

  28

  30

  32

  32

  33

  33

  31

  32

  33

  1Not available.

  Teachers/Lecturers Pay
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she estimates the Government's objective of broad convergence in pay and terms and conditions between school teachers and further education lecturers will be achieved. [66081]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have acknowledged the historic gap between funding in schools and further education (FE) colleges and we have pledged to bring up the levels of support for FE to ensure upward convergence of funding between the two sectors. We will do this over time and as resources allow. However, as independent corporations, it is for each FE college to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to it.

  We are investing significant funding in the FE sector. An additional £314 million is available for FE this year compared with 2001–02 and by 2003–04, total funding for FE will be up by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997, with total funding per full-time equivalent student up by 16 per cent. over the same period. Separate to any general pay rise a FE lecturer may receive, the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) provides £311 million over the period 2001–04 to reward excellent teaching. The substantial additional investment we are making in the sector should help the FE sector support the pay aspirations of their staff.

  AS-Level Examinations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on 722W
  21 initial entrants to full-time and sandwich courses expressed as a proportion of the averaged 18 to 19-year-old population. The sharp rise in participation rates in the early 1990s reflects the expansion of the higher education sector during these years. There was an increase in entrant numbers in 1997 related partly to the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999.

  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.

  the AS-Level examinations; and what changes will be made in the structure of sixth form studies. [66155]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a number of changes to AS-level examinations. The length of some AS examination papers was reduced with most lasting one hour, enabling a complete AS to be taken in half a day. The examination timetable was restructured to reduce clashes and ease the burden of administration of examinations on schools and colleges.

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) continue to review Curriculum 2000 reforms and are due to report to Ministers following the summer examination results. We shall carefully consider QCA's recommendations and take necessary actions.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she plans to announce the results of her Department's review of student funding; and if she will make a statement. [66268]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]The review of higher education student funding is still underway. We will make an announcement later this year, when the review is complete.

  Pre-schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase capital expenditure on pre-schools; and if she will make a statement. [66270]
  723W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]We are already making a significant amount of capital funding available for pre-school provision. Over the two financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04, the Government are making available £40 million of capital funding for the provision of free nursery education places in disadvantaged areas.

  In addition, up to £100 million of capital funding is available via the New Opportunities Fund in 2001–04 to create 45,000 child care places in neighbourhood nurseries. Early years settings may qualify to receive this funding by providing wraparound care in addition to sessional care.

  Similarly, £6 million capital grant is available over the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 to provide modest help to playgroups seeking to develop the services they offer from sessional to daycare.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU Committee on the second general system for the recognition of professional education and training is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66457]

  Margaret Hodge
  There has been just one meeting of the Committee in the last five years—in November 2001. No further meeting of the Committee is currently scheduled. Membership of the Committee is vested in the UK Co-ordinator for directive 92/51/EEC, who is an official of this Department. Representatives of the Scottish Executive did not attend the meeting in November 2001, but have the opportunity to attend meetings should they wish to do so.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU Leonardo da Vinci Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66463]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Leonardo da Vinci programme management committee is due to meet on 11 and 12 July 2002. Representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have not been and (b) are not members of this Committee. The UK is represented by officials from the Joint International Unit of the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. Representatives of the Scottish Executive participate fully in the National Co-ordination Group which oversees the administration and implementation of the programme in the United Kingdom. These arrangements are in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.

  University Students (Low Income Families)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proportion of university entrants from(a) Jarrow, (b) south-Tyneside, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK were from low income families in 2001; [66582]
  724W
  (2) what the proportion of university entrants from low income families was in (a) Jarrow, (b) south Tyneside, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [66583]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) for students from south Tyneside, the north-east and the UK, is shown in the table. UCAS do not routinely identify students from areas such as Jarrow, which lie within local authorities. The information is based on the social class of the applicants, which will not necessarily equate directly to levels of family income.

  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.

  Proportion of accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses who come from skilled manual, partly skilled and unskilled social classes

  Percentage

  Home domicile of student:

  Year of entry

  South Tyneside

  North-east1

  UK

  1997

  39

  33

  28

  1998

  39

  32

  28

  1999

  41

  32

  28

  2000

  38

  31

  28

  2001

  36

  32

  28

  1 Covers the following LEAs: North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead, Durham, Northumberland, Hartlepool, Middlesborough, Stockton, Redcar and Cleveland.

  Connexions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in involving faith communities in the work of Connexions at(a) central and (b) local levels. [66705]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  One of the principles of the Connexions strategy is to take account of the views of young people both individually and collectively. This includes young people from faith communities and the organisations that represent them. Nationally, the Connexions Service National Unit has discussed and agreed with the Catholic Education Service the basis on which Connexions personal advisers work in Catholic schools and colleges. Locally, Connexions partnerships work with many different voluntary and community groups which support young people, including faith-based organisations. There are examples across the country of faith based organisations being involved in local Connexions management or advisory groups. Some local faith based organisations receive grants from Connexions Partnerships. Organisations with a faith basis also feature prominently among the National Voluntary Youth Organisations (NVYOs) who receive funds from the Department's NVYO Grant Scheme. This is administered by the Connexions Service National Unit to support personal development programmes for young people.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much Connexions(a) spent and (b) transferred to other bodies in the last financial year; and how many members of staff it employs. [66706]
  725W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In the last financial year (2001–02) the Connexions Service spent approximately £320 million. Of that, £107 million was incurred by Connexions Partnerships—i.e. those fifteen that were operating during 2001–02; twelve of which were in place for the full 12 months and three for the last seven months. The remainder was used to support careers services in those areas where Connexions was not operational and to fund central costs such as the training of personal advisers.

  We do not collect information centrally on the exact amount of funding transferred to other bodies, mainly because the variety of different ways in which Partnerships operate makes it impractical to do so. It is for each Connexions Partnership to determine, within broad guidelines, how best to use its funding to meet identified local needs. In some cases this involves sub-contracting work to other organisations such as voluntary and community bodies.

  According to the latest available information (relating to the situation at the end of March 2002), the 15 Connexions Partnerships operational at that time employed 3,933 staff-this includes all staff involved in the delivery of Connexions i.e. delivery staff (mainly personal advisers), managerial and administrative staff. etc.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding Connexions receives from Government sources; what non-governmental sources of income Connexions has; how much Connexions disburses to other organisations; and by what mechanisms Connexions makes this money available. [66708]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In the current financial year (2002–03), Connexions has been allocated £446 million from central Government funds. The majority of that funding (ie £359 million) is devolved to Connexions Partnerships through the main Connexions grant-this relates to the 27 partnerships operational at the start of 2002–03 and the remaining 20 due to become operational during the financial year. The remainder of the overall Connexions budget is used to support careers services in those areas where Connexions is not yet fully operational and to fund central costs such as the training of personal advisers.

  We do not have an exhaustive list of other sources of income but they include the European Social Fund, the National Lottery, the private sector, the Learning and Skills Council and local partners such as local authorities, etc. The strength of Connexions is its ability to pull together the contributions of a range of local partners to eliminate any gaps and duplication in the provision of support for young people. Much of the contribution of local partners is, therefore, of an "in-kind" nature rather than simply financial.

  We are not yet able to quantify how much funding Connexions partnerships expect to receive in 2002–03 from sources other than the main Connexions grant. However, in the last financial year (2001–02), operational Connexions Partnerships received approximately £1.4 million in cash plus an estimated £8 million in contributions "in-kind" from sources other than the main Connexions grant. Early data from partnerships' business plans show that those figures are expected to be substantially greater this year.
  726W
  We do not collect information centrally on the exact amount of funding disbursed to other organisations, mainly because the variety of different ways in which partnerships operate makes it impractical to do so. Once their funding has been allocated to them by DfES, Connexions Partnerships have the flexibility to use it in whatever manner they judge to be the most effective in relation to their local circumstances. In some cases this involves delegating work to partner organisations such as voluntary and community bodies. In those cases, the Connexions Partnership raises a grant or sub-contract with the organisation concerned in order to control the flow of funding.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps have been taken to train Connexions advisers in respect of mental health matters as recommended in the Bridging the Gap report published in July 1999. [67975]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 1 March 2002,Official Report, column 1600W.

  Connexions Partnerships will provide a full service to all young people aged 13 to 19 and will co-ordinate the delivery of appropriate support and opportunities when needed. This includes liaison with key organisations who can provide specialist support in respect of mental health matters.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many oral questions she has transferred to other Departments in each of the last 18 months. [67032]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Since the election in June 2001 no oral questions were transferred for answer by another Government Department.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people who received an educational maintenance allowance in each year since 1999 were identified as rural. [67085]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 JUly 2002]We do not ask the local education authorities or schools and colleges who administer the EMA scheme to classify individual recipients as "urban" or "rural".

  However, of the 56 LEA areas in which EMA is paid, six are identified as predominantly rural in character: Cornwall, East Lancashire, Northumberland, North East Lincolnshire, Suffolk and Worcestershire. Cornwall was the only LEA from this list to receive an EMA in 1999–2000, when there were only 15 pilot areas. The following figures show EMA recipients in these areas as a percentage of the total number of EMA recipients in each of the academic years during which we have run the pilots.

  Academic year

  Percentage of EMA recipients in predominantly rural areas

  1999–2000

  31.3

  2000–01

  15.3

  2001–02

  14.0

  Medical Schools
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the expenditure was on(a) research and (b) teaching in each United Kingdom medical school in the latest year for which figures are available. [67148]

  Margaret Hodge
  Expenditure by higher education institutions, broken down by research and teaching, is not available centrally.

  With the exception of St. George's medical school, medical schools in England form part of their parent university and are funded through the block grant provided by the relevant funding councils for England and the devolved administrations. Once the grant has been allocated, it is for each institution to decide how to spend it.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the capital value was of the(a) laboratories, (b) equipment and (c) other assets used for research in each United Kingdom medical school in the latest year for which figures are available. [67149]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not available.

  London Schools Strategy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources will be provided under her Department's new strategy for London schools, broken down by(a) proposed end use and (b) financial year in which it will be spent. [67630]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  As Minister with responsibility for the London schools strategy, I am looking forward to discussions with key partners about what additional resources should be provided and to what purpose. Provisional plans are:

  £7.5 million to expand the training of talented teachers needed to lead and manage the most challenging schools in London; aimed at existing heads, deputies and middle managers (£0.5 million in 2002–03, £3.5 million in 2003–04, £3.5 million in 2004–05).

  £10.0 million to boost provision for gifted and talented pupils in London establishing centres in 13 LEAs to improve the teaching and learning of gifted pupils and establish a programme of recruiting pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to the schemes (£2.0 million in 2002–03, £3.9 million in 2003–04, £4.1 million in 2004–05).

  £5 million for an Innovation Fund to encourage and incentivise new forms of partnership working between successful and less successful schools and the development of new types of secondary school in London (£0.5 million in 2002–03, £2.0 million in 2003–04, £2.5 million in 2004–05).
  728W
  Up to £2.5 million to fund the work of a London Schools Commissioner to implement the strategy for London schools (£0.5 million in 2002–03, £1.0 million in 2003–04, £1.0 million in 2004–05). This will be finalised once precise tasks are clearer.

  These resources will be in addition to other spending on London through the Department's other programmes and funding streams that are subject to the outcome of the spending review.

CABINET OFFICE

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67091]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today at column 769W.

  Energy Guidance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance his office has issued since May 1997 to Government Departments and agencies in relation to(a) energy conservation and energy efficiency and (b) the purchasing of energy from renewable sources; and when the guidance was issued. [65722]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Guidance to the public sector on conserving energy and improving energy efficiency has been provided by the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, and this work is now part of the Carbon Trust's Action Energy scheme. This programme has also provided a range of guidance specifically for the Government Estate and Departments have been supported by site specific visits and consultancy advice.

  The guidance issued by Government on renewable energy purchase was published on 16 January 2001, in HTML format only, and was placed on the Greening Government website (http://www.defra.gov.uldenvironment/greening/ energy/elec/index.htm)

  Guidance has also been issued to Government by the Office of Government Commerce Buying Solutions in January 2001 entitled 'A one stop shop for energy procurement'.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60144]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows.
  729W

  Date

  Paper

  (a) Number of respondents

  (b) Percentage of those specifically consulted who responded

  28 June 2001

  Consultation (under section 85 and section 75 and schedule 9 of the NI Act) on a proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Order and Scheme

  16

  8

  August 2001

  Consultation paper on the review of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997

  22

  18

  20 September 2001

  Consultation of Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001

  12

  3

  20 September 2001

  Police Trainee Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

  6

  26

  March/April 2002

  Police Service of Northern Ireland (Recruitment of Police Support Staff) Regulations 2002

  3

  23

  13 March 2002

  Draft code on appointment of independent members to the District Policing Partnerships

  20

  62

  28 February 2002–31 May 2002

  Consultation on the possible appeal of the Terrorism Act

  24

  28

  Northern Ireland Prison Service Part Input

  Unfortunately there are no centralised records kept at headquarters or at establishment level on consultations with organisations. This information could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Human Rights and Equality Unit

  The Human Rights and Equality Unit have recently published for consultation, the Government's response to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's review of powers recommendations. Responses are not required until 16 August 2002.

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Policing

  662,000,000

  656,000,000

  641,760,000

  Police Reform

  0

  39,000,000

  68,440,000

  Security

  17,000,000

  22,000,000

  23,800,000

  Prison Service

  138,000,000

  235,000,000

  110,672,000

  Criminal Damage/Compensation

  87,000,000

  77,000,000

  69,106,000

  Criminal Justice

  13,000,000

  13,835,000

  17,024,000

  Criminal Justice Reform

  761,000

  560,000

  455,000

  Probation Services

  10,565,000

  11,812,000

  12,145,000

  Information Services

  2,219,000

  1,796,000

  2,034,000

  Grants to voluntary bodies (crime prevention, etc.)

  2,579,000

  1,794,000

  2,333,000

  Elections

  1,174,000

  1,402,000

  2,533,000

  Legal/Forensics

  11,000,000

  13,000,000

  13,962,000

  EU Money

  2,000,000

  1,000,000

  145,000

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry

  13,000,000

  19,000,000

  19,179,000

  NI Human Rights Commission

  572,000

  924,000

  1,304,000

  Central Misc. Services

  13,700,000

  16,286,000

  18,124,000

  Political process

  14,900,000

  11,300,000

  8,957,000

  Totals

  989,470,000

  1,121,709,000

  1,011,973,000

  Castlereagh
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in Sir John Chilcott's investigation into the break-in at Castlereagh. [68298]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have received a work in progress report from Sir John Chilcott and Colin Smith. I look forward to receiving the full and final report, which is expected later this year.
  730W
  Criminal Justice Review Team

  The draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill was published for public consultation on 12 November 2001. (a) There were approximately 40 responses from individuals and representatives groups. (b) No groups or individuals were specifically targeted in the consultation.

  Departmental Operating Costs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will break down the operating costs of his Department by relative spending on each specialist(a) unit and (b) programme in each of the last three years. [60852]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sex Offenders
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the supervision of sex offenders living in the community. [64755]

  Mr. Wills
  Protecting the public from sexual and violent offenders is one of the Government's highest priorities. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 required each police and probation area to make arrangements to assess and manage the risks posed by
  731W
  sexual and violent offenders in the community. This is built on a range of measures we had already undertaken to strengthen the supervision of sex offenders in the community.

  Asylum Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in the policy of his Department on asylum seekers will stem from the decisions made at the Seville EU summit. [64756]

  Beverley Hughes
  Seville showed that the United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in developing the asylum measures proposed by the Treaty of Amsterdam as a major step towards achieving a common European asylum system. The significant changes in policy envisaged in our Nationality Immigration Asylum (NIA) Bill anticipate the developments we want Seville to deliver.

  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with the Scotland Office regarding asylum issues. [64769]

  Beverley Hughes
  Discussion is continuing with the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive on the issue of Asylum Centres for asylum seekers. Asylum, as my hon. Friend is aware, is a reserved matter.

  Police Morale
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police morale. [64758]

  Mr. Denham
  We have turned around the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. By 31 January this year there were 4,578 more police officers than in March 2000 and police strength was at a record number. We are on course for our target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003.

  We are committed to reducing the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy. We are developing a new occupational health strategy for the police service and we have provided a one-third increase in capital investment this year, which will allow improvements in the conditions in which officers work and the technology that they use.

  We have reached agreement on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service that is good for the service, for rank and file officers and for the public.

  We will ensure that officers know and feel that they are valued.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police morale. [64763]

  Mr. Denham
  We have turned around the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. By 31 January this year there were 4,578 more police officers than in March 2000 and police strength was at a record number. We are on course for our target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003.
  732W
  We are committed to reducing the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy. We are developing a new occupational health strategy for the police service and we have provided a one-third increase in capital investment this year, which will allow improvements in the conditions in which officers work and the technology that they use.

  We have reached agreement on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service that is good for the service, for rank and file officers and for the public.

  We will ensure that officers know and feel that they are valued.

  National Probation Service
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the National Probation Service in reducing crime. [64760]

  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Service, together with the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board are jointly responsible for the target of reducing the level of reconviction of offenders by 5 per cent. by 2004. The Probation Services is working towards this by:Careful risk assessment of offenders
  Providing help with accommodation and employment
  Improving basic skills
  Running offending behaviour programmes.

  The Probation Service is also responsible for ensuring that community penalties are effectively enforced.

  Prisoner Rehabilitation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the number of prisoners in England and Wales is having on the provision of rehabilitation schemes in prisons. [64761]

  Hilary Benn
  From 1996 to 2001 the number of offending behaviour programmes successfully completed by prisoners has risen almost fivefold despite a 19 per cent. growth in the prison population over the same period. Last year 16,000 prisoners achieved basic skills certificates, there are no firm indications yet that the number of prisoners is significantly affecting the provision of rehabilitation programmes in prisons. However, it is inevitable that at times of high population pressure such provision may be disrupted. The Prison Service will continue to do everything possible to minimise this.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on constructive regimes in prison to deter re-offending. [64767]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service draws upon research, known as "What Works", to ensure an evidence based approach to providing regimes which are effective in tackling offending behaviour and the factors which contribute towards re-offending.

  The Government has set the Prison Service challenging targets to improve its regimes and expand provision of basic skills training, drug treatment, offending behaviour programmes and resettlement activities. To achieve these targets, we are investing an additional £31 million in

  733W
  2001–02, £50 million for 2002–03 and £71 million for 2003–04. In this way we are supporting the Prison Service in contributing to our target of reducing the rate of re-convictions by offenders punished by imprisonment or by community supervision by five per cent. by April 2004.

  Active Community Unit
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's Active Community Unit. [64762]

  Mr. Wills
  The Active Community Unit leads a cross Government effort to promote civil renewal, to encourage active citizenship, and to build constructive partnerships between Government and the voluntary and community sector. It has lead responsibility for the Government's target of making substantial progress towards one million more people being actively involved in their communities by 2004.

  Travellers
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to increase police powers with regard to the rights of residency of travellers. [64764]

  Mr. Denham
  As we announced last week we intend to bring forward additional eviction powers for police, linked to site provision, to deal with unauthorised camping by Gypsies and Travellers. Proposals will be brought forward as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to assist the police in the fight against low-level crime and vandalism. [64765]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government is taking urgent action to tackle low level crime and vandalism across the country. Among the most important are the measures to enhance the effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in the Police Reform Bill and the introduction of Neighbourhood and Street Wardens to reinforce the capacity of the police and local communities to prevent disorderly behaviour.

  Tackling anti-social behaviour and disorder is one of the Ministerial priorities for the police

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional assistance his Department gives to schools that suffer damage and vandalism; and if he will make a statement. [64774]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are providing assistance to schools that suffer from vandalism through a range of initiatives including our Neighbourhood Wardens and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) schemes. The police involvement in truancy sweeps and in the "Safer Schools Partnerships" scheme is expanding the role that they play in schools as part of the Government's wider initiative to help tackle local street crime and behaviour problems. The Department for Education and Skills has also made £10 million available to Local 734W
  Education Authorities this year to support security improvements at school that help protect them from crime.

  Youth Crime
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of youth crime was in the Vale of Glamorgan in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [64766]

  Mr. Denham
  Information provided by the Vale of Glamorgan Youth Offending Team shows that, in the year 2001, there was a total of 519 recorded offences in its area involving young offenders. Where the age of the offender was known and the case resulted in a reprimand, final warning, referral order or conviction.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to prevent young children committing crimes. [64782]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are supporting a wide programme to tackle youth offending, including action to prevent children being drawn into crime in the first place. This includes working with families through the Sure Start initiative, neighbourhoods through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, and education services through reducing exclusions and improving attendance, as well as implementation of the 10 year drugs strategy.

  We also support a number of preventative programmes including Youth Inclusion Programmes, Splash Schemes and the Positive Futures programme, which help to steer young people, including those identified as being most at risk, away from crime.

  In addition, improvements to the youth justice system, reduced delays, new sentences and programmes, and expanded powers available to the police and courts all help to ensure that we are tackling youth criminality head on.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported incidents involving the use of CS spray by police officers in England and Wales there were in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [64768]

  Mr. Denham
  I regret that this information is not available for the majority of police forces in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers is considering what arrangements should be made to ensure that national statistics are available in future.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to improve race relations and community cohesion. [64770]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to making race equality and community cohesion central to their aims.

  We are committed to outlaw discrimination in employment by December 2003 as required by European Employment Directives.
  735W
  The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 came into force on 2 April. It places a general duty on specified public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination—and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

  Public bodies were required to have in place by 31 May this year, realistic and timely plans to show how they intend to comply with the general duty.

  The Government are working right across Departments on a number of measures to promote community cohesion. Our aim is to build communities where:
  there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all people;
  there is an appreciation of people's different backgrounds and circumstances;
  where those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and
  strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the work place, in schools and within neighbourhoods.

  Following the disturbances, we rapidly set up a programme of summer activities. This summer, we are running an enhanced programme of activities—both on community cohesion and to address issues of street crime. For example, a £16 million summer activities programme run by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) also includes community cohesion criteria alongside other aims.

  We are also engaging young people through other measures. For example, "Beyond Labels"—an international conference for young people, supported by the Home Office, will take place in Leicester in July.

  We commissioned the Community Cohesion Review Team—chaired by Ted Cantle—to explore the causes of last summer's disturbances and the independent report made several, wide-ranging recommendations. The Government published its initial response to the Cantle Report in December last year.

  The recommendations are being taken forward by the Ministerial Group on Community Cohesion, which I chair. The group is advised by a Community Cohesion Panel, chaired by Ted Cantle. The panel comprises people with expertise in relevant areas—including young people and the community. The Government announced membership of the panel on 22 May 2002.

  A new Community Cohesion Unit has been established to support the Ministerial Group and Panel—and to work across Government to deliver community cohesion.

  Community Facilitators are now in place in 34 towns across the country to bring together local people, foster dialogue and encourage the search for positive solutions to local problems. Community Support teams are also being provided to Bradford, Burnley and Oldham, to address community cohesion issues and each town has also produced an outline community cohesion action plan.

  To assist local government address community cohesion issues. The Home Office has published—jointly with the Commission for Racial Equality, Local Government Association and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—draft guidance for local authorities. This sets out a series of practical steps that they (and other
  736W
  local agencies) can take to address community cohesion issues. A copy of this has been placed in the Library. We are seeking views on it by 14 August.

  The Government believe that community cohesion is an issue that all local authorities need to urgently consider. Some local areas will conclude that their existing policies and community planning systems are satisfactory. But the Government believe that the majority will need to amend some of their policies in order to build effective community cohesion. A small number of areas may identify a wide range of issues which are best addressed by a specific and focused action plan. A number of areas other than Bradford, Oldham and Burnley have already indicated their commitment to developing such plans.

  National Security
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the security of the United Kingdom from the intentional release of chemical, biological and radiological materials. [64771]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I keep these matters under close review through my chairmanship of the Ministerial Committees on Terrorism and Civil Contingencies.

  Our crisis management machinery is based on a proven, co-ordinated response capability involving the relevant agencies.

  Following the tragic events of 11 September last year, we have accessed the threat from the use by terrorists of chemical, biological and radiological materials and reviewed our arrangements for dealing with such events. A major cross-departmental programme of work is in hand to enhance the resilience of the UK and counter the threat. Following the Budget on 17 April, I announced additional resources to enable this work to be sustained and developed. This will be further reviewed in the Spending Review.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reducing the paperwork required for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: and if he will make a statement. [64772]

  Mr. Denham
  The recent Home Office review of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) found that unnecessary bureaucracy was a problem in some areas. The review recommended that local agencies draw up simple, streamlined protocols designed with the local area in mind and made a number of practical suggestions for minimising bureaucracy and delays. Advice on how best to do this will be included in the new Home Office guidance on ASBOs.

  Victim/Witness Protection
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the protection of victims and witnesses pending court proceedings. [64773]

  Hilary Benn
  Chief officers of police assess whether a witness needs protection pending court proceedings and then put in place measures which are commensurate with the level of risk identified.
  737W
  Several communities have established safety schemes to support witnesses and we would like to see more of these. Witness intimidation is an offence and the police have been encouraged to prosecute whenever possible.

  Violent Crime (Elderly Victims)
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of violent crime against elderly people. [64775]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government shares the profound revulsion which is caused by crimes against elderly people, and is determined to ensure that even the most vulnerable people can feel safe both in their homes or out in their neighbourhood. The latest British Crime Survey (BCS) published last year does not separately identify the level of violent crime against elderly people. However, the BCS did show that the risk of elderly men becoming victims of violence was less than 0.5 per cent. and that the corresponding risk for women was about 0.6 per cent.

  Burglaries
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to reduce the number of burglaries. [64776]

  Mr. Denham
  Reducing burglary is being tackled in a number of inter-connected ways. These include:Ensuring police forces deliver their best value targets—progress is being monitored quarterly and, through the Police Standards Unit and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), we will be working with those at most risk of not delivering their target to help them get back on track.
  Funding local anti-burglary strategies, initially through the Reducing Burglary Initiative and subsequently through the Safer Communities Initiative.
  Delivering our anti-drugs strategy
  Tackling youth crime
  Delivering our plans to improve the delivery of justice, including bringing more offenders to justice and reducing re-offending.
  Piloting a repeat victimisation model and then rolling out the lessons learned to other areas.
  Negotiating stretched burglary targets in Local Public Service Agreements.
  Targeting crime prevention advice to those known to be at high risk of burglary, such as students.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has recently received about police pay. [64777]

  Mr. Denham
  The Secretary of State is represented on the Police Negotiating Board (PNB), the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions. All the main police organisations are represented on the PNB, including the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Association of Police Authorities (APA), the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation.

  On 9 May 2002, the PNB reached agreement on a recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a package of reforms to police pay and conditions. The Secretary of State has approved the PNB recommendation.
  738W
  Under the PNB Agreement, all officers in the federated ranks will get an increase in basic salary of £402 from 1 April 2003, on top of the annual police pay award made in September each year.

  In addition, from the same date federated ranks' officers who have spent a year at the top of their pay scales will be eligible for a competence-related payment of £1,002 a year. We expect at least 75 per cent. of those eligible to get the payment. There will also be a new special priority payment scheme, under which officers in qualifying posts will get a payment of between £500 and £3,000 normally. up to £5,000 exceptionally.

  The PNB Agreement also delivers a number of significant improvements in the management and deployment of police officers, including more flexible rostering and use of part-time working as well as better management of ill health and poor attendance.

  The Secretary of State has also received representations from a number of police officers, including the Chief Constable of Thames Valley about the pay and allowances which officers receive.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of special constables. [64778]

  Mr. Denham
  Special constables are a key element of our police reform agenda. and we are already working, with stakeholders, to increase the recruitment and retention of special constables as part of that process. Indeed, we announced a package of measures on 18 June that are designed to improve the way specials are recruited, managed, deployed and how their welfare is considered within forces.

  We are particularly keen to improve liaison with employers and encourage them to support employees who are specials. Specials bring skills and experience back to their workplace which makes them of real value as an employee. Later this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary will publish a joint discussion paper on fiscal and other changes we can make to promote community service, including service as a special constable. A new headline role has also been published, focusing on intelligence-led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives. And a new national foundation training package for specials was issued last month. Revised Conditions of Service Regulations and new Conduct Regulations are in preparation.

  Central to this whole process will be Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering all aspects of the recruitment, management and deployment of specials, which will be issued by the end of the year. And we will be identifying a number of "Specials champions" to support this work and to take forward initiatives to help reverse the decline in specials numbers. We have set aside £300,000 to support these champions and we are working very closely with ACPO in this area.

  Detainees (Immigration)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the number of persons detained under immigration powers over the past 12 months. [64779]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 March 2002. As at that date, 1,575 persons (to the nearest five) were being detained solely under Immigration Act powers.

  I regret that statistics showing the total number of persons detained in the last 12 months could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records, and no estimate of the total number has been made.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 June will be published on 30 August on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Accommodation Centres (Children's Education)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what education provision is given to the children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres; and what improvements he plans to make. [64780]

  Beverley Hughes
  We expect the first trial accommodation centre to open during 2003. We will provide education facilities on site for the children of asylum seekers maintained there. On site education will mirror the provision in mainstream schools, tailored to the specific needs of the children. Education will be evaluated along with other aspects of accommodation centres at the end of the trial period.

  Detoxification Centres
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the availability of places for drug addicts at residential detoxification centres. [64781]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Over 50 per cent. of Drug Action Teams have residential detoxification services located within their area. Figures on the numbers of places available for residential detoxification, however, are not collected centrally.

  There are an estimated 130 residential treatment services in England and Wales (which may or may not include detoxification facilities), which have an estimated 2,169 available beds. This would suggest a possible 8,700 drug and alcohol users could be treated each year.

  Figures from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) show that the average waiting times for residential treatment have significantly reduced. The average waiting times for priority cases has been reduced from 5.08 weeks in 2000–01 to 4.45 weeks in 2001–02. Non-priority cases waited an average of 9.34 weeks in 2000–01 improving to 6.44 weeks in 2001–02.

  Clandestine Immigration
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deal with clandestine immigration. [64783]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are working closely with the French Government to deal with the problem of illegal immigration from France, and the trafficking networks which bring many of these illegal immigrants across Europe. We are committed to the efficient use of intelligence to target resources against organised immigration crimes, and we are investing in new technologies to combat those attempting to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely concealed in road freight vehicles.

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which individuals are being detained, where and for what reasons, under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [65065]

  Mr. Blunkett
  11 people have been detained to date using powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Of those detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom; the other nine remain in detention. It is long standing practice not to discuss individual cases or the immigration status of individuals, including their place of detention, unless they themselves first choose to do so.

  St. Charles Site, Brentwood
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to secure the land within its ownership in Brentwood, known as St. Charles site, from unauthorised entry. [65384]

  Hilary Benn
  The security arrangements in place include new 2.4 metre high fencing and 24 hour security guarding.

  Following an incident of illegal trespass on 10 May 2002, immediate action was taken to install additional security measures on the Brentwood site. The additional measures, which were installed in consultation with Brentwood borough council and the Essex police, included trenches, earth mounding and other obstructions to entry.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for West Dorset, (Mr. Letwin),Official Report, column 704W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, how Government funding has been defined for the purpose of the estimates; what categories of financial transaction have been excluded from this definition; and on what basis each estimate was made. [65039]

  Hilary Benn
  The definition of Government funding used for the purposes of the estimates is the same as that published in the Report on Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000 (annexe B, page 20) ISBN 1 84082 636–3,copies of which are available in the Library. No categories of financial transaction were specifically excluded.
  741W
  The estimates are based on surveys of Government Departments and other public funders of the voluntary sector conducted by the Charities Aid Foundation on behalf of the Home Office.

  Prison Service
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers(a) joined

  Joiners

  Leavers (including retirements)

  Prison officers in post at beginning of year

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Number

  Percentage of total

  1997–981

  23,058

  1,578

  6.8

  —

  —

  1998–99

  23,444

  1,185

  5.1

  723

  3.1

  1999–2000

  23,875

  918

  3.8

  847

  3.5

  2000–01

  24,090

  514

  2.1

  961

  4.0

  2001–02

  23,777

  363

  1.5

  1,342

  5.6

  1Reliable information on leavers during 1997–98 is not available.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to prevent the trafficking of women in the Balkans and what evaluation he has made of their success; what measures the Government are taking in this regard in co-operation with fellow European Union member states, and what evaluation he has made of their success; what measures have been taken by European Union institutions to combat this trafficking and what evaluation he has made of their success; and if he will make a statement. [65708]

  Beverley Hughes
  Alongside effective enforcement in the United Kingdom (UK), we have recognised that there is the need to develop intelligence and undertake joint operations against trafficking networks in transit countries in the Balkans region. We have provided a total of £200,000 to fund various local anti-trafficking projects in the Western Balkans region implemented under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's democratisation arm, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

  In 2000 we set up Reflex, our multi-agency task force on organised immigration crime, which co-operates with overseas law enforcement partners on the disruption of organised criminal groups intent on trafficking. Led by the National Crime Squad (NCS), Reflex brings together all the key agencies, including the Immigration Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), the security and intelligence agencies and key police forces including the Metropolitan police, Kent and the British Transport police.

  The UK has posted nine Immigration Liaison Officers to disrupt trafficking and organised immigration crime in and around the Balkans region. European Union (EU) partners have made similar deployments. We co-operate directly or through Europol with EU law enforcement agencies and those in EU accession states. Since April 2001 this has resulted in the disruption of 14 trafficking organisations and 67 arrests. 323 individual facilitators have been arrested.

  Project Immpact, a UK led EU immigration initiative to assist the Bosnia State Border Service, has reduced the flow of illegal migrants through Sarejevo airport by 90 per cent. UK and EU experts assist the anti-trafficking
  742W
  and (b) left the Prison Service in each of the last five years for which figures are available in (i) actual figures and (ii) as a percentage of the total. [66434]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is contained in the table. Officer grades include prison officers, senior officers and principal officers. Joiners information excludes staff who have been re-graded to prison officer from another Prison Service grade.

  EU STOP teams in Bosnia which have identified 185 victims of trafficking involved in prostitution over the past year.

  We have also provided assistance to the recently established anti-trafficking task force at the South East Europe Co-operation Initiative (SECI) centre in Bucharest, which is focused on cross border co-operation and intelligence sharing between its 11 member states in the Balkan region.

  Belgium and Spain have made organised immigration crime a theme of their EU presidencies. The Danish presidency will promote an EU-wide project against the trafficking of women co-ordinated by the European Police Chiefs Taskforce in the second half of this year.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget of the CRE was in 1990; and what it is in the present financial year. [66336]

  Beverley Hughes
  The grant in aid allocated to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in the financial year 1990–91 was £13,500,000 and is £19,900,000 for the current financial year 2002–03 (both amounts rounded to the nearest £100,000).

  The CRE budget was increased to £3 million from 2002–03 to enable the Commission to deliver its new responsibilities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  Communications (Interception)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to the interception of communications and the use of computers which use selected keywords and numbers to determine which communications are intercepted. [65156]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides for the lawful interception of communications: there are no plans to amend this legislation.
  743W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls govern the interception from within the UK of communications originating from outside the UK. [65164]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The interception of communications is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. "External" communications, which are defined by that Act as those sent or received outside the British islands, may be intercepted under a warrant: in particular, section 8(4) of the Act provides for a warrant for the interception of external communications only. The conditions for obtaining such a warrant are set out in sections 5–8 and 15 of the Act.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) Departments and (b) organisations are allowed to intercept electronic mail. [66634]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]A warrant for the interception of communications of any kind can only be issued personally by the Secretary of State to those persons specified in section 6(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Those persons are:

  the Director-General of the Security Service;

  the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;

  the Director of Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ);

  the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service

  the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;

  the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland);

  the Chief Constable of any police force maintained under or be virtue of section I of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

  the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

  the Chief of Defence Intelligence; and

  a person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance agreement, is the competent authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources have been made available since 16 April to fund the expected increase of remands into custody of juvenile offenders; and if he will make a statement. [66625]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]£53 million has been made available for this year to provide additional juvenile secure places, tagging of juveniles on bail and after release from custody and extension of intensive supervision and surveillance programmes.

  Representation Packs
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average delay was incurred in the last year for which figures are available before prisoners receive representation packs after they are recalled to prison; and if he will make a statement. [66617]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Prison Service target for issuing representation packs to determinate sentence prisoners after they have been recalled to prison is five working days. During the 12 month 744W
  period ending 31 May 2002,76 per cent. of representation packs were issued within target. Information on the average delay in issuing these packs is not held centrally and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Bail Information Schemes
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation areas in England and Wales operate bail information schemes; in how many cases by probation area information on bail was provided to the courts in the last year that figures are available; in how many of these cases the court ordered conditional bail; and if he will make a statement. [66621]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]36 areas operated bail information schemes in 2001–02, covering some 60 per cent. of magistrates courts in England and Wales. In some areas schemes will have been focused in particular courts rather than delivered as an area-wide service.

  The list of numbers of bail information reports prepared by each area in 2001 is in the table. Bail information reports are only one of the reports available to the court to assist in reaching a decision on whether to order conditional bail in any case and no statistics are collected for the number of such cases.

  The National Probation Directorate is currently reviewing the coverage of bail information schemes to identify the scope for increasing the number of magistrates courts covered by such a scheme and developing performance measures to monitor and improve the quality of the information provided in reports.

  Number of bail information reports prepared by the Probation Service during 2001

  Number

  Avon

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  Cheshire

  1,014

  Teesside

  111

  Cornwall

  9

  Cumbria

  131

  Derbyshire

  40

  Devon

  91

  Dorset

  302

  Durham

  6

  Essex

  3

  West Mercia

  338

  Hertfordshire

  28

  Humberside

  634

  Kent

  181

  Lancashire

  198

  Leicestershire

  139

  Lincolnshire

  37

  Greater Manchester

  715

  Merseyside

  306

  Norfolk

  18

  Northumbria

  101

  Thames Valley

  401

  Somerset

  15

  Staffordshire

  346

  Suffolk

  76

  Surrey

  228

  West Sussex

  140

  Warwickshire

  230

  West Midlands

  1,302

  Wiltshire

  62

  South Yorkshire

  403

  West Yorkshire

  1,991

  745W

  Number of bail information reports prepared by the Probation Service during 2001

  Number

  Dyfed/Powys

  191

  West Glamorgan

  9

  Middlesex

  71

  England and Wales

  9,870

  Judicial System (Racism)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is being done to combat racism within the justice system in the United Kingdom. [65660]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is a direct response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The Government brought forward amendments to the Race Relations Act 1976 to strengthen the duties placed on public authorities. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 presents both a challenge and an opportunity to public authorities. So for the first time we have placed a statutory duty on Criminal Justice System organisations to eliminate racial discrimination and also to promote race equality and good race relations when carrying out their functions.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are responsible for the justice system in England and Wales. We have published Race Equality Schemes setting out how the new duties apply to our Departments and the action we will take to fulfil those duties.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland, is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Security
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken in conjunction with other European states to increase security after the events of 11 September 2001. [66635]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]Heads of State and Government of the European Union (EU) endorsed an Action Plan on 21 September, following the terrorist attacks in the United States. The Action Plan sets out agreed decisions on a range of measures to combat global terrorism and to improve practical co-operation among member states. The Action Plan includes:Creation of fast-track extradition and an EU arrest warrant, which should significantly reduce obstacles to extradition within EU;
  Agreement on common EU offences and penalties for terrorist activity;
  746W
  Setting up a team of EU member states' anti-terrorist experts who can ensure timely collection and analysis of information and intelligence and draft threat assessments;
  Rapid implementation of the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism by all EU member states;
  Requirement that the potential impact on the fight against crime and terrorism is fully considered in drafting European Community legislation;
  Measures on freezing of assets and evidence and
  Review of the EU's relations with third countries in the light of their support for counter-terrorism.

  Duplicate Passports
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take following recent convictions of offenders who had obtained duplicate passports; and if he will make a statement. [66738]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]The United Kingdom Passport Service has a range of checks in place to prevent and detect passport fraud including a check on the death records of under 18-year-olds in England and Wales. This check is a significant step forward in our efforts to crack down on the fraudulent use of birth certificates. Enhancing its capability to prevent and detect fraud is a business priority for the Passport Service. It is implementing a comprehensive fraud action plan, and is working actively with other agencies to develop its identity validation techniques.

  West Mercia Police
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of police officer recruitment for West Mercia police. [64759]

  Mr. Denham
  Police strength in West Mercia increased by 125 between the end of March 2001 and the end of January this year, when it reached 2,012 officers. The force plans to have record police numbers in the course of 2002–03.

  The Government's Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) has played a major part in driving up the number of officers. It is enabling forces to take on 9,000 recruits over and above previous plans in the three years to March 2003. In the first two years of this recruitment initiative West Mercia appointed 109 CFF recruits and they will be able to take on a further 43 CFF recruits in 2002–03.

  Overall, I understand that West Mercia Police Authority's budget will support a planned increase in strength of 300 officers in 2002–03. I congratulate the police authority and the force in setting itself this goal, which will contribute to our target of 130,000 officers in England and Wales by spring 2003.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to reduce the amount of illegal drugs in prisons. [29912]
  747W
  Hilary Benn
  A range of measures is in place to reduce the smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons. These include:passive and active drug dogs;
  low level furniture in visits areas to aid visibility;
  closed circuit television in visits areas;
  an initiative to ban visitors found smuggling drugs into prisons;
  mandatory drug testing of prisoners.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences in England and Wales have served(a) up to five years more than their tariff sentence, (b) five to 10 years more than their tariff sentence, (c) 10 to 15 years more than their tariff sentence and (d) in excess of 15 years more than their tariff sentence. [34576]

  Hilary Benn
  The tariff is the minimum period a life sentence prisoner must serve to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence before being considered for release. After this minimum period has been served release will only take place where the prisoner is judged no longer a risk of harm to the public.

  The available information in respect of mandatory life sentence prisoners ie those aged over 21 who have been found guilty of murder is as follows:

  (a) up to five years more than the minimum period—559,

  (b) five to 10 years more than the minimum period—199,

  (c) 10 to 15 years more than the minimum period—97 and

  (d) in excess of 15 years more than the minimum period—20.

  Such information in respect of non-mandatory life sentence prisoners—ie those aged under 21 found guilty of murder and those aged over and under 21 who have had a life sentence imposed for an offence other than murder—is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost by examining the individual records of the prisoners concerned.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61648]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 1069W.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many performance targets he has set for his Department; and how many that were included last year have been dropped this year. [64272]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office Public Service Agreement states the Department's key targets for this year. The Service Delivery Agreement targets underpin them. These targets are set over the period 2001–04 and therefore the targets set last year are still valid. New targets for the Home Office are currently being discussed as a result of the Spending Review 2002 process. These will commence from April 2003.
  748W
  Additional targets are set out in the Home Office's Business Plan. This was published on 13 June as a combined document with the annual report. All our targets for the coming year are outlined in this document as are last year's targets and whether they have been achieved or are on-going.

  Remploy
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value is of Remploy products purchased by his Department in each year since 1995. [63823]

  Beverley Hughes
  The value of Remploy products purchased by the Home Department since 1995 are as follows:

  £

  Value of Remploy products purchased

  1995

  41,700

  1996

  16,979

  1997

  20,207

  1998

  17,044

  1999

  1,508

  2000

  2,168

  2001

  3,406

  The number of purchases have declined because of a change of focus within Remploy's activities towards production associated with education. As a result, Remploy were not able to guarantee service requirements by our main purchaser centrex.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many questions are asked by the Criminal Records Office of those for whom criminal records checks in connection with work with children are sought; and of those which are essential to the conduct of a check. [63881]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 24 July 2002]The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure Application form has a total of 42 questions, 25 of which are considered essential to enable the CRB to undertake the necessary checks. The remaining questions are asked to enable the CRB to process applications more quickly, or relate to referee details that, in some circumstances, the CRB may need to contact for additional details.

  Applicants can apply for a Disclosure either by completing and posting an application form, or over the phone. The telephone operator will ask a minimum of six questions, (to establish contact details), and applicants then have the option of supplying almost all of the information required for the form over the telephone.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average length of time it takes for a check to be made at the Criminal Records Bureau. [64836]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau is not meeting its Disclosure Application processing service standards. At present these are taking five to six weeks and this applies to both 'standard' and enhanced Disclosures.
  749W
  To address this, the bureau has introduced a performance improvement plan. This should ensure that, over the coming weeks, service levels will improve steadily until the full service standards are met.

  Terrorism (Overseas Students)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to monitor the activities of overseas students in the UK to ascertain whether they have become involved in organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [64956]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The police and security services attach the highest priority to the monitoring of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

  Individuals, including overseas students, who are members or supporters of these organisations will be investigated and appropriate action taken.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he makes to screen individuals applying from overseas to study in the UK for connections to proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [64957]

  Leave entitlement

  Non-agency Home Office i.e. excluding the Prison Service, Passport and Records Agency and Forensic Science Service

  Band A

  Grades up to and including Higher Executive Officer and equivalents: 22 days on entry, 25 days after one year's service and 30 days after 13 years.

  Band B

  Grades above Higher Executive Officer, up to and including Grade 6 and equivalents: 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years' service.

  Prison Service

  Band A

  Prison Officers: 22 days on entry, 25 days annual leave after one year's service and 30 days after 18 years.

  Band B

  Generalist grades up to and including Manager 'E' and equivalents. 25 days on entry and 30 days after 16 years service (from 1 March 2002).

  Band C

  Generalist grades Senior Manager D-A and above or equivalents. 30 days on entry which does not increase.

  Passport and Records Agency

  One band

  All staff receive 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years' service.

  Forensic Science Service

  Band A

  Grades up to and including Higher Executive Officer and equivalents: 22 days on entry, 25 days after one year's service and 30 days after 10 years.

  Band B

  Grades above Higher Executive Officer, up to and including Grade 6 and equivalents: 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years' service.

  There have been a number of changes over the last four years to the annual leave entitlements of staff in the above bands. These have all primarily been aimed at reducing the qualifying period for the maximum leave allowance of 30 days.

  Senior Civil Service

  The annual leave entitlement for staff in the Senior Civil Service is set centrally by the Cabinet Office and is currently 30 days.

  Brixton Prison
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have been transferred out of Brixton compulsorily since 1996. [65437]
  750W
  Mr. Blunkett
  There are mechanisms in place to identify individuals seeking to enter the United Kingdom who are members or supporters of terrorist organisations. It is not in the public interest to publish details of these mechanisms.

  Interior Minister for Greece
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Interior Minister for Greece. [64837]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have not met the Interior Minister for Greece. I have, however, had a bilateral with Mr. Michalis Chrysohoides, Greek Public Order Minister, on 24 January this year in London. As we approach the Greek Presidency of the European Union, I intend to meet Greek Ministers responsible for Justice and Home Affairs.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64610]

  Beverley Hughes
  Due to fluctuating numbers in each grade information on average annual leave entitlements could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The current leave entitlement for staff in the Home Office and its Agencies is as follows:

  Hilary Benn
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly with a detailed answer.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the population is of HMP Brixton; and how many of those prisoners are Irish nationals. [65441]

  Hilary Benn
  On 27 June 2002 the population of Brixton prison was 752. Of those prisoners 30 are Irish nationals.

  Prison Recalls
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals during the last
  751W
  12 months had their licence revoked and were recalled to prisons in England and Wales. [65418]

  Hilary Benn
  During the 12-month period ending 31 May 2002, 4,773 determinate prisoners and 19 life sentence prisoners were recalled to prison using the Secretary of State's powers to revoke a prisoner's licence pursuant to sections 38(a)(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years and who committed their earliest offence prior to 1 January 1999 or who were released on a statutory notice of supervision can only be recalled by the courts.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average delay incurred was before prisoners received representation packs after they were recalled to prison in the last 12 months. [65419]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service target for issuing representation packs to determinate sentence prisoners after they have been recalled to prison is five working days. During the 12 month period ending 31 May 2002, 76 per cent. of representation packs were issued within target. Information on the average delay in issuing these packs is not held centrally and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Prisons
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons have been built since 1997; and how many have had buildings modernised. [66644]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Since 1997, eight new prisons have been built and opened which are:

  Year

  New prisons

  1997

  Altcourse

  Liverpool, Merseyside

  1997

  Parc

  Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  1998

  Lowdham

  Nottingham

  1999

  Weare1

  Portland, Dorset

  2000

  Forest Bank

  Manchester

  2000

  Ashfield

  Bristol, Avon

  2000

  Dovergate

  Uttoxeter, Staffordshire

  2001

  Rye Hill

  Rugby, Warwickshire

  1Floating facility

  Since 1997, the Prison Service has built new accommodation blocks at: Acklington, Ashwell, Aylesbury, Bullingdon, Bullwood Hall, Castington, Deerbolt, Downview, Eastwood Park, Elmley, Erlestoke, Foston Hall, Frankland, Garth, Guys Marsh, Highpoint, Holme House, Huntercombe, Kirklevington, Littlehey, Long Lartin, Moorland, Mount, New Hall, Nottingham, Norwich, Onley, Ranby, Send, Spring Hill, Stocken, Stoke Heath, Styal, Swaleside, Swinfen Hall, Wayland, Wealstun, Wellingborough, Werrington and Wetherby. Projects in progress not included.

  Since 1997, the Prison Service has modernised accommodation in the form of refurbishments or replacements at: Aylesbury, Brixton, Camp Hill, Canterbury, Cardiff, Castington, Feltham, Haverigg, Kingston, Kirkham, Leeds, Lewes, Lincoln, Parkhurst, Pentonville, Stoke Heath, Wakefield, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs. Projects in progress not included.

PRIME MINISTER

  The Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) Departments and (b) Ministers with responsibility for (i) the Millennium Dome and (ii) the Millennium Experience since 2 May 1997. [64579]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of National Heritage, renamed the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in July 1997, was responsible for the Dome until the end of June 2001, when responsibility was passed to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. In May 2002, responsibility was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under machinery of Government changes.

  The Department of National Heritage, renamed the Department for Culture Media and Sport in July 1997, has been the Department responsible for the New Millennium Experience Company, which built the Dome and operated the Millennium Experience, since 2 May 1997.

  The Ministers with responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company and the Dome since 2 May 1997 have been as follows. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was responsible, in a caretaker role, from May to July 1997, when responsibility was transferred to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Responsibility was transferred from Peter Mandelson back to Chris Smith, again in a caretaker role, in December 1998. In January 1999, responsibility was transferred to Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC. Pending final decisions on the allocation of ministerial portfolios in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Rooker is dealing with policy issues related to the Dome, while responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company will also transfer to a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with the established procedures in due course.

  Ministerial Design Champions Group
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Prime Minister who the chairman is of the Ministerial Design Champions Group. [65083]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at Culture, Media and Sport today.

  Poppy Growing (Afghanistan)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 July on the G8 summit, what the detailed steps were that were discussed at the G8 summit to combat poppy growing in Afghanistan. [66836]

  The Prime Minister
  The G8 discussed the UK's Anti-narcotics Strategy Paper and Action Plans for Afghanistan which concentrates on four key areas to combat poppy growing: law enforcement, provision of alternative livelihoods, institution building and demand reduction. Agreement was reached that the G8 would step up efforts to assist the Afghan Government in combating this menace in order to eradicate opium production in Afghanistan.
  753W
  A copy of the Strategy Paper and Action Plans will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Heroin and Cocaine
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 July on the G8 Summit, what measures are being taken in heroin and cocaine producing states to stop production of raw material and to prevent their products from leaving the country. [66838]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK is leading the co-ordination of international anti-narcotics assistance to Afghanistan (which is the source of 90 per cent. of the heroin consumed in the UK). This involves working with international partners and organisations to build law enforcement capacity in Afghanistan to interdict opiates and undermine those criminal organisations engaged in drug trafficking. The international effort is also directed towards eradicating opium poppy and creating alternative livelihoods for Afghan opium farmers.

  The UK has also sought to assist drug interdiction efforts of Afghanistan's neighbours. The FCO's Drugs and Crime Fund provided anti-narcotics assistance of around £1.5 million in 2000–01 to Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics. We have also provided assistance to Balkan countries through which heroin is trafficked from Afghanistan.

  Colombia, Peru and Bolivia together produce virtually all of the world's cocaine. The UK is working closely with the Governments of each of these states to tackle the problem by supporting projects to build local law enforcement capability. Current projects include the provision of training and equipment in all three countries.

  The Queen Mother
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister authorised the making of the complaint to the Press Complaints Commission concerning reports on the Lying in State of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother; and which Minister authorised its subsequent withdrawal. [67051]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 14 June, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many times he has travelled on official business by air within Great Britain since June 2001; [67473]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002, Official Report, column 81W, on official visits, on how many occasions he has travelled by rail on official business since June 2001; [67472]

  (3) what information and records, including mode of travel, he has kept on his official visits since June 2001. [67471]

  The Prime Minister
  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements. 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.
  754W
  My office keeps records of my home and overseas travel. Since June 2001, I have made 33 journeys by air and eight by train. A judgment is always made about what is the most appropriate form of travel in the time available.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has given responsibilities to Ministers other than the Home Office Ministers to monitor and receive reports from chief constables on the subject of street crime. [68024]

  The Prime Minister
  The street crime initiative involves a wide range of Government Departments tackling street crime with a co-ordinated programme of action. Each of these Departments along with representatives from the Police Service, magistrates and local government is represented on the Street Crime Action Group which I chair.

  The Street Crime Action Group agreed that it would be helpful for individual Ministers from each of these Departments to visit the 10 target areas to give encouragement to local agencies and promote a shared approach at local as well as national level. I have asked the following Ministers to act as sponsors for the street crime initiative:

  The right hon. Baroness Blackstone—Avon and Somerset

  Hazel Blears—Lancashire

  Yvette Cooper—Merseyside

  John Denham—London

  The right hon. Lord Falconer—Greater Manchester

  The right hon. Harriet Harman QC—West Yorkshire

  Ruth Kelly—Nottinghamshire

  Barbara Roche—Thames Valley

  The right hon. Lord Rooker—West Midlands

  Stephen Twigg—South Yorkshire.

  Data which were already being collected from a range of local agencies including the police and other criminal justice organisations are being copied to them for information.

  Meteor Missile Project
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the German Government concerning the future of the Meteor missile project; and if he will make a statement. [68026]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply he received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) on 3 July 2002,Official Report, columns 320–21W.

  Falklands
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what events he has attended this year to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Falklands conflict. [67572]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Armed Forces attended the ceremonies in Stanley to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Falklands conflict on my behalf. I also sent a radio message to the people of the Falkland Islands on the anniversary of the end of the conflict, in which I made
  755W
  clear that the sovereignty, security and right of self-determination of the Falkland Islands and its people are not open to negotiation or compromise.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67101]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary today at column 769W.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what refurbishment and repair work is planned for No. 10 Downing street in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; what the estimated cost is; and if he will make a statement. [66882]

  The Prime Minister
  As my official spokesman has made clear, routine maintenance to the grade I listed building will be taking place and the precise costings have not yet been completed. Work will be carried out in numbers 10, 11 and 12. Invoices for the work will be paid in the normal way.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many successful appeals there have been against suspension of benefits in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [67323]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Decisions on suspending payment of benefit are discretionary. There is no formal procedure for revising such decisions and there is no right of appeal against them. However, they can be changed in the light of any relevant new evidence or information submitted to the Department.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what criteria are used by officers at the local offices of the Department in deciding on suspension of benefits. [67259]

  (2) how many people who have had benefits suspended in the last five years in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland have had them reinstated following investigation. [67255]

  (3) if he will provide a breakdown of the reasons for suspension of benefits in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [67256]

  (4) how many suspensions of benefits were reversed following evidence of the medical condition of the applicant in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years; [67257]

  (5) how many claimants had their benefits suspended in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [67258]

  (6) what the average time taken to re-instate benefits following suspension was in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [67260]

  (7) if he will provide a breakdown of the type of benefit suspended in each of the last five years in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland. [67319]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  It is a long-standing principle that people receiving benefit have a responsibility to confirm their continuing entitlement on a periodic basis. Where a person may have failed to meet that obligation, it is right that payment of benefit should be suspended.

  Benefit may be suspended in whole or in part and the suspension continues until the decision maker is able to make a substantive decision on entitlement. If the substantive decision results in no entitlement or a reduced entitlement, the fact that payments have been suspended means that an overpayment is avoided. If the doubt is resolved in a person's favour, payments are restored and arrears paid. Decisions on suspending payment of benefit are discretionary. There is no formal procedure for revising such decisions, but they can be changed in the light of any relevant new evidence or information submitted to the Department.

  The Suspension and Termination Guide sets out the guidance for those who take decisions on suspending payment of benefit, and includes advice about the criteria to be applied. A copy has been placed in the Library.
  758W
  No information is collected centrally on benefit suspensions.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on those whose benefit has been suspended in full for failing to keep an appointment at Jobcentres from the time of suspension to reinstatement of benefits; [67320]

  (2) if he will introduce a sliding scale of penalties, short of immediate suspension of benefit, for those who have failed to adhere to provisions relating to appointments at Jobcentres; [67324]

  (3) how many claimants, broken down by age group, have had benefits suspended in (a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years for failing to keep an appointment at a Jobcentre; [67325]

  (4) what guidance has been given to local Jobcentres on the suspension of benefits from those who fail to keep appointments. [67326]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  It is a long-standing principle that people claiming jobseeker's allowance have a responsibility to confirm their continuing entitlement to benefit by attending the Jobcentre fortnightly and also by keeping other appointments arranged to help with their job search. Where a person may have failed to meet those obligations, it is right that payment of benefit should be suspended.

  When making a decision about suspending benefit, staff in Jobcentres have access to the "Suspension and Termination Guide for Decision Makers" and the "Labour Market Conditions Guide" which gives advice on procedures. This advises that where someone has failed to attend an appointment, benefit should be suspended at the end of that day. The person may then contact the office within five days to show good cause for failing to attend. Examples of good cause include domestic emergencies, attending a job interview or illness. If good cause is demonstrated, then the suspension is lifted and payment made. If not, then the claim is terminated from the day of non-attendance.

  No departmental research has been undertaken on suspensions of benefit and no information is collected centrally on the number of people who have had their benefit suspended.

  We keep all our policies under review. However, we have no plans to change the current arrangements under which benefit can be suspended.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b) incapacity benefit and (c) carer's allowance in (i) Angus and (ii) Scotland have also been in receipt of housing benefit in each of the last five years. [67322]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested. The available information for Housing Benefit recipients in Scotland for each of the last five years is in the tables. The samples on which this information is based are too small to provide reliable figures for individual constituencies.
  759W

  Housing benefit recipients in Scotland who also received either disability living allowance, incapacity benefit or invalid care allowance in May of each year from 1996 to 2000

  Recipients with Disability

  May

  Disability living allowance

  Incapacity benefit

  Invalid care allowance

  1996

  62,000

  74,000

  15,000

  1997

  72,000

  70,000

  14,000

  1998

  78,000

  72,000

  15,000

  1999

  79,000

  72,000

  16,000

  2000

  82,000

  66,000

  17,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and include cases where the partner of the recipient of housing benefit also receives the relevant other benefit.

  2. Individuals can receive housing benefit, disability living allowance and incapacity benefit and such cases will be recorded twice in the table. The figures in the columns should accordingly not be added together.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average payment to a landlord in respect of housing benefit for a one-bedroom property was in(a) Angus, (b) Edinburgh, (c) Glasgow, (d) Aberdeen, (e) Dundee, (f) Newcastle, (g) Leeds and (h) London in each of the last five years. [67328]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost was of housing benefit paid in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [67321]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit expenditure

  (£ millions)

  Angus

  Scotland

  1995–96

  —1

  907

  1996–97

  10

  967

  1997–98

  12

  1,014

  1998–99

  13

  1,039

  1999–2000

  14

  1,054

  1 Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Data for Angus relate to the Angus council area. This unitary authority was created on 1 April 1996 and comparable data are not available for the previous year.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  3. Figures are consistent with those published in the Chancellor's Budget Report, April 2002.

  Source:

  Final audit returns made by local authorities to DWP.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in receipt of retirement pension, in each parliamentary constituency in(a) Scotland and (b) Wales receive payment of their benefits (i) directly into their bank accounts and (ii) through local sub-post offices. [58125]
  760W
  Mr. McCartney
  The table sets out information on how retirement pensioners in parliamentary constituencies in Wales and Scotland are paid. It is not possible to say exactly how many people receive their payments at a post office because some people choose to pay a girocheque directly into a bank/building society account.

  The information supplied is a snapshot during September 2001 and separates payments made by order book and girocheque, which are normally cashed at Post Offices, and payments made directly into bank/building society accounts by means of automated credit transfer (ACT).

  RP cases by method of payment and parliamentary constituency

  Thousands

  September 2001

  All

  Can be cashed at the post office

  Paid by Act

  Wales

  564.0

  396.9

  167.0

  Aberavon

  13.3

  10.7

  2.6

  Alyn and Deeside

  13.1

  8.1

  4.9

  Blaenau Gwent

  12.9

  10.5

  2.4

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  14.7

  9.4

  5.3

  Bridgend

  15.3

  10.5

  4.8

  Caernarfon

  13.6

  9.8

  3.7

  Caerphilly

  13.7

  10.5

  3.1

  Cardiff Central

  14.8

  9.2

  5.6

  Cardiff North

  12.0

  7.3

  4.8

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  14.7

  10.3

  4.5

  Cardiff West

  13.2

  9.0

  4.2

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  15.2

  11.4

  3.9

  Carmarthen West and South

  15.2

  10.0

  5.3

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  Ceredigion

  14.8

  8.9

  5.9

  Clwyd South

  12.4

  9.2

  3.3

  Clwyd West

  18.6

  11.0

  7.6

  Conwy

  15.9

  10.0

  5.9

  Cynon Valley

  11.8

  9.8

  1.9

  Delyn

  12.6

  7.4

  5.1

  Gower

  16.2

  10.9

  5.3

  Islwyn

  12.3

  10.3

  2.0

  Llanelli

  16.1

  13.3

  2.9

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  10.9

  7.3

  3.6

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  12.0

  10.3

  1.8

  Monmouth

  17.8

  10.1

  7.7

  Montgomeryshire

  11.5

  7.8

  3.8

  Neath

  13.8

  11.3

  2.5

  Newport East

  13.9

  9.5

  4.5

  Newport West

  14.0

  9.5

  4.5

  Ogmore

  11.3

  9.3

  2.1

  Pontypridd

  13.9

  10.5

  3.4

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  14.9

  9.4

  5.5

  Rhondda

  14.8

  12.9

  1.9

  Swansea East

  14.0

  11.4

  2.6

  Swansea West

  15.9

  11.2

  4.7

  Torfaen

  13.6

  10.3

  3.3

  Vale of Clwyd

  15.8

  10.4

  5.4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  17.2

  10.5

  6.7

  Wrexham

  11.7

  7.8

  3.9

  Ynys Mon

  14.5

  9.9

  4.6

  Scotland

  911.9

  570.3

  340.8

  Aberdeen Central

  11.4

  6.8

  4.5

  Aberdeen North

  10.8

  6.6

  4.3

  Aberdeen South

  14.2

  7.4

  6.9

  Airdrie and Shotts

  11.9

  9.0

  2.8

  Angus

  15.5

  8.9

  6.6

  Argyll and Bute

  13.6

  7.8

  5.8

  Ayr

  15.4

  8.9

  6.5

  Banff and Buchan

  13.2

  9.0

  4.2

  Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross

  10.4

  6.4

  3.9

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  15.6

  10.9

  4.7

  Central Fife

  13.7

  9.0

  4.7

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  13.6

  7.9

  5.7

  Clydesdale

  14.8

  9.8

  5.1

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  11.3

  8.9

  2.4

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  8.9

  5.9

  3.0

  Cunninghame North

  14.4

  8.6

  5.8

  Cunninghame South

  10.3

  7.2

  3.1

  761W

  RP cases by method of payment and parliamentary constituency

  Thousands

  September

  All

  Can he cashed at the post office

  Paid by ACT

  Dumbarton

  12.4

  7.7

  4.8

  Dumfries

  15.8

  9.1

  6.7

  Dundee East

  15.5

  10.1

  5.4

  Dundee West

  12.7

  8.4

  4.3

  Dunfermline East

  11.4

  8.2

  3.2

  Dunfermline West

  11.3

  7.5

  3.8

  East Kilbride

  15.3

  8.7

  6.6

  East Lothian

  15.4

  9.0

  6.3

  Eastwood

  17.0

  7.6

  9.3

  Edinburgh Central

  11.3

  6.6

  4.7

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  13.5

  8.5

  4.9

  Edinburgh North and Leigh

  10.9

  6.3

  4.6

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  12.7

  5.8

  6.9

  Edinburgh South

  13.5

  7.6

  5.8

  Edinburgh West

  15.7

  6.7

  9.0

  Falkirk East

  13.1

  8.7

  4.4

  Falkirk West

  12.4

  7.9

  4.4

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  15.2

  8.7

  6.5

  Glasgow Anniesland

  13.8

  9.5

  4.3

  Glasgow Baillieston

  10.1

  7.9

  2.2

  Glasgow Cathcart

  11.4

  7.3

  4.1

  Glasgow Govan

  8.5

  6.2

  2.3

  Glasgow Kelvin

  9.4

  6.7

  2.7

  Glasgow Maryhill

  9.9

  8.0

  1.9

  Glasgow Pollok

  12.9

  9.7

  3.1

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  12.8

  9.0

  3.8

  Glasgow Shettleston

  10.4

  9.2

  1.2

  Glasgow Springburn

  11.7

  9.7

  2.0

  Gordon

  13.0

  7.5

  5.6

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  13.0

  8.8

  4.1

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  9.5

  7.3

  2.2

  Hamilton South

  9.9

  7.3

  2.6

  Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber

  16.6

  8.8

  7.9

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  15.7

  10.5

  5.2

  Kirkcaldy

  12.9

  8.6

  4.3

  Linlithgow

  11.1

  7.2

  3.8

  Livingston

  10.3

  6.6

  3.7

  Midlothian

  11.1

  7.1

  4.0

  Moray

  13.9

  8.1

  5.8

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  13.2

  10.2

  3.0

  North East Fife

  14.8

  7.9

  6.9

  North Tayside

  17.3

  9.4

  7.9

  Ochil

  11.8

  7.0

  4.8

  Orkney and Shetland

  7.6

  4.9

  2.7

  Paisley North

  11.2

  7.7

  3.5

  Paisley South

  13.0

  8.9

  4.1

  Perth

  16.0

  8.2

  7.8

  Ross Skye and Inverness West

  13.4

  7.9

  5.5

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  13.3

  7.8

  5.5

  Stirling

  12.7

  6.8

  5.9

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  13.9

  6.4

  7.4

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  12.6

  6.4

  6.3

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  12.5

  6.5

  6.0

  West Renfrewshire

  11.1

  6.9

  4.1

  Western Isles

  5.1

  4.2

  1.0

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters have been issued to those people who will be affected by the reduction in SERPS on the sliding scale; and on what basis those people were identified. [60620]

  Mr. McCartney
  Up to and including 27 May 2002, 2,907,190 letters have been sent to people who will be affected by the reduction in SERPS on the sliding scale.

  People were identified from their date of birth held on the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2).

  Older People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he will(a) assume the title of champion for older people and (b) chair the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Older People. [62000]

  Mr. McCartney
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions looks forward to taking up the title of champion for older people. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister will publish a list of Cabinet Committees and their membership shortly.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the administrative cost of the coal section of the Compensation Recovery Unit was in 2001. [62553]

  Maria Eagle
  The administrative cost to the Compensation Recovery Unit of processing miners' compensation cases during the financial year 2001–02 was £1,171,497. The total amount recovered in the same period was £15,424,590.

  New Deal (Ambition)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 570W, how many participants in the New Deal have received training through Ambition IT Initiative since January. [64355]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Ambition initiatives are demand-led, and are aimed at training disadvantaged people for good quality jobs. The availability of jobs is key to their success. In the latter part of 2001 there was a reduction in the global workforce in the IT sector as a number of key companies scaled down their operations. At the same time, a number of American companies which employ people in the UK froze recruitment as a result of the events of 11 September. The Ambition: IT initiative was consequently put on hold in December 2001 so that the Department could conduct a review of the skills requirements of the IT sector in the UK.

  The review has concluded that the demand for people with IT skills is now most acute in the public sector. The programme has therefore been refocused on this sector and we now expect to start new deal participants in training from this autumn.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through his Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64973]

  Maria Eagle
  None.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the EU directives relating to her Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64942]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply. None.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of claim forms issued to men aged over 60 years who were potentially eligible for winter fuel payments were returned by 30 March; how many of those claims proved well founded; and what extra steps he is taking to advise men aged over 60 years of potential eligibility in winter 2002. [64720]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not held in the format requested, However in the 2001–02 winter, the total number of claim forms issued was 285,431. The number of claim forms returned, by 30 March, was 223,927. Of these, 172,281 were successful. A significant number of people who requested claim forms could have become entitled to the winter fuel payment without the need for them to submit a claim and would have been paid automatically.

  This year, as in previous years, we will run an information campaign to inform everyone aged 60 and over about winter fuel payments. The campaign for winter 2002 will run until the end of March 2003.

  Pensions
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to consult the National Pensioners Convention before submitting the national strategic report on pensions to the European Council. [65525]

  Mr. McCartney
  The National Pensioners Convention is one of a number of organisations invited to a meeting with the Department in July concerning the National Strategy Report, which will be the UK's contribution to the exchange of information between member states agreed by the European Council.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 507W, whether he has commissioned research on the impact on the health of mental health service users of the implementation of his Department's benefits policies; and if he will make a statement. [66043]

  Maria Eagle
  No research on this topic has been commissioned since 18 January 2002. DWP has an annual cycle for commissioning research, as set out in "The Forward Look 2001" Cm 5338, London: TSO, 2001. The DWP research programme for 2002–03 is currently being finalised and will be published in due course.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will calculate the total cost of the basic state pension if it were increased to minimum income guarantee levels for(a) over 75s and (b) over 80s, and increased in line with earnings until (i) 2010, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2030, (iv) 2040 and (v) 2050 (a) in real terms and (b) expressed as a proportion of gross domestic product. [66219]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table.
  764W

  Real terms (£ billion)

  As percentage of GDP

  Cost of BSP assuming it is increased to MIG levels for over 75s and earnings uprated

  2010

  51

  4.3

  2020

  62

  4.4

  2030

  85

  5.0

  2040

  109

  5.4

  2050

  127

  5.3

  Cost of BSP assuming it is increased to MIG levels for over 80s and earnings uprated

  2010

  48

  4.0

  2020

  56

  3.9

  2030

  74

  4.4

  2040

  89

  4.4

  2050

  105

  4.4

  Notes:

  1. Real term figures are in 2002–03 price terms.

  2. It is assumed that the basic state pension will rise by 2.5 per cent. or inflation, whichever is the greater.

  3. Long term earnings growth is assumed to be 1.75 per cent. and long term GDP growth is assumed to be 1.75 per cent. to be consistent with the earnings assumption.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many oral questions he has transferred to other Departments in each of the last 18 months. [65507]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  Oral questions transferred to other Departments

  Month questions tabled

  Number transferred

  June 2001

  3

  July 2001

  1

  October 2001

  2

  November 2001

  1

  January 2002

  3

  February 2002

  0

  March 2002

  2

  May 2002

  1

  June 2002

  3

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the child poverty levels in the Portsmouth, South constituency were in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [66470]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex multidimensional issue, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is therefore no single measure of 'child poverty levels' in the Portsmouth, South constituency.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what(a) financial and (b) non-financial assistance is given to single parents; and what proposals the Government have to increase levels of support; [66356]

  (2) what help is given to single parents to (a) re-enter work and (b) enter education. [66357]
  765W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty and research has shown that nine out of ten lone parents want to work, either now or in the future. Lone parents face problems on moving into work due to balancing their work life with their caring responsibilities. That is why we are providing extra help to reduce these inequalities and offer lone parents a range of choices to gain more independence by moving into work.

  We have introduced measures to make work pay, including the working families' tax credit and the national minimum wage. From 2003 a lone parent working 16 hours a week will have a guaranteed minimum income of £179 a week. We have also provided help to make work possible for lone parents through the child care tax credit and the national child care strategy, which since 1997 has created new places for the benefit of more than 900,000 children.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents is available to all lone parents and offers a personalised service of advice and guidance. Personal advisers help with identifying child care, give advice on work and training opportunities and continue to offer in-work support once the lone parent is in work. Nearly 300,000 lone parents so far have participated in the programme and over half have found work. The programme now offers greater training flexibility by funding work-focused courses in skills that will be of benefit in the labour market, such as basic IT skills. In addition, everyone who joins any of the New Deal programmes is now assessed for literacy and numeracy needs and offered high quality learning opportunities.

  We are continuing to roll out compulsory personal adviser meetings for lone parents claiming income support to ensure that they are aware of the range of help and support we have introduced to enable them to move into work. Our new Jobcentre Plus offices are providing an integrated service to ensure that lone parents receive the benefits they are entitled to and the help they need to move into work.

  The Government are encouraging everyone with the necessary qualifications, including lone parents, to enter further and higher education. For further education institutions in England1 we have increased the ring-fenced budget for child care funds by 20 per cent. to £36 million in 2002–03. In higher education in England1, lone parents have access to a range of support including child care grants, a grant for school meals and a grant towards travel, books and equipment.

  1 Further and higher education arrangements in Scotland and Wales may differ from those in England.

TREASURY

  Government Communications
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has given to Government Departments on the disclosure of OGC Gateway reviews to hon. Members. [56531]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance has been issued and is available on the OGC website (www.ogc.gov.uk)

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through his Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64995]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following directives and regulations have been implemented to this date in 2002:directive 2000/46/EC on the taking-up, pursuit of and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions;
  directive 2000/28/EC relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions;
  directive 44/2001 on mutual assistance recovery;
  the Protection of the Euro against Counterfeiting Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3948) specified criminal penalties for breach of Council Regulation (EC) No.1338/2001;
  the provisions of the Customs Code Committee came into force on 1 January 2002, amending the preferential agreement with the Faroe Islands, by introducing legal provisions for proof of origin.

  I am not aware of any further directives being implemented in 2002, but the Department does not keep a single record of this information and it could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. Similarly, calculating the cost to public funds of the directives' implementation would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EU directives relating to his Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64945]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following directives have been amended to this date in 2002:directive 2000/12/EC relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions was amended in 2002, by directive 2000/28/EC;
  directive 77/388 regarding value added tax arrangements applicable to electronically supplied services and broadcasting was amended by directive 2002/38/EC and regulation 792/2002, with effect from 1 July 2003;
  directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC concerning the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco were amended by directive 2002/10/EC;
  directive 79/267/EEC as regards the solvency margin requirements for life assurance undertakings was amended by directive 2002/12/EC;
  directive 73/239/EEC as regards the solvency margin requirements for non-life insurance undertakings was amended by directive 2002/13/EC.

  No directive relating specifically to my Department was repealed in 2002.

  I am not aware of any further directives being amended or repealed in 2002, but this Department does not keep a single record of this information and it could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Banking Licences
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which banking licences have been(a) granted and (b) refused since 1 May 1997. [65387]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:(a) In the period between 1 May 1997 and 30 November 2001, a total of 42 institutions were granted banking licences under the Banking Act 1987. Since 1 December 2001, one firm has been authorised as a bank

  767W
  under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and it appears on the Financial Services Authority's public register. A detailed list of these 43 firms follows.

  (b) In the period between 1 May 1997 and 30 November 2001, a total of three institutions applied for authorisation under the Banking Act 1987 but did not proceed through to authorisation. In the period from 1 December 2001, no applications for banks have been formally refused. The names of firms which apply for authorisation have at all times remained confidential between the firm and the relevant supervisor, until the firm has been authorised.

  Additions to Banking Act list from 1 May 1997

  Alliance and Leicester plc

  Bank of Cyprus Ltd.

  Halifax plc

  Legal and General Bank Ltd.

  Philippine National Bank (Europe) plc

  Woolwich plc

  The Korea Development Bank

  Bristol and West plc

  Northern Rock plc

  Wachovia Bank NA

  Housing and Commercial Bank, Korea

  Standard Life Bank Ltd.

  Tesco Personal Finance Ltd.

  Ghana International Bank plc

  State Street Bank Europe Limited

  UBS AG

  Hua Nan Commercial Bank Ltd.

  Providian National Bank

  Alliance Trust Savings Ltd.

  Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Bank Ltd.

  Bank Mandiri (Europe) Ltd.

  Zurich Bank plc

  Israel Discount Bank Ltd.

  Bumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad

  J P Morgan International Bank Ltd.

  DLJ Bank

  Multi Commercial Bank (UK) Ltd.

  AMP Bank Ltd.

  UBS Warburg Ltd.

  Capital One Bank (Europe) plc

  Schroder and Co. Ltd.

  Bank One Capital Markets Ltd.

  Bradford and Bingley plc

  Dao Heng Bank Ltd.

  Fleet Bank (Europe) Ltd.

  Habib Allied International Bank plc

  Bank Sepah International plc

  Goldfish Bank Ltd.

  Melli Bank plc

  Pakistan International Bank (UK) Ltd.

  Persia International Bank plc

  Sonali Bank (UK) Ltd.

  Additions under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

  The Charity Bank Ltd.: 30 April 2002

  Economic Growth
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent estimates are for GDP growth for(a) the UK, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) Wales and (f) each EU Objective 1 area. [66165]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Hywel Williams, dated 8 July 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on estimates of GDP growth of the countries and EU Objective 1 areas of the United Kingdom. I am replying in his absence. (66165)
  Growth rates are normally calculated on the basis of data at constant prices. However, regional GDP data are only available on a current price basis, in the absence of regional deflators. The growth rates shown in the table below will therefore include the effects of inflation.
  The latest GDP estimates for the countries of the United Kingdom and the English regions are available up to 1999, and for the sub-regions (NUTS-2 areas) up to 1998. These data form the basis for the growth rates shown in table 1 below. The sub-regions Merseyside; South Yorkshire; Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; and West Wales and the Valleys are the four UK areas that currently have full Objective 1 status. Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands did not qualify for Objective I funding in the current round but are in receipt of transitional funding and are included for completeness.
  Data up to 2000 are expected to be published at the end of 2002.
  The data referred to in this answer are available in the House of Commons Library and on the web at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ regionalaccounts.

  Table 1: Gross domestic product, current basic prices, £ million Year-on-year percentage increase

  Provisional

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  United Kingdom1

  5.7

  6.5

  6.1

  3.8

  Countries of the United Kingdom1

  England

  6.1

  7.1

  6.2

  3.9

  Scotland

  3.0

  2.3

  6.0

  3.1

  Wales

  4.0

  3.7

  5.5

  3.9

  Northern Ireland2

  4.5

  6.8

  3.4

  3.0

  Objective 1 areas

  Merseyside

  4.4

  4.6

  5.0

  3—

  South Yorkshire

  6.6

  7.1

  4.7

  3—

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  8.0

  7.6

  5.7

  3—

  West Wales and the Valleys

  5.0

  4.0

  4.6

  3—

  Transition areas

  Highlands and Islands

  1.3

  2.8

  4.7

  3—

  Northern Ireland2

  4.5

  6.8

  3.4

  3.0

  1 Excluding Extra-Regio and the Statistical Discrepancy

  2 Northern Ireland is both a NUTS-1 and NUTS-2 area

  3 n/a

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in his Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65956]
  769W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 3 July 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Office for National Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which projects the public sector classification committee of the Office of National Statistics has been asked to comment since 1 January. [66718]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Taylor, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on which projects the Public Sector Classification Committee of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to comment since I' January. I am replying in his absence. (66718)

  The public sector classification committee (PSCC) considers a wide range of projects as the need arises. Four of these are currently confidential or market sensitive. The others are in the list below.

  New Tax Credits—discussion complete in 2001, but announced since 1 January.

  Network Rail

  Support for insurance of terrorist risks to aviation industry Sale and leaseback of buildings in Austria

  Electricity Companies Renewables Obligation

  Diamond Synchrotron Centre Ltd

  Offshore Petroleum Licensing

  Treatment of legacy European currencies

  Guarantees for loans to Railtrack plc in Administration

  Royal household departments

  Imputed taxes and subsidies—developing general principles

  NTL restructuring—treatment of debt for equity swap

  Office of Communications (OFCOM)

  Government support for Network Rail

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence there is from the evaluation of the education maintenance allowance pilots of the effect on family income of replacing child benefit on participation in education by young people aged 16 to 19 years. [67528]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are piloting an educational maintenance allowance in 56 local education authorities. EMAs provide financial support for 16 to 19 year olds to continue in education through provision of weekly payments and bonuses for retention and achievement. The Department for Education and Skills published the latest evaluation of the pilots on 3 July. Copies of this are available in the House Library.

  Individual Savings Account
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) mini and (b) maxi ISAs were purchased in the last tax year. [67229]
  770W
  Ruth Kelly
  Estimates of the number of mini and maxi ISA accounts receiving subscriptions and the amount of these subscriptions for 2001–02 are contained in table 9.4 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue's website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ stats/isa/isa-t01-1. htm

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average weekly hours of work for part-time workers were in 2001 in the United Kingdom. [67219]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Bob Laxton, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the average hours worked by part-time workers in the United Kingdom. I am replying in his absence. (67219)

  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimate of the average actual hours of part-time workers for the twelve month period ending December 2001 is 15.6 hours.

  PISA 2000 Survey
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of pupils in the PISA 2000 Survey achieved the correct answer in the Reading Unit 1 section of the literacy test in(a) Question 1, (b) Question 2, (c) Question 3, (d) Question 4 and (e) Question 5. [67842]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many and what proportion of pupils in the PISA 2000 Survey achieved the correct answer in the Reading Unit 1 section of the literacy test in (a) Question 1, (b) Question 2, (c) Question 3, (d) Question 4 and (e) Question 5. I am replying in his absence. (67842)

  The proportion of students who answered individual questions correctly is available for all items for each country in the Test Item Compendia available at http://pisaweb.acer.edu.au/oecd_pisa_data_ sl.html

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in(a) the Department for Education and Skills, (b) the Office of National Statistics and (c) other Departments was responsible for (i) devising the sample selection, (ii) making the sample selection and (iii) compiling the list of schools used in the PISA 2000 survey. [67843]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  771W
  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning who in (a) the Department for Education and Skills, (b) the Office of National Statistics and (c) other departments was responsible for (i) devising the sample selection, (ii) making the sample selection and (iii) compiling the list of schools used in the PISA 2000 survey. I am replying in his absence. (67843)

  The sampling frame used in PISA and the sample design are described 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.

  A number of people were involved in devising the sample selection in consultation with the international sampling referees.

  The report is available free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product.asp?vInk=8169a&Mo re=N

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 117W, whether schools were permitted to remove pupils from the selection made by PISA; and whether pupils were omitted from the list of students born in 1984 and on what basis. [67864]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Gibb, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question pursuant to the answer given on 1st July, Official Report, column 117W, whether schools were permitted to remove pupils from the selection made by PISA; and whether any pupils were omitted from the list of students born in 1984 and, if so, on what basis. I am replying in his absence. (67864)

  The protocols for selecting students within schools and for excluding students are described 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 free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product.asp?v1nk=8169&Mo re=N

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the questions asked in the follow-up sessions that were held for pupils taking the PISA 2000 tests were the same as those in the original tests. [67844]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Gibb, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if the questions asked in the follow-up sessions that were held for pupils taking the PISA 2000 tests were the same as those in the original tests. I am replying in his absence. (67844)

  The circumstances under which students were assessed in a follow-up session and the construction of the PISA test are described in Section A.3 and 1.6 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.
  772W
  The tests used in the follow-up sessions were the same as those in the original testing session. The PISA test contained over 200 items in total, equivalent to 7 hours of testing time. Not all students were given the same questions. Each student was given one of nine different test booklets with different combinations of items. The tests were administered by test administrators who were independent of the school. Tests were brought to the school by the administrator on the day of testing and removed after testing. Only 3% of students were assessed in a follow-up session.

  The report is available free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product.asp?v1nk=8169&More=N

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Insurance Committee 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. [68601]

  Ruth Kelly
  The EU Insurance Committee is due to next meet on 26 and 27 November 2002.

  The UK is represented by an official from HM Treasury and a representative from the Financial Services Authority. As financial regulation is not a devolved matter, representatives of the Scottish Executive have not attended the committee.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Banking Advisory Committee 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. [68604]

  Ruth Kelly
  The EU Banking Advisory Committee is due to meet next on 9 October 2002.

  The UK is represented by an official from HM Treasury and two from the Financial Services Authority. As financial regulation is not a devolved matter, representatives of the Scottish Executive have not attended the committee.

  Adoptions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adoptions have been completed in each of the last five years. [67161]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 8 July 2002:

  The Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of adoptions completed in each of the last five years. I am replying in his absence. (67161)

  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of adoptions in England and Wales in each of the last five years

  Number of adoptions

  1997

  5,212

  1998

  4,617

  1999

  4,988

  2000

  5,036

  2001

  5,131

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67099]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on which statistics are collected by English Parliamentary Constituency. I am replying in his absence. (67099)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) collects a wide range of statistics. However, they are not collected at Parliamentary Constituency level for a number of reasons. In particular, most of the statistics collected at a local level are based on administrative areas such as local authorities, and these do not always share boundaries with Parliamentary Constituencies.

  Members of the Government Statistical Service (GSS) in all Government Departments provide a statistical service to the House of Commons Library.

  The House of Commons Library provides a tailored service for MP's. Statistics that can often be provided at Parliamentary Constituency level include economic status (employment. unemployment and inactivity), claimant count, employee jobs, average earnings and Census data. Also, many statistics that are available at a lower level can generally be aggregated to Parliamentary Constituency level. This includes the increasing range of statistics at ward level becoming available through ONS's Neighbourhood Statistics Service (www.statistics.gov.uk/ neighbourhood).

  Excess Profits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is a standard definition of excess profits which is used by the Government; and if he will make a statement. [68001]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no standard definition of excess profit used by the Government.

  Taxation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 945W, on taxation, for what reason the figures in the answer included benefit changes; and if he will make a statement. [66754]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures in the answer referred to included benefit changes in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the cumulative impact on households across the income distribution of Budget measures introduced over the last Parliament.

  Lone Parents
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make provision to enable lone parents to maintain stable child care arrangements during a period of temporary unemployment once the new tax credits have come into force in April 2003. [67244]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The working tax credit, which includes support for the costs of eligible child care, is designed to encourage people to take up work and to make work pay for low-income households. So entitlement to it 774W
  will depend on working the required number of hours. It will be based on the hours normally worked by the claimant and will be able, as a result, to continue providing support for short periods when the claimant is unable to work their usual hours. It will also be able to cover short gaps between jobs.

  For longer breaks in employment, we will continue to provide help through other channels, especially for lone parents who need to use child care. Lone parents can receive financial assistance through the Adviser Discretion Fund, where up-front child care costs represent a barrier to moving into work. From April 2003 there will also be a dedicated child care co-ordinator in every Jobcentre Plus district to help jobseekers with children to access information on child care provision in their area.

  Tax Credits (Scotland)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Scotland are in receipt of(a) the working families tax credit and (b) the child tax credit. [68483]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number receiving the working families tax credit, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W. The number of families who are eligible for the children's tax credit in Scotland is estimated to he 400,000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [60750]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to try to make surplus IT equipment available to schools and other non-profit making bodies at low cost. In disposing of its computers therefore, the Department uses Recycle-IT! the UK's largest computer re-use project. They supply second-user systems tailored to the needs of the voluntary, church, education and disabled organisations, embryonic businesses and Third World countries. As Recycle-IT! do not charge for this service, there is no cost to the Department for disposing of redundant equipment.

  The following table relates to the limited number of PCs owned and managed directly by the Department. It shows the total number of computers disposed of in each of the last three financial years. It also shows the total number of those computers, which were replaced along with the cost of the replacement computers.

  Disposed

  Replaced

  Cost of replacement

  1999–2000

  302

  151

  103,000

  2000–01

  415

  365

  435,660

  2001–02

  84

  0

  0

  Total

  801

  516

  538,660

  775W
  The Departments PFI partners own the majority of the IT equipment used. The contract stipulates that 70 per cent. of the equipment provided under the contract must be no more than three years old, and that none should be more than five years old. There are currently 2,800 PC's and laptop computers provided by our PFI supplier. The Department also encourages its PFI partners to use Recycle-IT!

  Knutsford Crown Court
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what repairs and maintenance is being carried out to Knutsford Crown court; and how much the programme costs. [67186]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following advice from our specialist conservation consultant, the Lord Chancellor's Department are currently taking forward a project to repair the damaged ceiling to courtroom one (including minor roof repairs), at an estimated cost of £29,000. The Department is also planning to repair the boilers at an estimated cost of £4,000.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many special advisers were employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41253]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department employed no special advisers between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and employed one special adviser in each of the financial years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The salaries of special advisers are negotiated individually within the stated pay scale which, for each the years in question, was as follows:

  1998–99:

  up to £74,954 (from 1 April)

  up to £76,056 (from 1 December)

  1999–2000

  up to £78,186

  2000–01

  up to £80,453.

  Details of costs are not given in order to protect the privacy of the appointee concerned, in line with exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number and expected cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43270]

  Yvette Cooper
  There was one special adviser in the department as at 13 March 2002. The salaries of special advisers are negotiated individually within the stated pay range (up to £125,000, although the Special Advisers Remuneration Committee may award salaries up to £90,000 only: salaries above that figure are set by the Prime Minister). Details of expected costs are not given in order to protect the privacy of the appointee concerned, in line with exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Libra Project
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the cost to the Government of a failure of the Libra project to deliver on its core case management application. [55108]

  Yvette Cooper
  Delivery of a central part of the contract—the office infrastructure and network—is over 75 per cent. complete and office services are being delivered to over 8,500 magistrates court staff.

  There have been delays in delivering the software application. We have been in discussion with Fujitsu Services (formerly ICL) on the impact of the delay and to determine the best way forward for the project. The resolution is expected shortly, and the House will be informed of the outcome.

  We remain determined to provide magistrates courts with modern computer equipment and standardised IT software. If Fujitsu Systems failed to deliver the Libra software, it would be necessary to meet the requirement from elsewhere in the market. Costs would be dependent on the market conditions and on negotiations.

  Chief Justice of Germany
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she last met the Chief Justice of Germany. [66331]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, nor my ministerial colleagues have met the Chief Justice of Germany.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost of buildings insurance to the Lord Chancellor's Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66934]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance which is set out in Government accounting, Chapter 30, para 30.2.5, which notes that Government do not need to purchase insurance to protect the viability of its business and should consider insurance only where the value of claims met would exceed the cost of the insurance premiums. Commercial insurance of a building is acceptable in cases where(a) insurance is a condition of a lease (b) the lessor will not accept a Government indemnity (c) incurring the total cost of the accommodation in question, including the cost of the insurance is more cost effective than other accommodation options [Government Accounting, para 30.2.11 a]

  The Lord Chancellor's Department incurs insurance costs as a condition of their lease on various leasehold properties they occupy through the landlord service charges levied. Details of the annual insurance premiums per property pre and post 11 September are not available and the Department would incur a disproportionate cost establishing this information.

  Legal Aid Solicitors (Wales)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the shortfall of legal aid solicitors in Wales, broken down by(a) subject and (b) county. [65498]
  777W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission contracts with both quality assured solicitors' firms and not-for-profit organisations to provide legal services which meet the identified priority needs for those services. The Commission is confident that there is sufficient provision in Wales, in all categories of law and in all counties. However, it is developing and improving coverage.

  For civil legal aid contracts with solicitors' firms, the Commission allocates a defined number of cases in specified categories of law. In its contracts with not-for-profit organisations, the Commission allocates a defined number of caseworker hours in specified categories of law. The allocation of cases and time throughout 2001–02 exceeded the number of cases actually started. There is no evidence at present of a shortfall of civil legal aid providers in any category of law in Wales.

  The Wales Regional Legal Services Committee is preparing a report on how well the Commission's civil contracts are currently meeting legal need. The report, which will be issued this autumn, will also identify any remaining priorities for new contracts in the next financial year.

  For criminal defence work, the Commission has no evidence at present of any shortfall in the number of contracted solicitors' firms undertaking criminal defence work in Wales.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how mar y oral questions she has transferred to other departments in each of the last 18 months. [65512]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department only transfers Parliamentary Questions when it is more appropriate for another Government Department to answer. The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Month

  2001 Number of questions transferred and to which Department

  2002 Number of questions transferred and to which Department

  January

  —

  0

  February

  —

  Three to Home Office

  March

  —

  0

  April

  —

  Three to Home Office

  May

  —

  1n/a

  June

  1n/a

  One to Home Office

  One to Prime Minister

  July

  One to FCO

  One to Home Office

  August

  1n/a

  September

  1n/a

  October

  1n/a

  November

  0

  December

  One to Home Office

  1 Months that the Lord Chancellor's Department had no oral question time

  Civil Courts
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court staff he estimates will be made redundant as a result of his proposals to modernise the civil courts. [65279]
  778W
  Yvette Cooper
  The timetable and extent of the courts Tribunals Modernisation Programme has not been finalised so it is not yet known what the subsequent effect on staffing levels will be. Initial business planning assumptions indicate that it may be possible to minimise redundancies through the effective management of retirement and recruitment policies, natural turnover of staff and by exploring opportunities for staff in other areas such as the Immigration Appeal Appellate. Redundancy options will be explored only as a last resort, and there w ill be full consultation with the relevant trade unions throughout.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what role he intends his Department to take in the cross-departmental committee on the HMIC/CPSI thematic report on rape. [65212]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Director of the Crown court is representing the Department on the cross-departmental committee to take forward the comments made in the report in relation to the listing of cases with allegations of rape. He has asked that the comments about the listing of rape cases be considered in thematic review of listing which is currently being carried out by the joint Criminal Justice Inspectorates.

  Census 1901 Website
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the 1901 census website will be available for access. [66048]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The PRO and QinetiQ Ltd. are working together to get the system back on line as soon as possible.

  Patients (Fluids)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the responses received from the consultation on 'Making Decisions' were analysed to determine how many respondents were(a) in favour and (b) against the withholding of food and fluids from incapacitated patients not actually dying; and whether such an analysis will be conducted following the consultation on 'Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments: Good Practice in Decision Making'. [67207]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  'Making Decisions' is a policy statement setting out the Government's proposals for making decisions on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults. It was issued in 1999 following on from a consultation paper: "Who Decides? Making Decisions on Behalf of Mentally Incapacitated Adults". The question posed by the hon. Member was not asked in that consultation paper. 'Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments: Good Practice in Decision Making' has recently been produced by the General Medical Council, not by my Department.

  Ministerial Visits
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many visits to EU applicant countries she and her Ministers have made since 1 January 2001. [66330]
  779W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC and former LCD Minister Lord Bach have both visited a number of EU applicant countries since 1 January 2001. The dates are provided in the following table.

  Minister

  Country

  Date

  Lord Bach

  Czech Republic

  24 January 2001

  Lord Bach

  Slovak Republic

  8 March 2001

  Baroness Scotland

  Slovak Republic

  18–20 December 2001

  Baroness Scotland

  Poland

  23–25 January 2002

  Baroness Scotland

  Bulgaria

  29–31 January 2002

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the buildings owned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66952]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Asset Register, published in July 2001 (Cm 5221), lists assets owned by each Department and their valuation.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60947]

  Yvette Cooper
  The levels of ministerial salaries are recommended by the senior salaries review body. From May 1997, in this Department there was one Cabinet Minister (the Lord Chancellor) at an annual salary of £140,665, and one parliamentary secretary at an annual salary of £23,623. From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister (again, the Lord Chancellor) at an annual salary of £173,875; one parliamentary secretary (House of Lords) at an annual salary of £60,961; and two parliamentary secretaries (House of Commons) at an annual salary of £26,835.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many community service orders were extinguished without being served in each year since 1995. [65126]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of community punishment orders (formerly community service orders) which terminated before completion of the order in each year since 1995 in England and Wales was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  l995

  14,700

  1996

  14,400

  1997

  13,400

  1998

  12,700

  1999

  12,300

  20001

  13,500

  1Latest year for which complete information is available

  780W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many community service punishments were handed down by magistrates' courts in each year since 1990; and what proportion of these sentences were served. [65125]

  Hillary Benn
  I have been asked to replay.

  The number of persons sentenced by magistrates' courts to community punshiment orders (CPOs)(formerly community service orders) and supervised by the probation service in England and Wales for each year since 1990 was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  26,500

  1991

  30,000

  1992

  31,600

  1993

  35,700

  1994

  38,900

  1995

  38,100

  1996

  37,200

  1997

  37,900

  19982

  39,800

  19992

  42,200

  20002,3

  43,600

  1 Excludes (CPOs) given for breach.

  2 Includes (CPOs) for persistent petty offenders and for fine deault2rs.

  3 Latest year for which complete information is available.

  The proportion of community punishment orders (formerly community service orders) terminating each year since 1990 which were successfully completed was as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1990

  69

  1991

  70

  1992

  72

  1993

  71

  1994

  70

  1995

  71

  1996

  71

  1997

  71

  1998

  72

  1999

  72

  20001

  71

  1 Latest year for which complete information is available.

HEALTH

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many primary care trusts had finance directors in post on 1 April; and what the total budget is for these organisations with finance directors in place; [54715]

  (2) how many primary care trusts were in place on 1 April; and what the total budget is for these organisations. [54716]

  Mr. Hutton
  Three hundred and three primary care trusts (PCTs), including Northumberland which has been designated a care trust, were in operation on 1 April 2002.
  781W
  We have allocated £41.5 billion in total to health authorities (HAs) for 2002–03. Of this, £40.9 billion has been shared by HAs between their constituent PCTs.

  The number of PCTs that had directors of finance in place on 1 April 2002 was 208. Acting directors of finance are in place where a permanent appointment has not yet been made. Their share of HA allocations was £27.9 billion for 2002–03.

  An element of the allocation shared between PCTs will be retained at HA level for HA level functions, collective commissioning and other items funded at HA level. Information on this is not collected centrally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance is provided to those nurses wishing to return to the NHS for(a) tuition fees, (b) subsistence and (c) travel costs; and if he will make a statement. [56711]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health care professions (including nurses), returning to the national health service benefit from a returners' package which includes:free refresher training
  a minimum of £1,000 financial support while retaining (£1,500 for midwives)
  assistance with child care support of up to £135 per week for one child and £200 for two or more children
  assistance with travel and books.

  Over £70 million has been allocated to build around 150 on-site subsidised nurseries. Around a further 7,500 places will be created by 2004.

  The Government's starter home initiative launched on 6 September 2001 will help the NHS ease staffing shortages in parts of London and the south east.

  Herbal Remedies
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations the UK has made in respect of the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive with specific reference to moves to bring herbal remedies into the regulatory regime dealing with pharmaceutical drugs; and what position the UK has taken on the proposal to extend this to cover combinations of herbs and nutrients. [57961]

  Ms Blears
  Many herbal remedies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union already have a marketing authorisation under European medicines legislation.

  Negotiations on the proposed directive on traditional herbal medicinal products are at an early stage. So far the Government have argued in particular that there should be greater flexibility to take account of non European herbal traditions and that an early date should be set for the review of the scope of the directive in relation to non herbal traditional medicines.

  The medical control agency is holding a consultation exercise on the directive. This is showing that there are varied views on the proposed manufacturing and quality standards. Some respondents, including UK manufacturers of traditional herbal remedies, have argued
  782W
  that the standards are achievable and are necessary in the interests of consumer protection and of the long-term reputation of the herbal sector.

  Others, particularly from the health food sector, have argued that the standards are inappropriate or unnecessary. We have extended the consultation until the end of July in order to allow those with concerns to identify the specific areas where they believe the standards to be over-regulatory. We will further develop the UK negotiating position on this issue once we have assessed the additional information provided during the extended period of consultation.

  We are currently considering representations that have been received during the consultation about the regulatory position on herbal-nutrient combination products.

  MMR Vaccine
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been given the MMR vaccine; and what the Government's targets are. [58562]

  Ms Blears
  Current immunisation targets are for 95 per cent. of children to be immunised by age two against measles, mumps and rubella; there is no formal target for a reinforcing (booster) dose. The Department recommends that MMR, a combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella, is administered in a single dose at between 12 and 15 months of age.

  Information about the percentage of children immunised against measles mumps and rubella by their 2nd birthday, and from 1999–2000 by their 5th birthday, is contained in the statistical bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the meetings he and his Ministers(a) have had and (b) propose to have with NHS trust and health authority chairmen and chief executives to discuss (i) reducing radiotherapy waiting lists and (ii) the associated financial implications of such action. [59286]

  Ms Blears
  Ministers have not met chairmen and chief executives specifically to discuss reducing radiotherapy waiting times. However, we are taking wide ranging action to improve radiotherapy waiting times including a number of initiatives aimed at tackling the shortage of professionals associated with radiotherapy delivery, major investment in radiotherapy equipment, streamlining radiotherapy delivery through the cancer services collaborative and increased the number of training places for radiographers.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which agencies are responsible for monitoring and caring for individuals who have been released from a mental hospital; and what arrangements ensure that agencies are co-ordinating these systems. [67160]
  783W
  Jacqui Smith
  The lead health service provider, usually the National Health Service Trust, and the local authority social service department have the responsibility for the care of individuals who have been discharged from hospital. The care programme approach provides the framework for the care of people with mental health problems wherever the user is in the system, including residential and community settings. This framework is also used by the probation service, the police, and housing agencies who will be involved in on-going review of care arrangements and risk assessments

  Arrangements for monitoring the care programme approach are set out in the policy booklet: "Effective Care Co-ordination in Mental Health Services" (Department of Health, October 1999) and "An Audit Pack for Monitoring the Care Programme Approach" (Department of Health, June 2001).

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken in respect of each of the recommendations for action of the key area group of the Workforce Action Team on recruitment and retention issues in the mental health field. [67973]

  Mr. Hutton
  The mental health care group workforce team (MHCGWT) is actively taking forward the recommendations of the workforce action team (WAT). The MHCGWT is currently:working with Workforce Development Confederations as part of their recruitment and retention agenda;
  ensuring that wider recruitment and retention issues across the NHS include the correct focus on mental health.

  The MHCGWT have set up a recruitment and retention sub-group in order to develop initiatives on:
  an advertisement campaign on mental health recruitment for later this year;
  a community engagement programme to recruit local people into the mental health workforce;
  producing recruitment videos;
  disseminating good practice.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to legislate for the regulation of(a) psychologists, (b) psychotherapists and (c) counsellors. [67981]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have given a high priority to improving service quality in general in the national health service and social care services, as well as in the private sector. A number of initiatives testify to this, including the development of national service frameworks, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the new framework of clinical governance. These modernised and more accountable professional regulatory arrangements will work alongside NHS quality assurance arrangements to offer much better protection for patients, wherever they are seen.

  Proposals for the regulation of these groups are in the first instance a matter for the health professions council. The Department have indicated that we will be supporting moves to establish a scheme of statutory professional regulation of applied psychologists.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the women's mental health consultation process. [67955]
  784W
  Jacqui Smith
  Preparation of the consultation document for the national women's mental health strategy continues and publication will take place after completion of the current spending review.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the proportion of those suffering from severe mental illness(a) who are capable of undertaking paid employment and (b) who undertake paid employment. [67949]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available. However, the psychiatric morbidity survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and published in 2001 provided some information on the prevalence of psychiatric disorder by employment status. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost is of implementation of the draft Mental Health Bill: and whether such funds are available. [67964]

  Jacqui Smith
  The costs of the Mental Health Bill are being considered as part of the Department's spending review and the timescale for implementation will be determined by the availability of funding from the spending review settlement.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reason was for his decision on the timing and length of the consultation on the draft Mental Health Bill. [67963]

  Jacqui Smith
  Consultation on the draft Mental Health Bill will run for 12 weeks from 25 June 2002 until 16 September 2002.

  This period is in keeping with the Cabinet Office code of practice guidance on written consultation.

  The Government are committed to introducing legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows and we are therefore consulting on the draft Mental Health Bill at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the benefits of early treatment for those with mental health problems. [67944]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's research, analysis and information directorate has commissioned a review of current evidence in the field of early intervention in psychosis. This is being undertaken by Professor Max Marshall and is due to be completed by the end of September 2002.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of those people who suffer severe mental illness were first treated for it by compulsion under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last five years. [67969]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available in this form.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports he has received of people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness being turned away when they ask for treatment. [67958]
  785W
  Jacqui Smith
  There have been no reports of people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness being turned away from services.

  The mental health national service framework explicitly states that everyone with severe mental illness should have access to the range of services they need.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average period of untreated psychosis prior to a person receiving treatment was in the last 12 months. [67945]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent progress has been made on the selection and implementation of instrumentation for the routine measurement of outcomes in mental health. [67960]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is developing an outcomes programme pilot for the implementation of instruments, which should be set up by September 2002. The plan to begin routine measurement of outcomes in mental health from April 2003 is currently on target.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost is per prison of providing mental health in-reach services in the last year for which figures are available; [67997]

  (2) how much is being spent in 2002–03 on providing mental health in-reach services in prisons; and how much will be spent in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [67994]

  Jacqui Smith
  During 2001–02 mental health in-reach services were being established in 18 prisons in England. During 2002–03 it is planned that in-reach teams should be established in a further 26 prisons. Funding amounting to £3,850,000 has been allocated in 2002–03 to cover the costs of these developments. Specific allocations are made taking account of participating prisons' type, size and throughput.

  Funding for 2003–04 and beyond has not yet been decided.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of beds available for the treatment of those with mental ill-health [67948]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have already fulfilled our NHS Plan commitments to create 500 extra secure beds and 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds by April 2001, and are on track to deliver 200 additional long-term secure beds by 2004.

  Crisis resolution teams are dramatically reducing pressure on in-patient beds by 2004 there will be 335 such teams treating 100,000 people a year who would otherwise need admission to hospital.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to notify(a) police and (b) local authorities about persons who have been placed in a mental hospital being released; and if he will make a statement. [67177]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 required the police and probation services (the 'responsible authorities') in each of the 42 areas of England and Wales to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and 786W
  violent offenders. These arrangements include those who have been detained in respect of a conviction by a hospital or guardian ship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. These arrangements were introduced in April 2001. Scope to disclose information to the responsible authorities only exists within current legislation, where there is a high risk of harm to self or others, consistent with the Human Rights Act. Responsibility for the arrangements rests with those in charge of care and treatment, bearing in mind the facts of each individual case. The Department will be issuing guidance to ensure that all mental health trusts are appropriately represented in the arrangements.

  New proposals concerning the rights of victims to information are contained within the draft Mental Health Bill published last week, and in relation to information exchange in the accompanying consultation document. We look forward to hearing views on these proposals.

  Looked-after Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 240W, on looked-after children, if he will set out the number of children in residential care broken down by (a) health authority and (b) region in each of the last five years. [67253]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected by health authority. The information available by region is shown in the table.

  Number of children looked after in residential placements at 31 March 1997

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Emgland

  7,900

  8,500

  8,300

  8,900

  8,500

  North East

  595

  555

  505

  540

  505

  North West

  1,090

  1,100

  1,115

  1,145

  1,045

  Merseyside

  415

  455

  445

  490

  410

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,000

  970

  1,005

  1,025

  940

  East Midlands

  420

  520

  540

  535

  485

  West Midlands

  800

  880

  860

  950

  865

  South West

  490

  530

  545

  535

  555

  London

  1,600

  1,645

  1,650

  1,960

  2,120

  Eastern

  570

  690

  665

  685

  710

  South East

  920

  1,110

  930

  985

  905

  Notes:

  1. Figures for children looked after in this table exclude agreed series of short term placements.

  2. Numbers may not add up to totals due to rounding.

  3. Residential placements include secure units. children's homes. hostels, residential schools and placements in other residential settings.

  Source:

  DH statistical return CLA 100

  Psycho-surgery
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people underwent psycho-surgery in each of the last five years, broken down by age. [67159]

  Jacqui Smith
  For the purpose of clarity, we refer to psycho-surgery as neuro-surgery for mental disorder.

  While the Department does not collect information on neuro-surgery for mental disorder centrally, the ninth biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission covering the years 1999–2001, indicates that nine

  787W
  applications for neuro-surgery for mental disorder were considered (seven in 1999–2000 and two in 2000–01). All nine operations were eventually certified to go ahead.

  In the period covered by the previous biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission (1997–99), 17 referrals were made to the Commission to consider certifying neuro-surgery for mental disorder. All the cases referred in this reporting period were certified but one patient withdrew consent before the operation took place.

  We do not have the breakdown of the Commission's figures by age groups.

  Working Minds
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Working Minds employers' tool kits are available. [67953]

  Jacqui Smith
  An additional 2,000 copies of the Working Minds employers' toolkit were printed in March 2002. Copies are available from 0870 4430930, fax 0870 4430931, e-mail mindout@codestorm.co.uk

  Psychiatric Readmissions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement Target of reducing the emergency psychiatric readmission rate. [67959]

  Jacqui Smith
  The emergency psychiatric readmission rate has been reduced from the baseline of 14.3 per cent. in 1997–98 to 12.7 per cent. at the last quarter of 2001–02.

  Obesity
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the role of sport in tackling obesity. [67996]

  Ms Blears
  Increasing participation in sport has a role to play in raising the rates of physical activity. Low rates of physical activity together with an unhealthy diet contribute to increased rates of obesity. Major cross-Government work has been put in place to raise the level of physical activity, and participation in sport. This includes: £581 million from the new opportunities fund for a physical education and sports programme; the national active sports programme and the Department's recently announced £2.5 million programme of community physical activity pilots, which will test out different community approaches to increasing physical activity. All pilots will involve sport action zones.

  Community Day Centres
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women-only community day centres and services are in place. [67956]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent in each of the past five years into the causes and treatment of endometriosis. [67942]
  788W
  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for medical research is the Med[ical Research Council (MRC), which is funded via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department directly funds research into policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care, and provides national health service support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities in the NHS.

  The MRC's expenditure on relevant research was £1.7 million in 1997–98; £1.8 million in 1998–99; £1.8 million in 1999–2000; £1.2 million in 2000–01 and £1.2 million in 2001–02. The Department's expenditure on directly funded relevant research was nil in 1997–98; £55,000 in 1998–99; £85,000 in 1999–2000; £70,000 in 2000–01 and £70,000 in 2001–02.

  In addition, the Department provided NHS support funding for research councils and charities' research, details of which can be found on the national research register on www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  Child and Family Support Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed in the Child and Family Support Service. [45486]

  Jacqui Smith
  [pursuant to her reply, 7 May 2002, c. 103W]I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:

  Information on the whole-time equivalent number of staff employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England in relation to child and family support services at 30 September 2001 is shown in the following table. These figures exclude central and strategic staff and certain other categories of staff who provide more generic services across the range of council responsibilities. No information is available centrally on the numbers of people in the private and voluntary sectors who are providing services to children and families on behalf of councils with social services responsibilities.

  Staff employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England on child and, family support services (whole-time equivalent)

  Type of staff

  Whole-time equivalent at 30 September 2001

  Area Office staff (including social work staff, excluding occupational therapists)

  21,275

  Day Care staff:

  Family centres

  3,715

  Nurseries and play groups

  2,260

  Residential Care staff:

  Children with learning disabilities

  2,045

  Community homes for children looked after

  8,685

  Specialist needs establishments

  1,110

  Occupational therapists

  105

  Source:

  Form SSDS001, annual return of staff employed in social services departments made by local authorities to the Department of Health.

  Iodine Tablets
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preparations have been made to distribute iodine tablets to the population in the event of a nuclear emergency. [67871]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have established detailed plans for responding to major incidents. Cross-departmental contingency plans are in place and regular exercises test responses to a range of different threats, including those from radiation. Arrangements for distribution of potassium iodate tablets to the population are included in these exercises.

  Health Professions Council
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from professions wishing to be covered by the Health Professions Council; [67979]

  (2) what programme of work his Department has in hand as to the regulation of professions other than those covered by the Health Professions Council; and if he will set out the timetable for such work; [67980]

  (3) what plans he has to add to the professions covered by the Health Professions Council. [67982]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for the health professions council to consider proposals for the extension of its remit to other professions, and the timing of any such extension would depend on the outcome. I received an approach from the British Psychological Society in March. The Government 790W
  have also agreed with the general dental council that its powers to register professionals complementary to dentistry (such as dental technicians) should be widened.

  Medical Schools
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how niuch funding each medical school received in each of the past five years. [61462]

  Margaret Hodge
  With the exception of St. George's Medical school, medical schools in England form part of their parent university and are funded through the block grant provided by the Higher Educating Funding Council for England. The HEFCE allocations of block grant for 2002–03 are published in the Funding Council's report 02/11.

  The funding allocation for St. George's medical school for each of the past five years is as follows:

  Funding (£ million)

  Percentage increase year-on-year

  1998

  12.134

  1.8

  1999

  12.466

  2.1

  2000

  13.268

  4.2

  2001

  14.744

  0.7

  2002

  16.006

  7.4

  Note:

  The information is taken from the Higher Education Funding Council for England publication "Recurrent grant for 2001–02: final allocations" (report 01/57) which records allocations of recurrent grant to higher education institutions and to further education colleges delivering higher education. Information for previous years in published in equivalent reports, the data for 2002–03 are provisional. copies of the publication are available at http:// www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Youth Unemployment
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether progress in reducing youth unemployment, especially in the countryside, is satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we are making good progress in reducing unemployment among young people. Since 1997 youth unemployment has fallen by more than 40 per cent, in rural areas by nearly 50 per cent, and is around its lowest level since the mid-1970s. Long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Two weeks ago at Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister said that there were only some 4.500 young people on the dole. I understand that the correct figure is 244,000, of whom 44,000 have been unemployed for more than six months. Can the Minister explain how the Government separate those who are unemployed in rural areas and those who are unemployed in urban areas? What analysis is used?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that at any one point in time the snapshot, churning figure of labour mobility for young people is 233,000. But for six months those young people are on JSA and within that six months 80 per cent of them will go back into work. After six months, the New Deal kicks in. Therefore, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that there were 4,900 young people on the dole, he was referring to a period 12 months on when people have either gone back into work or come through the New Deal. So the noble Baroness's statistics are right in that respect.
As to rural areas, long-term rural unemployment for young people has been virtually eliminated. Perhaps I may give the figures for the noble Baroness's own county. Whereas in 1997 there were about 600 young people who had been unemployed for more than six months, the figure is now one-third of that. Our figure of 4,900 compares favourably with the figure of the mid-1980s, which was 350,000.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the contributory factors in rural poverty is that rural wages tend to be very much
432
lower than urban wages. Can anything be done to rectify the imbalance? Would tax credits help? What is the Government's policy?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, one of the problems is that while total household incomes in rural areas are higher than the national average, individual rural wages are somewhat lower than urban wages. My noble friend is right. That is why I am so pleased that working families tax credit is being claimed in rural communities. For example, for a farmer and his partner with two children on an average farmer's income of £7,000 to £7,500, tax credits will bring that income up to £12,000. Approximately 17,500 farmers and farm labourers are currently claiming working families tax credit.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will know that the highest levels of unemployment for young people have traditionally been among those with few or no qualifications. How successful have been initiatives such as the educational maintenance allowance in rural areas in keeping young people at school and helping them gain higher qualifications?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The New Deal research, the Rowntree report and the recent ERSC research, which was published a few weeks ago, show that the employment option of the New Deal is working very successfully for young people. As a result, there are fewer young people unemployed in rural areas than in urban areas. The problem lies in getting people into the education and full-time training option. It is difficult. Working with the Department for Education and Skills, we are introducing Internet access, home learning, learning and skills council developments and so on. However, there is a problem. Whereas it is relatively easy to get local employers to work with and take a socially responsible attitude towards young people in their area, educational facilities of the kind needed often may be some distance away and transport can be the core of the problem.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, a recent article in The Times entitled
"Blair backs plan for countryside's lost generation",
went on to refer to,
"the blueprint to champion rural youth".
When are we likely to see this plan? How many people is it envisaged will be involved? How will it be funded?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not familiar with the details of the blueprint for youth referred to by the noble Lord. I do not know whether it is an initiative of the Home Office or the Department for Education and Skills. I shall write to the noble Lord.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the problem of transport. Is she aware of how serious is the difficulty for young people in isolated rural areas of travelling to whatever work

433
may be available? Is she conscious that there are schemes to provide mobility or to help with it, such as that of the Prince's Trust, by the provision of mopeds or motor-bikes or even some help with the licensing and insuring of an old car? Is there any scheme to coordinate those efforts across the country so that help with mobility is available to young people in isolated areas everywhere?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is an extremely pertinent point. As my noble friend Lord Whitty told the House a couple of weeks ago, rural bus services are improving and nearly half of all rural households now have a bus service of at least one per hour regularity. However, that still leaves many people without access to reliable bus services. However, not only are the New Deal schemes helping young people with bicycles, insuring cars and so on, but approximately 65 "action for jobs" teams are operating in the most remote and inaccessible rural areas and providing mopeds, scooters, and so on. These seem to be having a real impact on youth unemployment in those areas.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that one of the problems in the countryside is the lack of affordable housing for young people? What became of socially rented accommodation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. One of the problems in the countryside is that younger, poorer people are leaving but younger, richer people are moving in. One of the reasons why such people are leaving is, I suspect, the lack of access to affordable housing. Statistics indicate that in the 180 or so rural districts there are now some 677,000 social houses for rent.
The indication is that, as of December 2001, 1.5 million local authority council houses have been sold.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to answer the point in my supplementary question; namely, how the analysis is done. She did not state how many young people in rural areas find employment in those areas, rather than having to move to towns to find work. Will she clarify the point?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness how the statistics are arrived at. Basically, the districts are broken down into five categories: remote rural, accessible rural, the former coalfields, urban and metropolitan. The first three are regarded as rural, the last two as urban/metropolitan. There are about 181 districts in the first three categories and about 173 in the last two. The statistics are arrived at on that basis. We have tried to cut it the other way, by looking at populated settlement sizes of 10,000, and that does not work. Therefore, we have adopted those definitions. We cannot break down the statistics beyond that. Clearly, some young people are
434
able to find work in their village or the immediate area, others in market towns, and others in larger towns. It is the case—I am sure this is what really matters—that more young people between 18 and 25 are in work in the country as a whole. Secondly, compared to the 350,000 young people who were long-term unemployed in 1985, there are now under 5,000. I am sure that the noble Baroness will rejoice at those statistics.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since 1997 the Government have taken billions of pounds in stamp duty from housing. How much of that money has been spent on alleviating the problems of rural housing?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I repeat: this Government are seeking to rebuild affordable housing stock by making available some 3,000 extra houses a year in settlements of under 3,000, and a further 6,000 for larger rural settlements. The combination of the pressure on second homes and the sale of council housing stock has resulted in young people being unable to find the affordable housing they might have found even 10 years ago.

World Food Summit
2.45 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation meeting held recently in Rome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the declaration of the World Food Summit, which was held in Rome on 10th to 13th June, sets out a number of areas which are important to the achievement of the millennium development goal of halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by 2015. The declaration highlights the need for poverty reduction as the key to reducing hunger. A copy of the declaration is available in the Library.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply indicating the detailed information on this matter. However, in the light of the rather unwelcome presence at the FAO conference of Mr Robert Mugabe, does she agree that since he is responsible for the catastrophic fall in agricultural production in his own country—which will affect the whole of southern and central Africa and add to the horrific problems of the growing drought—there is a case for tougher restrictions on his movements and those of his unpleasant colleagues, who seem to be travelling freely around Europe and the world at present? Does she support the making of laws to that end in the European Parliament this week?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have discussed this topic previously. The travel ban contains within it the possibility of individuals from Zimbabwe travelling to attend, for example, UN conferences. Noble Lords may know that Fidel Castro, for example, who is not permitted to enter the United States, has attended 41 UN meetings.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the sentiments expressed by her colleague in another place, Clare Short, that the organisation is old-fashioned and in need of improvement? Does she agree also with the comments made by representatives of the poorer countries that the whole event had been a waste of time?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are concerned that this meeting took place only five years after the previous meeting. We should have preferred it to be a plus-10 rather than plus-five meeting. We are engaged in trying to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the FAO. To that end, we have provided nearly £13 million to the organisation, including nearly £3 million in extra budgetary resources in 2000. We have also committed resources to the World Food Programme in relation to immediate humanitarian emergencies across the world.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the FAO estimate only last autumn that the number of malnourished people in the world will fall from 800 million—including 160 million children—to 600 million by 2015, a reduction of 25 per cent? Is she now saying that the original target is to be restored; namely, halving the number of starving people by 2015? If so, that is a change since last year.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we remain committed to the original target. That has always been the provision. The figures are a cause for concern. Noble Lords will know, for example, that in terms of reaching the poverty target in Africa, the indicators are going backwards, not forwards. We also question the basis of some of the figures published by the FAO. It examines food availability, not who is hungry, and why. That said, we accept that we need to do more and will continue to do so. We have recently published a strategy document, Eliminating Hunger.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, what does Fidel Castro have to do with the Question on the Order Paper?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I could ask the noble Baroness what Zimbabwe has to do with the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked a specific question about the travel ban on Mr Mugabe. In answering that question I made it clear that in agreeing the travel ban, the EU recognises that it is bound by international obligations that allow individuals to attend international UN meetings. That applies in this instance, as it applies in the instance of
436
Fidel Castro. He is under a travel ban to the United States, but he has attended UN meetings there 41 times.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the DfID document Eliminating Hunger? I imagine that she may be. If so, would she agree with it that poverty reduction initiatives which focus on food security and trade reform are really the best way to eliminate hunger?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is critical that we look at issues to do with hunger and food security in the round. That means looking at trade policy, education, health, issues to do with the economy, governance, peace and security, democracy and social protection.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, has the Minister had a chance to look at the report in today's newspapers about the perilous situation in Botswana, where more than one in three of the population has now been diagnosed HIV-positive? Was the AIDS pandemic that is sweeping Africa discussed at Rome? If so, what was the outcome?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of whether that subject was discussed at Rome. However, our paper on Eliminating Hunger looks specifically at the impact of HIV/AIDS. As I said before, the issue cannot be looked at in isolation.

Central Office of Information
2.51 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What qualities they will be seeking in the next chief executive of the Central Office of Information and what will be the method of appointment.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the chief executive will require excellent business and management skills, expert knowledge of the communications sector and credibility across that sector and across government. The competition will be open, supervised by the Civil Service Commissioners and conducted under their rules for the appointment of senior civil servants. Search consultants will help identify suitable candidates for this specialist post.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we raised the question of the probity of the relationship between the head of the COI and the Government's communications director in 10 Downing Street, Mr Alastair Campbell, he told the House that that relationship
"will strengthen the co-ordination and planning of departmental publicity strategies across Whitehall".—[Official Report, 29/5/02; col. 1352.]?

437
That arrangement lasted three weeks after the Minister gave the House that assurance. Will the new head of the COI still have a reporting arrangement with Mr Campbell? In making the appointment, will any attempt be made to take the opinion of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the First Civil Service Commissioner, who has doubted the probity of that relationship, or of Sir Nigel Wicks, who has tried to call Mr Campbell before his committee and had that request refused? When will the Government realise that this hybrid relationship between a political appointee and a neutral Civil Service damages both?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I emphasise again that the chief executive of the COI is answerable to Ministers at the Cabinet Office. She is not answerable to the Prime Minister's director of communications and strategies. I made that clear last time I spoke on the subject. I think that the noble Lord is referring obliquely to the resignation of Carol Fisher, the chief executive of the Central Office of Information, five months after her contract had expired. She made it clear that she chose not to renew that contract, saying:
"Alastair Campbell and I have enjoyed a good working relationship based on mutual respect. He has only ever been completely helpful to me".
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend assure your Lordships' House that the Central Office of Information, or any other government agency, will not in any way facilitate the showing of the anti-euro cinema advertisement with the ludicrous Rik Mayall impersonating Adolf Hitler, who did such great damage to our continent?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the example referred to emphasises the need for the strict conventions of propriety, which are always observed by the COI, based on objectivity and explanatory tone. My noble friend can be assured that the COI would not be involved in any such advertising.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given the Civil Service status of Mr Alastair Campbell and whether he has a role in marketing strategy across Whitehall, and the status of his colleague Mr Charles Powell, does the Minister agree that they should both be accountable to parliamentary committees—
Noble Lords: Jonathan Powell.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to Mr Powell's brother, who may be sitting in the House.
Does the Minister agree that both those gentlemen should be accountable through parliamentary committees, particularly the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I refer the noble Baroness to the Companion, because her question is very wide of the one that I am answering.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend share my growing suspicion that the current "Get Campbell" campaign owes a great deal to the fact that he is damned good at his job?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, Mr Campbell's job in this case is simply to take advice when it is offered by the chief executive of the Central Office of Information. His interest is in co-ordination across government departments, but only for substance and synergy and for best practice to try to get better overall value for money for the taxpayer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by saying that questions are wide of the mark? Surely we believe that standards in public life have to go through everything. This House has taken a firm line on that and adopted it as definite policy.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I was answering a question on the qualities that we shall seek in the next chief executive of the Central Office of Information. The question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was wide of that issue.
Lord McNally: My Lords, less than three weeks before the resignation of the COI director, the Minister had called in aid in an Answer to this House her relationship with Mr Alastair Campbell. It is quite proper for the rest of the House to inquire about Mr Alastair Campbell's relationship with the next head of the COI. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, does the Minister agree that it is not Mr Campbell's ability or otherwise that is in question, but whether his relationship with career civil servants is bringing into doubt the impartiality and neutrality of our Civil Service, which has been its greatest strength for 130 years?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, that gives me an opportunity to repeat yet again the answer that I thought I had given clearly and emphatically to the noble Lord. Carol Fisher is not answerable to Alastair Campbell. She is answerable to the Ministers at the Cabinet Office.

World War II Debt
2.58 p.m.
Lord Lairdasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to mark the final repayment of Second World War debt to the United States Government when £244 million is paid in 2006.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no current plans to mark the completion of the repayment of the United Kingdom's World War II debt to the United States Government.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he recognise the concern at the recent disclosure that the USA is still demanding war debt repayment from the United Kingdom, almost 60 years after the war? In view of the UK rightly standing alongside the United States to defend freedom around the world, do the Government consider that that freedom comes at a price? In view of the United States' recent imposition of tax on steel imports from the UK, what do the Government consider to be the state of the special relationship?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we should cast our minds back to the dark days after the war, when the economy of the United Kingdom was greatly helped by Marshall aid and lend-lease. We have never suggested that we should be relieved from repayment of that debt and we are not going to do so now. The special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is in no way damaged by the fact that that generosity has been honoured over the past 50 years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, in the wider context of our debt to America—and I hope that this question does not go too wide of that on the Order Paper—may I ask the Minister to pass on to the Prime Minister our respect for the support he has given to America in the war against terrorism and also for his steadfast refusal to be drawn into the wave of anti-Americanism which seems to have engulfed large parts of Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that that is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall pass on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. About three months ago, there was an attack on us in the Observer which claimed that British foreign policy was subservient to the United
440
States because of this loan. That is utterly absurd. It also does not lead me to think that it is because of our debt to the United States that we have supported in so many respects the United States' policy.

Finance Bill
3.2 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Naturalisation: knowledge of language and society]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): In calling Amendment No. 1, I should point out that, if the amendment were to be agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive because of pre-emption.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I should like first to say how delighted we are that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will be dealing with this Bill in Committee in his new capacity as Minister. He has been very helpful to us in a number of ways which I shall mention later. I also know that he hopes that we will all follow the strict timetable that has been set: to enable us to complete our consideration in Committee within the next six Sittings. I should perhaps tell him now that many of our amendments are not so much amendments of substance as a means of clarifying the Government's intentions.
We are concerned about Clause 1 because of the Bill's lack of clarity on the issue of,
"Naturalisation: knowledge of language and society".
On Second Reading, we generally welcomed the provisions in Part 1. Nevertheless, we have many concerns about the provisions which we seek to remedy with our amendments in this group. Amendment No. 1 is grouped with our Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9 and 11. The group also includes Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which were tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.

441
The combined effect of our Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 is to remove the requirement to have,
"sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom",
for nationality purposes. There are legitimate concerns that such knowledge cannot be tested. Moreover, the Government have nowhere provided their definition of the term,
"life in the United Kingdom".
Reservations have been expressed about the meaning of that term. How can such knowledge be taught, and who will assess it? That concern has been expressed in various briefings from immigration agencies.
There are also fears that the criteria might operate as barriers to citizenship which are not imposed on those born in the United Kingdom. The Commission for Racial Equality, which the Government established to advise them on issues of race and community relations, has called for a consultation process on the issue and said that citizenship should be taught to all. Some of our amendments would remove the word "sufficient" from provisions requiring "sufficient knowledge". The amendments would not only lower the threshold of knowledge that an applicant must attain, but allow us to probe the Government on precisely what they regard as "necessary" and "sufficient".
Our last amendment, Amendment No. 11, proposes that implementation of Clause 1 should wait until such time as the Secretary of State indicates the requirements that individuals must meet to demonstrate sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which were tabled by my noble friend Lady Anelay and myself. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for his very helpful letter following Second Reading. It was particularly helpful on the points which we raised in relation to Clause 1. I reiterate the support which I gave on that occasion on behalf of these Benches for the principle of ensuring that applicants for naturalisation have an understanding of the British way of life and all that goes with it. I think that we are coming from a slightly different direction on this matter from that pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
With respect to Amendment No. 3, the Government currently refer only to knowledge of life in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister say whether the Government believe that applicants for naturalisation should have some appreciation not only of the nature of life in the United Kingdom as it currently is, but also of the history of our country? Do the Government believe that the word "life" is broad enough to include history? Like the Government, we would not wish to make the test too onerous. Equally, however, it might be thought that to have some understanding of the country's history would be useful as part of the preparation for naturalisation.
442
Amendment No. 4 seeks to probe what aspects of current life in the United Kingdom the Government wish to ensure that applicants for naturalisation have knowledge of. In Standing Committee in another place, the then Minister Miss Angela Eagle said:
"we envisage a fairly general view, rather than one that is restricted to the democratic process and constitution, but it would be wrong of me to stand here and say that we have a curriculum absolutely sorted out".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 30/04/02; col. 17.]
Obviously, knowledge of the democratic process is important. However, it would be helpful if the Government could give some further indication of what general aspects of life in the United Kingdom they have in mind. The four criteria in Amendment No. 4 which we have mentioned—namely political, civic, economic and cultural life—are four broad areas which might be considered.
Miss Eagle also said in another place on 30th April that the Government were putting together a group of experts from the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office to determine the detail of the curriculum. In his letter to me of 2nd July, the Minister said that an announcement about the group would be made shortly. Perhaps he might be able to give us an update on the progress that has been made. Will the group consist only of civil servants or will there be outside experts on it as well? Do the Government intend to amend the Bill so as to make the group's position in determining the curriculum clear on the face of the Bill?
In respect of the amendments in the group tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, I welcome the Minister's commitment in his letter to me, which was copied to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the requirement of sufficient knowledge will be interpreted so as to ensure that it is of practical benefit which actually helps people to feel more welcomed into United Kingdom society.
In relation to Amendment No. 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the Committee when the draft curriculum will be published and whether the Government envisage a long period of consultation or whether, subject to the Bill becoming an Act, they intend to implement these provisions sooner rather than later. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Avebury: I do not think that much divides the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and I on these amendments. We both agree that it is a good idea that people applying for citizenship should have access to the fullest possible knowledge of life in the United Kingdom, including the matters which are dealt with in his amendment. It would be excellent if all those people had knowledge of our electoral system, of the way in which democracy works in this country, of the rights of individuals, of how individuals access those rights and so on as they will need that knowledge if they are to play their full part as citizens. I share the doubts expressed in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Bermondsey who questioned the one-size-fits-all provisions in relation to the area of

443
the country in which a person lives. As he pointed out, in his constituency of Bermondsey life is very different from that in Gloucester, which was the constituency of the honourable Member who spoke immediately before him.
There are also major differences as regards people's need to know about life in this country according to their professions or occupations. I think of my friends who have settled in this country over the years who come from all sorts of backgrounds: lawyers, doctors, photographers, police chiefs and an ex-brigadier. Each of them has sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom for their own purposes, as most of us do, but they might not be capable of passing a general examination of the sort that the Government have in mind.
I do not know whether the Minister ever watches "Big Brother" on television. If he does, he will have seen a person who thought that Cambridge was part of London, that the River Thames flowed through Cambridge and that East Anglia was somewhere in the neighbourhood of Tunisia. That person probably gets on admirably within her own milieu, but I think that she might have some difficulty with the examination proposed by the Government. Are we in fact requiring higher standards from applicants than many of our existing citizens could achieve?
I wish to mention another aspect of the matter which I do not believe was mentioned in the other place. According to the working group chaired by Claus Moser on improving literacy and numeracy, some 7 million adults in England alone are functionally illiterate. He gave as an example of that that they could not find a plumber in the Yellow Pages. However, one cannot find a plumber anywhere else either! He said that a staggering 30 to 50 per cent have numeracy problems. He gave as examples the fact that they would not he able to calculate the size of a room 21 by 14 feet even with the aid of a calculator and that if they tendered £2 for items which cost separately 68p and 45p, they would not know what they ought to expect by way of change.
I know that those estimates have been challenged but in some groups the picture is even worse. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, quoting a survey of 5,963 young people screened by the prisoners' learning support unit of the DfES in 2000–01, said that 37.6 per cent had the numeracy expected of a seven year-old and 31.4 per cent had a reading ability lower than that of a seven year-old. Those people would have great difficulty with almost any test that the Minister and his civil servants can devise.
Therefore, it is important that we should not only have the general assurances that were given in the letter that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, quoted, but should also see what the test is before we give approval to the proposal. That is why my noble friend and I in Amendment No. 11 have said that the test should be published before the order is laid bringing this clause into effect. I hope that the Government will accept this modest amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Moser: I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 1 and to speak with qualms to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I should declare my involvement in this field as I am a member of the advisory committee of a new, important institution at King's College which deals with asylum and refugee issues. I refer to the Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees. Our purpose is to throw light on this difficult field through statistics and research.
I should also declare a retrospective interest in that I was a successful asylum seeker about 60 years ago and have lived happily in this country ever since. I rather dread the idea that I might even now be asked to pass an examination on the institutions, the civics and the politics of this country. If I had been asked to do so in 1948, I would certainly have failed and missed the opportunity to become a naturalised citizen and possibly the opportunity to become a Member of this great Chamber.
I refer to the matter of acquiring knowledge about our country. I hope that the tone of the clause on requirements for naturalisation will not be typical of the tone adopted by the Government throughout discussion on this issue and throughout the Bill. What seems to me of enormous importance at all stages of the process—from that of first seeking asylum all the way through to naturalisation—is that the tone emanating from government and from public sources generally should be well informed by the latest correct figures. The general public should not, as now, have a false idea of the scale of the problem. The tone should be rational, well informed, positive and on the whole welcoming.
Throughout history—certainly throughout: this century—the various phases of refugees have brought great benefits to this country. I do not just think of the well-known contributions to the sciences, the arts and so on, but of those made at all levels of society. The public attitude and public comment should be, first, positive, welcoming, warm and conscious of the benefits that refugees can bring and, secondly, aware of the problems, the challenges and the risks that may be involved.
Those thoughts are relevant to Clause 1 and, indeed, to the whole of Part 1 of the Bill, although I am conscious that those are by no means the most controversial parts of the Bill, to which we shall come later. Clause 1 asks for knowledge of English and a knowledge of the society of this country. I have no problem as regards a knowledge of English. It is obviously desirable that at the point of naturalisation one should speak the language fairly well whatever one's accent and that one should have a good knowledge of English. I welcome the fact that the Bill encourages the provision of good quality English language teaching. That has constituted a great problem in the past.
I feel quite differently about the requirement to command sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom, let alone the amendment suggesting particular reference to history, political and civic

445
institutions and so on. I realise that this matter is still in the melting pot and fairly vague but I dread the thought that a committee of curriculum experts at the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office may get together and create syllabuses, curricula and teaching arrangements and that future followers of my quest for naturalisation so many years ago will have that high hurdle to jump.
My preference is for the clause to disappear altogether and for the requirements be taken, as it were, in the good spirit in which they operated when I was naturalised. If not, we must take ultimate care in setting the height of the hurdles that applicants for naturalisation have to jump.
I say in passing as I conclude, that I find a curious mismatch between this requirement for knowledge in order to achieve true integration and a later provision in the Bill, which in my view deprives the children of refugees of the chance of really good integration through being part of our mainstream education system. The requirement is that such children should be educated in accommodation centres. For all of those reasons I strongly support Amendment No. 1.
Baroness Uddin: I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who eloquently argued for everything for which all of us who have spoken on this issue wish. I was particularly touched by his statement that in an ideal world we should not have to deal with this clause at all. Given that we do have to, I support the proposal to eliminate "sufficient", which was advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury.
I want to discuss the clause in general and Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 11. Much has been said in this regard so I shall not delay the Committee for long. It worries me deeply that there is a requirement to learn English. All of us would wish every person in this country, whether new, old or established, to speak perfectly good English.
I have just come from a conference on children and ethnic minority attainments in our British education system. We discussed many problems, such as how to teach British children and ensure that they reach a good standard in English, citizenship, and so on. What efforts will be different as a result of the proposals? What provisions will be available for people who need assistance so that they are learnt before they seek the stamp of approval?
What standards are we setting with regard to understanding the life in and having knowledge about Britain? I agree wholeheartedly with the CRE suggestion that there should be consultation and, in Amendment No. 11, the suggestions about the time limit and the need to publish a draft before the Act is effective. That is critical.
Having spent nearly 25 years battling within the education system locally in places such as Tower Hamlets, I am not confident that citizenship classes or the curriculum will address the current nature of
446
Britain, which is multi-faith, multi-racial and multilingual. How will the curriculum address that fundamental issue? For example, a whole host of nonsensical remarks have been made—my intelligence defies me to come up with a more appropriate word, but "nonsense" will do for now. They include comments about Muslim isolationists and arranged marriages—so-called forced marriages—not being an acceptable part of British behaviour. Such comments have preceded our discussions on the Bill. How will we ensure that a British standard is applicable across the board and that flexibility—the provision states that flexibility is allowed—will not be used to intervene and make harsher judgments? Who will decide who is right to be British and who is not?
There are many concerns in this regard. The Committee needs reassurance on those matters. The approach is well meaning and good but we should find a way effectively to monitor in some way those who will apply the laws. They will not have the benefit of enlightened discussions and they may not have the training that we desire.
Earl Russell: The questions asked by my noble friend Lord Dholakia need some answering. Nevertheless, I understand what the Home Secretary is driving at in the clause. We should be careful not to require of newly arrived people in this country a higher standard in terms of our institutions and customs than we have ourselves. It is easy to underrate the amount of ignorance that there is among ourselves. I recall one of my undergraduate pupils—by definition not one of the less educated people in this country—to whom I had set an essay on the Parliament of 1628. He came back with a lengthy discussion of the writ of "alias corpus".
That is an extreme case. However, I am yet to meet anyone outside political circles who knows how to go about registering to vote. Large numbers of people who I meet, in university circles and otherwise, do not appreciate that before a Bill can become law it has to be approved by both Houses except as required by the Parliament Acts. I hardly ever meet anyone who knows the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings in law.
If we are ignorant about such matters, is it fair to require new applicants for citizenship to know what we do not? I believe that one could already argue that immigrants and newly arrived people in this country tend to have higher standards of knowledge in such matters than we do because they realise that they need to find out whereas we, suffering as we do from an information overload, tend very often to have an extremely effective mechanism for cutting out.
I am sorry to say that I was tempted by the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about requiring some knowledge of our history. However, the matter is a little more complicated than he suggests. The more general, brief and abbreviated one's picture of history, the greater the degree of variation and the more often it will need revision. Were I to be tested for citizenship by the standards of history that were current at the time that I sat my degree,

447
I believe that I would be failed. Certain of my colleagues, I believe, would fail me at the moment, and I might fail some of them. After all, if one thinks of 1066 and All That—all the history that you can remember is in this little book—many of us cannot remember that now, although we can remember a very great deal else. Any tests of required knowledge in history would need to be upgraded at least once every five years and the selection of the people to do the upgrading would lead to an academic in-fight of an intensity that I dread to contemplate. This is not as easy as it looks.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, enunciated the anxieties of a number of people about the traps into which the Government might fall in terms of implementing the clause. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to do this; it is extremely important. They may be helped by the discussions that have just taken place. I hope that they listened in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Moser. As he said, he was a successful asylum seeker. He is perhaps one of the most successful citizens of this country whom any of us have had the privilege to meet. However, what he said was not based on that; it was based on a great understanding of the traps into which the Government could fall in relation to this matter.
I believe that the requirements must be set out in a very positive way. They must be based on what the asylum seeker will need to know in order to get on in this country. It should not be a question of being admitted but of getting on and succeeding. That is the point. If the requirements were set out in that context and were kept simple, flexible and capable of being adjusted according to circumstances, I am sure that that would help very much.
If people realise why they are being tested, it will not frighten them. It will help them to see that one must make an effort in order to succeed in a new country. That is the point, and people will understand that if the test is carried out properly. I believe that the Government have taken on a very difficult task, but I wish them well in it. It is very important.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I am very interested in the word "sufficient". I also want to draw the Committee's attention to Lord Bauer—an extremely distinguished Member of this House who died, I believe, three months ago. Lord Bauer was 19 years old when he came to this country. I know that he did not speak English. He applied to seven Cambridge colleges, was accepted by five, and went on to become Professor Lord Bauer. I wonder whether he would have passed this test.
Does the test mean that applicants must know about the heptarchy, which Mr Prescott is busily reinventing? Does it mean that they have to know about Canute or Trafalgar? Or does it mean that they have to know the details of the social security system or the difference between criminal and civil law?
448
I understand exactly what the Government are trying to do. But I suspect that they are reacting to a fairly sloppy tabloid headline: old people must know something about the country when they arrive here. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that those who make the effort to arrive here are those who have the greatest "get up and go". The first generation of West Indian immigrants were the go-ahead ones who wanted to come here to make a life for themselves. It has been much easier for them than possibly for some of their children because they have been caught, it has been said, between two stools.
We have only to consider the immense success of a large percentage of Ugandan-Asian and Asian people who have come to this country. They have contributed enormously to our civilisation and welfare. I have only to look around this Chamber. Many of its Members look like refugees from the bigger cock-ups of British imperialism. We are extremely grateful for their presence here because they add tone, as someone said of cavalry regiments in 1890, to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. I know what the Government are doing, but let us try to bear those factors in mind because the situation is not nearly as easy as it appears.
Lord Greaves: These amendments relate to Clause 1, which is about knowledge of language and life in the UK. The first question that I want to ask the Minister concerns knowledge of language. Frankly, many people in this country are not literate. They may speak two or three languages, one of which may not be English. If they are asked to write a letter or read a newspaper, they will struggle. Therefore, will arrangements be made for people who are in that position and who are of an age at which it is not possible to become literate in a written language so that they can pass any tests or requirements in spoken English? After all, in terms of getting on in their communities and talking to people locally, spoken English is more important than written English.
My second point is that there appears to be an assumption that a large number of people are reluctant to learn English. I declare an interest in that my wife is an ESOL teacher. The evidence that I have from various places in the North West is that the demand for ESOL classes is greater than the current provision. That demand comes from people who have come to this country in a perfectly ordinary manner. Some have come in order to get married; some are refugees; and others have come to take up jobs. Are the Government aware that these provisions in the Bill, if enacted, will result in a considerable extra resource being required for the provision of ESOL classes? Who will provide them? How will the funding mechanism take place? And what will the Government do to ensure that such classes are provided? It would be unfair to impose requirements on people which they cannot fulfil because of a lack of provision within the education system.
I give two examples. At a conference in Bolton at the end of last week, it was reported that there are 900 refugee and asylum seeker students in FE in Bolton, but the number of requests for FE provision

449
totals 1,500. Therefore, some 600 people who are desperate to learn English are waiting to go on courses. The idea that people will have to be forced to undertake such learning is, in many cases, a myth.
In my own area, some 10 or 12 people a week turn up at Nelson and Colne College and ask for basic English classes as a second or third language. If good practice dictates that classes should contain eight or 10 students, that means that an extra classful of students per week is waiting to be taught. Thus, the waiting list grows. This is an important issue. Perhaps it is not one with which the Minister will have to deal in relation to this Bill. Nevertheless, it is a vital issue which the Government will have to face, and I wonder whether some answers can be given to those points.
So far as concerns the British way of life, whatever that may be, I heard a nice story this week about two British citizens. One was born in Pakistan and the other was her daughter, who was born and grew up here. At present, the daughter is in Pakistan visiting her family. The mother, in this country, reported that a few days ago she had a telephone conversation with her daughter in Pakistan. They were both in tears on opposite ends of the telephone. When asked why, they said, "Because England lost to Brazil in the football". I believe that stories such as that need to be told in order to balance some of the other stories that one reads in the tabloids.
I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my noble friends. I do not believe that I can support the amendment which states that a knowledge of history is relevant. If that were to be introduced, I can imagine suggesting that the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Danish invasion should play a large part. Surely those invaders comprised the single largest influx of illegal immigrants ever to this country. I believe that I speak as someone who has several genes belonging to those groups in my blood, or wherever our genes appear.
I turn to the subject of the nature of the test. I notice that one option is attendance on a course without a test at the end of it. I believe that if the Government are not careful, they will be open to ridicule in relation to the nature of the test and the exact knowledge required. I am reminded of the present theory examination which forms part of the driving test. It consists of multiple choice questions. One may be asked to choose between four answers, one of which is correct; one of which may be correct, and the other two of which are ludicrous. That kind of test on fairly basic matters might jeopardise the whole issue.
Participation in discussions, on a course or on a citizenship programme, perhaps along the lines of that which exists in the United States, may be more appropriate than expecting people to write an essay or to answer stereotyped questions which inevitably would be the subject of detailed coaching within different communities.
Looking through the bookshelves in my house yesterday I found a book published two or three years ago entitled, Britain, the country and its people: an introduction for learners of English. Clearly, there will
450
be a whole new industry and opportunity for people to make money when the curricula are published. The book is by James O'Driscoll. I suspect that with that name he is "taking the Michael" a little.
Page 96 is headed The House of Lords. It is a little out of date because it pre-dates the stage 1 reform. It reads:
"The House of Lords (like the monarchy) has little, if any, real power any more."
It continues:
"Political parties are, in fact, especially keen to send their older members who once belonged to the leadership of the party to the House of Lords. It is a way of rewarding them with prestige while at the same time getting them out of the way of the present party leaders in the Commons, where their status and reputation might otherwise create trouble for party unity. Informally, this practice has become known as being 'kicked upstairs'."
I can imagine a multiple-choice test which states, "When political parties want to get rid of MPs, are they: sent on holiday to Torremolinos; sent to the moon, or kicked upstairs to the House of Lords?" That is obviously a slightly exaggerated example. However, if we are not careful, that is the kind of banal level we shall reach. The Government must be careful on this issue.
Lord Dubs: The Government have this part of the Bill just about right. In my experience as head of the Refugee Council for seven or eight years, I found that asylum seekers were highly motivated individuals who picked up English and understood life in this country fairly quickly. Indeed, that was their main aim: to master enough of the language and the culture of this country in order to obtain jobs and make a contribution.
I have one brief story to tell. At that time the Refugee Council ran a young people's home for Ethiopian and Eritrean asylum seekers aged between 13 and 16 or 17 years. They had not been here long when I went to meet them. I sat down and spoke to them and they said, "One of the things the Refugee Council should understand"—these were people who had been in the country only weeks—"is that it should select staff for this home who understand the psychological circumstances which gave rise to our coming to this country". That was not bad.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise briefly to commend both the nature of the clause and the debate which has occurred upon it. I have lived in the United States twice. My children when young lived there and were subjected in school to an introduction to citizenship within the United States. It is no bad thing that we are getting round to the same issues, even if it is a little late.
I pay tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench for their amendment in the context of the spirit of the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is agreeably disarming about his knowledge of history. Ten days ago I mentioned to him that I had no prior knowledge of the rising against Cromwell in 1655 and he enlightened me at some length, including considerable local detail in Nottinghamshire. He alluded to Canute.

451
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the Vikings. A Reader's Digest atlas, devoted to the United Kingdom, has one page which relates to the colour of hair, which shows a precise correlation to how far the Vikings managed to get. That is an index of the immobility which has occurred in this nation over 1,000 years. The immigration into this country in the second half of the last century has done a great deal to shake up such immobility and to get us moving.
I refer to lines 15 to 17 of page 1 of the Bill, to which no amendment in this group refers, but which we shall reach in Amendment No. 5. Other noble Lords have referred to the teaching and learning of English. Before the Bill was debated in the Commons I attended a briefing by a number of the outside relevant bodies. I said how important it is for there to be an improvement in the level of English, for a whole series of reasons in the interests of immigrants, quite apart from those of the economy. A representative from one of the bodies said that that was not the right thing for me to say and that the clause we were discussing on that occasion was harsh. I argued my case again. He said that the trouble was the inadequate provision for the learning of English—to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves referred—and said that there is great pressure for that to be improved.
I can only say as I said to him, that it is an ill wind which blows nobody any good. However, the pressure to which he referred, for more teaching of English to immigrants, was the first time the issue had been raised with me as a Member of Parliament in a quarter of a century. If the Bill has the effect of increasing pressure for classes to be provided for the learning of English, that will be a major step forward.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: As an immigrant of 30 years ago, perhaps I may share with Members of the Committee some of my experiences of English language learning. I do not believe that we should impose conditions which are not at present imposed on the citizens of this country.
Perhaps I may relate an example which I faced 30 years ago when I acquired a business in the City of London. Thirty or 40 people worked in the company, of 'which I was managing director and chairman. A board of directors came with the company. We agreed that between us we would watch what happened and in one month's time review my role. The company, which had been around for 200 years, was involved in exports and imports, export financing, and so forth.
Four weeks later I met with the board. The first question I was asked was, "What would you like to contribute to what is already going on? What is the added value, as managing director, that you want to bring?" 1 imposed a condition on the staff of the company, and said, "I should like to see each and every piece of paper which leaves this company; that is, all the correspondence written by 30 people in the company to our clients, both in this country and abroad." I checked such correspondence for about four weeks. I commented to the board that one of the
452
major things I found unacceptable was that the staff were unable to write good English. Over a period, the company realised that all important documents, important letters to clients or to government departments would have to pass across my desk for the English to be corrected and presented in the correct form.
Lord Filkin: I thank Members of the Committee for the courteous words spoken by both Front Benches, which are appreciated. The opportunity afforded by the amendments to discuss the new requirements relating to knowledge of life in the United Kingdom which the Bill proposes to introduce is useful. I believe most people would agree that it is not unreasonable to impose some requirement. Indeed, combined with the language requirement, there is potential value to the individual and to society if we get it right. I agree that we need to be careful about being over-prescriptive in that regard.
The Government's preference is to emphasise that applicants should have acquired knowledge of life in the United Kingdom, which is likely to be useful and will help them better to integrate. That is four square with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about accessing democracy and rights. However, we want to take expert advice on this and to consult widely on precisely what an applicant should be expected to know and what therefore would need to be covered in courses and in learning material.
The Home Secretary has asked Professor Sir Bernard Crick, who has advised the Government on the development of citizenship education in schools and for 16 to 18-year olds, to chair an advisory group of external people. That group will be asked to advise on the detailed content of a curriculum and how it might be delivered. We shall also want to consult more widely when we have some provisional proposals.
It would be a mistake if the Bill was too prescriptive about the requirement and, perhaps unintentionally, constrained subsequent thinking or the development of thinking over time. I believe, therefore, that it would be better to retain the admittedly broad wording rather than to attempt greater precision in the Bill.
I turn to the individual amendments. I have explained, in relation to Amendment No. 1, why the Government believe that this new requirement is reasonable and potentially useful to the individual and society.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 9, I understand the concerns of noble Lords that the word "sufficient" is imprecise. I point out, however, that that parallels the existing requirement in paragraph 5(c) of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act which requires an applicant to have,
"sufficient knowledge of the English language".
In that sense, therefore, it is well precedented.
Perhaps more fundamentally, my concern is that if we omit the word "sufficient" it might imply a more onerous requirement than we intend. Clearly, we do not expect applicants to have a comprehensive

453
knowledge of all aspects of life in the United Kingdom. I do not think that any Member of the Committee could even claim that, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has clearly advised us. Including the word "sufficient" recognises that the requirement is comparative: it needs to be sufficient for the purpose of someone seeking naturalisation but no more. Quite what "sufficient" will mean in practice, we think can better be taken forward by seeking the advice of the expert group already mentioned and then by setting that out in the regulations to be laid before Parliament. However, we do not envisage anything onerous. It would be entirely counter-productive to put serious obstacles in the way of people who are keen to become British citizens.
Amendment No. 6 would remove the regulation-making power which enables the Home Secretary to determine how the test of sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom can be determined. If, as I hope Members of the Committee agree, the underlying requirement should be retained in the Bill then it clearly makes sense to have some means of testing whether or not it is met. That is the purpose of the regulation-making power.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of "one size fits all". That is a good question and a serious one for the advisory group and the Government to consider. People are citizens of the United Kingdom. Therefore, one would expect some commonality. On the other hand, how the Government works, for example, in Scotland and Wales is different. Therefore, those are issues which ought at least to be reflected on without expecting people to have a degree in constitutional law.
It was pointed out that accessing a plumber is difficult. That is a fairly general complaint for anyone who lives in London, irrespective of whether or not one has citizenship, but perhaps that is by the by.
Points were made about arithmetic, geography and history. Those are issues that the advisory group will relate to. But, in a sense, we are not seeking to test whether people have met GCSE standards in five grades or more but whether they have sufficient knowledge to get by in Britain. We shall keep returning to that matter. Clearly, there are issues about illiteracy and handicap which both the advisory group and the Government will be considering carefully.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, about the tone of the Bill. I think that its tone is right. I also believe that it is right subsequently. No doubt we can debate that issue later.
I have talked about flexibility in respect of numeracy and literacy. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the issue of knowledge of language. We believe that is relevant because there is clear research evidence that people with some working knowledge of English have significantly increased chances of getting work and employment—if they are of an appropriate age and have an inclination to do so. Therefore, as was signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, one of the benefits of the Bill may be that, by citizenship
454
requiring an extension of further teaching of English, a wide range of other benefits may be opened up by increasing literacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether there will be an adequate supply of courses. By and large we expect colleges of further education to develop courses relevant to the syllabus that is eventually identified. In terms of English language it is crucial that we get an adequate supply in place. We are aware of some of the supply problems and there is a mapping exercise under way to identify those shortfalls.
I turn to Amendment No. 11. It seeks to prohibit the Home Secretary from making a commencement order in relation to this part of the Bill until he has published a draft of the proposed citizenship curriculum. I can assure the Committee that there will be wide consultation on the content and form of the proposed curriculum before we implement this part of the Bill.
In the nature of things, it will take some considerable time to develop curriculum proposals and then to translate them into courses and learning materials. There will be plenty of opportunity for those with an interest to contribute to the process. It does not seem to me, therefore, necessary to include such a provision on the face of the Bill.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister understand that there is no distrust of the Government's willingness to consult; the problem is the tendency of those likely to be consulted to distrust each other?
Lord Filkin: I take the noble Earl's point. One does not expect by consultation necessarily to get a consensus, but it is important that everyone has had an opportunity to express their views. Therefore, the Government are aware of a diversity of views in that respect.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord says that there will be a curriculum and there will be a test. Presumably there will be a pass mark. Let us assume that the test is simple and that the pass mark is 25 per cent. What happens if a young Moser clone appears at the door and—unlike the noble Lord—fails and only gets 24 per cent? Will he be told to go away and take another test? I can see enormous bureaucracy and fun arriving down this route. It will be complicated; it is going to be bureaucratic and difficult. I am sympathetic to what the Government are trying to do, but I do not much like the way that they are doing it.
The Countess of Mar: I follow up a point made by the noble Lord. First, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I apologise for not having been here for Second Reading. That was due to circumstances beyond my control. I also declare an interest as one of the "cock-ups" of colonisation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Onslow: I was born in Kenya, my father was born in Karachi and my grandfather was born in Simla.

455
For many years the General Medical Council has required doctors from abroad coming to this country to pass an English test. Is it not the case that now that that has settled down it is not a problem?
Lord Filkin: On the last point, yes, indeed. However, I would caution the Committee against getting unduly apprehensive about this matter at this stage. Admittedly the terms "syllabus" and "pass" may have a dire tone to them, but the intent is to set out requirements about someone getting by and being a successful citizen in Britain rather than proving that they are academic, intellectual or that they have a deep understanding of the constitution.
If Members of the Committee wait to see the outcome of both the consultation process and the ensuing regulations, it should become clear that that is the commitment and the intent. The aim is to help people to become citizens. The course that will be provided will be the mechanism which raises them to the necessary standard and which certifies to the Secretary of State that they have achieved that standard.
Lord Avebury: I am reassured to some extent by what the Minister has said about Amendment No. 11 and the Government's intention to complete the consultations before they introduce this part of the Bill. Will the consultations that Sir Bernard Crick is embarking on with a wide range of organisations be held in public? Will Sir Bernard issue an open invitation to educators and others to come forward with their views so that the process can he seen by members of the public?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am almost certain that that is the case—in the absence of any confirmation, I am sure that it should be. Sir Bernard will want to hear the widest range of views, as would only be right in a proper reflective process. That process will take time, and it will take time for the necessary improvements in supply that we have discussed to be put in place.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, as I said, it would not he right to be over-prescriptive at this stage about the content of the curriculum. No doubt, we all have different views about the extent to which a knowledge of the history of the United Kingdom should figure in the curriculum. I should probably be biased in that respect, but I think that such provision would often fail the test of what one needs to get by as a successful citizen. I fear that at present plenty of successful citizens have a poor knowledge of history.
I therefore hope that, in the light of those positive assurances, the noble Lords who tabled the amendments will not press them and will actively participate with others in the consultation process on what we believe to be the positive development of citizenship and our intent to extend it more vigorously to more people in Britain, should they be prepared to take up that invitation.
4 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the Committee that the advisory group will
456
ensure that it contains the broadest of representation, including members 'who understand the full implications of the cultural, linguistic and other background on which it will be making judgments, with particular reference to the multi-faith, multi-cultural nature of Britain?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not at present know what may be the membership of the advisory group, but I should be extremely surprised if those viewpoints were not adequately represented on it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I again stress that we ought not to lose sight of the fact that a substantial number of people from the minorities that we are discussing were born in this country as British subjects. They will not be subject to the language requirements, because they are part and parcel of this country. We are therefore talking of a small group of people for whom communication is difficult. None of us disagrees about the need for English: it is right and proper that people should be able to communicate. Although I do not necessarily agree with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who mentioned tests for doctors, they caused problems in their early days, although they have now been sorted out.
The Bill is likely to be reported in October. Will it be possible between now and October for Sir Bernard Crick to state what he has in mind when we discuss life in Britain? That would give us some guidance on whether to pursue the matter on Report. The point that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made is important. Many solutions to problems of language and life in this country are to be found from within the relevant communities themselves. The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, cited the need for those minorities to be able to make use of available facilities. Until now, there has been no particular process by which to educate people. They have taken the matter into their own hands. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is right.
When I first came to this country, I had a poor knowledge of English. Every time that someone asked me a question, I had literally to translate it into my own language and, like on satellite television, there was a gap before I gave a reply. The problem was that whenever I went to a comedy in a theatre, I always laughed last after everyone else had finished. I think that they thought that I was a bit foolish or that I must have discovered something. The greatest joy in my life occurred one day when I jumped out of the bath and said, "Eureka!" because for the first time in my life I had dreamt in English. I had made it.
Communities themselves have solutions to the problems. There is a serious problem of people who have culturally found it impossible to go to school in their homeland—many elderly people, and so on. They should be part of the process. I hope that we shall be gentle in considering the process. Any further information that the Minister can provide will be useful. We do not want a quick fix. We must bear in mind variation across the country and not simply devise policy on the basis of problems in the North of

457
England. I hope that before Report the Minister will provide some explanation on the basis of which we can consider what needs to be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, after "language" insert "or sign language"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which, I hope, is uncontroversial, but which would assist profoundly deaf people if the Government were to accept it. I thank the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the British Deaf Association and the Immigration Advisory Service for their helpful briefing on the matter.
The amendment's effect would be to include sign language as a language the sufficient knowledge of which could enable a person to make a successful application for naturalisation. What will be the legal status of sign language under Clause 1? Clause 1(3) enables provision to be made by regulations to determine whether a person has sufficient knowledge about a language before he can successfully apply for naturalisation. We have just had an extensive and sensitive debate on that matter.
Will a person who is deaf or hard of hearing and who uses sign language be catered for in those provisions without discrimination against him/her? If so, how? The RNID and the BDA share my concern about that. The problem is that the working of the clause as drafted appears to be based on the idea that the only languages in existence are spoken languages and that the only indigenous languages in the UK are English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.
Will there be facilities for teaching people whose language is not English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic to learn sign language that is understood in the UK? Will those facilities be sufficient for the number of applicants wanting to use them? I listened with great care to the points made about current facilities for teaching English. The amendment takes us a stage further, because people will need even greater ability if they have to teach sign language as well.
For some deaf people. sign language is their first, or certainly their preferred, language. It is surely beyond dispute that British Sign Language—and, indeed, other forms of sign language—is a language in its own right, with its own vocabulary and syntax. We must also remember that sign languages vary throughout the world in the same way as spoken languages.
Is the Minister aware that the BDA has recently received a number of calls to its helpline asking for advice in cases of deaf people from overseas who are seeking asylum? Do the Government have figures for the number of people who are deaf or hard of hearing who currently seek naturalisation and who use sign language? I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about the advisory committee to be chaired by
458
Professor Crick. The Minister referred en passant to illiteracy and handicap as being within the committee's remit. Is the issue of sign language therefore swept up by the committee, or will the Government, as I hope that they will, consider it separately as a language in its own right?
I also follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We anticipate that the Bill will be reported in October. Can the Government assure us that any regulations to be proposed to address concerns raised on languages and in general will be available to the House before Report, so that we are able properly to address those matters? I beg to move.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has raised a fundamental point to which we do not often adhere in discussion of nationality and immigration. In fact, I think that it may be almost the first time that it has been raised. I welcome the amendment and support what the noble Baroness said. I have nothing to add, except to say that it is critical that her concerns are taken on board. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say, and hope that that information will then be relayed to those outside, because many disabled organisations work with disabled people. There is the issue not only of sign language but of the use of Braille and other systems. The principle is good and needs to be established, and the fears and anxieties that have arisen from the discussion need to be put out.
Lord Dholakia: We also support the amendment. We should look not only at what to include but also at exclusions from the provision; particularly whether people who suffer from mental illness should be allowed or expected to take the test.
Within the communities are people who are not part of the mainstream process within which they would receive the same benefits as indigenous people. We have to be careful in terms of their attainment of sign language and of other disabilities from which they may suffer. I hope that the Minister will look not only at what should be included but also at what should be excluded, particularly among people applying for citizenship who cannot comply because of their condition.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The presence on the Front Bench of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, encourages me to think that the Government might accept the amendment or a variant of it. On the Homelessness Bill, which he piloted through Grand Committee, my noble friend Lady Hanham moved an amendment seeking that tenants should have read to them a particular document that was necessary as part of the procedure. Of course, that is the mirror case to what we are talking about. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted the spirit of the amendment and I hope that his contiguous presence might cause the Minister to do so too on this occasion.
Lord Filkin: I am sure the Committee will recognise that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer's contiguous presence always has a benign influence on me.
The Government understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that those who use sign language should not be disadvantaged in any way in seeking British citizenship. It is our firm intent that the Bill should not have such an effect. The present nationality instructions and the relevant guide, both of which are public documents, make it clear that applicants can demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the relevant language through sign language. That will continue to be the case.
The debate is how sign language is to be tested. The exact requirements need to be considered further. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, there are many forms of sign language. We would like to consider the matter in more detail and consult organisations with expertise such as the British Deaf Association, RNID and others. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore be content to withdraw the amendment while we reflect and return to the matter on Report, recognising that it is unlikely that the consultation process through Sir Bernard Crick will have been completed by then and that regulations will not necessarily be ready, but no doubt we should be in a better position to share with the House the work carried out over the summer.
There are two interconnected issues: first, how people who need to communicate in sign language can be assessed in ways that do not disadvantage them; secondly, exemptions. As the Committee knows, the Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to make exemptions from some of the evaluation criteria for certain people. It was envisaged that a person of 65 or more might not be expected to comply, just as people with certain disabilities might not be expected to comply. There might be a debate as to whether a person who could communicate only in sign language should be exempt in certain circumstances, such as if he was older, or whether it would be in his interests if he was younger to be helped to communicate as well as he could to maximise his contribution to and benefits from his citizenship.
The issues require careful thought and we would like to use the summer for it, taking up some of the points on consultation that have been mentioned. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his reply, although I was disappointed with parts of it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Brooke for their support. I am grateful that support came from around the Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, it is important that organisations outside the House are not alarmed by the process being implemented. The House has an effective role to play in debates on the issues in Clause 1, particularly because so many of the
460
amendments tabled in another place were not called because of programming Motions. This is one example of an important matter that could not be debated through lack of time. I am therefore grateful to Members of the Committee for giving their time to the debate.
I am disappointed that the close relationship on the Front Bench between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, did not bring forth fruit at this stage, but I accept that the summer provides proper time for reflection. My patience will not last for ever and I was disappointed to hear that the conclusions from the Crick advisory committee may not be ready for Report stage. I will consider carefully the amendments I table on Report to take account of how far that committee has reached in its deliberations and of whether the Government are prepared to bring forward regulations at that stage or by Third Reading.
Those people preparing to make applications for naturalisation need to know how to approach the application in a proper manner. Having heard the Minister's response, I am prepared at this stage to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): In calling Amendment No. 6, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert—
"() No regulation shall be made under subsection (1)(ba) or (bb) without prior consultation with, and agreement from—

(a) the Commission far Racial Equality,

(b) the Citizenship Foundation, and

(c) the Immigration Advisory Service."

The noble Lord said: I was delighted when the Minister mentioned Sir Bernard Crick and the consultations likely to take place. There was some resistance in the other place to the need to involve certain key organisations in the process, particularly when regulations have been made. That is why our amendment seeks that no regulation should be made without prior consultation with and agreement from the Commission for Racial Equality, the Citizenship Foundation and the Immigration Advisory Service.
In Second Reading brief, the Commission for Racial Equality pointed out to us that there had been no proper consultation with interested parties as to what constitutes citizenship and what defines a British citizen: values, rights, ways and so on. The amendment allows us to argue the case for full and frank consultation and to stress that the definition of those terms is not only a matter for the Government; others should be consulted.
The amendment is straightforward and follows logically from the previous one. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. A number of those

461
organisations have carried out useful work. The list I have mentioned is not exclusive, but they were not chosen accidentally. The Commission for Racial Equality self-evidently has an interest and would like to be consulted. The Citizenship Foundation has made it its business to think through these issues and is keen to be engaged in the debate. The Immigration Advisory Service sees the practicalities of these matters in large volumes all the time. They are crucial organisations.
There are varying opinions on what constitutes citizenship: is it our values, our rights, or our way of life? The proposition is that we should have full and frank consultation. If we are to succeed we need to have ownership of what is being proposed. That can best come by consulting those who have carried out valuable work.
My honourable friend Simon Hughes, MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey, mentioned the commission for citizenship set up between 1987 and 1989 by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, when he was Speaker in the Commons. I should remind the Minister that David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, was a member of that body. The other members were some extremely important people: John Monks, who was, at that time, only the deputy general secretary of the TUC, Ted Wragg, Ben Whittaker, Maurice Stonefrost, John Beishon, Rodney Bickerstaffe, and a number of others.
The concern then expressed was that much time was spent on deciding how "citizenship" should be defined. I do not want to start inventing the wheel in this particular matter, but it must be possible to bring these people into the consultation process, especially when the regulations have been made. It will be a tremendous help to use the expertise of those people who have knowledge of such matters, and who have been involved in such work.
It is not our intention that such organisations should exercise a veto over the regulations that the Government will make; this amendment is designed simply to ensure that they participate in the consultation process on the basis of their particular knowledge. This recommendation is nothing new. If one looks at the Government's strategies under the Crime and Disorder Act, there is a partnership approach within which a number of organisations have been brought together and on the basis of which policies are pursued. I hope that that approach will be possible as regards the key organisations in relation to the regulations and the consultation process. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has made a good case for the inclusion of organisations such as the ones specified in the amendment. He will know in more detail than I—and, indeed, for the reasons that he gave—whether those organisations are the main bodies concerned, or whether there are others that should be consulted. Towards the end of his remarks the noble Lord said that it was not his intention that all, or any, of the organisations should
462
have a veto on the regulations. However, I hope the noble Lord will agree that, as it stands, the amendment refers not only to "consultation with" but also "agreement" by each of those bodies. Therefore, on his own explanation of the purposes of the amendment, it must surely be deficient. I believe that it would be advisable to provide that such bodies should be consulted on these matters. However, it is a matter for the Minister to say whether or not that should be specified on the face of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: As far as possible, we wish to have agreement on such matters. That is why the word "agreement" has been placed in the text of the amendment. I well understand the objections made to this proposal when it was discussed in another place. However, we have moved on a little from that stage. We now have a committee under Sir Bernard Crick. I do not know whether the Minister is to nominate all the members of that committee, or whether advice will be taken from Sir Bernard on who his colleagues will be. The Minister was a little indefinite when questioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in that respect. If the Commission for Racial Equality, the Citizenship Foundation, and the Immigration Advisory Service were asked to nominate individuals who could serve on the committee with Sir Bernard, that might be a good way to satisfy the requirement in the amendment that there should be prior consultation with such bodies, especially those, as my noble friend said, with almost unrivalled expertise when looking at the question of citizenship.
In that connection, can the Minister say whether Sir Bernard will start with a blank sheet of paper? The more we discuss the matter, the more Ministers lift the veil a little and say what they believe is meant by,
"sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom".
The Minister was good enough to agree with me that there was perhaps a difference in this requirement as regards Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England, but that is not the only difference that might exist. As I tried to point out when we discussed a previous amendment, there are also differences between the nature of the person's life in the United Kingdom; for example, the occupation that he will take up, and the milieu in which he will live. The latter may vary enormously between one applicant for citizenship and another.
I believe, therefore, that it would be a good idea for the Minister to confirm in his response that he will ensure that the Commission for Racial Equality, the Citizenship Foundation, and the IAS are invited to give their views. I do not mean exclusively, because there will be more than four members of the proposed committee. I take the point made earlier about the necessity for drawing on the widest possible advice. With due regard to the necessity for making this an open process in which anyone can take part, priority must surely be given to the claims of organisations with particular knowledge in such matters when considering both the selection of the membership of Sir Bernard's committee, and the invitations to give evidence.

463
Perhaps I may also point out to the Minister that we have a similar procedure in this Chamber. I have in mind Select Committees, which invite evidence from members of the public. General invitations are sent out, to which anyone can respond. Oral evidence may then be required from particular witnesses with special knowledge. If Sir Bernard were to adopt a similar approach, it would be most useful. I hope that the noble Lord will give consideration to that suggestion.
Viscount Bridgeman: This amendment is identical to one that was tabled in Standing Committee in another place. As my honourable friend Humfrey Malins made clear, we support the thinking behind the amendment; namely, that there should be consultation with the appropriate non-governmental organisations on the nature and content of the tests that applicants for naturalisation will have to sit. Our only concern with this amendment is that, as has been mentioned, we do not believe that it goes far enough. The doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about any question of a veto should, I believe, be properly addressed at a later stage of this Bill
The amendment names three organisations only, while there are many other organisations that ought properly to be consulted. I shall not detain Members of the Committee with a list. My honourable friend Humfrey Maims made some suggestions in Standing Committee in another place (Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/4/02; col. 22). I welcome the commitment made by the Government during the consideration of this amendment in another place to consultation with non-governmental organisations on the regulations. The Minister at that time, Angela Eagle, said in the Standing Committee that, when determining the contents of these regulations, the Government would,
"consult and listen to the best expert advice".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/4/02; col. 23.]
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that commitment this afternoon. I know that the noble Lord has spoken about the possible composition of this committee under Sir Bernard Crick, but anything that he can add as a result of this amendment will be most welcome.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: In speaking briefly to Amendment No. 8, perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that I have a potential interest as I hold a chair in citizenship at Liverpool John Moore's University. I strongly support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has laid before the Committee, although I do not believe that it is necessarily right in its detail. It would be better if it were framed in a more generic way. All of us have some reservations about putting long lists of organisations into primary legislation. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, just said, there are many other organisations apart from the three specified in the amendment that could also be included. I have in mind, for example, the Institute for Citizenship, which could stand alongside the three already mentioned in the amendment. Doubtless, there are many other such organisations.
464
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded the Committee, the principle of consulting with such groups, though not necessarily being held to ransom by any of them, is certainly the right way forward. Following up the questions that have already been asked as to whether or not there will be any requirement on Sir Bernard Crick's committee to call witnesses, can the Minster say when we may expect the report? It would be enormously helpful if an interim report on this particular subject could be issued before we meet again to consider such matters on Report.
As soon as September falls, we are all acutely aware that another set of Sir Bernard's recommendations are due. I refer to those that have been incorporated into the Education Bill, and which will be implemented in our schools. Indeed, for the first time ever in secondary schools, citizenship will be taught. Many of us also hope that that will not turn into a dreary round of dry-as-dust British constitutional civics. However, important issues that affect the whole population of the United Kingdom, not just incomers, are raised by the teaching of citizenship in schools and by Part 1 of the Bill. For instance, Part 1 raises the possibility of the removal of citizenship. That interests me. There may, sometimes, be good grounds for removing citizenship, as a way of showing someone that he has behaved in an unacceptable or anti-social way. That might make him take the matter rather more seriously than previously.
I strongly support what the Government are doing to encourage the celebration of citizenship. It is right to encourage such celebration, and the United States model is a good one. I am glad that that seen-is to be part of the Government's thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has done the Committee a service by putting the amendment before us. We have had a useful discussion, and I hope that the Minister will address some of the issues raised.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shiver slightly when the Minister talks about delivering a curriculum. That is a bad way of looking at things. Sir Bernard must decide what people must know; the people who teach will decide what the curriculum will be. I hope that the Home Secretary's carry-over from the Department for Education and Employment will not affect this issue. That would damage the exercise.
Baroness Uddin: I also support the amendment. The Government began on the principle of being open and of consulting as wide a group of people as possible. The amendment is entirely in line with that.
I agree with Members of the Committee who have said that we should not, at this stage, advocate the prescription of the different groups. In fact, advocacy is precisely what the amendment aspires to—advocacy by the Commission for Racial Equality, the Citizenship Foundation and, of course, the Immigration Advisory Service, whose work I know well. The community can have some confidence that such groups act as advocates on its behalf with powerful government institutions.

465
The amendment would give us some leeway to send out an important message. At a time when so many messages about nationality, immigration and asylum seem to have gone wrong, it is important that we leave the door open to public bodies that are supported and nurtured by ordinary folk. Many people depend on such organisations and vice versa.
Lord Filkin: I strongly agree with the central thrust of the debate. It is important that we get the regulations right and, in the light of the matters on which Sir Bernard is focusing, that we have processes that ensure that all those with interests and expertise can contribute. We consulted widely with NGOs on the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, and the views of many of the organisations that responded were interesting and helpful.
The advisory group that Sir Bernard has been invited to chair is still at a relatively early stage of development. It is a little premature for us to debate the membership. No doubt Sir Bernard will put his thoughts on that matter to the Home Secretary, who will make the relevant announcements. The thoughts expressed in our debate will, no doubt, be of interest and of potential use.
Does Sir Bernard have a blank sheet of paper? He is expected to understand the policy objectives set out in the White Paper. We talked about those in some detail this afternoon. We want to have such an expert on the advisory group to give others with, we hope, varying but related expertise a free hand to come forward with their views. That is very much in the spirit of what has been said. We want people to succeed—or get by—as citizens, rather than expecting them to be academic or anything of that type.
As ever, there will be a tension between, on the one hand, openness, consultation and the opportunity for people to participate and, on the other, an early response. My view is that it is unlikely—and would, perhaps, be unwise—that we would try to get Sir Bernard to report by, say, early September, in time for the Government to give our considered view. That would, arguably, be too short a time in which to get the benefit of his expertise. That expertise will inform the regulations that the Government will make, and the House will have an opportunity to consider whether it is content with those regulations.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am sure that the Minister will not mind if I interrupt him to point out that we are sitting not as the House but as a Committee.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful for that advice. I shall seek to recollect that we are in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, made a point about whether the group would call witnesses. That is a matter for Sir Bernard and the committee, and it will have a bearing on the speed with which he can report. He will decide whether he can fulfil his remit adequately with or without doing that. We should leave such issues to him.
466
I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. If I talk about what people need to know and what organisations need to teach them, it might produce a less dire feeling than words such as "curriculum". That is the essence of what I meant. We must be clear about the competencies that people will be helped to achieve.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Would not it be better to express the whole thing in terms of outcomes and by referring to what people need to know? People may not need to go through a course, as they may know it all already. It would be an another way of putting it. That may not have sprung to the mind of the people who drafted the Bill, but it is an important point.
Lord Filkin: In essence, I was informally shaking hands with the noble Baroness on that point. We are talking about the skills and knowledge that are needed to allow someone to be a competent and effective citizen, in their own interest and as a participant in society. That is the issue that we seek to address with this measure.
The Earl of Onslow: I am a little confused by the concept of the test. Will it be a set test for everybody? If so, the answers to the test will be publicly known, and no one will need to do any work. Will there be a different test for everybody? How will it work?
I am in sympathy with the Government about this, and they know that. However, some practical problems will raise their ugly heads. If people know that one of the questions will be, for the sake of argument, "What is heptarchy?", will that be all that they need to know—nothing else? Will people need to know only the answers to six, eight or 10 questions? Will there be generic, general knowledge questions? Some people may say that the test set by an immigration authority in one part of the country is harder than that set by another. I see terrible problems, and the Government must take them into account.
Lord Filkin: We are slightly in danger of going back to the previous amendment. The Government recognise that we do not have a monopoly of wisdom on such matters. That is why we are forming an external advisory group to report to the Home Secretary and, no doubt, in public as well. Everyone will see the nature of the advice before we make regulations. It is as well to leave that process to take its course, informed, no doubt, by the contributions made in Committee.
I think that I have responded to most points raised in the debate. Respectfully, I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn at this stage.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I was not expecting a report to be produced in time for the Report stage of the Bill. However, it would be useful to our discussions on Report to have available an outline of the requirements. There is a fear among ethnic minority groups in this country about the demands to be made of them—it is not that they do not

467
want to comply with them. They are concerned about what is expected of them in terms of the knowledge or the test under discussion. What better bodies are there in this country than the Commission for Racial Equality, the Citizenship Foundation and the Immigration Advisory Service to be involved? They have considerable knowledge of the community. Ultimately, the provisions must be sold to those who are affected by them and that can be done more easily if those bodies are involved in the process.
Lord Filkin: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord hut I failed to address that issue in my response. It is only proper that I do. In making regulations, we will consult widely, as we normally do. I find it inconceivable that we would not consult with those three bodies—we will want to consult with them and many others. We would not feel it appropriate for government ever to give a power of veto to an external body over such matters, while respecting that we want to consider properly comments that it makes. I hope that that reply is helpful.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. On the basis of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
The Earl of Sandwichmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
"() make provision for the Secretary of State to make payment to provide specified courses for these purposes and to make payment for travel and childcare costs for those attending."
The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Hylton, and on his behalf, I rise to move Amendment No. 10. Its purpose is to secure funding to enable asylum seekers who are required to do so, but who do not have adequate means, to learn the English language and acquire knowledge about life in the UK so that they are not further disadvantaged.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who laid the groundwork for the proposal in the previous group of amendments. I listened to the Minister's reply and was a little troubled when he mentioned problems and shortfalls relating to colleges of education. Perhaps he would elaborate on that.
A sufficient knowledge of English is recognised by every Member of the Committee but it requires access to facilities for asylum seekers which they may not enjoy in induction or accommodation centres, especially if they are dispersed to areas away from language teaching centres or colleges of education. What provision is intended and will the Government undertake to meet travel and perhaps childcare costs where necessary? If not, those will have to be met from the limited funds of non-governmental organisations. That is why many such organisations, including the
468
highly respected Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to support what has been said by the noble Earl. It is important that the Government should answer the point and I am sure that my noble friend will do so. Where the Bill is silent on this matter, it is important that the Government should make payments to enable people to attend the courses. If the Government have not specified that either in the Bill or in the regulations, they should do so.
Lord Dholakia: I, too, rise to support the amendment. The reasons are clear; in many parts of the country there is a considerable amount of unemployment and people do not have adequate resources. In many cases, women go to work and support the family. If they are expected to benefit by such provision, it is right and proper that facilities and finances are available to enable them to undertake the task. We shall be delighted if the Minister can say that those facilities will be available.
Baroness Uddin: I support the amendment. Numerous members of Government. have often talked about the isolation of women and their participation in British life. It is important that we put the money where our mouth is.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Earl for raising these important issues. However, for reasons which I shall explain, I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is required. Although final decisions have yet to be made about precisely how courses will be delivered, it seems likely that it will be done mainly by further education colleges on the basis of funds allocated to them by the Learning and Skills Council as part of DfES's "Adult Basic Skills" programme and similar programmes in the devolved administration.
In those circumstances, there is no need for the Bill to provide a specific regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State to make a payment for courses. However, as was said in discussions on earlier amendments, there was concern about the adequacy of supply, for example, in English language teaching in all parts of the country. That is why I signalled that a tracking exercise was being undertaken by the department with the DfES to identify whether there were any shortfalls and to ensure that action was taken to address them where possible.
The noble Earl rightly drew attention to the difficulties that people, in particular those with childcare responsibilities, might have in attending courses and he was supported by other Members of the Committee. That is a much wider issue and could apply to attendance on many other courses, not simply those relating to the matters we are discussing today. However, a specific regulation-making power is not needed in respect of travel or childcare costs. Learner support funds are available to those who are eligible

469
for free-course provision, which should include most of those we envisage would need to attend citizenship courses. Learner support funds can be used to help individuals with the cost associated with, for example, transport, books and equipment, childcare provision and even residential charges.
While respecting the reasons for arguing the amendment in Committee, for the reasons I have given I do not believe that it is needed. I respectfully request that it be withdrawn.
The Earl of Sandwich: The Minister has been most reassuring but I do not believe that this is quite the end of the matter. I shall confer with my noble friend because I believe that further explanation is required before the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
"() Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Secretary of State made under this section may appeal to a county court judge."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 87, although the two are concerned with completely different issues, as the Minister will have realised. The first amendment is concerned with the right of appeal of a person who fails the test imposed by Clause 1. As the Bill stands, anyone who does not pass the knowledge test on life in the United Kingdom will automatically be refused citizenship and he will have no right of appeal. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that that is not satisfactory.
Without knowing anything about the decisions that will be made as a result of Sir Bernard's committee, we ought to include a provision in the Bill ensuring that people who fail have some kind of right. We suggest that it should be to the county court. I am open to any suggestions that the Minister may have, provided that he accepts the principle.
Amendment No. 87 is of a different order of magnitude because it concerns the refusal of an application for naturalisation. I note that in Clause 7 the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981, which prevent anyone making an appeal to a court if he is aggrieved against the refusal of such an order, are repealed. Perhaps that means that the person has a right now to go to court or some other tribunal and contest the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse him citizenship.
It is not an academic point. Over the years I have had a number of cases where citizenship has been arbitrarily refused; and with a great deal of persistence it is sometimes possible to overturn that decision. I mention a recent case which occurred during the regime of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. A friend of mind who has been resident in this country for 28 years was refused his application for citizenship. After a
470
great deal of discussion the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told me that it was because of adverse information given to the Home Office by the Foreign Office about his activities in connection with his home country. On 6th January, I finally obtained an interview with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at which he was unable to give me the details of the information that he had received from the Foreign Office but said that he would investigate the matter further and come back to me. In due course, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, overturned the decision that he himself had made and granted my friend citizenship.
In the absence of any right of appeal, it needed a lot of work to get through the bureaucracy to establish to the satisfaction of the Minister that my friend had been wrongfully refused citizenship on the basis of false information which had been supplied by another department. Are we to say that in those circumstances the only remedy a person has is to come to a Member of Parliament or of this House and, after months of work, finally to get the decision overturned? It is surely more satisfactory to provide for appeal on the face of the Bill so that everyone can take advantage of the provision and it is not simply those who happen to know a Member of this House or another place who can act. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I fail to understand the amendment. New Section 40 provides for an appeal where there has been deprivation of citizenship. Every point made by the noble Lord is answered by that provision.
Lord Filkin: I agree with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to table Amendment No. 12 to ensure that naturalisation applicants should he treated fairly when it comes to testing the requirements relating to knowledge of a relevant language and of life in the United Kingdom. But the Government are opposed to introducing a right of appeal against nationality decisions. That is partly because in practical terms there are limited consequences stemming from a refusal to grant nationality. More importantly, however, no one has a right to acquire citizenship of another country. In the United Kingdom such matters are usually discretionary. Granting appeal rights against discretionary decisions would in effect be transferring that discretion from the Secretary of State to an appellate body while decisions can, if necessary, be challenged through judicial review or making representations, as has been indicated, through a Member of Parliament.
The intention is that when an applicant applies to the Home Office he or she will provide evidence that he meets the necessary requirements in the form of some certificate or similar indicating that he has reached a certain standard or attended a particular course. The Home Secretary will not normally look behind that evidence unless, of course, he has some sound reason to think that the evidence may be false.
So it would not be appropriate in our view to provide for a right of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision in these matters. If an individual is

471
dissatisfied with the assessment of his or her competence in a particular language or of his knowledge of the citizenship curriculum this could no doubt be taken up in the usual way with the relevant body.
I accept that there is also a broader concern about the lack of appeal rights in the context of applications for British citizenship. To some extent the case for an appeal is met by existing procedures and by new provisions contained in Part 1 of the Bill. That refers to Clause 7 which enables the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decision and removes the bar on a full judicial review which currently exists. Clause 7 would repeal the Secretary of State's statutory exemption from the common law obligation to give reasons for his discretionary decisions under the Act. In practice, however, reasons are already being given in all cases and there is a long-standing policy of re-examining and, where this seems justified, reversing contested nationality decisions. Caseworkers have been given clear instructions on that.
Furthermore, where maladministration is alleged, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may be asked to investigate. Clause 7 removes the limitation on the power of the courts to review discretionary nationality decisions by enabling the decision to be subject to a normal judicial review, as I have indicated. That will include consideration of the reasonablenesss of the Secretary of State's decision.
In general, however, no one has a right to acquire another country's citizenship. In the UK it is for Parliament to lay down the conditions for the acquisition of British citizenship and the various rights and privileges that go with it. As I indicated previously, the introduction of a full right of appeal would result in the transfer of that necessary discretion to the appellate body. The tradition has always been, and I think rightly, that it sits with the Secretary of State.
However, it is proper to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, a decision not to grant citizenship–I indicated that that does not have severe penalties–and on the other a decision to withdraw citizenship already acquired or granted, which we shall consider later in Committee. After careful consideration the Government have decided that they are justified in conceding a full right of appeal against deprivation of citizenship because the burden of that is so much more painful than the non-award of citizenship, which in most cases would be because a person had not demonstrated through the processes we have indicated—an external assessment body, a college of further education—that he had met the necessary competence. In the light of those comments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: As I understand, the Government want a fair and open system of assessment of someone's right to apply for citizenship. The Minister, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, says yea or nay. If the Minister has acted wrongly or
472
capriciously I cannot understand why there should not be an appeal to a body. That seems fair. Ministers occasionally, not often, make mistakes.
Lord Filkin: I indicated that in the circumstances suggested by the noble Earl—that the Minister had acted capriciously—there is exactly the remedy he seeks through judicial review.
Lord Avebury: I am not sure that that gives an adequate remedy to the person aggrieved by the refusal of his application for citizenship. He has to demonstrate for the purposes of judicial review that the Secretary of State made a decision which was manifestly unreasonable. That is a pretty stiff hurdle to surmount. If the person can go to the courts, other matters could be argued: for instance, that the Minister has assessed incorrectly his character under the good character requirement.
Many years ago there was an argument about someone who was driving in this country on an international driving licence. In answer to the question, "Have you ever thought of taking the test in this country?" he replied that he had thought of taking the test but was absent when the test date was given to him and, therefore, did not take it. The Secretary of State refused him citizenship on the ground t hat he had given a misleading answer. The best I could get out of the Secretary of State at that time was that he would review that person's citizenship application if he applied again after two years. He did so and then sailed through despite the argument about the driving test and whether he was entitled to drive in this country on an international driving licence. So there can be completely frivolous reasons why the Secretary of State believes that the good character requirement has not been met.
As I mentioned when introducing the amendment, certain facts were alleged against that person 'which proved to be quite wrong, as the Secretary of State admitted. He was not manifestly unreasonable in relying on the advice given to him by the Foreign Office and my friend may not have succeeded in an application for judicial review under those circumstances. It seems a very heavy hammer with which to crack the nut of wrong decisions by the Secretary of State. We shall return to this matter on Report.
As regards the failure of the examination under Clause I, we shall need to see a little more of how Sir Bernard gets on with the job he has been given by the Government. We may also come back to that matter in October.
5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Will the Minister indicate from where the material on which to base an application for judicial review is to come? As I understand it, there is no obligation on the Minister, when refusing an application, to give his reasons. I do not follow quite how it will be shown that the Minister has acted wholly unjudicially.

473
Judicial review is not a process of appeal. It is only there to ensure, to put it in round phrases, that there has been fair play. It does not go to the merits of the decision. That is its inadequacy.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may help the noble and learned Lord. In the case that I am talking about the applicant did not know what exactly had been alleged against him until I went to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He was very frank when I went to see him on 6th January and he told me precisely what the Foreign Office had said against this person. But up until that time he had no way of knowing the reasons for the refusal.
Lord Filkin: As I sought to make clear, Clause 7 will repeal the Secretary of State's statutory exemption from the common law obligation to give reasons. Put in plain English, the Secretary of State will give his reasons for refusal. Therefore it would be more open for an aggrieved person, if they so wished, to make a challenge.
However, before anyone rushes away thinking that they will have to go to court, there are obvious alternative processes. Perhaps I may focus on an area where there clearly is a discretion for the Secretary of State—that is, the relevant clause in regard to good character—and put to one side the colleges of further education issues. There has never been an appeal process up to now and, to the Government's knowledge, there has not been any significant number of problems. I do not say no problems.
It is important that the Home Office has in place, as I believe it has, processes by which, if someone did appeal against a refusal by the Secretary of State, the case can be reconsidered by a different official from the one who made the original recommendation and gave advice and at a higher level in the Civil Service than the level at which the original decision had been made. So there would be a fresh pair of eyes looking at the issues and seeing, in the light of representations that had been made in response to the reasons given by the Home Secretary, whether or not the original decision was justifiable.
Lord Avebury: That is not the same as a proper judicial hearing in which all the facts can be thrashed out in the open. A different set of civil servants looking at the issue behind the scenes is not a satisfactory remedy. We will come back to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Naturalisation: spouse of citizen]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 17, after "paragraphs" insert "2,"
The noble Lord said: The Minister will breathe a sigh of relief that we have passed from Clause 1 to Clause 2. These amendments concern the issue of
474
citizenship by naturalisation, which we wish to probe further because we did not get an adequate reply when the matter was raised in another place.
In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. The amendments address a very simple point, which was referred to us initially by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Clause 2(1) extends the existing language requirement to include those who are applying for naturalisation as the spouses of a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. Under the Bill, spouses will have to comply also with the knowledge of the UK requirement.
As we have been told, it will continue to be possible for the Secretary of State to waive the language requirement on grounds of age or physical or mental condition, but there is as yet no provision to allow the Secretary of State to waive the knowledge of the UK requirement in such circumstances. The argument is that it should be possible to waive that requirement for those who come and apply on residence grounds and for those who come on marriage grounds.
The logic is fairly clear. Some people, perfectly reasonably and lawfully, meet someone and decide to marry them. It may not take them six years to make a decision. We cannot expect people suddenly to fit in to those arrangements the learning of the language and so on. The person from this country may speak the other language, or a couple may not have a language in common. Sometimes this does not prevent people from deciding that they love each other and want to get married. We must be sensible about this.
What is the minimum residency requirement, if any, that the Government have in mind before any residence in Britain by virtue of marriage can be turned into a citizenship entitlement? When people apply as spouses they usually get a conditional right to be here. The period has traditionally been a year but the Government have talked about it being two years. Would that apply in the context that we are discussing in the amendment? If someone married a UK citizen and wanted to be naturalised, would it be assumed that there would be a minimum of two years before they could put in their application? The clause would be more sensible if it were amended in the way that we suggest.
Amendment No. 15 is slightly different and concerns the current nationality law which allows a spouse to apply for naturalisation after three years of having been living legally in the United Kingdom. The amendment would allow a spouse who has been in the United Kingdom for three years exemption from the language test as it is as present. This is on the basis that after such a time it is expected that a spouse would be sufficiently integrated into the community of the spouse who is the existing British citizen. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I should inform the Minister that we shall not be promoting our amendment in this group.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but I am slightly confused. My understanding—I may be wrong—is that this group contains Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15, all of which stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, not the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. So what appeared to be a helpful remark has left other Members of the Committee rather bewildered.
Lord Dholakia: I would not mind if the noble Lord cared to join with our amendments.
Lord Kingsland: This was an amendment that we pursued in another place. I suppose that I have rather come to espouse it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The essence of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in support of these three amendments is, first, that there should be a discretion to waive the requirement; and, secondly, that in certain cases it should not apply at all to spouses.
The first two amendments seek to provide for the exercise of a discretion in special cases to waive the Government's proposed knowledge about life in the United Kingdom requirement. We share that aim with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. This is achieved by Clause 1(2), which we inserted into the Bill by way of amendment in the Commons. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in regard to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
The third amendment in the group would provide a complete exemption for the language and knowledge about life in the United Kingdom requirements for people applying for naturalisation as British citizens on the ground of marriage to British citizens. We find such a proposal unacceptable. We believe that it is in the best interests of all concerned that, irrespective of marital status, all naturalisation applicants should have the knowledge and linguistic skills necessary to play a full part in society. As, however, with unmarried naturalisation applicants, there would be a discretion to 'waive the knowledge requirements for the spouses of British citizens where age or medical grounds justify that. I hope that my response gives the noble Lord some comfort in respect of his amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I am glad that Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 have seen some consent from the Minister. We shall certainly consult the organisation that brought this matter to our attention on Amendment No. 15. It may be necessary to return to it on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 2, insert the Following new clause—
"NATURALISATION BY DESCENT

(1) A person within this section shall be entitled to register as a British citizen so long as an application is duly made within a period of five years from commencement.

(2) A person is within this section if—

(a) he was born after February 1961 but prior to 1st January 1983; and

(b) at the time of his birth he would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (acquisition by descent), had the reference therein to "father" been a reference to either parent; and

(c) as a result he would immediately prior to 1st January 1983 have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

(3) A person registered under subsection (1) shall be a British citizen by descent."

The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 88, which aims to achieve the same objective but by a slightly different route. The main difference between the two is that in Amendment No. 16 the cut-off date of February 1961 is retained from the British Nationality Act, whereas in Amendment No. 88 it is removed entirely.
The point of this proposal is that, when the Government partially removed the general discrimination in the British Nationality Act 1981, having previously done it by administrative discretion in 1979, so as to allow the children of a British mother who were born abroad to be registered as British citizens, provided it was done while they were still minors, that obviously applied only to children born after 1961 because, by definition, they would not have been minors at the time of the 1981 Act. That was the reason for the cut-off date. There is no logic in it. If we say—as the Government did by implication—that we are going to remove the gender discrimination that existed prior to 1981 by allowing the children of British mothers to be registered as citizens just as much as the children of British fathers, it should have made no difference that they had already reached the age of majority, because they could have been given the right to apply in their own right. So Amendment No. 88 removes the 1961 date, but Amendment No. 16—which is by far the lesser of the two demands that we are making—would retain that provision from the 1981 Act. We believe that if you are removing gender discrimination, you should do it entirely and not in part, and that the second solution is much the better if we can persuade the Government to accept it.
How did it come about that there are still people who were not registered even though their mothers had the right to register them? In many cases it was simply because the mothers were unaware of the 1981 provision and therefore did not take advantage of it until it was too late.
Perhaps I may give an example. It relates to the leader of a new NGO called CAMPAIGNS—I shall not read out what the acronym stands for, but it is an ingenious usage. He was born in the United States in 1967 to a British mother and a US father. At the time,

477
his mother made inquiries at the British Consulate in the US and was told that he could not obtain UK nationality. That was presumably because the correct information had not been fed across to our Consulate in the US. Additionally, while his mother was in Britain she approached the Home Office directly—so she told her son—in an attempt to get recognition of the right to pass on her UK nationality to her children. She was told that, because she was a woman, she could not pass on her nationality, in spite of the fact that the 1981 Act was then in force.
Mr Turberville, the leader of the CAMPAIGNS organisation, has two siblings who were born in the UK with the same parents and both of those children have UK nationality. He also has three siblings born outside the UK and outside the Commonwealth. They are in the same boat as he is. They are not entitled to UK nationality under current legislation because they have already reached the age of majority.
Mr. Turberville is resident in this country and has been here for eight years as an over-stayer. He was served with a deportation order—or so the Home Office said—but he did not receive it. He went to court and a date was set for the hearing, but in the meantime the Home Secretary revoked the deportation order, then issued another one three days later. That action delayed the process for another two years. A hearing with an adjudicator finally took place on 27th June to determine the legitimacy of the reissuing of the notice by the Secretary of State. A decision on the case is expected in about six to eight weeks' time.
What is all this for? It is to deprive someone who has a British mother of the right to citizenship on the same basis as if his father, instead of his mother, was the basis of the claim. I do not think that anyone would defend that situation now. If anyone did, I suggest to the Minister that it is likely that Mr Turberville and the 50 other people of whom he knows who were in the same boat would have a right to go to court under the Human Rights Act. But let us hope that the case does not get to that point. I am sure that the Minister, being a reasonable person, will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comment regarding my reasonableness. I hope that what I say will further persuade him that, although there are clearly some difficulties, the Government's approach is reasonable.
It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1st January 1983. Prior to that date, the law on nationality was contained principally in the British Nationality Act 1948. There are many similarities between the 1981 Act and the 1948 Act, but, as one might expect, some significant differences.
Both Acts placed a general limitation on the ability of one generation to pass on citizenship to the next, subject to a few exceptions the nature of which has varied over time. Citizenship has traditionally not
478
been transmissible beyond the first generation born outside British territory. Both Acts achieved this by dividing people into citizens "by descent" who, because their own UK connections are not particularly close, cannot pass on citizenship to any children born abroad and citizens "otherwise than by descent" who can so transmit.
The rationale for all of this is that, by the time a second generation is born abroad, the link with the United Kingdom is too remote to justify the automatic conferral of citizenship. Instead, provision has usually been made for the second generation to obtain citizenship on application provided certain criteria relating to UK residence have been satisfied. This seems to us to be entirely reasonable. We see no reason to interfere with the arrangement in respect of those born abroad before 1983 or subsequently.
Where the 1981 Act and the 1948 Act take a different approach is on the ability of women to transmit their citizenship. Under the 1948 Act a female citizen could not pass on citizenship, even if she was a citizen otherwise than by descent. The 1981 Act reversed that position and now allows women to transmit on equal terms—quite rightly in our view—with men. But for a number of reasons this change was not made retrospective. In other words, those born abroad before 1983 derive no automatic nationality benefit from a UK connection in the maternal line.
Since 1979, such people have been able to rely on the Secretary of State's discretion to register any minor as a citizen, but an application has to be made for that purpose and the person concerned must be under 18 when he or she applies.
I accept the limitations of that approach, but we would not be justified in conferring on those who are now adults an unconditional entitlement to register as citizens. Some may have spent their whole life in another country and acquired the citizenship of that country. That is a telling point in the argument. Those who have come to the UK since birth will have been able to qualify for naturalisation as a citizen. It is right that as adults they should be able to demonstrate connections with this country—we believe that to be a very important criterion—beyond those based on parentage.
That is the rationale behind our thinking, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has pointed out, there can be difficulties in some circumstances. The Secretary of State's discretion is an important issue. It has been valuably exercised in many cases.
I hope that with those comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister over-simplifies a little by suggesting that those affected by the amendment do not have a particularly close connection with this country. I declare an interest. I have a pupil who is directly and squarely within the words of the amendment. He has just completed his degree at the college and been awarded the History Today prize for the best dissertation by any candidate in the whole of history finals. He wishes to do postgraduate research

479
in this country. His father is a New Zealander. His mother is British. Three of his four grandparents are British. His father and mother intend to settle in Cambridge on their retirement. He has not been permanently resident in this country because his father is a lecturer at the Free University of Berlin. He is therefore ineligible for funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Board for postgraduate research. That is a severe handicap to him, which would not he the case if the genders of his two parents had been reversed, if I may make such an Irish suggestion. The situation does not seem fair, reasonable or in the interests of this country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl has picked out a bad case. I shall not commit myself to suggesting that it would translate itself into good and effective law, but we shall read through with great interest what the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have said and take those points into consideration. I have not heard anything today to persuade me that our general approach is wrong.
Lord Avebury: I am obviously not going to persuade the Minister to agree to the amendment this afternoon, but I am grateful for his assurance that he will take the matter away and consider it. Perhaps he will confirm that he would be prepared to meet me to discuss the problem with members of CAMPAIGNS, of whom there are about 50. The concession would not affect a vast number of people and make a difference to the immigration figures.
I do not see how people can comply with the requirement of having to live here and demonstrate the connection if, like the leader of CAMPAIGNS, they are treated as overstayers. He comes here intending to reside permanently in the United Kingdom, but he has no right to do that and after eight years he is up against the possibility of being deported. Does the noble Lord consider that members of the organisation are in a Catch-22 situation? Maybe they have lived overseas for many years and therefore cannot demonstrate the connection with the United Kingdom that the Minister demands. On the other hand, if they come to the United Kingdom in an attempt to establish their connection with this country, they become illegal entrants and the noble Lord and his minions will throw them out. That does not make sense.
The noble Lord has already admitted that there is gender discrimination, which was only partially corrected by the 1981 Act. He did not answer my question about the Human Rights Act. Does he think that the gender discrimination that is incorporated into our nationality law, without the amendment, will land the Government in severe trouble?
Those are the matters that I would like to discuss with the noble Lord. On the basis that we shall have an opportunity to talk about them with those who are aggrieved by the rejection of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it at the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
480
Schedule I [Citizenship Ceremony, Oath and Pledge]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 80, line 9, leave out "citizenship" and insert "nationality"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with a large number of others. The purpose is to seek clarification, because there is confusion in the early part of the Bill, which continues to refer to citizenship when it really means nationality. Will the Minister explain that? There is a legal definition of nationality, whereas there is not yet a legal definition of citizenship.
The amendment follows a discussion that we had with the Citizenship Foundation, which explained that not much thought has been given to the distinction between the legal understanding of nationality and the social and philosophical understanding of citizenship. Many of us who have applied for a visa to travel to other countries know that we are frequently asked not about citizenship, but about nationality. That is where confusion occurs between the two expressions.
In part, this is a probing amendment. However, there is also an underlying question of whether it would be more consistent for legislation to deal with the well-understood legal concept of nationality rather than muddying the water by adding citizenship, the meaning of which is nowhere properly defined. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify that. Should we substitute "nationality" for "citizenship"? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for raising this issue. Some legal systems and treaties consistently use the term "nationality", whereas others consistently refer to "citizenship" while trying to convey the same meaning. Our understanding is that both expressions a re in current usage in the UK. They have been used interchangeably and still are to a large extent. Nationality has tended to be used in the narrow, more technical sense of a person's international identity, belonging to a particular state. It may be evidenced in the use of a passport. Citizenship is more about the various rights, duties and opportunities that define one's place and conduct in a society. It has an internal complexion to it. We talk about active citizenship within a society. Nationality is a concept primarily of international law for inter-state purposes such as diplomatic protection.
In the context of the oath, pledge and ceremony that the Government have in mind, we prefer the term "citizenship" because of the wider implications with which it is associated.
We have made it clear in earlier debates that we see the acquisition of British citizenship as a significant life event. We are seeking to enhance the process of becoming British. As a sign of the importance that we attach to the matter, we want to encourage that feeling. The use of "citizenship" is therefore more appropriate. I think that, linguistically, other countries conduct themselves in a similar way. We think that, in seeking to persuade us to reverse our

481
position, the noble Lord may have it the wrong way round, as "citizenship" means rather more and "nationality" rather less in these circumstances.
I understand the debate which the noble Lord is trying to stimulate. We recognise that it is a very important debate. However, we believe that our term is not only more user friendly but perhaps more relevant in achieving our policy objectives. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I did not intervene earlier because I wanted to hear the Minister's reply. Having heard it, I am now as much confused as enlightened by it. He said that citizenship is more about rights and opportunities. However, he also said that the terms "citizenship" and "nationality" tend to be interchangeable—although they tend to be used for different purposes. That seems a very unsatisfactory basis for legislation, where words need a precise meaning and not simply to tend to mean one thing or another according to the whim of the person using them.
I think that the Minister said that the terms are not synonymous in this legislation. If that is so, I think that we will need to know the difference. The process of naturalisation is quite clearly intended to confer both nationality and citizenship. If they are different, what is the difference?
This debate all comes down to the difficulty we have in this country in defining "citizenship" and a "British citizen". A few days ago, we heard a very eloquent exposition from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who gave us a very traditional view of the British constitution and the role of the people of Britain within that constitution. I think that he said that sovereignty rests with the Sovereign in Parliament and under God. In such a traditional view, the people of this country are clearly not citizens but subjects. That is the position in England, although it may be different in Scotland. I have no idea of the position in Wales. Scots have told me, however, that the position is definitely different there, where there is a tradition of citizenship which we do not have.
Citizenship is referred to very specifically and clearly in the part of the legislation dealing with the oath and the pledge that people will be asked to take during the citizenship ceremony. The Bill proposes the words,
"1 will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen".
I think that anyone asked to take such a pledge will have to know what the duties and obligations of a British citizen are. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. If he cannot do so now, perhaps we can be told later.
Lord Dholakia: I think that the Minister is rather reluctant to get into this argument.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not reluctant. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord
482
Greaves, but I do not think that they added much more to the debate. I am actually slightly surprised about where he is coming from. I think that the term "citizenship" as used here is rather broader than the rather more narrow meaning that "nationality" would connote in this circumstance. It is certainly our intention to encourage and foster a broader sense of citizenship and a more welcoming approach. I was therefore genuinely surprised by some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Lord Dholakia: If the term citizenship is broader, is the Minister prepared to give a legal definition of it? Does he know whether there is a legal definition of nationality?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Tempting though it is, I think that I would probably be a bit barmy to try to achieve that at the Dispatch Box on an afternoon when we are trying to examine some of the broader concepts in the legislation.
Lord Dholakia: I do not want to prolong the discussion. However, I do not think that the Minister would be barmy to try to do that, because there is no such legal definition. I do not think that he needs to worry about that. However, in relation to Clauses 1 and 2, I think that he should bear in mind that all naturalisation relates to the process of immigration and gaining nationality rather than to citizenship. Later, we shall discuss the issue of the deprivation of citizenship. How are we to deprive someone of something for which there is no legal formula or definition? I think that the Minister will find himself in considerable difficulty there. My advice is that, even at this late stage, he should take this back, consult civil servants and other authorities, and decide whether nationality is a better expression than citizenship. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 80, line 25, leave out "thinks it" and insert "is satisfied that it is"
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 26, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113 and 114.
Amendment No. 25 would replace the word "thinks" with the words "is satisfied". As noble Lords will be aware, the word "thinks" is one that is not often, if ever, used in legislation. This was the subject of some debate in another place in relation to Clause 4 which, as it was then drafted, proposed to allow the Secretary of State to remove someone's citizenship on that test. Members of another place were concerned during the debate in Standing Committee, on 30th April, at cols. 50 to 61 of the Official Report, that the word "thinks" set the threshold for deprivation of citizenship far too low. At that stage, the Minister's opinion was that there was no difference in law whatsoever between "thinks" and "is satisfied".

483
However, at Report stage, the Government amended the Bill to remove the offending word "thinks" from Clause 4, replacing it with the term "is satisfied".
Amendments Nos. 25, 105 and 114 seek to replicate that piece of redrafting in other areas of the Bill where the Government have retained the word "thinks" in relation to the giving of support and assistance to asylum seekers. The Government have already accepted this point in relation to Clause 4, and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has tabled Amendments Nos. 189 and 190 to Clause 65 to remove the phrase "the Secretary of State thinks".
Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 112 and 113, which are two pairs of alternatives, use the terms "believes" and "has reason to believe" rather than "thinks" or "is satisfied". I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether the Government's view is that these forms of words differ in the legal meaning from "is satisfied", and particularly whether the words "reason to believe" put the test higher than "is satisfied". That was a matter of some controversy in another place, and it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the issue. The point raised by these amendments might seem a small one, but it is none the less important to get the terms of the statute right so that the appropriate test is applied. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept some of the amendments in this group.
Amendment No. 26 is a probing amendment relating to the disapplication of the requirement to take part in the citizenship ceremony and make the citizenship oath and pledge. The Secretary of State will be empowered to do this,
"because of the special circumstances of a case".
I wonder whether the Minister, in responding to the amendment, could tell us what the Government have in mind as the sort of "special circumstances" in which the new test might be disapplied. Could these circumstances relate to the applicant's religious beliefs in terms of the oath or pledge, or perhaps to any difficulty the applicant might have in attending the ceremony? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer this small point. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman in speaking to his two amendments. They are both drafting amendments, but we have to be very careful about our drafting. The expression "thinks" is too vague for these circumstances in which important matters are at issue. I think it much better that the Secretary of State should be "satisfied". It is best to leave out the expression,
"because of the special circumstances of a case"
as that makes what the special circumstances are a matter of controversy. If the matter goes to court, the lack of a definition of "special circumstances" will be a disadvantage. My noble friend is right to move the two amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them.
Earl Russell: I hope that the Minister will listen to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose expertise on
484
draftsmanship is well known. To put the point in a nutshell, if the Minister says that he "is satisfied that", he may in legal proceedings be asked why. If he says that he "thinks", and he is asked why, he can simply reply, "Because I do". The difference is important.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: During the time I have spent in your Lordships' House I have learnt to listen carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, particularly as regards drafting matters. I am sure that the noble Earl and the noble Lord will not be disappointed when I say that we shall of course consider carefully their comments on those matters.
I shall try to meet the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. As has been said, the amendments seek to replace the use of the word "thinks" where it appears in Clauses 15 and 22 with a selection of alternatives: "has reason to believe", "believes", or "is satisfied". As I made plain, we understand the concern to be that using the word "thinks" would mean that there would be a less rigorous examination of the facts than would be the case if one of the alternative words or phrases were adopted. The use of the word "thinks" was part of a drive to encourage the greater use of plain English in law making. I realise that that is a rather bold claim. However, I always thought that your Lordships' House rather favoured that approach. That is our genuine intent.
We are content that there is no difference in substance between the various words and phrases in question. Therefore, from our perspective the amendments are unnecessary as the practical result is exactly the same—a subjective test. "Thinks", as with all of the three alternatives suggested, is a subjective test. Enforceable principles of administrative law import a requirement that the discretion be exercised reasonably. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that we brought forward amendments in another place in respect of Clause 4—as has already been mentioned—where particular concern was expressed at the use of the word "thinks" in respect of deprivation of citizenship. We were happy to try to allay those specific concerns, particularly in the context of ensuring consistency with the relevant parts of the British Nationality Act 1981.
This matter raises an interesting point. I emphasise that we do not accept that "thinks" involves a lesser examination of the facts than the other alternatives put forward. However, let us assume for a moment that we accepted that proposition. As regards Clauses 15 and 22, that would mean that the Secretary of State would be more rigorous in his assessment of who qualified for support with the consequence that fewer people might be eligible to be supported. I should be surprised if that was the intention behind the noble Viscount's amendments. I am not aware of any concerns that we have been supporting people who are not really destitute.
As I said, both "thinks" and "is satisfied that" are subjective and are legal equivalents.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not think that the question concerns

485
rigour but rather reason. One may have reasons for giving or refusing support which may make one more generous as well as more rigorous.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl makes a fair point. Our argument is that to transpose one term for the other would have little effect on the provision in Schedule 1, which is sought to be amended by Amendment No. 25. However, the term "thinks" is consistent with the way other similar discretions are currently expressed in the British Nationality Act 1981. At present, the Secretary of State has discretion to waive certain naturalisation and registration requirements if the circumstances of a particular case demand it. We wish to ensure simply that the Secretary of State also has discretion to waive certain requirements in regard to citizenship ceremonies and the citizenship oath and pledge. The language of the discretionary provision set out in Schedule 1 of the BNA is consistent with that which already appears in other parts of that legislation.
I was asked a specific question on the use of the term,
"special circumstances of a case".
That matter was raised in another place. The intent in introducing a special circumstances test is that the Secretary of State would have the discretion to disapply certain requirements in respect of citizenship ceremonies and the citizenship oath and pledge on a case by case basis. It is envisaged that the circumstances under which the Secretary of State might exercise that discretion would be exceptional; for example, when there are national security implications or when an applicant cannot attend due to chronic illness or disability. I hope that those examples will reassure the Members of the Committee who raised that concern.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that I may ask him to explain something. He used the word "disapply" just now in relation to special circumstances. Does that mean that the Secretary of State would be entitled to ignore particular facts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think that it would mean that the Secretary of State would ignore certain facts. However, he has discretion to disapply the provision. That is the important point. I hope that the examples that I have given clarify that matter to the noble Lord's satisfaction.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for the Minister's reply on Amendment No. 26. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for supporting my comments on Amendment No. 25 and on the other amendments in the grouping we are discussing. If I may say so, those remarks were made more impressive by their brevity.
However, given that the Government think that the word "thinks" needs to be changed, as we have seen in regard to Clause 4 and in the proposed government
486
amendments to Clause 65, we are disappointed that they have not given a rather more positive and immediate response to our concerns. I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Attlee, E.

Kingsland, L.

Biffen, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blackwell, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar, C.

Bridgeman, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Burnham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Byford, B.

Noakes, B.

Caithness, E.

Northbourne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Chorley L

Palmer, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colwyn, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cope of Berkeley L [Teller]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Plumb, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rees, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rogan, L.

Erroll, E.

Sandwich, E.

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne, E.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hanham, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgame, L.

Higgins, L.

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Warnock, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Weatherill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alli, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Amos, B.

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Blease, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brett, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bach, L.

Brookman, L.

Barnett, L.

Burlison, L.

487

Campbell-Savours, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Chan, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Christopher, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Craig of Radley, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elder, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Moser, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Orme, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ouseley, L.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

Gale, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Paul, L.

Golding, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Radice, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rooker, L.

Greengross, B.

Sandberg, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harrison, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warner, L.

Islwyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wilkins, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Jones, L.

Jordan, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 34 not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lourmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 81, line 31, leave out "the Second"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 40, which are concerned with the same point.
These are probing amendments; under no circumstances would I divide the House on the matter. They follow up a question that I asked the Minister on
488
Second Reading and a helpfully detailed reply that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was kind enough to send me. I emphasise that I am making a political, not a legal, point.
The amendments relate to the oaths of allegiance for new British citizens, which are proposed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The wording as it stands styles the Queen as "Queen Elizabeth the Second". I am suggesting that in the Bill Her Majesty should simply be entitled "Queen Elizabeth".
I understand why the Government carried over into the Bill the same wording as that used in the oaths employed under the British Nationality Act 1981. That is logical and legally correct. "Elizabeth the Second" was the title that Her Majesty adopted under the Royal Titles Act 1953. When that title was challenged in that year in the Court of Session in Scotland, the challenge failed and the matter was settled.
Her Majesty's legal title as Queen Elizabeth the Second is well known and accepted. At the same time, the sensitivity of the people in Scotland has been increasingly taken into account over the years in a number of ways. The pillar boxes in which we post our letters in Scotland, for example, have long borne the initials "ER" rather than "EIIR", as they do south of the Border, recognising that there has been no previous Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. At the recent Scottish Jubilee service in Glasgow, the Queen was named throughout as either "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" or "Her Majesty the Queen".
The Minister points out in his letter that, so far as the Government know, no one taking the present oath of allegiance has ever objected to its formulation. I suggest that that is hardly surprising. Someone who is keen to become a British citizen is unlikely to quibble at that particular detail. But the day may come when there is a problem. We have a Scots Parliament now. There is a growing sense of Scots identity, happily within a growing understanding of Scotland's place as a nation within a nation and as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Nationality matters are reserved under the Scotland Act to the Westminster Parliament. But I suggest that this Westminster Parliament cannot and must not ignore what is going on north of the Border. All of us who believe in the Union must constantly remind the Government of that.
The Government are right legally in the oath that they propose. But I suggest, with diffidence, that they look to their politics. In fact, there is clearly no need to refer in the oath to "Queen Elizabeth the Second". I have discovered that the oath which Members of Parliament and Peers take at Westminster happens, for no other reason than precedent, to be simply one of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. "Queen Elizabeth II" is not mentioned in our oath. Why do we not follow suit in this Bill?
The Government appear to be alienating enough voters at present for their comfort. I suggest that a little more sensitivity in relation to this matter would be wise. If they pay no heed to this suggestion, they may well regret it.

489
I want to ask the noble Lord one other question. It has been drawn to my attention by a noble Lord that the oaths included in the schedule to the Bill do not include an affirmation for those who wish to swear allegiance to the Queen but do not believe in God. Is that an omission or is there a reason for it? It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us. I hope that the Government will listen to what I am saying. I believe that they would be very wise to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I put my name to the amendment and rise briefly to support the points made so ably by my noble friend. It is certainly my practice to listen to my noble friend, who has a finger on the pulse when it comes to detecting points that need to be debated in relation to matters in Scotland.
I certainly do not claim to have a great knowledge of history—certainly none that would match that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. My days of teaching history were more than a quarter of a century ago. However, even I am aware that it would perhaps be legally correct to refer to Queen Elizabeth II, although I would think twice before doing so in Scotland.
Earl Russell: I believe that the need for the amendment is proved by the fact that it did not occur to me to table it, although this is a subject to which I have given a great deal of thought and on which I have done a considerable amount of professional work. The first reason for the amendment is that the present form of the oath north of the Border is simply and plainly wrong.
I turn to the second reason. Earlier this afternoon we all heard the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talk about the fact that we are a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multifaith society. The moment when that hit us was 24th March 1603. The English have put a vast amount of effort into trying to hide from what has happened. It is only now, on the verge of the 400th anniversary, that we are beginning to realise that that is what happened to us—that is, we have not been a sovereign nation state since 24th March 1603. The fact that even I needed reminding of that suggests that we need to pay some attention to this amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Desai: I want to raise one point in relation to the oath. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill makes a modification to the oath that judges must take in order to serve as judges in Northern Ireland. We debated the matter. In that oath, the words relating to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are not used at all. I simply want to point out that there is much flexibility and that we can shape the oath in a variety of ways. In respect of our multicultural, multifaith society, perhaps we should have two or three different versions of the oath and allow people to choose one of them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall start at the end and thank my noble friend Lord Desai for his very helpful comments. While the parliamentary oath uses the designation "Queen Elizabeth" rather than "Queen
490
Elizabeth II", we have been unable to find any evidence to suggest that the intent of the designation was to take account of the fact that Queen Elizabeth I of England did not reign over Scotland. Indeed, it appears more probable that the use of this designation, rather than the Queen's official title, is simply the result of a transposition in identical form of "Queen Victoria" in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.
Schedule 5 to the British Nationality Act 1981 uses the style adopted by the Queen under the Royal Titles Act 1953. We see no difficulty in carrying that forward into proposed Schedule 5 to the British Nationality Act 1981 as amended by Schedule 1 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. So far as we know, no one who has taken the present oath has ever objected to the formulation "Queen Elizabeth II".
One is always at one's peril when debating with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, matters relating to Scotland. I recognise that point most emphatically. But we believe that we have this matter right. The issue is, after all, one of British citizenship and it is a reserved matter. The title used by Her Majesty is very much a matter of constitutional law. Indeed, as I indicated, the Bill simply maintains and continues the wording used in the 1981 Act. That Act was made not under our watch but under the watch of noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite. Therefore, it is a matter which they themselves brought about in the past, and I am reminded of that fact in this debate.
We believe that the wording continues a tradition. It is part of our history and heritage and it is a matter of constitutional law. Obviously, we must be sensitive to issues of concern raised by the new devolved Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. But this is not specifically such an issue. The Bill has obviously been drawn to the attention of the Scottish Parliament. Although we did not specifically draw the attention of the First Minister to this aspect of the oath, we have not received back any comments in regard to this matter.
Of course, we should be sensitive at all times to representations on these matters. So far as we are concerned, there has never been an objection to the current formulation and we see no reason to depart from it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, raised a specific point as regards affirmation. New Section 42(7) as proposed under Schedule 1 applies Sections 5 and 6 of the Oaths Act 1978 which allows for affirmations to be made. I am sure that the important and valuable point raised by the noble Baroness is answered by that provision, and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that last point. Had there been more time since the point was raised with me by the noble Lord, I should probably have followed that through. I apologise to the Minister for perhaps unnecessarily asking the question.
The rest of the reply given by the Minister is not satisfactory. He simply has not taken my point. I have said all the things which he said. I understood them

491
before I received the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and they were reiterated in that letter. My point is that the Government are unwise to do this.
The Minister is right about the oath which we swear here in Parliament. I asked the Clerk of the Parliaments to research the matter, which he kindly did. Following the reign of Queen Victoria, with all successive monarchs the oath has been to George V, Edward VIII and George VI; and so to Elizabeth, without the nomenclature. It is completely by chance that we have such an oath. However, when the row happened in Scotland at the time of the original Act when the Queen's name became Queen Elizabeth II, which it is in law, the Lord President of the Court of Sessions in Scotland wrote to the Clerk of the Parliaments here to ask what was the oath here. It was of interest to him and was taken into account in the exercise. That is interesting; there is a history to the matter.
I simply point to the oath here to show that there is no need for the Government to name the Queen as Queen Elizabeth II in the oath taken by new citizens of this country. They are legally correct. As part of her prerogative the Queen can call herself anything she likes. Her name was decided in the original Act. Everyone—including everyone in Scotland—knows her name. However, it is a matter of sensitivity. I simply warn Government that if an asylum seeker or a new citizen is taking the oath in Scotland and will live in Scotland, there may be trouble in future. Certainly, the name of Her Majesty in an oath should not be a matter of political controversy or a political football.
Nevertheless, the Government should take the matter seriously. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will take the matter back to the department and consider my comments. I tabled the amendment with care. It is important that the Government should do this. However, I shall not raise the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 50 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): Before calling Amendment No. 51, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 52 and 53.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 83, leave out lines 7 to 9.
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 54 and 55 relate to the role of local authorities in the citizenship ceremonies. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to require local authorities to provide facilities and exercise functions in relation to citizenship ceremonies.
In the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven, the Government stated at paragraph 2.21 that:
"we envisage that ceremonies will be conducted by registration officers in Register Offices and other suitable places. These might include venues associated with community activity such as schools."
492
Paragraph 7 of the schedule grants broad powers to the Secretary of State in that respect to require local authorities to make arrangements in connection with citizenship ceremonies. Members of the Committee will observe that the power to make regulations does not just allow the regulations to require local authorities to provide facilities, but will allow the Secretary of State to be given the power to direct local authorities to provide facilities and to impose functions on local authorities and registrars.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government have consulted local authorities and registration officers throughout the United Kingdom; that they are content with the proposals and that they do not foresee any problems with them. Obviously, as many applicants for naturalisation may have to come to Britain to work in our towns and cities, there may be a particular burden on local authorities in London and other urban areas in that respect.
Can the Minister also comment on the "other suitable places" at which the Government envisage citizenship ceremonies will be held? Will they include such buildings as town halls, places of worship or venues already approved for the celebration of civil marriage ceremonies? Will the applicant for naturalisation have a choice of venue, or will it be up to the registration officer to decide? I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising the issues through the amendments, which is valuable.
The purpose of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, which proposes amendments to Section 41 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is to provide for the activities for which the Secretary of State may make regulations in order to enable citizenship ceremonies to take place. Among those activities is the ability to require local authorities to provide specified facilities and to make specified arrangements for citizenship ceremonies.
The Government have tried to make clear that if citizenship ceremonies are to be meaningful and fitting, it is essential that they have an important local dimension so that new citizens can be welcomed into the communities in which they live. Therefore, it is proposed that local authorities and registrars should be responsible for the delivery of this new service in a localised context.
Local authorities already have a key role in the delivery of the services associated with the registration of births, deaths and marriages. The Government decided that they could build on that role by widening it to include citizenship ceremonies. We see that as the continuing development of an issue about which there is well-established policy which has had cross-party agreement. I know that because in another life I was responsible for ensuring that it happened, so I take great delight in this.
In order to ensure that local authorities are able to discharge that new function, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to require them to provide

493
certain facilities. In particular it will be necessary—I believe it will be essential—for local authorities to provide suitable premises for the conduct of ceremonies; to arrange ceremonies at frequent intervals so that applicants are able to meet the prescribed time limits for attendance; and to determine the suitability for other venues, which is an important part of their current work.
The amendments would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations that would require local authorities to provide specified facilities and to make specified arrangements for citizenship ceremonies. The Government believe that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should specify such matters in regulations. It is appropriate that a standard is set out and made plain.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. Registration officers can undertake functions only if enabled to do so by primary legislation. Due to the proposed changes in the registration service announced by the Government earlier this year, it was not felt appropriate to include this statutory duty in the registration Acts. As such, the legislation had to be free-standing and will be included in the British Nationality Act.
The proposed changes to the registration service will result in local authorities assuming statutory responsibility for the delivery of face-to-face services including citizenship ceremonies. When that occurs and registration officers become local authority employees, the statutory duty to conduct citizenship ceremonies will be transferred to the local authority.
There has been consultation with the Local Government Association. In general, it is happy with the developments that are taking place. It recognises the importance of the citizenship ceremonies. Local authorities see it as a natural development of their work.
My understanding is that the consultation has been wide and welcome. The registration officers are content with the progress that has been made.
As to the venue of citizenship ceremonies, applicants may have a choice of venues. Of course they need to be prepared to pay any additional costs over and above the standard facilities. It is expected that venues will be dignified and considered suitable by the local authority. They will undoubtedly apply a test.
I think back to the introduction of legislation in this field. When I was the leader of my local authority we had the choice of providing for marriage ceremonies in the Royal Pavilion. I was keen to champion and promote that. Because of the history of that fine building, these are suitable and appropriate premises in which to conduct such citizenship ceremonies. Many local authorities will rattle through their property portfolios to try to come up with something as excellent. It is within that kind of framework that we
494
see this as a positive and progressive development. I hope that with those explanations the noble Viscount feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of the arrangements. It is particularly useful always to have his experience of carrying them out. We are grateful that this matter has been put on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 83, line 31, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. This follows on from the debate on the previous group of amendments. The Committee will see that paragraph 8 of the schedule enables the Secretary of State to make payments to local authorities in connection with the costs they incur in relation to citizenship ceremonies.
The paragraph uses the word "may" rather than "shall". Therefore, as the Secretary of State is not obliged to reimburse local authorities, I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State will, as a matter of course, ensure that local authorities do not suffer any significant financial burdens as a result of conducting citizenship ceremonies. As I said during the previous debate, it may be that some local authorities face more costs than others in this respect simply because of their geographical position. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister such as he gave on the previous group of amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have great respect for the spirit with which the amendment has been moved by the noble Viscount. I make plain by putting the matter on the record that it is not the Government's intention that local authorities should bear any of the financial burden of providing citizenship ceremonies.
As I made clear on the previous group of amendments, the cost of a standard citizenship ceremony will be met in its entirety by the applicant as part of a composite fee collected by the Home Office. It has been decided that the Home Office should pay the local authority a set fee-still to be agreed, I might add-for each applicant. The amendment therefore is not, strictly speaking, necessary.
The amendment may also limit the opportunity for concessional rates. That would be unfortunate. For example, married couples currently pay one joint fee if they apply for naturalisation at the same time. Similar concessional rates may be considered when the fee structures are considered.
With regard to Amendment No. 57, it is important that administrative costs are kept to a minimum and that this scheme is efficient in that regard. A complex system of individual fees would be cumbersome and inevitably would have to be passed on to the applicant.

495
It will also be open to the local authority to recover costs directly from the applicant for an enhanced ceremony, as I made clear earlier. As I also made clear, those enhanced ceremonies will be able to take place at venues other than—if you like—the bog-standard ones provided by local authorities.
The noble Viscount made a good point about there being a burden on specific authorities and that that would perhaps be a reflection of where people settle or choose to settle. However, because of the way in which this scheme is designed and will be introduced, there should not be an unnecessary burden placed upon the local authorities. Of course, we shall continue with the important dialogue with the service providers to ensure that that is the case.
Accurate forecasts of numbers and spread of applicants will enable local authorities to plan to comply with their proposed duty. We do not think that that should lead to any additional incurring of costs over and above the current operation of registration.
Viscount Bridgeman: The Minister once again has given a most helpful reply for the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Deprivation of citizenship]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert "provided the citizenship was obtained by registration or naturalisation"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 58 relates to one of the most contentious clauses in the Bill. Clause 4(2) gives the Secretary of State power to deprive even UK-born nationals of UK citizenship, except where it leaves that person stateless. The proposed amendment ensures that such persons cannot be deprived of citizenship regardless of the statelessness issue.
The Government will no doubt say that the provision of not allowing someone to be made stateless addresses the issue, as most UK-born citizens will, if deprived of UK citizenship, be made stateless. The amendment seeks to change the deprivation of citizenship. We believe that the Bill gives the Secretary of State excessive powers. I hope that the Bill does not reflect what the Government plan to do.
We rely very much on briefs supplied to us by people qualified to comment on such issues. We received one such brief from the Immigration Law Practitioner's Association, in which Laurens Fransmann QC makes a strong case. He states:
"The proposed new section 40(2) of the 1981 Act"—
that is the Act that will be amended by Clause 4—
"provides a sweeping power to deprive a person of British nationality not just where that nationality was acquired by grant in response to an application but also where it was acquitted automatically by birth in the UK by descent. This draconian new power arises as presently drafted wherever the Secretary of State just 'thinks' that the person has done something 'seriously prejudicial to the vital interests' of the UK or an overseas territory, he may remove that person's citizenship. ILPA [the organisation] is concerned that these expressions are far too vague, that a
496
requirement only to 'think' there is prejudice lays down an unacceptably low threshold for the Secretary of State to attain in invoking the power".
The proposed amendments go some way to rectify this situation.
We know from a number of cases that have arisen in the past on other Bills that the "seriously prejudicial" test is poor and can cover a multitude of sins. The "vital interests of the United Kingdom" test is a general test which allows the Home Secretary vast discretion. We also know that under the Bill the Home Secretary will have the power to deprive even UK-born nationals of UK citizenship, except if that leaves a person stateless. We want to ensure that such people could not be deprived of citizenship, even if it would not render them stateless. This is a strong point because many written constitutions declare that citizenship is a fundamental identity right.
There is a real worry about the retrospective deprivation of citizenship—a point made to us by several organisations, including the Immigration Advisory Service, which deals with cases of that nature. We hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment to remove the draconian powers that the Home Secretary is expected to exercise. The clause is dangerous and I hope that the Minister has a better explanation of why it is required in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The power to deprive people of their British citizenship contained in Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 applies solely to people who have acquired citizenship by registration or naturalisation, not to those who acquired it by birth. So we are considering a novel concept in the Bill. Someone who has been born and brought up here may nevertheless be deprived of his citizenship on the fiat of the Secretary of State on the grounds, as my noble friend said, that he has done something "seriously prejudicial". I do not know what that means—no doubt, the Minister will explain it to us later—but at present, the grounds on which someone can be deprived of the citizenship under Section 40 of the 1981 Act are precise. They are that he,
"has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty … has, during any war in which Her Majesty was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such a manner as to assist an enemy in that war … has, within the period of five years from the relevant date, been sentenced in any country for imprisonment for a term of not less than 12 months".
Those are tests that can be evaluated, and if the person concerned does not think that they are satisfied, that is a matter of fact, whereas what is "seriously prejudicial" within the meaning of the clause is anyone's guess.
So we are being asked enormously to extend the powers of the Secretary of State: first, to cover everyone born in the United Kingdom; and, secondly, in relation to conduct of which people may or may not have been guilty. That will be entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. That is a draconian power, and I

497
hope that on reflection—the matter was raised in another place, so the Minister has had time to consider it—further and better advice will be given to the Minister and that he will accept the amendment.
Earl Russell: The title of "worst clause in the Bill" is one for which there is considerable competition. I shall not claim it for this clause, but it must certainly be placed on any shortlist, not only for its content but for the extreme vagueness and gross uncertainty of its drafting. My noble friend Lord Greaves hit the nail on the head with precision earlier, when he asked the Minister what was the difference between citizenship and nationality. The Minister clearly did not have an answer. If we do not know what exactly what it is of which we are depriving people, that deprivation must be at least a little uncertain.
In Calvin's case of 1608, which began the right of reciprocal citizenship between England and Scotland, being a citizen was simply defined as being the King's subject. Is it proposed that Mr Blunkett, by personal order, is to have the power to stop people being the subjects of Queen Elizabeth II? Does he propose to exercise that power under the Royal prerogative? If so, we have a rather curious hybrid mixture of powers. Such a power has not before been used against people born in this country. A power that was not used against Guy Fawkes is one that we should indeed regard as draconian. Indeed, I can think only of one case in which the lesser penalty of banishment was inflicted. That was on Henry Bolingbroke, who later returned as King and may well have been responsible for the death of the person who inflicted the sentence on him. So the precedents are not good. The Secretary of State is to do this, which one would have thought might have been regarded as a judicial act, by order. This is not a mere statutory instrument; this is not the old, familiar argument. "By order", if I understand this correctly, appears to be a purely executive act.
That has a faint whiff about it of iudex in propria Carta, judge in his own court. For anyone takes the trouble to supply the Minister with advice on that point, I know that in the opinion of Sir William Wade, there is a long line of authorities against that interpretation. Where the Secretary of State is thought to be the only person who can take the decision, he is not normally regarded as iudex in propria carta. But there is an older tradition to the contrary effect, from the days before Ministers accepted the rule of law as much as they have done in the recent past.
For example, there is a splendid case in the 15th century yearbook, which I think is aimed at the burgeoning jurisdiction of the Earl Marshal, which says that if the King, without due process, utters the words, "Off with his head!", an action of murder lies against the executioner. Indeed, there was a case under King John, shortly before Magna Carta, when the King deprived someone of his land and gave as his official reason for so doing, "Because we were cross with him!" That is all that the record states.
498
We do not want to go back in that direction. Were the courts to perceive the Secretary of State as heading back in that direction, they might be tempted to revert to the older line of precedent and treat such cases as examples of iudex in propria Carta.
We do not know exactly of what the person will be deprived. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which, together with the Select Committee on the Constitution, has been much concerned by the clause, raised the question of deprivation of benefit. If the clause gives that power, it is by a particularly backdoor way. I should like to know now whether it does.
I should also like to know whether deprivation of citizenship deprives people of the right to vote. Imagining a Secretary of State from a party not presently represented with the power arbitrarily, by order, to deprive people of the right to vote, I view that power with some misgiving; or, to take the smooth with the rough—or the rough with the smooth, as the Home Office would probably see it—does the deprivation of citizenship have any effect on the obligation to pay taxes? The House should have answers to those questions before it happily agrees to put the clause on the statute book.
I know that there is a reservation that that may not in any case be done where it makes the person stateless, but that clause is, as they would have put it in the 17th century, felo de se; it is self-destructive. When the Secretary of State exercises that power, he presumably deprives the person of the right to have a passport. Without a passport, the person will probably be unable to travel. The Secretary of State cannot know when he exercises the power whether the person's other country will recognise his nationality, or whether it will regard the Secretary of State's decision as depriving it of the right to do so. So either that restriction prevents the power from being used at all or it is nugatory. Either it is useless or it is pernicious—a phrase that I hope is familiar in this Chamber.
We do not have much explanation as to the grounds on which the power will be exercised. It is to be exercised if
"the person has done anything prejudicial to the vital interests of … the United Kingdom, or … a British overseas territory".
Has the Home Office so soon forgotten Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which stated that something was an offence if it was done for a purpose prejudicial to the safety of the state? In the case of R v Randall 1962—a Committee of 100 case which I read with care because I was interested in the issues it raised—the defendants alleged that they were acting for purposes conducive and not prejudicial to the safety of the state. The question arose of how it should be tried. The trial judge said that it was a matter of fact and should go to the jury. It then went to the Court of Appeal, where Lord Chief Justice Parker said that it was a matter for the Royal prerogative. And so it proved.
This is a very uncertain ground on which to decide whether someone is guilty of something. That clause and that Act have since been repealed, and this is one of the important reasons why. There is a right of

499
appeal and of judicial review, but only on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness. That is both a steep and high fence. It reverses the burden of proof. It forces the appellant to prove that he has not done anything wrong rather than forcing the Secretary of State to prove that he has. That is back to front.
It also authorises a case to be refused appeal if it concerns national security. I appreciate that there is a problem with giving national security evidence in public. but the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who took a distinguished part in the proceedings, will remember that we considered the issue at great length on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill and arrived at a remedy through a hearing in camera which did honour to all parties. I do not see why that remedy cannot be adopted here.
The appeal may be refused for any other matter "of a political kind"—because we were cross with the appellant? I fear that we are slowly on the way back to a world where the executive is freeing itself from legal control and working its way back to the world before Magna Carta. That is not something I would welcome.
The Countess of Mar: I listened closely to what my noble friend Lord Russell had to say. I heartily endorse every word. I am extremely concerned about this clause.
Lord Kingsland: We have tabled Amendment No. 70, which is in many ways similar to that tabled by the Liberal Democrats. We have also tabled a number of probing amendments.
I share the concerns so eloquently expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I should like to add one or two thoughts of my own. The first concerns Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that no one shall be subject to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I can think of no worse punishment, apart from the death penalty, than being expelled from one's country of birth with all its associations of home and family, institutions, landscape and other things. Have the Government considered whether that penalty on those born in the United Kingdom falls within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Article 7 is also relevant. It requires that offences should be sufficiently specific so that, if one contemplates an offence before carrying out a certain course of conduct, one should know, or be reasonably certain, whether that course of conduct would fall within the terms of the offence. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the offence here is cast in extremely vague terms: seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories.
How can a citizen of the United Kingdom know in advance whether what he is about to do falls within these two definitions—especially since, as the noble Earl said, the individual who decides whether the conduct falls within these provisions is the Secretary of State deciding on purely subjective grounds?
Surely the proper forum for dealing with someone thought to have committed an offence under the new sections in Clause 4(1) is the criminal court where the
500
burden of proof is clearly on the prosecution. It is for the Government to demonstrate to your Lordships' House why someone who is thought to have acted in a seriously prejudicial manner against the vital interests of the UK should not be tried in the criminal courts.
Finally, I turn to statelessness, of which there appears to be no definition in the Bill. I hope that the Government will enlighten us on what that means; for example, does it mean that a citizen of this country has no passport issued by another state, or has no right to a passport issued by another state, or do the Government have other criteria in mind in determining whether an individual is stateless?
Many people have dual nationality as a consequence of a set of circumstances over which they had no control. I know that one of the Government's arguments is that it is wrong to make a distinction between birth and naturalisation. But these situations seem so distinct that I wonder why the Government believe that is a cause for concern. In any event, surely the Government are introducing another form of discrimination between those born without another nationality and those born with dual nationality.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I, too, do not understand how the Government can make no distinction between birth and the acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation. We all know in our bones that they are two different things. In his letter to the Select Committee on the Constitution, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, says, on page 6 of the report, that such a distinction is,
"inconsistent with Article 7 of the European Convention on Nationality, which we hope to ratify in due course".
It would be interesting to know how much this decision has to do with the Government's intention to ratify that convention.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. I am very concerned about the ability to deprive people born British of their nationality in this way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: At Second Reading I presented the views of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights on this and other provisions. I do not intend to repeat anything I said then. But there is one point I want to mention to the Committee that is not a lawyer's point; it is far more important. It is about the concept of British citizenship which is threatened with devaluation by the Bill. The Home Secretary has rightly spoken about the need for British citizens to understand what citizenship means: the positive content of citizenship and the duties that flow from it; the notion of allegiance to this country as well as the civil and political rights of citizens.
Until the law was amended we had a muddled concept of citizenship in this country. Citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies was one concept; a strange, complicated, hybrid concept. We had the notion of Commonwealth citizenship. But we did not have the notion of British citizenship—that is to say,

501
citizenship of this country. In that respect, we differed from other independent Commonwealth countries. It was, therefore, possible for a previous government in 1968 to take away the rights of entry of one group of British/Asian passport holders from East Africa. Indeed, that is the worst thing that I believe Parliament has done since the Second World War. It was held to be "degrading", in breach of Article 3 of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights in a case where I acted for the complainants.
There are some parts of the Bill that I believe to be admirable, but I have one worry about this part of the Bill. If, on subjective grounds where the material, if it is political, cannot be shown to an adjudicator but only to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and then not shown to the individual concerned but to the special advocate—an attenuated form of appeal without judicial review—citizenship can be taken away on political grounds however sincere the motivation of a future Minister, that would send a message that the precious notion of "citizenship", which should be the right of people born in this country and of those who come to this country, can be taken away by a Minister of the Crown for reasons that he may regard as serious but which are not accompanied by full judicial process of law.
Leaving aside all the legal objections, it seems to me that the message that would go out to people is that British citizenship is some kind of commodity, not a matter of birthright, that Ministers can take away on political grounds, provided that there is no violation of the statelessness convention. That is not a sensible message to send to the new citizens of this country when other parts of the Bill are seeking to persuade them that equal citizenship, equal rights, and equal obligations are to be shared by all of us.
Therefore, when he replies, I hope that the Minister will not simply stand pat on the position that he took in a letter that he has kindly sent to me and other Members of the Committee, based on what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said by way of criticism. This goes to a matter of political judgment about what "citizenship" means, and how precious it ought to be for all of us.
Lord Filkin: Clause 4 is one of the most important clauses for debate. As Members of the Committee have rightly said and as the Constitution Committee remarked, this clause touches on very important issues both to the state and to its citizens. There is no space for a full response to the thoughtful points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but the summary response is that the Government believe that citizenship is something of very significant meaning and value. During our previous discussion on Clause I, we sought to try to make it have more meaning and to help more people come into citizenship with the ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities that flow therefrom.
In essence, the Government's position on those points is as follows. Because citizenship is a thing of value as well as something that confers rights, it also
502
confers obligations. It is conceivable that there are circumstances in which a citizen has, by his actions, deprived himself of his entitlement to his rights. Therefore, it is right for citizenship to be denied. The latter is nothing new; indeed, it has been going on throughout the past century, albeit infrequently, as one would expect. Citizens have had their citizenship taken away from them by the government in the past.
Lord Avebury: When the matter was discussed in Standing Committee in another place, can the Minister confirm that Angela Eagle said then that there had been one case only where someone was a victim of a deprivation of citizenship under Section 40 of the 1981 Act?
Lord Filkin: I believe that I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this point. From my recollection, the last case was in 1973. However, there have been several hundred cases since 1915 when citizenship has been taken away from a citizen.
One of the debates is about whether there should be a distinction between the types of citizenship—in other words, whether people who have acquired citizenship as of birth should never be open to having it deprived, or whether the circumstances in which they might be open to having it deprived to them should be different from those applied to people who have acquired it through other means than birth.
In the White Paper we indicated our intention to modernise the provisions relating to citizenship. We saw this as a corollary of the importance now being attached to citizenship. The current law was drafted more than 20 years ago and, in many respects, is little different from that contained in earlier legislation
Earl Russell: The Minister is distinguishing between the case of citizenship acquired and citizenship by birth. However, does not subsection (3) of this clause provide the basis for a perfectly logical distinction?
Lord Filkin: If the noble Earl will bear with me, I shall seek to develop my argument as I go through my response.
The present law discriminates against those who have acquired citizenship by registration or naturalisation. As such, it tends to devalue these processes by marking out people who became citizens in either of these ways as, potentially, second-class citizens compared with those who have acquired it by birth. It enables deprivation of citizenship to be applied as an additional penalty to that provided by the criminal law for any misdemeanour that has resulted in a sentence of imprisonment, in any country, of 12 months or more.
In the Government's view, that is out of step with the practice in those countries that have ratified the European Convention on Nationality of 1997. It seems to us to be an entirely inappropriate response to acts of a general criminal nature, however serious. Finally, it imposes a check on the Secretary of State's power to deprive—the "conducive" test, the exact

503
nature of which has always been somewhat difficult to pin down. This uncertainty has acted as a disincentive to the commencement of deprivation proceedings in the past.
For those general reasons, the Government believe that it is time for change. We see no good reason for maintaining the present distinction between natural-born and naturalised citizens, especially where the actions of the person concerned have caused significant harm to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, or a British Overseas Territory, and where the removal of British nationality seemed likely to prevent or deter the individual from engaging in such activity in the future.
We do not consider that deprivation—
The Countess of Mar: The terminology in the Bill is "British citizenship", but the Minister has just referred to "British nationality". I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the distinction between the two. Can the noble Lord make it clear whether he is speaking about the removal of British nationality or of British citizenship?
Lord Filkin: It would probably take several hours to give the noble Countess a full legal answer on the exact distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship". For most of the purposes of this clause about which we are talking, I believe that there is no substantial difference. However, if she wishes me to do so, I think the best way to answer this question would be to write to the noble Countess subsequently in more detail.
We do not consider that deprivation of citizenship should in future be applied as a penalty for acts of a general criminal nature. We shall continue to regard deprivation as a serious step, albeit one that we are prepared to contemplate in any case where someone has been granted citizenship while concealing a material fact—such as an involvement in war crimes, in terrorism, or where, as a British citizen, the person has conducted himself in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, or of an British Overseas Territory.
I turn now to some of the more specific issues. I shall do my best to respond to all the points that have been raised, but there were many of them. It may require a period of reflection to do them all justice. First, there is the question of what Clause 4 is intended to achieve. As the Committee knows, Clause 4 will replace existing Section 40. It has two main effects. First, liability to deprivation is extended to all British nationals, irrespective of the means by which that nationality was acquired.
The removal of the distinction is justified because the issue is whether the actions concerned cause significant harm to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, irrespective of the route by which the citizen acquired nationality. That seems to us to be right and clear. It is the nature of the threat created by the citizen's actions that should determine whether there should be deprivation, not the mechanisms by which they got citizenship.
504
Several Members of the Committee asked whether it was right that a person could be deprived of citizenship on the subjective view of the Secretary of State. It is a tough issue, and I make no bones about that. The idea that it is appropriate for the deprivation of nationality to be based on the view of the Secretary of State has a long history. The current provision, in the British Nationality Act 1981, refers to the need for the Secretary of State to be satisfied of certain matters before a deprivation order will be made. That follows on from similar provisions in the British Nationality Act 1948 and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914.
It is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to act on his view that a particular set of circumstances amounted to, for example, conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or of a British Overseas Territory. There is room for a good deal of argument on the issues, but it would place an unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State if he were unable to proceed unless absolutely certain in all respects. In some cases, the individual may have fled the country after committing a terrorist act. The certainty of conviction—using conviction as a route to certainty—would not be attainable. It would be 'wrong to be unable to act in such circumstances.
The Court of Appeal, endorsed by the House of Lords, has stated that, in matters relating to national security, the Secretary of State is undoubtedly in the best position to judge what national security requires. The relevant case is Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Shafiq Ur Rehman from 2001. The fact that the Bill would facilitate deprivation of nationality on the subjective view of the Secretary of State does not mean that the power would be exercised arbitrarily.
The Secretary of State is compelled by new Section 45 to give written reasons for the intended deprivation order. The person against whom it was proposed to make such an order would be free on appeal to raise any issue bearing on the legality or the merits of the decision. The Secretary of State would be prevented from making a deprivation order until such time as the appeal had been determined finally or, if there were no appeal, until such time as the deadline for bringing an appeal had passed. That requirement, coupled with proposed Section 45B, which requires that reasons must be given with the notice of the decision, provides adequate safeguards against arbitrary deprivation.
I was also asked whether the words "seriously prejudicial" were vague.
7 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: Before my noble friend the Minister concludes the point about deprivation, could he clarify the force of Clause 7? As I read the Bill, the requirement not to give reasons and the absence of a right of appeal will now disappear. Does Clause 7 mean that the Secretary of State is under a requirement to give reasons for a discretionary decision and that there is a right of appeal in a case of deprivation of nationality?
Lord Filkin: My noble friend is exactly correct in both respects.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Can the Minister confirm that the position at the moment is that someone who is born in this country and acquires citizenship by birth has a right to citizenship and to a passport? The big change that is being made, in the guise of equality of misery or non-discrimination, is that the Bill takes that right away from people—such as most of us here—who were born here. They will be treated with wide subjective discretion—in the same way as people who acquire their citizenship by naturalisation—rather than as having an entitlement. Is that right?
Lord Filkin: I would like a little more space to examine the noble Lord's words more carefully, but I can say that, in essence, he is right, for the reasons that I gave. Because we think that there is no fundamental reason for treating British citizens differently, we believe that it is right that citizens—regardless of how they came to their citizenship—should be open to the possibility of deprivation in certain defined circumstances, such as their having acted treasonably against the state.
I do not think that the noble Lord asked for particular detail about passports. I shall not give any further detail on that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would be grateful for that at some point. As the Minister knows, many groups, including Justice, the NGO, have campaigned for years for the right to a passport, knowing that previous governments censored the right to travel by arbitrarily taking away passports. That happened during the Korean War, for example. It would be helpful to know the consequences for the right to a passport.
Lord Filkin: I shall, as far as I can, address that issue now, if that would be helpful. The general position is that there is not, as some believe, any right to a United Kingdom passport or to British consular protection; such things are better described as privileges. United Kingdom passports are issued at the discretion of the Home Secretary, exercising the royal prerogative. In practice, refusal is limited to people who have no claim to British nationality; minors whose journey is known to be contrary to a court order, for example; persons for whose arrest a warrant has been issued in the UK; persons repatriated at public expense who have not repaid the debt; or, in rare cases, persons in respect of whom the issuing of a passport would be contrary to the public interest for some other reason. That information may be of some interest, even if it is slightly tangential to the thrust of the noble Lord's question.
I think that I have dealt with the question of why we felt that issues of a general criminal nature did not go to the heart of citizenship, regardless of how a person had achieved that citizenship. I was also asked about vital interests. Of course, that includes national security, but it also covers economic matters, as well as
506
the political and military infrastructure of our society. After the events of 11th September, it is not difficult to see why that should be so; it touches on the general well-being of citizens.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised several issues. We reflected seriously on those issues and will continue to do so as the Bill proceeds. We recognise that deprivation has serious consequences, including the loss of the right to a passport or, rather—I should qualify that—the loss of the privilege of a passport. It affects the ability to travel, removes British consular protection and bars the person from participation in the democratic process, a subject to which I shall return. However, it would not be a routine act; it would be confined to the most serious cases. There is a full right of appeal against any decision to remove nationality.
The ability to deprive on the grounds listed reflects the provisions made in that regard by the Council of Europe in the 1997 European Convention on Nationality. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is right to say that the changes are necessary if we wish to sign up to the policy of the Council of Europe in that respect. We do, but we think that the changes would be right even if there had not been a proposal from the Council of Europe on the table.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the issue of the burden of proof. I have explained the Government's view of the fact that it is the exclusive province of the Secretary of State to make the first decision that deprivation is justified. However, the question on appeal for, for example, obtaining citizenship by fraud, would be whether the citizenship was obtained by fraud rather than whether the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was. In that respect, we come to the same point.
I turn to what is implied by the powers. At present, the broad nature of the appeal right is implied by the lack of provision for certain matters to be excluded from consideration by the appellate body. We could have, although we did not, set that out clearly on the grounds on which an appeal will lie. That might have made it easier for the JCHR by confirming that the appeal right granted is a formal one. However, in our view the legal position was clear: it was implied that there was a broad right of appeal in this respect.
Lord Dholakia: Am I right in believing that according to the protection afforded under the Terrorism Act, those appearing before SIAC would be entitled to some of the sensitive information, whereas in this case anyone who appeals against the Home Secretary's decision will not be entitled to know about politically sensitive information at the appeal?
Lord Filkin: In circumstances in which the Secretary of State has exercised his power to move to deprive someone of citizenship on grounds of a threat to the state in some way, he would have to give reasons. He may give reasons on the generality to the effect that it is a threat to the security of the state, but say that he does not feel able to give the full details of those in public. In those circumstances, the person would have

507
the right of appeal to SIAC and, as I understand it, in the privacy of SIAC would be expected to give fuller details in camera so that the person would not be deprived of challenging the allegations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is not the position that under the Bill the Minister is entitled not to make public the grounds relating to, for example, matters of a political kind? In new Section 40A(2) there is a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, but the procedure in such an appeal—it caters for cases such as terrorism—is such that if the material is sensitive, it does not have to be disclosed to the appellant. It is disclosed instead to an independent special advocate, who may see the material but may not show it to the individual.
Let us suppose, for example, that I or Arthur Scargill were regarded as sufficient trouble-makers because we had seriously been damaging the economy by our strike or other militant action, and that there was a Home Secretary like those of the 1920s who chose to deprive me or the militant trade unionist of our citizenship. He could then refuse to disclose the material but would have to show it to a special advocate who could then do his best for me or the militant trade unionist. However, we would not be able to see it. Is not that the effect of applying the antiterrorist procedure to a deprivation of citizenship in this wider area?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is correct in that respect and that I went further than was right.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked how, when citizenship is so vague, we can deprive someone of it. In relation to citizenship and deprivation, subsection (4) of new Section 41 defines citizenship status for the purposes of this provision on deprivation and sets out exactly who is liable to deprivation under the proposals. We do not believe that there is vagueness in this respect.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about the loss of voting rights. It is a complicated matter. Few rights flow directly and exclusively from British citizenship. The right to vote depends partly on Commonwealth citizenship and partly on residence. For example, on a loss of British citizenship a dual British/Japanese citizen would lose the right to vote; a dual British/Jamaican citizen would not. The Bill changes nothing in that respect. Furthermore, taxes are liable irrespective of citizenship, as one can well understand and imagine.
The noble Earl also asked about the method or legal basis of deprivation. We do not believe it is important to exercise the prerogative. The Bill would give Ministers the statutory power to remove citizenship in closely defined circumstances. The order would merely
508
be the instrument of deprivation, as it has been in successive statutes since at least 1915. The deprivation decision is evidenced by the deprivation order.
Lord Avebury: I do riot believe that right of abode was mentioned, but will someone coming from a country from which an entry certificate or visa is required automatically lose the right to live in the United Kingdom if he is deprived of his citizenship? How would he acquire a right of abode, if at all?
Lord Filkin: The deprivation of citizenship does not automatically mean that one has lost ones right to reside here. A separate action must be taken by the Secretary of State to deprive of residence and to deport the person. The two are separate actions.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that the only appeal is a judicial review. We do not believe that that is the case. The appeal against deprivation is a full appeal on the merits. We believe that perhaps the JCHR does not have that clearly in sight or perhaps we have not made it as clear as we could have done.
The appellate body will be able not only to remove the legality of the Secretary of State's decision, but also to hear arguments at his discretion on whether or not the right to deprive should have been exercised differently. The Bill proposes no restrictions on the issues which might be raised in an appeal either to an adjudicator or, where that body has jurisdiction, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The appellate body will be able to hear argument not only that the Secretary of State has failed to observe the statutory requirements, but also that his discretion whether to deprive should have been exercised differently.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the relevance of Article 3 of the ECHR. Deprivation of citizenship is separate from deportation. Deportation does not necessarily follow from the former. It is a separate matter for a separate decision against which Part 5 of the Bill provides separate appeal rights. It will be an appeal against deportation which would engage ECHR Article 3 rather than the citizenship issues.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point about Article 3 was simply that being excluded from the country of one's birth is tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment. It is was as simple as that.
Lord Filkin: Undoubtedly, it is an extremely serious act but the Council of Europe, most other European countries and the British state, which have the powers to deprive people of citizenship, have acted in such ways previously. Clearly, states have acted in that way subsequent to the passage of the ECHR.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Would the noble Lord accept that there are situations in which depriving someone of his citizenship, for example, on racial grounds would be inherently degrading, as found by the ECHR looking at some American cases of the Supreme Court? In other words, there are extreme

509
cases, which one hopes will never happen again, where to deprive someone of his citizenship on the basis of his skin colour, for example, would, among other things, breach Article 3 of the convention?
Lord Filkin: For several reasons, in particular the severity of the challenge, I am extremely reluctant to give an immediate answer to that question, and to say that I do not think so. I would like to look into the matter for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand.
I was asked also about the meaning of "statelessness". Statelessness is at present undefined in the British Nationality Act 1981. The definition is set out in Halsbury's Laws of England and is currently understood to mean that a person is stateless if no state exists according to the municipal law of which he is its national. That is a slightly convoluted way of expressing the concept. It is similarly described in the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about British nationality or citizenship. In Clause 4, the proposed new Section 40(1) employs as a drafting device the term "citizenship status". The draftsman might equally have said "nationality". There are some six types of British nationality or citizenship status itemised in proposed new Section 40(1), each of which might be subject to deprivation orders.
I do not pretend that I have answered every question for reasons that the House may understand. Those I have not answered, I shall either give further serious consideration to and/or write to the relevant noble Lords who raised the issues.
Earl Russell: I listened to the Minister with considerable care. It has been a much considered answer. He did not answer my question about entitlement to benefit. I understand why not; it is a technical question. If he could write to me on that before Report stage I should be grateful.
The centre-piece of his argument was the case for equality between citizenship by birth and citizenship by acquisition. That is a serious argument and deserves to be met seriously. But I do not see why we should not say that neither of those citizenships can be taken away as a penalty, although in cases where either of them has been acquired fraudulently they could be considered as having been void ab initio. If the Minister asks how a citizenship from birth can be void ab initio, the answer is surely in a forged birth certificate. Such things have been known.
The deprivation of citizenship was never even proposed in the list of penalties people threatened against Roman Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries. Since the whole thrust of the argument against them was that they were foreigners, the fact that no one ever considered depriving them of their citizenship is a point of some weight. They did not know that they had the option. If we are to have equality, let us not have what my noble friend Lord
510
Lester of Herne Hill described as an equality of misery. Let us have an equality of rank giving a proper value to the concept of citizenship, taking it away only where it is void ab initio because it is obtained by false pretences.
The other central point of the Minister's argument was the claim that there is a long tradition that the Secretary of State decides these things in his individual capacity. There was a long tradition for the death penalty. There was a long tradition for the exclusion of women from Parliament. Long traditions perfectly properly come to an end. I think that this particular long tradition began to totter with the judgment of Lord Reid in Ridge v Baldwin. I think that it died with the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Incidentally, the Minister is wrong about the passport issue being entirely a matter of discretion. There is a clause in the Magna Carta—I think that it is No. 41 but I would not argue from memory—which states that all His Majesty's subjects shall be entitled to free entry to and egress from the realm save in time of war. That was cited in the United States Supreme Court against the denial of a passport as recently as 1955. So it is a living tradition on the other side of the Atlantic, even if not on this side. But it is the common fact between Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act. The point has been made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that they are both attempts to bring the executive under the rule of law. I congratulate the Government on making that attempt. I hope that they will keep it up.
Lord Filkin: Perhaps I may respond in part to the points raised by the noble Earl, and touch on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I shall write to the noble Earl with details on how and in what circumstances the loss of citizenship would touch on a person's right to benefits in civil society. I shall copy that to the Front Benches. That needs to be clear and on the record.
At heart this is a debate about whether there are any circumstances in which the state is entitled to act to deprive a British citizen of that citizenship, howsoever he obtained his citizenship. In short, it is an argument about view. The view of the Government is that such circumstances should be extremely rare. It is hard to contemplate that they would occur frequently. One would expect that citizens would not act so massively against the interest of the state.
However, at heart the Government's position is this. We can conceive of situations in which a citizen, howsoever he obtained his citizenship, so breached the behaviour that one would expect of a citizen that it is reasonable to take that citizenship away from him. We may differ on that but at heart that is the Government's position.
The second issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly pointed is the process by which such a decision should be exercised and the way it is challenged. The argument that one has done something for a long time is not an automatic argument that it is right in the future; nor that it is

511
wrong. In essence, the exercise of the Secretary of State's prerogative in such a position is still caught under the rule of law. It is inconceivable in most circumstances that a citizen who had his citizenship taken away from him would not exercise his right to legal aid and so challenge the Secretary of State. Therefore, the merits of that will be tested through the appropriate processes about which we have talked.
I add one qualification about whether the right of abode was lost with the loss of British citizenship. The formal answer is this. With the loss of British citizenship the right to reside in the United Kingdom also falls away. But the person then becomes subject to control under the immigration legislation and, therefore, the Secretary of State is entitled to act under the immigration legislation to remove him by proper process of law.
Lord Kingsland: Before the Minister sits down, with respect to the Home Secretary's constitutional powers, I was intrigued by the noble Lord's appeal to long traditions. Respect for tradition has not been a conspicuous ingredient in the reforms by the Government of the British constitution over the past five years. So it is curious that, in this one respect, an appeal to one of the—I would say inadequate—traditions of our constitution should be used to support these measures.
I asked the Minister in what respect our criminal law was deficient so as to lead the Government to table this clause. We have recently passed an anti-terrorism Act. Why is that Act not capable of doing the things the Government seek to do under Clause 4? In effect, under Clause 4 the Government are exporting our security problems to other parts of the world. Surely it would be better for us to deal with them here.
Lord Filkin: I shall hazard one illustration in respect of the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As in much of this debate, I shall reflect further on the issue and, if necessary, come back with a fuller answer. One circumstance would be where a British citizen, either by himself or in concert with others, had taken actions against the interests of the British state and its citizens in ways that were clear and blatant while not resident in the United Kingdom. In that situation, I cannot see that the British criminal law could be used against them if their acts were committed abroad, even if their acts were against the interests of the British state from abroad.
As to the noble Lord's second point about tradition, it is not possible to give a full, serious answer. I shall merely give the response that we are in favour of tradition when it is appropriate for the future.
7.30 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: In order that I may get this clear in my head, is the noble Lord suggesting that people such as Philby, Burgess and MacLean, all of whom did a hunk when they were found out, would be suitable for having their British citizenship taken away from them.
Lord Filkin: I am reluctant to go back into history and to speculate about Burgess, MacLean, Philby and others. But one can conceive of situations where a British citizen was found to have acted quite blatantly and seriously against the interests of British society and the British state but was no longer in the United Kingdom for action to be taken against him in other respects. In such a case, deprivation of citizenship would at least be open to consideration.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the clause. He said that the heart of the debate was whether there are any reasons why the Secretary of State should not have such powers. Basically the answer is that there are existing laws under which we could exercise deprivation of citizenship without adding the proposed draconian measure.
I have yet to hear a single speech in support of what the Minister proposes. It would appear that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee are seriously concerned about this measure. I genuinely never expected a Labour Government to introduce a draconian measure of this nature which could deprive an individual of the fundamental right of citizenship.
I give advance warning to the Minister that this issue will not die away. The Report stage will not be until after the Recess and perhaps the Minister will give further thought to this matter. Failing that, I give him advance warning that we will divide the House on this issue. If we were to succeed in winning that vote, it would at least give the other place the opportunity, which it has not so far had, to consider the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That may give a different picture from the one with which we have been presented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I propose that we return to this business not before 8.33 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

International Development
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking in response to the international development annual report.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who will speak in this important debate. I greatly look forward to their contributions, especially to that of the noble Lord. Lord Jordan, who will be making his maiden speech. I am delighted that he has waited until today to make his contribution on such a very worthwhile subject—a subject that is rightly so highly respected in your Lordships' House.

513
I should like to point out, too, that the lack of speakers from this side of the House bears no reflection on any lack of interest in international development. It is entirely due to a special dinner being held in honour of Mr John Major this evening. We even had our Opposition Day debate in the other place last month on trade justice or alleviating world poverty through trade.
I congratulate the Department for International Development on the good work that it does in promoting development—and, at the same time, Britain—across the world. I have spoken to a number of friends who have encountered DfID in their work overseas. It has a strong reputation. This past year has seen DfID involvement in a number of difficult situations, not least Afghanistan, where it has responded well under considerable pressure. Criticisms made of DfID by Her Majesty's Opposition will, I hope, be taken in this spirit.
The debate has been called to discuss the Department for International Development's annual report. As most of the department's work takes place overseas, it is particularly helpful to have a document showing what the department is involved in. Nevertheless, in 2001–02 DfID published almost 90 publications. Of course government should be open and transparent, but it is important to balance the necessity of providing the public with valuable information and what can become an exercise in self-glorification.
I should like to touch on three areas. First, Africa. There are times when the report reads too much like Civil Service speak. For example, the section on Zimbabwe begins:
"During the past year, the policy environment in Zimbabwe has deteriorated steadily".
That surely betrays a lack of emergency on the part of the Government. To talk of the policy environment deteriorating "steadily" is surely an understatement in a country where people's land and livelihoods are stolen at gunpoint, in a nation that has been brutalised into submission, a country where the economy is in tatters and where hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are facing the prospect of starvation this summer.
It is clear from page 59 of the report that there is no remote prospect of meeting targets. Is the Minister still of the view initially put forward by the Secretary of State that aid should go directly to the governments rather than the aid agencies? Much has been made of NePAD, the new model for aid to Africa. The G8 spent a third of its time in Canada discussing NePAD. Why then does it not merit more than two or three paragraphs in this document?
Of course Zimbabwe is not the only African government in which standards of democratic accountability and the rule of law remain an area of concern—and it is governance to which I should like to turn next.
514
The noble Baroness may have read an article in The Times a fortnight ago by Simon Jenkins in which he challenged many of the assumptions underlying the New Partnership for African Development. He pointed to the work of the late Lord Bauer, who noted that aid could be more of a hindrance than a help when it came to promoting good governance in African countries. What assurances can the noble Baroness provide that NePAD will mean a real change in the relationship with Africa and that aid will not simply be used as a means of cushioning bad government or corruption but will promote good government, the rule of law and economic competence?
That leads me to the second area on which I should like to touch—that is, debt relief. The report paints a positive picture of the debt relief process. However, that picture fails to accord with the views presented by Jubilee 2000 and many poor countries. There is a real danger that the question of debt relief has become stagnant. The Government need some fresh thinking on how we can take forward debt relief without creating the perverse incentive of rewarding economic mismanagement with debt relief and leaving economically competent countries to struggle under debt burdens.
I was dismayed to read in the Prime Minister's statement on the G8 summit that 20 billion US dollars had been agreed over the next 10 years to be spent on the destruction of chemical weapons and the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines in Russia, and yet only 1 billion US dollars will be put aside for the HIPC trust fund.
My third and final subject is central and eastern Europe. It is, I fear, becoming too fashionable to dismiss the problems of central and eastern Europe as insufficiently poor to concern us. It is right that we focus on Africa, the poorest continent on earth, but not at the expense of other poor countries in Central and Eastern Europe. These countries still face major challenges in overcoming the effects of decades of communist rule—particularly if they are to join an enlarged European Union.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on securing this timely debate and the department on its report, which joins up aid, good governance, investment and trade.
Grant aid is needed to create the foundations: a healthy and educated population. I applaud DfID's partnership with UNICEF and its pressure for strong references to children's rights and reproductive health at the United Nations General Assembly last May. Now we need to implement the language.
Countries also need the help DfID gives for good and clean governance. But after that, the essential levers for economic take-off are trade and investment. My noble friend the Minister's efforts in the G8 response to the NePAD plan to achieve the right conditions for investment in Africa have rightly been noted in The Times. I hope that the World Bank and the IMF might also themselves move to accrediting countries for investment.

515
But trade is not working. Access to markets is skewed against the countries which need it most. Oxfam's well-thought-out campaign for trade justice needs to he taken on board by governments all over the developed world.
Crop production most benefits poor people. But the rich world spends 1 billion dollars a day subsidising its own farm produce. If Uganda wanted to sell its excellent peanuts to the USA, it would face tariffs of up to 164 per cent. If American cotton prices were not distorted by subsidies, Burkina Faso, which exports 100 per cent of its crop, as 60 per cent of its total exports, could probably cut poverty by half in six years. And even when a country gets itself to the next stage, food processing, it is blocked: the EU puts a tariff on Ghana's delicious cocoa, so that it cannot compete with cocoa processed in the EU.
How do we achieve change? For one, if the USA were to abandon its Corn Laws, otherwise known as the Farm Bill, we might see an even greater decline in famine than in our own country 160 or so years ago. I hope that the noble Baroness opposite will think of Sir Robert Peel and urge the same course. Secondly, the day after tomorrow proposals will be announced to reform the common agricultural policy. I ask my noble friend: can she assure us that we shall be able finally to run down these subsidies?
7.43 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on securing this important debate.
Poverty reduction cannot be achieved by statute and money alone. The cycle of poverty, disease, poor health and the death of young children needs to be broken by initiatives that promote child survival, the health of men, women and children and sustainable economic development of local populations.
The United Kingdom has a good record in international development, particularly in Asia and the Pacific, where two-thirds of the poorest people in the world live. I shall speak from my personal involvement of 10 years in the five poorest states of north India when I was consultant paediatrician at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
In 1984–86 the Liverpool school sent multidisciplinary teams to coastal Orissa to help local health teams improve their care of mothers and babies and to increase their ability to collect data and disseminate information to improve the health of vulnerable people. It soon became clear to us that the large number of children with severe diarrhoea could be reduced rapidly if every village had a supply of clean drinking water. This was achieved when we encouraged the Dutch Government team to sink deep tube wells in coastal areas where water contamination was common.
My team, funded by overseas development through the British Council, concentrated on improving the knowledge and skills of Orissan health workers in the use of breast feeding, vaccinations, good antenatal care and safe child delivery techniques. Dangerous
516
practices such as putting contaminated ash on the umbilical stump at birth causing tetanus, and feeding newborn babies with water before breast milk, leading to diarrhoea, had to be addressed. We did this by good communication with local grandmothers, obtaining their agreement to adopt safe alternatives.
We promoted the supply and use of essential resuscitation equipment made in Bombay, such as face masks and rubber bags for babies, that cost only a fraction of their price in the United Kingdom.
Between 1986 and 1990 the Liverpool team was invited by the Government of India to train trainers from the poorest five northern Indian states in mother and child care in partnership with the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare in New Delhi. Training took place in Himachal Pradesh and in Liverpool. In 1991–1994, the Liverpool team embarked on a partnership project with an Indian NGO working in the slums of old Delhi. Another multi-disciplinary team that I led worked in the slums of Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta. While working with them, I took a team of Indian doctors and nurses to Thailand to learn how Thai NGOs improved the care of people with HIV/AIDS and with malaria.
For the future, it is appropriate that the Government work with other European governments to improve health and tackle poverty in developing countries. We should use all the talent available, such as in the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and other academic institutions and in our NGOs with overseas experience. They would work in partnership with local professionals, health workers, community groups and voluntary bodies in poor countries. Best practice organisations in other developing countries should be encouraged to join this partnership.
Our priority would be in the transfer of appropriate skills to local trainers and in the use of essential equipment and supplies manufactured in developing countries such as India. It is through these means that we maximise the effectiveness of developmental assistance in all poor countries.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Jordan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and thank her for initiating this debate, which enables me to make my maiden speech on an issue, international development, on which I believe the success or failure of globalisation hinges.
It also gives me an opportunity to thank Members, officers and staff for what has seemed like a conspiracy of kindness towards me since I arrived in this House.
I must declare an interest. My working life, which started in Birmingham, in the West Midlands, has been committed to the cause of trade unionism. The greater part of my career was spent within manufacturing industry, where, as president of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, now Amicus, I promoted the economic value to Britain of a strong manufacturing base and the need for a high standard of skills within the nation's workforce.

517
For the past seven years I was privileged to lead the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the world's TUC. Affiliated to it are the trade union centres of 148 countries, with 157 million members, the majority of whom are from the developing world. The job let me see at first hand the heart-rending reality that lies behind the world's poverty statistics. But I have also seen in action, and commend, the focused, committed approach of the UK Government and DfID to the elimination of global poverty and to meeting the international development targets.
The global union movement would like to see DfID place a greater emphasis on respect for freedom of association. Let us remember that trade union membership was the instrument used by workers in achieving an escape from the widespread poverty that once afflicted all today's rich industrial countries. I believe that that same power can help to transform the tragedy that we now see in the developing world.
Yes, DfID employs to great effect a range of powerful policies in its war against poverty, but enlisting the millions of trade unionists who are fighting to establish the ILO's core labour standards as the right of every worker in the world can only reinforce DfID's efforts.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness on this timely and important debate. I also congratulate my good and noble friend Lord Jordan on his speech. It is normal on these occasions to praise the contribution of the maiden speaker highly. It is very rare to make a complaint against a maiden speaker. I am sorry, but I am going to defy convention and complain.
First, I shall say the good things about my noble friend's speech. If brevity is the soul of wit, it was a very witty contribution. If personal experience brings power to a speech, it was a powerful speech. My complaint is that it was too short. It is possibly the shortest maiden speech on record. There may be others of the same length, but less than three minutes does not seem possible. It is almost not possible in three minutes even to appreciate the speech, never mind make a contribution to the debate.
I have worked with Bill Jordan for more than 10 years on the TUC and internationally. I have seen him in operation from Brussels to Seattle, from Venezuela to Washington, from Davos to Portalegre. The World Bank, the IMF, the World Economic Forum and the World Trade Organisation have all heard Bill present strong trade union arguments for the ICFTU. His voice has been heard, although not always heeded. He has made a powerful and major contribution to those debates. In the future, we shall have the great value of him making a major contribution to our debates. The House will be greatly enhanced by his contributions to debates on international development.
The problem with saying that is that it gives me less than two minutes to make a contribution to this major debate. I commend the report, DfID and the drive of
518
Ministers in that department. My criticism is not about the report or DfID. I have one point to make. Under the heading, "Making the international system work better for poor people", paragraph 2.17 on page 22 says:
"This involves maximising the effectiveness of international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation".
We have not been successful to date in doing that.
I declare an interest as the chair of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. We are not perfect by any means. We are considerably grateful for the financial support and assistance that we have had from DfID on our international programme to eliminate child labour. However, in my 12 years involved in the International Labour Organisation, I have seen the UN system and the Bretton Woods institutions at first hand. I would not say that they are coherent, but they are certainly competitive.
I praise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his endeavours at the International Monetary Fund and the Secretary of State for her endeavours at the bank. However, there seems to be a difference between what Ministers say, what executive vice-presidents advise and what the bank and the fund do. While the bank is supporting education as a special need, the IMF is still telling countries to cut the number of teachers and introduce charging.
My plea to the Minister is for reassurances that the Government will redouble their efforts to bring in other European Union member states that are on the board of both the bank and the fund and impose a coherent policy on the neo-liberal economists who still run much of what comes from both institutions. I commend Joe Stiglitz and his recent book and today's leader in the Guardian on the IMF. I hope that the good work that is being done here and the excellent job that Ministers are doing will spill over and we can get some of the coherence that I have seen to be more lacking than present in the UN system over the past 10 years.
7.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for introducing the debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, on his admirable maiden speech. He gave an interesting and important insight into worldwide trade unionism. I also had to compress my maiden speech into three minutes, so it is not unique.
This brief but valuable debate is an opportunity to look with gratitude and even with amazement at the extraordinary scale and success of the trade justice rally which took place here on 19th June. That was evidence, if any were needed, of the enormous support that exists for the developing world across the spectrum of British society, but especially on the part of the Churches, which were strongly represented. It also shows the profound concern, shared by the public, for the business of DOD, which is so well set out in the attractive and comprehensive annual report, for which I thank the department.

519
I am particularly grateful for what is described on pages 22 and 25. A significant amount is already being done to make the international system work better for the poor. That is a crucial phrase, although I suspect that it is a slightly rosy view of the Doha round from the point of view of the developing countries.
It is encouraging to see the progress being made with the HIPC programme and the United Kingdom Government's leadership of and commitment to that programme. I believe that I speak for many Church people and others in expressing how glad I am that some important trade barriers are being dismantled. Some of your Lordships may have heard the reference on Radio 4 today to the export of textiles from South Africa to the United States creating hundreds of new jobs in areas of high unemployment round Johannesburg, thanks to President Clinton's concession at the end of his presidency. However, that process has a very long way to go.
I am deeply concerned about the nature of much international trade and the working conditions of vast numbers of people in the developing world, on whose labour we depend. An example of the former is the large-scale export of flowers from East Africa to the Netherlands and other European markets. Jumbo jets full of unnecessary and undesirable cargo spew out their filthy pollution to add to global warming, perpetuating a pointless trade that does so much to distort the local economy. One example of the deplorable working conditions of so many in the developing world is the shocking child labour slavery in the cocoa industry of West Africa.
However, I recognise that jobs are jobs, even slave labour or sweatshop jobs. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that DfID's policy is to tread carefully the path of doing all that we can to modify or outlaw these unpleasant practices, but not moving so fast as to create even more distress before better forms of industry and trade are put in place. In that connection, I am acutely conscious of the desperate plight of the United Kingdom farming industry, threatened by easier imports from developing countries. There is much to be said for some increase in world trade, but much also, on environmental grounds, for greater self-sufficiency. I very much hope that DfID will bring its influence to bear in favour of local economic and food production systems, the shortening of the food chain and a reduction in trade miles, unless there is a very good case for creating new patterns of trade because they are of direct and unambiguous value to the poor.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for initiating this urgent and extremely important debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, on his brief but wise and compassionate maiden speech.
I do not need to rehearse the figures on the desperate conditions in which the world's population lives. One in five lives in abject poverty. That is about 1.2 billion people. Another one in five lives in relative poverty of
520
the kind that does not ensure even a barely decent existence. It is therefore only proper that international development should be the compelling moral, economic and political agenda of our times.
The Labour Government fully appreciate that and deserve our gratitude and congratulations. On coming to power, they set up a separate Department for International Development and gave the Secretary of State Cabinet status. They have also actively mobilised international opinion on the issue. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has taken an active interest in the New Partnership for Africa's Development. We are clearly moving in the right direction. I also place on record my appreciation of the great contribution that my noble friend Lady Amos has made in sensitising the Government to the importance of the issue.
Although we have made considerable progress, we still have a long way to go. I am not entirely convinced that the road we have taken is necessarily right in all respects. The road to a just and balanced system of international development has four lanes: aid, trade, debt relief and political stability. I should like to comment briefly on each of these points.
As far back as 1970, the United Nations set a target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for rich countries. This is not an impossible figure to meet. Denmark. Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have all met it and sometimes even exceeded it. We in this country have never reached the figure of 0.7 per cent. Our highest figure ever was 0.5 per cent, in 1979, but it decreased to 0.26 per cent under the Tories. Labour has notched it up to just over 0.3 per cent. 1 very much hope that the Chancellor—whose commitment to the cause is second to none—will in the next spending review at least double that.
There are also other ways of increasing the amount of aid in which we should take the initiative. The Tobin tax of 0.05 per cent on foreign exchange transactions would gather close to 100 billion dollars, enough to wipe out poverty in much of the rest of the world. A European-wide lottery of the type we have in Britain would generate about £20 million a week. Trans-world taxes on global commons also need to be considered.
Poor countries need aid far more than trade. Despite all the free trade rhetoric, we continue to impose tariffs and quotas from which the developing countries lose about 2 billion dollars a day, which is 14 times more than the amount they receive in aid. It is about time that we did something about that.
As for debt relief, we have taken the lead but our progress has been slow. Although linking debt relief to a poverty reduction strategy is a good idea, it is often a way of imposing ill-advised policy prescriptions. The poverty reduction strategy has to be approved by the IMF, which is too committed to free-market development to be fully trusted.
Finally, no country can develop economically unless it enjoys political stability and public accountability. Civil wars spell economic disasters and so do corrupt governments. Therefore, we should do everything in our power to ensure that democratic and responsible institutions are created in those countries. Above all,

521
however, we must bear one point in mind. Just as we supported dubious groups during the Cold War as long as they were anti-communist, we are running the risk of supporting those who help our current campaign against terrorism. There is a danger that we might be clamping down on genuinely progressive movements in the name of fighting terrorism. I very much hope that the Government will continue to provide a lead in this area.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on instigating this debate; the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, on his excellent and forceful maiden speech; and DfID on its radical and determined approach to poverty reduction. I must declare an interest as a board member of Penal Reform International and as a research fellow at the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College, as both organisations work with DfID.
I should like to make two points. First, I refer to the programmes on access to justice which are, according to the annual report, now running in Malawi and Nigeria and in the planning stage in Ghana, South Africa, Lesotho, India and Mozambique. I understand that £35 million is to be spent in Malawi and £30 million in Nigeria. The basis of these programmes is that a lack of justice is an important element of poverty. Those who are vulnerable to having their livelihood threatened by petty theft, or to being arrested by the police and held until they pay a bribe which they do not have money to pay, or held in prison for perhaps five years waiting for their trial to start, possibly contracting a deadly disease while they wait, are poor people. The lack of a functioning and fair justice system affects their ability to earn their living and their opportunities to right wrongs done to them.
The success of these programmes in Nigeria and Malawi and the others that are planned are very important because they are trailblazers. DfID is to be congratulated on making these attempts to work with partner countries to reform their justice systems since past attempts have not succeeded. However, the information that we have so far suggests that in both Nigeria and Malawi there are difficulties. In Nigeria, according to the annual report,
"the government's reform effort has been disappointing. Corruption remains endemic".
Of Malawi, the Annual Portfolio Performance Review 2001 notes that,
"The Malawi Government shows hints of increasing authoritarian tendencies",
and that there is,
"less demand for good government",
than was assumed.
If the Minister could give us any indication of how these programmes are performing, and if there are successes to report, I would be most grateful.
My second area of concern is the situation in Russia and the spread there of HIV/AIDS. The figures are startling. The rate of spread is one of the fastest
522
anywhere in the world. Researchers at Imperial College working for UNAIDS has found that 5 per cent of adult Russians will be HIV positive by 2007. The figures for the penitentiary system are even more startling. The fact is that 15 per cent of registered HIV cases are in prison. Prison is a high-risk environment, and dealing with HIV infection there is complex. Yet it cannot be ignored in any programme for AIDS prevention. Prisons are a concentration and a reservoir of infection.
I know that the Ministry of Justice in Russia is taking steps to deal with this problem. I am also aware of the DfID country strategy for Russia and of plans for a major programme of perhaps £25 million for AIDS prevention in Russia. I would welcome a categoric assurance from the Minister that this strategy will include the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for prison healthcare, and that the practical work on the ground will include the prisons in the locality.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association. I also hope that I will be forgiven for perhaps breaking convention by adding my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Jordan for his outstanding maiden speech. If that is what he can do with three minutes, we look forward to what he will do with the more usual 10 or 15. It is great to have him in the House. I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for having secured this debate. I also congratulate DfID on its outstanding work and my noble friend Lady Amos on the lead she has given on the issues of Africa.
There is no room for complacency; the challenges are immense. Let us consider health. The United States AIDS programme estimates that, by 2010, life expectancy in 11 African countries will be barely 30 years. It will be much lower in countries such as Botswana. Around the world, measles kills three children every minute. We have no room for complacency. We cannot congratulate ourselves yet on the level of our aid performance, let alone that of our colleagues in other parts of the world.
Following September 11th, we all wanted to see a stable, secure world. We talked about the necessary security measures, but we also argued very strongly that there had to be economic and social justice. There had to be a redistribution of wealth and resources around the world, because without that there could be no hope of security for the future. If that is to be tackled, we shall have to look at the international institutions.
It is not simply a matter of the redistribution of wealth and resources; it is also a matter of the redistribution of power. Too many people in the world feel powerless. They do not feel that they decide the agendas that are addressed by those institutions; they feel that they respond to the agendas established by others. We therefore have to look at the governance of the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation. We have to look at the voting balance

523
within those organisations to ensure that, in future, they reflect the interests of the world population as a whole.
I must mention one other issue. We talk about the importance of the rule of law, but I think that we are sometimes being cynical in effect when we do so. Law costs money. I say in great friendship to DfID that I should also like to see more evidence of its commitment. If we are to see the rule of law around the world, we shall have to ensure that the judges are there and trained and that the courts, prison administrations and the lawyers are there and trained. It will not happen just by demanding the rule of law; it will happen because we put our money where our aspirations are. The issue of establishing a system of law in Afghanistan, to give but one example, is absolutely crucial to the stability of that country.
8.9 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, DfID has enjoyed five years of relative freedom from parliamentary scrutiny. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on her persistent questioning of it. I also warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, to this House.
The Government's two White Papers have brought a marked change of emphasis in the aid programme, especially its new poverty focus. There have been welcome increases in the aid budget; notably, the latest announcement on Africa; and yet spending aid funds is getting much more difficult just as the international development targets in Africa are receding.
Some in DfID may long for the days when a project was a project—it soaked up the money and the auditors were well satisfied. Now we have civil society, local participation, good governance, and it all seems like hard work. Much of this has been NGO-led. Here I declare an interest as someone who has worked with Christian Aid and the Save the Children Fund which have long campaigned to enable the poor to have a voice in programmes designed to help them. As has been mentioned, even the IMF is now supposed to see things from a pro-poor perspective. It is not easy for the IFIs to turn themselves inside out and see the world from the underside, but they must try.
The focus of much of the Government's expectations is now on the PRS process, to be found prominently in Chapter 2 of the report. The participation of civil society, evidence of direct benefit to the poor, proper co-ordination of partners and donors and the involvement of the IFIs which have the final say are among the factors critical to its success.
Personally, I am not so sure whether governments can ever involve people directly. I remember the famous Laxman cartoons in India which have long satirised Gandhian politicians pretending to help the poor, and few believe that any government are capable of truly understanding local need. However, the PRSPs are the latest attempt to overcome that scepticism.
524
Christian Aid has done some work on the methodology of PRSPs looking in particular at the quality of participation and using case studies from Rwanda, Malawi and Bolivia. One key finding is that,
"Poor people and CSOs are more likely to participate in the process during the analysis phase, and more likely to be excluded in the policy formation".
The case studies show, unsurprisingly, that the more vertical the government structure, the less likelihood of participation. The Malawi Government did not take kindly to the process. In Bolivia the NGOs had expectations of joint decision-making which were not matched by commitment from government. Only in Rwanda where local democracy had received a boost from intensive development efforts was there a measurable degree of participation.
I have one question for the Minister: does she agree with Christian Aid that a stronger framework for CSOs is needed in the next round of PRSPs, and that the views of civil society on the process itself should be represented in the final document approved by the boards of the IFIs?
In conclusion, I suggest that the PRS process, while it depends on the good will of governments, may easily become another smokescreen. Obviously, at this early stage participation should be encouraged. But whether a strong civil society by acting as a quasi-opposition contributes to lasting good governance, I am not sure.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on the excellent work on poverty reduction being done by Her Majesty's Government in the Department for International Development and to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jordan.
I have four brief points informed by my interests as chairman of ACOPS and member of the Risk Group. First, I welcome the mainstreaming of sustainability into national development (page 51 of the report). The NePAD environmental projects in Africa are, as I saw in a lively meeting in Nigeria in June with NGOs and governments bashing away at each other, really being led by Africans and being supported by the Global Environment Facility. I t is good news on page 106 that there will be a 50 per cent increase in the UK contribution to GEF. But surely the UK should participate in these projects by also funding them bilaterally. The current policy means that UK GEF funds are in some large projects effectively not involving relevant UK expertise and NGOs, as I have seen in Africa and Russia.
Secondly, we must welcome in the report the support of humanitarian projects at times of natural disasters which sometimes have the largest impacts on societies. However, the emphasis here is on assistance in disasters and conflict. There is not much on preventive measures, which are also important and where the UK insurance industry and technical institutions could help very effectively.

525
On page 28 the report refers to information exchange as a means of reducing the impact of natural disasters. It is essential that the developed and developing countries must improve their practices. For example, the effect of flooding in Mozambique could have been considerably reduced if the data between hydrological and meteorological services in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe had been more rapidly exchanged. In this and many other matters, action and training in developing countries need to be implemented by other government departments, perhaps even in the much maligned business of air traffic control. I am surprised that the report makes little reference to the role of other government departments and agencies which have an enormous role to play.
This brings me to my last point, about corruption. I heard a Nigerian businessman in Abuja criticising the hypocrisy of western countries talking about governance when the banks of those countries seem happy to receive the proceeds of corrupt practices. That is an extremely urgent matter which could have a huge impact, almost as huge as trade. I commend the report and the persistent work of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for initiating the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, on his maiden speech. It is fortunate that the House has another Peer who is able to talk with such authority on international development.
The DfID report is a model of clarity with clear objectives, clear priorities and clear strategies, demonstrating a deep understanding of the complexities of sustainable development. It is immensely encouraging that, in addition to the outstanding leadership of the Secretary of State for DfID, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have taken such a prominent role on key initiatives such as NePAD, debt relief, finance, development and trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, pointed out, it is also encouraging that under this Government the aid budget has steadily increased and is scheduled to rise to 0.33 per cent by 2003. Like the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, I hope that the Chancellor will go beyond the 0.39 per cent target fixed at Monterrey when he shortly announces his comprehensive spending review so as to set an example to other European Union laggards.
It is a sobering thought that, based on the current speeded-up rate of UK aid increases, it would take the United Kingdom at least another 20 years to hit the UN target of 0.7 per cent—a target which, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, pointed out, has already been attained, and in some cases exceeded, by Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
The DfID report deals at some length with the initiatives it has supported in relation to conflict resolution and prevention which are to be applauded.
526
The importance of focusing on peace and stability is also touched upon by the Prime Minister in his report on the recent G8 summit in which he states:
"Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere … eight million Africans have died in conflict in the last 20 years".
Against that background it is incomprehensible that in the Export Control Bill presently before Parliament the Government steadfastly, and without presenting any credible reasons, refuse to impose controls on the extraterritorial trafficking of small arms by UK nationals who have been responsible for so many deaths in the developing world. Perhaps the Minister in her response could touch upon that deep gap between the Government's words and action in that respect.
In conclusion, it occurred to me as a former chairman of Oxfam and a trustee of a number of other development agencies, that it would have been pleasing for NGOs to have received some recognition in the DfID report of the important role that they play in development, often working with or alongside DfID. I think that their millions of supporters would have been surprised that the only recognition that NGOs even existed was 12 words in a 135-page report. That said, I warmly congratulate DfID on its report and achievements. It is undoubtedly one of the outstanding government departments.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for introducing the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Jordan, on his maiden speech. I trust that he will have an opportunity to speak at greater length on another occasion.
In this debate of three-minute speeches, in summing up the debate from these Benches I let the 10 splendid contributions stand. This report is a very useful document; it contains some very useful tables and charts, leaving us quite well informed. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, mentioned four subject headings, of which I have three: aid, debt and trade. I had not considered political instability but the noble Lord rightly raised it. I also have a fourth heading: joint enterprise for the developed world. Reference has already been made to the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Luxembourg. I hope that this country can take others forward with us towards the 0.7 per cent figure.
I have three questions. First, in the introduction to the report, the Minister, Clare Short, referred in the penultimate paragraph to the work being done with the EU. It absorbs one-quarter of UK development assistance but spends an ever-declining percentage of its budget on poor countries. It appears as if the EU is going in a different direction from that of DfID. What is to be done about that?
Secondly, having looked at the many tables, I wonder, bearing in mind the scourge of HIV/AIDS, whether the balance is right in terms of resources. Of the £3,400 million spent by this country, which is

527
referred to in the report, does the £11 million or £12 million or so represent the right balance in terms of the attempt to eradicate HIV/AIDS?
Thirdly, reference has been made to trade. The document contains a paragraph entitled, "How are we doing?" but there is no answer to the question: how are we doing so far as trade is concerned? Do the international initiatives mean that there is more trade? It will be very difficult to assemble in a table in such a document details about what is happening in international trade, but the fact that the document refers to Britain suggests that there might be some indication of what trade there is between developing countries and the United Kingdom.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for giving us this opportunity to debate DfID's annual report. It has been an excellent and wide-ranging discussion. I thank my noble friend Lord Jordan in particular for choosing to make his maiden speech in this debate. It was a notable maiden speech and we all look forward to benefiting from his experience and wisdom.
I apologise at the outset if I am unable, because of time constraints, to respond to all the points that have been raised. I shall do my best. I also thank noble Lords for the positive comments that they made about the work of DfID and some of the work in which I am engaged specifically on Africa.
All noble Lords will be aware of DfID's core aim: the elimination of world poverty. Poverty reduction is now established in law as the first objective of UK overseas aid. Many noble Lords who contributed to this debate were involved in the passage of the International Development Bill—it is now an Act—earlier this year.
Achieving the elimination of global poverty is an ambitious but achievable objective. To deliver that requires collective action by the entire international development system. Important progress has been made during the period of the 2002 departmental report. In November last year, the World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha laid the foundations for a round of negotiations focused on making the international trade system fairer to developing countries. I shall come back to trade.
In March this year, the Financing for Development conference in Monterrey agreed a reform agenda focused on achieving the millennium development goals, with commitments by both developed and developing countries on the action needed to tackle poverty. At Monterrey, the European Union made a commitment to reach 0.39 per cent of GDP by 2006, which, with the commitment from the United States, will increase annual levels of development assistance by 12 billion dollars by 2006. My noble friend Lord Parekh and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in particular, mentioned aid levels. Of that additional 12 billion dollars, 6 billion dollars or more could go to Africa as a result of the G8 Africa action plan. The Prime Minister pledged that the United Kingdom would be giving £1 billion in aid to Africa by 2006.
528
Just 10 days ago in Canada, the Prime Minister and other G8 heads of government and state agreed a comprehensive and important package of measures to support development in Africa, building on the leadership and commitment being shown by African leaders themselves. Developing country leadership is vital for making rapid, sustainable progress with poverty reduction. African leaders have set a bold vision for African development, peace and good economic and political governance in the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
At the heart of the G8 Africa action plan is the concept of mutual accountability and partnership. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the governance element within that. I quote from the document:
"assuming strong African policy commitments and given recent assistance trends, we believe that in aggregate half or more of our new development assistance could be directed to African nations that govern justly, invest in their own people and promote economic freedom".
DfID is committed to building development partnerships based on a shared agenda that is set by a credible poverty reduction strategy. We are now looking forward to the world summit on sustainable development, which will provide a unique opportunity to bring together the development and environment agendas.
My noble friend Lord Judd spoke of the importance of working multilaterally and in particular of the importance of the redistribution of power. The UK spends nearly half of its development funds through multilateral agencies. Noble Lords will know that we have a strong commitment to ensuring that those organisations work effectively. We have produced institutional strategy papers for each of those organisations. I assure my noble friend Lord Brett that we shall continue to work to ensure that those organisations work effectively.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford raised the importance of trade and in particular what the United States Government are doing through AGOA. We have looked at AGOA and the EU has the Everything but Arms initiative. As part of the commitments made in the G8 Africa action plan, we are committed to raising awareness of what is available through Everything but Arms to facilitate greater trading.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned the European Union. We are aware that the EU does not spend enough of its resources on the poorest countries. We want that to change. We have been pressing for reform for many years. Some progress has been made but I agree with the noble Lord that it is not enough.
I shall say more on trade. My noble friend Lady Whitaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, al] discussed the importance of trade. We know that long-term sustainable development requires economic growth. In Africa alone, we need growth rates of 7 per cent. The World Bank estimates that international trade reforms for developing countries could lift 300 million more people out of poverty.

529
The Doha ministerial meeting resulted in agreement on the need to reduce, with a view to phasing out, subsidies and barriers to trade in agriculture. The challenge now is to ensure that those commitments become a reality and that there is a genuine development round.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker raised the issue of the common agricultural policy. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that we want to see CAP reform.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, discussed debt and the debt relief initiative in particular. So far, 26 countries have qualified for debt relief worth more than 62 billion dollars under the initiative. The HIPC trust fund currently stands at some 30 billion dollars, and the 1 billion dollars agreed at Kananaskis is in addition to that 30 billion dollars. The 20 billion dollars agreed with respect to the cleaning up of the nuclear arsenal will cover a 10-year period.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, talked in particular about the importance of health and he referred to his own experiences. We have been working in four provinces in India for many years. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, our current portfolio includes health. We are working specifically in the area of maternal mortality, where we are committed to making an effective contribution to the Millennium Development Goals in order to reduce such mortality. We are doing so through improving coverage of skilled care at delivery and improving access to and use of emergency care.
I assure my noble friend Lord Jordan, who talked in particular about the importance of trade unionism and freedom of association, that we strongly support the protection of fair rights and conditions for workers. We have a current programme with commitments and plans of more than £30 million to support the work of the ILO.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and my noble friend Lord Judd raised issues relating to access to justice. The document, Voices of the Poor, identified the lack of public security and personal safety as a major concern. Justice systems are key to supporting people's development. That is why DfID has developed a new approach to safety and security which starts with the law. It is a huge agenda, ranging from legal reform, community policing, judicial reform, capacity building and penal reform. We shall continue to make that a priority.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, talked about the role of NGOs. We recognise their importance and the fact that civil society is weak in many countries. That is why we work to strengthen civil society in many developing countries. The noble Earl made a very important point about the political role of NGOs. We shall, of course, need to consider that in the long term.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that we in the developed world also have a responsibility to ensure that we have effective controls so that our businesses do not act corruptly. We must also ensure
530
that our financial systems act robustly to prevent money laundering. Those areas are covered in the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, raised the issue of small arms. DfID is the lead department in implementing the joint FCO, MoD and DfID three-year small arms strategy, which comes under our global conflict prevention pool.
Huge challenges remain. We must deliver on the commitments that we made at Doha and Monterrey and ensure that they lead to real opportunities for poor countries and poor people. We must find ways to reduce conflicts and support change in countries which are not committed to poverty reduction. We must be ready to seize opportunities to promote stability and development as countries emerge from conflict. This Government remain totally committed to working towards a safer, more just world.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
8.33 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 3, line 2, after "satisfied" insert "on reasonable grounds"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 63, 67 and 73. I refer to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and, in particular, to paragraphs 27, 28 and 29.
I turn to paragraph 27. The committee reported that it was concerned that there was no requirement for the Secretary of State to show that there were objectively reasonable grounds for depriving someone of British citizenship. That appeared to put at risk a person's legal status without adequate safeguards against arbitrariness.
In reply, the Home Office referred to a long history of allowing the Secretary of State to deprive people of British nationality on the basis of a subjective view. It argued that it was entirely appropriate that the Home Secretary should be permitted to decide whether a person had done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the United Kingdom or a British overseas territory.
The committee said at paragraph 29 that it could not agree with that line of argument. It recognised that the Secretary of State was likely to be in a particularly good position to form a judgment and that it may, in consequence, be entitled to considerable respect. However, it considered that the Secretary of State should be required to justify the decision by showing that there were reasonable grounds for it.
The conclusion of the Joint Committee is interesting. It said:
"As a matter of general principle, we consider that it is a far more effective guarantee against arbitrariness, and a better way of assuring good administrative decision-making (as well as being far more compatible with the rule of law which underpins human rights), to require public authorities to justify the deprivation of a

531
person's status to a standard of reasonableness, than to require the person subject to the decision to establish that it is wholly unreasonable".
In taking into account the arguments of the committee, I believe that we need to insert the words "on reasonable grounds" into Clause 4, as Amendment No. 59 seeks to do. Similarly, Amendment No. 63 seeks to insert those words into Clause 4 at page 3, line 8. Amendment No. 67 seeks to leave out the words "he is satisfied" and insert "there is reason to believe" in Clause 4 at page 3, line 13. Finally, Amendment No. 73 seeks to insert in Clause 4 after the word "satisfied" the words "on reasonable grounds" at page 3, line 26.
Those are the requirements which will satisfy the Human Rights Joint Committee. This matter has not been discussed by the House of Commons. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendment and that the Minister will consider this request sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I believe that, to some extent, the debate on this amendment runs on from the debate on the previous group of amendments. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to go into all the arguments that were deployed immediately before the dinner adjournment.
I share the noble Lord's approach to the text of the clause. In my submission, it is appropriate to require the Secretary of State to justify his or her decisions on reasonable grounds. That will have the effect of placing the initial burden of proof on the Secretary of State. As things stand, the noble Lord the Minister is correct in saying that the Secretary of State will have to give reasons. But, in these circumstances, the onus will be on the defendant to judicially review, in some circumstances, or question in the course of appeal, in others, their reasonableness.
In this context, "reasonableness" means something different from the word "reasonable" in the tabled amendment. Here, "reasonableness" is an expression used in the context of the famous Wednesbury case. Has the Secretary of State behaved within a range of conduct which is regarded as reasonable by the courts? That is a far lighter test than that which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, wishes to insert into the Bill, and I respectfully support his approach. Given the subjective nature of the Secretary of State's power, it will be extremely difficult to use, successfully, the Wednesbury weapon.
Lord Avebury: I rise to quote briefly from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which my noble friend referred. For the sake of those outside this Chamber who may read the debate and not understand what Wednesbury entails, it is important to spell it out, as the Select Committee did. The committee stated that to prove that a decision was unreasonable within the terms of Wednesbury means,
"that it was so unreasonable that no reasonable Secretary of State, properly understanding the relevant facts and applicable law, could have come to that conclusion".
532
That is a difficult hurdle for anyone to surmount in challenging a decision of the Secretary of State. The insertion of the words proposed by my noble friend would redress the balance.
Lord Filkin: As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, this runs on from our important and challenging debate before the dinner break. I do not expect that any of us is likely to substantially shift our opinions, even after a good dinner. Nevertheless, I shall seek to explain why the Government believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
As we have indicated previously, and as we informed the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in response to the JCHR report, we believe there are strong grounds for the Secretary of State having the power to make the initial judgment, which we believe has to be essentially subjective in the light of both the evidence before him and his judgment about the risk to the state, which is the second element which is germane to this issue.
There is provision elsewhere in Clause 4 for the reasonableness of the Secretary of State's position to be tested on appeal. In any event, the enforceable principles of administrative law import a requirement that the discretion be exercised reasonably, as has been indicated.
The fundamental point is that the appeal is not limited to judicial review, nor is it limited to the Wednesbury test; it is broader. The statutory appeal is a full appeal on the merits as well as on the law. Therefore, it is not, I suggest, simply as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, or perhaps the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, suggested: that one had to overcome the quite severe burden of demonstrating that it was an act that no reasonable Secretary of State would have taken, but it is level on the merits of the case.
As presently defined, Clause 4 would empower the Secretary of State to withdraw citizenship by deprivation order if he is satisfied as to certain matters. As I have indicated, we believe that it is only the Secretary of State who is in a position to make that judgment.
As regards the ability to deprive someone of the basis of fraudulently obtained naturalisation or registration as a citizen, again the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the registration or naturalisation has been obtained by fraud before he can deprive.
Amendment No. 67 suggests that potential statelessness should be a matter capable of objective determination. But the reality is that there is endless scope for discussion, debate or disagreement over whether a person has a claim to another nationality. That has been our experience in implementing the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997, Section 1 of which confers in certain circumstances an entitlement to registration as a British citizen on a British overseas citizen who,
"would have been a stateless person if he had not been such a citizen".
Requiring the Secretary of State to prove possession of an alternative citizenship to a reasonably objective standard before proceeding under proposed Section 40(2) would be impractical.

533
The fact that the Bill would facilitate deprivation of nationality on the subjective view of the Secretary of State does not mean that it would be exercised arbitrarily. The Bill requires him to give written reasons, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his decision, and the right of appeal for which we provide would enable a person to bring before an independent body any issue bearing on either the legality or the merits of the decision in order for it to be sustained on appeal. It would not be a case of the Secretary of State simply saying that he was satisfied without explaining why.
The appeals provided for in Clause 4 are full appeals, as I have signalled, where the appellate body could review both the legality and the merits of the decision. It would not, as the JCHR suggested in its report, be limited to considering whether the Secretary of State had acted wholly unreasonably.
I should add finally that a requirement for the Secretary of State to be "satisfied" that certain preconditions are met presently occurs at various points in the 1981 Act without the express qualification that his satisfaction would be "on reasonable grounds". We believe, therefore, that the proposed amendments are unnecessary, particularly because of the opportunity to exercise a full appeal on the merits if so chosen.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I shall obviously study his comments carefully. It may be appropriate to consult the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which came to that conclusion, as to whether the explanation offered by the Minister was available to them. The committee seemed to reach a particular decision. It may be necessary to reflect on that decision and come back on Report. I am sure that the arguments on Clause 5 will continue for a long time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): Before calling Amendment No. 60, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 61 or 62.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 3, line 3, leave out "vital interests" and insert "national security"
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. While the definition given in the Bill mirrors that of the European Convention on Nationality, we find that it is too loosely drafted. Again, citizenship is of fundamental importance. Many of us see it as a right; its deprivation should not be treated lightly. Therefore, we propose that instead of the vague phrase "vital interests", which has little case law and does not come from British tradition, we use the phrase "national security" as the test in new Section 40(2). It is well tried and tested, far clearer, more specific, much
534
less general and therefore much less worrying. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, this group of amendments relates to the criterion by which the Government propose to allow the Secretary of State to deprive a person of his or her citizenship.
The existing criteria in the British Nationality Act, which relate to disloyalty to Her Majesty; trading with the enemy in time of war, and the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more, are to be abolished and replaced with a single criterion of doing anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom.
As has been said in previous debates, the Government do not attempt to define "vital interests". Amendment No. 61 attempts to correct that by defining them in terms of national security, economic well-being and the safety of the population. The first two, national security and economic well-being, are terms already used in the Security Service Act 1989 to define the functions of the Security Service.
The third, the safety of the general population, was an example of a "vital interest" given by the Minister in another place in the Standing Committee report, when she said that national security does not necessarily cover some of the potentially prejudicial activities that are worthy of deprivation, such as to those to do with infrastructure, vital economic interests or the general safety of the population.
I apologise to the Committee for a drafting error in the amendment, which rendered the Minister's,
"general safety of the population"
as,
"safety of the general population".
However, the point, such as it is, remains good.
Amendment No. 62 seeks to take an alternative route by defining the phrase "vital interests" in terms of the two international conventions in which it appears: the United Nations convention on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality. Those were the measures referred to in another place by the Minister as being the source of the term "vital interests". However, I do not believe that "vital interests" is defined in detail in either of those conventions. Thus the same problem of definition may well remain, even with the amendment.
I hope that the Minister, especially in view of the fact that the debate in Committee in another place was curtailed by the operation of the timetable Motion, will be able to respond positively to the amendments and to set out in detail the Government's interpretation of the words "vital interests".
I ought to say that these amendments, and the way in which I have sought to explain them, in no way resile from the views expressed by the Official Opposition in the last two groups.
Lord Filkin: I thank both noble Lords for their contribution to the discussion of whether or not the

535
term "vital interest" is beneficial. I shall seek to suggest why it is in the general interest for the term not to be defined further.
Ever since the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, the law has made provision for citizenship conferred by administrative grant to be withdrawn where the person concerned is found subsequently to have harmed, or posed a threat to, vital state interests.
In current legislation, such actions are expressed in terms of disloyalty or disaffection towards the Crown, or as unlawful trade or communication with an enemy in time of war.
Those expressions, while they still carry meaning, have become dated and perhaps fail to reflect the full width of activity that might threaten our democratic institutions and our way of life. September 11th provides a horrific illustration of the sort of threat that we have in mind.
The Government are on record as stating that the term "vital interests" will be interpreted as covering threats to national and economic security and to public safety—in that respect we are foursquare with the points made by the Official Opposition—but not to actions of a more general criminal nature, of which Members of the Committee will be aware from the debate in another place.
The term occurs in the 1961 and 1997 conventions. It is not expressly defined in either of those places. As a term of international law, the concept is an evolving one. That is right and necessary. If one reflects on how our perceptions of the vital interests of a state could be threatened and how all of us have shifted in the past 12 months. One hopes that it will not occur, but it is conceivable that we may yet further change our perception.
For that reason, the concept being an evolving one, and states being allowed a margin of appreciation in applying it to situations arising within their own jurisdictions that they might not previously have conceived were possible, seems to me to be right and proper.
I hope that the Committee will understand, therefore, why we do not consider "vital interests" to be a term that benefits from an attempt at further definition on the face of the Bill.
I remind the Committee of the safeguards, both in the Bill and in current legislation, against the arbitrary use of the deprivation powers. A right of appeal against deprivation will lie either to an immigration adjudicator in the first instance or to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. To repeat the points we made on a previous amendment, the challenge in such a hearing is on the merits and on the law. A defence could be that this does not touch on the vital interests of the state. That would be a perfectly open line of argument to be made by a defence counsel at an appeal hearing before an adjudicator or before SIAC.
536
For those reasons, I hope that both Benches will recognise why we feel that it is not in the interest of the Government or of the state that the term is given a tighter definition than it already has.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 not moved.]
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 3, line 13, after "(2)" insert "or (3)"
The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands the Secretary of State cannot use the powers under Clause 4(2) if as a result of so doing it would make the person concerned stateless. We seek to extend that prohibition to Clause 4(3) under which a person may be deprived of citizenship for the reasons mentioned—fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact.
Obviously, the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness comes into the picture. It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether the exercise of this power making someone stateless for the reasons given would in fact bring us into some difficulty with the convention. I think it probably would. In any case, it may also cut across the obligations that we have under Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Under that article we undertake:
"(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms … are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
In this case a person's rights have been taken away from him by the Secretary of State. He has even less chance of contesting a declaration of citizenship under Clause 4(3) than he has under Clause 4(2) because the offence is virtually an absolute one. It is not a matter of opinion. In Clause 4(2) the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that a person,
"has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom".
That matter can be argued, as the Minister has already told us, before an adjudicator and in the final analysis before a court in terms of judicial review.
But where the person has obtained citizenship by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact, those are ascertainable facts which would be very difficult for anyone to contest. So he does not have an adequate remedy under Article 2(3) of the covenant for the deprivation of the right of citizenship under the clause. I hope that for the sake of our good name with the international community, and also for the sake of consistency between Clause 4(2) and (3), the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lord has said, Clause 4 proposes the removal of the present distinction on deprivation between those who have

537
acquired nationality by registration or naturalisation and those who acquired it automatically at birth. My noble friend Lord Filkin has gone through that issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has pointed out, the impact of the change is mitigated by the proviso in proposed Section 40(4) of the 1981 Act which would prevent deprivation on grounds of seriously prejudicial activities where the person concerned had no other citizenship. Again, as the noble Lord has rightly pointed out, deprivation would still be possible, even where statelessness might ensue, where the citizenship is being removed on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. The question posed by the amendment is, why should that distinction exist? "Please"—the noble Lord is saying—"bring it into line with all the other circumstances".
The distinction is where the citizenship has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment and that person should not have acquired the citizenship in the first place. That is unlike the other situation where he or she should have received it, but then has done something to deprive himself or herself of it. The allowing of the deprivation of citizenship, even where that would make one stateless on those grounds, is consistent with the provision made in that regard by the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which the United Kingdom is a party. It is also consistent, we say, with the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, which we hope to ratify in due course.
So there is a reason for the distinction. It is consistent with our obligations under international law which we have either signed and ratified or signed and hope to ratify. Looking at the picture as a whole, Clause 4 represents a significant improvement on the present situation regarding the avoidance of statelessness. At present, potential statelessness is an obstacle to deprivation only on grounds of a serious criminal conviction.
As a footnote, perhaps I may clarify our position on dual nationality. Generally speaking, it is one of tolerance. There is no restriction in our law on the ability of British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British overseas citizens or British nationals overseas to acquire or retain a second nationality or citizenship. For historical reasons, the same is not true of British protected persons and certain British subjects, who lose their British status on acquiring another citizenship. The Bill will not change these arrangements. But that is a footnote to the main point raised by the noble Lord. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will understand why we have drawn the distinction, why it is consistent with international law and why we think that it is sensible to retain it.
9 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall obviously consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. Returning to his initial remark that the individual
538
concerned should not have acquired UK citizenship in the first place, of course that is so, but the result of depriving him of citizenship is the same.
I am thinking of the matter from the point of view of the subsequent fate of an individual who has no other citizenship. If, when he acquired our citizenship, he was a citizen of another country and retained that nationality—as the noble and learned Lord said, we have no objection to people having dual nationality—presumably, he will simply usually revert to his former citizenship. But there may be unusual cases in which that other country does not allow dual citizenship and in which, when someone loses his British citizenship, he becomes stateless. That would not be a good idea.
So I shall consider the matter in the light of what the noble and learned Lord said, but I do not guarantee that I shall not return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 3, line 20, leave out "2(2A)" and insert "2B"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 and 81 to 85. Although at first sight the amendments appear somewhat complex, they are designed to secure two fairly simple and, I hope, uncontroversial objectives.
First, we want to remove certain inconsistencies between Clauses 4 and 85 of the Bill. Each of those enables, albeit in different circumstances, an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission if the Secretary of State has certified that his decision was made in reliance on information that should not be disclosed in the interests of national security or on similar grounds. However, Clause 4 as drafted refers to,
"another matter of a political kind".
whereas Clause 85 refers to,
"another reason of a political kind".
The amendment will ensure that both clauses refer to,
"another reason of a political kind".
The second objective is to provide a free-standing provision in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 for appeals against deprivation of citizenship. That would avoid complications that would result if other provisions in the 1997 Act relating to appeals against immigration and asylum decisions were to be amended. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is an appropriate moment at which to ask: what exactly is meant by,
"another reason of a political kind"?
Presumably, it means a little more than that one does not like the chap's politics. If so, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could tell us what.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am loath to say too much. That is a matter for the court to decide,

539
but it refers to matters of equivalent significance to those mentioned in proposed new Section 40A(2)(a), national security, and in proposed new Section 40A(2)(b), international relations, but not of precisely the same nature. Information from non-state sources proving relevant to the decision to deprive on the basis of activity prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom would he an example. Sensitive information relating to industrial espionage may be another.
Earl Russell: My Lords, presumably the provision must add something to the interests of national security and the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or it would not be there. What does it add?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the relationship is that it will cover matters of equivalent significance to national security and international relations, but not of precisely the same nature. There are categories of things that would fall within the category that I have defined.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 72, 1 must inform your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 72 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 73 for reasons of preemption.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 3, leave out lines 22 to 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is concern about the retrospective effect of Clause 4. It appears to give the Secretary of State power to apply the powers conferred on him by Clause 4(3) retrospectively. For example, anyone who obtained citizenship through fraudulent means, even before the Bill came into force, could he deprived of citizenship. That retrospective application of the law runs counter to basic legal principles. More interestingly, perhaps, why do the Government feel the need to assume that retrospective power? Do they have any particular case in mind?
We have been advised by the Immigration Advisory Service that the clause would effectively be retrospective legislation, giving a power to remove people's existing rights to a lower standard of proof than that of "beyond reasonable doubt". The fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact need not have been committed by the person losing his citizenship but could have been made, or be alleged to have been made, by a third party. That is a matter of concern, and we await the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, one further point arises. Has the noble and learned Lord taken advice on the application of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights? I have heard the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General describe the article as a
540
provision against retrospection. No doubt, there is some reason why it does not apply here, but I should be glad to know what it is.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A power to withdraw citizenship on the grounds that the registration or naturalisation from which it results was obtained by fraud, false representation or the concealment of a material fact is included in subsection (3) of proposed new Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Proposed subsection (6) would simply make it clear—one might say for the avoidance of doubt—that a similar power exists in relation to persons who derive their present citizenship from registration or naturalisation granted before the 1981 Act entered into force on 1st January 1983.
In setting out the provisions in this way we have followed the pattern of the existing Section 40, in which subsections (2)(b) and (c) serve a similar purpose to that of our subsection (6). We are therefore simply continuing the power to deprive that existed pre-1983. There is no obvious justification for excluding those who became citizens by registration or naturalisation before 1983 from the ambit of the powers to deprive on these grounds. The present law makes no such distinction, and the general thrust of the Bill is to treat all our citizens equally in that respect. I hope that that explains the proposition.
Lord Dholakia: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
"(7) The exercise of any power conferred on the Secretary of State by virtue of this section shall not affect the rights of abode or leave to remain of any person or his dependants."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 74 probes what effect, if any, the deprivation of citizenship would have on the right of abode, or leave to remain, of both the person affected and his dependants. Having deprived a person of his citizenship, the Secretary of State may wish to deport him in the public interest. The amendment seeks to prompt an explanation from the Government as to such a person's immigration status, and the way in which any revocation of permission to stay in Britain and any deportation action would have to be taken under other provisions of the law.
Such a person might have a spouse who is not a British citizen, but who has the right to live in this country. I presume that this person's rights would not be affected by the deprivation of citizenship of his spouse. I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the point. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us an opportunity to explain the effect of removal. The effect of granting British citizenship is to remove a person from the scope of our

541
immigration controls. Any pre-existing leave to remain in the United Kingdom automatically lapses, since the person concerned no longer requires such leave and, indeed, cannot be made subject to it.
Following the removal of British citizenship, which is what the amendment is probing, the person concerned becomes once again subject to control under the immigration legislation. Consideration would need to be given by the Secretary of State to whether the person should thereafter be permitted to remain in the United Kingdom and, if so, on what terms.
I accept that it is a probing amendment, but as drafted it seeks to take the decision out of the hands of the Secretary of State by providing that any right of abode or leave to remain in the United Kingdom would survive the loss of citizenship; I presume with the intention—although it is doubtful whether the amendment would in fact achieve it in all cases—of preventing the person's removal, and that of his family, from the United Kingdom.
It would be wrong to take such a step. It is implicit in what I am saying that the right of abode goes with the removal of British citizenship. The ability to remove from the UK a person deprived of his citizenship is a power which should not in the Government's view be given up. Its use in certain circumstances might be appropriate; for example, when someone is engaged in terrorist activity. The position of dependants would, of course, be taken into account in any case where removal or deportation from the United Kingdom was under consideration, but I should make it clear that the citizenship of a spouse would not be affected by the removal of citizenship from his or her spouse. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Earl Russell: Will the noble and learned Lord clarify the point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the effect on an unborn child of the parent being deprived of his citizenship?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot do so immediately. I suspect that the answer is that if the citizenship had been removed before the child was born, the position of the child would be as if he was born to someone who was not a citizen. But perhaps I could confirm that if I turn out to be wrong; I am now told that I got it right.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 75 to 78:
Page 3, line 38, leave out "on grounds relating to"
Page 3, line 40, at beginning insert "in"
Page 3, line 41, at beginning insert "in"
Page 3, line 43, leave out "another matter" and insert "for another reason"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 3, line 44, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 46 and insert "shall have a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal within 28 days"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to entitle people to an automatic right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It is far too important for people not to have such a right. I hope that the Minister will find the proposal appropriate in this case. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: Most telegraphically, our Amendment No. 80 is grouped with this amendment. It seeks to widen the scope of the appeal to the IAT by excluding the limit of the appeal to an appeal on a point of law only; in other words, it seeks to clarify the scope of the appeal rights.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Presently, a person against whom it is proposed to make a deprivation order has the right to have his case referred to a committee of inquiry. The committee is appointed by the Secretary of State, and its findings are not binding upon him. Under proposed Section 40A, to be inserted by Clause 4, a right of appeal against deprivation—replacing the existing inquiry procedure—will lie either to an adjudicator in the first instance, or, where sensitive information might otherwise be disclosed, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The proposed Section 40A(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 would mirror the provisions in Clause 89 of the Bill, which place certain limitations on the right of appeal to the tribunal in immigration and asylum cases. An appeal may be brought only with the tribunal's permissions, and can be made only on a point of law. The wider merits of the Secretary of State's decision are for adjudication at an earlier stage by an immigration adjudicator. The appellant will, therefore, already have had a substantive appeal hearing on both fact and law before an adjudicator. It is the intention that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should be able to focus just on whether the adjudicator's determination gives rise to a point of law. We believe that that is a better use of judicial resources in a two-tier legal system.
The removal of the restriction that the appeal to the second appeal tier must be on a point of law only is in conflict with the report on the review of tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt. The purpose of the requirement that the tribunal's permission must be obtained before bringing an appeal against the adjudicator's determination is to avoid unmeritorious appeals coming before the tribunal.
Experience of the operation of the present immigration appeals machinery does not suggest that those procedural requirements conspire to deny justice to those seeking to exercise their appeal rights. Rather, the effect is to improve the efficiency of the system by ensuring that those with genuine and well-founded objections to decisions taken by the Secretary of State are able to have their appeals considered without undue delay. We have no reason to suppose that the same would not be true for appeals against deprivation

543
of citizenship, although, as we have repeatedly emphasised, such deprivation is likely to continue to be a rare event. I hope that my explanation will prove to be helpful to noble Lords.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 81 to 85:
Page 4, line 12, leave out "2(2A)" and insert "2B"
Page 4, line 23, leave out "after section 2(2)" and insert "before section 3"
Page 4, line 24, at end insert ": bail)—"
Page 4, line 25, leave out ""(2A)" and insert ""2B"
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
"(3) In section 5(1)(a) and (b) and (2) of that Act (procedure) after "section 2" there shall be inserted "or 2B"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Resumption of citizenship]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may make a few brief remarks on Clause 5, which deals with the resumption of citizenship. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, if he is to reply, for not having given notice of this question. However, it is a matter that I became seized of only this afternoon. The review of "full capacity" being undertaken by the Government that occurs under Section 13 of the British Nationality Act 1981 has not been completed.
In his letter to Tony Colman in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
"We were hoping to be in a position to announce our conclusions on the review of the full capacity requirement by the end of last year but work on nationality reforms already identified as requiring legislation has had to take precedence".
I do not understand that answer. I should have thought that it would be necessary to review the full capacity requirement under Section 13 of the 1981 Act, which deals with resumption, so that any conclusions reached could have been reflected in the text of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, goes on to say to the honourable Member for Putney:
"Although you say the forthcoming Bill ought to deal with the issue of full capacity, it seems unlikely that our review will lead us to the conclusion that legislation is the best way in which to resolve the (sometimes conflicting) concerns which have been expressed".
That means that he has a way other than legislation in which the difficulties that have been raised about the full capacity requirement can be dealt with. I would like to know what that is.
I shall briefly explain the circumstances that led the honourable Member for Putney to raise the point. He had a constituent whose son was mentally ill and who made a declaration of renunciation of citizenship,
544
which comes into effect immediately. When he tried to get his citizenship back, there was a difficulty caused by the requirement in Section 13 of the 1981 Act that he had to be of full capacity. It took years for the honourable gentleman's constituent to resume his citizenship.
That matter was being dealt with by the Home Office in its review of the full capacity requirement. I am disappointed that the review was not completed as part of the study of this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with the matter—if not now, on Report—so that, if necessary, we can table an amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for that full explanation. I cannot deal with the issue at the moment, and I apologise for that. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord before Report, so that he has an opportunity to consider his position in the light of my reply.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Nationality decision: discrimination]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 86:
Page 4, line 40, leave out from "(I)" to end of line 41 and insert "leave out "immigration and nationality functions""
The noble Lord said: This is the perennial problem with race relations legislation and the matter of immigration and nationality functions.
We welcome the clause, in general, as it removes the exemption of the exercise of nationality functions from the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. The exemption for immigration functions remains in place. The amendment would change that. Why should immigration be exempt from the standards imposed by the 1976 Act?
We had some correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the matter of Zimbabwe. In his response, he stated that no discrimination was made between white and black Zimbabweans. Would not making immigration subject to the 1976 Act provide a legal safeguard?
The amendment has the support of the Mayor for London, despite his recent difficulties. I hope that the Minister will consider removing such an anomaly from race relations legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 6 repeals provisions in the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which exempt discrimination on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin in the carrying out of functions under nationality legislation from the general prohibition on such discrimination by public authorities. As the Race Relations Act stands, it would be open to Ministers to make a written authorisation for citizenship applicants from certain countries to be singled out for treatment different from that of applicants from other countries. The ability to discriminate in that way was originally thought to be useful, for example in the detection of forgery and fraud. In fact, no use has ever been made of it. and we are satisfied that it can safely be removed.

545
The clause would leave intact a similar provision that allows discrimination, if authorised by a Minister, in the carrying out of functions under immigration legislation. It is essential to retain the latter provision because the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has a continuing need to prioritise—under close ministerial supervision—the management of its business on the basis of nationality and sometimes of ethnic or national origin. Current ministerial authorisations cover matters such as the examination of arriving passengers at ports of entry, the management of asylum casework and expert language analysis of certain asylum seekers if there are doubts about the applicant's true nationality. Removal of the facility could lead to massive delays at ports of entry and a rigid, inflexible, unmanageable asylum system.
The need for the immigration authorities to be able to discriminate where authorised by Ministers in accordance with public instructions was extensively debated by the House during the passage of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Act creates the post of independent race monitor to monitor the likely effects and practical operation of ministerial authorisations and to make an annual report to Parliament, providing clear public accountability over the exercise of these tentative but necessary powers.
Mary Coussey was appointed as race monitor in April this year and her first report is expected in the autumn. It is important to bear in mind that all applications for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom continue to be determined on their individual merits in accordance with the Immigration Rules and our international obligations. The current ministerial authorisations simply enable the immigration authorities to use their limited resources sensibly to manage the system and to confront the activities of people smugglers and traffickers.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for that explanation. As he rightly pointed out, the matter was discussed extensively during the passage of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and I would want to consult the Commission for Racial Equality. The Minister said that Mary Coussey will be considering matters related to immigration and nationality. Perhaps I may point out that at one time she was a member of the staff of the Commission for Racial Equality and was keen that the Race Relations Act immigration matters should have the same provision as those of nationality.
I shall return to the matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Nationality decisions: discrimination]:
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Legitimacy of child]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 89:
Page 6, line 31, leave out from "shall" to "House" in line 32 and insert "not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment would require regulations under paragraph (c) of new subsection (9B) of Section 50 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to be made by affirmative resolution. However, the amendment also has a probing implication, for we are seeking to question the Government's thinking in respect of the prescribed requirements which will be laid down to satisfy paternity in respect of a child for nationality purposes.
What other requirements do the Government have in mind that go further than those laid down in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection; namely, the husband of the mother or the person treated as the father under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Taken as a whole, Clause 9 will for the first time allow an illegitimate child to derive a nationality benefit from the status of his or her father. But where paternity is not determined by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which makes provision as to the parentage of children born as a result of certain fertility treatments, such derivation will be dependent on the satisfaction of requirements as to proof of paternity. These evidential requirements will be set out in regulations.
The regulations have yet to be drafted and I am afraid that I am not in a position today to give an undertaking that we shall be able to publish them in draft form while the Bill is still before this House. However, I can say that our expectation in most cases will be that, where the child was not born during the continuance of a marriage and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act does not apply, paternity will be proved by DNA evidence. Our intention is to adapt, for this purpose, the non-statutory scheme which has for many years operated successfully in the entry clearance context. However, where a requirement to produce DNA evidence would be inappropriate, for example, where the alleged father had died before the citizenship claim could be established, other evidence such as judicial declarations of paternity would need to be considered.
In these difficult and delicate matters there will need to be flexibility to amend the regulations in the light of experience and in response to changing circumstances such as scientific or legal developments bearing on the determination of paternity. Moreover, there will need to be some flexibility in the application of the prescribed requirements, given the range of situations with which officials are likely to be confronted. It would, accordingly, be inappropriate to set out the evidential requirements on the face of the Bill. I submit that the negative resolution procedure would enable sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what would be essentially administrative arrangements.

547
I have also had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I draw noble Lords' attention to paragraph 13, which covers Clause 9. The paragraph states that although some parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations is thought to be desirable the negative resolution procedure is considered sufficient. We would normally follow the recommendation of the delegated powers Select Committee. In view of that, and other matters I have raised in response to the amendment, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that the Select Committee's report requires a negative resolution. We appreciate that time is required to get the regulations right. Can the Minister assure us that they will be available before Third Reading?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not able to give that assurance. We shall, of course, endeavour to speed matters along. We shall keep the noble Viscount abreast of developments as regards the regulations.
Lord Avebury: Did I understand the Minister to say that DNA evidence could not be adduced in cases where the father had died? Will he amplify that? If the family is agreed that DNA evidence should be obtained from the corpse of the putative father, that would be a legitimate way to proceed. I can see no reason why the alleged father's death should prevent DNA evidence from ever being used.
Earl Russell: While the Minister is filling in time awaiting the answer to that question, perhaps I may say that he is right to say that it is not practical to spell out on the face of the Bill all the procedures that will be used. We are in a rapidly advancing field of science. Were we to specify every procedure that would be appropriate today, and even were we to get it right, it still would not follow that it would be right in 18 months' time—or still less that it would be right in 18 years' time.
The case for flexibility is overworked but if there is one place where it stands out this is probably it. I think that the Minister is justified in citing it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I said in my initial response that there were circumstances where DNA evidence would be inappropriate. I cited the example of the father having died before the citizenship claim could be established. In those circumstances, other evidence would be sought.
With regard to the noble Earl's comments, perhaps the front page of today's Evening Standard makes it patently plain that we have at all times to see what happens with the developments of these areas of scientific evolution. I am grateful to the noble Earl for that observation.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and in particular for his assurance
548
that we shall be kept in touch with regard to the regulations, as and when they appear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Right of abode: certificate of entitlement]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 7, line 18, leave out "(c)" and insert "(a)"
The noble Lord said: Clause 10 enables regulation of the procedure for applying for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The procedure is currently unregulated, except in regard to the level of fee and procedure for appealing against a refusal to issue such a certificate.
Regulations are to be made by statutory instrument, which will be subject to negative resolution. The regulations may specify such matters as the person to whom an application is to be made, the form of the application and the documents which must accompany it. Regulations may also make provision for certificates to be revoked in certain circumstances—for example, where obtained by the provision of false information—and/or to cease to be valid after a given date.
The amendment would allow the regulations to include provision as to the consequences of a failure to submit the application to the appropriate authority. The provision might state, for example, that an application will still be valid if sent to a part of the Home Office other than the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It accordingly affords a degree of flexibility with regard to the practical application of any formal requirement on this point. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 7, line 29, leave out from "shall" to end of line and insert "not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 91 has the support of my noble friend Lord Avebury, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
Under Clause 10 the Secretary of State may make regulations in 11 major areas. I do not need to read out the areas in which regulations can be made. It is a matter of serious concern that, if these regulations are made by negative resolution, there will not be an opportunity to comment on them or discuss them in the House. The amendment seeks to ensure that any regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 10 are subject to the positive rather than the negative resolution procedure.
Clause 10(2) shows the scope which the regulations may assume, hence the caution we are trying to exercise. It is sensible that we should progress in this manner. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: I anticipate that the Minister will say again that he has the protection of the Select

549
Committee's report. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. These are comprehensive regulations. Can the Minister say when they will be available? I support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot give the noble Viscount the information he desires. However, it is for us to ensure that we produce draft regulations as early as possible. The noble Viscount anticipated my best line of argument, which is contained in paragraph 18 of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The Select Committee was content that we have the right procedure in place. While I understand the concerns raised by both noble Lords, I believe that we have got it right and that the negative resolution procedure will afford the level of parliamentary scrutiny appropriate to these regulations.
I shall again put on record that we will endeavour to ensure that an early sight of the draft regulations will be available because of the sensitive matters they will cover. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister. It may be useful to have a discussion on this matter before Report and perhaps come back to him at that time. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than content to have such a discussion. It is useful to keep these channels open. I am sure that some of the less obvious misunderstandings that can arise in these matters can be resolved in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Unlawful presence in the United Kingdom]:
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before calling Amendment No. 92, I have to inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 93 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 8, line 10, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
"(c) did not have pending an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which was eventually granted,"
The noble Lord said: We are strongly opposed to Clause 11, which widens the definition of,
"in breach of the immigration laws",
and which will act as a barrier to refugees gaining citizenship. This information was strongly conveyed to us by a number of immigration agencies in this country.
The current practice is that the time people spend waiting for a decision on an ultimately successful asylum claim is treated as residence for nationality purposes. These delays would not be counted in future
550
This is unnecessary and possibly in breach of Article 34 of the UN Convention on Refugees, which provides that states must,
"as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings".
I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Before we leave this subject, I wonder whether the Minister could take advice also on whether this provision is compatible with Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees. The article states that a refugee may not be penalised for being unlawfully present on the territory of another state provided that he makes his presence known and makes his claim as soon as is conveniently practical.
I wonder whether this provision contravenes at least the spirit and possibly even the letter of that requirement. Here we are dealing with a person who is being deprived of a possible privilege for being unlawfully present in the United Kingdom in a circumstance where our obligations under international law say that he must not suffer for being unlawfully present—in fact, where the unlawfulness is condoned by international treaty. The point is of some importance.
Lord Filkin: The purpose of Clause 11 is to set out exhaustively the circumstances in which a person would be,
"in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws",
for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981. The clause seeks to clarify the meaning, given that there have been some areas of uncertainty. It is not intended to be controversial or significantly to shift the position.
The concept is relevant to eligibility for naturalisation and, in some cases, registration as a British citizen under that Act. It also has a bearing on the meaning of "settled" in the United Kingdom, which a non-British parent must be if his or her UK-born child is to acquire British citizenship automatically at birth.
Clearly, it would not be appropriate to treat a person as being,
"in breach of the immigration laws",
at any time when he or she did have extant permission under those laws to be here or, as subsection (2)(c) of Clause 11 puts it,
"leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom".
Let me explain who in practice would have such leave. In the normal course, leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is granted, on application, either by the Secretary of State or by an immigration officer. In certain circumstances, however, leave is, and will continue to be, conferred directly by statute. That is the case where a person applies, during the currency of an existing leave, for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and where the existing leave would otherwise run out before the application for further leave could be determined. It will also be the case where the application for further leave is refused, but

551
an appeal against that refusal is pending or could still be commenced. Clause 102 of the Bill contains the necessary provision for the future.
Of course, the arrangements just described would not apply where the earlier leave had been allowed to expire before any application for further leave was submitted. In such a case, a breach of the immigration laws would occur and it is right that, generally speaking, it should be treated as such. But it is equally right that there should be discretion to disregard the breach for the purposes of determining an application for British citizenship. I am pleased to say that such discretion is already provided for in the British Nationality Act 1981.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the provision breaches Article 31 of the 1951 convention on refugees. We do not believe that there is a breach of Article 31, because the person is not being penalised under the clause if he is present in the United Kingdom. Periods of presence "on temporary admission" can count towards qualification for naturalisation as a British citizen.
With those points, I suggest that the concerns on the clause are not as serious as were first thought. I invite the noble Lord to reconsider his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 94, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 95 for reasons of pre-emption.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 94:
Page 8, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: The aim of the amendment is to probe the reasons for subsection (4), which defines the retrospective effect of being,
"in breach of the immigration laws".
What difference does that make and why is the provision needed? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: There are times when I share the noble Viscount's questioning on the clause, because at times it is particularly dense and complicated. The amendment would deprive Clause 11 of any retrospective effect. Government Amendment No. 95 would exclude certain EEA nationals and their family members from the retrospective operation of the clause. I shall explain our position.
552
The purpose of Clause 11 is to give an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which a person would be,
"in breach of the immigration laws",
for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981. This concept, which is not currently defined in statute, is relevant to eligibility for naturalisation and, in some cases, registration as a British citizen under the 1981 Act. It also has a bearing on the meaning of,
"settled in the United Kingdom",
which a non-British parent must be if his or her UK-born child is to acquire British citizenship automatically at birth.
The practice following enactment of the clause would be to treat a person as,
"in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws",
if he or she were here without permission or entitlement to be so under domestic or Community law. This would be broadly consistent with the policy hitherto applied by IND when determining legality of UK residence for these purposes. However, it would mark a change in the treatment of nationals of countries forming the European Economic Area. The current practice in relation to such nationals reflects recent judicial rulings in the social security context to the effect that they are in the UK unlawfully only if they have remained in defiance of a deportation or removal order.
There seems no good reason why European Economic Area nationals should be treated any differently from other nationals in that respect. The EC treaty, as extended by the European Economic Area agreement, confers freedom of movement, but not the right to acquire nationality of the host state. However, there is concern that if the general rule of construction in Clause 11 were applied retrospectively to European Economic Area nationals and their families, those who have benefited from the existing policy on interpretation of,
"in breach of the immigration laws",
could be disadvantaged. Our amendment would accordingly shield such people from the retrospective operation of the clause.
Others would not be similarly disadvantaged by the retrospective operation of the clause, because the definition of,
"in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws",
in Clause 11 is the same as that applied by IND since the British Nationality Act 1981 entered into force in 1983. The only difference will be that the definition has legislative force, and thus the advantage of certainty.
It might help if I give an illustration of how the retrospective operation of the clause might disadvantage EEA nationals and their families. Let us suppose that a child was born in the United Kingdom in 1998 to Spanish parents. Neither parent by then had any Community law or other right to remain in the UK, but equally no order had been made by the Secretary of State for their removal. The current practice reflecting judicial decisions in the social security field would be to regard the parents as lawfully

553
and unconditionally resident here at the time of the child's birth, and accordingly to document the child as a British citizen.
The retrospective application of the rule in Clause 11 would mean that the parents could not be regarded as lawfully resident when the child was born in 1998. It would therefore have the further consequence that the child could no longer be regarded as a British citizen. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Earl Russell: There is a complicated question about what "always" means in the case of the child who was born in this country. The Minister says that the child would not be a qualified person and that his presence would be unlawful. However, if that extends back further than one generation, perhaps none of us is lawfully here at all.
Lord Filkin: The noble Earl is renowned for always asking deeply philosophical and deeply challenging questions. I think that I shall not respond immediately but reflect on the point.
Viscount Bridgeman: We shall study carefully the Minister's reply in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 95:
Page 8, line 29, at end insert "except in relation to a person who on the commencement of this section is, or has been at any time since he last entered the United Kingdom—

(a) a qualified person within the meaning of the regulations referred to in subsection (2)(d), or

(b) a family member of a qualified person within the meaning of those regulations."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 96:
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 96 seeks to probe the Government's attempt to confine this term to applying only to the provisions specified in subsection (1) of Clause 11. I should like to ask the Minister what other reference to being in the UK in breach of the immigration laws there is, and how they are being interpreted differently from the new definition in the clause. Why will it not apply in other provisions as subsection (5)(b) seems to suggest? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: As I have previously signalled, Clause 11 does not seek to assign any meaning to statutory references to being in a place outside the United Kingdom "in breach of immigration laws". Clause 11 is concerned specifically with the meaning of the phrase in the United Kingdom "in breach of the immigration laws" where it occurs in the 1981 Act. A similar expression occurs in Section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (definition of "illegal entrant").
The construction of the phrase "for nationality purposes" is more beneficial to applicants because it does not cover every instance when a person will be here
554
in breach of the immigration laws. To apply the construction of the phrase as it appears in Clause 11 to the Immigration Act 1971 might result in difficulties, because currently we do not treat a person as being in the UK in breach of the immigration laws in every circumstance where they are technically in breach of the immigration laws. For example, a person who has leave to enter the UK but who has conditions attached to that leave would, if they breached those conditions, be in breach of the immigration laws. However, they would not, under the current construction of the phrase used "for nationality purposes", be in the UK in breach for the purposes of assessing periods of residence for registration or naturalisation applications.
As I indicated, Clause 11 does not seek to assign any meaning to statutory references to being in a place outside the United Kingdom in breach of immigration laws. The mechanisms for control of immigration into other countries—including the British Overseas Territories—and the circumstances in which one may be in breach of such controls, are likely to be significantly different from those operating in the UK. Except as provided by order under Section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971, the provisions of that Act and related statutes do not extend outside the UK.
I hope that that is helpful and gives the clarification which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, sought.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
9.56 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Appropriation Act,
National Insurance Contributions Act,
Industrial and Provident Societies Act,
Tax Credits Act,
Employment Act.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  M1 and M6 Motorways: Lighting
  M1 and M6 Motorways: Lighting
  Roads: Multi Modal Studies
  Roads: Multi Modal Studies
  Nepal
  Nepal
  Sudan
  Sudan
  British Nationals Imprisoned Overseas
  British Nationals Imprisoned Overseas
  Three Counties Mink Hounds Meet: Disruption
  Three Counties Mink Hounds Meet: Disruption
  Carriers' Liability: Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act
  Carriers' Liability: Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act
  Immigration Detainees: Bail
  Immigration Detainees: Bail
  British Subjects: Deprivation of Citizenship
  British Subjects: Deprivation of Citizenship
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Registered Electorate
  Registered Electorate
  Solicitors' Practice Rules
  Solicitors' Practice Rules
  Network Rail: Accounting
  Network Rail: Accounting
  Gurkha Soldiers: Support
  Gurkha Soldiers: Support
  Armoured Regiments: MBTs
  Armoured Regiments: MBTs
  A-Level Examinations: Special Arrangements
  A-Level Examinations: Special Arrangements
  School Performance Tables
  School Performance Tables
  Corporate Performance Assessment of Councils: Ofsted Participation
  Corporate Performance Assessment of Councils: Ofsted Participation
  Ulster Scots: Broadcasting
  Ulster Scots: Broadcasting
  Children Act 1989
  Children Act 1989
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Equality: Ministerial Responsibility
  Equality: Ministerial Responsibility
  Belfast Agreement: Prisoner Release
  Belfast Agreement: Prisoner Release
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission