Sitting of 9 July 2002

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

    Postal Services
    Mr. Alan Reid: What recent discussions she has had with Postcomm regarding deregulation of postal services in Scotland. [65298]
    Mr. Peter Duncan: If she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland. [65301]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The Scotland Office has regular contact with Postcomm and other organisations involved in matters connected with the operation of postal services in Scotland. Regulation of postal services is a matter for Postcomm.
    Mr. Reid: Quilters on the island of Islay found last month that their prices had been almost tripled by Parcelforce. Before that Parcelforce had an arrangement with the mail order company that the quilters deal with to the effect that Parcelforce delivered to any part of the country at a uniform rate. Parcelforce has withdrawn from that arrangement and is now charging almost double for deliveries to the highlands and islands compared with other parts of the country. Will the Minister step in now and stop that discrimination against the people of the highlands and islands by the Post Office and guarantee a universal service to all parts of the United Kingdom at a uniform price?
    Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is a uniform delivery service for letters throughout the whole United Kingdom, but I note from the nodding on his side of the House—and, using the eyes in the back of my head, the nodding behind me—that there is an issue and I will take it up with Postcomm at our meeting next week.
    Mr. Duncan: The Minister should be aware that the former Under-Secretary in the Scotland Office, the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), confirmed to me on 7 December that reforms would not lead to any avoidable sub-post office
    726
    closures. Will the hon. Lady confirm exactly what "avoidable" means? My constituent, Mrs. Cronie, who runs the sub-post office on the Isle of Whithorn, tells me that she has no idea
    "what to expect come 2003 when the pension book disappears".
    Is that not avoidable? Does it not show that the current chaos is an entirely avoidable Government policy failure?
    Mrs. McGuire: As I said last month in reply to another question from the hon. Gentleman, he should stop scaremongering about some of the things that are happening. He is well aware that the Government have supported the rural post office network and that Postcomm is working closely with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. If he wants to talk about the postal service in his area, perhaps he would like to use in his news release this week the information that the figure for first-class deliveries in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is one of the highest recorded—94.9 per cent; and that second-class deliveries are 93.3 per cent. That is good news about the Post Office—perhaps he would like to start telling it.
    Tony Worthington: The Minister will be aware that the finances of the Post Office are very, very serious indeed and that unless there are significant reforms to the urban post office network, we shall hear a great deal of protest. Great ideas were proposed in the report of the performance and innovation unit, but they are only coming out sluggishly: talking about pilots in Rutland does not convey the urgency of the need to change post offices. Will my hon. Friend assure me that all her energy will go into speeding up the rate of reform of urban post offices?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is well aware that there are ongoing discussions about the urban network. He should not be so dismissive about the roll-out of the pilot schemes in Rutland and Leicestershire. The schemes have to be evaluated but, as I have already pointed out, I will meet Postcomm in the next week or so, and I shall certainly raise his concerns.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When my hon. Friend meets the regulator, will she have something to say about the number of closures that have already taken place in the postal service—one of which was in my constituency and has adversely affected mail deliveries in Ayrshire as a whole? Will she bring some common sense to the situation and tell the regulator that competition in the postal service is not welcome?
    Mrs. McGuire: I hear what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he will give me exact details about his question after Question Time and I shall certainly take the matter up as part of my wider discussions with Postcomm in the next few days.
    Mr. Michael Weir: In the Minister's original answer, she again referred to the universal service obligation. Will she explain how the Government intend to guarantee that obligation to rural and remote areas of Scotland, given that the Postcomm proposal will inevitably lead to the cherry-picking of profitable urban services?
    Mrs. McGuire: Of course I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House reassurance about the way that the universal service obligation will be protected, because it is enshrined in primary legislation in the Postal Services Act 2000.

    Future of Europe
    Rosemary McKenna: What steps she is taking to ensure that Scottish women's views are fully represented in the debate on the future of Europe. [65300]
    Mrs. Irene Adams: What steps she is taking to represent Scottish interests in connection with the Convention on the Future of Europe. [65302]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government wish to encourage a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate, as I have been doing. My Department is working with the European Commission office in Scotland on planning a conference on women and the changing European Union. I will also shortly discuss the subject of women and the EU with editors of the women's media, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe.
    Rosemary McKenna: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I congratulate her on her efforts to involve all civic Scotland—and women, in particular—in the debate on the future of Europe. Does she agree that Scotland has much to gain from a more transparent and efficient Europe?
    Mrs. Liddell: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. This is a key time for crafting the future of Europe for the next decade and beyond. Everyone's positive involvement is to be welcomed. I pay particular tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played, not least because of her involvement in Europe before she came to this place.
    My hon. Friend is right. Women need to become involved in the debate. Dare I say it, as the head of an all-female Department, the macho posturing that surrounds the debate on Europe often puts many women off.
    Mrs. Adams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving an all-women Front Bench. In fact, I know that we will have made gains when people comment on all-men Front Benches.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and the Scottish economy have much to gain from enlargement of the European Union? Does she further agree that an enlarged EU will deliver most for all the peoples of Europe when the future of Europe debate produces greater accountability in Brussels?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) is looking a little shamefaced in his place as a Whip.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) makes an important point of great significance to Scottish business. EU enlargement will
    728
    mean that the Union will go from 300 million to 500 million consumers. That will offer great opportunities, but present great challenges. I encourage everyone, particularly those in the small business community, to look to the opportunities that enlargement can bring and to prepare for it. The benefits will be great for businesses, but the challenges are significant.
    Angus Robertson: On the future of Europe, is the Secretary of State aware of the apparent efforts by the Scottish Executive to seek more independent influence for Scotland, as reported in The Scotsman yesterday? Can she give the House details of how independent that representation will be, assuming that Scotland does not have the full status of a normal member state? Is she concerned that the report of the Scottish Executive's initiative was described as not even second-rate spin by the Minister for Europe in this morning's Westminster Hall debate?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman's questions are as predictable as the appearance of a streaker at Wimbledon, and they have exactly the same purpose.
    The First Minister is very much involved in the debate on the future of Europe. Indeed, he is taking a leading role. However, he of all people knows that Scotland benefits much more from being part of the United Kingdom's representation in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman looked around, he would see that we are not just well represented by the Scottish Executive in Europe, but that a considerable number of the UK Ministers who represent us in Europe are Scottish.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the conference of women in Scotland report to her or to the First Minister?
    Mrs. Liddell: It will report to the European Commission, which is the organiser.
    Mrs. Lait: I assume that it is the conference that the Secretary of State announced on 9 May that she—and not the European Union—was organising. Was she involved in the discussions between Jack McConnell and the Foreign Secretary on Scotland's voice in Europe? Why was this women's forum set up if she was not involved in the issue? Was she cut out of the loop altogether? What does it say for the future of women politicians in Scotland if Scotland Office Ministers were not involved in the discussions? [Interruption.]
    Mrs. Liddell: A killer question indeed.
    The First Minister, myself and Foreign Secretary take part in the debate on the future of Europe, because we recognise that it is a serious debate. We are united, and that is the big difference between us and the Opposition, who seem unable to agree on anything to do with Europe—whether it involves women, men or whatever.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, my right hon. Friend obviously understands Scottish politics, so will she accept that, in the convention, the question of privileged access remains to be discussed between the Scottish Executive, their civil servants and the Commission? Will she assure us that she will do whatever she can to make sure that

    729
    the partnership—on which our relations with Scotland and Europe is based—will be strengthened? Will she do everything in her power to ensure that no dissatisfaction is felt by Members of the Scottish Parliament about the relationship with Europe?
    Mrs. Liddell: I contacted the Deputy First Minister, who is the Minister for Europe in the Scottish Executive, and asked whether he is confident that he and his officials are getting the exchange of information that they require to process policy on Europe. He tells me that he is, but I am anxious to ensure that the very sound and stable arrangements that we have made on the joint ministerial committee on Europe are enhanced. There is little doubt among politicians who have some say in the governance of Scotland that our involvement in the European Union is significant for Scotland's future prosperity.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: If she will make a statement on the impact on the Scottish economy of the common agricultural policy in the last 12 months. [65299]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Agricultural policy in Scotland is a devolved matter, which rests with the Scottish Executive. Farmers in Scotland receive about £450 million a year in direct subsidy payments from schemes based on the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Djanogly: It is hardly controversial to say that the common agricultural policy is failing the British people as a whole. It hinders job creation in rural communities and the development of rural society. It makes food more expensive and works against the interests of farmers and consumers. But when the Government went to Berlin they failed to deliver on CAP reform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will stand up for Scottish and British farmers rather than the CAP?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman has got a brass neck. Anyone who supported a Government who for 18 years ducked the issue of the common agricultural policy has a cheek lecturing this Government. We began the process of CAP policy reform with Agenda 2000, and we will continue it in submissions in response to statements from the Commission that we anticipate will be made tomorrow. The CAP needs to be reformed and the Government are determined to see that it is. It is important to recognise the quality of Scottish agriculture rather than the quantity issues that dominated the debate when the Conservatives were in power.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the CAP on families in my constituency has been overwhelmingly negative because it has kept food prices at least £20 a week higher than they otherwise would have been? It has also been bad for farmers because it has created a generation of them who are welfare dependent.
    Mrs. Liddell: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.
    John Thurso: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep disappointment
    730
    felt by many Scottish farmers last year at the failure of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pursue agrimonetary compensation despite the repeated entreaties of the Scottish Executive rural affairs Minister? Will she ensure that in the negotiations likely to be consequent on Commissioner Fischler's interim report, the representations made by the Scottish Executive rural affairs Minister will not be treated in such a cavalier fashion?
    Mrs. Liddell: It is as well that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat Member because people in permanent opposition do not have to make choices. Agrimonetary compensation involves choices because it comes at a cost. The Government and the Scottish Executive go to great lengths to ensure that the voice of the rural affairs Minister is heard within our counsels. The hon. Gentleman should be proud of that because otherwise he is suggesting that his colleague, Mr. Ross Finnie, is not making his case effectively enough.
    Mr. Greg Knight: We welcome the right hon. Lady's admission that the common agricultural policy needs to be reformed. Is she prepared to go further and agree with the Edinburgh Evening News that
    "The Common Agricultural Policy is a fraud that makes Enron look like peanuts"?
    Although there is clearly a case for reform, is not it essential that if plans go ahead for a 5 per cent. or so cut in cereal prices, safeguards need to be in place to prevent honest vulnerable farmers in the United Kingdom, in particular in Scotland and the north of England, from going out of business? Will she suggest to the Prime Minister that, in the negotiations that lie ahead, instead of trying to court popularity on the world stage, he for once stands up for Britain, our rural way of life and the Scottish farmer?
    Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman is not being predictable today. He usually asks me about business regulation. I wonder whether Enron, Tyco and WorldCom have convinced him of the value of regulation.
    The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. My party argued for CAP reform for 18 years, but the Government he supported did nothing about it. This Government are committed to change that is in the interests of consumers as well as farmers.

    Scottish Regiments
    Patrick Mercer: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the future of Scottish regiments. [65303]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Mrs. Anne McGuire): My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a wide range of defence matters. The Scottish regiments have an important continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence plans.
    Patrick Mercer: I find it hard to be reassured by the Minister. With a new chapter of the strategic defence review about to be announced, it is interesting to note that the worst-recruited regiment in the Royal Armoured

    731
    Corps is the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Britain's oldest regiment of infantry, the 1st Regiment of Foot, the Royal Scots, already has 100 Fijians serving in its ranks. The 42nd Regiment of Foot, the Black Watch, is constantly under threat—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go through all the Scottish regiments.
    Mrs. McGuire: Speaking of having a cheek, the last regiment to lose its proud name was the Gordon Highlanders, and that was disbanded in 1994 under the previous Conservative Government.
    I take this opportunity to pay special tribute to 45 Commando Royal Marines, based in Arbroath, who have just returned from Afghanistan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when I was talking to Brigadier General Robert Gordon last week, he stated that the armed forces are putting all their resources into recruitment and that the figures are comfortable enough at the moment, given an economic situation in which people have other choices. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can say that it is not true if he wants, but I assure him that the Scottish regiments are putting a great deal of energy and commitment into recruitment and retention of forces.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing for our armed forces, to which we give the greatest challenges in this uncertain world, is operational effectiveness? Does she agree that those who would split Scotland from the UK risk that effectiveness in the gravest of ways?
    Mrs. McGuire: I certainly would not like to compete with my hon. Friend on issues of defence. He is correct, and the Scottish National party's catastrophic policies on the United Kingdom would not only mean a diminution in our defence capability but impact economically on tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland.
    David Burnside: When the Minister is defending Scottish regiments in discussions with the Ministry of Defence—I shall not list all the Irish regiments, Mr. Speaker—will she try mention the end of the royal tournament, which was once a great platform for promoting the excellence of all three sections of our armed forces? Will she ask the MOD to stop penny-pinching and bring back the public sector money to promote the royal tournament at Olympia once again?
    Mrs. McGuire: I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about the royal tournament, but if he is at a loose end in August and early September, the tattoo in Edinburgh is a good substitute.

    Pyramid Schemes
    Mr. John Lyons: If she will take steps to stop (a) the women empowering women scheme and (b) other pyramid selling. [65304]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The women empowering women scheme, for those who do not know about it, is a cruel con, no better than a chain letter. As soon as the chain is broken, women
    732
    lose money. The arithmetic of the scheme simply does not add up, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on the matter because publicity is the best way to protect women from the scheme. The Government are looking at other ways to protect those who get involved in this totally reprehensible means of pyramid selling.
    Mr. Lyons: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Will she initiate immediate discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on how best we can combat schemes such as women empowering women, or as she has properly called it, women conning women? These get-rich-quick schemes are driving people into the arms of loan sharks all over Scotland, and I congratulate the Daily Record on its stance on the issue. It is important that we make it very clear that loan sharks only bring fear, despair and intimidation into our communities.
    Mrs. Liddell: I could not have put it better myself—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. To call such people loan sharks is to insult sharks. They are vermin who prey on the most vulnerable in our communities. The DTI is already looking into a review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is examining women empowering women. It is a clever scheme: it is not technically pyramid selling because there is no product involved, but that does not mean that women do not lose substantial sums. Those who think it a laughing matter should come to some of Scotland's poorer communities and see what those people are doing.

    The Advocate-General was asked—

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Michael Moore: What the purpose was of her recent official visit to Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. [65323]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The purpose of the visit was to demonstrate the UK Government's continuing interest and involvement in the borders area by meeting local people involved in important borders industries such as tourism and the vibrant cashmere industry. I also accepted an invitation to attend the end of year show at Heriot-Watt university's school of textile and design in Galashiels.
    In my legal advisory role, I am responsible for advising on both devolved and reserved aspects of Scots law, and it is important that I have regard to the practical implications of the devolution settlement.
    The visit also enabled me to visit Abbotsford house, the home of one of Scotland's best known lawyers, Sir Walter Scott. That beautiful house is of interest to many of the international lawyers I meet.
    Mr. Moore: I commend the Advocate-General for visiting the borders. Her visit was well received, not least because of her support for the cashmere industry and her attendance at the Heriot-Watt fashion show. In the past three years, it has sometimes been hard to pin down the

    733
    hon. and learned Lady on her roles and responsibilities. Does her visit mean that we have trouble in the courts in the borders, or may we now table questions to her on employment, tourism and the fashion industry?
    The Advocate-General: I have no trouble pinning down my role. The hon. Gentleman might get a better idea of it if he read my article in The Scots Law Times a few weeks ago. I am pleased that he acknowledges the fact that I, as a member of the UK Government and a Scotland Office Minister, was interested enough to come to his constituency. I have every intention of returning there if I am invited again, and I hope that he will come with me next time.

    Devolution
    Mr. Tom Harris: How many devolution issues she has dealt with in the last month. [65324]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 11 June under the Scotland Act 1998. [65325]
    John Robertson: How many devolution issues she has been involved in, in the last month. [65326]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): In the past month, 23 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. All but two concerned article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial. The remaining two cases concerned, respectively, the right to education and a question of European Community law.
    Mr. Harris: Following the recent legal action by the Scottish Countryside Alliance to prevent the abolition of fox hunting in Scotland, does my hon. and learned Friend believe that it is an appropriate use of her time and of public money to defend in court legislation produced by the Scottish Parliament? Does she agree that the fox hunting lobby in Scotland is using the Scottish legal system to play politics?
    The Advocate-General: The case to which my hon. Friend refers is an important one, but it is at first instance—before a single judge. I have told the House on several occasions that my policy is usually not to intervene except in the higher courts, especially the Privy Council, where significant issues of principle may be decided. I intervene in the UK interest after consultation with UK Departments to ensure that their interests are taken into account.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point. Any citizen or pressure group can challenge actions in the courts; that is why we have a democracy and courts. However, that does not mean that I, as Advocate-General, have to deal with those challenges. There are other interested parties, such as those who passed the legislation.
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Advocate-General explain how she and the Lord Advocate came to give conflicting
    734
    advice in the recent human rights and hunting case? Do they ever have occasion to meet, so that they give harmonious advice in future?
    The Advocate-General: Of course we meet and we sometimes discuss the legal issues involved. One reason why we have an Advocate-General as a separate Law Officer at UK level is so that he or she can consider interests that may not have been raised by other parties. As the Scottish Parliament is being challenged by the pressure group that was mentioned earlier over the introduction of unacceptable legislation, it is not inappropriate that an interested party—me—should raise in court the issue of whether the body representing the interests of the Scottish Parliament could be heard as a party. One of my roles is to make points that other parties have not considered to obtain clarification of the law.
    John Robertson: If the Advocate-General intervened in all devolution cases, what would the costs be to the taxpayer? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that that would be a waste of public money?
    The Advocate-General: It will not take hon. Members long to work out that 1,500 cases multiplied by lawyers' days in court is a great deal of public money. I agree that that is not a good use of public money, bearing in mind the fact that many of the cases are heard in the lower criminal courts where, even if I succeeded in resolving the issue successfully, there would be no likelihood of obtaining awards to cover expenses. There are therefore many circumstances in which I would not regard it as appropriate to intervene in the first instance, but as I have repeatedly said, I look at each individual case as it comes to me. I also look at cases as they proceed through the courts and up to the Privy Council, if that is where they go.

    LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
    The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

    House of Lords Judicial Committee
    Mr. John Burnett: What plans he has to propose reforms to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. [65334]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Government have no plans to propose reforms to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.
    Mr. Burnett: Many will be disappointed by the Minister's indifference. The Government should lead, not just react. The weight of case law and opinion in recent years has been to seek a total separation of the judiciary from the Executive and legislative authorities. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the admirable speech made by Lord Bingham of Cornhill to the Constitution Unit on 1 May 2002, in which he said:
    "But if the House of Lords is to be reformed, and even if it is not, the opportunity should be taken to reflect in institutional terms what is undoubtedly true in functional terms, that the law lords are judges not legislators and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution."

    735
    Does the Minister agree with the senior Law Lord?
    Ms Winterton: Obviously, the Government listen carefully to the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Law Lords hold a number of different views about the issue. That was certainly reflected in the evidence to the Wakeham commission which, as he will know, recommended the retention of the Law Lords in the House of Lords. The Government are not convinced that there is a case for changing those arrangements, but if the proposed Joint Committee on parliamentary reform makes such proposals, the Government will consider them.
    Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend has just answered my question, so perhaps I can refine it. She assured the House that the Government will consider any recommendation that the Joint Committee may make. With how much energy will they consider it? The history of reform of the House of Lords is scattered with examples of people saying that they will consider something, then doing nothing. Can we have an assurance that if the Joint Committee makes a strong recommendation, that will be considered seriously and action proposed?
    Ms Winterton: I certainly would not like to predict future energy levels, but I reiterate that the Government are not convinced, in any sense of the word, that there is a sufficient case for change. I repeat that the Joint Committee can make proposals, which will certainly be considered.

    Rural Justice
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet members of the lay magistracy to discuss the administration of justice in rural areas. [65335]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): Magistrates courts committees are expected to recognise the needs of rural users in the delivery of their services, as set out in the rural White Paper. Officials and I continue to have meetings with various representatives of the lay magistracy. Although there are no particular plans to discuss rural issues, I am, of course, happy to do so, should concerns be raised.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Tony Martin is a constituent of mine? Is she also aware that the lay magistracy was obviously closely involved in the case during the early stages? Is she aware that one of the burglars who broke into Tony Martin's house is suing him for damages that he suffered as a result of his criminality, and that in spite of his law firm offering a contingency no win-no fee basis, he is getting legal aid to take the case to court? Should not the rules be changed so that a person cannot get legal aid when a solicitor works on a contingency no win-no fee basis?
    Yvette Cooper: The rules on legal aid have been clearly established to ensure that they provide for those who do not have the means to take their cases through court. Those principles are important and we must respect
    736
    them. It would not be right for Ministers to take decisions on individual cases of allocation of legal aid. It is right that we have proper criteria for such decisions to be made, and we should respect those.
    David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association and of the supplemental list of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch Bench in Leicestershire, I can tell the Minister that conversations with colleagues suggest a deep unease about the medium-term future of rural magistrates courts in the light of various pronouncements by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Can she give them some reassurance that the continuing loss of power and the pressure for more remote and large-scale centralised courthouses will be stopped in their tracks, and that there is indeed a future for the rural courthouse, which does not seem clear at present? Are my colleagues right to be pessimistic?
    Yvette Cooper: It is important that decisions about courthouses and the provision of services at the local level be taken as far as possible at the local level, by the people who have the experience and the knowledge of local circumstances. That should continue. It is part of the current system that it is a matter for magistrates courts committees in the first instance to make decisions about court venues and where services should be provided. We need to retain such local decision making. It is also important that rural decisions are taken into account. We have reflected on the proposals in the rural White Paper and magistrates courts committees are expected to use the rural proofing check list set out by the Countryside Agency.
    Mr. David Heath: The Minister's support for the concept of local justice in rural areas is widely welcomed, but local courts are closing on an almost weekly and monthly basis, not least in my own town, Frome. There are proposals to close the court in Frome, which means that people will have to travel anything up to 30 or 35 miles to their nearest local court. The usual response from the Lord Chancellor's Department is that this is purely a matter for local magistrates courts committees, but I do not believe that every magistrates courts committee in the country is engaged in a conspiracy to close local rural courthouses. Will the Minister give new guidance to magistrates courts committees to make sure that we have local courthouses providing a service to local rural communities?
    Yvette Cooper: Magistrates courts committees have been given clear guidance, particularly about the need to take account of the requirements of rural areas. It is the magistrates courts committees' responsibility to decide on the use of courthouses for magistrates services in their area. It is important that those decisions should be taken at the local level. We should consider what further partnership arrangements can be put in place to ensure better working between, for example, magistrates courts, the civil and family courts and the Crown court to promote access to justice in the local area.
    For example, the proposals on the civil and family courts will involve the opening of 37 new venues in areas that do not currently have civil and family court services,

    737
    such as Selby in North Yorkshire and the Isles of Scilly. That means an increase in access for people in those areas. We take that very seriously in the Department.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned civil courts. Will she tell my constituents whether she would be prepared to travel 80 miles to discuss her civil court case?
    Yvette Cooper: Obviously, I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Certainly, the proposals that have been set out as part of the civil and family courts modernisation programme are intended to increase the number of local hearings that are taking place. It is important that we do that, but we must also recognise that the decisions that are taken must take into account a series of other issues, including, for example, the need to ensure the availability of appropriate facilities and access for disabled users. I am very happy to look into the individual case that he mentioned, but I think that the record of the Government's recent proposals shows that they have been about increasing access to civil and family hearings, rather than the reverse.
    Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that her trying to sound reasonable does not necessarily mean that she is being reasonable in putting across her arguments? Does she agree that there is increasing evidence that the 28,000 unpaid members of the lay magistracy, including many in rural areas, are in a deepening crisis and are getting angry? There is a vast number of unpaid fines and court closures and mergers are on the agenda, rather than the meting out of justice. As one resigning JP said yesterday in the press:
    "I am going because I am disillusioned with the system…I have been presiding over the collection of debts like a car park attendant."
    With crime shooting up and criminals getting away scot free in magistrates courts, what does the Minister propose to do about that?
    Yvette Cooper: I do not agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Lay magistrates play a vital role in the justice process in this country and are an extremely valued part of that process. There are indeed wide variations in issues such as fine enforcement that need to be addressed and we will shortly set out measures to take that further.
    I warn the hon. Gentleman against trying to make party political points about issues such as court closures. In 1996, the last year of the previous Administration, 20 magistrates courts closed and many of them were situated in rural areas. Courts were closed in places such as Llangollen, Thirsk, Ingleton, Easingwold, Howden, Market Weighton and so on; we could go on. These are important issues that need to be decided locally, but I warn him against trying to make inappropriate party political points about the matter.

    Information Technology
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the development of IT systems within his Department. [65336]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): Current IT systems in the courts are limited in scope and in their ability to communicate with other parts of the justice system. That is why the Department has started a major programme of IT modernisation, beginning with providing IT infrastructure and networks for court users and developing online services for the public and pilot programmes in new technology.
    Norman Lamb: May I ask the Minister about the Libra project? Back in May, there were reports that the whole project was to be abandoned at a vast cost to the public purse. It was supposed to be a vital part of the Government's modernisation process for the courts. Will the Minister tell us what the current situation is with regard to the project and ensure that matters proceed quickly, as court staff are getting frustrated by the endless delays?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. There are two parts to the Libra project. The first part—providing the modern infrastructure and computer equipment for magistrates courts—is 75 per cent. complete and the remainder will be completed by early next year. The second phase is the new standard software application, which was not delivered by the supplier when planned. We are in negotiations with the Libra supplier, Fujitsu Services, to resolve the situation, and I will inform the House of the outcome of those negotiations as soon as they are complete. I take on board the point that has been raised.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: May I commend to the House last night's meeting of PITCOM, the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, in which three senior police officers spoke to hon. Members about IT issues in the criminal justice system? It was a very worthwhile event. One comment made to me behind the scenes was about how much progress had been made in the criminal justice IT system. I congratulate the Department on that, but will my hon. Friend ensure that in all future procurement, work is done closely with the customers—the people who do the work at the sharp end—to ensure that procurement meets their needs?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that procurement needs to be undertaken in close co-operation with the customer. In the criminal justice system, that means not only the particular customer who will be using the system, but the other criminal justice agencies that they may need to communicate with. We have to ensure that systems are compatible and work well in communicating between the various agencies.

    Knutsford Crown Court
    Mr. George Osborne: When he will announce his decision on the proposed closure of Knutsford crown court. [65338]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the public consultation on the possible closure of the crown court at Knutsford ended on 31 May. The group manager responsible for the court is considering whether

    739
    a formal case for closure should be presented to the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the group manager expects to complete his considerations over the summer.
    Mr. Osborne: I thank the Minister for that answer. She will be aware of the enormous opposition to the closure from local people, local law professionals and local Members of Parliament of all parties. Through an Adjournment debate and a petition, I was making great progress with the Minister's predecessor, but then he was moved—or sacked, depending on how one interprets the newspaper reports of what happened to him—so I have to start all over again. Will she at least approach the matter with an open mind and consider the arguments, not just go along with the Department's initial proposals?
    Yvette Cooper: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet him and other hon. Members from the local area to hear their views. I have not yet received official advice or recommendations on the future of Knutsford crown court. I shall certainly meet the hon. Gentleman before the summer recess to discuss it.

    PRIVY COUNCIL
    The President of the Council was asked—

    Reception Arrangements
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on arrangements for receiving members of the public at the House. [65349]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Improvements to arrangements for receiving the public at Parliament have already been made, and more are planned. A feasibility study is shortly to make recommendations on a new visitor centre for the public.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree although the prime determinant of the public's perception of our parliamentary democracy may be what we do in this Chamber and how we do it, arrangements for the reception of visitors are an important element? Does he accept that we have not done as well as we might have done in the past as regards queueing arrangements, line of route tours, refreshment facilities, and so on? Does he recognise that my constituents have a round trip of more than 400 miles to come here, so we need to get those arrangements spot-on?
    Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the steps that have been taken so far are very welcome, as is the feasibility study that he mentioned, there is a lot more to be done? Will he assure me that those matters will be moved forward and kept constantly under review?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I should like to offer my hon. Friend that assurance. Every hon. Member has had similar experiences with constituents who come to this building, which was not designed as a building for a modern, functioning Parliament. That affects not only us, but members of the public, who nowadays expect it to be accessible. Improvements have been made, including the
    740
    new screens and new reception desk in Central Lobby, screens at St. Stephen's entrance—which should help with new guiding arrangements—and the new Jubilee café. From the point of view of visitors who have to wait outside in our monsoon summer weather, the feasibility study's recommendations on a visitor centre will make a great deal of difference.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister agree that extra morning sittings will hardly make the place more accessible?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Not necessarily, but if any suggestions regarding extra morning sittings were to be made, one of the matters that would have to be taken into account is the impact that they would have on the public accessibility of this place. However, other Parliaments sit in the morning and manage to be much more accessible than we are.

    Modernisation
    Julie Morgan: What plans he has to propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that there should be time limits on speeches in all debates in the House. [65350]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): My right hon. Friend will make further suggestions to the Modernisation Committee on time limits for speeches. In his earlier memorandum, he suggested that there could be advantages if debates were shorter in length but greater in number. That would imply shorter speeches.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that 10 minutes is perfectly adequate for hon. Members to make all the points that they wish? A general 10-minute time limit would give more hon. Members the opportunity to take part and thus end the frustration of sitting in the Chamber for many hours without being able to contribute except through interventions. Will he look into that?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. That is an excellent point. You already have discretion, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Orders to set a time limit for speeches. As a radio journalist, I was taught that one should be able to make one's point in 40 seconds. I am not expecting hon. Members to be able to do that, but I hope that they can be much briefer.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister consider introducing proposals to ensure a reduction in prolixity in questions and replies during Question Time and statements?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must forgive my ignorance. I assume that the question dealt with the length of questions and answers. If so, I agree with him. Questions and answers as well as speeches are invariably far too long.

    Scrutiny
    Dr. Howard StoateWhat plans he has to present proposals to improve scrutiny of Government legislation. [65351]
    Kevin Brennan: What plans he has to ensure that more Bills in the next session are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. [65352]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I set out my proposals for better scrutiny of legislation in my memorandum on modernisation, which is currently being studied in the Modernisation Committee. A key proposal is that, over a period of time, publication in draft should become the norm rather than the exception for Bills, thus enabling more to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny. It would be possible to arrange for longer and more thorough scrutiny of each Bill if the House agreed to carry over measures into subsequent Sessions.
    Dr. Stoate: I found serving on the Pre-legislative Committee for the Food Standards Bill rewarding and that I was more in touch with the programme for the measure. The Committee was able to improve the Bill before the House considered it and we therefore debated better legislation. Will my right hon. Friend use his best efforts to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible can take part in pre-legislative scrutiny and thus secure the widest possible representation?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny is that it ensures that several problems are snagged out before the Bill comes before the House and that the relevant Department has a fair and accurate idea of hon. Members' views.
    Pre-legislative scrutiny is first a matter for the relevant Select Committee. It is a great advantage that hon. Members who are most expert on a topic examine the draft Bills. However, that requires the Select Committees to accept pre-legislative scrutiny as an obligation to which they should give priority. From time to time, we can consider other methods of pre-legislative scrutiny, for example, through a Joint Committee, which is currently considering the Office of Communications Bill.
    Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) served on the Special Standing Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Bill. We all accepted that it was useful to be able to take evidence before considering a Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that procedure should be applied to all major Bills? Does not it have the advantage over Select Committees of ensuring that the latter maintain their independence when considering departmental matters?
    Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I accept that a tension or conflict exists between the two methods of proceeding. I do not understand why a Select Committee should not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny and, when appropriate, we should not provide for a Standing Committee to call evidence. I agree with my hon. Friend that a Special Standing Committee has advantages. I regret that we have
    742
    been able use that method for only one Bill—the Adoption and Children Bill—in the Session. I should like more Standing Committees to have the freedom to call witnesses if they choose. The speed at which we are required to get Bills through the House to fit the current sessional straitjacket stands in the way of that. If Bills could be carried over from one Session to the next, we could have more Special Standing Committees.
    Mr. A. J. BeithDoes the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, even with pre- legislative scrutiny, many clauses and Government amendments pass into law without debate because they fall victim to programme motions or the House's failure to manage the business properly? Does he agree that a strong business committee with some independence of Government should be in a position to manage business and to ensure adequate time for proper discussion?
    Mr. Cook: I fully accept that there should be adequate time both in Committee and on Report for hon. Members to focus on the main provisions of a Bill. That does not necessarily mean that we have to spend an equal amount of time on every clause, which is why it is helpful to have programme motions that ensure that there is a considered view on where the priority areas of debate within a Bill should be. As I have said, I would welcome a situation in which we could provide for more time for Bills to be considered, but to do that, I need a longer time perspective. That is where the carrying over of Bills could be not only of value to the business management of the House but of real benefit to Members carrying out their job of scrutiny.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that, in any reforms to improve scrutiny, he will use the Oxford dictionary definition of the word—"a critical, close investigation"—and that he will not base any reform plans on what appears to drive most new Labour Members, namely a desire for short debate, shorter speeches, early nights, long weekends, deferred voting and a further curtailment of opposition rights?
    Mr. Cook rose—
    Mr. Knight: I have not finished. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when my party was in power, all the reforms that we implemented under the Jopling proposals were introduced by consent, following usual channels agreement between the Government and the official Opposition? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will do the same?
    Mr. Cook: I seem to remember from my many years in opposition frequent occasions on which I turned up in the House to vote against guillotines on which there had been no consultation, and certainly no consensus between us and the Conservatives, who were then insisting on ramming through their legislation, including a number of Bills—such as the one that introduced the poll tax—which they lived to regret.
    Through the Modernisation Committee, we are introducing a balanced package that will provide for improved scrutiny rights for the House, and will not just be about making life easier for Members of Parliament.

    743
    Indeed, the purpose of modernisation is not to make life easier, but to enable Members of Parliament to do their job more effectively. Personally, I think that that might well involve starting the day in Parliament at an earlier hour and making sure that we return to this place in September. I hope that I will get the right hon. Gentleman's support for that.
    Ms Meg Munn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to taking evidence from experts in the pre-legislative scrutiny process, there is a lot to be said for taking evidence from practitioners who have experience of the issue being discussed, and who will ultimately be implementing the law? Does he agree that such consultation could result in our being less likely to make laws that are difficult to implement?
    Mr. Cook: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Proceeding by pre-legislative scrutiny, or by Special Standing Committee—or, indeed, both—gives those outside the House the opportunity to comment. It is important for us to remember that pre-legislative scrutiny is a matter not only for MPs but for the wider civic community and for all those involved in the topic under consideration. If we can ensure that that process works satisfactorily, we might have fewer errors on the statute book of the kind of which there were many during the 18 years of Conservative Government.

    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission was asked—

    Air Travel
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will make a statement on arrangements made between the Transport Office and the House of Commons Commission in relation to the purchase price of airline tickets. [65353]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Travel Office is contractually obliged to offer its customers advice on best fare availability. To maximise value for money to the House, there is an agreement between the House and British Airways on special fares booked through the Travel Office for group travel on official business. Following the withdrawal of agency commissions by British Airways, however, a modest transaction charge has been levied on British Airways tickets purchased from the Travel Office to avoid subsidising private travel from public funds.
    Mr. Steen: Is the House aware that, every time anybody buys such a ticket from the Travel Office, they pay a 5 per cent. surcharge? If a Member is travelling on official or parliamentary business, that 5 per cent. surcharge is paid for by the taxpayer. On purchases from any airline other than British Airways, the travel agent's commission is paid for out of the ticket price, but British Airways levies a surcharge.
    Why should the taxpayer pay that surcharge because the House flies British Airways? I am a great supporter of British Airways, as we all are, but why should the taxpayer pay that extra 5 per cent? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until that surcharge is lifted, we should fly with any airline other than British Airways, because it is cheaper for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Travel Office is there for the convenience of the House. It is there predominantly so that Members—including members of Select Committees—and Officers of the House can travel on official visits using public funds. Because of the way the Travel Office is financed, however, if the 5 per cent. transaction charge were not levied, the taxpayer would, in effect, be providing a subsidy to private users of the office. I would say to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), however, that these matters are always under consideration, and if other airlines can provide similar value for money and equal flexibility of service, any bid from such an airline could be considered in due course.

Retail Savings (Sandler Review)
3.30 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Sandler review, published this morning, and the Government's preliminary reactions to it.
Twelve months ago, the Government asked Ron Sandler to review the market for medium and long-term retail savings, and I am extremely grateful to him for his work in producing the report. The remit of the review was
"to identify the competitive forces and incentives that drive the industries concerned. in particular in relation to their approaches to investment, and, where necessary, to suggest policy responses to ensure that consumers are well served. It will look at the applicability of the principles of investment proposed by the Myners review of Institutional Investment."
Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to bring benefits for consumers and the retail investment industry and to improve the workings of the market. They will mean more competition, greater efficiency and more productive investment. That builds on the agenda that we started in 1997, introducing individual savings accounts; charges, access, terms standards; and stakeholder pensions as simple, easy to understand savings vehicles. They also build on our agenda to improve effectiveness and competition in financial markets.
The review proposes a set of simple, safer investment products that it calls "stakeholder products". Those products would have a strict cap on charges, restrictions on investment profile and the ability to exit easily on reasonable terms. As regulation would be built into the products themselves, firms would be allowed to sell them through a streamlined system of sales regulation. That would make it profitable for providers and distributors to sell to a wider range of less-well-off people; it would encourage people to save.
The review shows how the sales process for investment products can be costly and time consuming, disenfranchising many on low and middle incomes from investment that would benefit them. Shifting the burden of regulation from the sales process to the products themselves for products aimed at the smaller investor would help to improve access to saving without sacrificing consumer protection.
For people with more sophisticated investments, more complicated products may of course still be appropriate. Those products would not replace, but complement, the existing market, and for many products, the current regulatory approach should remain.
Building on the review's suggestions, we shall be consulting consumer representatives, the industry and the Financial Services Authority on those stakeholder products and their design. We shall be working closely with the FSA, which will separately want to consult on the regime for their sale.
I should stress that seeing the value in simpler products with simpler sales regulation does not mean that we do not value financial advice. On the contrary—the review presents a challenge for the industry and others to think radically about how they provide advice. Advice is too often understood as an adjunct to a sale, not something valued in its own right. As a result, it is perceived as
746
costly, time-consuming and inaccessible to those on low incomes, but it simply is not the case that only the wealthy need or would benefit from advice.
The review's proposals ought to make it possible for the industry to offer to the mass market good-quality, high-level advice that helps people to understand their financial needs and the products that can meet them as a complement to the sale of stakeholder products. I look forward to the industry's response.
Those on lower incomes also have a need for financial advice. Citizens advice bureaux and other money advice centres across the country offer good-quality, impartial advice to many people in financial difficulty. People have argued that their remit should cover financial advice more generally. I am pleased to say that the FSA has offered to fund research into extending the role that those organisations might be able to play. I welcome that, and look forward to seeing the results.
The review proposes reform to with-profits policies, and describes an "ideal model" of with-profits policy. It would still allow the smoothing features that so many investors have found valuable, but it would be transparent, allowing investors to understand and choose the policy that is best for their needs. It would also clearly separate out the policyholders' and shareholders' interests that are currently intertwined in the dominant 90/10 model.
The review does not propose that every aspect of the ideal model should be mandatory, except for a with-profits policy sold as part of the stakeholder suite of products, but it does suggest that much of the transparency of the ideal model could be brought to existing with-profits policies.
With-profits policies are a huge feature of the British savings landscape. Many people have valued, and will continue to value, the ability to smooth out investment returns, so change in this market cannot come over night, but with-profits policies do need to change. Indeed, the FSA and the industry have begun this process already in their recent work. The review has proposed a balanced approach that I believe represents an opportunity to move to a new, stable future for the with-profits market. The FSA will be consulting on the review's proposals on with-profits, which build on its earlier work, as part of its continuing consultations on with-profits.
The review strongly supports the FSA's proposals to reform the market for the distribution of investment products. It also has some specific recommendations about the way in which independent financial advisers should be remunerated.
It will be for the FSA to consider the review's recommendations as part of its own consultations on reforming the "polarisation" system, but they have the potential to bring big benefits of increased choice for the majority of consumers currently investing through the "tied" channels, which offer the products of only one provider.
The review proposes an increased and ring-fenced consumer education budget for the FSA and better co-ordination of the Government's work for financial education. The FSA has welcomed this suggestion, and will consult on whether to increase its consumer education budget. The Treasury meanwhile has already begun work to co-ordinate the Whitehall effort devoted to financial education.

747
Clearly, many consumers find the retail savings market complex and hard to understand. One answer to that is to simplify the market, but the essential complement to simplification is to create better financial knowledge and awareness among consumers.
The review proposes a set of investment principles for providers of retail investment products, which builds on the approach taken in the Myners review. It proposes that disclosure should in most cases be voluntary. The Government agree that disclosure should help to produce a more transparent, better-informed and hence more competitive market. We will be taking that proposal forward in consultation with consumer representatives, the industry and the FSA.
Finally, the review contains a broad-ranging analysis of the impact of the taxation system on the savings industry, and urges that the system be as simple as possible. It makes a number of proposals on specific current tax rules, which include abolishing qualifying life policies and the 5 per cent. tax deferred withdrawal rule for life insurance policies; equalising treatment with respect to exemptions from VAT on fund management fees; simplifying the pensions tax regime; and considering changing the rules for individual pension accounts and others.
We shall consider the review's proposals on tax as part of the Budget process in the usual way. In so far as Ron Sandler's proposals relate to pension saving, they will also be taken forward in the context of the Government's proposals on pensions, which we will set out in the autumn. The Government believe that Ron Sandler has tackled long-standing concerns about with-profits policies, and has given the industry the opportunity to draw a line under the problems of the past and to build a new, stable future for with-profits.
We believe that Ron Sandler has produced proposals that have the potential to produce a simpler, more transparent and more competitive retail investment industry. His proposed stakeholder products will be easier for people to understand, and viable to sell to a wider range of less-well-off people. That can only help to meet our ambition to raise the level of long-term saving.
Mr. Michael Howard: For the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I express my gratitude to the Financial Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement.
I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Dispatch Box. It was very brave of her to volunteer to make the statement—if, indeed, she did volunteer. It was rather less brave of the Chancellor not to volunteer himself. After all, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who once made this issue his own. Was it not the Chancellor who promised in opposition in 1995 to find new ways of making saving more long term, to widen savings to more people and to link the need for savings for investment to the need for people to save for their retirement? Was it not the Chancellor who promised in government five years ago that the measures he was introducing would encourage more people to save? Was it not the Chancellor who twice set a performance objective to promote a fair and efficient tax and benefit system with incentives to save?
748
Why has the Chancellor not come to the Dispatch Box to explain his progress—or lack of it—in fulfilling those promises? Why is he not at the Dispatch Box to defend the stakeholder pensions that he pioneered, and to explain why they have reached just 100,000, which is all of 2 per cent. of the target market of 5 million people? Why is not the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box to defend his pensions tax, which yields £5 billion a year and costs pension funds a total of £100 billion—equivalent to £400 being taken in tax from every single contributing member of a pension scheme every single year? Was it not the Chancellor who advised the Prime Minister just three weeks ago to justify that tax on the basis that there had been a massive increase in the stock market over the last five years, a statement that was not true then and is not true now?
Is it not the case that five years into this Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, we have a crisis in pensions and a collapse in savings? Is it not the case that the savings ratio is predicted this year to reach an all-time low
Dr. Nick Palmer: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I take points of order after the statement.
Mr. Howard: Is it not the case that the savings gap for retirement has been put at at least £27 billion this year? Is this crisis in savings and pensions not a crisis over which this Chancellor has presided, a crisis that he has promoted, a crisis that he has, in large part, caused and a crisis that, it seems, he has now asked his Financial Secretary to explain? The Chancellor, in large measure, created this crisis, but he is not man enough to come to the Dispatch Box to apologise for it.
The criteria against which the Sandler proposals should be judged are whether they, unlike Government policies to date, will help to reinvigorate the savings and pensions markets and whether they put the consumer interest first. We welcome many of the proposals, including those that would increase the amount of consumer education, those that would increase the transparency of with-profits polices and those that would simplify the sales process. Simplicity and cheapness are, of course, desirable objectives. But have not we seen with stakeholder pensions that simplicity and cheapness do not always, by themselves, succeed?
How will the Financial Secretary ensure that, unlike stakeholder pensions, these measures will indeed cater for people on low or moderate incomes? How will she ensure that the limitation on returns will not adversely affect the provision of capital for the industry in this country, thus narrowing the range of choices available to consumers? How will she ensure that the call for tax simplification, which is welcome, is not used as a back door to increase taxes yet again? What effect does she think the new model for independent advice would have on the number of advisers? Is there not a danger that many of them will be encouraged to become multi-tied agents, with a loss to consumers of access to independent financial advice?
Is not the most fundamental question that the Financial Secretary needs to address the collapse in confidence in the ability of this Government to get anything right in this area? Was it not this Government who needlessly abolished PEPs and TESSAs? Is this not the Government

749
who introduced pension credits, described by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) as creating a form of permanent serfdom and sending out to potential savers the message, "The more you save, the less you get"?
Is this not the Government who cook the books time after time? Only last week the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was obliged to come to the House to apologise for the fact that the Government had overestimated by no less than £35 billion last year alone the amount being saved by the people of this country for pensions? Having acknowledged that error, instead of giving us the correct amount, the Government's response is to recalculate the figures on a different basis so that no direct comparisons can be made.
Today, the Financial Secretary has been like the man who follows the horses at the Lord Mayor's show. But she has not been following the horses; she has been following the Chancellor, who sits there brooding in silence, afraid to come to the Dispatch Box, content for her to face the music. Five years after his fine words on savings, the finger of blame would not point to savings providers or to pensions advisers, but fairly and squarely to the Chancellor himself.
Ruth Kelly: Let me begin by saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has vast experience in this House—much greater than mine. I am surprised to hear him make such petty and insubstantial points about what is a very serious report. On process, he knows better than most that it is the tradition among financial services Ministers to make statements about financial services. Indeed, I believe that he himself spoke to the House on such matters as a financial services Minister. I would have thought that he might welcome my coming to the House at the earliest opportunity to speak about these serious issues.
It was this Government who volunteered the statement; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask for it. The truth is that he wants to concentrate on process because he has nothing to say about substance—at least, nothing that he wants people to know about. He does not want to mention his policies to privatise the basic state pension, to scrap the minimum income guarantee, or to abolish the pension credit. He certainly does not want to talk about his record in government: pensions mis-selling, the halving of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and increased pensioner poverty.
I shall deal with each of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. He referred, as is usual on these occasions, to the abolition of tax credits for pension funds. He knows that the abolition of such credits was part of wider corporation tax reforms, which injected an extra £3.5 billion into the system through cuts in corporation tax and removed a major distortion in the tax system, and which will provide a positive climate for long-term investment. He certainly does not propose to reinstate those tax credits; if he does, let him say so today.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to the fall in the savings ratio, but perhaps he should understand that gross household savings have remained robust over the past five years. Indeed, according to the Association of British Insurers—the figures were used by Ron Sandler in his report—in respect of total household spending on life and pension products, total long-term savings
750
increased by 15 per cent. in real terms between 1997 and 2000, compared with the previous period, when his party was last in government. The problem is that, as the Sandler report correctly indicates, savings behaviour has increasingly become skewed towards higher-income households. Today's report is a serious attempt by Ron Sandler to identify the reasons why low and middle-income households have been disenfranchised from the savings process.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made one or two serious points about the report, and I welcome his approval of some of the serious measures contained in it. He asked about the future of financial advice. The report provides an opportunity for the industry to think seriously and radically about how it can provide real financial advice that meets the needs of ordinary low and middle-income earners, and about how it can turn advice into a commodity that is valued and trusted by consumers. I welcome the fact that the FSA has offered to fund research into how that might be made possible.
The proposals that we set out in the report deal with the savings gap for tomorrow's pensioners, just as this Government are tackling pensioner poverty for today's pensioners. Is not the truth that the only alternative that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can offer is a record of failure in government and a set of extreme proposals in opposition?
Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she agree that this is a wake-up call for the industry in the light of past financial scandals? We need to restore people's faith in saving, so that they can close the £27 billion gap. Does she also agree that, if the recommendations are pursued constructively, we could open up a mass market in which ordinary people can buy simple, transparent and less sales-regulated products? At the moment, the lack of such products is hindering the development of that market.
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As Ron Sandler correctly indicates, the advice process has increasingly disenfranchised low and middle-income consumers, because it is geared towards the regulatory structure and the tax treatment of individual pension and life insurance products, rather than the real pension needs of individuals. The report offers a major opportunity for the industry to fill that gap and I look forward to working with the Treasury Committee and others in the House who are interested in the serious proposals contained in the report, to see how we can take the agenda forward.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the thorough review, the statement and the practical proposals on low-income saving. Do the Government agree with the hard-hitting assessment that Sandler makes of the industry as opaque, uncompetitive, characterised by commission-driven selling, and—as the Consumers Association put it this morning—full of bad products and bad advice? How will the Government address the 20 per cent. savings gap? The industry cannot fill it; Sandler says that tax incentives should not be used; and the Government do not wish to use compulsion, so what options are available to fill the savings gap—and have the Government set the targets to do it?
I welcome the pilot studies for offering financial advice through the citizens advice bureaux, which is a very good initiative. However, do the Government not feel that that

751
is something that the industry should part-fund in order to restore confidence in financial advice? What we need now is the nationwide availability of pro bono—or very low cost—advice for the benefit particularly of low-income consumers.
What further action do the Government propose to take to restore consumer confidence by removing the toxic legacy of past mis-selling? Specifically, when will they announce the conclusions of the Penrose review of the Equitable Life affair? When will the Government make a statement on the new rules governing orphan assets, because many policyholders fear that their assets could be expropriated by shareholders under the current rules? We know that there will not be a full review of endowment policy mis-selling, but does the Financial Secretary intend to take the advice of the Consumers Association that there should at least be a naming and shaming of the companies in the industry that were primarily responsible?
Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his serious, considered and detailed response to the significant and interesting questions laid out in the report. Ron Sandler has set out a compelling vision for the future of the savings industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take consumer needs seriously, and ensure that products are available that meet those needs and that consumers can buy those products without the morass of regulation and opacity that currently afflicts the market.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the pilot projects and the attempt to find a way for advice to get through to the mass market. We will work with the citizens advice bureaux, the FSA and others in the industry to ensure that in the future it serves the needs of individual consumers. On the issue of orphan assets, a new with-profits ideal model will form part of Ron Sandler's suite of new stakeholder products, which will be simple, transparent, easy to understand and will have appropriate incentives that separate investors from shareholders. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those proposals.
We need to ensure that we make it easy, simple and efficient for people to buy good-quality, long-term financial products. The report is part of that picture. On Thursday, with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement on the Pickering report and the future of regulations on the pensions industry. In the autumn, we shall set out our proposals on how to take those matters forward. The Sandler report is a serious attempt to analyse the state of the long-term retail savings industry, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his serious and considered remarks.
Mr. George Mudie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public will be horrified by the approach of the shadow Chancellor to this important matter, when millions—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe laughs, but millions of people who face an uncertain and poorer future will be appalled by his petty political approach. The shadow Chancellor is a disgrace on this subject and people will take no comfort from that fact.
Will my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary have another look at financial advice? I notice that the report and my hon. Friend seem to back the polarisation
752
proposals made by the FSA, but will those proposals really encourage the lower-paid to seek financial advice and to make investments? Will my hon. Friend consider the provision of free independent financial advice on the high street—perhaps by using the law centre model or as a financial arm of the CAB?
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for those proposals; it is indeed vital that we take the needs of consumers seriously. At present, the industry is skewed towards providing costly advice for a small minority of the market where the choice is between a highly regulated set of products with different tax treatments that are hard to compare; indeed, as Sandler points out, it is hard to compare their underlying investment performance—never mind anything else. The report sets out a vision in which there is a highly regulated simple set of products—the products, rather than the advice process, are regulated. However, we clearly need to complement that set of products with a mass-market advice regime tailored towards the needs of ordinary people who do not need to take advice about complex tax planning and tax treatment. We shall work with the CAB and the industry to find the best way of promoting a new market for financial advice.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Mr. Sandler makes it clear that small savers are heavily disadvantaged by the cost of what the hon. Lady described a moment ago as the morass of regulation that has come with the introduction of the huge leviathan of the FSA. Within two years of the introduction of that system—billed by the Government as essential for the protection of small savers—an independent review concluded that we need to bypass the whole body of regulations that were created because they had become prohibitively costly. Is that not a massive and savage indictment of the whole structure of regulation that the Government introduced with the FSA?
Ruth Kelly: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was actually advising the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he set up the conduct-of-business regime that surrounds these products. The problem is that the Conservative Government did not implement that regime; it took the Labour Government to set up the pensions mis-selling review, to make sure that £11.5 billion was refunded to consumers who had been sold products inappropriately. Of course, we must now examine alternative ways of providing access to that market, but we were not prepared to preside over the mis-selling of pensions to hundreds of thousands of consumers.
Kali Mountford: Although clarity, transparency and simplicity may be welcome in the market, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that robust regulation is equally needed? If we expect hard-working constituents to invest in savings, should they not have surety that their money will not be mis-spent, misplaced or lost as a result of incompetence in the industry? Is it not the case that we need regulations and that they must be robust?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: safeguards need to be built into the system. Ron Sandler proposes to replace a very complex advice regime with a simpler suite of products in which the product, rather than

753
the sales process, which effectively disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of people, is regulated. A strict cap on charges and an extremely low exit penalty for consumers who change their minds have been proposed, and consumers will have access to the financial services ombudsman and to the financial services compensation scheme if anything goes wrong. Safeguards are therefore built into the process. It is important to put the consumer first, and that is what Ron Sandler is doing in the report.
Mr. John Greenway: Is not the real conclusion of Sandler that regulation has failed massively? It is all very well to say that the sales process has rightly removed disreputable elements from the industry, but the fact is that the many millions of people who received advice from, for example, the industrial life offices now no longer receive advice because regulation has put all those offices out of business. The hon. Lady and the Sandler report have made the right analysis, but only time will tell whether they have reached the right conclusions about the solution. It is all right to say that we will now regulate by product, but she should think carefully so that the regime she puts in place ensures that people buy suitable products. Without suitability, we will have another mis-selling scandal in the years ahead.
Ruth Kelly: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the details of the report. I do not share his conclusions. Although I agree that simplification on the regulatory, tax and advice fronts is the answer to many of the issues, we must ensure that consumers are properly protected. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the report, because Ron Sandler's proposals are designed to make sure that the suite of stakeholder products that he sets out are accompanied by a set of questions that are asked of individuals before they buy products. The questions distinctly point out any risk that may exist, and they will point someone away from a product if it is not suitable for that customer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report.
Paul Flynn: Is not the truth that most with-profits policies are now with-losses policies? The public have been confused, bamboozled and cheated by so-called advisers whose main interest was earning fat commissions rather than selling good-value products. Is it not right that the orgy of deregulation in the 1980s led to the impoverishment of millions of people because of mis-sold personal pensions, endowments, general insurance and savings products? Should my hon. Friend not take comfort from the report's suggestion that the way out is to simplify policies on the lines of stakeholder pensions, which have the great virtue of having very low commissions while offering very good value for those who take them out? Is that not the way forward?
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, although some of them were perhaps geared towards the shadow Chancellor.
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about commissions and the issue has been analysed in detail in the report. Ron Sandler accepts the principle and the need for genuinely independent financial advice to be available to consumers. He also accepts the research that suggests
754
that commissions can skew the sales process and are perceived as doing so. He is determined to see a viable and truly independent future for financial advice.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister say whether the new type of with-profits schemes—as set out on page 27 of the report, which calls for a separate management company—will do away with the appalling situation in which countless millions are offered to pay for mis-selling, with the money coming out of the assets of innocent policyholders? Should not that problem be sorted out, and will the report do that through its recommendations on page 27?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. When Ron Sandler looked at the issue, he proposed establishing an ideal with-profits fund that would separate shareholder and policy interests. It would have a separate smoothing account, which would not be intertwined with the operation of the rest of the account, that would fully separate charges from investment returns. The idea behind his proposals for stakeholder products is that they should be completely transparent, so that no inherited estates lack transparency and conceal charges. Ron Sandler makes an interesting contribution to the debate and I look forward to working with the FSA and the industry on the proposals.
Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is entirely appropriate that she should be at the Dispatch Box and we welcome her to it?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the host of constructive suggestions in the Sandler report, which the Government did well to commission, are welcome given the need to do more to support young adults to save, faced as they are with the prospect of contributing to the costs of their further and higher education and their lifelong learning, and of buying a home, providing a pension and, eventually, providing for long-term care? Does she further accept that in seeking to provide more security for savers, it is important to make it clear that the principle of caveat emptor is not set aside, because no amount of transparency or simplification of regulation will abolish folly and greed?
Ruth Kelly: I completely agree that it is vital to protect consumer interests. As Ron Sandler usefully sets out, the problem with the current regime is that consumer interests are not properly protected and skew and distort the market for financial savings products. He proposes a new way forward that protects the consumer by regulating the product rather than the advice process. There are, of course, many safeguards built into the process, but it is right that the consumer interest is at the heart of the vision.
Mr. Michael Weir: I welcome some of the interesting suggestions in the report, but does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that some large financial institutions sell only their own products, to which they are tied? We have anecdotal evidence of people attending so-called financial reviews and being pushed an institution's products without the costs of changing policies and taking out new policies being clearly explained. Many such cases mark a return to the churning that was prevalent before the Financial Services Act 1986.

755
The Minister talks about the transparency of the new products. Will financial institutions continue to be allowed to be tied to their own products? If so, how will we avoid that problem recurring with the new products, as there are bound to be differences between products? Will she take up the plea by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) to ensure that everyone receives independent financial advice before they take out many of these products, which are so important for their future?
Ruth Kelly: Ron Sandler endorses the view made clear by the Financial Services Authority that genuinely independent financial advice needs to be available to the consumer. That means that it cannot tied to the commission of the provider when a sales person makes a sale. He does not rule out the fact that tied agents may still exist, but he endorses the vision that if a sales person calls himself an independent financial adviser he must be truly and genuinely independent.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: A significant number of my constituents work in the financial institutions in Edinburgh, as indeed do those of my parliamentary neighbour, the Chancellor. What was the Treasury's initial reaction to recommendation 10.172? It states that there should be thorough consideration of
"all the differences in treatment between pensions provided through life companies and non-life pensions (and in particular the difference between insurers and others for the VAT treatment of pension fund management)",
and recommends
"that the Government considers making the playing field level wherever possible by, for example, extending the VAT exemption for pension fund management fees to include those levied by non-life companies."
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend asks a very serious question. In his report, Ron Sandler specifically points to the fact that although unit trusts and unit-linked life policies are effectively the same product, it is almost impossible to compare them or their underlying investment performance because of their different tax treatment. We endorse the idea of having a regulatory and tax treatment system that is as streamlined as possible, but clearly I shall not now commit my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on matters that will, rightly, be considered in the Budget.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on her role, which when I held it, I was told, often involved downplaying the significance of embarrassing U-turns in the policies of the Chancellor.
May I return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)? Why was it thought necessary two years ago to protect small savers by imposing a complex and costly system of regulation, when now it is thought that the only way to make savings products affordable for small savers is to exempt them from that system of regulation and to regulate the product separately?
Ruth Kelly: We are consulting on and taking forward the proposals in Ron Sandler's report. He correctly
756
identifies the trade-off between the regulation of the conduct of business or of the sales process and regulation of the product. What is proposed now is a suite of stakeholder products that are simple, transparent, easy to understand, easy to sell and easy to take advice on. It is appropriate that we attempt to make that trade-off and to put the consumer in the driving seat. In the process we will drive much greater competition and transparency into the industry.
Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are providers, particularly of stakeholder pensions, who are doing an excellent job? For example, B&CE, which is based in Crawley, provides more than 175,000 stakeholder pensions to construction workers, who traditionally would never save at all for their future. Does she agree that, following the Sandler review, it is vital that we continue to work with the best providers in the industry to ensure not only that we protect the people buying the products but that it is as simple as possible to sign up for a stakeholder pension so that those who would not traditionally be interested in such products have access to them?
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. At the heart of the proposals is the idea that people should have access to simple, transparent and easy-to-understand products, such as stakeholder pensions. As the proposals are taken forward, they will make access to stakeholder pensions even easier. We started out by encouraging access throughout the workplace, making it as easy as possible for people to save, and we now intend to develop that process.
Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interest in the register. Given that the biggest problem facing the savings industry in this country has been brought on by the collapse in the stock market, can the Minister explain why the British stock market has fallen further and faster than the American or the European ones? Do we not need a Government wealth warning on all savings products in Britain: "This Government's taxes and regulations can damage your wealth"?
Ruth Kelly: If the right hon. Gentleman checks his facts, he will see that there has been an almost 5 per cent real rate of return in the equity market since 1997.
Dr. Nick Palmer: On Thursday, the Treasury Committee will take evidence from people who have lost up to 99 per cent. of their investment in complex trusts. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need two separate markets: one for sophisticated products for which there is strong regulation and good advice, and one for basic products that are well protected, as recommended in the report? Does she agree that many people rarely come into contact with anyone who routinely gives financial advice? As well as looking at the possible role of citizens advice bureaux, she might consult the industry on incentivising others, such as trade unions and even employers, to take an interest in advising people?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes some extremely interesting points. There will always be a need for financial advice for those with sophisticated financial needs who want to take advice on the different tax

757
treatment of different products. However, we must also meet the needs of those whose financial circumstances are less complex. I believe that that can be done through a new mass market in financial advice.
We are, of course, prepared to work not only with citizens advice bureaux but with others involved in the wider industry, including trade unions, for example, to see how we might extend advice in the workplace. It is important that, wherever they are, people have access to the basic financial advice that they need.
Mr. Steve Webb: The Financial Secretary mentioned caps on charges. What conclusion does she draw from the example of the stakeholder pension 1 per cent. cap? People on low incomes whose saving is intermittent are simply not profitable because 1 per cent. of not very much is even less, and as a result many pension providers have laid off the whole of their direct sales force—the very people who explain the process and sell the product to people who do not have much money. Is she not worried that the same thing will happen if that attitude is adopted for other products?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns expressed by the industry. The time it takes for an independent financial adviser to make a sale has increased from about two and a half hours per sale 10 years ago to about six hours per sale today. Clearly, that increases the costs to the industry of every sale made, whether it is to someone with relatively ordinary needs, or someone with highly sophisticated, difficult and complex financial needs. Ron Sandler's vision is of a new framework whereby simple stakeholder products can be sold without that costly, time-consuming advice process. That will make those sales far more profitable for the industry, so I think that the industry's argument about a 1 per cent. cap on charges will evaporate.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Without prejudicing the outcome of any FSA research, does my hon. Friend believe that the future lies in paying up front for financial advice, rather than in relying on commission for producers? Is it not important to regulate advisers as well as producers, so that customers, and not only producers, get the best deal?
Ruth Kelly: The FSA is working on how to change the financial advice regime so that those who call themselves genuinely independent financial advisers cannot be completely dependent on commissions that might skew or be perceived to skew the advice they offer. That vision is broadly supported in the report, although Ron Sandler has a slightly more flexible interpretation of how advice can be paid for.
The need for consumers to buy appropriate products is clearly at the heart of Ron Sandler's proposals. He sets out a regime in which rather than the salesperson being highly qualified and the sales process overregulated, the product itself is regulated. There is a strict cap on charges, there are limits on exit penalties, and it is simple to move between products. That is a different way of protecting the consumer, but consumer protection is clearly at the heart of the proposals.
Tim Loughton: The Financial Secretary's statement would have more
758
credibility if we had not heard it all before, four and a half years ago, and if her figures added up. She said that there had been a 5 per cent. annual return on the market in the past five years, but the yield on the market in each of those years has never been more than 3 per cent. gross, and in capital terms the market is back to where it was in 1997, so her figures simply do not add up.
Will the hon. Lady cast her mind back to 7 December 1997, when the then Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), launched individual savings accounts? His pamphlet contained the statement, backed by the Prime Minister, that ISAs would attract 6 million new investors—almost half as many people as were predicted to go to the dome. What has happened to those 6 million investors during a five-year period in which the savings ratio has fallen by two thirds?
While we are on the subject, will the Financial Secretary explain what has happened to CAT standard marks? How many financial products—what percentage of them—now carry CAT standard marks?
Ruth Kelly: On a point of fact, not only is the stock market higher now than in 1997, but the market capitalisation of the stock market is almost £350 billion higher than in 1997. On the point about ISAs, one in four adults now have ISA accounts, which have extended savings opportunities to women and people who were previously non-savers.
Ron Sandler welcomes the idea of CAT standards and product regulation. He emphasises the fact that the introduction of the CAT standard in the ISA market, for example, has transformed charges for consumers, and has led to much greater competition and enhanced consumer benefits.
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that ordinary people simply want to be able to present their financial profile to, for example, a CAB and be offered a range of financial products with the assurance that they will be made aware of the risk that they are taking and the level of protection that they are being afforded, perhaps through insurance? In the aftermath of the problems with Equitable Life, the stock market and so on, that would enable us to restore faith in the financial community and market effectively a simple set of products that commands public confidence.
Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we restore trust in financial products and, even more importantly, restore trust in the advice given alongside financial products. One way of doing so might be to extend the remit of citizens advice bureaux so that they offer not just advice about debt but advice about money management more generally. I welcome the fact that the FSA is prepared to look at whether providing that service would be cost-effective, and hope that others in the industry will consider seriously the way in which they might fill that gap.
Ian Lucas: In view of the systematic mis-selling of endowment mortgages in the 1980s, mainly due to the gross negligence of the Opposition in allowing the operation of a completely unregulated scheme—a consequence of that policy is the poverty and distress that my constituents tell me about when they come to my

759
Surgeries—is it not possible to consider referring the subject of endowment mortgages to the FSA so that it can carry out a full-scale investigation and put together a scheme to deal with mis-selling?
Ruth Kelly: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, but I should like to tell him that the FSA is being proactive. as it is working with firms to make sure that they offer the appropriate information to consumers and warn them if they face a shortfall. The FSA's remit obliges it to take action that is proportionate to the scale of the problem. I am informed by those at the FSA who know better that a full-scale endowment mis-selling inquiry would cost about £5 billion for pure administration, which is not in proportion to any consumer detriment that has been experienced. That is not to say that consumers do not sometimes find themselves in significant difficulty, but of course they have the option of going to the ombudsman and resolving the problem that way.
James Purnell: Did my hon. Friend hear Sheila McKechnie on Radio 4 this morning saying that stakeholder pensions had been a great success in restructuring the market and getting costs down? Did she also see the research by the Association of British Insurers showing that stakeholder pensions had doubled in less than six months and had been taken up by 800,000 people? Will she take it from me that Labour Members welcome wholeheartedly her attempt to get lower-paid savers, particularly younger workers, to save for their retirement? Will she make a commitment to look at the tax incentive regime to see how younger workers can be encouraged to save more, perhaps through a cash-matching system, rather than complicated tax incentives that they may not understand?
Ruth Kelly: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the success of stakeholder pensions. We now have for the first time a system in which the majority of low-income families have access to a long-term savings product. Proposals in the report will make it even more cost-effective for people to take out that sort of long-term pension in future. My hon. Friend also highlighted the comments of Sheila McKechnie who, I know, endorses the heart of the report's proposals, which will provide significant consumer benefit in future.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised a point of order, asking that a statement be made on arms sales to Israel. I think it even more important today, because Jane's Defence Weekly published this morning reports that the Israel Defence Force employed a huge amount of munitions during the offensive against West Bank cities that took place in April. The report continues:
"The amount of weapons and munitions used in the operation was more than had been used by the Israeli Defence Force over the last decade."
It is therefore even more important that we get a statement from the Minister on the Floor of the House so that we can discuss the matter. It is totally objectionable that we should be selling even a component or any more munitions to Israel that could be used against the Palestinians.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a written answer to a Member of the House yesterday, the Foreign Secretary effectively changed Government policy. It is in stark contrast to his previous position on 16 April, when the Foreign Secretary told the House:
"I am profoundly concerned about the scenes of widespread destruction of densely populated refugee camps."—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 465.]
Later, he protested at arms that had been sold by this country to Israel being used against Palestinians. Selling parts of F-16s to the Israeli Government will simply cause more destruction in densely populated refugee camps because, as we have seen, the Israel Defence Force will use them against civilians. Can you advise me how we can get that change in Government policy debated on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not additionally important that there should be an explanation from the Foreign Secretary, in view of the fact that the reason that he has given for part of these decisions is relations with the Americans? The House of Commons deserves some explanation of precisely what these relations with the Americans amount to. Are we to do the bidding of the Americans, whatever they ask, even if it means jeopardising the British position in the middle east?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised the matter with me yesterday, and shortly afterwards a parliamentary question was answered by the Foreign Secretary.
With regard to raising matters with the Government, we have Trade and Industry questions this Thursday. The hon. Members may be able to catch my eye. Within a fortnight there will be Foreign and Commonwealth questions.
As for initiating a debate, the hon. Ladies are experienced in these matters and know how to go about seeking a debate. I have no doubt that they will continue to pursue this very serious matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTERS (RESTRICTIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS) (No. 2)
  Mr. Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to permit a local planning authority to decline to determine an application for the development of telecommunications transmission antennae in certain circumstances: 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 166].

Emergency Services Personnel (Protection)
4.28 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to assault, intimidate or otherwise interfere with emergency services personnel in the execution of their duties; and for connected purposes.
I thank the Government Whips Office for enabling me to have this slot this afternoon, the more so because I was originally supposed to speak on the issue in June, but the date was put back until today. I am extremely grateful to the individual concerned and I have let them know accordingly.
The matter begins with a letter dated 21 December last year that I received from Richard Bull, who is the chief fire officer of the Tyne and Wear fire brigade. Following an increasing number of assaults both on his staff and on fire engines, he asked for parity along the lines of part IV of the Police Act 1964, the miscellaneous and general sections of which deal with, among other things, offences against the police. I subsequently met the chief fire officer during the Christmas recess, and he gave me a lot of detail that I found alarming. I then applied for this ten-minute Bill. When we look at the details involved in the chief fire officer's request, we see that, in 2001, there were 58 attacks on fire brigade staff, 15 of which occurred in Sunderland, where my constituency is situated. Since April this year, over three months, there was a total of 15 attacks, which is approximately in line with last year's total, but 12 of them occurred in Sunderland. That is alarming; if that level is projected forward, there will be almost a threefold increase on last year.
The north-east ambulance service has also contacted me about the same problem. In May alone, there were 11 incidents of violence and aggression towards ambulance staff. I have also received representations from the Royal College of Nursing, which has been most supportive of the Bill. It is very concerned about attacks on its people in hospitals. Unfortunately, patients are responsible for most of those attacks, although not all of them. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the Sunderland Echo, the local newspaper in the north-east, which has mounted a vigorous campaign with which I fully agree.
The situation is well known to everyone concerned—it is not a north-eastern phenomenon. As recently as earlier today, I was informed that the ambulance service in London is to start providing protective armoured clothing for its ambulance personnel, so it is clear that everyone is well aware of the problem. For many years, violence towards public service workers has been escalating. We all know that, despite the fact that crime in general has reduced in recent years, violent crime has taken the opposite course and is increasing.
That raises a problem and also the issue of the philosophy of how we deal with such problems. It has always been my understanding that it was the Government's job to try to deal with such problems until such time—if ever—as they found an answer, but they must always seek an answer. It surprises me that, for many years, not only the current Administration, but the previous one, have never seen fit to give the same protection to the firefighters, ambulance drivers and medical staff who are involved in the sector that is given

763
to the police. Of course, the police should have that protection, but they should not be alone in that respect. The proposal is also very popular with the public, who want the emergency services to be able to attend to their wants when they need them and to be unfettered in doing so.
All that I am seeking in the Bill is to ensure that we give out two messages. First, we must make it clear to public service workers that we not only say many fine words in Parliament about the wonderful work that they do, but are prepared to try to legislate to carry those good words into effect. Until now, we have failed to do so. Secondly—this is perhaps even more important—we must try to get the message to the public that such attacks will not be tolerated. We do not need a very vivid imagination to envisage the scenario that we are talking about, in which a fire engine going to a fire in which children might be trapped gets a brick heaved through its windscreen and is put out of operation. That could lead to people dying. We are talking not only about the simple assaults that we all know occur all the time, but about people's lives being endangered by antisocial and criminal behaviour.
It seems to me that someone who assaults a person who is engaged in providing an emergency service is in a rather different category from that of someone who is involved in everyday football ground violence or an altercation outside a public house or working men's club. Yet the law does not make any provision for that. I do not want to hear the argument that we can leave this to the courts. The courts are not the social conscience of this country—Parliament is supposed to be that. We are supposed to make legislation that the courts carry out, but in this case we have not done so.
764
I hope that there is no opposition to the Bill and that it is such a common-sense issue that everyone appreciates its seriousness. Perhaps more importantly, I hope that the Government, if they are not willing to bring in legislation of their own, will give my Bill a fair wind and, indeed, assist it, because it is what the public want. We hear a great deal about the public's disenchantment with parliamentary procedures. They do not think that Members of Parliament are doing their jobs properly or that Ministers are doing a good job, and see no relationship between themselves and this place. It is not too difficult to understand why, given that when there is a big public outcry about an issue, no action is taken to put it right.
I hope that at some time in the near future legislation will be introduced that deals with transgressors in a robust and rigorous manner, and lets people in the front line of emergency services see that we really do care about them. That is a fairly straightforward request, and I hope that all hon. Members agree with it and give it their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. David Atkinson, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. George Mudie, Syd Rapson, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Dr. Rudi Vis and Mr. James Wray.

EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL (PROTECTION) BILL
Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to assault, intimidate or otherwise interfere with emergency services personnel in the execution of their duties; 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 67].

Police Reform Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2)
4.37 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move,
That pursuant to the report [25th June 2002] from Standing Committee A, the Order of 7th May 2002 (Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:

Consideration and Third Reading
1. Paragraph 4 of the Order (consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
2. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in one and a half days.
(2) Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column in the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the table.

Table

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day (half day)

New Clauses, New Schedules, and Amendments relating to Part 3, New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Chapter 2 of Part 4 and New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Parts 5 to 7.

Seven o'clock or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is later.

Second day

New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Part 1.

Six o'clock or, if that day is Thursday, Three o'clock.

New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Part 2 and Chapter 1 of Part 4.

Nine o'clock or, if that day is a Thursday, Six o'clock.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
The motion allows for one and a half days for Report and Third Reading, which provides an additional half-day as compared with the motion agreed by the House on 7 May. We have structured the order of consideration to ensure maximum time for debate on what are generally seen as the two most contentious parts of the Bill, namely part I and chapter 1 of part IV.
The order of consideration also accommodates members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who are unable to be present today. Hon. Members will note that amendment No. 1 is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other members of the Committee. The order of consideration ensures that that amendment is not reached until tomorrow.
The Bill was extensively debated in Standing Committee, taking up some 28 hours in total, so hon. Members have had the opportunity to give it adequate scrutiny. In any event, the Bill commands widespread
766
support. Indeed, on Second Reading the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that Her Majesty's Opposition
"agree with or acquiesce in roughly 98 per cent. Of it."—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 63.]
I am sure that as a result of the changes made in Committee its approval rating must now be around the 99 per cent. mark, which is not bad for a Bill at this stage of its progress.
There are relatively few Opposition amendments, which cover eight substantive issues, and the one and a half days allowed by the programme motion should be more than adequate to debate them fully. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to agree the programme motion.
4.39 pm
Mr. James Paice: We shall not oppose the motion. As the Minister said, one and a half days should be adequate for our discussions. However, I want to make two specific points.
First, the Minister rightly said that the timetable allows significant time for discussing what are agreed to be the most hotly disputed provisions of the Bill, especially part 1. However, the motion states that discussion on part 1 will conclude at 6 pm tomorrow. I hope that the Minister can assure us that he and the Home Secretary will prevail on the rest of the Government to ensure that statements do not encroach on that time, because there is no provision to extend the time in the case of a statement. Today's timetable provides for three hours; tomorrow, the deadline is 6 pm. Many would consider two and a half hours adequate for debating part 1. However, it will not be adequate if we lose an hour or so through a statement.
My second point causes grave anxiety to Conservative Members. Last night, the Government tabled many amendments. All except one relate to one issue, which part 1 covers. Now is not the time to comment on the detail, but the media were apparently informed about the amendments and the Government spin on them before they were tabled or available to any hon. Member. One and a half hours passed after the first press calls to my office and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about the amendments and before I could get copies of them from the Public Bill Office. I understand that, strictly, it should not have let me have sight of them, but I am grateful to the Clerks there for allowing me to do so.
Despite the Government's apparent Damascene conversion from spin, the reality is different. They seemed more interested in setting the scene with the media than tabling the amendments about which they were spinning. Consequently, it has been possible for us to table amendments to amendments only today. Although that is perfectly in order, I want to underline the point to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will pass on our anxiety to the Speaker so that when he makes his selection for tomorrow, he notes the difficulty in which the Opposition were placed by the timing of the amendments' tabling. I shall not comment on their content; that is for tomorrow's debate, but I hope that we can debate our amendments, too.
The Minister rightly said that members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs are unable to be with us today. We can make our judgments about priorities, but I accept the reasoning for the Minister's timetabling. I add

767
that it helps my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, who is also elsewhere on parliamentary business today. Matters have therefore worked out all right.
We shall not divide the House on the programme motion, but I hope that the Minister takes note of my two points and that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have noted the latter.
4.43 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Under ordinary circumstances, I would divide the House, but as discussion on the programme motion is taken out of the time for substantive debate, I shall not do so. However, I emphasise that I strongly deprecate timetable motions in general and in particular, and I shall make brief comments on that.
First, any democracy depends on a bargain between the electorate and the House. The electorate will accept obligations and requirements on the assumption that Bills are properly scrutinised. Timetables have a nasty habit of preventing proper scrutiny, and when the electorate realise that the bargain is not being respected, I fancy that their respect for parliamentary democracy will diminish.
We are talking about a Report stage, which is the occasion on which the House as a whole—particularly those hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee—has the opportunity to participate in the debate. The plain truth is that if we tightly constrain the debate, we exclude right hon. and hon. Members. In the end, that reinforces an unwillingness on their part to participate in debate at all. That is something that I have witnessed in this place over many years, and I deprecate that, as well.
I would also make the plain, pragmatic observation that, in these circumstances, substantial chunks of important legislation will go largely undiscussed, or perhaps not be discussed at all. That makes me very uneasy about the parliamentary process. Of course, one is entitled sometimes to impose timetable motions. I accept that; I have been responsible for doing so myself in a previous incarnation. But one should surely do so only if there is a pressing requirement for such a motion. We are, therefore, entitled to ask what the pressing requirement is in this case.
The Minister has told us that there was much agreement on the Bill, and that was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Indeed, the Minister suggested that we agreed on 98 or 99 per cent. of the provisions. If that is the case, why the timetable? So far as I am aware, no Conservative Member—and perhaps no Labour Member either—is minded unduly to extend the debate, so why the artificial constraint? No one can say that the House is overburdened with business at the moment. After all, the House is getting up on a relatively early date—24 July—and coming back on a relatively late date in October. Last week, the business collapsed on various occasions, and, on Thursday, we have a debate on the Adjournment. May I ask, therefore, what is the pressure on parliamentary time? Why are we not allowed an unconstrained debate? I suspect that it is because the Government like tightly to constrain all debates, but I am against them on that point, as I would be against my hon. Friends if they tried to do the same thing.
768
I shall not go into the merits of the Bill—you would stop me if I did so, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I want to emphasise that some important questions are to be discussed. I repeat that this is the first opportunity that many right hon. and hon. Members have had to examine the substance of the Bill in detail. After all, they were not on the Standing Committee. Today, for example, we shall reconsider the circumstances in which chief police officers can be suspended, be required to resign, or retire. That is not a minor issue.
We shall also consider further the ability of the police to obtain specimens from people who cannot give their consent, the ability of the police to seize motor vehicles—those are not a minor matters either—and the orders that can be made against sex offenders, which is a serious issue. My hon. Friend and the Minister were right to emphasise that there will be yet further discussions tomorrow on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can give directions to chief police officers and police authorities as to how they should perform their functions. That, too, is an important issue. I understand that the debate on that matter will end at 6 o'clock.
My hon. Friend made a serious point about statements, but he did not—I make no criticism of him for this—refer to private notice questions. He was probably here when, for example, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised the question of a statement by the Foreign Secretary regarding the new changes relating to the sale of arms to the middle east. I had the impression, listening to Mr. Speaker at that time, that he was encouraging a private notice question. If, however, there were a PNQ on such a subject, tomorrow's debate would be yet further curtailed. What would be the justification for that?
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made another serious point about the raft of amendments that was tabled last night by the Government. That action was not very satisfactory, given that nine or 10 days have passed since the Committee finished its sittings. That is hard luck, no doubt, on my hon. Friend, but it is worse luck on those outside the House, as they have had no opportunity until today to make representations to hon. and right hon. Members on the points that they wish to have made in tomorrow's debate. That is yet another example of legislation being pushed through the House at an unreasonable and, in my view, undemocratic speed, and I am against it.
As I understand it, we are not pushing the House to a Division, but I am against timetable motions. I am particularly against the proposition that the time taken by this debate, and by any subsequent Division that we might have been minded to call, comes out of the substantive debate. That could reduce the substantive debate by a further one hour, which is simply an attempt to blackmail hon. and right hon. Members into not protesting at timetable motions. I am against timetable motions, and I believe that we should repeatedly protest against them.
4.51 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I have a brief point to make to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in your power to direct the Clerks to total up the time used by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) during many, many

769
programme motion debates so that they can tell the House how many hours, and possibly days, of serious debate on matters of substance he has denied other Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Gentleman may care to read through past editions of Hansard, where he will find the answer for himself.
4.52 pm
Norman Baker: I shall, I hope, be reasonably brief. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a stout defender of the Government on many occasions in the House.
Dr. Howard Stoate: Quite right too.
Norman Baker: Well, one or two.
I am afraid that I take issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as the Bill is not being rushed through at, to use his words, an unreasonable and undemocratic speed. I am the first Member to object to unnecessary reductions in the time available to the House to debate Bills. Such an example was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was rushed through. This Bill is not being rushed through. We have had 28 hours of debate in Committee, and we have the opportunity here to debate, as it happens, relatively few amendments for a day and a half. I believe that the time allocated is appropriate, so I have no problem at all with the timetable motion.
The objections to timetable motions surely apply only if the timetable is so tight as to have the consequences to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. That is not the case on this occasion. My only concern is one mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—the guillotine at 6 o'clock tomorrow. I understand that there is likely to be a statement tomorrow on cannabis, or something of that nature, or there may be a private notice question, so a situation might develop in which the debate on part 1 is curtailed, which would be unfortunate, although not what the Government intend. Will the Minister respond on that particular point? I hope he will, as it would put my mind at rest.
I am sure that it was scurrilous of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to raise the point that the Government might be involved in media manipulation. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which they would
770
resort to such tactics. Well, if I try hard I cannot imagine them. I note that tomorrow's controversial matters will be dealt with after the statement on cannabis, which means, of course, that the media will have gone home to write about that.
The other, more serious point is that the Government have managed to timetable this business to coincide with the all-party parliamentary beer group dinner, which will take place tomorrow evening at the same time as a number of important Divisions in the House. For that, I am not very grateful to the Minister.
4.53 pm
Mr. Denham: May I respond briefly? The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) set out his reasons for opposing timetable motions, although I have to say that, in the process, he reminded many of us of why we are generally in favour of them.
On the issues raised by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Lewes (Norman Baker), I had understood that the programme motion was the subject of discussion through the usual channels. On the assumption, for the moment, that we would none the less wish to complete our business with Third Reading at 9 and a 10 o'clock finish tomorrow night, if there can be discussions through the usual channels about flexibility over the 6 o'clock knife in the programme motion, we are willing to entertain that.
Although I cannot speak for the business managers, I cannot rule out the possibility of a Government statement tomorrow. If some adjustment within the normal finishing time were desirable, we would consider it after the debate this evening. The issues are too important for people to be left with a sense of not having discussed them properly. However, the fact remains that there are only eight substantive amendments in the groups to be discussed in these two days.
With regard to the media, people living in glass houses should be careful with their stones. Those of us who spent a good part of Sunday being rung up by people saying that they understood from sources not connected with the Government that some deal or arrangement had been reached, and asking about the Government's intentions on these issues, are well used to the briefing that has been going on around the Bill. It is better that we concentrate on the matters of substance before the House and move on.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Police Reform Bill [Lords]
    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Committee, considered.
    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
      Clause 33

        REMOVAL ETC. OF SENIOR OFFICERS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
        4.57 pm
        The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 35, line 45, at end insert "a notice in writing".
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23.
        Mr. Denham: The Government have tabled these amendments in response to a point made in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), so I shall deal with them as a group.
        Subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State proposes to require a police authority to exercise its power to call upon the chief officer to retire or resign, he must give the chief officer concerned notice of his intention to do so and an explanation of his reasons.
        The point raised in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend was that the provisions under new subsection (2A) to section 42 of the Police Act 1996, as inserted by clause 33(2) of the Bill, place a requirement on the Secretary of State to give a copy of the notice to the police authority while not explicitly requiring that the notice include his grounds for acting.
        Theoretically, a situation could arise in which the police authority was not notified of the grounds on which the Secretary of State wished to proceed, while the chief officer had received both notice of the Secretary of State's intention and the grounds for acting. That situation would obviously be undesirable, and these amendments will ensure that the notice given to the chief officer includes the Secretary of State's reasons for acting, so when a copy of the notice is sent to the police authority it will be aware of those reasons.
        Mr. James Paice: I note that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who raised these issues in Committee, is not present. I am not sure whether she is on the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I welcome the Minister's introduction to the amendments, but I want to press him a little, especially on the question of what is in writing and what is not.
        At column 182 of the Committee's deliberations, the Minister clearly said that the Secretary of State would have to give reasons if he wished to remove senior officers. That was during the discussion on what was then clause 29. He later resisted the Opposition's attempts to introduce further rights for inquiries to be held and for the
        772
        chief officer in question to make personal representations to the Secretary of State, accompanied by a professional adviser, if the Secretary of State intended to use his powers to remove a senior officer or require his resignation or retirement. The Minister also said at that time that he would seek to make regulations under what was then clause 33, now clause 34, which would lay down the procedures to be followed.
        Clause 42 of the 1996 Act, as amended by this Bill, gives chief officers the right to make representations in person if they are to be forcibly retired or required to resign. That right to make representations in person does not extend to the new part of section 11 of the 1996 Act, introduced by clause 32(2) of the Bill, which relates to suspension of chief officers.
        The Chief Police Officers Staff Association, CPOSA, is extremely concerned that, in effect, suspension from duty is tantamount to a requirement to resign. It is extremely difficult for any chief officer who has been suspended—whatever the outcome of the case—to be reinstated with the credibility necessary to carry out their very important duty, and almost every case of suspension will end in resignation. The association is therefore concerned that the right to make representations in person does not extend to the issue of suspension.
        The amendments appear not to extend the inquiry system to suspension, nor do they appear to require the Secretary of State to give notice in writing of where suspension is to take place. They are limited to the specific circumstances in which resignation and retirement are required, but not to the stage of suspension.
        That brings me to the draft protocol, which has been sent to CPOSA. The association is now considering the procedures relating to suspension of chief officers. I will not detain the House by going through the protocol, with which the Minister is obviously familiar; at least, I sincerely hope so. [Interruption.] He is laughing, obviously to inform us that he is familiar with it. He will know, therefore, that nowhere does the protocol refer to an inquiry, to the chief officer being given the reasons for their suspension, or to the opportunity for the chief officer to make representations either in writing or in person if they are to be suspended.
        My challenge to the Minister concerns the very narrow sense of the amendments. From his opening remarks, I understand the specific reason raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that gave rise to the amendments, but behind that is a much bigger issue. The Government are consulting on a protocol that does nothing whatever to fulfil what at least was the understanding of Committee members: that a number of these issues would be addressed in regulations or in guidance.
        I stress again that it is widely believed—Members of this House will accept it—that if a chief officer has been suspended, as with any other profession, it is very difficult ever to regain the credibility that was held before, regardless of the outcome of the case that led to the suspension. Resignation may be the only sensible way forward, regardless of the outcome. That is why I would argue that the opportunity for the chief officer in question to be given reasons why he is to be suspended, the opportunity to make representations in writing and in person, and the opportunity for an inquiry, are important adjuncts to the power that the Secretary of State is taking in the Bill to provide for suspension.

        773
        I challenge the Minister, even at this late stage, to respond to the real concerns of chief officers, expressed through CPOSA to me today, that the protocol is wholly inadequate, and if he is not prepared to alter the Bill, at least to amend the protocol.
        Norman Baker: The amendments seem uncontroversial and improve the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I want to refer to the protocol. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has the advantage of me, in that I have not seen the protocol. It is a pity that it has not been circulated to all members of the Committee. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified what he intends to do to make the protocol available to Members of this House. Even if the protocol is not available in its final form, it would be helpful to have the draft circulated, as that would inform discussion.
        That point has particular validity, given that paragraph 49 of the Home Affairs Committee's report states:
        "We recommend that the proposed protocol on the operation of the powers to remove senior officers be published before the Bill reaches report stage."
        Paragraph 43 of the Government's response states:
        "As these discussions are ongoing it will not, in the event, be possible to publish a protocol in advance of Report Stage, but we will do so as soon as possible thereafter."
        Will the Minister please circulate the draft protocol that he has put out for consultation, or make it available by putting a copy in the Library? In addition, what is the time scale for reaching agreement on the protocol? I hope that such agreement will be reached before the Lords consider any further matters relating to the Bill.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). My hon. Friend is right to say that, under the Bill as drafted, the power to suspend does not require the giving of reasons. Furthermore, the power to suspend in no way triggers an inquiry, which will probably do a grave injustice to the senior officers concerned. My hon. Friend made the sensible point that once a police officer has been suspended, it is extraordinarily difficult to recover their credibility. It is very difficult for them to obtain employment, whether in another force or with an alternative employer. In the absence of the giving of reasons, it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to challenge the justification for the suspension. I ask the Minister to explain why provision is not made for the giving of written reasons, or for the holding of an inquiry.
        Suspension, by definition, is not a final state. What provision will be made for finally determining whether a chief officer is to remain in the force? So far as I can tell, the Bill provides no such procedure. There is no obvious procedure through which a police authority can ask that a chief officer be no longer suspended; nor does the Bill provide for the officer concerned to submit that the suspension be done away with. We have a state of limbo that is entirely dependent on the Home Secretary's discretion. I am always against giving Home Secretaries such discretion, regardless of their political complexion.
        I ask myself another question. Under clause 33, the Secretary of State can choose between suspending, requiring retirement or requiring resignation. What
        774
        obligation is there on the Secretary of State to consult a police authority in advance on which of those alternatives might be desirable? The answer is: none at all. As far as I can see, the views of the police authority are not necessarily to be sought; it is for the Secretary of State to determine which of the three options is the most attractive. I am against giving Secretaries of State—particularly the Secretary of State in question—such power. Why is provision not made for pre-action consultation between the Secretary of State and the police authority concerned?
        It is clear that there are financial distinctions to be drawn between the consequences of retirement and of resignation. When somebody retires, they normally trigger pension entitlements. As we well know, such entitlements constitute a substantial burden on police authorities; however, the same is not necessarily true in respect of resignation. What consultation will take place between the Secretary of State and police authorities about the preferred route? Nothing in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to undertake such consultation.
        The criteria in question are "efficiency or effectiveness". I realise that that phrase appears in the Police Act 1996—legislation for which the Government of whom I was a member were responsible. However, the question of what is efficient or effective is as long as the Home Secretary's foot; in other words, the power is completely discretionary. We are reinforcing a provision in the 1996 Act that enables the Secretary of State to get rid of a police officer on the subjective judgment that they are not effective or efficient. I am very sceptical about giving any Home Secretary—particularly the present one—that power, and I hope that the House shares my inhibition.
        I am personally in favour of fixed-term contracts for senior police officers, which would mean little need for these provisions. The re-engagement of chief police officers would be considered on a rolling basis every three to five years. The disadvantages of that policy are not so great as to displace the advantages.
        I am very cautious about these amendments. They would give the Executive yet more discretionary power—and I do not value the discretion of the present Home Secretary—in the important policy area of the police service.
        Mr. Graham Allen: I have one query for my right hon. Friend the Minister. The Home Secretary may issue a written notice of removal to senior officers if he feels that they have been inefficient or ineffective. Does that phrase relate to their performance on operational matters or on non-operational matters? Is there any definition of what an operational matter is? I ask because some years ago, when I had some responsibility for the subject, operational matters were tightly defined, but now they appear to be anything that a chief constable decides is in his remit. That is an important, albeit detailed, issue and I would be happy for my right hon. Friend to undertake to write to me if that is more appropriate.
        Mr. David Cameron: I share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and I am very uneasy about the powers that the Government will take to remove senior officers. I am pleased to take part in the debate.

        775
        I sit on the Home Affairs Committee; as other hon. Members have pointed out, its members are in Brussels. I had to stay in the country for personal reasons, not because of any antipathy to Brussels. I do not wish to be governed from that city, but it is a pleasant place to visit and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee are having an interesting time.
        I support the Committee's report and what it said about the protocol. I shall return to that issue because it is germane to the amendments. First, however, I must make the point that we are today debating further centralisation. The Home Secretary will have the power to sack every chief constable in the land. I ask the Minister to contrast that situation with that pertaining to the rest of the police organisation. In the Witney or Banbury police station, the chief inspector or superintendent does not have the power to remove ineffective officers in his own force. Power in the police force is going in the wrong direction—towards the centre and the Home Secretary—instead of being devolved throughout the organisation, and the amendments will not improve the situation.
        I accept that the Government have made some concessions and have started to talk about consulting police authorities on the removal of chief constables. However, because of those concessions, the Bill now contains some very tortuous language. The question of the sacking of a chief constable should be a matter for the police authorities. That point was made in evidence to the Committee by Mr. Kevin Morris of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, when I asked him whether he thought that the real responsibility for hiring and firing chief constables should rest with the police authority. He replied:
        "Yes, I do. We do have this tripartite structure which gives the police authorities quite a lot of discretion and a role to play within policing."
        The Bill should reinforce the powers of police authorities, and its failure to do so concerns me most of all.
        The Committee made two recommendations in its report that are germane to the amendments:
        "if the Home Office has concluded that strengthened powers are needed for the suspension and removal of chief constables, it should be able to give a fuller explanation of how they might be used. We would expect these powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances."
        Can the Minister, even at this late stage, give us some more assurances and perhaps even some examples of circumstances in which those powers would be used?
        Our second point had to do with the protocol being discussed by the Home Office and senior officers. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) have both referred to it. The Select Committee stated:
        "We recommend that the proposed protocol on the operation of the powers to remove senior officers be published before the Bill reaches report stage. We hope the House, before agreeing to these clauses, will press Ministers for a fuller explanation of why they are necessary and why the matter cannot be left to police authorities."
        We are asking a vital question—when can the Home Secretary exercise the powers, and when can he not?
        776
        5.15 pm
        Above all, where is the protocol? My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is ingenious and seems to have got hold of a copy. The first people I know to have got hold of a copy of the protocol work for The Times. Yesterday, in an article with the wonderful subheading "Crunch week for Blunkett on crime, cannabis and asylum", the newspaper stated:
        "The new Bill includes an extra power to suspend a chief constable or his deputy or assistants where public confidence is undermined.
        Details of the regulations under which such intervention would happen have not been included in the Bill. The framework for such powers is set out…in a protocol produced by the Home Office, a copy of which has been seen by The Times."
        It may be a naive question, but if The Times could see the protocol, why could not it be seen by hon. Members before the Bill reached Report stage? If The Times had it, why did paragraph 43 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report state:
        "As these discussions are ongoing, it will not, in the event, be possible to publish the protocol in advance of Report Stage".
        I echo what the hon. Member for Lewes said. Given that my ingenious hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has got hold of a copy of the protocol. perhaps one could be given to all hon. Members, even at this very late stage.
        Why does this matter? Yesterday's article in The Times quoted an adviser—an "aide to Mr. Blunkett", according to the newspaper—who explained why the power might be necessary:
        "We want to consult chief constables about this, but if a police area is completely failing, there is a very strong argument that the Home Secretary should be able to intervene."
        The arguments may be strong, but they should be presented to the House, with copies of the protocol for hon. Members to look at. It seems odd that the Government are still consulting on the matter. Normally. one consults before legislating, but the two processes seem to be going on at once.
        I am unhappy about the proposed centralisation, as we could end up with chief constables looking over their shoulders at the Home Office rather than at local circumstances or their local police authorities. A good example of that was reported by The Times, which has been assiduous recently. We were assured yesterday that Ministers, not all of them Home Office Ministers, are not overseeing individual police forces, but The Times reported that those Ministers were looking at police areas and at the operation of the street crime initiative.
        In an article by Mr. Tom Baldwin—who is known for his close connections with Downing street and for his assiduity in getting stories—The Times reported that it had learned
        "that the police forces, covering areas where 80 per cent. of street crimes are committed, are each submitting weekly crime figures to their own minister from Downing Street's special "Cobra" emergency committee. This committee was set up in February under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister."
        The article states that my own Thames Valley police force is being overseen by the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, who does not even live in that force's area.
        It is clear that the new powers in the Bill will cause chief constables to look over their shoulders at the Home Office, to divine the thinking there and to determine the

        777
        central initiatives that the Government are driving through. They will not be as worried as they should be about local policing matters.
        In my area of Witney, there has been a spate of bad rural burglaries. I am meeting the Thames Valley area's chief constable tomorrow, and I want to know that he is focused on local issues such as that. I want to be sure that he is not always worrying about whether the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women is satisfied with what he is doing about street crime, or that he is not always looking to the Home Office to see whether he is going to be fired. The power to sack chief constables should reside with the police authorities.
        I shall end with a quotation from the evidence of Sir John Stevens to the Select Committee, as it relates directly to the amendments. I put it to Sir John—not too brutally, I hope—that
        "the Secretary of State may require the Metropolitan Police Authority to exercise its power…in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or resign. And he can just sack you?"
        Sir John Stevens said:
        "I think there has to be a very, very detailed debate on what is operational independence"—
        the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—
        "and what might affect operational independence. I am not talking about this Home Secretary, or Mr. Straw, or anybody else. I believe that, the worst case scenario, you should look at someone who might be the Home Secretary who may well want to exercise control over Chief Constables, and it is a golden thread of British justice that the police are independent."
        That golden thread is being unravelled by the powers in the Bill. Those powers will mean that chief constables will consider only the Home Office and how they are doing with Ministers—not even Home Office Ministers in the case of the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women—and they will forget about the importance of local policing.
        Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I support the Government amendments which will be extremely important in delivering better crime prevention to all areas of the United Kingdom.
        I shall set my remarks in context by quoting from "Policing a New Century: a Blueprint for Reform", which included a statement from the Audit Commission. The commission noted:
        "There remain, however, significant variations in performance between police forces. These variations cannot simply be explained by differences in workload or by the varying circumstances forces face…There is no consistent link between increases in spending and improvements in performance. Of those forces that increased spending the most between 1994/95 and 1998/99, some registered improvements across a number of key indicators, others did not."
        The report continued:
        "The performance variations at force level are striking. The recorded crime detection rate for burglaries varies between 43.5 per cent. and 7.9 per cent., for vehicle crime between 28.3 per cent. and 4.7 per cent., and for robbery between 50.8 per cent. and 14.4 per cent."
        Few people would find such variation remotely acceptable. I represent an area where the amount spent on policing is significantly higher than in many other areas, yet our detection rates are consistently low. I have great difficulty in explaining that to my constituents.
        778
        Contrary to some of the views expressed in the debate, police officers or chief constables will not be dismissed on a whim. They will be dismissed, or asked to resign or retire following a period during which they will have failed to come to terms with the difficulties that they experience in their community and to deliver good policing services.
        We must find ways of removing from post people who are inefficient and ineffective. The notion that the tripartite system of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, police authorities and the Home Office achieved that in the past is farcical. There have been few cases of dismissal of chief constables in the UK.
        Chief constables should be looking to the Home Office. After all, the Home Office is called to account for the failure of police authorities throughout the country, yet it has little impact on the performance of those authorities.
        I welcome the Government's proposals on the removal of chief constables who are failing. Many areas of the country would benefit—as they would have done if we had introduced such a measure many years ago.
        Mr. Denham: We have held a useful debate on a set of amendments on which we agree—I look forward to the debates on amendments on which we disagree.
        I shall take in turn the points that were raised. It is worth reminding the House that for almost 40 years Governments have had the power to initiate the retirement of chief police officers. There is nothing new in that. Some contributors have spoken as though the Home Secretary was taking some new centralising power.
        The new elements in these provisions are, first, the ability to require a chief officer to resign rather than to retire. As we discussed in Committee, the provision is based primarily on the fact that chief constables reach that rank substantially earlier than they used to. Police officers always appear to be getting younger, but chief officers genuinely are younger than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to require someone who might be in their early 40s to retire and receive the benefits of a pension.
        The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the financial issues. We undertook in Committee to work them through with the staff associations, because appropriate provision will obviously have to be made for those who have to resign.
        Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that the course of action chosen will have substantial financial implications for the police authority? Therefore, there is a good case for discussing with the authority which of the two courses should be taken.
        Mr. Denham: I am not sure that a decision about the appropriate action should be taken on financial grounds. However, the nature of the provision to be made in such circumstances will, of course, be discussed with the CPOSA, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.
        The new elements include the Bill having procedural safeguards on retirement and resignation that did not exist before. We have also discussed suspension, and it has been suggested that the Home Secretary will have an

        779
        untrammelled power to suspend a chief officer on a whim. I shall not go through the legislation in great detail, but it makes very clear the circumstances in which a chief officer can be suspended. First, he can be suspended by a police authority when it has considered—or has decided to take—action leading to resignation or retirement. There is an important initial stage in the process. The same is true when the Secretary of State initiates action. The possibility of suspension comes into the frame only when a decision has already been made to take measures leading to retirement or resignation, when serious consideration has been given to such measures or when they have been implemented but the chief officer has not yet resigned or retired.
        The Bill makes it clear that the test to be used by the police authority or the Home Secretary is the maintenance of police confidence. Action will be taken to suspend a chief officer if that is necessary to maintain public confidence. Although the wording is slightly different, that is essentially true whether the police authority or the Home Secretary takes action. Therefore, it is not an arbitrary power. The suggestion that it was such a power was made not by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but by other Members who have spoken in the debate.
        Norman Baker: To return to the point about public confidence that was discussed in Committee, does the Minister not recognise that if a Home Secretary or Minister rightly or wrongly publicly decried a chief constable, that could lead to a loss of public confidence in that officer who would automatically then be suspended by the police authority because public confidence had been eroded? If confidence had been eroded, it would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in which it would be restored so that the officer could return to duty.
        Mr. Denham: I recognise something in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the possibility of an officer's career being damaged by action initiated by the Secretary of State has existed ever since the 1964 or 1966 Act first gave the Home Secretary the ability to act with regard to a chief officer. If the Home Secretary is considering action, a danger must be present, and I do not believe that we have introduced something significantly new in principle.
        Members have reasonably asked about the protocol. The Select Committee on Home Affairs had hoped that the negotiations on the protocol would have been completed before Report—in an ideal world, I would have shared that hope—so that we could discuss them. Discussions are continuing this week between my officials and the CPOSA. If it is possible to conclude those discussions in time for Lords consideration of the Bill, we will make every effort to do so. However, I cannot promise that. It is important that negotiations take place between the Government, the CPOSA and organisations such as the Association of Police Authorities rather than occurring in the pages of the national press.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Paice: The Minister is right. He has introduced safeguards when chief officers are required to retire, but he has not addressed the problem of safeguards when
        780
        someone is suspended. There is nothing on such safeguards in the Bill; and the draft protocol, which I have been fortunate to see, makes no reference to them. Many hon. Members said that suspension is extremely damaging, whatever the outcome. The Secretary of State can require suspension and there is no option of a third-party appeal to him. What safeguards will the Minister introduce on suspension?
        Mr. Denham: The suspension power comes into effect when circumstances are moving towards action to require a chief officer to retire or resign on either the Home Secretary's or the police authority's initiative. Suspension in those circumstances is seen as an immediate action and response to maintain public confidence. If all the procedural safeguards that are in place for a resignation or retirement are applied to the suspension process, the danger is that that process becomes the hearing on resignation or retirement. The power becomes unusable and the ability to get the right balance between maintaining public confidence and fair treatment of the chief officer is upset. How we handle that process needs to be the subject of discussion on the protocol, and I am sure we have some way to go before that is in a satisfactory form.
        Mr. Mark Francois: If the protocol is a work in progress, why was a copy of it shown to a journalist from The Times before it was shown to some hon. Members, including specialists who serve on the Home Affairs Committee?
        Mr. Denham: I have no idea. I am reasonably confident that it did not come from any source within the Home Office or any Minister associated with the Department. I believe that copies of the draft protocol are fairly widely available in the police service. Chief constables have told me that they have had sight of it, although I have no reason to believe that any of them shared it with The Times. The matter will have to remain a mystery.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked whether there is a legal definition of efficiency or effectiveness in this context. The answer is no. It has not been defined in law, nor has there been a definition in law—certainly not in primary legislation—of operational matters, although the noble Lord Denning referred to a description of operational matters in a judgment 20 years ago. Other parts of the Bill exclude certain decisions from the powers of direction that may be made by the Home Secretary or a police authority, as set out in a new clause.
        Mr. Allen: Given that "operational" is an elastic term, will my right hon. Friend consider defining it so that the operational creep in the police service, which allows just about everything to be seconded to the powers of the chief constable, is limited? I realise that it might be too late to do that for this Bill.
        Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend will see that we have approached the matter in a slightly different way in the Bill. It is much easier, in law and in practice, to define those matters that must be solely the responsibility of the chief constable rather than to define all those that might be called "operational" in a broader sense. In the clauses

        781
        that deal with what are currently called powers of direction, we have sought to exclude certain types of activity from those that could be the subject of a direction.
        Mr. Allen: My right hon. Friend knows that I am interested in a particular problem. The chief constable in Nottinghamshire has effectively been able to do away with the beat bobby service in the city of Nottingham by ending what we would all term "community policing". Is my right hon. Friend telling me that nothing in the amendment, the clause or indeed the Bill would have prevented the chief constable from doing something that he can do now with impunity? He can disregard the rhetoric that Ministers dispense at the Dispatch Box; is my right hon. Friend telling me that he will still be able to do so in future?
        Mr. Denham: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but the answer is yes. It is clear from the discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and in the other place that the powers of intervention will not allow us to say to a chief constable, "You must do things our way." They apply only where the quality of service and the results achieved for the public are not satisfactory. The Bill makes provision for codes of practice to which chief constables would have to have regard. That could cover several different areas of policing, but I would not like to speculate today on whether it would cover the issue raised in such detail by my hon. Friend. He has inadvertently given me the opportunity to make it clear that this is not the prescriptive, centralising Bill to run the city of Nottingham from Whitehall that Opposition Members make it out to be.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made valuable points about variation. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that we bring the standard of all police forces up to that of the best.
        Lady Hermon: I apologise for coming slightly late to the debate. Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of the representations that senior officers may make? He will know that under the rules of natural justice a person is entitled to a fair hearing. Given the seriousness of retirement or enforced resignation to an individual, surely it is acceptable and wholly reasonable that he is able to make representations in person as well as in writing.
        Mr. Denham: Certainly we intend that the chief officer will be able to make such representations during the appropriate part of the proceedings, and I shall write to the hon. Lady with details about that. We do not intend to make available a full hearing at every stage in the proceedings, but it is obviously right that the rules of natural justice are followed if measures are taken to require a chief officer to retire or resign.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made:No. 21, in page 35, line 46, leave out "a notice" and insert "informing him".
        No. 22, in page 36, line 1, leave out—
        'an explanation in writing of'
        and insert "explaining".
        No. 23, in page 36, line 5, leave out—
        'of his intention to require the exercise of any power'.—[Mr. Ainger.]

      New Clause 2

        SCOTTISH SEX OFFENDER ORDERS
        '(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) shall be amended as follows.

        (2) In section 20(1) (application for a sex offender order in Scotland) for "in the area of his police force" there shall be substituted "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force".

        (3) In section 20(2) (conditions to be fulfilled), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public".

        (4) In section 20(3) (court to which application must be made)—

        (a) after "application to" there shall be inserted "—

        (a) ";

        (b) at the end there shall be inserted "; or

        (b) the sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of the area of the applicant's police force.".

        (5) In section 20(5) (prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".

        (6) In section 21(7) (time limit, variation and revocation of order)—

        (a) in paragraph (b), after "revoked" there shall be inserted "(in the case of a sex offender order, by the appropriate court for that order)";

        (b) in paragraph (b)(i), after "the order" there shall be inserted " or, in the case of a sex offender order, any other relevant chief constable".

        (7) After that subsection there shall be inserted—

        "(7A) In subsection (7) above—

        'the appropriate court' means—

        (a) the sheriff who made the sex offender order; or

        (b) the sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of the area of the applicant's police force or of the police force of any other relevant chief constable;

        'relevant chief constable' means a chief constable who believes that the accused is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force."

        (8) After subsection (7A) (inserted by subsection (7)) there shall be inserted—

        "(7B) Where a sheriff makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one."

        (9) Subsections (5) to (7) apply in relation to applications and orders under section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause —Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
        Government new clause 4—Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland.
        Government new clause 5—Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland.
        Government new clause 6—Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland.

        783
        Government amendments Nos. 48, 50, 60 and 61.
        Mr. Denham: In Committee we introduced amendments to sex offender orders made in England and Wales to bring more flexibility to the application process, to introduce interim orders and to extend the jurisdiction of sex offender orders to the UK as a whole. The five new clauses in this group provide parallel provisions for sex offender orders made in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Parliament passed a Sewel motion on the 27 June allowing the UK Parliament to legislate on its behalf.
        New clauses 2 and 4 make three changes to the application process. First, when police forces know that an offender intends to come to their area, they will be able to apply for an order prior to the offender's arrival. Secondly, police forces will be able to make an application to any court in their police area, rather than only to a court in the area in which some of the risky behaviour took place. Thirdly, police forces will be able to vary orders at courts in their own police area without having to go back to the original court that made the order. That is not necessary in Northern Ireland because there, there is no limitation on which court may hear a variation. New clauses 2 and 4 also make it possible for the prohibitions in Northern Ireland and Scottish orders to extend to the UK as a whole by amplifying the definition of "the public" to
        "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public".
        New clause 5 introduces interim sex offender orders in Northern Ireland, allowing police forces immediately to put into place preventive measures whenever necessary. Interim orders will have the same effect as full orders. Interim sex offender orders already exist in Scotland. New clauses 3 and 6 make breach of an order, whichever jurisdiction created it, an offence in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The other amendments are consequential.
        Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Opposition are pleased that a Sewel motion was passed by the Scottish Parliament enabling the new provisions to be introduced in line with the Government's proposals in Committee. We agreed with the Government's action in Committee, but it is fair to say that although we welcome the Government's having taken the opportunity to use the Bill to expand the operation of sex offender orders and make them more flexible, the Government might need to do more. From discussions with Ministers, I know that the Government recognise the need to keep the issue under review; that, too, is welcome.
        I pay a personal tribute to another Home Office Minister, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who assisted me on an especially difficult constituency case that is relevant to the new clauses. In that case, a person who had committed serious offences was about to try to move from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. The Minister was extremely helpful. There is no doubt that the provisions relating to England and Wales that the Government introduced in Committee, and the new clauses and consequential amendments that introduce those provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland, will help the police.
        784
        None the less, we ask the Minister to repeat on the record the assurance that the Government have not closed their mind to making further changes if it transpires that there are other loopholes. The case with which I dealt, and the not dissimilar cases with which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have dealt, have exposed potential difficulties in the law as it stands.
        We all want there to be a really effective set of provisions in statute to control dangerous sex offenders and prevent their committing further offences. After the tragic Sarah Payne case, we are all especially conscious of the need for the law to be very tough and not to allow any loopholes to remain. Having said that, I welcome the Government's action, but ask the Minister to reassure us that if we propose further changes, the Government will consider our proposals seriously.
        Norman Baker: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am happy to express full support for the Government's proposals. We also supported the amendments made in Committee. The provisions are sensible and they will close one or two of the loopholes that all of us recognise need to be closed.
        Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am aware of at least one relevant case. After becoming the subject of an order, an offender in a Welsh force's area moved to Scotland. The relevant Scottish force was informed of the order, the man's behaviour was monitored, and I understand that risky behaviour was observed. An additional order had to be sought because the prohibitions of the first order were not legally binding in Scotland. That is not satisfactory. The loophole must be closed, the Government are right to close it, and they have our full support.
        I welcome too the heightened commitment from Ministers to deal with sex offences generally—a small straw in the wind, but welcome none the less. The Home Secretary personally answered a question about rape at Home Office questions, which did not go unnoticed. He has also said that he intends to introduce legislation to update sex offences legislation, which is overdue. I am therefore pleased with the Government's response in this regard, both this afternoon and more generally.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I do not share the enthusiasm that some hon. Members have expressed for the amendments. When I look back at section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, I am struck by its draconian nature. One must therefore ask oneself whether one should extend it even further.
        Under section 20(2)(b) of that Act, the power to make an order is exercised on a standard of proof less than that required under the criminal code. Under section 21(7)(a), the order can be made indefinitely. Under section 20(5), the prohibitions imposed
        "are those necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the person in respect of whom the order is made."
        Someone who satisfies the criteria—I accept that they have to have been a sex offender in the past—can have an indefinite prohibition imposed on them on a standard of evidence that falls far short of that required in the criminal courts. The order may require them to desist

        785
        from a particular occupation, living in a particular place or pursuing certain conduct—all on a standard of proof below that used in the criminal courts and for an indefinite period.
        We are extending that provision, and I view that process with considerable suspicion. I am a little surprised, as clause 20 is a Scottish clause, that we have not had the privilege of hearing from a Scotland Office Minister. As other matters refer to Northern Ireland, I am a little surprised that we have not had the privilege of hearing from Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, but so be it—those are small points. At the end of the day, we are extending draconian powers, and we need to be jolly careful about doing so.
        Lady Hermon: I am sorry that we have not had input from a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will grant me the courtesy of accepting that as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, my views may carry just as much weight as those of a Minister from that Department.
        We in Northern Ireland are particularly in favour of the extension of the orders, as our position has become increasingly difficult—when sex offenders moved into an area, we could not impose interim sex offender orders. A number of my constituents are exceedingly concerned about that problem, so I wish to compliment the Minister, rather than criticise him, on introducing the new clauses. However, I should be grateful for clarification of two matters. First, new clause 4(2) will change the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 so that it reads,
        "If it appears to the Chief Constable that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to…any person"—
        meaning a sex offender—
        "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland"
        Will the Minister clarify what is meant by a person who
        "intends to come to…Northern Ireland"?
        Does that extend to people coming form the Republic of Ireland, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom?
        Secondly, the Minister will know that under section 21 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a chief constable in England and Wales
        "shall consult the local authority"
        before a sex offender order is made. In Northern Ireland, we do not have a similar procedure. The Chief Constable has no obligation to consult a local authority. Bearing in mind the impact of the Patten report and reform of policing in Northern Ireland—the central element of which is to bring policing closer to the community—was any consideration given to consultation with the new district policing partnerships which will mirror district council areas in Northern Ireland, or was the matter overlooked when the new clauses were tabled?
        Annabelle Ewing: I, too, place on record my regret that no Scotland Office Minister has seen fit to be present during the debate on these clauses, which will of course apply to Scotland. Perhaps that is symptomatic of their somewhat cavalier attitude to the treatment of Scots law matters in this Parliament.
        On behalf of the Scottish national party, I welcome the closing of loopholes in the sex offender order system and in the enforceability of such orders throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that that will help to ensure public confidence in the way in which we deal with sex offenders.
        786
        Reference has been made to the debate in the Scots Parliament on 27 June this year on the Sewel motion passing jurisdiction on this matter to Westminster. During that debate, my SNP colleagues raised some concerns, motivated by the need to proceed as urgently as possible. At that time, it was not clear whether the Bill would complete its legislative passage through this place before the House rose for the summer recess. During the debate in the Scots Parliament, we in the SNP were arguing for the passage by the Scots Parliament of emergency legislation to ensure that this vital matter was dealt with urgently. Of course, the Scots Parliament retains jurisdiction over criminal justice matters and on several occasions has passed emergency legislation in the criminal justice field.
        During that debate—I mention this on the off-chance that the legislative completion of the Bill does not proceed in the way it appears to be heading—my SNP colleagues sought a guarantee from the Scottish Executive Minister that, if the passage of the Bill in Westminster was delayed for any reason, the issue of sex offender orders would be brought back to the Scots Parliament when it reconvenes at the beginning of September after its shorter summer recess, to ensure that emergency legislation would be forthcoming.
        We support the principles of the new clauses and the consequential amendments. I hope that the introduction into Scots law of such important new provisions will not be delayed simply because they have been tagged on to Westminster legislation which, for the most part, has no application in Scotland.
        Mr. Denham: I shall deal with the points in turn. I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the new clauses and amendments. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that it is the Government's intention to respond in the autumn to the conclusions of the consultations on the "Setting the Boundaries" report on sex offences generally. In due course, we will look for legislative slots to take forward our proposals in that regard. As we discussed in Committee, we have used the Bill to introduce necessary and urgent measures, but this is by no means the end of the issues that need to be addressed. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
        I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). He is right to notice the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to these issues.
        The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that the powers were draconian; they are. They are powerful measures, which the House has judged necessary to protect our children from people who have a record of sexual offences and who may be displaying behaviour—for example, hanging round children's swimming baths or playgrounds—from which the public wish to be protected, and the public do not understand why there is no preventive measure. The House and other Parliaments having decided to introduce such measures, it is appropriate that we make sure that they work as effectively and flexibly as possible.
        The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about a couple of points. Yes, the power can potentially be used against a convicted sex offender from abroad. It could obviously also be used in circumstances where somebody convicted in this country had travelled

        787
        abroad and was coming back. Precisely because situations have arisen where police have become aware that a convicted offender is moving to their area, whether from within the country or from abroad, the power is necessary. Somebody may, for example, be relocated or housed upon release through a registered social landlord. It may become quite widely known that that person is moving to a particular area, but at present the police cannot act until the person has taken up residence in the area. Clearly, that has been a matter for public concern.
        On the comments of the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), let us hope that because of the utmost reasonableness of the Government and our accommodating approach to the Report stage, any questions of legislative delay need not entertain us.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 3

        SEX OFFENDER ORDERS MADE IN ENGLAND, WALES OR NORTHERN IRELAND
        'After section 21 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) there shall be inserted—

        "21A Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland

        (1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in Scotland which he is prohibited from doing there by—

        (a) an order under section 2(3) or 2A above; or

        (b) an order under Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)),

        he is guilty of an offence.

        (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.".— [Mr. Denham.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 4

        Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland
        '(1) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) (sex offender orders) shall be amended as follows.

        (2) In paragraph (1) (application for a sex offender order)—

        (a) for "in Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland";

        (b) for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".

        (3) In paragraph (2) (which identifies the court to which an application must be made), for the words following "1981 to" there shall be substituted "any court of summary jurisdiction".

        (4) In paragraph (4) (the prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".

        788

        (5) In paragraph (7) (discharge of orders), after "parties" there shall be inserted "and subject to paragraph (7A)".

        (6) After that paragraph there shall be inserted—

        "(7A) Where a court makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one."

        (7) Subsection (4) applies in relation to applications and orders under Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section."'. [Mr. Denham.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 5

        INTERIM ORDERS FOR SEX OFFENDERS: NORTHERN IRELAND
        '(1) After Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) there shall be inserted—
        "6A Interim orders: sex offenders
        (1) This Article applies where an application for a sex offender order ("the main application") to a court of summary jurisdiction has not been determined.
        (2) The applicant may apply by way of complaint under Part VIII of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/ 1675 (N.I. 26)) to the court for an interim order, pending the determination of the main application.
        (3) The court may make an interim order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order if it considers that it is appropriate to do so.
        (4) An interim order—

        (a) shall have effect for the period specified in the order;

        (b) shall (if still in force) cease to have effect on the determination of the main application.

        (5) While an interim order is in force, Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51) shall have effect as if—

        (a) the defendant were subject to the notification requirements of that Part; and

        (b) in relation to him, the relevant date (within the meaning of that Part) were the date of service of the order.

        (6) The applicant or the defendant may apply for the variation or discharge of the interim order by a further order.
        (7) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an interim order, he is guilty of an offence.
        (8) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (7) shall be liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

        (9) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (7), it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/ 3160 (N.I. 24)) in respect of the offence."
        (2) In Article 7(7) of that Order (sex offender orders: supplemental)—

        (a) after "a sex offender order" there shall be inserted "or an interim order under Article 6A";

        (b) after "Article 6(6)" there shall be inserted "or 6A(6)".'.[Mr. Denham.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 6

        SEX OFFENDER ORDERS MADE IN ENGLAND AND WALES OR SCOTLAND
        'After Article 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) (which is inserted by section (Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland) above) there shall be inserted—
        "6B Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland

        (1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in Northern Ireland which he is prohibited from doing there by an order under section 2, 2A or 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) he is guilty of an offence.

        (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) shall be liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

        (3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (1), it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/ 3160 (N.I. 24)) in respect of the offence."'.—[Mr. Denham.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Clause 57

        SPECIMENS TAKEN FROM PERSONS INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING
        Mr. Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 55, line 6, after "patient" insert—
        'no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 7A of this Act and'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 40 to 46.
        Mr. Denham: The amendments seek to protect a person unconscious after an accident by providing that a constable cannot ask for a blood specimen to be taken if the medical practitioner with clinical care of the person objects. The amendments meet an undertaking that I gave in Committee to consider an amendment covering the same ground moved by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).
        The amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 introduced by clause 50(1) make it lawful, but not compulsory, for a medical practitioner to take a specimen when requested, if he thinks fit. The Bill already prevents the request being made to the practitioner with clinical care of the person concerned. Clearly, it would not be fitting if the practitioner with clinical care objected or if it were against his own medical judgment.
        The Road Traffic Act already protects hospital patients by providing that a patient cannot be required to give a specimen if the clinician objects. Clause 50(2) further amends the Act to provide additional protection in that,
        790
        when he recovers capacity, the person from whom the specimen was taken cannot be required to consent to its analysis if the clinician objects.
        It has never been our intention to allow a specimen to be taken without consent where the clinician objects. However, we need to ensure as far as possible the equality of treatment between conscious and unconscious patients, at whom the measures in the Bill are aimed.
        At present, a clinician can object to, and so prevent, a conscious patient from being required to provide a specimen. Under the Bill as it stands, the clinician can object to, and so prevent, an unconscious patient being required to consent to analysis of a specimen, but he cannot object to, and so prevent, the specimen from being taken in the first place. In practice, that is highly unlikely to happen: a medical practitioner would not take a specimen if the clinician objected, for reasons of medical ethics and professional etiquette. It remains, however, a theoretical possibility. The amendments would remove that possibility. Parallel amendments are made to the Transport and Works Act 1992.
        6 pm
        Mr. Paice: The Minister knows that the Opposition strongly support this cluster of amendments, which puts right a legal anomaly that has allowed some people to escape prosecution for their crimes because they were unconscious at the relevant moment. We support that, but, as he said, we raised in Committee the issue of the responsibility of the clinician in charge of a patient and his right to refuse to allow a sample to be taken. The issue arose in the British Medical Association's representations to me and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response, which I welcome. He did not say whether he had spoken to the BMA about the amendments. Will he confirm that he has done so and that it is happy and content that they achieve the objectives about which it expressed the concern from which the original amendments arose?
        Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I speak for myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) in welcoming the amendments. It was especially pleasing to see the Minister responding to the very good points that were made, and we all appreciate his taking them away and incorporating them into the Bill.
        Mr. Hogg: Before I can give my consent to the amendments, I should like the Minister to answer one or two questions, both general and particular. First, new section 7A(1)(d) to the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
        "it appears to that constable that that person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons."
        I need to know a little more about the meaning of the phrase "medical reasons". I cannot find any illumination in the definitions section of the Bill, but such reasons may be defined in other legislation. In that case, it would be helpful to know which legislation is involved.
        My anxiety is that the incapacity in question could arise from a mental disability. On the face of it, such disability could well be attributable to medical reasons. The Minister spoke about somebody being unconscious, and such circumstances will clearly fall within the definition, but what happens if an individual is suffering from a

        791
        severe disease or abnormality of mind? Does the phrase "medical reasons" prevent the clause from applying to such a person? I require clarification on that question. If the clause can apply to such a person, we are considering giving somebody who is suffering from a mental abnormality or disease a warning about the consequences of not supplying a specimen, which is a pretty pointless activity.
        We need to be clear that the classification of individual for which the clause provides does not extend to the mentally ill or abnormal, otherwise, we have got a problem. Of course, one resolution would be to provide that the warning should not be given unless the medical practitioner certifies that the person is capable of understanding it. If the medical practitioner made such a statement, one might assume that the position of the patient was safeguarded.
        My question is this: does the provision cover those who are mentally ill, and if so, what protection will be given to such people? They would not understand the warning and a prosecution might well flow in respect of an offence that they did not fully comprehend.
        Ms Candy Atherton: My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have been much exercised by the issue with which the amendment deals because of the case of the late Sarah Kettle in my constituency and the campaign that her mother, Mary Kettle, has run to obtain justice for families who find themselves in similar circumstances in future. Will he assure me that blood can be taken by a medical practitioner when somebody has been involved in a serious accident such as that which occurred in the Kettle case and ensure that, in similar circumstances, justice can be seen to be done in future?
        Mr. Denham: Certainly, it is very much the intention of the clause to ensure that justice is done in future. There has been extensive discussion with the British Medical Association about trying to get the legislation right and to ensure that it has the right checks and balances. The underlying problem is that of somebody who has been involved in a road accident and was drunk at the time, but can escape prosecution purely by virtue of being unconscious. That is the loophole that we are trying to close. It is only fair to the House and to everyone else to say that we are seeking generally and in the amendment to ensure that the proper clinical duties of doctors and their ethical position are also respected. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) would not expect anything different.
        The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked about the BMA. In answer to his question, I have to confess that I have not spoken to the BMA. I have every reason to believe that the amendment deals with the issue that it raised, but he asked me a direct question and I must give him a direct answer: I have not spoken to the BMA, but I would be mortified if I found out that the amendment did not address the issues about which it was concerned.
        The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about people who are mentally ill. Perhaps I have missed his point, but I am not
        792
        sure whether he has entirely understood the gist of the provision. Clearly, the person's incapacity must be attributable to medical reasons. Given the essence of that safeguard, I do not think that there is any question of a sample being taken if either the medical practitioner making the request or the clinician who is responsible for the person's care objects. That is the purpose of the amendment: it builds into the system the clinical protection of the judgment of the clinicians who are responsible for dealing with the matter. I do not think that the difficulty to which he alluded will arise in practice. If there is a problem of definition, the provisions will place clinical responsibility on the clinician who is responsible for the individual patient's care to object if he does not think that the procedure is in the patient's clinical interests.
        Mr. Hogg: I should like to press the Minister a little further. Two circumstances trouble me. First, a prosecution can follow from a failure to supply a specimen. For that to happen, a warning must be given, but in order to accord with the rules of natural justice, the warning must be tendered in such a way and to such a person as to ensure that it can be understood. A mental patient may not be able to understand the warning, which is given by the constable and not the doctor.
        Secondly, and rather differently, if a person who has had an accident was rendered unconscious and is in a pretty woozy state on coming round, the constable may well set about giving a warning prematurely, when the patient may not fully understand what is going on. Surely, there should be some requirement to ensure that if there is any doubt about the patient's ability to comprehend the warning, the medical practitioner will be asked to express an opinion.
        Mr. Denham: The legislative approach is that, under existing road traffic legislation, it is conceivable that somebody who is asked to provide a sample will be unable to comprehend the warning, although one might query why such a person was driving a car. None the less, that is possible under existing legislation, so there is nothing new here.
        We are introducing a protection that attempts to put the unconscious person from whom the sample is taken in the same position as that of somebody from whom a sample is taken under existing legislation. If a sample is taken and the person decides on regaining consciousness that they do not wish it to be analysed, they can refuse to allow that to happen. They will therefore have put themselves in the same position as that of somebody who is competent to refuse to allow the taking of a sample and decides to take the consequences of being taken to court in relation to that refusal. We have carefully structured the provisions so that a person from whom a sample is taken while they are unconscious can, if they like, put themselves in exactly the same position as somebody who refused a sample in the first place.
        With regard to the circumstances to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred, in which somebody with a mental incapacity was unable to understand the question, unless such a person was unconscious at the time, which would mean that they were dealt with under the provision, the situation would be unchanged from that which applies under existing road traffic legislation.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 40, in page 55, line 8, leave out—
        'section 7A of this Act'
        and insert 'that section'
        No. 41, in page 55, line 10, after "proposal" insert—
        'to take the specimen or'.
        No. 42, in page 55, line 17, after "that" insert—
        'the taking of the specimen;.—[Mr. Denham.]

      Clause 59

        EQUIVALENT PROVISION FOR OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
        Amendments made: No. 43, in page 59, line 9, after "patient" insert—
        'no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 31A of this Act and'.
        No. 44, in page 59, line 11, leave out—
        'section 31A of this Act'
        and insert 'that section'
        No. 45, in page 59, line 13, after "proposal" insert—
        'to take the specimen or'.
        No. 46, in page 59, line 20, after "that" insert—
        'the taking of the specimen,'.—[Mr. Denham.]

      Clause 60

        VEHICLES USED IN MANNER CAUSING ALARM, DISTRESS OR ANNOYANCE
        Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 60, line 28, after "occasion", insert—
        'within the last six months'.
        When I raised the issue of the seizure of motor vehicles in Committee, I came away from our relatively short discussion a little concerned about the Minister's reply, so I hope that he will forgive me for raising it again today. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendment tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friends the Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke).
        I want to outline a theoretical case which I hope will interest the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Clause 60 allows for the following scenario. A constable who has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a way that causes or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance has the power, if the vehicle is moving, to order the person who is driving it to stop, and the power to seize and remove the vehicle, using reasonable force to do so. So far, so good. The constable is required to warn the person that that will be the consequence if the vehicle's use is continued or repeated, or if the use has continued or has been repeated after the warning. Equally, I see no problem there. The clause includes the reasonable provision that a warning is not required if the circumstances would make it impracticable for the warning to be given. It also includes certain other let-outs that make good common sense. Again, so far, so good.
        794
        What worries me is subsection (2), which states:
        "A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set in subsection (3)"
        that is, the power to stop and seize—
        "where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion"—
        I repeat, on any occasion—
        "in a manner falling within subsection (1)."
        That worries me for two reasons. The immediate problem that would cause the constable to wish to seize or stop the vehicle has gone, because the vehicle is no longer causing any problem. Therefore, the necessity to stop the vehicle has completely gone, and the necessity to seize it is perhaps limited to the constable's fear or suspicion that the intimidatory behaviour may be repeated. That may be justifiable if it turns out that the person who owns the vehicle has a history of behaving in a way that leads the constable reasonably to conclude that they will again use their vehicle in a way that will cause alarm, distress and annoyance to members of the public.
        The problem is that there is no time limit on such a seizure. Moreover, the constable may not have been able to give a warning to the person driving the vehicle. That means that it is possible that some months or years later—I accept that it is a remote possibility, but it is what the clause allows—a constable could come along and seize a vehicle, saying, "I wanted to give you a warning at the time, but I could not stop you. This vehicle was involved in an incident, so I am exercising my powers to seize it." The Minister may think that that is rather far-fetched, but it is a possibility, as he admitted himself. I remind him of what he said in Committee:
        "The hon. Gentleman conjures up the possibility of the seizure without warning of a vehicle many months after an event. As the clause is constructed, that is a theoretical possibility, although whether it is likely to happen is a matter for speculation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 June 2002; c. 365.]
        The Minister is rightly keen on removing theoretical possibilities—indeed, he did so about 10 minutes ago when he dealt with a matter to do with blood specimens, saying, "It remains a theoretical possibility, so we are acting to remove it." I therefore hope that he will apply that logic to the matter that I have drawn to the House's attention and remove the theoretical possibility that is conjured up by the clause.
        6.15 pm
        The six-month limit that my colleagues and I are trying to insert is reasonable. Surely, the Minister can envisage no circumstances in which a constable would wish to seize a vehicle after six months. If he does not wish to have a time limit, he must accept that the theoretical possibility that I have outlined could happen, which would be a gross distortion of justice. After all, there can be no certainty that the vehicle seized was driven by the person who owned it. A person could have a vehicle stolen and because it is subsequently found three streets away, that person does not bother to tell the police that it happened. During the time that it was missing, the vehicle could have been used for purposes to cause alarm, distress or noise to members of the public. Some months later, the law-abiding citizen who retrieved his or her missing car could be confronted by a constable who says, "On one occasion this vehicle was driven in such a way that I am now going to seize it, because I was not able to give a

        795
        warning to the person driving it." If the person then says, "It went missing but I didn't report it because it turned up three hours later", the constable will say, "That's a likely story, sir—I'm seizing your vehicle."
        Although that is obviously not the intention of the clause, I suggest to the Minister that it is drafted in such a way as to allow the possibility to occur, and he therefore needs to insert some safeguards. The safeguard that I propose is a six-month time restriction. That is a normal time restriction which is applied by the police in all sorts of cases, and it would not be unreasonable to include it in the clause. Given that the Minister recognises that theoretical possibilities need to be removed, as he said 10 minutes ago in respect of blood samples, I am sure that he will support the amendment.
        Mr. Hogg: Although I am not sure that I support the amendment, the hon. Gentleman identifies a point of some substance. There are two issues here, because clauses 60 and 61 have to be read together. Clause 60(2) enables the police to stop an individual who was not responsible for the antisocial behaviour set out in subsection (1), and to do so on the basis of hearsay—that is, information that is neither known to him personally nor within his ability to check. So a driver can be stopped and have his vehicle seized for behaviour that was not carried out by himself, in a situation where the constable has less than adequate knowledge on which to base his decision.
        Yet more problematic is what happens where the owner is perfectly innocent. Under clause 61, the regulations to enable the owner to recover the seized vehicle are couched in permissive terms only, so the Secretary of State is not obliged to lay regulations enabling an innocent owner to recover it, but only "may" do so. Together, the two clauses represent an undesirable curtailment of liberty.
        Mr. Hawkins: I can be brief in dealing with this. On 25 June there was a short debate in Committee, which is recorded at columns 364 to 366 of Hansard. We understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has raised, but we anticipate that the Minister may say that an artificial time constraint of only six months might be rather too restrictive. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) spoke in Committee to express his view that the measures were very widely framed. Although we do not support what the hon. Member for Lewes says, we recognise, as did the Minister in Committee, that he raises a theoretical possibility.
        Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman correctly anticipates that I am going to ask the House to resist the amendment on the grounds that I am not sure that an arbitrary time limit is a good idea in this context. It is worth noting clause 60's reliance—not exclusively, but for the most part—on circumstances in which a constable has already given a warning to those indulging in the antisocial use of a motor car. I have some discomfort with the idea that a warning that has been given might lapse because of some arbitrary time limit. I will therefore ask hon. Members to resist the amendment.
        796
        On late seizure and the effects on an innocent person, the Bill makes it mandatory that people who did not know about the vehicle's use should get it back without charge. That is a provision in the Bill, although there are details about charging through regulations.
        Mr. Hogg: I wonder whether the Minister is right. I presume that the power to reclaim the vehicle will be made under the regulations. Clause 61(1) provides:
        "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to…the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner… may seek to have it released".
        Why is not the provision to lay the regulations mandatory rather than permissive?
        Mr. Denham: Draftsmen have different views about whether "may" means "shall" and vice versa in legislation, and we are in one of those terrible debates. However, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations. He will thus fulfil the requirements of clause 61(3), which states:
        "Regulations … must provide that a person…shall not be liable to pay…if…the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and…he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure".
        Norman Baker: I understand why the Minister does not want an arbitrary time limit. However, clause 60 is loosely worded or widely drawn. Will he recognise that there is at least the potential for injustice? What further safeguards does he propose? Does he acknowledge that clause 60(5) provides that a warning is not necessary?
        Mr. Denham: I made a point of saying that the clause relies largely but not exclusively on warnings. Subsection (5) allows for circumstances under which a warning is not practicable. I do not agree that the clause is loosely worded. It allows necessary operational flexibility. We should not forget the severe disruption that many of our constituents suffer through the irresponsible and unauthorised use of off-road vehicles, such as motor cycles, and people who joyride repeatedly around the same residential estates and roads. That causes great distress. I believe that clauses 60 and 61 reflect the mood in Committee and respond to a genuine environmental nuisance caused by irresponsible people against which action must be taken. Seizing vehicles will often be the best method of tackling that.
        Norman Baker: The Minister is right that vehicles that are used in a
        "manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance"
        create severe disruption. Nobody disagrees with that, and the Committee's mood was to support the clause's intention. My colleagues and I fully support its purpose. It is sensible that steps are available to the police to deal with vehicles that are used in the manner described by the clause. My constituents, like others, are subject to such unwelcome use of vehicles, and we support measures to give the police powers to tackle that. However, we do not support provisions, the drafting of which allows injustice to occur. The Minister has failed to deal with that.
        The Minister accepted that a warning will not necessarily be given and that a vehicle could be subsequently seized without warning. He has not explained why subsequent

        797
        seizure, rather than seizure during an alarming incident, is appropriate. The alarm has, by definition, passed if the vehicle is not seized or stopped during the incident. He did not state that a vehicle may not seized from an owner who has no knowledge of the vehicle's use. The potential for injustice cannot be justified by the Government's proper attempts to deal with the nuisance caused by vehicles used in the manner that clause 60 describes.
        Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen to draw up a clause that deals with the "alarm, distress or annoyance", which hon. Members of all parties want to tackle, while ensuring that injustice does not occur. I am disappointed that the Minister has failed to deal with that aspect of my argument.
        However, we have a timetable motion and there are other matters to discuss, and I shall therefore not try to divide the House. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 62

        ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
        Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 63, line 20, at end insert
        '(6A) At the end of subsection (3) there is inserted "; save that, where the behaviour giving rise to the complaint involves prostitution, the complaint may alternatively be made to a county court."
        (6B) In subsection (4), after the words "magistrates court" there is inserted (or, as the case may be, county court)".'.
        The amendment would allow antisocial behaviour orders involving prostitutes to be considered in the county courts as an addition to current powers that permit them to be considered in magistrates courts.
        Residents in central Swindon suffer severely from the prostitutes and pimps who frequent the area. A recent survey of residents found that most men had been propositioned. Only last week, a gentleman told me that he was driving normally and safely from the community centre and was shocked when someone jumped into the back of his car. If that can happen when someone is simply leaving a community centre, hon. Members can imagine the problems that many men in the area are experiencing.
        Many women are also propositioned, causing offence and distress. Prostitution has an impact not only on people's social and family lives but on businesses in the area.
        Mr. Hogg: I understand the problem that the hon. Lady is outlining, and I am not against her. However, why does she want the application to be made to the county court, not the justices?
        Ms Drown: I shall deal with that shortly.
        First, I want to explain the disruption that prostitution is causing. I know of a child minder who is obviously embarrassed about the situation when the people whom she helps come to her door. Even 10-year-olds have been propositioned by prostitutes. That is clearly unacceptable. Condoms are discarded in people's gardens and in
        798
        alley-ways, and there is harassment from pimps and prostitutes. We have got to the point of telephone lines being pulled out of people's homes.
        I congratulate the police on their work on the problem. They have put extra resources into the area. Councillors, especially local Labour councillors, have been trying to tackle the problem. The community council has also been supportive. However, those are temporary solutions, and the community welcomed the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders. Great faith was placed in taking prostitutes to our magistrates court.
        When the four prostitutes were identified, much work was put into ensuring that there was a strong case, especially as it was the first use of antisocial behaviour orders. I am attracted to the orders because they can be used to tackle other issues, such as the drug problems that many prostitutes in the area experience.
        There was a co-ordinated effort to get an antisocial behaviour order through our magistrates court. The community experienced extra frustration when there was a delay. As hon. Members know, magistrates are voluntary, and the court worked hard to get the three magistrates together for a three-day hearing. The delay caused problems; once again, I congratulate the community council, which kept threats of vigilante action at bay. Hon. Members can imagine the community's frustration when a defence solicitor in the magistrates court described antisocial behaviour orders as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is not the case, and that the orders are appropriate for dealing with the genuine problems that prostitution causes.
        6.30 pm
        The magistrates did not believe that the case was strong enough or that it fulfilled the requisite conditions. Hon. Members can imagine the huge disappointment in the community after that decision. A lot of work went into analysing the case, and into assessing whether it had been strong enough and whether the conditions had been fulfilled. The local borough council and the police strongly believe that the conditions were fulfilled, and that the problem was caused by having to deal with the case in a magistrates court. There was a real feeling that if it had gone to the county court, the application for an antisocial behaviour order would not have failed.
        The reasons for that were, first, that county court judges are used to drawing inferences. In Swindon, the magistrates refused the antisocial behaviour orders because they did not have the evidence to link the individual prostitutes to the antisocial behaviour that they admitted was being caused by the soliciting. There was also no question but that those particular people were prostitutes. County court judges are much more used to drawing such inferences. Secondly, they are much more used to weighing up hearsay evidence, which is particularly prevalent in cases involving prostitution. That greater experience would really help in assessing such evidence.
        Thirdly, county court judges are used to applying a civil burden of proof. Just as they have greater experience of hearsay evidence, they also have greater experience of applying such a burden of proof, and are better informed as to how much evidence is needed to balance the probabilities in such cases. The other advantage of

        799
        allowing cases to be taken in either a magistrates court or a county court is that the more possibilities there are for bringing antisocial behaviour orders, the more likely a case is to be heard quickly. When we are dealing with real frustration in communities, it is important to try to get the orders in place as soon as possible.
        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am following the hon. Lady's argument carefully, but I have to say, with great respect, that the delay involved in finding three whole days for a county court hearing would be immense. In most county courts, that process can take three or even six months.
        Ms Drown: I appreciate that comment. It took that long in Swindon, too, to get this whole process running. The amendment would allow more possibilities and flexibility. The time scale varies up and down the country, and I would hope that most of these cases would not need three days. The proposal would provide a sensible way for the Government to improve the quality of life for many of my constituents in central Swindon, and I urge the Minister to consider accepting the amendment.
        Mrs. Brooke: Antisocial behaviour orders are multi-purpose tools—sometimes rather blunt ones—and because they are applied in many different circumstances, I can follow the argument of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). Indeed, I listened to her speak on the matter in an Adjournment debate which I found very interesting. I had not really thought about the prostitution side of the argument at all; I was hooked into the argument relating to young persons.
        I would remind the Minister that I was very concerned about one use of antisocial behaviour orders, which involved attaching them to a person moving from one area to another. That could have dreadful consequences for a young person. I have also pointed out a use for the orders that had considerable appeal in my area, certainly over the last few weeks. We have to think quite broadly about the orders, and we need a degree of flexibility.
        I am no expert on the different kinds of court, so I do not know what the best solution is to this problem, but I support the hon. Lady's amendment. When we need to address a particular problem, we may need extra flexibility to make the provisions work and, I imagine, to let lots of other measures kick in so that that can be achieved.
        Mr. Michael Fallon: I, too, support the amendment. I think that all hon. Members want these orders to be more effective than they are, as I mentioned at Home Office questions yesterday. The argument that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) put forward in support of taking this particular route—namely, that county courts would be better equipped to draw inference, to handle hearsay evidence and to judge the burden of proof—might well apply to other categories of offence as well as to prostitution. I am afraid that this brings us back to the question of whether the orders are still sledgehammers, blunt tools, or however we want to describe them. We need to look again at how the orders are processed, taking the time delay into consideration as well.
        800
        It would nevertheless be churlish of me not to recognise that the Minister is trying to improve the way in which the orders work. I certainly welcome the extension of the relevant authorities, and the inclusion of housing associations, which will make a big difference in my particular part of Kent. I hope, however, that when he replies to this short debate, he will recognise with some humility that the orders have been cumbersome to operate and that, three years on, cases such as the one brought before us by the hon. Member for South Swindon show that they are still not working as effectively as they should be. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
        Mr. Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for raising this matter. She has raised it in the House before, and I understand her concerns. No one would deny the real nuisance caused by prostitution and also by kerb-crawlers—an issue on which the Government have recently taken action by making kerb-crawling an arrestable offence.
        I have some concerns about the amendment, however. One, touched on by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), was the difficulty that we might set up an anomalous treatment of antisocial behaviour orders as between one type of offence and another. One of the Government's reasons for routing antisocial behaviour orders through magistrates courts was the perception of the difficulty of accessing county courts through a more traditional type of injunction. I fear that a consequence of accepting the amendment would be a great deal of pressure to put a lot of other antisocial behaviour orders into the county court, much of which might come from defence lawyers seeking to prevent orders being put in place, rather than from those who wish—as do all hon. Members—to make them more effective. For that reason, I must resist the amendment.
        The Government have recognised that there are ways in which antisocial behaviour orders can be improved, and part of the Bill deals with the interim ASBO to that end. We also recognise that a county court dealing with an eviction matter, for example, could impose an ASBO—as, indeed, could a criminal court dealing with a prostitution-related matter. Those measures will be helpful.
        Research that we published earlier this year suggests that some of the time taken in getting ASBOs has, in my view, reflected the way in which people have gone about collecting evidence, the expectation of the courts, and so on, rather than anything in the primary legislation. Part of that stems from our own guidance about ASBOs, which we shall aim to slim down when it is revised once the Bill has completed its passage. There have certainly been cases in which the weight of evidence collected has been greater than anyone would have thought necessary for a criminal case, let alone for a civil injunction of this kind.
        I have travelled round the country talking to people about antisocial behaviour orders, and there is no doubt that magistrates must, of course, consider each individual case on its merits. When local authorities, the police, and others have sat down with the magistracy, however, and explained the context in which ASBOs are being used, their purpose, and the types of problems being tackled, there has been greater consistency by magistrates in supporting applications for the orders. I do not know whether that is relevant to my hon. Friend's constituency, but it may be an issue that needs to be looked at there.

        801
        After this debate, I would, of course, be happy to consider whether we need to address any of the specific issues of inference, evidence, and so on, that my hon. Friend has raised, or whether we need to ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to address them in the context of his role as president of the Magistrates Association.
        Lady Hermon rose—
        Mr. Denham: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
        Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to you, because I spoke with such haste last time that I forgot to thank you for calling me to speak.
        Will the Minister please have a quiet word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, just to put on record with him the fact that we in Northern Ireland would very much like to see antisocial behaviour orders made available to the magistrates courts? We do not have the orders in Northern Ireland at all; perhaps the Secretary of State could give some thought to that gap at another juncture.
        Mr. Denham: I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
        Ms Drown: I do not want to detain the House, so I shall not push the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that the Minister will continue to review the matter, which is important to improving the quality of life of my constituents in central Swindon. I am reassured by his commitment to continue to tackle the issue, and I look forward to continuing our correspondence about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 65

        ORDERS ON CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
        Mr. Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 65, line 37, after "(6)" insert—
        'for the discharge of an order'.
        The amendment will make a minor drafting change to the clause. Under the legislation, we will enable an ASBO to be made on criminal proceedings. As the Bill stands, however, the ASBO could not be varied in the flexible way that all other ASBOs may be varied. The amendment makes it clear that the application can be made to vary an order at any time by the relevant authority or by the offender. The amendment will achieve consistency between all the orders, and a fair and proportionate system will be established.
        Mrs. Brooke: The Minister will not be surprised that I want to pursue the matter, as I did in Committee although we were rushed, and I am sure he agrees that we did not have time for a proper answer. In Committee, I raised the point that if we are attempting to change as well as stop certain behaviour, which I hope we are, people should not have to go through an absolute two-year period before they can apply, or even have the opportunity to apply,
        802
        for an order to be rescinded. That would confirm such behaviour rather than give an incentive to reform and to use a new approach.
        Such orders may have an effect, perhaps by shaking up young people and their families, but we are condemning them to a two-year wait with that label on them. Would it not be better to provide the opportunity to get rid of the label and to tackle the behavioural problems rather than just put a stop to them temporarily? Will the Minister consider the fact that although six months might not be enough, two years is a long time for somebody to carry a label if they are determined to change their behaviour?
        Mr. Denham: Indeed, the purpose of our amendment is to bring into line the flexibility on other ASBOs and that on those for criminal convictions. I agree with the hon. Lady that, when an ASBO is in place, we must always consider how we can change the underlying offending behaviour.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 70
        SEX OFFENDER ORDERS MADE IN SCOTLAND OR NORTHERN IRELAND
        Amendment made:No. 48, in page 69, line 22, after "Article 6" insert "or 6A".—[Mr. Denham.]
      New Clause 7

        DUTIES UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974
        '(1) The following enactments shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)—

        (a) section 51A of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) (application of Part 1 of that Act to the police);

        (b) section 49A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (right of police officers not to suffer a detriment in relation to health and safety at work issues); and

        (c) section 134A of that Act (right of police officers not to be unfairly dismissed in relation to health and safety at work issues).

        (2) In subsection (1) of each of those sections, for "officer" there shall be substituted "authority".

        (3) For subsection (2) of each of those sections, there shall be substituted—

        "(2) In this section 'the relevant authority' means—

        (a) in relation to a member of a police force, a special constable appointed for a police area or a police cadet appointed by a chief officer of police, the police authority or, in the case of a combined area in Scotland, the police board (within the meaning of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77));

        (b) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Service Authority for that service;

        (c) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the National Crime Squad, the Service Authority for that squad:

        (d) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable or an appointment as police cadet, the person responsible for maintaining the body of constables or police cadets in question.

        (2A) The Commissioner of Police for the City of London shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if he were a member of the City of London police force."

        803

        (4) After subsection (2A) of section 5 A of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c.37) (which is inserted by subsection (3)) there shall be inserted

        "(2B) The following provisions (which impose the same liability for unlawful conduct of constables on persons with their direction and control as would arise if the constables were the employees of those persons) do not apply in relation to any liability arising in respect of a contravention of this Act—

        (a) section 88(1) of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16);

        (b) section 97(9) of that Act;

        (c) section 42(1) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50);

        (d) section 86(1) of that Act;

        (e) paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 8 to that Act;

        (f) section 39 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77); and

        (g) paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16).

        (2C) The provision which may be made by health and safety regulations includes in particular—

        (a) provision which, for the purposes of this Part specified in the regulations, treats the acts or omissions of a chief officer as if they were acts or omissions of the relevant authority in relation to the constables or police cadets under that officer's direction and control;

        (b) provision which treats premises under the control of a chief officer as premises under the control of the relevant authority in relation to that officer.

        (2D) In subsection (2C) 'chief officer' means—

        (a) a chief officer of police;

        (b) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

        (d) the Director General of the National Crime Squad; or

        (e) any other person having direction and control of a body of constables or police cadets."

        (5) In each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of that section, for "chief officer of police" there shall be substituted "police authority".

        (6) In subsection (4) of that section, for "or (c)" there shall be substituted ", (c) or (d)".

        (7) Section 5 of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 (c. 42) (payments by police authorities etc. out of relevant funds in relation to contraventions of health and safety legislation) shall cease to have effect.

        (8) An order bringing this section into force may make such savings and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 108.
        Mr. Denham: This is an important new clause, which has, I accept, been introduced relatively late in the day. It will make amendments to deem police authorities and, in Scotland, police boards to be employers of police officers for the purposes of health and safety legislation. In the case of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, the service authority for each will be deemed to be the employer of police officers for that purpose.
        Currently, health and safety legislation treats chief officers as the employer of police officers. That has led to the anomaly that chief officers are personally liable when prosecuted as employer for criminal offences
        804
        alleged to have been committed by their forces under health and safety legislation. That is because forces are not legal entities and cannot therefore be prosecuted as organisations. A chief officer may find himself or herself in the invidious position of being prosecuted as an individual, rather than in a representational capacity, and incurring a criminal record. That could damage the image of policing for no good reason.
        6.45 pm
        Of course, where a health and safety offence has been committed with the consent of, or through neglect by, an individual, that person should be personally liable, and that will not be altered by these changes.
        The measures will replicate for police officers the position that already exists for police support staff, and the position that will exist under the Bill in relation to designated support staff. In both cases, police authorities are employer.
        Police authorities are well able to discharge the employers' duties and liabilities set out in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. They already fulfil that role in relation to civilians, and the Home Office will negotiate detailed arrangements with all the relevant parties in relation to police officers, in the framework of police authority responsibilities and powers set out in the Police Act 1996.
        Those arrangements will be enshrined in a statutory code of practice. We have consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers and other relevant bodies, and we believe that arrangements can be arrived at which will not undermine the operational independence of chief officers.
        We will give priority to producing the code. It will provide that police authorities are responsible for ensuring that chief officers have in place a suitable regime for dealing with health and safety issues, and that police authorities can call for reports if they are not satisfied that chief officers are carrying out their responsibilities in that area. The code will make it clear that police authorities are not responsible for carrying out health and safety risk assessments, which will continue to be a matter for chief officers.
        Mr. Hawkins: Once again, I can be brief. Although we understand entirely what the Government propose—we see a great deal of sense in it—we raised in Committee our concerns about the growth of the so-called compensation culture and the fact that, as the Minister is well aware and as he fairly accepted in Committee, on many occasions police authorities have been severely hit by compensation claims of various kinds. Taxpayers' money, instead of going on front-line policing, pays for compensation or the increased cost of police pensions, which is a matter of grave concern to many people, both inside and well beyond the House.
        In the winding-up speech to what I hope is a fairly brief debate, I hope that the Minister says that the Government will keep under review the question of the compensation culture in relation to the police and police authorities. We certainly do not oppose the Government bringing the position in respect of chief officers in line with that relating to civilian staff—as the Minister said, that seems eminently sensible—but one would not want a chief officer to be regarded and treated in the courts as

        805
        personally liable when the matter should properly be dealt with as one of corporate responsibility, if I may put it that way.
        We understand entirely what the Government are doing, but we remain concerned. We hope that the Minister confirms that he will keep the compensation culture and its effect on police authority funds for front-line policing under review.
        Norman Baker: I can be even briefer. I recognise the reason for introducing the new clause, which I welcome as an entirely sensible measure. I hope that I can continue to welcome Government measures as sensible. If I show such generosity, the Government may reciprocate one day.
        Mr. Hogg: I have but one reservation. I accept that there is a good case for transferring responsibility to the police authorities, but if they are to perform the various duties under the legislation, they may, in certain circumstances, find themselves making decisions of an operational kind; otherwise, they will be unable to comply with the obligations under the health and safety legislation.
        Lady Hermon: I have a request for clarification, which arises out of a briefing that right hon. and hon. Members were invited to attend last week with the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner. During those discussions it became clear that the new community support officers will be equipped with only a radio: they will not have handcuffs or a truncheon. The new clause makes it clear that the relevant authority means members of a police force, a special constable or a police cadet. Does that cover the duty of care that is owed to the new community support officers?
        Mr. Denham: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that this new clause does not directly address that issue, because CSOs as support staff are already direct employees of the police authority, so they are covered by health and safety legislation. Constables or sworn officers are being brought into line with the responsibilities of the police authority. There is no change in the position of CSOs, as in our view they are already appropriately covered.
        The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to operational issues. He may have noticed that I read out my speaking note with more than the usual care. I set out our proposals for a code of practice to govern the way in which police authorities exercise their responsibilities, and said that the position of the chief constable would be protected. After discussion with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, we are confident that police authorities will be able to accept the responsibilities that they are given under this new clause and that the proper independence of chief officers will be protected. We must give priority to producing the statutory code of practice.
        I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for his support for this measure, and for his recognition of the Government's generosity. We always seek opportunities to reciprocate, although we have not found many yet.
        The compensation culture is of concern across a huge area of public life, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I would not suggest that there is a
        806
        particular problem with the police service. However, we need to take a number of steps. Proper attention needs to be paid to health and safety, especially occupational health matters. That is certainly part of the answer. We should minimise the situations in which officers feel that compensation claims should be made. The hon. Gentleman, being a lawyer, will understand better than I the difficulty of denying someone access to the courts for proper protection.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Clause 100

        POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
        Mr. Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 100, line 13, leave out "40(7)".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 45, page 46, line 16, leave out Clause 45.
        Mr. Denham: Is it not amazing that within a matter of seconds of my being invited to be incredibly generous, an opportunity comes along? The hon. Member for Lewes can be well satisfied.
        This clause was debated at some length in Committee. We see it as a perfectly reasonable and proportionate mechanism, which requires the affirmative resolution procedure. It gives this and future Governments the flexibility to add limited powers to and to take limited powers out of schedules 4 and 5. Essentially, it enables the Government to give limited powers to community support officers and accredited community safety officers, or in the light of experience to remove those powers from the menu available.
        It is worth mentioning that the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in the other place saw nothing wrong with the procedure in the clause. A precedent has been set by the Bill, because my understanding is that up until this Bill it had been a matter of course for Governments and Oppositions to respect, pretty much without question, the conclusions of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. A precedent has now been set in the other place for not respecting the decisions of that Committee, although I am not sure that that will serve us well in the long run.
        None the less, we are moving into the closing stages of our proceedings on the Bill. It is perfectly clear to me that the opposition that this clause has faced is likely to arise again in the House of Lords, where the Government do not have a majority. For that reason we have added our names to the consequential amendment No. 2. What we will lose by doing that is flexibility. Should it in future be shown that existing legislation should apply to community support officers or to accredited community safety officers, that will be much more difficult. Equally, should it appear in the light of experience that a power has been made available to chief constables that should not have been made available, it will be a much more laborious and lengthy process for Parliament to remove it. That is the cost attached to the amendment, but I recognise the parliamentary arithmetic.

        807
        I hope that in later discussions there will be support for the measures that we have introduced to enable local authority traffic wardens and others to have additional powers to help with the escort of abnormal loads and to take part in traffic checks. We intended to extend powers in that area, so we have brought that measure forward as soon as possible, because we believe that those powers would rapidly have been seen to be necessary.
        Mr. Paice: I respect the Minister for moving the amendment, but I feel sure that he would rather not have done so. He explained his move by saying that he recognised the parliamentary arithmetic. Obviously, I would have preferred it if he had recognised the power of oratory that some of us used in Committee. Whatever the reasons for the Government's decision to add their name to amendment No. 2 tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, we are grateful to them for doing so.
        In accepting the situation and speaking to amendment No. 2, the Minister expressed concern about the problem of altering the position should experience in the next few months or few years show that there are too many powers or too few. Without wishing to pre-empt any future debate, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the official Opposition will not oppose the point that he made about traffic powers. I recognise the logic of that: indeed, some of it fits neatly with proposals presented by my noble Friend Lord Attlee in the other place.
        On the question whether schedules 4 and 5 will in time prove to be defective—providing either too many or too few powers—I remind the Minister that over the years we have discovered that the Home Office has a propensity for legislation. We know that there is a substantial amount of legislation in the Home Office pipeline. I feel sure that, should the Government at any stage discover that they need to amend the powers given to civilians, to civilian officers employed by the police or to accredited community safety officers, they will find a suitable vehicle within weeks, if not minutes, to which to append the changes that they need or wish to make. I cannot believe that it will be long before they find a suitable mechanism.
        It is odd that the Government have come to this point so late in the proceedings. At some stage—I have forgotten when exactly—the Minister said that this was not a Henry VIII clause, which is at odds with what his noble Friend Lord Rooker said in the other place. He stated categorically that it is a Henry VIII clause.
        The House of Lords threw the clause out, and the Government reinserted it in Committee, against the advice of my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats. Then, at about 6 o'clock last night, the Government tabled an amendment that had the effect of adding Ministers' names to our amendment. We welcome the Government's conversion, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in understanding the argument, notwithstanding the arithmetic of the other place. We shall of course support the Government if they seek to divide the House on the issue.
        7 pm
        Norman Baker: It is an odd experience to have a Minister add his name to an amendment that carries my name, but I suppose that all of us in the House have to
        808
        get used to things. I look forward to similar experiences in the future. It is also instructive that when the two main Opposition parties have stuck together and shown determination to remove the proposal, the Government have recognised the arithmetic, as the Minister put it. I am not sure whether that drives the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives closer together; that is a worrying prospect, but it is the logic of tonight's developments.
        I recognise the Minister's admission that this measure would continue to be unpopular with the Opposition in this House and in the House of Lords. It is sensible for him to pull the plug now, rather than suffer a further defeat in the Lords on the matter. To give credit to the Minister, we started off by saying that there was agreement on a large proportion of the Bill and disagreement on only three or four key issues, one of which the Minister has now dealt with. He has lanced the boil on that issue. If he wishes to lance the boil on one or two other issues tomorrow, we can all leave early and I can go to the parliamentary beer group dinner to which I referred earlier. I should like the Minister to consider overnight whether there are further concessions that he might make tomorrow.
        The Minister complained that we were removing flexibility from the Bill; indeed, that was the purpose of the amendment. The serious point is that there is a balance to be struck between what is the proper subject of primary legislation and what is the proper subject of subsequent regulations. It is our view that matters dealing with CSOs are controversial. The Government are bringing in a new concept, and we do not know how it will work. The Government think it will work well; others have more suspicions about how things will turn out.
        It would be wrong to give the Government the power to add powers to CSOs when we do not even know how they will work in practice. It is right that if the Government want to come back—at least for the first time—to add powers, we should be able to have a debate on how CSOs have worked in practice on our streets. That is what the amendment achieves, and I am grateful that the Government have signed up to it. It is useful and allows for a sort of review.
        The Minister said in a letter to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and me that another result would be that the Government could not remove powers from CSOs. Equally, that power has now been taken from the Government by the addition of Ministers' signatures to the amendment. That is not a worry for me. I suspect that if a particular power turned out to be hugely controversial or unworkable, chief constables would be reluctant to use it and it would wither on the vine. We are talking about adding powers to CSOs and, under the circumstances, it is right that that matter should be brought back before the House for discussion.
        Incidentally, I have no objection to the proposal to help in the guiding of heavy loads and so on. That seems to be eminently sensible. I am grateful that we are reaching agreement on such a major matter. I am happy to welcome the Government's admission and I assume that there will not be a Division on this matter.
        Angela Watkinson: I rise to support the removal of clause 45 from the Bill. The clause seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to add to, amend or repeal the powers and duties specified in schedules 4

        809
        and 5. Schedule 4 relates to powers exercisable by police civilians, most of which I would be quite happy to see repealed; I would not mind that element of the Bill staying in. However, the idea of enabling the Secretary of State to add to or amend those powers fills me with horror.
        I hope to speak in more detail tomorrow on CSOs when part I of the Bill is debated. I have grave reservations about giving the powers of a constable in uniform to anyone other than a fully trained constable. For that reason alone, I support the omission of clause 45.
        Mr. George Osborne: It would be a shame to let this moment pass so quickly and not to dwell on the fact that we have persuaded the Government to climb down on this matter, which the Minister did with considerable eloquence and style. I have been trawling through the Committee reports and, unfortunately, there is no "killer quote"; that is unlike the "killer quotes" made by the Prime Minister while speaking on the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994. I pay tribute to the Minister for that.
        I also pay tribute to the House of Lords for raising the issue. The Lords had the power in the Division Lobby, but my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) had the power of oratory to persuade the Government. It would be tempting to divide the House and watch Labour Members who served on the Committee vote for something against which they all voted two weeks ago. Sadly, I am not sure whether there is a single person in the House who would provide a Teller for the other side in a Division.
        The serious point made in Committee and in the House of Lords was that, after all the controversy about the powers that CSOs would have—and about CSOs themselves—it was wrong for the Home Secretary simply to add to those powers, despite the Government making certain concessions, including on the power of detention and arrest. However, it would have been wrong to give the Home Secretary that power.
        There is a division of opinion both in the House and in the police force as to whether CSOs will work or not. We should wait and see, and the removal of the clause will at least give us a safeguard. If there is a feeling that the powers of CSOs need to be increased, the Government must come back to the House for a proper debate and not use the unsatisfactory statutory instrument procedure; they must use primary legislation.
        The point has been made that the Home Office always has so many Bills going through at any one time that there will not be a problem in finding parliamentary time. It is not as if the Minister comes from one of those obscure Departments that are always desperately looking for a slot in the Queen's Speech. No doubt there will be many slots for the Minister and the Home Secretary.
        I welcome the climbdown, and I hope it is a foretaste of things to come tomorrow. We will wait and see.
        Mr. Francois: I would like to spend a few moments dwelling on tonight's enjoyable occurrence—the withdrawal of clause 45. It is particularly appropriate to welcome a change of heart by the Government in a week when 13 statutory instruments are being rammed through the House. I am pleased to see that, in a week during which we see such evidence of government by statutory
        810
        instrument by the Labour party, provisions are being taken out of this Bill that would have allowed the Government to use statutory instruments to widen the powers of community support officers. There is a delightful irony there, if I might put it like that.
        Among rank-and-file officers, there was more concern about the new institution of CSOs than about almost any other element in the Bill. To put it at its bluntest, there was concern among regular police officers that they might have to spend a lot of their time protecting the CSOs as they attempted to carry out their duties, thus diverting regular police officers from carrying out other important tasks.
        My personal view is that, rather than pushing the CSO agenda, it would have been better to have provisions in the Bill to boost the position of special constables, with whom the regular police are used to working. Special constables are volunteers whose hearts are fully in the job and who do a tremendous service to all members of the public. The numbers of special constables have declined considerably under this Government. There were about 20,000 special constables in 1993; there were some 19,000 in 1997, when Labour took office; now, there are fractionally over 12,000. That is a gigantic drop. Many are leaving because they are demoralised by the way in which their service is being run by a Labour Government. Surely it would have been better to reinforce the special constabulary in a proactive and helpful manner, and to let it work with the police, rather than bringing in an entirely new type of officer.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) ably pointed out, we will have to wait and see whether this experiment works. Like many other Opposition Members, I have reservations about it—as, indeed, do many professional police officers. I am delighted that the Government have given way on this aspect of the Bill, at least, but would that they had not come up with this idea in the first place.
        Mr. Kevan Jones: Somewhat ironically, the Conservatives' comments reveal the true nature of their opposition. As two such contributions have shown, they are against community support officers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) nods, but in my constituency CSOs will be welcomed. In Stanley, our experiment with community safety wardens has proved very popular, and I am sure that CSOs will prove likewise.
        The Government have taken a very practical approach to ensure that the Bill is enacted. It is clear that an alliance has been forged between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on this issue, but the public should take note of the fact that this Government are not simply talking about making communities much safer; they are putting in place provisions to achieve that end. The Opposition have nitpicked and gloated, both today and in Committee.
        Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister acknowledged, the reality is that agreement was reached on 98 per cent. of the Bill. There were only one or two contentious points—points of substance—one of which the Government conceded, so it is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to speak of Opposition nitpicking.
        Mr. Jones: I would be happy if the Conservatives had made it clear in Committee and on the Floor of the House

        811
        that they are against CSOs—the hon. Member for Upminster did so a moment ago—but instead they are trying to neuter them. It is clear that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is not convinced that CSOs will be effective, but I am and so are the Government, who want to ensure that communities are made safer. The Opposition should have the courage of their convictions and say that they are against CSOs, rather than trying to neuter them.
        Mr. Francois: Rank-and-file police officers are unable to speak in this House, but we are. We are not nitpicking; we are simply articulating the concerns expressed to us by several such officers in our constituencies. They earn their living as police officers, and they are seriously concerned about whether this idea will work. We are representing—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is moving outside the strict terms of the amendment that we are discussing. As we have another group of amendments to discuss and a limited amount of time, it would help the House if we could focus exactly on the amendment before us.
        Mr. Kevan Jones: I find it strange that Conservatives are now acting as the trade union officials of police authorities. I welcome CSOs and so will my community. This Government should get a lot of credit for their introduction, but the Opposition will claim that credit, or—once they prove popular—they will say that they thought that they would work. We shall also see the usual double standards from the Liberal Democrats. I support the amendment, in the sense that we need to get the Bill passed.
        Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I regret the sentiments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who accuses Conservatives of gloating: this subject is wholly above such pettiness.
        Mr. George Osborne: Absolutely.
        Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I also resent the idea that the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) suggest that he is acting as some sort of trade union official. The hon. Member for North Durham, the Minister and others—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not heeding my advice.
        7.15 pm
        Patrick Mercer: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall stick rigidly to the subject.
        I should like to add my support for the withdrawal of clause 45, and to point out that Nottinghamshire constabulary has broadly welcomed its withdrawal. I should also point out that I spoke to those policemen not
        812
        as a trade union official, but as their Member of Parliament. Despite what was said in Committee, all of them—
        Mr. Kevan Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman asked those of his constituents who are ordinary members of the public whether they are in favour of CSOs and safer communities?
        Patrick Mercer: Yes, I have, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point out my assiduousness in doing so. Naturally, my constituents are concerned about safety, but they are somewhat concerned and confused about the nature of CSOs. The policemen to whom I have spoken welcome the withdrawal of the clause. They view this as an opportunity for CSOs to take to the streets and, if they prove successful, perhaps to grow into the sort of institution—I am thinking of traffic wardens—that we all know and may not like, but which we certainly respect. It is not a question of gloating; they regard this as a common-sense measure, which I like to think Opposition Members have persuaded the Government to adopt.
        I am grateful to the Minister for showing enormous common sense in respect of this clause, and I add my support to the amendment.
        Vernon Coaker: I support the amendment, but I am disappointed that we have reached this compromise. It is clear that the amendment is necessary simply to ensure that the Bill is enacted. Much of the antisocial behaviour legislation that we pass gives rise to problems with flexibility. We repeatedly have to return to such issues, saying that we need to enact primary legislation. The point of the clause was to give flexibility, so that, if necessary, the Secretary of State could regulate and change community support officers' powers to tackle antisocial behaviour.
        If the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and others do not want CSOs in their areas because they believe that they will not work, I am happy to have them in mine. CSOs will provide a further option in the range available in tackling antisocial behaviour. It is important to note that, because the legislation will work in an unprecedented way, CSOs to some extent will not prove as effective as we would like.
        Several hon. Members rose—
        Vernon Coaker: We will therefore have to return to the matter and make the necessary changes through primary legislation. Our constituents will say, "Why hasn't the House allowed CSOs the flexibility to use their powers on the street in such a way that they can tackle antisocial behaviour?"
        Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman may be missing the point somewhat. It is not so much that people oppose CSOs but that—in my experience of my constituents and members of the police force—they are cautious about the proposals. We do not understand them fully, and that is why we welcome the withdrawal of the clause.
        Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to defend that position. It is a reasonable position to take,

        813
        and Conservative Front Benchers also take a reasonable position, although they seek to decry the position that I take. My point is that because the Home Secretary will not have the flexibility that the original provisions provided, the CSOs will be introduced with curtailed powers. With the amendment, if we wish to change that, we will need primary legislation to do so. That is wrong and we will unnecessarily deny CSOs the flexibility that they should have.
        Mr. Denham: I am pleased to receive such support for a Government amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) have made excellent contributions to the debate. It is a matter of sadness that some of the opposition to the provisions has stemmed from opposition to the whole concept of CSOs, rather than the merits of clause 100. The provisions were examined by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not find them offensive in procedural terms. It was always the case that the flexibility we sought would have been exercised subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring positive votes in both Houses of Parliament.
        It is a great shame that the drive to undermine the concept of CSOs, which has been so common among the Opposition, has led to opposition to the provisions. None the less, I want the Bill to make progress so that we see real CSOs out there in communities, including some exercising the full powers that they will have.
        Mr. Paice: I wish to reaffirm on the record, so that no one is under any illusion, the fact that the official Opposition do not oppose CSOs. It is true that with a blank sheet of paper we would have made different proposals for providing extra help for the police. However, we have never and will never oppose the use of civilians in assisting the police. The only debate has been about the range of their powers, and that will be the subject of tomorrow's debate. We do not oppose CSOs, nor giving them some powers: we are concerned about the range of their powers, and that is why we have opposed these provisions.
        Mr. Denham: In tomorrow's debate, we will see just how many Opposition Members support their Front Benchers in that position. The tone of many contributions has not been in line with those remarks. However, for practical reasons, we have agreed to remove these provisions from the Bill and perhaps we could now move on to the last group of amendments.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 103

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendment made: No. 50, in page 101, line 22, at beginning insert—
        'Sections (Scottish sex offender orders)and (Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland) and'—[Mr. Denham.]
        Mr. Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 101, line 40, leave out "96(3)" and insert "96".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Continued deployment of traffic wardens—
        'Police authorities shall continue to appoint persons to discharge, in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of, or enforcement of the law relating to, traffic or stationary vehicles unless—

        (a) notwithstanding regulations under Part VIII of the Road Traffic Regulations Act, the police authority passes a resolution by 1st January 2004 not to continue deploying traffic wardens; and

        (b) that police authority informs the chief officer of police for that police force and the Secretary of State of its decision.'.

        Government amendments Nos. 35 and 58.
        Amendment No. 100, in schedule 4, page 148, line 41, at end insert— 'Traffic warden powers—
        (14) Where a designation in this paragraph applies to any person that person shall have all the powers of traffic wardens under—

        (a) the Traffic Wardens Order 1970 (SI 1958);

        (b) the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

        (c) the Road Traffic Act 1991; and

        (d) the Traffic Wardens Amendment Order 1993 (SI 1334).'.

        Government amendment No. 59.
        Mr. Denham: I mentioned this group of amendments earlier. Under current legislation, only the police have a general power to stop vehicles and only the police and traffic wardens—in this sense, traffic wardens means those employed by police authorities—have a power to direct traffic. That means that police have to be employed for such purposes as stopping vehicles for emissions tests and escorting abnormal loads, even though their other powers are not required. That is not the best use of police time.
        Traffic wardens already have a power to direct traffic. Clause 44 removes restrictions on their power to stop, which will enable them to undertake escorting duties. The amendments clarify the fact that their power to stop includes a power to stop vehicles for tests of their roadworthiness and compliance with construction and use regulations. We will also, by these amendments, give CSOs and accredited persons a limited power to stop vehicles and direct traffic. The power will be solely for the same escorting and testing purposes. The amendments will allow local authority traffic wardens to be given the power to stop traffic for those specific purposes. For the avoidance of doubt, I should emphasise that it will not be necessary to confer on any such local authority traffic wardens any of the other powers that may or may not be conferred on other accredited persons within the force area. They could be accredited and trained only in the use of the power to stop traffic.
        The amendments will reduce the number of occasions on which the police have to be diverted from other important tasks to help other agencies and road hauliers, and to carry out work unrelated to crime and public order. That will also benefit the other agencies and hauliers, since they will no longer have to wait on the availability of police, who might then be withdrawn at short notice for more urgent operational duties. That is much less likely to happen with traffic wardens, CSOs and accredited persons. The accredited persons may in fact be the employees of another interested party—for example, the Vehicle Inspectorate—if they have been so accredited by

        815
        a chief officer of police under the provisions of the Bill. The amendments will free up police time for crime reduction, facilitate the enforcement of other legislation and promote road safety.
        Amendment No. 100 would extend all traffic wardens' powers to CSOs. The Government amendments will give certain, tightly defined traffic powers to CSOs such as the power to stop vehicles to help other agencies in particular circumstances. That is not the same as giving all traffic wardens' powers to CSOs. However, if it were desirable locally to ensure that CSOs exercised the full powers of traffic wardens, that could be achieved without amendment No. 100, either by designating someone who is already a traffic warden as a CSO, or appointing a CSO as a traffic warden. We have preferred to add some limited specific powers for traffic wardens to those available to CSOs.
        Mr. Hawkins: We think that it is sensible for the Government to provide the opportunity for such tasks as the escorting of exceptional loads to be performed by people other than the police. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance about the level of extra training for those undertaking those tasks. We are conscious that those who perform the specialist role of traffic police, many of whom I have worked with in my previous career at the Bar, have particular experience. The issue has been raised on several occasions, especially in the other place by Earl Attlee, who has particular expertise on the matter, and 1 hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the extra training that may be available.
        With great respect to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his colleagues, we agree with the Minister that the proposals in the Liberal Democrats' amendment can be achieved without amending the Bill. We would be slightly concerned by the suggestion that anybody who is appointed as a CSO will automatically have all the powers that are currently given to traffic wardens, because that might lead to a confusion of roles. We do not intend that the Bill should create a new category of traffic wardens, and while I understand the sensible motivation behind new clause 8 and amendment No. 100, it is not necessarily the right approach.
        Norman Baker: Confusion is the issue, and we have tabled new clause 8 and amendment No. 100 to try to avoid it. The reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) can be found at paragraph 49 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which states:
        "It is, of course, important that the public are not confused by the introduction of CSOs and community safety accreditation schemes. For this reason we want the public to be able to distinguish between police officers, CSOs and members of accredited community safety schemes. The uniform worn by CSOs will make it clear that they are members of the police service, whilst, as is the case with many neighbourhood or street warden schemes, accredited people will probably wear a more casual uniform. In any case, accredited people will be required to wear a badge…which identifies them as members of an accredited scheme."
        816
        7.30 pm
        Confused? I am. The Government are going to put on our streets special constables who will look like police officers. There is no problem with that, but there will also be CSOs, whose powers will vary from area to area, and they might not even exist in some areas. There will also be accredited officers, who may wear a badge, in addition to their Tesco badges or whatever else they happen to wear. Their powers will also vary from area to area. There will also be local authority traffic wardens, with different powers in different areas.
        I drew attention to that confusion on Second Reading, as that is what we want to avoid. Respect for this country's policing system requires that that system commands respect among the public. People must be clear about the powers of officers, and be able to recognise immediately what sort of officer a person is.
        At the moment, there is a clear distinction between police officers and traffic wardens, but that clarity will be lost if many new categories of officer are introduced. That will lead to confusion, given that CSOs in different parts of the country will have different powers, if they have them at all. New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 would remove that uncertainty.
        Furthermore, we must ensure that the people on our streets are deployed to maximum effect. The Government's intention is to ensure that police officers are not wasted, and that they are not called to deal with trivial matters that could be dealt with by others.
        How could it be wrong for traffic wardens on the street to be able to deal with relatively low-grade matters that could be dealt with by a CSO? We suggest that traffic wardens ought to be able to deal with such matters as if they were CSOs. If they are not going to be able to deal with abandoned vehicles or youngsters with alcohol, for example, they will presumably have to call out a CSO. The Government have stated that they want to avoid that duplication of effort, which is a consequence of the proposals in the Bill.
        New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 would allow police authorities to decide whether they wanted to rationalise the problem, or whether they wanted to make their employees more effective by giving them the same powers as CSOs. That would also ensure greater understanding of those powers among the public.
        I suspect that the Minister will not accept new clause 8 and amendment No. 100. If so, he will be saying that he wants a plethora of people with different powers and that he wants duplication, with the result that people on the street will not be allowed to deal with offences with which they are capable of dealing. I hope that he will reflect on the matter.
        I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should like, at the appropriate juncture, to have a vote on new clause 8, as Liberal Democrat Members consider the matter to be important.
        The Government amendments seem eminently sensible. I have no problem with them. I am happy to support them.
        Mr. Denham: I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I am somewhat perplexed by his determination to divide the House on new clause 8, as it attempts to give to police authorities a discretion that they already enjoy. Perhaps the intention

        817
        was different, but it seems the oddest thing to divide the House on. However, that is the hon. Gentleman's privilege, of course.
        I turn now to the questions of training. It is the responsibility of the chief officer to ensure that people such as accredited officers and CSOs have had the necessary levels of training. As I explained in general terms to the Committee, the training authority Centrex will help to advise on the necessary levels of training, taking into account the competencies required for each of the CSO skills.
        The Committee debated the question of standardisation. I have made it clear that the Government recognise that there is a choice to be made. It is undeniable that we are introducing a new element into the policing of our communities and streets. The question is this: do we attempt, before a single CSO has been employed or a single organisation accredited, to predict exactly which set of powers and responsibilities will be right, or do we allow the greater flexibility—what is essentially a menu approach—represented by schedules 4 and 5?
        Both options can be argued, but I believe that we shall do better to allow that flexibility at the start. We should allow chief officers, after the necessary consultations, to design schemes that meet the problems of policing, antisocial behaviour and traffic management in their areas.
        I believe that, over time, the tendency will be towards some consensus on how best to meet the needs of particular communities. I am sure that professional best practice will take us in that direction. The hon. Member for Lewes raises an important point, but he wants us to leap ahead to a time in the future when there is no doubt about the most appropriate menu of powers. I honestly do not think that we have reached that point yet, and I believe that we will have to live with a little variation between
        818
        areas until we have been able to establish how best to deploy and use CSOs and accredited community safety officers.
        Mrs. Brooke rose—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is seeking to catch my eye, I advise her that perhaps it would have been more orderly for her to have done so earlier. I can of course call her, but the Minister has already replied to the debate.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Schedule 7

        MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 60, in page 164, line 5, leave out "(4)(b)".
        No. 61, in page 164, line 43, at end insert—
        'Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
        7A In Article 8(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.1. 1978/ 1908 (N.I. 27)) (limitations on rehabilitation under Order etc.), after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

        "(bb) in any proceedings on an application for an order under Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.J. 20)) or in any appeal against the making of such an order;".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

    Schedule 8

      REPEAL
      Amendment made:No. 108, in page 170, line 32, at end insert—
      'Police (Health and Safety) Act Section 5.'.
      1997 (c. 42)
      —[Mr. Denham.]
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

    Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice and guidance on a matter. In the edition of the Liverpool Echo published yesterday, 8 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is quoted as saying, about the Bill:
    "We shall be there, ready to object whenever and wherever it crops up …It will be guerrilla warfare."
    Would not the use of guerrilla warfare tactics in a debate such as this be distinctly unparliamentary?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): If I see anything in the nature of what the hon. Gentleman and I might consider to be guerrilla tactics, I am sure that the powers of the Chair will be adequate to deal with them.
    7.37 pm
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    As a Merseyside MP, I am proud to be sponsoring the Mersey Tunnels Bill on behalf of the Merseyside passenger transport authority. The proposals for this Bill were the subject of widespread consultation on Merseyside, in line with Cabinet Office guidance, and the House will wish to know that a formal statement from the promoters is available in the Vote Office.
    For the benefit of hon. Members who may not be familiar with the role of PTAs, there are seven of them in Great Britain—Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Strathclyde, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire. They are comprised of locally elected councillors nominated by the district, city and borough councils in the former metropolitan counties. All the PTAs are currently led by Labour party supporters.
    Passenger transport authorities are accountable to the local electorate and set the transport policy framework for their respective areas. The policies are then implemented by the full-time staff of the passenger transport executives. The PTEs were the creation of a Labour Government under the Transport Act 1968, a piece of legislation masterminded by my late and noble Friend, Baroness Castle.
    All PTAs and PTEs are required to ensure the quality and availability of public transport services in their area. That includes giving financial support for the local rail network, funding socially necessary bus services, managing local concessionary fare schemes and providing public transport information. They have played a truly extraordinary role in improving public transport in our great metropolitan areas outside London, and deserve far more recognition than they currently receive.
    On Merseyside, the PTA, which is promoting the Bill, and the PTE have been fused together to operate under one banner—Merseytravel. That body is the principal architect of the Merseyside local transport plan, drawn up in partnership with other public and private sector interests in the area, in line with the Government's 1998 White Paper and the subsequent Transport Act 2000. Merseytravel has been awarded the status of a centre of
    820
    excellence by the Government in both integrated transport and integrated transport planning—an accolade of which I am extremely proud.
    The Bill fits exactly into the context of the Merseyside local transport plan, which is a serious attempt to create a holistic solution to the current and anticipated needs of both Merseyside and the wider travel-to-work area. The plan was drawn up after full and thorough consultation with the five district councils on Merseyside and—importantly—with neighbouring authorities, such as the Cheshire and Lancashire county councils.
    It is a further mark of Merseytravel's success that the Government are in the process of transferring from the Strategic Rail Authority to Merseytravel the full panoply of powers over the local rail network. That change, too, is endorsed by Cheshire and Lancashire county councils. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has played a leading role in making that change, which will give a unique degree of local control of the heavy rail network to the community that it serves.
    The five local authorities represented on the Merseyside PTA are Knowsley borough council, Liverpool city council, Sefton borough council—in my constituency—St. Helens borough council and Wirral borough council. My right hon. and hon. Friends should know that two of those authorities are currently held by Labour; two are hung, but Labour councillors are in leading roles; and one is led by the Liberal Democrats. All five support the Bill.
    Merseytravel itself has a majority of Labour councillors, so I point out to my hon. Friends that the Bill is being promoted by a Labour-controlled authority, established by Labour, carrying out the policies of the Labour Government.
    As well as carrying out the normal duties of a PTA and a PTE, Merseytravel owns and manages the famous Mersey ferries and the two Mersey road tunnels that run under the river between Liverpool and Wirral. The Queensway tunnel, between Liverpool and Birkenhead, opened in 1934, nearly 60 years ago. The twin bores of the Kingsway tunnel, between Liverpool and Wallasey, opened in 1971 and 1974.
    The Mersey tunnels are an important strategic transport asset for Merseyside. They are the only estuarial crossing in Britain to be found at the heart of a conurbation.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Perhaps my hon. Friend would bear with me.
    The tunnels provide an important route for commerce, and commuting and leisure travel between the Wirral and Liverpool and for journeys further afield.
    Mr. Miller: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, as it is a recognition that we are dealing with journeys that go much further than Merseyside. In the light of that, does she agree that as I represent constituents in Ellesmere Port and Neston it would be appropriate for me and people such as me to be part of the consultation process under best-value legislation?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I understand his motivation, but I stress that the five Merseyside authorities bear the cost of the tunnels so the future of the tunnels is largely at their discretion.

    821
    Although the tunnels are the responsibility of the Merseyside PTA, research has shown that the tunnels are used by only 3 per cent. of the people of Merseyside. Car ownership in the area is relatively low by national standards, and I am pleased to say that its citizens are far more reliant on public transport than those in most conurbations. As I shall explain, it is questionable on grounds of fairness whether the 97 per cent. of Merseysiders who do not use the tunnels should be called on to subsidise them through their council tax when additional financial support is needed. I repeat: 97 per cent. of Merseysiders are called on to subsidise tunnels that they do not use.
    The Mersey tunnels are an important strategic transport asset for Merseyside. They are the only estuarial crossings in Britain to be found at the heart—
    Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Please bear with me.
    As I have already pointed out, the tunnels provide an important route for commerce, and commuting and leisure travel between the Wirral and Liverpool and for journeys further afield.
    Merseytravel has an obligation to put the tunnels on a sound financial footing, to invest in them to ensure that they operate at the highest practicable levels of safety, and to provide alternative public transport services for those increasingly congested river crossings. That is what the Bill does.
    Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not privatise the tunnels in any way—despite what some hon. Members have been led to believe. It is true—
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me while I finish this part of my speech.
    It is true that a previous Mersey Tunnels Bill envisaged letting the operation of the tunnels on a long-term concession to a private sector operator. At that time, Merseytravel saw that as the only way to achieve the modernisation of working practices essential to the spirit and letter of the Labour Government's best-value principles. The proposal was scrapped by the Labour leadership of Merseytravel, which is why the current Bill is but a third of the size of the original.
    A year ago, the political leadership of Merseytravel offered the five trade unions representing the 300 or so employees of the tunnels the opportunity to be involved in negotiations on the modernisation of working practices while remaining in the public sector. Such modernisation is exactly what the TUC claims is the alternative to private sector involvement in public services. Thus far, however, the trade unions have not attended a single meeting to take that process forward; instead, four of the five unions and the north-west region of the TUC have chosen to petition against the Bill, even though it poses no threat whatever to their members.
    Mr. Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I must make progress.
    822
    The exception was Unison, which has written to its members who serve in this place urging them to support the Bill. It is a source of great regret to Merseytravel that the trade unions did not take up the offer to negotiate the creation of a modern public service. Nevertheless, Merseytravel remains fully committed to the principle of public sector operation and is still ready to enter negotiations with the trade unions at any time. The Bill is not about privatisation.
    Having set out the role of Merseytravel and clarified what the Bill does not do, I shall explain what it is actually about. First, it is designed to put the Mersey tunnels on a sound financial footing. Since the abolition of the Merseyside county council by the Conservative Government in 1986, Merseytravel has been responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of the Mersey tunnels.
    All Labour Members accept that the sound management of our public finances is necessary if we are to raise the quality of public services. In the case of Mersey tunnels, that ambition is impossible under the current legislation. They are financed through the collection of tolls from the drivers of cars and other vehicles that pass through them. Current legislation stipulates that toll revenue must equal only the cost of operating, refurbishing and financing the tunnels. The tolls must not explicitly produce any surplus revenue that can be aggregated in anticipation of the need for future investment. That means, in reality and actuality, that Merseytravel can seek to raise the tolls only after the tunnels have been pushed into deficit by rising maintenance and other costs.
    The process of raising the tolls to cover additional costs can take up to two years. That is because Merseytravel has to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for authority to raise the tolls. He, in turn, is obliged to call a public inquiry if objectors oppose the rise so requested, and they inevitably do. The toll revision process can take up to two years and will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Therefore, the elected councillors of Merseytravel find that they have responsibility for the finances of the tunnels with no power to finance operating losses other than through the levying of the five district councils until a public inquiry, which could take two years, has been completed and the Secretary of State has made his decision. That is exactly what has taken place in the past and it is what the Bill seeks to avoid in future.
    The last time that the Merseyside PTA was compelled to request financial assistance from the five district councils for the Mersey tunnels was in 1992. Hon. Members may well ask whether that request was made to advance public transport on Merseyside. The answer is absolutely not. The finance was used to subsidise the private cars, vans and lorries using the Mersey tunnels. This ridiculous arrangement resulted in £28 million having to be paid to the tunnels by the five Merseyside district councils and, hence, by council tax payers. That debt is still being paid out of income from tolls. The authority in my constituency is owed £5 million. The 97 per cent. of Merseysiders who do not use the tunnels subsidise the
    3 per cent. who do. Should Parliament fail to enact this Bill, the beast of 1992 will again pick the pocket and purse of every council tax payer on Merseyside. Some of our authorities can least afford that.

    823
    Moreover, users of the tunnels resident outside the conurbation have been immune from any additional burden whatever. Research has shown that as many as 10 per cent. of the users of the tunnels reside outside Merseyside and therefore never incur the consequence of the debt that accrues to the facilities.
    I fully acknowledge the contribution that commuters from outside Merseyside make to the economy of the county, especially those "workers by brain", as we used to call them in the Labour party, who are employed in the burgeoning financial, technical and academic sectors of Liverpool's economy. We do not doubt their contribution, but we wish to make the situation more equitable for all concerned. Can it be right that the council tax payers of the conurbation, many of whom are on very low earnings compared to the outside commuters, should be called upon to subsidise the travel-to-work costs of those able to reside in the more affluent shires? I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially those representing constituencies in London and other great cities, whether their constituents would be prepared to countenance that.
    Clearly, Merseytravel is under an obligation to its constituents to put the tunnels on a sound financial footing so that there is no need for future subsidies from the council tax. We have already paid far too much, and we are already owed a great deal. The Bill, which is promoted by Labour-led Merseytravel, seeks to right that wrong. It would reconfigure the economics of the madhouse in such a way that neither the tunnels nor importantly the council tax payers on Merseyside would be forced to go into debt. That has been the reality for some of the authorities concerned.
    A resolution to the problem is even more pressing in the light of a recent report on safety in the Mersey tunnels. An urgent need now exists for additional funding for investment in the tunnels. Let me explain. In April this year, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil Club—the German motorists' organisation—published its latest report on safety in 30 road tunnels throughout Europe. The report was commissioned by, and carried out in conjunction with, a range of European Union organisations, including Britain's Automobile Association. Merseytravel volunteered to co-operate with the study, enabling ADAC to examine the Mersey tunnels. The report awarded good marks to the Kingsway tunnel between Wallasey and Liverpool, which came seventh overall in Europe. That reflected, in large part, the relatively modern design from the 1960s and 1970s. However, the Queensway tunnel between Birkenhead and Liverpool scored less highly, rating as acceptable and coming 21st out of 30. That was mainly a result of the way in which it was designed and constructed in the 1920s and 1930s.
    The Queensway tunnel's weaknesses include it having only one tube with oncoming traffic, no emergency lanes or lay-bys, narrow traffic lanes, inadequate emergency walkways, 1,500 m gaps between emergency exits and no automatic detection of traffic congestion. The emergency telephones are not soundproofed, the fire ventilation system is not automatically activated and the tunnel is not automatically closed in the event of a fire. Merseytravel has examined the report in detail and has provisionally costed the works recommended to bring both tunnels up to European safety standards at about £8.5 million.
    824
    Merseytravel has long anticipated that the need would arise for substantial expenditure in the Queensway tunnel. However, the ADAC report, following on from a number of serious fires in road tunnels on the mainland of Europe in the past few years, has now produced a compelling need to act swiftly and in additional areas.
    Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend refers to an extremely—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to address the Chair?
    Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the ADAC report, which I have read in great detail along with reports from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other United States studies. The money must be spent whether we have the Bill or not. Therefore, does she not think that it is a bit ingenuous of the Bill to talk in terms of using resources to develop other passenger transport services when, for years to come, any surplus that is generated by the tunnels will have to be used to invest in safety?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised that point. If he bears with me, I shall address it shortly.
    The money must obviously be found and the PTA has recommended that tolls be raised to meet the high costs of refurbishing the tunnels. The alternative—which is to ask local council tax payers to foot the bill, possibly by cutting spending on other services—is simply not on. However, as a result of the arcane procedures to which I referred earlier, raising tolls means a public inquiry that may take up to two years and that will also cost the council tax payers who currently subsidise the tunnels.
    I argue strongly that the PTA must be given the authority to take whatever action is necessary to meet the highest safety standards as quickly as possible. That would be achieved by enactment of the Bill, which would allow the PTA to increase tolls in line with the retail prices index.
    That in turn would allow tolls to rise by 10p next April, from £1.20 per car to £1.30, thereby enabling the safety improvements in the tunnels to get under way almost immediately. Merseytravel envisages that all the additional revenue raised from the indexation of tolls would be spent exclusively on improvements to the tunnels in the first four years or so after the Bill's enactment; which brings me neatly on to its second main purpose: improving Merseyside's public transport network.
    As I said, the Bill contains powers to allow tolls to rise in line with the retail prices index. Thanks to the Labour Government's sound economic policies, the RPI is at an historic low, and the estimated increase for motorists using the tunnel is 10p over three years. Given that the fares for crossing the Mersey by any other means—train, bus or ferry—rise at least in line with inflation, it is eminently reasonable that motorists should be subject to a comparable increase.
    It is important to know that, although the Bill empowers Merseytravel to increase tolls in line with the RPI, it would not require Merseytravel to exercise that power. Its use is at the discretion of the elected members of the PTA. For example, if economic circumstances are such that a toll increase would be harmful to the

    825
    Merseyside region, the councillors could choose not to apply it either in full or in part. Users would be protected from an increase above the level of the RPI, under agreements similar to those currently in force. In very exceptional circumstances, Merseytravel would be able to apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in tolls above the level of inflation.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: In deploying arguments about the financial case, will the hon. Lady address the concerns of the district auditor, who was unable to get access to sufficient management information to assess whether the figures produced by Merseytravel were accurate?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but it is a matter for the authority and the auditors. I note his concern and will write to him in due course.
    Merseytravel would have to justify its request for an increase in tolls above the level of inflation to the Secretary of State, as it does now—for example, on the grounds of emergency maintenance—and the Secretary of State would continue to have the power to hold a public inquiry. Having provided for indexation, the Bill would allow Merseytravel to use creatively any surplus toll income over and above the cost of operating the tunnels and maintaining them to the highest safety standards. Merseytravel would be empowered to use the surplus to fund improvements to public transport, enabling the Merseyside local transport plan, which the Government commended, to be delivered faster.
    It is necessary to deliver these improvements at the earliest opportunity so that we provide alternatives to the car for those very people who believe that they have no choice but to drive through the tunnels. The tunnels are operating at, or near, capacity at peak times. As the economy of Merseyside continues to recover and grow, the need for travel will similarly expand. Shall we stand aside and allow the tunnels to become even more congested, causing tailbacks and pollution in Wallasey, Birkenhead and Liverpool city centre; or shall we act now to manage demand by modestly increasing tolls in line with inflation and providing genuine public transport alternatives?
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: I refer my hon. Friend to the front page of the statement by the promoters, which states:
    "Merseytravel sees the level of tunnels' tolls as a device to help manage traffic growth in the tunnels, by making sure that tolls keep pace with inflation".
    We know that wages keep pace with—and indeed exceed—inflation. We also know—this is confirmed in the document—that the cost of motoring has been decreasing for some time. Why would a toll increase that is linked to the RPI reduce or even manage traffic in the tunnels?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Clearly the dynamics and utilisation of the tunnel are a matter for considerable debate. We can project the use of the tunnels on existing figures, which suggest that it will increase to an unbearable extent. I do not believe that the measures are onerous. As my hon. Friend has said, the cost of travel is decreasing. For a small increase in Merseytravel's fees,
    826
    we will introduce something that might not only contain the level of traffic growth, but offer viable alternative public transport opportunities.
    Let me outline some of the projects in the local transport plan which will benefit the Wirral and could be delivered quicker as a result of the Bill. They include: the transformation of the quality of bus services from Liverpool and Birkenhead in the A41 corridor to Eastham and Mill park via Bromborough, in the A552/A551 corridor to Heswall via Woodchurch road, and in the A553 corridor to West Kirby via Bidston and Upton; a major upgrade to the Birkenhead Hamilton square underground station, which is desperately needed; and the progressive upgrade of all Merseyrail stations in Wirral to offer an enhanced passenger waiting environment, including closed circuit television, which is in great demand, real-time passenger information, interactive help points, seating, and secure cycle storage, and the provision of better interchange opportunities with connecting bus services. Who would not want those services in the Wirral, and who would not want them now?
    The projects also include: electrification of the mid-Wirral diesel rail line between Bidston and Woodchurch; the creation of a major new multi-modal interchange and strategic park-and-ride at the new station close to the junction of the M53 and A552 at Woodchurch; a new station and a park-and-ride at Beechwood; a major refurbishment programme to the Merseyrail train fleet; an integrated ticketing system including smart cards; improvements to the main underground rail station in Liverpool city centre; and further investment in Merseyside ferries.
    A 10p increase in tunnel tolls every three years is a pretty small price to pay for the earlier delivery of that package of improvements, especially as tunnel users would help to fund measures that will provide them either with a real alternative or with a reduction in congestion if they must use the roads.
    Mr. Frank Field: I intervene only because my hon. Friend admirably cited Birkenhead. I will support the Bill on Second Reading because there is much sense in the reforms that she proposes. Nevertheless, does she accept that some of us who support the Bill in principle may be more concerned, on Report, that moneys from the tolls will go to far distant areas in Merseyside and not to Birkenhead, Beechwood and Wirral, West, areas on which she cleverly concentrates when setting out the advantages? We would like to see all those reforms, but many of my constituents and I are less keen on a council tax increase to fund improvements to the far stretches of Merseyside, whose people never use the tunnel.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He will notice that none of the many improvements that I have cited will benefit Crosby.
    Mr. Field: Birkenhead was included though, was it not?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Birkenhead will benefit, as will many areas inside the Wirral, but much of Crosby will not. We have a list of priorities that need to be addressed, and the areas that I have identified clearly rank far higher

    827
    than my own. The local transport plan is available for consultation and open for negotiation. I have expressed my concerns and aspirations, and I encourage my right hon. Friend to do the same. However, if I were in his place, I would be very grateful that at least some aspects of my kingdom had been referred to and that they were to have a definite opportunity to secure improvements in the short term—rather than the long term, as I fear it will be for some of us.
    On congestion, I point out to the House that the Bill empowers Merseytravel to carry out noise insulation works for about 200 homes near the Kingsway tunnel portals on the Wirral. The Bill will close a gap in the law which has prevented Merseytravel from providing that help in the past.
    Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend share my happiness about that? The mistake allowed 200 houses in my constituency which directly abut the tunnel entrance to be plagued with noise for 30 years, and the inhabitants could have no relief because it would have been ultra vires to soundproof their houses. Does my hon. Friend understand how grateful my constituents are that the error has been rectified in the Bill? I shall support its Second Reading simply for that reason, but I share some of the worries expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about the distribution of other largesse.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is well understood on Merseyside how hard she has argued for significant support for the 200 homes directly affected by the problems associated with the Kingsway tunnel portals. I thank her in advance for her support for the Bill, which will make recompense available to the people who have been placed in that difficult position for many years. I am sure that all hon. Members receive complaints from constituents about noise levels at major road junctions. I am delighted that the Bill will enable the PTA to address such concerns.
    Many will benefit from the enactment of the Bill. First, the people of Merseyside will benefit. They are currently required to bear the financial burden of the tunnels, irrespective of whether they use them or even own a car. The current legislation effectively means that the tunnels must be operated at a loss, and the debt must be passed on to local authorities and thus to council tax payers before tolls can be raised to cover any deficit. The Bill corrects that anomaly.
    Secondly, the tunnel users will benefit. I referred earlier to the cost of meeting the recommendations of the ADAC report on tunnel safety. Without the guaranteed additional income generated by the Bill, tolls will in any event have to rise significantly to meet the £8.5 million cost of the additional safety works required to bring the tunnels up to the recommended European standards.
    Thirdly, those who use or would like to use public transport will be significant beneficiaries. Once operating and safety costs have been met, surplus revenue from the tolls will go towards accelerating the implementation of the local transport plan, benefiting tens of thousands of people on Merseyside. Motorists quite reasonably say that they will be persuaded to leave their vehicles at home
    828
    only if public transport improves. The Bill will generate additional investment in local buses, trains and ferries, and give Merseyside motorists a genuine alternative, which they are currently denied.
    Fourthly, the environment and the quality of life for those living near the tunnel portals will also benefit. So too will the health of others in the region, particularly our young people. Between 1992–93 and 1999–2000, despite a small population decrease on Merseyside, there was a 9.6 per cent. increase in traffic using the Mersey tunnels. The tunnels are now operating at 92 per cent. of capacity at peak times, and queueing times at the entrances in the morning peak have increased from approximately 20 minutes in 1991 to 45 minutes today, despite the use of additional contraflow lanes at peak times.
    The Bill is not anti-car or anti-motorist, but it reflects the growing awareness, in particular on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport, that public bodies have a duty to manage traffic growth. The increase in traffic noise and pollution at the portals of the Mersey tunnels affects some of the most deprived areas on Merseyside, where poor health is already experienced owing to a number of factors. Those areas naturally include several schools.
    I draw hon. Members' attention to research commissioned by the National Asthma Campaign which points to a conclusive link between car exhaust fumes and the growing incidence of asthma in children. The Bill is designed to manage traffic growth through modest toll increases and improvements to public transport. That can only be of benefit to the health of Merseyside children.
    Fifthly, business will benefit from the Bill. According to the Confederation of British Industry, traffic congestion costs the British economy £20 billion a year. In its progress report on the Government's 10-year transport plan, published on 24 June, the CBI explicitly warned that shirking difficult decisions on matters such as road tolls puts the Government's integrated transport policy at risk. A survey by Barclaycard earlier this year revealed the cost of congestion to industry throughout Merseyside and north Wales to be £700 per worker per year. In the 2001 "Small Business Watch—Transport Research" by Yellow Pages, a third of small firms in the north-west claimed that road congestion had a serious impact on their competitiveness. Managing traffic growth is good for business and good for Merseyside.
    I should now like to deal briefly with some of the arguments against the Bill. Some people claim that there is massive local opposition to the Bill. That is nonsense. A petition to Parliament opposing the Bill contained 251 signatures. Of the written representations to the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 950 were tear-off coupons from the Liverpool Echo and the Wirral Evening News.
    As I said earlier, the Bill has the full support of all five local authorities on Merseyside, as well as a number of public and other bodies including Transport 2000, which has petitioned the House in support of the Bill, and, significantly, Friends of the Earth. The Bill is backed by Unison and the railway union ASLEF. The latter has also petitioned the House in favour of the Bill.

    829
    Opponents claim that Merseytravel should be seeking to cut the tunnels' operating costs rather than index-linking the tolls.
    Mr. Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: If my hon. Friend will bear with me—
    Mr. Wareing: I am indeed bearing with you.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Good. Perhaps my hon. Friend could bear with me a little longer.
    The tunnels are a 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year business. At £11.8 million a year, their operating costs are relatively modest. Even if there were cuts, that would do nothing to manage traffic growth or to generate additional revenue for safety improvements and public transport. In any case, like other public services, the tunnels are subject to the best value process, and that will continue irrespective of the Bill.
    It is claimed that index-linked tolls will damage local businesses. Given that earnings generally rise faster than prices, tolls linked to the RPI will fall in relation to average earnings; therefore the economic effect of index-linked tolls on commuter traffic and thus on employees in Liverpool will be, at worst, neutral. Finally, opponents claim that commuters have no alternative means of getting to work and accuse Merseytravel of holding them to ransom.
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: Before my hon. Friend winds up, I would like to address a point made in a previous intervention. It has been suggested that the revenues from the proposed modest increase in tolls would result in users of the tunnel subsidising wider areas of Merseyside. Does she accept that, for more years than is fair, the constituents whom I represent have been subsidising the users of a tunnel that they themselves do not use in large numbers?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that valid and accurate observation. It is of course true, and it applies not only to his constituency but to many others on Merseyside.
    The Bill reflects the need to change an arcane and damaging piece of legislation which forces the Mersey tunnels to be operated at a loss before tolls can be increased, and which compels local authorities on Merseyside to pick up the tab in the meantime. It is combined with a real opportunity to improve safety in the tunnels, to manage traffic growth and to provide additional investment in public transport.
    I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to sponsor the Bill. I am proud to be associated with Merseyside passenger transport authority, which is chaired in an exemplary manner by Councillor Mark Dowd, who has spent the best years of his life trying to improve transport provision on Merseyside. His authority has been motivated by the single objective of trying to do all it can to improve transport opportunities and provision for all the people of Merseyside. The authority has been uniquely successful, but there is much more to be done.
    830
    I hope that the House supports this sensible Bill, which is welcomed and needed by the vast majority of people on Merseyside. I commend it to the House.
    8.22 pm
    Dr. John Pugh: I rise to speak about something that I have known all my life. I was driven through the Mersey tunnel as a child, anxiously looking up from the back seat of the car to see whether water would come in through the ceiling. That remains a residual fear even today, even though it has been explained to me—with drawings—why it is not a realistic likelihood. I recall there being traffic lights in the old tunnel, and the people of Liverpool proudly walking through the Kingsway tunnel when it was first opened. All my life I, as a Liverpudlian, have been proud that we have such excellent tunnels. I regard the tunnels as engineering marvels—structures of which we can be genuinely proud. Whenever I had visitors, I would make some excuse to take them through the tunnels—thus increasing by some measure the traffic congestion—because I wanted to display what is undoubtedly an engineering wonder.
    At that stage, I did not regard the tunnels as being remotely problematic. Only when I became a councillor did I realise the burden of substantial historic capital costs that falls on every council tax payer on Merseyside. I was a councillor during the period when the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) occupied a senior position on the same council. From 1998 to 1992, when we were both councillors on the same authority, the operating loss on the tunnels was £28 million. Both of us know what a substantial effect that loss had in terms of having to make cuts in the council's budget. Sorely needed services were not provided, and one of the reasons they could not be provided was the £28 million that should have been available for Merseyside but simply was not available.
    The loss on the tunnels represented a £28 million loss of services. It had to be made up in some way if we were not to cut services indefinitely, but it was funded by a range of people who had little connection with the tunnels.
    Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify which year he is talking about? According to the accounts, there is only one year in which total expenditure was £28 million, and that was 1999–2000. Expenditure in all the other years was substantially less.
    Dr. Pugh: Anyone who pretends that there has been no substantial loss on the operating costs of the tunnel is not living in the real world. We could argue the figures indefinitely—the hon. Gentleman and I both have figures in front of us—but I genuinely believe that there was an operating loss that had an effect on services. However, even if the operating loss were only small, and not substantial, the fact remains that it has to be made up—elderly ladies in Speke, Crossens, Prescott and elsewhere have to play some part in making up the loss. In effect, such people are subsidising the haulier and the motorist.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) might feel a little differently about the £28 million cumulative loss if he,

    831
    and his local councillors in turn, had to explain where the transport precept was going? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend does not have to face that reality, unlike MPs representing the five boroughs on Merseyside?
    Dr. Pugh: It is not only MPs but councillors who every year have to deal with the Merseyside passenger transport authority precept and explain the basis on which it is calculated.
    The fact is that there was a loss—it happened—and there is nothing in the system as currently defined that can stop it happening again. Regardless of the details, the facts and the figures, what we have is a system of deficit financing that is cumbersome, unpredictable and incapable of dealing with a range of perfectly likely scenarios. Any long-term safety issues or requirement to meet new standards cannot be dealt with under the existing funding system. Environmental problems affecting people living near the tunnels increase as traffic increases, but they are not addressed in any way by the current funding regimes. The present system contains no mechanism to deal with major structural problems that might give rise to an emergency in the tunnels. There is no mechanism to deal with any change in fiscal rules, VAT treatment or interest rates.
    The system is absolutely inflexible, and it cannot guarantee that granny will not end up subsiding Eddie Stobart. I have nothing against Eddie Stobart—he is a very fine chap in his own way—but I see no reason why people who have no use for the tunnels should end up subsiding something that does not specifically concern them.
    Any council leader on Merseyside knows the yearly agony of trying to fix the budget while waiting for input from the Merseyside passenger transport authority. The PTA can make a substantial difference to what the council has to tell council tax payers, and to the taxpayers themselves. A feature of the system that has been identified year after year is its sheer unpredictability, and the tunnels and the various associated charges contribute to that unpredictability.
    Mr. Joe Benton: To confirm the hon. Gentleman's comments, I well recall the many torturous hours spent in budget preparation in Sefton, and I have no doubt that other local authorities had the same experience. Does he agree that that experience of having to wait until the last minute before we could set a rate arose because it often depended on the Merseyside PTA levy? Does he agree that the Bill is motivated by the desire to modernise the system and overcome the arcane process that councillors on Merseyside still have to undergo?
    Dr. Pugh: I certainly do agree, and I am grateful for that intervention. In fairness, I have to say that sometimes budget negotiations within Sefton council were torturous for reasons that were not related to the MPTA, but that is another matter.
    It would be disingenuous, wrong, inaccurate and dishonest of supporters of the Bill to say that it is designed solely to establish a stable financial platform. If the Bill
    832
    does that, that is in itself sufficient reason to support it, but I think it is designed to do other things, and it is fair to identify what they are.
    Stephen Hesford: Perhaps, like me, the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to examine the Mersey Tunnels Bill briefing update produced by the Promoter of the Bill, Merseytravel. In no year since 1992–93 has there been an operating loss. The hon. Gentleman talked about stable financing, which is precisely what we have as a result of the increased tunnel toll in April 1992 and a further rise in November 1999. He is talking about history, which is not relevant to the position today.
    Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman is slightly missing the point—he is a bit like someone who tries to persuade me not to take an umbrella tomorrow because it did not rain this afternoon. There is nothing in the present system to inhibit or prevent a loss, but the Bill includes a provision that leads one to believe that a loss is far less likely. As a loss is undesirable in principle, I support that provision.
    The Bill allows the people running the tunnels to create an operating surplus—I am not against that.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill seeks to acquire for people the power to increase tolls in line with inflation if necessary? His point is perfectly valid: if there is no need for an increase, the tolls will not necessarily go up; but if a rise is required, there is the power to increase the tolls appropriately.
    Dr. Pugh: The Bill provides the people running the tunnels with a tool to prevent a loss, should one be on the horizon. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would seriously claim that such an enterprise as the one operating the Mersey tunnels should never have an operating surplus in principle. Lots of tunnels across the world have a surplus, as do many traffic management schemes.
    Mr. Wareing: I am much obliged for the graciousness with which the hon. Gentleman gave way. Did he see in the Merseytravel briefing that there will be a surplus on the Mersey tunnel tolls by 2005, which could be hypothecated and used for other purposes? Is not that why the Freight Transport Association and the Automobile Association oppose the Bill?
    Dr. Pugh: I shall not explore the reasons why the AA opposes the Bill but, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made clear, if there is an operating surplus, it will be needed by the operators to meet considerable demands to comply with European safety requirements. I went through the tunnel as a child so it must, by definition, be fairly old and in need of substantial refurbishment. We need a system that enables us to tackle that. A key feature of the Bill is that it creates the possibility of integration with the local transport plan; it brings the tunnels into the frame so that we can achieve a coherent and sensible local transport plan. There is not a political party on the planet that does not support local transport plans that propose an integrated transport system. Rejecting the possibility of such a system is crass stupidity and against the spirit of the Government's own 10-year plan. It is simply not possible to have integrated transport nationally, but not locally.

    833
    It is only sensible that a transport body should have the power and tools to secure economic prosperity, social inclusion and a wholesome environment. The body that we charge with the task of executing an integrated transport plan for Merseyside is the MPTA. What is there to fear? I do not understand the force of the objections to the Bill. The MPTA is a democratically elected body of people who have been nominated by their own councils because they know something about transport and have a grasp of the issues. The MPTA is not the haunt of slavering Trots, and it is not a bunch of misguided anoraks. I dare say its members have their faults. I know many of them personally, including Councillor Dowd who will acknowledge that he is by no means perfect in every respect. None the less, he is recognised for his vision, abilities and skill in determining what is needed on Merseyside, and has been nominated as transport personality of the year.
    Stephen Hesford: It is a pleasure to intervene in this debate. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the same Councillor Dowd who was chair of the authority which sponsored the previous Bill, which would have privatised the management of the tunnels? Is that the same perspicacious person?
    Dr. Pugh: I understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion, as there are two well-known Councillor Dowds on Merseyside. However, it is the same Councillor Dowd.
    The MPTA, the Minister will concur, has received tangible praise from the Government for its vision, and for its ability to understand what might be required in a transport plan for Merseyside. It submitted a transport plan which was so good that the Government, most peculiarly, asked whether it wanted more money. It was given more money as it was thought to be able to spend it properly.
    The people sponsoring the Bill therefore have an acute idea of Merseyside's transport needs. Where is the danger in giving them a power that they need? Why the animus against some of the benefits that may flow from the Bill? The MPTA predicts that there will be £2.5 million of additional revenue. That figure may vary, and may be a little less, but even if it were only £1 million, that would make an appreciable difference to people on Merseyside, who could have better bus networks and stations; various environmental improvements to soften the effects of transport congestion at the tunnels; and park-and-ride schemes. They could have a range of things once money is available from the transport plan. At the moment, however, there is no guarantee that there will be any further income coming their way.
    To conclude, the Bill solves the long-standing problem of unpredictable finances. Even its opponents must accept that it offers potential benefits. It is thoroughly in line with integrated transport and modern thinking. Importantly, it is subject to appropriate safeguards. If I am wrong, and if the MPTA ends up as the haunt of slavering Trots or anoraks, the only way it can damage the motorists of Merseyside is to go to the Minister and ask whether it can do so, as ultimately he has control over whether it can raise charges above the retail prices index. I hope that all Labour Members would trust the Minister to make a sensible and reasonable decision in that respect.
    834
    They should be assured by the fact that he is nodding and agreeing that the safeguard will be in place when the legislation goes through.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)indicated dissent.
    Dr. Pugh: Given that the measure is so thoroughly in line with Government thinking, the mystery is why the Government have not thrown their weight behind it—why it is a private Bill and not a Government Bill. After all, as I said earlier, if they want a national integrated transport scheme, they must support local integrated schemes as well. The tragedy may be that if the Bill falls tonight, it will be the Government's fault. In a sense, it will be the Government's tragedy, because a slice of their own national integrated transport plan will not be accomplished.
    8.38 pm
    Mr. Ben Chapman: I differ on a number of points from the Bill's sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but I recognise the sincerity with which she holds her views and the commitment with which she has pursued these ends. I wanted to begin with that introduction.
    Before I go on to the main body of my speech, I shall address some of the particulars of the points that my hon. Friend made. She referred to the benefits that might flow to the Wirral. There may have been a suggestion that there was a quid pro quo—that the Wirral was looking to get benefits out of the measure that would not otherwise have come its way. However, the projects that are mentioned are in the transport plan and would have come to the Wirral anyway.
    It is not, let me stress, a matter of us and them. I do not object to the Bill because it disadvantages the Wirral or favours other parts of Merseyside. I take a different view from the sponsor of the Bill in that I object to the principle.
    Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend admit that there is at least one group of people in the Wirral—my constituents who live in those 200 houses next to the Wallasey tunnel—who will not get the benefits unless the Bill or something like it closes the loophole in the law which currently makes it illegal for them to get their soundproofing, just at a time when the ro-ro which is likely to open soon will increase the weight of heavy traffic through the tunnel and make their plight even worse? They have been waiting for 30 years.
    Mr. Chapman: I intended to deal with that point. Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Those provisions of the Bill have my wholehearted support. I fear that there are not many others that do.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: If my hon. Friend accepts that there are provisions in the Bill that will benefit people—notwithstanding any debate about the projected rises in the tunnel fees—if the Bill is talked out tonight, will there not be a grave danger of our throwing the baby out with the bath water? The Bill is part of an integrated transport plan for the whole of Merseyside. Does my hon. Friend accept that many aspects of the plan would be contingent

    835
    on those increases, and presumably a diminution in the amount of money taken out of the precept in order to support the tunnels as they are?
    Mr. Chapman: By definition, because of the ADAC report and the comments about the £2.5 million a year for safety improvements in the first four years at least of the Bill being in force, if such a thing were ever to happen, the money could not be spent on the projects that have been outlined. In any case, those are not contingent on the Bill; they are part of the local transport plan.
    I return to my point that there is no quid pro quo. The concerns of the people who oppose the Bill relate to the effects on Merseyside as a whole, not on the individual components of Merseyside. We are not saying that one part suffers more than another, or that one part gains more than another, but that the Bill—in my view, at least—damages the whole of Merseyside, or has the potential to do so.
    As it was mentioned in the opening remarks, I shall touch on the fabled 10p increase that is always spoken about—only 10p, we are told, every three years. So it may be while inflation continues at its present level, but even with the present Chancellor and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, global economic circumstances change, interest rates may not be at their present level for ever, and there is a potential, as I shall demonstrate later, for the increases to be very much larger than the mythical 10p that is often quoted.
    It was said that the consultation was effective and in accordance with Government guidelines and God knows what else, but in my view at least, the consultation was inadequate. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, it did not include him. He was not consulted about the matter, nor were other Members of Parliament who have an interest in the tunnels but who are not Merseyside Members. It did not include, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, which has 6,000 members on Merseyside. It did not include a great many people.
    Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the great offences in respect of the previous Bill—he may agree that it has been rolled over to this Bill—was that nobody was consulted about it? It came out of the blue to most hon. Members and merely appeared on the Floor of the House. Representations were made about that, and does my hon. Friend recall that between the appearance of that Bill and the introduction of the Bill before us, it was suggested that there should be a Merseyside forum—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are getting longer as the debate progresses. He must remember that there is distinction between an intervention and a speech. If he is hoping to catch my eye later, he might like to avoid spending too much time on interventions.
    Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    836
    Does my hon. Friend not recall that a forum was promised—I think that he was mooted as its chairman—but never came into being?
    Mr. Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend made two points. He said that the Bill that was formerly proposed to deal with Mersey tunnels has, to some extent, merged into this one. I think that that is true, although the difference is that the former Bill was a de facto privatisation measure. At least this Bill drops that suggestion entirely. Of course, that is very welcome.
    I should like now to move on to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. It was suggested that the MPTA was merely a vehicle for carrying out Government policy in all that it did, and that all that was proposed in the Bill was in accordance with Government policy. I take some issue with that suggestion, but I shall deal with it later.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby also said that the petition carried only 251 signatures. That is often said, and I should like to lay that theory to rest, as it was me who presented the petition to the House. There were petitions, e-mails and filled-in forms cut out from the newspapers. A variety of signatures were collected in the streets and at railway stations by people who saw the iniquity of what was proposed. The urgency of submitting the petition and the fact that House of Commons petition procedure meant that some petitions were not regarded as appropriate ensured that the number of signatures handed in was less than the 2,000 figure that was roundly proclaimed. However, the fact of the matter was that there were many more than 2,000 signatures. Let that not be doubted. Equally, let it not be doubted that, if we had allowed the petitioning to continue, the number would have been in multiples of 2,000. Let there be no doubt that the bulk of the people of Merseyside, given the opportunity, oppose the measure. There is no question about that, so let us not get carried away with talking about 251 signatures. It is simply not so.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: It is, actually.
    Mr. Chapman: I say again that it is not the case. I was the hon. Member who submitted the petition and I can tell the House that there were many more than 2,000 signatures. That is the fact of the matter.
    Mr. Wareing: Would it not be very interesting to know how many individual constituents have written to hon. Members suggesting that they support an increase in the tolls and are in favour of the Bill?
    Mr. Chapman: It would indeed be interesting to have those figures. I can give the figures for my constituency, but I fear that I cannot speak for other Members. To be fair, I received one letter saying that it was a good idea to increase the tunnel charges. I think that it was from an employee of Merseytravel, but I am sure that it was a neutrally made point, for all that.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: May I enlighten my hon. Friend in another sense? I have not had a single letter against the proposed changes to the tunnel fees, but if it will help him, I will, as his constituent, write to him and let him know that I do not object—I want the fees to go up.
    Mr. Chapman: Some points were made about the affluent shires, and I shall deal with those later on.

    837
    The Bill is promoted by the Merseyside passenger transport authority, about which I shall have more to say. I also want to deal with the generic issue of passenger transport authorities, which is relevant not only because the powers in the Bill are unique in the context of a private Bill, but because my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby dealt with the issue of the PTA generically as well as particularly.
    I want to deal with the history of the tunnels and of their financing, together with the nature, role and powers of the PTA, because that is crucial in setting the Bill in context. I shall also discuss other forms of transport on Merseyside, since one of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill is that it will move people on to other forms of transport. I need to deal with that in terms of the other forms of transport in Wirral, South, because that is the area of which I have the closest experience. I shall also talk about the orientation of the Wirral, because it is relevant to what the Bill would do to the whole of Merseyside.
    The Bill relates to the Mersey tunnels, which comprise the road tunnel between Liverpool and Birkenhead—the Queensway tunnel, also known as the Birkenhead tunnel—and the two road tunnels between Liverpool and Wallasey called the Kingsway tunnel, but also known, unsurprisingly, as the Wallasey tunnel. The Queensway tunnel was completed in 1934 and the Kingsway tunnel was completed in 1974. I mention those dates because they are relevant to the financial issues.
    Although the Wirral is clearly and demonstrably part of Merseyside in local government terms, its allegiances and economic linkages vary. Some people hark back nostalgically to the time when it was part of Cheshire, which in a physical sense it still is. Rightly or wrongly, and although it was more a matter of form than substance, many very much welcomed the change to the postcode some years ago that meant that it began with "CH", not "L". That did not mean that services improved; if anything, they deteriorated. However, people in some parts of the Wirral are comforted simply by having "CH" as part of the postcode.
    Economic links matter not only with Cheshire and Chester, although people go to Chester for shopping, the races and work in the business park and firms such as MBNA. People also work in north Wales, not least at Airbus. The Deeside economy is unitary in many respects. Our links with Ireland are historic and remain strong. King Billy sailed to Ireland from the Wirral. People remember cattle from Ireland coming into the lairage at Birkenhead. The new roll on/roll off ferry service will further strengthen our links with Ireland. We have connections with Ellesmere Port, where people work at, for example, Vauxhall. We also have links with Halton, where people work in the chemical industry.
    However, our cultural and leisure links are overwhelmingly with Liverpool and the rest of Merseyside. For both sides of the Mersey, the tunnel is a vital artery and a daily lifeline. Unnecessarily increasing the charges for using the tunnels is deeply damaging and divisive. The Wirral and the rest of Merseyside have been connected throughout history, but it was in the first part of the 20th century that Liverpool traders, ship owners, brokers, merchants and business people started to move across the Mersey to live in the Wirral and enjoy what were viewed as its bucolic pleasures. The relationship is almost umbilical.
    838
    In 1922, Sir Archibald Salvidge tabled a motion in Liverpool city council to inquire into and report on the feasibility of a tunnel or a bridge to improve traffic facilities across the Mersey. The engineers' report emphatically supported a tunnel. They pointed out that although a high-level bridge would add to the appearance of the port and river, it would be a susceptible target in the event of war. If subject to a direct hit, it could lead to the closure of the port of Liverpool. A bridge would be impossible to guard. That was wise counsel in view of the bombing of Liverpool in the second world war. Furthermore, the cost of continuous painting and maintenance of a bridge was viewed as astronomical.
    It was therefore reported that a road tunnel would cost less to construct and offer considerable economy in maintenance. On 8 August 1925, a private Bill that authorised the project and established the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee received Royal Assent. On 16 December 1925, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal switched on the power to the pneumatic drills and formally inaugurated an undertaking without parallel in engineering history.
    The tunnels are part of our psyche on Merseyside. King George V opened the Queensway tunnel on 18 July 1934. It cost £8 million to construct in eight years and eight months. It ranked financially as the biggest municipal enterprise ever undertaken in the country. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, people remember walking through the tunnel on its opening in 1934.
    Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has been speaking for 20 minutes but he has reached only the 1930s. Will he give us an idea of the likely proportions of the rest of his speech so that we can pace ourselves?
    Mr. Chapman: It is important to set this issue in its historical context, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall move on relatively quickly—
    Mr. Stephen Pound: To the 1960s.
    Mr. Chapman: Yes, to modern times.
    The people walking through the tunnel in 1934 did so secure in the knowledge that, in the fulness of time, the debt would be paid off and the tunnels would belong to them.
    Mr. Wareing: As a matter of interest, my hon. Friend might like to know that I am now the only hon. Member in the House to have walked through the tunnel in 1934, my father having paid a small amount of money to local charities.
    Mr. Chapman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the sense of well-being that he felt in the knowledge that, one day, the tunnels would belong to him, to his family and to the rest of the people of Merseyside.
    I hesitate to cover all the details that I have before me, but they are relevant. One million bolts tightened the iron lining of the tunnel, and some 140 miles of joints were caulked. Some of the rubble was used to build the nearby Otterspool promenade, which was part of a scheme to reclaim the land along parts of the foreshore of Liverpool and the River Mersey. I make that point because it reinforces the fact that the two sides of the Mersey are wholly interdependent.

    839
    The main tunnel is 40 ft in diameter and carries four lanes of traffic for more than two miles between Liverpool and Birkenhead. The fact that it is only two miles long is relevant, too.
    Mr. George Howarth: Why?
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend asks why. There are two branches of tunnels. The Birkenhead dock branch, which at one time carried traffic to and from the Birkenhead dock estate, is now closed. The Liverpool dock branch is still in operation for exit traffic into the docks area.
    I was going to deal with some of the environmental aspects of the project, but in the light of the haste that people are urging on me, I shall move forward to the 1950s.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not want to upstage my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but he may not be aware of how the tunnel was used by young scallywag kids in the 1950s to access the coastal resorts of the Wirral, by jumping on the backs of wagons, which were very slow-moving in those days.
    Mr. Howarth: You're too big for that now, Peter.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
    Mr. Chapman: During the 1950s, because of the post-war boom in motoring and the expansion of local industry, the need for a second crossing became evident. Detailed studies of cross-river traffic and the flows thereof provided definitive evidence of the need for an additional crossing. The arguments about the form that that crossing should take followed the earlier lines of argument. I shall spare the House the explanation of that, but the matter was investigated at great length and the same conclusion was arrived at. There was to be a second tunnel, and, in 1965, Royal Assent was given for the reconstitution of the Mersey tunnel joint committee. In 1966, work commenced.
    The Kingsway tunnel, which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in June 1971, is a twin-tube tunnel. Each tube has two traffic lanes that are 12 ft wide—compared with the 9 ft width of the lanes in the Queensway tunnel—and slightly under two miles long. The Mersey tunnels are unlike any other estuarial crossing in the country, in that they are situated in the heart of a conurbation. Patronage of the tunnels is predominantly local, but not, of course, completely so. Recent surveys show, for example, that 82 per cent. of tunnel users are Merseyside residents and that the majority of journeys through the tunnels are work oriented.
    Current debt relates to the construction of the Wallasey tunnel, costing some £44 million, and the use of borrowing to finance the operating losses incurred between—
    Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend explain that point? The outstanding debt for 2000–01 is £110 million. The first published figure of which I am aware is for 1968–69, when the outstanding debt was £17.1 million.
    840
    How did the debt reach its high point of £140 million? That is well beyond the difference between income and expenditure.
    Mr. Chapman: Absolutely. If my hon. Friend permits me, I shall come to that in a moment.
    The use of borrowing to finance the £116 million operating losses incurred between 1968 and 1992 added to the original inherited debt. From my time as Department of Trade and Industry director on Merseyside, I recall that the debt was contributed to by shenanigans during the Militant years, but I have been unable to do the research to confirm or deny that proposition, which may be apocryphal. That was my understanding at the time, but it may not be correct.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: On that serious point, my hon. Friend refers to the Militant years, although I hope that I have misheard him. Of course, before the county council was abolished, it was responsible for the tunnel authority. As far as I am aware, the residuary body that took over the Mersey tunnels and the whole transport infrastructure was never, in any shape or form, infected or dominated by Militant Tendency or its influence.
    Mr. Chapman: That may be so, but what I have referred to was common currency when I worked in Merseyside. I accept my hon. Friend's point, however.
    Deficit funding by borrowing was authorised by legislation, but it continued for far longer than was envisaged and involved much greater amounts due to higher costs and less traffic than was anticipated. According to Merseytravel's website, and there can be no better authority, Merseytravel inherited the tunnels in 1986 with £100 million of debt and operating losses of £10 million per annum. Annual operating costs were £20 million and toll income £10 million.
    Tolls increased in 1986 and 1989—I hope that this addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—but total debt rose to £140 million before Merseytravel raised tolls again in 1992, from 60p to 100p for cars, and was able to balance operating costs and revenue. According to Merseytravel, toll income is £30.6 million and expenditure consists of £11 million operating costs, debt charges of £14 million and refurbishment costs of £5.6 million.
    The outstanding debt is, I understand, £106 million, which includes borrowing of £65 million raised in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s at relatively high interest rates. The balance of debt is pooled and it is being repaid with interest at variable rates.
    Mr. Pound: Like many west London MPs, I have a passionate interest in seeing the Bill make progress, but I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the light at the end of this particular tunnel. Would it be presumptuous to suggest that my hon. Friend should produce a handsomely blocked booklet containing all these extraordinarily interestingly facts, although he should allow us to read it on another occasion? Might we proceed to the vote some time this decade?
    Mr. Chapman: I may take that suggestion up, or at least produce the bound volume for people to read after

    841
    the event. All that I am saying is relevant to the position that we find ourselves in today, and it needs to be said in this debate here and now.
    The purpose of the Bill is to amend the statutory provisions relating to the levying and revision of tolls for the use of the tunnels, especially so that in future tolls are revised annually with reference to the rate of inflation. The second purpose is to remove the present requirement to reduce tolls once debts arising from construction and operation of the tunnels have been repaid. The third is to allow the authority to use surplus toll income to improve public transport in Merseyside, and the fourth is to allow the authority to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway tunnel approach on the Wirral. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), I can say without fear or favour that I have no problem with the fourth item relating to noise insulation in Wallasey.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the powers currently available to the passenger transport authority do not enable it to carry out such work?
    Mr. Chapman: I do, of course. I accept that legislation will probably be required for that purpose. However, I do not accept what I regard as pernicious provisions, which outweigh the benefit of the fourth item.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Will my hon. Friend tell us why he is trying to destroy the Bill, rather than to amend it?
    Mr. Chapman: I am not trying to destroy anything. I am putting the arguments that I believe should be made. I have made a valid point. I approve of one aspect of the Bill, but not the others. That needs to be said.
    Mr. George Howarth: I am interested to hear that. Given my hon. Friend's stated position, would not the logical course of action be to allow the Bill to receive a Second Reading and to try to make suitable amendments during the Committee stage?
    Mr. Chapman: That course may need to be followed, but all I am trying to do on Second Reading is to put the arguments that I feel are relevant to the case. That is what I want to do.
    Mr. Howarth: I am trying my best to follow the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. As I understand it—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—his position is that the Bill has some good aspects and some less good. If so, is not the logical course of action to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading tonight, and to raise those concerns in the form of amendments or in points that he can make in Committee?
    Mr. Chapman: I may be reacting rather hastily to my hon. Friend's comments, as I know that he means well and is trying to be helpful, but the fact is that I approve of only one item in the Bill. It is not a matter of trying to destroy or to save the Bill. I am merely pointing out that I have a distinct objection to three provisions of the Bill, but not to the fourth. I am engaging in the debate on the provisions of the Bill as a whole.
    842
    As the proponents of the Bill point out, the financial stability of the tunnels depends on the tolls collected from people using them. That is apparent, and I agree up to a point. They also argue that the tunnels' financial stability cannot be guaranteed in the longer term, and I agree with that. It is to some extent a matter of management. The tunnels need to be managed so as to ensure financial stability. The evidence does not suggest to me that that is happening at present. The proponents also say that further toll increases will be necessary in due course to ensure that the tunnels continue to break even. There is thus an admission that they are breaking even, and I have no hard evidence to suggest that they will not be able to continue to break even, given appropriate management.
    Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend, unlike the proponents of the Bill, mentions management, which was dealt with specifically in the previous Bill. One of the reasons for that was that the tunnel had been mismanaged for years, an element with which the present Bill does not deal. Does he agree that if it did, it might receive a fairer wind from us?
    Mr. Chapman: Absolutely. I fear that, to some extent, there is something of a cop-out style of management involved in the tunnel.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: If it is a question of management, how would my hon. Friend manage the sound insulation that is desperately needed by those 200 houses at Wallasey?
    Mr. Chapman: There are ways of catering for that; this Bill is not the way to do it. I shall come on to that subject in greater length later, if I may.
    In any organisation, there is scope for efficiency improvements. The chairman of Merseytravel always challenges me to say what those might be. Frankly, it is the job of the chairman of Merseytravel to identify them. The MPTA has been reluctant to tackle management issues, but I would look at whether there was a need for 80 policemen for four miles of tunnel. It is no doubt apocryphal, but it is said that there are often more policemen in the tunnel than there are simultaneously in the rest of Liverpool.
    The passenger transport authority wanted to cop out of the management under the previous Bill, and proposed to sell a long-term concession to an organisation in the private sector to run the tunnels.
    Stephen Hesford: Why does my hon. Friend think that that was the intention of Merseytravel at that time?
    Mr. Chapman: I cannot speak for Merseytravel but, in my view, it wants to get out of tackling the issues and to transfer its burden, just as the burden is being transferred now to a readily available increase in tunnel tolls, whether or not they are justified. These increases must be justified. Those involved must demonstrate their stewardship and their prudence in financial management. It must be demonstrated that there are consultation processes and checks and balances before there are toll increases.
    Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend recall that a large part of the justification for the previous Bill—supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby

    843
    (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas)—was that it would provide best value in the running of the tunnels? The present Bill is silent on that issue.
    Mr. Chapman: That is entirely true. Perhaps we will hear from others as to why that is so.
    Such was the keenness of the MPTA to sell a long-term concession to run the tunnels to an organisation in the private sector, it was prepared virtually to privatise the tunnels, removing the fact that the tunnels hitherto had been operated by the people of Merseyside for the people of Merseyside in the public sector and for the advantage of the people of Merseyside. It may be that that mentality arises from an absence of management skills.
    If the authority has such skills, it is a random occurrence, because there is no requirement to that effect.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) said, to rid itself of its responsibilities, Merseytravel was even prepared to risk the imposition of VAT on tunnel charges by virtual privatisation. How much would that have cost the people of Merseyside and its economy? Moreover, given that, apparently, no Merseyside organisation could offer the services that the concessionaire required, it seemed likely that the operation would be run by a profit-making organisation from elsewhere. That would have involved siphoning off loads of money to another part of the United Kingdom, much to the detriment of the people of Merseyside.
    As I said, there is an element of copping out in the Bill.
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, whom—as he probably realises—I normally hold in the highest regard. However, is it in order for him to make a Second Reading speech on a Bill that is not before us, rather than on the one that is?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to make a Second Reading speech about the Bill before us.
    Mr. Chapman: I was trying to point out that the attributes that characterised Merseytravel's attitude to the previous Bill are still apparent. Rather than justifying increases in tunnel tolls or accounting for its stewardship of our funds, it simply wants to have the money given to it on a plate without any justification, other than the fact that inflation has risen.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I have considered my hon. Friend's comments about the 80 police officers who are employed to maintain safety and traffic throughput in the tunnel. I remind him that the tunnel operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. By my reckoning, that equates to 12 police officers on duty at any given time across what are in fact two tunnels: in other words, six officers per tunnel, with three on each side. I believe that six officers is the minimum necessary to attend to any major emergency that might occur. Does he disagree?
    Mr. Chapman: Up to a point, I do. Even to the layman, the figure of 80 policemen and women for a what is a very short stretch of tunnel merits examination,
    844
    however it is presented. A crisis involving the fire service might arise, yet the Merseyside passenger transport authority employs no fire service personnel; it relies on the external fire service to provide for such emergencies. Why, therefore, does it need a separate force of 80 policemen and women in the tunnel? I am simply suggesting that that is a point for examination, were I to be tempted down that road.
    The authority wants increases to be granted to it on a plate. Moreover, as has been pointed out, it wants the ability to raise charges, where appropriate, by more than the rate of inflation. Given that the authority is unskilled as a tunnel operator—or, indeed, as much else—and given that it provides the equivalent role of a board of directors, I am not sure that this is right. A proper board of directors might reasonably include representatives of tunnel users and businesses on Merseyside, and people with expertise in transport, tunnels, finance, accountancy, the environment and management. However, I fear that, by and large, nominations to the authority are based on the principle of Buggins' s turn.
    Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the MPTA contains no representatives of tunnel users, but he will accept that a lot of tunnel users live on Merseyside. He will also accept that many MPTA members—in fact, all of them—are representatives of Merseyside people. In other words, the MPTA does include representatives of tunnel users.
    Mr. Chapman: By random process, that must be so.
    Mr. Howarth: I am listening to my hon. Friend with increasing incredulity. He has the privilege of speaking in the House by virtue of the fact that he is an elected representative of the people of Wirral, South. He appears to be saying that those local authority members who sit on the passenger transport authority, who are in their turn elected by the people of their wards, are in some way unfitted to sit on the authority. Is not that a case of pots calling kettles black?
    Mr. Chapman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I wish to analyse the role of the passenger transport authorities generically, and I shall come on to that point.
    Stephen Hesford: Was not my hon. Friend's point that the MPTA seems to lack expertise in the running of that multi-million pound affair?
    Mr. Chapman: Indeed, and things might be done better if a board of directors had appropriate expertise on it. I am not impugning the motives of those on the MPTA, but I think that things could be done better. I asked questions about the qualifications of people assigned to PTAs or fire authorities or police authorities, and the response came that none are sought and none are particularly held.
    Mr. Howarth: I do not understand why my hon. Friend cannot accept the simple fact that the qualification of members of PTAs is the fact that they have been elected as local councillors in their own areas and that they, as individual members of the authority, have the confidence of those councils that have sent them to sit on that body.

    845
    Surely that is just as much a qualification as my hon. Friend has for standing here and making his speech tonight.
    Mr. Chapman: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. I am trying to describe a way in which the Mersey tunnels might be run more efficiently, and I am determined so to do. The organisation has 880 staff, 320 of whom work in tunnel operations. I am determined to examine whether the balance between administrators and deliverers is right. I have asked any number of people on Merseyside to guess the number of people involved in running the tunnel for Merseytravel and the tunnel police, and nobody has ever come near guessing the actual numbers.
    I have no doubt that the workers are dedicated, committed and hard-working. However, we need an effective management structure, and I am not sure that we have one. In questioning that, I am posing questions not only about the MPTA but about PTAs generically, and that is appropriate, especially as the point was originally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. Operationally, Merseytravel is responsible for the tunnels and the ferries. Administrative matters such as timetables, pensioners' passes, bus subsidies and fast tags are not operational matters as such. If I were on the board of Merseytravel, I would want to examine the degree of overhead that was involved.
    The proponents of the Bill said that by increasing tolls at the rate of inflation, their proposals would be administratively simple. That may be true, but it would not necessarily make them justifiable. The Bill would give no right of appeal on inflationary increases either to the MPTA or to the Secretary of State. That is not right. At the moment, if Merseytravel wishes to increase the tunnel tolls and some groups object to that, a public inquiry process has to be followed. That gives people the opportunity to give evidence for and against the issue. The effect of the Bill would be to take away that right, so it is even more important that those groups that would be affected are given an opportunity to give their evidence before that right is taken away. That is something that Merseytravel has attempted to prevent, although it failed to do so at the Court of Referees.
    I do not think it right to use the RPI. Mr. Fleming, the Federation of Small Businesses representative at the Court of Referees, said that the move to raise prices in line with inflation sounds good, but that people have to remember that the normal rate of RPI is based on a basket of prices for products such as food and fuel, and so on. He said that an annual RPI of 5 per cent. does not apply to the Mersey tunnel or to public utilities, because they do not eat food and or use fuel. In a nutshell, Mr. Fleming said that Merseytravel was not just trying to balance the books, but that it was trying to create cash using the RPI index proposal.
    The proponents of the Bill say that the proposal will make revenue forecasting easier, but I am not so sure. When Mersey tunnel price increases have been pursued through the public inquiry process, they have always been granted. If a case is justifiable, there is no reason why it should not be granted.
    846
    The proponents say that an increase in tunnel tolls would increase use of other transport, as if people drove back and forth through the tunnels for fun. I have discovered today that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) does just that.
    Mr. Wareing: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if Merseytravel had not introduced a Bill in November 1999 but had applied instead for a toll increase, that proposal would have completed the public inquiry stage already? That original Bill, incidentally, contained an element of privatisation. By now, a small toll increase would have been secured. Instead, Merseyside's council tax payers have had to fund parliamentary advisers, public relations people and others to draft this Bill, and its predecessor.
    Mr. Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    The Bill's proponents postulate that raising the tolls would increase the use of other transport, but I doubt that other forms of transport are up to the job. I have a mental picture of people sitting at home on spare afternoons and choosing to go for a drive through the tunnel. I fear that people do not do that—although the hon. Member for Southport is an exception. The scenario is unlikely. People go through the tunnel because they have to.
    The local train and bus services are no great shakes. My mailbag is full of complaints. I shall say more about that later, as I shall about the ferries. The alternative to the tunnels is the Runcorn bridge, but that involves a round trip of nearly 50 miles. The bridge is massively congested, and the Halton authority is seeking an additional Mersey crossing to alleviate the burden.
    It is worth noting that the authority that supposedly manages, operates and maintains the tunnels levies tolls, from which the income is used to, defray operational costs and the expenses involved in paying off the principal of moneys borrowed to finance the construction and operation of the tunnels. The authority also makes payments to maintain a reserve fund in respect of the tunnels. That seems to me to be exactly appropriate: money raised from the tunnels should be used for the tunnels, without any element of cross-subsidisation.
    If other transport services are needed, they must be justified, by and large, on their own account. I believe that cross-subsidisation ultimately leads to uneconomic or unjustified services—
    Mr. George Howarth: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's logic. He seems happy with cross-subsidisation when it means that my constituents subsidise those who travel through the tunnel, but he objects to it when it works in the opposite direction.
    Mr. Chapman: I do not accept that, as I shall explain shortly.
    Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend reflect on why the burden was devolved to the five local authorities? It was because the previous Conservative Government refused to allow Merseytravel's predecessor to raise the money in the way that it wanted, so it was forced to raise the precept?
    Mr. Chapman: Absolutely.

    847
    The measure proposes a form of hypothecation that is entirely without precedent in private Bill provision. I am not against hypothecation in all circumstances but it needs to be tightly defined—there must be horses for courses. In any case, it appears from the MPTA's pronouncements that the matter will be dropped for a few years while the safety measures are implemented.
    There is provision in other funding mechanisms for transport schemes. Have steps been taken to examine those sources? Cities in other parts of the north-west have managed to create substantial projects without recourse to a private Bill such as this one. They do not have the same problems as Merseyside, but they do not receive objective 1 funding. Merseyside has that advantage although it has disadvantages. Why does an area with recourse to objective 1 funding need a Bill such as this? Is it another cop-out? Is there a lack of the financial engineering that is needed to put together projects that involve a multiplicity of funding schemes—matching contributions and so on? Perhaps the proponents could specify what has been done to find sources other than the mechanism that we are discussing?
    Who will benefit from the proposals? I agree that transport on Merseyside is not merely of concern to the local area; there is massive interdependence.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am deeply concerned about some of my hon. Friend's comments. He has implied that the management structure of Merseytravel is excessive and that its reduction would lower the costs of the organisation. He has inferred that the tunnel is overstaffed in terms of the number of police and, I guess, operators. Do I rightly understand that his principal objection is that the tunnel infrastructure is overstaffed and that his solution to that problem is to cut jobs—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is rather lengthy.
    Mr. Chapman: I am saying that before we agree to a proposal for a cash increase for the MPTA for toll increases without let or hindrance we need to be sure that we are getting value for money.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: It is about cutting jobs then.
    Mr. Chapman: I realise that the tunnel workers and the police are working hard and make a considerable contribution. All I am suggesting is that there may be a need—I put it no stronger than that—to examine the overheads. If they are as they should be, everything will be right and proper.
    One side of the Mersey depends on the other; there is a mutuality of interests. Those who advocate that only the users of the tunnel should pick up the tab need to understand that. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
    Stephen Hesford: Is not the giveaway the fact that the previous Bill would have privatised the management? It was recognised that there was a problem. The previous Bill addressed it, but this one does not.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
    848
    All Merseyside can benefit from, or be detrimentally affected by, the tunnels. It is not true that those who are closest to them benefit more and those who are furthest away benefit less. Many organisations are Mersey wide and not just based on the Wirral or elsewhere in Merseyside. That is how it is. Wirral is part of the Mersey partnership, and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and hosts of other organisations have interests on both sides of the Mersey. The recent inaugural sailing of a roll on/roll off ferry from Twelve quays to Ireland shows how the weighting of the mutuality of interest has increased on the Birkenhead side. However, a considerable flow of commercial traffic goes through the tunnels between the docks, and that traffic takes goods to Knowsley, Southport and Crosby. They all benefit from the use of the tunnels.
    Mr. Wareing: Cancer patients on Merseyside—whether they live on the Wirral, Merseyside or in Southport—often have to make their way to Clatterbridge hospital on the Wirral for radiotherapy treatment. How do the Bill's supporters think that such people get across the river? Do they swim across? I suggest that they go through the tunnels. Does my hon. Friend realise that, in 2001–02, the ambulance service on Merseyside—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his intervention to a close.
    Mr. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend realise that the ambulance service spent £43,200 on tolls even for emergency ambulances?
    Mr. Chapman: I was about to come to that. A preponderance of traffic may begin on the Wirral, but it goes to work in Liverpool and in other parts of Merseyside. It is a matter of mutual benefit, with the balance of advantage going to Liverpool and other parts of Merseyside rather than the Wirral. Every delivery from a store in Liverpool that is dispatched to the Wirral makes a contribution to the Liverpool economy. People go from the Wirral to work and invest in Liverpool; and many organisations benefit the people of Merseyside and not just the areas close to the tunnel.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): Does my hon. Friend have any idea of when, as a result of the Bill, additional money would be released to support other public transport initiatives in Merseyside, and when those sums would be made available?
    Mr. Chapman: As I understand it, the proposal is that, for the first four or five years, the extra money that might accrue from the Bill would go to fund health and safety mechanisms in the tunnels rather than to other projects. I hope that covers my hon. Friend's point.
    People from the Wirral who travel to leisure facilities and to football matches contribute massively to the Liverpool and wider Merseyside economy. People travel through the tunnels from all parts of Merseyside and beyond. People from Southport may go to north Wales, and people from north Wales may go to the philharmonic. Lorries and commercial vehicles do business in one way or another all the time. The tunnels are a hive of activity and an essential one.
    Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): I grew up on Merseyside, and I am well aware of the promise made to

    849
    the people of Merseyside that the tunnels were a gift to us all and that, when the debts were paid off, the tolls would be reduced or removed. Will my hon. Friend spell out whether the economics of the tunnels depend on the Bill, or will the Bill turn the tunnels into a milch cow that will finance other transport initiatives and break the promise to the people of Liverpool?
    Mr. Chapman: The Bill does indeed establish the tunnels as a milch cow. It specifically and explicitly breaks the promise to the people of Merseyside.
    Those who work or live far from the tunnel entrances might think that they are not affected by them or do not benefit as much from them, but they are wrong. Travel-to-work areas are extensive and interlinked, and it is not always the case that those people are affected to a lesser extent. Some 40,000 people use the tunnels regularly. There are 80,000 vehicle movements a day through the tunnels, which amounts to 25 million—perhaps 35 million—vehicle movements a year. Those journeys affect all the people of Merseyside.
    The Bill would allow the authority to use tolls to provide public transport facilities in the county of Merseyside in such a manner and for such purposes as it thinks fit. That goes a wee bit too far. The Bill proposes to give the Merseyside PTA an entirely free hand in financial matters and to use moneys raised for such purposes as it thinks fit. Would that include items such as the refurbishment of the chairman's office, recently refurbished at a cost of £24,000 when the location of the headquarters was in question? The facelift features include trendy light wood and glass, cabinets with subdued spotlights that highlight the chairman's Everton memorabilia on glass shelves built into a wooden wall-mounted unit, a matching light-wood conference table—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot understand the relevance of that to the Bill.
    Mr. Chapman: I am trying to explain that if we give an entirely free hand, we need to know how the money will be spent.
    The authority claims to have spent £100,000 on promoting the Bill. I would wager that it has spent substantially more than that, perhaps even multiples of it, and it covers only the direct costs. Does that sum include the fees for lawyers and, perhaps, barristers, public relations companies, a public affairs consultant and parliamentary agents? Does it include all the opportunity costs of management time that was spent on developing and promoting the Bill, which is largely unwanted on Merseyside?
    Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that at least some part of the expenditure will have been incurred as a result of his opposition to the Bill?
    Mr. Chapman: It would be something if that were so, but judging by the amount of literature that I have received from various sources within Merseytravel, it is evident that phenomenal sums have been spent, with or without my efforts. Do the figures include travel and subsistence costs?
    Alan Simpson: In respect of the balance sheet, and before my hon. Friend pleads guilty to sole responsibility
    850
    for opposing the Bill, does he accept that there is another side to the £500,000 or so that has probably been spent on promoting it? Does he acknowledge that he may have to share the credit for opposing the Bill with the North West Trades Union Congress, a collection of Labour MPs, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Mersey tunnels shop stewards committee, the Merseyside TUC, the Wirral TUC, the local Daily Post and Liverpool Echo, and a huge number of people on Merseyside? The confederation of local authorities may not be in tune with the confederation of local people.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief?
    Mr. Chapman: None the less, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend made a valid point, and I am grateful to him. Those are honourable bodies which believe in the opposition that they have stated.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend referred to the £100,000 used to fund the Bill, but he did not refer to the likely £500,000 cost of a public inquiry if the Bill does not get through. I regard this as investment today to save money tomorrow. How does he regard it?
    Mr. Chapman: Frankly, I think that Merseytravel has to justify its proposed toll increases, and people need to be able to raise objections to them. We should not, whatever the circumstances, give Merseytravel carte blanche to raise its tolls with no justification besides the fact that the cost of living has risen. Toll increases would have a massively detrimental effect on the Merseyside economy, notwithstanding the points that were made earlier.
    Merseytravel is, after all, the organisation that reportedly sent 20 people to an entirely abortive hearing at the Court of Referees. Apparently, it failed to foresee the need for safety measures, despite the fact that safety ought to be its first priority. It is now saying that it needs £14.2 million, and it will use the Bill to raise that money. Do we really think that we should give that organisation rights that are, in terms of private Bills, unprecedented when questions are posed about it?
    It has been argued that the £14.2 million is the reason for Merseytravel's pursuit of the Bill, but in my view that is a red herring. It is not as though the ADAC report was unanticipated; it is not as though provision for health and safety had not been made. It is not as though the report's recommendations were mandatory or set in a time frame. It is not as though the tunnels were worse than others. The Wallasey tunnel got a good grade; indeed, I think that it may have come out on top. Even the Birkenhead tunnel was regarded as acceptable. We are not talking about tunnels that are bottom of the table.
    Merseytravel, having said that it would strive for a public inquiry to raise the money, has apparently had second thoughts and suggested that safety might be a good argument for getting the Bill passed. It has been added to the arguments at a late stage. As I said, the safety argument cannot stand alongside the argument that the money will be used for other transport schemes on Merseyside, because it would prevent that.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) intervened a few

    851
    moments ago—obviously, the Bill is of great concern to the people of Nottingham—and listed some of the opponents to the Bill.
    Is my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) aware of a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport dated 4 July, headed "Mersey Tunnels Bill" and signed by Dave Martin, the leader of Sefton council, Marie Rimmer, the leader of St. Helens council, Jim Keight, the leader of Knowsley council, Steve Foulkes, the leader of Wirral council and, last but by no means least, Joe Anderson, the leader of Liverpool Labour group? Does he think that they have suddenly dreamed up the idea of supporting the Bill, or does he think that they may be representing the communities that we are all sent here to represent?
    Mr. Chapman: Of course I am aware of that letter. I am also aware of the opponents to the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). They include the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians, the North West Trade Union Congress, Amicus, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Unison members who work in the tunnels rather than in the Merseytravel office.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend mentions the involvement of the AEEU. I am member of the AEEU. Is he sure that he is not confusing one branch of the AEEU with the entire union?
    Mr. Chapman: Yes, I am sure that I am not confusing one branch with the entire union. The Bill is opposed by Amicus-AEEU.
    Alan Simpson: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) referred to the interests of the people of Nottingham, South. May I point out that some of us are expatriate scousers by birth—
    Mr. Pound: How can you be an expatriate by birth?
    Alan Simpson: Sorry, I meant to say that some of us are scousers by birth and expatriate scousers by affliction.
    Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) accept that the interests of the people of Merseyside are not necessarily expressed by the leaders of the local authorities? Whatever weight he gives to those views, they ought to be set alongside the trade union resolution supported nationally by the TUC, which states:
    "local people, who work on the opposite side of the Mersey to which they live, already pay up to £780 per annum for a one-and-three-quarter mile each way journey. In an area of high unemployment and poverty those tolls"—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend has covered the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), but he did not mention the fact that the Automobile Association, the Freight Transport Association and many others also object to the Bill.
    852
    Let me list the current scale of tolls, because it is worth considering the effect of the Bill's proposals in that light. A charge of £1.20 each way applies to motor cycles with sidecars; three-wheeled vehicles; private or light goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for fewer than nine persons. The £2.40 each way charge applies to private or light goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with trailer; heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with two axles; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for nine or more persons, with three axles. The £3.60 each way charge applies to heavy goods vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with three axles; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for nine or more persons, with three axles. The £4.80 charge applies to heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with four or more axles.
    Thus an ordinary motorist in an ordinary car going through the tunnel once each way pays toll charges of £2.40 a day; that is £12 a week, or £600 a year. That strikes me as quite enough to take out of an ordinary person's pocket simply to get to work, or to get to hospital for cancer treatment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said. The fellow with a sidecar, who pays a similar sum, is similarly taxed. For a goods vehicle of 3.5 tonnes with four or more axles, the daily cost of a single return journey is £9.60 but, for argument's sake, let us say that the same lorry from George Henry Lee goes back and forth four or five times day, making the cost £12,000 per annum. If that calculation is applied to all the lorries going through the tunnel, all the people travelling on business from factory to warehouse, from dock to dock, from shop to wholesaler, and from builder to building site, it can be seen that the proposed increases will have a massive effect on the Merseyside economy. which will not be experienced by the economies of other sub-regions which compete with Merseyside.
    Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the main dock for exporting goods to Northern Ireland is in Birkenhead? For all those companies that export goods from Liverpool to Northern Ireland or southern Ireland, there will be an inevitable additional cost for moving their goods through the tunnel to the port for export. What estimate has been made of the additional costs of an inflation-led increase in charges on the Merseyside economy?
    Mr. Chapman: I fear that I cannot provide a figure, but it would be substantial. As I said, the effect is unique to Merseyside. The passenger transport authority has proposed an increase of 10p every three years, but that may not necessarily be the case. The inflation rate in 1980 was 18 per cent.; in 1981, 11.9 per cent.; in 1982, 8.6 per cent.; in 1983, 4.6 per cent.; in 1984, 5 per cent; in 1985, 6.1 per cent.; in 1986, 3.4 per cent.; in 1987, 4.2 per cent.; in 1988, 4.9 per cent.; in 1989, 7.8 per cent.; in 1990, 9.5 per cent.; in 1991, 5.9 per cent.; in 1992, 3.7 per cent.; in 1993, 1.6 per cent; in 1994, 2.4 per cent.; in 1995, 3.5 per cent.; in 1996, 2.4 per cent.; in 1997, 3.1 per cent.; in 1998, 3.4 per cent.; in 1999, 1.5 per cent.; in 2000, 3 per cent.; and in 2001, 1.8 per cent.
    If we took the years 1989 to 1991 and applied the authority's three-year yardstick, the increase would be 29p, not 10p as projected. The increases would therefore

    853
    have a massive effect. The projected charges apply to the lowest common denominator—the ordinary vehicle. If they are applied to lorries, the overall increase is much greater. The rise is not necessary, as it does not result from increased operational costs. Charges will certainly not be reduced because of increased operational efficiency. Charges are not determined by a formula, which could provide for negative inflation; increases are made simply because the cost of living has gone up. However, if that is the case, people do not want to pay unnecessary charges. Life is tough enough. We are already taking £600 from the motorist's pocket, so we should give the people who use the tunnels a break and operate the tunnels efficiently. Let us use the revenue raised from the tunnels for the benefit of their users and the Merseyside economy, not for other purposes for which there are alternative sources of funding.
    Alan Simpson: If the House agreed to the shift from a cost-based increase in charges to an inflation-based increase in charges, and if there were a war in the middle east later this year that resulted in a dramatic increase in oil prices, would not the charge increases applied to people on Merseyside be based on the increase in petrol charges, as well as on an increase in tunnel charges arising not from costs but from external factors unrelated to the tunnel? If so, how on earth would my hon. Friend justify it?
    Mr. Chapman: That is entirely the case. We could be faced with massive increases that had nothing to do with the economy of Merseyside or the operation of the tunnels, but which were due to wholly external factors that could have a massively detrimental effect on the Merseyside economy through the provisions of the Bill. It is not a free lunch. One cannot impose increases on the nod; one must justify them, What is proposed is simply a drive to profitability, and in no sense a drive to efficiency. It is about raising money from the tunnels to use for other purposes.
    That is not the end of the matter. According to the formula for index-linked rises, if the formula produces a sum that is neither a multiple of 10p nor an amount which, on division by 10, produces a remainder of 5p, it should be rounded to the nearest 10p; and if it is an amount which, on division by 10, produces a remainder of 5p, it should be increased by 5p. That is a balanced provision, but the fact remains that in some years, under just the basic provisions of the Bill, the rounding provisions could result in an automatic inflation-plus increase, quite apart from the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned.
    Matters get worse. It is also provided that
    "If at any time it is represented in writing to the Secretary of State by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority"—
    nobody else, just the Merseyside passenger transport authority—
    "that in the circumstances then existing or in prospect—

    (a) all or any of the tolls fixed by or by virtue of this Act should be increased by more than the increase authorised by subsection (6) of section 91 (Classification of vehicles, level and application of tolls) of this Act, or

    (b) any classification of traffic then in force for the purposes of the levying of tolls should be revised".

    In other words, in addition to the automatic increase and the possible rounding-up, and on the say-so of the MPTA alone, the Secretary of State may be asked to
    854
    increase any of the tolls by more than the increase authorised in the basic provisions of the Act, or to revise the classification of traffic. The chap with the motorbike and sidecar could be paying a different category of charge to that which he is paying at present. The initiative lies purely with the Merseyside passenger transport authority. It is true that the final decision would be with the Secretary of State, but under the terms of the Bill nobody is allowed to ask for a reduction if operating costs go down.
    Before the Bill appeared in its present form, I went to see the MPTA, at its request, to discuss the Bill. I said that one might want to consider a formula-based inflation-minus proposal that had a built-in provision for independent reflection on what was proposed, or a proposal that contained constraints and checks to prevent the free-for-all that is proposed in the Bill, or one that had inputs by users, consultation and appeal mechanisms.
    I think that the authority must have failed to understand me. The response that it has given in the Bill is to the effect that it will reflect on the increases before applying them. That is the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas—it is not likely to happen. The Bill states:
    "On each occasion that an order is made under section 91 (Classification of vehicles, level and application of tolls) of this Act"—
    the County of Merseyside Act 1980—
    "the Authority shall consider, having regard to such matters of an economic or social nature within the county of Merseyside as the Authority considers to be relevant—

    (a) whether it is necessary or appropriate in relation to any or all classes of traffic to exercise its power in subsection (1)(c) above to reduce tolls or to continue to exercise that power (as the case may be); and

    (b) if the Authority considers that it is necessary or appropriate to do so, for how long tolls should be reduced or continue to be reduced."

    The authority is the promoter of the Bill. Why should it want to raise money for other projects by imposing unnecessary increases, but then say that it will not need the money after all? The provision makes absolutely no sense.
    Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a huge difference between an agreement to reflect on the part of the authority and a concrete agreement with the people of Merseyside that once the costs of the tunnel are met, the charges for using it will be reduced? One of those positions is a concrete commitment, but the other is little more than a lick and a promise.
    Mr. Chapman: That is absolutely right, and as I said, it is contrary to the overall thrust and purpose of the Bill. As my hon. Friend says, it is unlikely that any such reduction will happen.
    Having run speedily through the provisions, I should like to explore some aspects in greater detail. Wirral people and others on Merseyside have to use the tunnels for both business and leisure purposes. They need to do so if they are going to work, whether in insurance, shipping, retail, banking, manufacturing or whatever. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a telling point about Clatterbridge centre for oncology, but even if people go to hospitals in the other direction, the same problems would apply. For example, the same would apply in respect of going to

    855
    Alder Hey or to Liverpool Women's hospital. Although we have good hospitals on the Wirral, just as Liverpool has good hospitals, people need specialist treatment such as that provided by the centre for oncology, and they have to use the tunnels.
    For leisure purposes, whether Merseysiders want to go to nightclubs such as Cream, watch the blues and reds at Goodison and Anfield, listen to music, catch planes or ferries, listen to the opera, watch plays, as we have done, or visit or worship at either of the cathedrals, they need to go through the tunnels. There is no realistic choice. They use them for work, education and leisure.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an alterative for my constituents if they want to go to Clatterbridge for treatment? The route is as follows: M57, A5300, Runcorn bridge, M56 and M53. That is far faster than being stuck in the centre of Liverpool or Birkenhead.
    Mr. Chapman: It is also far less environmentally friendly to travel all those miles only to find oneself on a congested Runcorn bridge halfway through the circuit.
    Ian Stewart: It is a roundabout way.
    Mr. Chapman: It is as my hon. Friend says. So they go for education to Liverpool university and to John Moore's university, to work at Jaguar—
    Mr. Miller: It is not a roundabout way. That is part of the importance of the debate about the sub-regional infrastructure. As it happens, my home is equidistant to the centre of Liverpool going by either route. There are merits in considering the regional infrastructure, not just the tunnels.
    Mr. O'Hara: It is my constituents' favourite route to Ellesmere Port as well.
    Mr. Chapman: People go through the tunnels to the many festivals on both sides of the river, to the Tate and to the splendours of national galleries and museums on Merseyside. They go, as colleagues and I are going to go, to eat in Chinatown and to see the Chinese arch. Then, the money stays on the Liverpool side of the river, as is right and proper. They might go to work in motor vehicle, timber or hi-tech industries. On the other hand, people go through the tunnel to the Wirral for country pursuits, to walk, to visit Port Sunlight, to visit the Williamson art gallery, to see the splendours of the estuary and to watch Tranmere Rovers. They go for bird-watching, to work on Deeside, to climb Moelfamau—for a whole variety of reasons. It is a continuing, permanent heavily flowing artery that is essential to the life of people on Merseyside. Of the tunnel traffic, about 40 per cent. originates in the Wirral, 17 per cent. originates in Liverpool, 15 to 20 per cent. originates in the rest of Merseyside and the balance is from elsewhere. The tunnels are an essential artery for all of us. For people on the Wirral, Liverpool is our sub-regional centre. We have to go there.
    The Bill is certain to lead to increasingly higher tolls being imposed on tunnel users, for the following reasons. Merseytravel has admitted that the last 20 per cent.
    856
    increase to £1.20 each way, bad though it was, was less than the increase that would have occurred if the retail prices index trigger had been in place since 1992. Moreover, the Bill would provide for increases in excess of inflation. What utility is allowed to increase charges like that? It would think it fantastic were it permitted to do so. Normally the best that is offered is an inflation-minus figure, and that drives efficiency.
    This proposal would drive profitability. If, as is argued, the tunnels could be more efficient, the profits could be large. Where would they go, who would account for them, and how would they do so? The people of Merseyside would not experience the future reduction in tolls that they have been promised. Under current legislation, the tunnels' operating surpluses must be used to accelerate the repayment of debt, and once the debt is repaid tolls should be reduced to cover operating and maintenance costs. That promise would be broken were the Bill to become law. The aspirations of 1934 would be dead and gone and the public would feel cheated.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the proposals would do nothing to enhance economic development between Merseyside and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Chapman: The proposals would be detrimental to the economic relations between Merseyside and Northern Ireland, especially because of the new ferry operation that is starting to develop from Birkenhead, which will be a new centre of trade and commerce between our two parts of the United Kingdom. If we were to accept the proposals in the Bill, those areas would be massively damaged by them.
    It is unfair to our constituents and their families to impose massive increases in tunnel tolls. As has been pointed out, it is not only the local economy that will be damaged and it is not only local jobs that will be put at risk by the effect on business. We are considering a second-by-second conduit of business and life. The tunnel is crucial to investment and business flow. We cannot afford to allow the toll to fund other schemes or cover inadequate provision for health and safety. Investment would not come to Merseyside—
    Mr. Kilfoyle rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 18.

    Division No. 299]

    [10.21 pm

    AYES

    Bailey, Adrian

    Chidgey, David

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Cohen, Harry

    Beggs, Roy

    Connarty, Michael

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Cotter, Brian

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Berry, Roger

    Cunningham, Tony (Woritington)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Dalyell, Tam

    Burnham, Andy

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Carton, Mrs Patsy

    David, Wayne

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Davidson, Ian

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Dismore, Andrew

    Challen, Colin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Chaytor, David

    Doughty, Sue

    857

    Dowd, Jim

    Pollard, Kerry

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Pope, Greg

    Farrelly, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Flint, Caroline

    Pugh, Dr John

    Flynn, Paul

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Rapson, Syd

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Green, Matthew (Ludbw)

    Ruane, Chris

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Salter, Martin

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Harvey, Nick

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Havard, Dai

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Hermon, Lady

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Abd'ns)

    Hope, Phil

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Soley, Clive

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Hume, John

    Tami, Mark

    Jenkins, Brian

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Thurso, John

    Kidney, David

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Lamb, Norman

    Tyler, Paul

    Laxton, Bob

    Tynan, Bill

    Luke, Iain

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    McFall, John

    Ward, Claire

    McNamara, Kevin

    Watson, Tom

    Mallaber, Judy

    Watts, David

    Mann, John

    Webb, Steve

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Willis, Phil

    Meale, Alan

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Merron, Gillian

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclestield)

    Mudie, George

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    O'Hara, Edward

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Picking, Anne

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Pike, Peter

    Mr. George Howarth.

    NOES

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Bacon, Richard

    Skinner, Dennis

    Banks, Tony

    Spink, Bob

    Chope, Christopher

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Leigh, Edward

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Mr. Andrew Miller and

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stephen Hesford.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 22.

    Division No. 300]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Bailey, Adrian

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Beggs, Roy

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Chaytor, David

    Benton, Joe

    Berry, Roger

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Burnham, Andy

    858

    Chidgey, David

    Doughty, Sue

    Connarty, Michael

    Dowd, Jim

    Cotter, Brian

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Flint, Caroline

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Flynn, Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Davidson, Ian

    Gidley, Sandra

    Dismore, Andrew

    Gilroy, Linda

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Harvey, Nick

    Hendrick, Mark

    Hermon, Lady

    Hope, Phil

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

    Hume, John

    Jenkins, Brian

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Kidney, David

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Lamb, Norman

    Laws, David

    Laxton, Bob

    Leigh, Edward

    Luke, Iain

    McFall, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Mallaber, Judy

    Mann, John

    Meale, Alan

    Merron, Gillian

    Mudie, George

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Picking, Anne

    Pike, Peter

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pope, Greg

    Pound, Stephen

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Pugh, Dr John

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Rendel, David

    Ruane, Chris

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Salter, Martin

    Sanders, Adrian

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

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

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Soley, Clive

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tami, Mark

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Thurso, John

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Tyler, Paul

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Ward, Claire

    Watson, Tom

    Watts, David

    859

    Webb, Steve

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Willis, Phil

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Mr. George Howarth.

    NOES

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Banks, Tony

    Rapson, Syd

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Chope, Christopher

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Drew, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Spink, Bob

    Hendrick, Mark

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Hope, Phil

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Mr. Andrew Miller and

    Olner, Bill

    Stephen Hesford.

    Question accordingly agreed to
    Bill read a Second time, and committed.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    10.40 pm
    Mr. Eric Joyce: I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of genetically modified crops. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Prime Minister have said recently, it is time for a rational and national debate around this subject and it is essential that that debate be informed by sound science and economics.
    For some time now, the tenor of public debate around the issue of GM crops has been of too high a pitch. That has led to a considerable degree of misperception in the public mind as regards levels of risk and potential benefit. That is not to say that people are wrong to be concerned about the health implications of a new food technology such as GM. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will confirm tonight that DEFRA's highest priority is to protect human health and the environment.
    Nor would I suggest that pressure groups of one kind or another are wrong to flag up what they perceive as potential problem areas; quite the reverse. Indeed, in preparing for this debate, I received an excellent brief from Greenpeace, for which I have great respect, even though it knows that I do not agree with the general thrust of its argument on the GM issue. It is essential that all sides of the GM argument are heard and that organisations such as Greenpeace play a key role in this matter.
    Most people would agree, however, that the best basis for debate is a foundation of reliable and generally agreed facts. Indeed, unless anything can be taken as axiomatic by all parties to a debate, the debate cannot really exist at all. Rather, the activity that ensues will simply represent a clash of world views yielding a similar effect to the playing of two CDs loudly at the same time.
    It is of course possible to come to a set of axioms in a number of ways; perhaps through reason or scientific observation, or perhaps even as a matter of faith. Yet however it is done, there is a need for all parties to obey the rules of the game—otherwise, there can be no game.
    It is especially worrying that a common means of laying down the parameters or assumptions contained within the debate—that is to say, empirical observation and broad scientific method—has played such a small part in the debate around GM to date. It is clear to me, for example, that the Food Standards Agency is unequivocal in regarding GM crops of the type presently being grown as part of the farm scale evaluations as safe for people to eat. The view has been arrived at through rigorously applied scientific method. It has also been arrived at in other countries. By the time of the beginning of the European moratorium on GM food production in 1998, 70 million acres had been cultivated in all sorts of trials without any substantive predicted or unpredicted hazard being discovered.
    Key elements of research have been published in peer-reviewed journals and the scientific orthodoxy is that GM crops such as those being trialled at present are safe. Of course scientists will usually regard any orthodoxy as contingent and there will always be those who propose counter-arguments, but that is part of scientific method itself; indeed, it is part of life itself.

    861
    It seems to me that some interest groups have heretofore set about disrupting scientifically informed debate, rather than actually participating in it. For example, the farm scale evaluations presently under way, which will be completed next year, have been subject on occasion to official representatives of non-governmental organisations, dressed in wacky masks and white dungarees, using their size 10—and indeed size five—wellington boots to tramp down the trial crops. Participants in such activities doubtless claim that the evaluations' underpinning framework and assumptions are technically wrong. However, the greater impression conveyed by such people is that they wish to bypass scientific debate, and to use media spectaculars to distort public perception of risk. I am afraid that, at times, some interest groups have seemed more intent on spreading fear than on engaging in scientific debate. That has been a pity, to say the least.
    To begin redressing the consequence of interest groups' spinning and the sometimes one-sided media reportage, I want to emphasise some of the potentially great benefits of GM technology. GM crops offer the possibility of greatly increased crop yields, less waste and the use of fewer resources. That has fairly obvious environmental benefits, but it could offer entirely realistic scope for massive indigenous production in the developing world. Perhaps as many as 400 million people worldwide suffer from vitamin A deficiency, more often than not as a consequence of inadequate diet. Many such people are children, who will develop other health problems as a result. In theory, at least, GM could help dramatically through the development of a new type of rice, for example, which could deliver the daily level of required vitamins. Dr. Ingo Potrykus, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in Zurich, has pioneered the genetic modification of rice using daffodils and a bacterium called erwinia uredovora. Dr. Dean Dellapena, of the university of Nevada, has produced an oilseed plant with high levels of vitamin E, which helps the immune system to fight disease. That is particularly relevant to those who suffer from poverty in the developing world.
    There is little dispute about the benefits that GM, if safe, could deliver for developing countries. It is perhaps for that reason that the interest groups that have so far dominated public discourse have tended to avoid this area. Instead, we have heard much about Frankenstein foods, and little to suggest that cross-pollination has been a natural and everyday reality in farming through the ages. We have heard little to remind us that the animals that non-vegetarians eat every day are the result of extensive cross-breeding through the ages. Nor has much been said of the fact that, to grow food conventionally in volume, we must kill competing vegetation, which involves using chemicals in great volume, too. We have also heard little to remind us of the "killer bees" phenomenon, whereby African and European bees were cross-bred conventionally to provide a higher honey yield. Instead, a highly aggressive species was produced that, according to some, has killed 1,000 people throughout the world.
    Indeed, a feature of the discourse to date is that, when apparent scientific evidence emerges that seems to back the case of the relevant interest groups, they have trumpeted it from the rooftops. One example is the now invalidated work of Dr. Árpád Pusztai. I say "invalidated", rather than anything stronger, because it is essential that the unorthodox be given a full hearing;
    862
    otherwise, we would never experience the step-change advance of some of our greatest scientific triumphs. Equally, however, new evidence has to be evaluated in a balanced and peer-reviewed way, and put properly into context. Ironically, in so far as Dr. Pusztai challenged GM orthodoxy and failed, he helped to strengthen it.
    Last night, I debated this issue with Lord Melchett on the excellent programme entitled "Despatch Box". I understand that it may be under threat, and for the sake of intelligent political debate I hope that it is not. Lord Melchett is a world leader in anti-GM theory and practice, and much more besides. He is a leader in the field of organic produce and, by the way, is a former Labour Minister and a thoroughly charming man. Yet I could not help noticing that he selectively quoted parts of scientific research. Given that he famously trampled a field of GM crops that were under scientific test, I found that a little od. In a way, his approach is reflected across the interest groups, which can reasonably be categorised—and are often self-categorised—as anti-GM.
    I suspect that, in truth, many anti-GM interests recognise that they are on a sticky wicket on the science front, and that that is why they often seem to avoid balanced debate on the evidence. I hope that such debate will ensue during, and following, the scientific and economic studies announced recently by the Secretary of State, about which the Minister may wish to say something.
    I also have an inkling that the objections of many anti-GM interests are in truth economic rather than that scientific in origin, but that the economic objections are less sexy and perhaps less sellable than the pseudo-scientific ones. A paper by Julian Morris of the Institute of Economic Affairs refers to a paper by the Centre for International Environmental Law in Washington DC, which puts two interesting arguments. They are exemplary arguments of their type. It is suggested that the profits of GM will not be shared with the people of developing countries. In essence, the benefit from GM technology will primarily accrue to mainly American multinationals, and that is given as a reason for objecting to it. The CIEL paper also suggested that GM technology could reduce food security in the developing world because
    "real food security problems are not caused by food shortages by poverty, inequity and the concentration of food production."
    To take the latter point first, the anti-GM lobby may have raised an issue of importance. I do not agree with the IEA paper which rejects that point out of hand, because I have seen at first hand how countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo can have great natural resources but people are simply too afraid to farm the land. GM crops would not solve that problem directly. It could only be solved by countries such as ours giving countries such as theirs assistance with security by means of regional security forces and so forth. Perhaps through the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD—we will arrive at that point.
    It is the former argument about who benefits economically that forms the bulwark of the anti-GM philosophy, but it remains obscure to most of the public, hidden behind nonsense about Frankenstein foods and other stunts. At one level, the argument may be refuted by appealing to the logic of global markets and arguing the case that liberal and democratic economies and

    863
    countries will provide much of the solution to the problem of national underdevelopment in the developing world. Perhaps it is reasonable that that is not enough for the anti-GM lobby, since it has—it sometimes seems—a world view that is antipathetic to economic globalisation. That is its right, but although globalisation does not produce uniformly perfect outcomes, it is broadly a force for good. I disagree with the anti-GM lobby on that point, but I do not intend to press that case tonight.
    My objective tonight has been to highlight the fact that until now public discourse on the vastly important subject of genetic modification has been dangerously slanted. It is now time, in the months leading up to what may be a Government decision in 2004 on the future of GM crop production in this country, for the interest groups in the UK and in Europe to participate in a full and open debate, potentially to the great benefit of us all.
    10.52 pm
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I found that speech refreshing listening, given that the debate has been rather hysterical and polarised. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) gave a balanced and thoughtful view, and I congratulate him. This is a contentious subject and the Government recognise that people have genuine concerns about GM crops. The Prime Minister confirmed that in his recent speech on science and technology, when he said:
    "In GM crops, I can find no serious evidence of health risks. But there are genuine and real concerns over biodiversity and gene transfer."
    We have heard some interesting points tonight from my hon. Friend and I would like to respond by trying to set out—to copy my hon. Friend, in what I hope will be a balanced and evenhanded manner—the action that the Government are taking in this area. First, the release and marketing of GM crops are governed by a statutory control regime agreed by the European Union. It is detailed and rigorous, and makes it clear that protecting human health and the environment is the overriding objective of public policy. That very much reflects the Government's own thinking—I emphasise this point—that if there is any unresolved doubt about the safety of a GM crop, we will not allow it to be grown.
    The Government played a leading role in negotiating a strengthened EU regime, which will come into effect in October. We have improved risk assessment procedures, as well as new provisions on public consultation and the monitoring of genetically modified organisms after they have been released.
    We are implementing the EU regime openly and transparently. Information on proposed GM crop releases and the associated risk assessments is made freely available. The minutes of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment are posted on our website, as are the locations of GM crop trials. We are ready at all times to consider views or evidence on the science relating to the safety of GM crops or public concerns in general.
    Further controls on the traceability and labelling of GMOs and on the approval of GM foods and animal feeds are currently under discussion in the European Union. We will continue to support controls that help to maintain safety and provide for informed consumer choice.
    864
    I turn now to the farm-scale evaluations of GM herbicide-tolerant crops. As the House will know, the Government are sponsoring this research programme, and we have agreed with the industry that GM crops will not be commercialised in the UK before the results are considered. Commercialisation will happen only if they are found to pose no risk and cause no damage to the environment. The trials illustrate our precautionary and responsible approach to assessing the potential risks of this new technology.
    I have just announced the final round of farm-scale trials to be sown this autumn. The crop concerned is oilseed rape. As with previous rounds, we have written to parish councils with a trial in their area to explain the trials' purpose, and officials from the Department will attend parish council meetings if requested. I assure the House that I have always been anxious to ensure that local people know what is happening in their area, and why it is happening. I have also written to all hon. Members to provide background on the trials.
    A number of issues have been raised by hon. Members, and I shall turn to them now. Some hon. Members have complained about the distribution and selection of sites. The industry body, which is rather oddly titled the Supply Chain Initiative in Modified Agricultural Crops, identifies a pool of candidate farms. Researchers assess and select those that are suitable for participation. That is done in accordance with criteria established by the independent scientific steering committee overseeing the programme, which also approves the overall distribution of sites.
    Some hon. Members are worried about the disproportionate clustering of farm-scale evaluation sites, especially in Dorset. The distribution of the trial sites has to reflect the geographic range over which the particular crop is grown and the range of different management regimes for the crop in the UK. Having several sites in one area—whether it be the south-west or Lincolnshire—does not preclude that, provided that the sites taken overall are representative of the crop in question. The scientific steering committee for the programme is content that the overall distribution of sites is in line with the aims of the farm-scale evaluation research.
    I should make it clear that the purpose of the farm-scale trials is not to test the GM crop plants—a mistake that many people make—but the herbicides being used with them. To that extent, the scope of the trials is rather limited. The GM plants have already undergone a full safety evaluation as required under EU legislation. Contrary to what many people think, the trials are not about safety. ACRE said that the crops in the trials pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than their non-GM counterparts. We are allowing the trials to proceed only on that basis.
    One concern about the farm-scale evaluations is their potential impact on other farmers in the vicinity. Indeed, I think that is the issue that is raised most often. The Government recognise that the transfer of GM material might affect the economic interests of conventional and organic producers, so separation distances are being applied to the trials to ensure that any GM cross-pollination is kept to a very low level. For example, the distances relating to organic crops will ensure that cross-pollination is normally below 0.5 per cent.
    I am pleased to say that, to my knowledge, there has been no instance of a farm-scale trial affecting the status of a neighbouring conventional or organic crop. We are

    865
    currently considering how GM and non-GM crops might co-exist in a commercial setting, although of course there is a huge difference between protecting conventional or organic farmers in respect of a limited number of trial sites and protecting them if full commercialisation were to take place.
    The first results from the farm scale trials will be published next summer. They will tell us what impact herbicide use with GM herbicide-tolerant crops has on farmland biodiversity, relative to the impact of equivalent conventional crops. We await that information; that is the purpose of the trials. If the results show that the GM crop herbicide regimes have a negative effect on the environment, we will use that information to impose restrictions or to block the commercial release of the GM crops. I want that to be clear.
    I shall take this opportunity to address some of the objections that have been raised from time to time about the GM field trials. The first relates to GM contamination and the demand made by some people that there should be zero GM contamination. However, we cannot avoid all GM cross-contamination. GM crops are widely grown in other countries—as my hon. Friend made clear—so GM traces may occur in imported material. It is also impossible to prevent cross-pollination between compatible crops and extremely difficult to test reliably for incidental GM presence at low levels. However, we realise that some people want the lowest possible GM presence and we shall bear that in mind as the policy is developed.
    Another issue that has frequently been raised is liability; it has certainly been raised in the House. EU proposals for an environmental liability regime are being considered. If adopted, they will provide liability rules for GM crops, covering damage to biodiversity and serious harm to human health. We are also considering the measures that might be needed to facilitate the co-existence of GM and non-GM production, recognising of course that GM crops may affect the economic interests of non-GM farmers.
    Another point that I wish to discuss—it has been raised in the media and in other ways—is the production of superweeds and the experience in Canada. Crop weeds in Canada have acquired multiple herbicide tolerance because different types of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape have been used. That is known as gene stacking, and it raises the concern that it might result in agronomic or environmental problems here. However, gene stacking cannot occur with the GM crops in line for possible use here, because they do not cross-pollinate each other. If it is proposed to release other crops that could result in gene-stacked weeds, I give the assurance that the risks will be fully evaluated before that is done.
    Two years ago, the Government established the independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on the social and ethical aspects of developments on this issue. That
    866
    recognises that the issues raised by biotechnology and genetic engineering are not purely science based. The commission includes members from a range of backgrounds, including environmental and organic farming groups as well as from the biotech industry. It produced a major report last year on the farm-scale evaluation programme called "Crops on Trial"—I recommend it as reading to any hon. Member—that the Government accepted, including the recommendation for a GM public debate.
    We have confirmed that we will encourage a full and informed public debate on GM issues, including GM crops. Among other things, we expect the debate to address the current state of scientific knowledge on current issues, focusing on public concerns about the potential risks to human health or the environment from GM crops and food. We are also commissioning an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of GM crops, including their effect on conventional and organic farming.
    At present, we are considering detailed advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on how the debate should be conducted. It recommended several innovative ideas, including the use of citizens workshops to identify the issues for debate, and the production of a video film to illustrate the issues and stimulate discussion among local groups—for example, parish councils—and in specially convened focus groups. We genuinely want to stimulate public debate and we are considering all the options. There has never been a serious and thoughtful debate—it has been polarised—so we now want a much more rational and balanced debate, such as we are having tonight in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.
    We want the debate to start as soon as possible and an announcement will be made once the arrangements have been finalised. The debate will ensure that the Government are fully informed of the range of people's views before decisions are taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. It is intended to demonstrate that we are responsive to people's concerns and are looking to maximise the opportunity for public views on all sides of the spectrum to be heard.
    Contrary to what is often suggested, the Government have an open mind on what we may offer. We are clear that the potential risks have to be fully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We have always proceeded on that basis. At the same time, however, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the potential for this technology to deliver benefits—as my hon. Friend suggested, it could be used in some circumstances in developing countries—if it is used wisely. That is an important consideration, given the considerable concerns. We believe that people should consider the issues carefully taking due account of sound science. That is what we intend to promote.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Refrigerators
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Angela Watkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the effects of the European Commission's regulation on the safe disposal of waste freezers and refrigerators. It has affected industrial and commercial appliances since October last year, but has also applied to domestic appliances since 1 January this year. Before I highlight the practical problems being experienced by local authorities in implementing the new duties, I will outline the background to the regulation.
The possibility of damage to the ozone layer from chlorofluorocarbons—that is the last time I will say that word in full—was predicted in 1974. In 1985, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer was framed to promote precautionary action. In 1997, an international agreement was reached to reduce progressively the use of CFCs and halos—the Montreal protocol to the Vienna convention. That has now been ratified by 156 countries, including all industrialised nations. Recent reports that the United Kingdom faces a growing pile of old refrigerators is perhaps the first obvious impact of the Montreal protocol. In 1999, the United Kingdom agreed to a European directive that would require all CFCs from refrigerators to be recycled from 1 January 2002.
In July 2001, it was brought to the attention of the United Kingdom Government that the directive would also cover insulating foam in the doors and walls of refrigerators. The Government have complained about the late timing of the information passed on by the European Union, but the 1 January deadline caught them unaware. The Minister stated that he did not believe there was a precedent for a delay in the implementation of the directive when the matter had already gone through Brussels. Unfortunately, the Government did not even ask for a delay in the implementation of such a worthy directive. A delay or phased implementation would have eased the many problems now being faced by waste collection and disposal authorities. Sites could have been identified for the recycling of refrigerators and other electrical goods.
The habit of refitting the kitchens of homes when they exchange hands means that many redundant refrigerators are still serviceable and in good condition. If they could be reused, the numbers requiring degassing and disposal, either by high temperature incineration or to landfill, would be reduced. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister said that up to 3 million domestic refrigeration units are disposed of in the United Kingdom each year. A large number of them seem to be in my constituency.
174WH
Old refrigerators must be treated in one of three ways. The whole refrigerator may be disposed of in an incinerator. That process is expensive, and means that the metal elements of the refrigerator cannot be recycled. It has also been suggested that they can be disposed of abroad. However, refrigerators are now classified as hazardous waste, and thus cannot be exported. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to clarify that point when he sums up. Moreover, transport costs are very high. The best available option is that proposed by the Government: that refrigerators be disposed of in purpose-built reclamation facilities in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do not seem to have made provision for that most sensible means of disposal. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has allocated £6 million to help local authorities deal with the storage costs of the refrigerators that they cannot dispose of, none of that sum is payable until the next financial year.
Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend has rightly alluded to the length of time that it took for the Government to wake up to such matters. Is she aware that the Minister received a letter dated 24 November 2000 from Dixons Group plc that alerted the Government to the ending of both the company's free take-back scheme and the export potential of those refrigerators, and to the consequences? The Government did not react to that timely warning.
Angela Watkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I have received many letters from retailers about that very point. The potential exists for the retailer take-back method, which offers opportunities for refurbishment and resale, to take 20 per cent. of waste refrigerators from the waste stream. It is a great pity that that method is not available to the retail trade.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. She may have noticed that, when I gave her that piece of information, the Minister intimated that he vigorously disagreed. In his reply to the letter that I mentioned, Lord Whitty says:
"A number of questions have arisen during the implementation of Article 11 and we are addressing these problems as a matter of urgency."
Is my hon. Friend aware that we learned that refrigerator mountains were beginning to build up in December 2001, yet that letter was written a year earlier? Does she consider that to be a demonstration of urgency of action by the Government?
Angela Watkinson: My right hon. Friend is right, of course. Another problem is that additional costs are piling up on local authorities, which have a duty to collect redundant refrigerators if retailers do not take them back.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I intend to respond vigorously to all those points when I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Of course we received that letter in September 2000, but I vigorously indicated my dissent because we did not need to be warned by Dixons, as I made perfectly clear

175WH
to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We were the first to raise the issue with the Commission in February 1999, about 20 months earlier. We took the initiative: we did not need any warning from retailers. The problem was that the Commission did not answer the perfectly proper question that we asked.
Angela Watkinson: Let me give an example. Essex county council has estimated that its costs are expected to be in the region of £1.68 million. So far, its predicted share of the £6 million sum is likely to be in the region of £50,000. The shortfall will have to be found from council tax, at a time when the difference between central Government grant and the spending requirements of local authorities is widening annually at an alarming rate. On the other hand, the East London waste authority, which services my constituency, has yet to learn how much funding it might be given. Havering council accepts and collects, via its bulky refuse collection service, only domestic refrigerators and freezers, which are temporarily stored at a local civic amenity site. Neither Havering nor any of the other ELWA constituent authorities accommodates commercial refrigerators and freezers. Between November and July—a period of only seven months—Havering had almost 5,000 refrigerators and freezers weighing 204 tonnes collected from its civic amenity site by ELWA collection vehicles, which required 153 vehicle movements.
A recent ELWA report highlighted the scope of the problem when it revealed the expectation that the authority would receive between 7,000 and 40,000 units. The speculative nature of the numbers involved illustrates one of the difficulties in planning that service. As the containers have to be stacked for onward shipment to Germany, closed-top containers must be used to meet health and safety and licensing requirements. A short-term contract was let, which allowed the disposal of approximately 5,500 units. However, the report pointed out that ELWA was receiving 574 units a week and that, by the end of June, more than 10,500 units would be stored at its refuse transfer station.
The report went on to identify options and associated costs for the disposal of refrigerators. The option chosen by the board of ELWA was the disposal of all units within the current financial year. That would have the advantage of clearing the RTS site as quickly as possible, and there would be no burden on future years' expenditure.
The total estimated cost for 2002–03, including storage and disposal, is between £750,000 and £1 million. Havering alone, one of ELWA 's four constituent authorities, has roughly 95,000 properties. It can expect between 9,500 and 19,000 units a year, depending on the life of a refrigerator; the figures are based on a lifespan of five to 10 years. The council has to offer a free collection service to deter fly tipping, and that is an additional burden on its budget.
176WH
The guidance that outlines the legislative requirements for the collection and disposal of refrigerators is highly prescriptive. It imposes many new duties for which authorities are unprepared in both practical and financial terms. The standard that practitioners should achieve is an ozone-depleting substance loss of 15 to 25g per unit, which can be achieved by using a fully automated mechanical recovery plant with an integrated degassing unit. It is anticipated that losses in that range would certainly be acceptable from a Montreal protocol perspective.
The following requirements in the guidance involve techniques that prospective practitioners may not have anticipated: the removal of ozone-depleting substances prior to the storage of the appliance; extraction of both the oil and refrigerant in the same step; and, possibly, the pre-heating of appliances prior to degassing. Best practice would also involve degassing in a controlled environment where fugitive releases of ODS could be recovered. In the interim, the pragmatic decision has been taken that degassing can take place in the open air. Although degassing outside a controlled environment introduces an additional uncertainty regarding the overall ODS recovery efficiency from cradle to grave, it is currently considered acceptable, given the unquantified loss of ODS from handling and transport operations.
The standard licence is for the pre-destruction and storage of refrigeration equipment, including refrigerators. The conditions require the removal of foodstuffs and loose materials, cleaning, and the removal or securing of doors before the refrigerator is put into storage. That is defined as pre-treatment. The storage prior to pre-treatment, and the pre-treatment operation itself, must be undertaken on an impermeable surface. Once the pre-treatment has been done, the refrigerator can be removed to hard-standing for short-term storage of less than 12 months.
If refrigerators are stored for more than 12 months, the compressor must be drained of refrigerant and lubricating oil, and that draining operation must be done on an impermeable surface. The standard licence is to be used for the pre-destruction treatment and storage of waste refrigeration equipment only, and is not to be issued without modification in flood-risk areas.
The uncertainty about the long-term funding of that highly complex service makes it very difficult for disposal authorities to commit to long-term contracts. That is slowing down the process, and is resulting in a greater backlog than is necessary. The most immediate need is for a fast, non-bureaucratic reimbursement system, backed up by documentation, so that local authorities can forward plan with confidence. They need to be able to expand their local civic amenity sites where electrical goods can be brought for recycling, to provide proper storage facilities, and to form partnerships with refurbishing organisations such as Renew Trust.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my hon. Friend aware that some time ago, in answer to a question of mine, the Minister said that the Government would fund any new duty imposed on a local authority? Is she aware of whether the Government have quantified how much they expect to pay local authorities, and

177WH
whether they have offered funds to those local authorities to help them to prepare for what will undoubtedly be an environmental catastrophe?
Angela Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because the main thrust of the debate is that local authorities are unprepared, both financially and in practical terms, to deal with those expensive new duties. The £6 million that has been promised will be spread thinly over local authorities across the country, and that will leave an enormous shortfall that local authorities will have to make up out of their council tax.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend mentioned the thinness of resource for local authorities to store refrigerators and the fact that the Minister estimates that the cost of disposing of the existing mound of refrigerators will be some £40 million. The trade suggests that it could be as high as £60 million to £70 million. It remains unclear who will pay for the disposal of those refrigerators, let alone what will happen in future.
Angela Watkinson: My right hon. Friend is right. Security of funding is necessary for all authorities that deal with the storage or disposal of fridges, to enable them to enter into long-term contracts. Until they can do that, there will be no lessening in impact of either the existing fridge mountain or the one gathering as fridges continue to flow into civic amenity sites throughout the country.
Renew Trust is typical of a refurbishment company that specialises in taking in redundant fridges for resale to housing associations and social services. I understand that legislation to reinstate retailer take-back is not expected before 2004. Interim measures to enable the service to be reinstated before then would greatly benefit that sector of the waste management industry. That would also prepare for the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which is wending its way through the European Parliament and will introduce new measures to reuse, recycle and recover all electrical and electronic equipment in order to reduce their disposal to landfill.
The lessons from the fridge disposal debacle need to be learned. The cost impact of the WEEE waste electrical and electronic equipment directive on both large and small businesses as well as waste collection and disposal authorities needs to be assessed. The last thing we want is a computer mountain that makes the fridge mountain look like a molehill.
9.47 am
Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who spoke properly and strongly about the problems affecting her area. It is a national problem. Between 2.5 million and 3 million fridges are discarded each year. According to the Minister, the cost of the episode is £40 million, although informed estimates from the private sector suggest that it could be much more—about £60 million to £70 million.
It is important to look at the landscape. Over the weekend, I visited Burntsump waste disposal site in north Nottinghamshire to see the piles of refrigerators. It will clearly take some time to resolve the problem.
178WH
The episode has not reflected well on any of the parties involved. Following press speculation and the Select Committee report, it is important to draw lessons for the future. In introducing the new regulation, it is important in environmental terms to achieve more than we have so far.
The Select Committee report refers to the regulation being rushed through Parliament at a breakneck speed. It took three weeks for Parliament to consider that important matter. I appreciate that that is a matter not for the Minister but for the House and the appropriate Committee, but we need to look carefully at how we deal with the increasing amount of European Union legislation on the environment in particular.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. What emerged from consultation on fridges and end of life vehicles is that negotiations with the EU seem to be led by the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the Department with responsibility for implementation and enforcement is the Department for. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was not party to the process, and was not fully informed about what was agreed. Is not that an obvious lacuna, and an example of a total lack of joined-up government?
Paddy Tipping: One of the things that emerges from this episode is that several Departments were involved, such as the DTI and the forerunner of DEFRA. When discussions took place at the management committee in Brussels, it was not always clear which official and Department was taking the lead in the negotiations. However, it is significant that when the British Government, and Governments across the EU, signed up to this regulation, they did not have a clue about what they were signing up to.
Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was pressure to reach political agreement before the details of the ozone-depleting substance regulation and subsequent European environmental legislation were sorted out, and that, in retrospect, that has turned out to be the Achilles heel of this approach to environmental legislation?
Paddy Tipping: That is absolutely right. One of the lessons that we can learn from this regulation is that it is necessary to involve politicians at an early stage, when things appear to be going wrong. There was a protracted discussion between the Minister's Department and officials in Brussels—I know that the Minister will tell us about that—and I believe that there were faults on both sides. However, when the Minister became directly involved in July 2001, things began to happen. I make no complaint about the way that officials worked, but it is clear that things were going badly wrong. There had been a series of discussions to try to resolve the matter, but when the Minister became involved, progress began to be made. When difficulties of this kind arise, the Council of Ministers ought to be brought back into the discussion.
Mr. Sayeed: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he suggested that other EU countries were no more ready than the UK. Is he aware that, as of October 2000, four other EU member states were fully prepared to deal with this problem?
Paddy Tipping: There is a mixed response across the EU. Some countries, such as Germany and the Scandinavian nations, were well prepared. However, some EU countries have not made the progress that the British Government have made—and we have still got problems.
I return to my point. A political agreement was reached. A technical discussion then took place about the way that the regulation was going to be introduced. Problems arose, and at the end of the day—three years after the initial discussion of the regulation—we have environmental problems, because there was a lack of proper planning in this country, and across the EU.
Two lessons must be learned from that process, and talked about further. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talked about the private sector. Companies such as Comet had spotted that there was a problem, and it tried to tell the Department about it. It might not have been pitching at the right level in the Department, but it is clear that the private sector perceived that there was going to be a problem. That lead them to withdraw the take-back scheme. Their messages should have been picked up sooner. We must also have a better and more thorough discussion about the technical nature of the problems as such regulations are introduced.
Therefore, the process of introducing the regulations is difficult, and it should be improved. I take on board the point that it is important to get this right now, because there is a great amount of European legislation that will have an impact on this country. The landfill directive will change radically, and for the better, the way that waste is disposed of in the UK. The hon. Member for Upminster mentioned the end of life vehicle directive and the WEEE directive, both of which are sitting on the Minister's desk. They present major challenges for the Government. I would like to say—and I hope that the Minister will reassure me—that we are better prepared for the introduction of that legislation, but I am slightly ambivalent about that.
With regard to the end of life vehicle directive, a decision was taken only a few weeks ago that the last owner should pay for the disposal of the vehicle. That will lead to real difficulties. I know that steps and measures have been taken to try to mitigate them, but, potentially, the problem of abandoned cars and vehicles will become another real issue for the Government. It could be the end of the road for good quality waste disposal governed by DEFRA. Similarly, the WEEE directive affecting electrical equipment great deal of potential to cause problems.
The hon. Member for Upminster mentioned the costs to local authorities. On balance, the points that she made were pretty fair. Let us examine what has taken place so far: £6 million was made available to local authorities in 2001–02 for storage costs in the first three months of this calendar year. That money has been paid to local authorities via the standard spending assessment, through the distribution mechanism. However, when one asks local authorities, "How much money are you getting to store refrigerators?", they do not know, because it is drip fed throughout the year.
180WH
I have tabled parliamentary questions asking the Minister to specify how much money has been paid to each local authority in 2001–02. I am concerned that, after pressing this matter for some time, we still do not have that breakdown in black and white. In the light of those comments, I am sure that the Minister will examine the matter and respond quickly.
The hon. Lady quite properly asked about the real costs for the current financial year. Three months into this financial year, no announcement has yet been made. We must have an announcement at an early date so that local authorities know where they stand. At the end of the day, if their costs are not reimbursed—and I doubt that they will be—they will knock on to the local council tax payer.
We need some indication from the Minister in the near future about the way forward, which, in a sense, should be to go back to what we had before. Companies such as Comet that provide new fridges should have a take-back scheme. When we refit our kitchens and buy new equipment, it makes obvious sense to have someone take the old equipment away. I would like to see a take-back scheme introduced quickly. I know that there have been discussions between the interested parties about that, and, in March, the Department issued a potential protocol for the way forward. My impression is that all the stakeholders are keen to take that forward.
Mr. Sayeed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in last Sunday's "Captain Cash" column in the News of the World, the Minister said that he was ready to
"announce the return of the take-back service."
The Minister added—and I hope that this is an accurate quote:
"I hope that we get it in place within a few weeks, but certainly in the next couple of months".
In the discussions that he has had with retailers, will the Minister tell us where they will restore, refurbish or recycle the refrigerators?
Paddy Tipping: Retailers, including Comet, run schemes throughout the country. White goods are taken and refurbished. The scheme has the potential to offer refurbished goods to families with limited incomes, and alongside that is the opportunity to train people with employment problems due to such things as long-term employment or disability. We should focus on such a scheme because it is the way forward.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to read the "Captain Cash" column in the News of the World on Sunday. I look at only the front page of that paper to ensure that my name is not there; I never look at the inside pages. I shall peruse the "Captain Cash" column very diligently.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Western Mail might not have reached Sherwood yet, but if the hon. Gentleman had read it today, he would have seen a picture of Europe's largest fridge dump of 35,000 refrigerators at Newport dock. The story in the paper is more encouraging because it mentions the opening of the United Kingdom's first fridge and freezer recycling facility. If we work with such facilities, and distribution companies, manufacturers and sellers of the products, the recycling circle will be finished. The key to success will be not only the useful additional recycling for less well off families that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the 35,000 fridges in Newport that will be processed there by a new facility.
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point that leads me to the final points that I wish to make.
The Government are consulting on a protocol on a way forward: the notion of fridge recycling credit. It would help all parties involved to be told by the Minister today whether that scheme will be introduced within three or four weeks, or whether it will take longer.
Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the additional benefit of the retailer take-back scheme is the fact that as refrigerators are carefully collected, stored and transported, and kept upright, it is more possible to refurbish and resell them? Refrigerators that come via local authority collections are not stored and transported carefully, and I understand that only about 1 per cent. have the potential to he reused.
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Minister has direct experience of that because the storage mountain for his region is close to his constituency. There has been controversy about the way in which refrigerators have been stored there. If fridges are stored properly and stacked correctly, there is a much better chance of recycling and reusing them.
I turn to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). There has been much investment in Wales, and there will be much investment throughout the country. The real lesson from the story is that the United Kingdom Government have a good record on environmental matters. We have an emerging environmental industry and emerging environmental technologies. With good leadership and forethought about legislation, that technology can be developed and investment can be made. We can not only enhance the environment, but build a new environmental technology industry that can be the envy of Europe.
10.3 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing this important debate. It is as timely for people in Wales as for those in south-east England.
The background to the debate is that 2.5 million refrigerators a year are thrown out. What are the Government doing to minimise the way in which we
182WH
treat those important white goods as disposable assets? We must be able to work harder with fridge manufacturers and retailers to see whether there could be more direct recycling at source, rather than having fridges go through the waste stream first and then returning as recycled material. We should consider that key point.
If a fridge still works, we should discourage people from throwing it out and encourage them to hang on to it for another year or so, rather than buy the latest cobalt blue or shiny gunmetal grey model. They should be content with their old white fridge, with alphabet magnets and poetry stuck all over it. It is sometimes environmentally more sound, because of the environmental costs of manufacturing, not to buy a new product but to continue with a slightly older one.
In our wasteful society, we have been throwing away 2.5 million fridges a year, which has a huge environmental cost. It was right and proper that the Governments of the European Union introduced legislation to try to deal with the chlorofluorocarbons found in fridges, because the link with the thinning of the ozone layer is proven. This Government had four years to prepare for that legislation but, regrettably, were not sufficiently prepared to facilitate recycling—or even incineration of fridges at designated sites, which is another option for some fridges. I am sure that we shall hear a reason for that before long.
As I said, we have been throwing away 2.5 million fridges a year, but when the legislation was introduced, we had the ability to dispose of only 8,000 a week, so we had only a 10th of the recycling capacity needed for discarded fridges. Any fridges discarded since January have either been stacked up by the local council on a farm, waste disposal site, at Newport docks or wherever, or sent to an approved facility abroad.
As I mentioned in my exchange with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), the good news, certainly from the perspective of people in Wales, is that Sims Metal has just opened the first fridge and freezer recycling plant to deal with the problem. Currently, it has 35,000 fridges, but that is expected to increase to 400,000. The plant can deal with commercial appliances from throughout the United Kingdom; it is not only for Wales. The plant is the fruit of a partnership between the private sector and the National Assembly for Wales, and Assembly money has been invested in it. An element of Government money is needed to kick-start a recycling facility to deal with CFCs from fridges.
The Government are spending £6 million to tackle the problem—that is mainly for storage costs, as we have heard—but I think that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report estimated a cost of £40 million, which could increase to as much as £64 million. We in Wales have an interest in central Government's investing in local authorities. After all, we benefit from any increase in public spending in England through the Barnett formula and the block grant, so any investment in England to meet the demands of the hon. Member for Upminster would eventually be good for Wales—although not as good as it should be, because of the formula, but that is another debate.

183WH
The other positive element was touched on by the hon. Member for Sherwood: the increasing numbers of local fridge recycling schemes. There are two in my constituency. CRAFT recycles all kinds of goods and delivers them to people on benefits, those who cannot afford new goods and those with a particular need. There is a direct relationship. Such goods are removed from one household, refurbished by unemployed people or those with learning disabilities, and then sent to another household. That virtuous circle benefits the community in Aberystwyth.
Another, ambitious project involves the Ceredigion Materials Conservation Association, which is trying to recycle just about everything in the county. I am pleased that it is in line for an award at the Royal Welsh show to acknowledge its success.
Mr. Sayeed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the recycling of fridges is extremely valuable to employment prospects and gives poorer people adequate forms of cooling food and so on, there are problems? Under the regulations, not just the directive, recycling must be conducted under controlled circumstances, and is therefore extremely expensive.
Mr. Thomas: I accept that point, but facilities to engage in such control will spread throughout the United Kingdom. If we are to create the right virtuous circle in the recycling of fridges, there should be—I expect it—at least one such facility in each local authority area.
The report apportioned "overwhelming responsibility" I think that those were the words—to the Government for the current fiasco. However, there is also confusion with the European Commission. Points were well made about future directives, and I would like some Select Committees—for example, the Environmental Audit Committee or the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—to have an increased role in scrutiny. There is a tendency for matters to be passed to European Scrutiny Committees, never to be seen again. Most Members do not involve themselves in the processes of European Scrutiny Committees or Standing Committees as perhaps they do in those of Select Committees. If they did, that might be a way forward.
In advance of the debate, I contacted all 22 unitary authorities in Wales, as I wanted to know the picture. Some 16 authorities responded, and I will tell hon. Members about some of their experiences. Interestingly, only one or two local authorities reported an increase in fly-tipping. However, they reported an increase in storage and related costs. Several authorities now charge between £5 and £10 to remove fridges. That is not a huge sum of money, but for someone who cannot afford it, that is a significant disincentive to having a fridge removed from a property, when previously a retailer may have exchanged it for a new one. Three local authorities now charge. That may be a disincentive, but they claim that there is no evidence for that. One local authority claimed that he charge was to stop hoax callers—people who call out the local authority for nonsense reasons, such as asking it to remove garden rubbish instead of the fridge.
184WH
The crucial point is that the maximum charge of £10 is met by a fee of between £28 and £30, which local authorities have to pay other contractors to remove fridges. That is a huge funding gap, which I do not want the National Assembly for Wales to fill entirely, even though recycling is a devolved issue. It is down to the UK Government and the way in which they have treated the issue. They need to propose a financial settlement for all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. The figures that I have to date suggest that the new plant in Newport is likely to charge approximately £17 to £18 to take away each fridge or freezer, which means that local authorities there will also be out of pocket.
I am told that fridges and freezers can be recycled in Europe at about £4 to £5 per unit, which worries me slightly. First, why is it much cheaper to recycle fridges in Europe than in this country? Secondly, I worry that there will be an export of fridges from this country to Europe for processing. That entails the hazard of exporting waste, although I have no doubt that there would be a way of doing it. I am concerned that one environmental "good" will be undermined by another environmental "bad". What will be the cost in fossil fuels of transporting all these fridges to be processed abroad? We will be trying to reduce the damage to the ozone layer while increasing greenhouse gas emissions. That is like shutting the vents on the greenhouse and turning up the paraffin heater. It makes no sense to deal with fridges in that way.
I hope that the Government will consider the matter carefully and ensure that it is economically and environmentally sound to deal with fridges in the United Kingdom. We should also minimise the transport of fridges, which is an environmental cost in itself. We are not going down this route in order to incur other environmental costs.
I shall conclude with one thought about how we should deal with the problem in the long term. There is a central provision in environmental and fiscal legislation hat the polluter pays. We will not solve the problems of waste and recycling of fridges until the cost of disposing of them is built into the cost of purchasing them. That should include the cost of removing and recycling the fridge, which would mean a slight increase in the purchasing price of about £10 or £15 per unit. That is not a huge amount to pay to create a cleaner, better and healthier environment. I hope that the Government will examine that solution for the medium term.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next hon. Member, I should say that I want to call three further speakers. I shall start the winding-up speeches promptly at 10.30 am, because the Minister should have proper time to reply to the debate, which is important to the people of this country.
10.15 am
Ross Cranston: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief.
There are very important lessons to be learned, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate and on the dispassionate way in which she spoke. Unfortunately, some of her right hon. and hon. Friends have used previous debates as an opportunity for argy-bargy and

185WH
to attack my right hon. Friend the Minister. I support him, and it is universally acknowledged that he has been a splendid Minister for the Environment, who has commitment and energy.
The European Community breached three important principles of law making in passing the legislation. The first is the principle of clarity. The regulation was not clear, and a passage in the excellent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee identified 23 areas of ambiguity. That is unacceptable; laws must be clear. There may be universal agreement on a policy, but unless the law is expressed clearly, it will not be effective.
The second principle is that the implications of the law must be understood, but they were not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, with other regulations and directives coming through, it is important that the implications are fully understood. One implication of which the Government did not seem to know was that some 40 per cent. of domestic fridges in this country were refurbished and shipped to Africa.
The third principle is consultation. It is vital that those affected by laws are consulted, so that the implications can be understood. We can never have perfect foresight about a law's implications, but there are definite lessons to be learned as a result of this case.
I want to speak briefly about the restoration of the take-back scheme, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Upminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. The regulation stopped the scheme, under which retailers collected the old equipment when they delivered new fridges. That put a stop to important schemes such as that operated by the Renew Trust in conjunction with Comet. I pay tribute to both, especially Comet for supporting the scheme in a socially responsible way.
The Renew scheme had several advantages. First, meant that fridges would be in a good condition when they were collected. As the hon. Member for Upminster pointed out, some 20 per cent. could be refurbished when they were collected, rather than the 1 per cent. of those collected by local authorities. Secondly, disposal is more manageable. The company delivers the new fridge and takes back the old. Thirdly, Renew employs and trains the long-term unemployed and people with disabilities. I have a personal interest in that, as Renew was planning to open an outlet near my constituency—just over the border in West Bromwich—at which some 30 long-term unemployed people were to be employed and taught skills of renewing disposed fridges.
My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is about the future of the take-back scheme. My hon Friend the Member for Sherwood mentioned the draft protocol, which was published earlier in the year and involves other stakeholders including local authorities, retailers and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend mentioned that in a newspaper article earlier in the year. The draft protocol has been published. What progress has been made on restoring the take-back scheme?
Finally, we are not good Europeans if we sign up to any old law simply because we might agree with the policy. We must ensure that the law is clear, efficacious and practical.
10.20 am
Mr. Roger Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate. I must say, when I was elected I was unprepared for the fact that so much of hon. Members' time was dedicated to talking about fridges—not even nice shiny new fridges, but dead fridges. Some of the exchanges at Question Time were a bit bizarre and surreal, reminding me of the dead parrot sketch so beloved of Monty Python fans. This is a dead parrot. This is a dead fridge. However, it is not just one dead fridge; we are talking about many thousands of dead fridges that are building up around the countryside.
While we have been debating the history of the problem, people in the rest of the country have been tackling the technology problems of disposing of and recycling fridges. In the few moments that I have, I will deal with a constituency issue. Mr. Cliff Matthews of Industrial Plastics Recycling of Knighton has proved himself to be able and innovative in the field. He has developed a new technique to deal with what are called dirty plastics, which are plastics that have been used for industrial and household processes. Many have said that they could not be easily recycled, but Mr. Matthews has shown that he is able to do that. He has produced recycled plastic in a quantity and quality appreciated by people looking for feed stocks in the plastic recycling field.
Mr. Matthews is critical of some of the technologies that are used in recycling fridges. He believes that the foam and the plastic in fridges are not separated prior to being fragmented and pulverised and before the degassing process takes place. As a result, after degassing the foam and plastics cannot be separated economically to be recycled. Mr. Matthews has developed a process that separates the plastics and foam at an early stage before the degassing and fragmenting take place. He can then recycle more of a fridge than is possible with current technologies. He goes so far as to claim that he can recycle up to 99.5 per cent. of the fridge. He is critical of some of the machinery that is being imported into the country for the process, because he does not believe that it can achieve an acceptable degree of recycling. He suggests that it might not even meet the requirements of the European directive on the amount of fridge material that can be recycled.
In doing such new and innovative work, Mr. Matthews has had no support from the Environment Agency for England and Wales. I have been working with him to see whether he can get a licence for his process. Far from being encouraged, he is being prohibited at almost every stage from doing his work. I have written to the Environment Agency on several occasions and have received replies. We have reached the stage where Mr. Matthews has been told that it will be at least three months before he has any chance of starting the work he wants to do.
Will the Minister ask the Environment Agency to give more encouragement to people who are doing such innovative work, often at their own cost and through investment of their own resources? The agency should also check whether the other recycling technologies meet European directives on the amount of material in fridges that is recycled.
10.24 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Only 16 months into the last Parliament my constituent Mr. Charles Curry, an engineer by training but for a long time the editor of the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times—
Mr. Sayeed: God's own newspaper.
Mr. Swayne: Indeed. Mr. Curry sent a facsimile advising me that the directive would cause precisely the events that have been described this morning. If the editor of a provincial newspaper could spot this coming so many years ago, how could Parliament and the Department be unable to spot the same problem? It is extraordinary.
What on earth was the rationale for signing up to article 16? The export of fridges is a perfectly proper way of recycling them: surely sending fridges to people in Africa who want and will use them is better than having them standing leaking CFCs in sites throughout the country. What is wrong with the export trade? What is wrong with the export of CFCs from the European Union, that it should be outlawed in principle?
As for foam insulation, was it reasonable for the directive to require the recycling of the foam? Even if it was reasonable, should we have signed up to it without the capacity to implement it? We have finished arguing about whether it applies to foam because we know that it applied from June last year, so why did we do nothing about it then?
How many planning consents is the Department aware of that have been granted for recycling facilities, and what capacity for recycling fridges is likely to result from them? What will be the allocation for each local authority for the current and the next financial year? I do not expect an answer this morning, but it would be useful for the information to be placed in the Library. What is the size of the current mountain, and what estimate has been made of the number of fridges illegally dumped? How many have been exported to Germany, and what are the cost implications of exporting our recycling? How much more expensive is it to export?
Last year I received another communication from Mr. Charles Curry, who warned me about the end of life directive for vehicles. I am particularly interested because I am a collector of the Dyanne variant of the Citroen Deux Chevaux—I have had five of them. It cost me £60 to get rid of my last one. If the cost of recycling is to be borne by the last owner, how much more will it cost to get rid of the next one? I do this by choice—it is my hobby but many people drive that sort of vehicle out of necessity, because they cannot afford a newer model. Moreover, the editor warned me that I would require a special licence for doing what I customarily do—strip one and use the parts on the other. Can that be true? Can anything so absurd be envisaged?
10.29 am
Mr. Bill Wiggin: As I listened to the debate it struck me that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and never was there a truer example than the Government's handling of the refrigerator crisis. They had a good idea; they liked the headline, and
188WH
they signed the directive. Then they played for time, lost, and had an environmental crisis on their hands. Since then, they have been looking for someone else to blame.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) valiantly defended the Minister by saying that things got better when he intervened. Moments before, the Minister had leapt to his feet to tell us that he had known about the proposal since 1999. At this stage, blame for the crisis must stop with the Labour Government.
10.30 am
Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on giving us an opportunity to have this debate, which is overdue and necessary. There has been a mixture of contributions, some from hon. Members who have been up to here with fridges for a long time and some from those who have entered the debate more recently.
First, those who devised the regulation—I think that it was under the Austrian presidency—believed that the technology was already available and being used. The difficulty was that the view in the United Kingdom, which is always laggardly in these matters, was that the technology was impossible and impracticable. Therefore, we could sign the directive because we could argue that what was proposed could not be done, whereas those who drafted the directive knew that it could and would be done and were already doing it, or planning to do it. Peter Jones of Biffa summarised the matter well in his evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He said that
"the Government had lost sight of its own broad environmental strategy to reduce emissions, and rather than embracing the spirit of the Regulation it instead focused too closely on avoiding the burden of implementing its details".
I take issue with the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) who said that the regulation was full of ambiguities. The regulation was clear—its intention was completely clear. The Government knew that, and spent an awful lot of time trying to avoid implementing it. I record an exchange between a researcher in the office of a Liberal Democrat MEP who covers the environment and an official from DEFRA. When the researcher read out the regulation, the official said, "Oh, shit!", which may be unparliamentary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is what she said.
Ross Cranston: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the evidence to the Select Committee on page 102, paragraph 29, which states:
"The Commission's table of clarifications issued in February 2000 identified 23 areas of ambiguity, including three in Article 15 (now 16) where an agreed interpretation was needed."
Malcolm Bruce: There was a discussion about it, but the Government were relying on the words "where practicable". Everyone engaged in that discussion knew that it was practicable, which is why six countries fully implemented disposal of all their fridges under the existing technology. This month, there will be a mountain of 1 million unprocessed fridges in the UK. I understand—the Minister may correct me—that we have about 600,000 fridges-worth of installed capacity. It will take well over a year to get rid of the backlog before we can even begin to address the continuing problem of more old fridges coming up for recycling.

189WH
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) was right to say that we should be considering ways to encourage people to refurbish their fridges and hang on to them. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) mentioned Africa. The argument was that Africa solved our problem because the vast majority of our old fridges were exported there. The problem is that when those fridges eventually died, Africa had no facilities to dispose of them. Sending our fridges to Africa did not help our objective of reducing emissions.
We must consider how we can get on top of the problem in respect of the regulation, because we have not done so yet. The cost to local authorities has been mentioned on several occasions. My office tried to analyse the financial implications of the problem. By dint of asking the industry the average cost of disposal and asking local authorities how many fridges on average they disposed of, we came up with a figure of between £60 million and £70 million a year. A spokesperson for DEFRA said that the Liberal Democrats were talking rubbish.
Mr. Swayne: As usual.
Malcolm Bruce: That was said as well. The reality, as has been demonstrated, is that the figure was approximately right.
The real worry, which the hon. Member for Sherwood rightly touched upon, is that local authorities, which are legally and practically responsible, are not being fully reimbursed for the cost of taking and storing fridges. The £6 million that they have received so far is considerably short of the total cost. In addition, they have to move fridges to an intermediate location. They then have to pay the cost of storage, and will have to transport the fridges to the place where they are eventually recycled. All that could have been avoided if we had acted early enough to get the capacity in place.
Biffa was more than willing to make an investment some time ago and in time to meet the requirement of the regulation, but it could not obtain clarification from DEFRA about whether the regulation would be applied. Mr. Jones said that the company would not spend £3 million investing in a plant if some fly-by-night character could come and steal the business away from it. It wants to be sure that the Government will back it up and enforce the regulation. There is clearly a difference of view about the timing, and about when the investment could have been in place.
The reference that has been made to the end of life vehicle directive is relevant. Here is a chance for us to get it right. There is enough lead time on that directive for us to think through what we are doing and solve the problem in advance. As I said earlier, the proposal that the last user should be responsible is honkers and totally unworkable. The hon. Member for New Forest, West may be a responsible chap who pays to have his taken away, but hundreds of thousands of cars are abandoned every year and 15 per cent. of them are set alight. It costs on average £400 million a year to deal with abandoned cars, and that figure could well double if we apply this regulation. It will be a much more expensive problem than the fridges problem if we do not tackle it head on and in good time.
190WH
The lesson to be learned, and I quote the Secretary of State here, is to work with the flow of these European directives and regulations rather than resisting them. We are laggards in this country. I commend the Minister. I accept that he has a commitment to the environment and to implementing policies that will improve our environment and deal with recycling, and I suspect that he sometimes has frustrating experiences in Government when trying to get some of those policies implemented. On 2 May 2002 the Secretary of State said:
"sometimes we have been forced to accept judgements that we have under-implemented in the past. The lesson for the future is absolutely clear: we must engage from the first stages of such discussion, be more certain of what commitments actually mean, and play a full part in negotiation of new directives … It is simply no good attempting to object when the debate is all over bar the shouting."
She is absolutely right, but I am not convinced that the way in which we approach these things has changed.
Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are way ahead of us in recycling, in terms of both their cultural commitment to it and their practical engagement with it. These are the people who are shaping the regulations and the directives—rightly so, because handing the task of creating a directive to the worst performer would represent the lowest common denominator rather than the highest aspiration. In a sense we should accept that other countries are ahead of us, and take the opportunity to catch up. Obviously I do not know the exact details of his constituent, but the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire put his finger on an interesting point. There are advantages in being late, as long as we are committed to implementing the proposals. That means that we may be able to invest in superior, more efficient and effective technology and thus demonstrate that, late as we are, we can make a realistic contribution to solving the problem.
My plea to the Government is to start doing what the Secretary of State suggests: think things through in good time, encourage people with clear directives so that they know how to invest, and ensure that the mechanisms that we have in place will deliver the desired outcome. The desired outcome is a lot less waste, a lot more recycling and a climate in which the UK can hold its head up high and say. "We are not the worst polluters in Europe; we are setting the best example." However, there is a long way to go.
10.39 am
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate. Although the fridge fiasco was well catalogued by the British media and the Government have been criticised by pretty well everyone, it is fitting that the House should be presented with another opportunity to discuss how we came to such a sorry situation.
The Minister for the Environment insists that his Department was given the relevant information belatedly, but we have known for many years that no other part of a refrigerator presents such a serious threat to the ozone layer as the CFCs in the insulation foam. Because of that and because the aim of the EU regulations on fridge disposal is to safeguard the

191WH
environment against ozone-depleting substances, a requirement to extract CFCs from insulation foam was inevitable. Other countries met with ease the practicalities of dealing with insulation foam; as early as October 2000, four other EU member states had the technology with which to remove that hazard. It is therefore deeply disappointing and environmentally damaging that the Government did not ensure that the UK was similarly equipped. Had they done so, we could now have a thriving fridge recycling industry.
Ross Cranston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sayeed: No, I am sorry; I have only limited time.
Even now, the UK has only one 10th of the recycling capacity needed to implement the regulation. The Minister has admitted to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that a £20 million industry exporting refurbished fridges was destroyed under EU regulations. Up to 40 per cent. of the 2.5 million domestic fridges replaced every year used to be refurbished for that export market, or for poorer people in this country. The majority were exported, and most went to the poorest countries in the world which cannot afford new refrigerators in which to store essential drugs. However, the Government have now admitted that until Customs and Excise began to enforce the regulation to stop the export of refurbished fridges, the Government did not realise that the regulations would destroy that life-saving trade.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has confirmed what everyone has said all along: the current fridge fiasco has been caused by the Government's incompetence. The Government alone are to blame. The Committee said:
"the overwhelming responsibility for mishandling the implementation of the regulation lies with the Government."
Those are the words of a Select Committee a majority of whose members are from the Government party.
The result of the Government's ineptitude is that at least 1 million fridges are piling up across the UK with few facilities to combat the problem, which will get worse. Discarded fridges are rotting and leaking the greenhouse gases that the European directive aims to have safely recycled. The Minister proceeded with the regulation without appropriate preparation and has consequently created an environmental hazard that is far worse than the one that would have occurred if he had delayed or done nothing. The Select Committee has found that the fiasco will cost the UK about £40 million, which would not otherwise have been incurred. Local authorities say that it will cost them £65 million this year alone. If we add to that the extra cost to householders and the cost for next year, we will be facing an unnecessary bill of more than £100 million.
It is imperative that the Government accept the blame for this fiasco, and learn the necessary lessons from it. Implementation of other EU directives, such as the end of life vehicle directive and the WEEE directive, is imminent. The Government must ensure that we have the ability to deal with redundant products before these directives are implemented.
192WH
When the Minister discussed matters with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he blamed EC officials for their tardiness in providing an authoritative ruling on whether foam was included in the regulations, but he withdrew an allegation that the European Commission was incompetent. When the Commissioner made it clear that it was the Minister who was in the wrong, the Minister blamed the waste industry for having claimed that it could provide facilities to meet the deadline for recycling foam. He neglected to say that his Department had not informed the industry of the rules under which it would have to operate. The only people who have avoided the Minister's—but not the public's—censure are the Minister and his officials in DEFRA. Even if the EU was tardy, it is an abysmal dereliction of duty not to have done what other countries did, which was to make contingency plans.
In the past, the Minister has made extravagant comments about himself. He has claimed that his performance as a Minister has resulted in the climate change programme, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the home energy efficiency scheme, the energy efficiency commitment, and a commitment to end fuel poverty within 10 years. Most other people have a very different opinion from the Minister's about the Government's record on the environment. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased over the past two years. Labour Members have joined Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to stop the Government scuppering the Home Energy Conservation Bill, and hurting the fuel poor.
I accused the Minister of being the environmental fig leaf for a Government who did not give a fig for the environment, and the Minister's self-congratulatory examples prove my case. Commenting on the Government's five-year record on the environment, the Minister's erstwhile friends in Friends of the Earth highlighted the importance of the environment in modern politics and the lack of political will on the part of the Government. It would be straining parliamentary language to quote what the Home Energy Conservation Partnership has said about the Minister.
DEFRA's lack of foresight has resulted in 13 million old tyres smouldering away and polluting the atmosphere, and mountains of old fridges with no means to recycle them. Unless the Minister learns from his mistakes, they will be joined by thousands of incinerated cars and millions of dumped televisions, all of which will blight what was once a green and pleasant land.
10.48 am
Mr. Meacher: There is certainly a major difference between the speech of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who presented a balanced, thoughtful and fair case about the problems in her constituency and in general, and the extraordinary rant that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench, which was the biggest farrago of nonsense that I have heard since he last spoke.

193WH
The hon. Lady made the point that the Government reacted too late. However, as I have related the facts so many times, I am astonished that Conservative Members are so unwilling to take on board what actually happened, and prefer to resort to the kind of political slapstick that we have just had from the Opposition Front Bench. I will take the hon. Gentleman through what happened.
legislation was passed in December 1998 by the Austrian presidency, which was keen to reach agreement quickly. Although the legislation was not published until August 1998, it went through in December of that year because of strong political pressure to secure early agreement under the Austrian presidency. That is one thing that went wrong. The real point is that no one—not the presidency, the Commission, or any Department in any member state—questioned the idea that the regulation applied only to the coolant circuit of refrigerators. That is what everyone believed. Prior to December 1998, when the regulation was passed, no one, including those in the waste management industry in the UK and elsewhere, asked whether it also applied to insulation foam. The UK industry raised the subject with us two months later in February 1999, and we immediately raised it with the Commission.
As I have said on nine separate occasions in the past two and a quarter years, between February 1999 and June 2001, my officials raised the matter at every management committee meeting, which was the right place to do so. They also raised it at formal meetings of the Commission, held to decide any details left unresolved in the Council of Ministers and to settle how directives and regulations should be implemented. My officials did absolutely the right thing. I have heard the Select Committee's response that "overwhelming responsibility" for the issue lies with the Government—the words have been correctly quoted—but that is the biggest travesty of the reality that I have ever heard.
Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: I am unwilling to do so, because I have hardly any time. This will be the last intervention that I allow.
Malcolm Bruce: The information from the European Commission says that on 1 October 2000 it was made clear that foam should be removed. It was the British Government who questioned the practicality of doing so.
Mr. Meacher: That is simply not the case. The Commission's view before October 2000, and afterwards, was that of the UK industry—that foam removal was probably not required. There was a question about whether the "if practicable" part of article 16 applied. We continually asked for certainty on that matter, because the industry needed it. It was not until we insisted, out of the normal cycle of events, on having an extraordinary meeting in June 2001 that it was finally decided, after lengthy and anguished discussions, that it did apply. We then immediately put in place all the measures that we could in respect of local authorities, the waste management industry, and investors, in order to deal with the situation.
194WH
I absolutely insist that the Government could not have done more. The only thing that my officials accept—I must say that I agree with them—is that I should have been brought into the matter earlier. I was not informed until July 2001, and in retrospect, I think that that was wrong, and my officials agree. As I have said publicly, I would have contacted the Commissioner. I would have raised the matter in Council meetings, and I believe that I could have got an earlier answer. However, on the basis of the facts that I have given, the fault lies absolutely and wholly with the Commission. There are lessons for us to learn. I do not want to get into an argument with the Commission, but I have given the facts, and I need those facts to be recognised.
The UK industry has now made the investment necessary to enable the safe disposal of fridges. I entirely absolve it of blame for the fact that seven months was too short a time for it to be able to do so before 1 January 2002. Four plants have been operating for several weeks. Another opened last week, and a further five are due to come on line this year, two of them in August. We therefore expect the fridge mountain to begin to reduce from October.
The hon. Member for Upminster asked, perfectly fairly, why we did not delay implementation of the directive. Of course we thought about that. It would have been desirable, but the directive does not have to be transposed into UK law; it is a regulation that has applied automatically to every member state from 1 January 2002. Once it had been passed—in fact, two or three years before that—it required the agreement of not only the Commission but all member states to delay its implementation. As has been said repeatedly, four member states already had the relevant technology and would not have agreed, so we could not get a postponement of the directive.
Exports have been ended—rightly, I think—because developing countries do not have disposal facilities. The object is to prevent leakage or gassing, which causes gas to enter the atmosphere and deplete the ozone layer.
I have said, and I repeat what others have said, that our best estimate of the initial annual UK cost is about £40 million. That cost will decrease as plants are commissioned—I have already said that there will be 10 by the end of the year—competition becomes established and more fridges that do not require treatment enter the waste stream.
I was asked about the retailer take-back scheme. I am keen for the scheme to resume operation. The decision to stop it was not required by the regulation, but it was a commercial decision taken partly because of the end of the export trade. The retailers said that they could not continue the scheme without adequate treatment facilities. The main barrier to the scheme is the increased cost associated with fridge disposal. I hope that we will soon be able to make a statement about funding, although any decision must be taken in the context of the spending review. Further to several meetings that I have held with the retailers, I believe that conditions required to put the retailer take-back system in place are fulfilled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) mentioned lessons, and there are two to be learned. I agree with hon. Members who have said that

195WH
we should follow through all implementation details before passing a directive or regulation. Of course, that is right. It did not happen this time because prior to December 1998, nobody anticipated the full implications. We must learn that lesson and ensure that this situation does not happen again. The second lesson is that if there are outstanding details, the European Commission's management committee must reply promptly. I underline that several times.
It was correctly said that four member states had the technology in place at the outset. Eight member states now have plants to deal with fridges, and at least four or five have adequate capacity to handle all their waste fridges. Luxembourg hires a plant to deal with its fridges as necessary. The remaining six or seven member states are in a worse position than the UK. By the end of the year, or shortly after, we will be able to reprocess the vast majority of our fridges, and certainly 1.2 million per year by the end of next month. We have made substantial progress.
I turn to the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—WEEE—and the end of life vehicles directive. Both directives must be transposed into UK law before they are applicable, which gives us time to implement them properly. That is the key point. We will not implement the directives until we are confident that facilities are in place. Fridges were covered by a regulation, which meant that it came into force in all member states automatically.
It is a key point that we will not have the uncertainty about each new directive that we had with fridges. The WEEE directive is subject to conciliation, and it is still going through Brussels. It will not come into force until 2004, which gives us sufficient time to deal with it. We are consulting local authorities and industry even before the directive has been finally approved.
We carried out one round of consultations in March 2001 on the hazardous waste directive, and a second round will be held later this year. Legislation is now in place implementing the landfill directive in England and Wales. There has been uncertainty about the waste acceptance criteria. Brussels has extensively delayed letting us know what the criteria will be, and they will not be finalised until a vote is taken on 23 July. We need the criteria in order to decide the different classes of landfill and what is hazardous, non-hazardous or inert. That information has still not been provided.
As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, the Department of Trade and Industry is leading the way on implementation of the end of life vehicles directive, but I assure him that there is the closest liaison about it. Even though both Departments are involved because of their different interests, we are working closely to ensure that the directive comes into force smoothly. The technology is already available and we do not foresee any problems.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

European Union
11 am
Mr. Wayne David: I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. I was elected in 1989, and one of the first things that I was told when I arrived in the Chamber was that as the European Union was a democratic entity, if it applied to join itself, it would not be admitted. Of course, what was meant by that was that in those days, although the EU was strong on the rhetoric of democracy, there was little there of any substance.
However, I saw a dramatic change take place during the 10 years that I was a Member of the European Parliament, which was brought about by fundamental treaty alterations. There was the Single European Act, which Mrs. Thatcher had the good sense to support, and the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam.
Because of those treaty changes, the European Parliament has significant democratic powers today. It has the power of scrutiny over other bodies such as the European Central Bank and the European Commission. It has significant budgetary powers, and can have significant influence over the EU budget for non-compulsory areas of expenditure. Most importantly, it has a range of different and significant legislative powers, chiefly the power of co-decision, which the Parliament uses in a responsible and coherent way.
The powers of the European Parliament were most clearly demonstrated in 1999, when it dismissed the Santer Commission en bloc. That single act had a profound influence on the people of Europe's perception of the European Parliament. It also markedly changed the power relationship between the European Commission and the Parliament. We should remember that the European Parliament is the only institution that is directly elected by the people of Europe. National Parliaments and the European Parliament should work together in partnership.
Mr. Richard Spring: Would the hon. Gentleman care to observe whether he thinks that the sense of connection between MEPs and the electorate has been enhanced or diminished by the change from first past the post to a list system of election?
Mr. David: My personal view is that the move to the unfortunate form of proportional representation that we now have was a retrograde step. I am convinced that first past the post is the most appropriate method of election in this country for all tiers of government—and that definitely applies to the European Parliament.
As well as the European Parliament, there is the European Commission. The Commission is the custodian of the European treaties. It has the sole power to initiate legislation. It represents the EU as a whole in trade negotiations, provides the administration of the EU and overrides sectional interests in the broader interests of the Community as a whole.
As well as having those significant powers, the Commission is the subject of constant criticism, not least by the tabloid press. How many times have we heard tales about square strawberries and straight bananas, attempts by the Commission to introduce

197WH
fishermen's hairnets, and other nonsensical stories? When I was a Member of the European Parliament, the fishermen's hairnets story was running in the UK tabloid press, and I made inquiries of the Parliament and the Commission to see where that story had emanated from. No one had any idea. Almost in desperation, I visited a famous watering hole in Brussels called Kitty O'Shea's for half a Guinness, and lo and behold, I met the members of the British press corps joking among themselves. They had invented the story about fishermen's hairnets and sent it back to the UK, and to their amazement, it hit the front pages of the newspapers. That is a fair indication of how the irresponsible press in this country all too often misrepresents what happens in the European Union.
It is worth remembering that, although it is not faultless, the European Commission has only 17,000 civil servants—a bureaucracy far smaller than the many Government Departments in this country. The EU bureaucracy is also one of the most open that I have come across. It is often easier to gain access to Commission civil servants than it is to civil servants in this country.
The third element of the triumvirate of important institutions in the European Union is the Council of Ministers. It is there that power ultimately resides; it is there that most decisions affecting the development of the EU and the lives of European citizens are made, whether through unanimity or qualified majority voting.
Over the past couple of years there has been an increase in the influence of the Council of Ministers, particularly over the second and third pillars of the European treaties—the pillars of common foreign and security policy and the embryonic European defence and security policy, and justice and home affairs. People often ask whether the Council of Ministers is democratic. The European Council meets four times a year. It is made up of democratically elected Heads of Government, who are drawn from national states. The Council of Ministers, which makes many key decisions, is made up of national Government Ministers, elected by the people and accountable to national Parliaments. It is important to bear such matters in mind when considering democracy in the European Union.
Many unfair criticisms are made of the EU, and they are often extremely nationalistic in tone. Nevertheless, we have to accept that most people in the European Union regard its institutions as remote. Some regard them as irrelevant, and that is clearly shown by the low turnout for the European Parliament elections, not only in this country but in other EU countries. Those of us who believe in Europe and in democracy must accept that things have to change, and change radically. The status quo cannot be the way forward. I was pleased therefore that there was clear acceptance of that at the Laeken summit. A key extract from the declaration agreed by member states at Laeken is:
"The European Union derives its legitimacy from the democratic values it projects, the aims it pursues and the powers and instruments it possesses. However, the European project also derives its legitimacy from democratic, transparent and efficient institutions…The first question is thus how we can increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the present institutions, a question which is valid for the three institutions."
198WH
I agree 100 per cent. with that declaration. Such a clear statement was a monumental step forward. Following that, a decision was made at Laeken to establish a convention to consider the future of Europe. The convention on the future of Europe has already begun its deliberations, and although it is early days, significant progress has been made. I hope that strong recommendations will be made to the next intergovernmental conference. The convention comprises Ministers from the member states, and representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the United Kingdom Parliament. I am pleased that our representatives are already reporting back to this Parliament effectively, and I hope that that will continue.
We have a long way to go, but the situation is encouraging. I am pleased that the European Scrutiny Committee is already making a significant contribution to the debate on Europe's development, which must be held here and in the institutions of Europe. I warmly commend the European Scrutiny Committee's report to hon. Members, and I hope that they will take the trouble to read it. If it is implemented, it will have a profound effect for the better on our future work. I also hope that representations about debating the report fully on the Floor of the House will be taken up, and that there will be such a debate in the near future.
Angus Robertson: The European Scrutiny Committee published a report on the scrutiny of European business in the United Kingdom. One of its recommendations was that we should consider lifting the confidentiality of the relationship between the different Administrations in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his colleague the Minister should listen to that suggestion and pursue It? After all, we are talking about transparency, democracy and accountability, which are relevant to the UK as well as to the European Union.
Mr. David: As I said, democracy and transparency are essential, given the relationship between the different elements of government that now exist in the United Kingdom. Our democracy is evolving internally, which means that democracy and transparency must always be scrutinised so that we have the best possible systems.
I will focus briefly on some of the changes that I would like to see over the next few months, and on how Europe might develop. This is not the time or the place to debate in detail the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, but my comments are complementary to the thrust of its arguments.
The European Union is an association of independent sovereign states that decide from time to time to pool their sovereignty in their mutual best interests. If hon. Members accept my definition of what the EU is in essence, it follows that the Council of Ministers has a pivotal role in the EU's development. I want far more coherent intergovernmental co-operation and better organisation of the Council's work. It is significant that there was a step forward in that respect at the summit in Seville. However, we have much further to go, and I hope that that issue will be carefully considered.
We must consider especially the ending of the six-month presidency of the European Council. We talk about the future enlargement of the EU and an increase

199WH
in the number of member states from 15 to 25, so it is nonsense to have a rotating presidency and, as a consequence, a shifting agenda every six months. I would like the Council of Ministers to have a more permanent chair; I would even like consideration to be given to the idea of a president—but before anyone suggests that that should be Tony Blair, I must say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is already doing a good job here. No Labour Members would like him to move from his effective role in this country.
We should consider more generally the need for better organisation of the work of the Council of Ministers. It needs an annual agenda, a work programme, and, above all, a clear sense of strategic direction. We need to know where the European Union as a whole is going, not only in a few months' time, but in the years ahead. The Council of Ministers should be responsible for providing that sense of purpose and direction.
There is also a need in certain areas for intergovernmental co-operation to be strengthened, particularly in terms of deepening the common foreign and security policy and the EDSP. The relationship between the European Commission and the Council should perhaps be redefined. Inevitably, we need to look objectively at whether qualified majority voting should be adhered to or extended. There is a case for that in some areas, but in others there is not. The issue must be examined carefully, in our national interest.
One vital reform to reinforce democracy would be for the Council to make its legislation in public. In a modern democracy, it is unacceptable for the Council of Ministers to meet behind closed doors to agree legislation that will affect the citizens of Europe, including those of our country.
Another area that needs careful examination is the role of the European Commission. I am one of the people who believe that the European Commission should be more accountable; although it should retain its right of initiative, political direction in the EU should come from the Council of Ministers. The European Commission should be less of a political body and more of a civil service, taking its lead from the elected representatives on the Council.
I shall not dwell on the subject of national Parliaments, other than to say that they have an essential role in the development of democracy in the EU, in scrutiny and, vitally, in defining whether the principle of subsidiarity is applied. Subsidiarity is essentially a political rather than a judicial term.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the issue of subsidiarity, because it is relevant not only to member states but to sub-state legislatures. The transfer of information is another key area. The Government have stressed repeatedly that they do transfer information, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of correspondence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign Office confirming that agendas of Council of Ministers meetings have not been forwarded. He will also know that despite the Government's assurance to the European Scrutiny Committee that that practice will end, there has been a
200WH
more recent example of information not being forwarded. How can subsidiarity be properly observed if Whitehall Departments do not forward information o the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr. David: I repeat that I genuinely believe that the Government are willing to ensure that there is participation and accountability. However, the mechanics to achieve that aim are not always in place—and that applies to Whitehall Departments. The relationship with the devolved institutions is a developing one, and it will take time to make sure that the mechanics are in place effectively. One of the most impressive aspects of the devolution settlement is the good relationship between central Government and both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. We need to build on that good will to ensure that the settlement works as effectively as possible.
As I said, the European Parliament has considerable powers and, given the complexity of the legislative processes with which it is involved, we need to ensure that its involvement is as effective and efficient as possible. It also needs more openness. The co-decision process is complex but needs to be far more transparent. The emphasis should be on that, rather than on giving the European Parliament more powers for the sake of it. We should bear in mind the fact that turnout in the previous European Parliament elections was just 24 per cent. in this country. The emphasis must be on raising the credibility and acceptance of the European Parliament, rather than arguing for it to have still more powers.
My thesis is that although the European Union is not as undemocratic as many claim, there is room for significant improvement. I hope that the convention on the Future of Europe will make proposals about how Europe can be made more democratic that are acceptable to all member states and parties. Above all, as well as arguing for democracy, we must take that opportunity to define a new vision for the people of Europe.
Perhaps we politicians should speak less about comitology, proximity and subsidiarity, and more about issues to which people can relate more easily, such as jobs, peace and the environment. That is why a good starting point for the new treaty that I hope will result from the next intergovernmental conference would be to define clearly what European co-operation is all about. If we do that, we will have a good chance of one day making the EU popular among all the people of Europe.
11.21 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on introducing the debate and on trying to unravel the complex and rather mysterious ways of the European system for people such as me, who are not great experts on the intricacies of that institution.
I am keen on enlargement of the European Union, because apart from anything else, most if not all the aspirant countries see it as a means of strengthening their own democracy. In recent times many of those countries suffered regimes that were far from

201WH
democratic; even in today's world, those democracies could sometimes be regarded as fragile. Indeed, in my lifetime, existing members of the EU have had regimes that we would not regard as democratic. One thinks of Portugal under Salazar. Spain under Franco and Greece under the colonels. However, now it would be strange to think of those countries as not at the forefront of democracy. Not long ago some countries that hope to join the EU, such as Romania and Bulgaria, were perceived as among the most undemocratic countries not only in Europe but in the world. We must therefore make progress on enlargement and other issues.
There is, however, always a problem. If the processes are not correct, the smaller countries will feel that the large countries will overrule them. That is undoubtedly a difficult balance, as one of the Balkan countries has shown. One of the many complex reasons for the breakup of Yugoslavia was that some of the smaller republics in the federation felt that the larger two republics—Serbia and Croatia—were constantly overruling them. Again, I ask the Minister to say how the moves to admit Yugoslavia to the Council of Europe are progressing.
As the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, many British people wonder how the EU works. Some of its procedures seem so shrouded in mystery that people wonder what influence they have on it.
After an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke about elections to the European Parliament. I have never seen people so worked up about electoral arrangements: the current system of party lists seems so unfair. For the benefit of Labour Members, I should explain that one of their London MEPs wisely decided to join the Conservatives—surely there is a democratic deficit in that the individual was elected under a party list system and those who voted for a Labour MEP now have a Conservative one. They should be delighted because, like the gentleman concerned, they have realised the error of their ways. However, it is patently not very democratic when someone elected on a party list system crosses the Floor.
Mr. Michael Moore: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's argument. My party has always supported the single transferable vote and we accept that the existing system has major weaknesses. However, what is the difference between what the hon. Gentleman describes and the first-past-the-post system, under which many people have crossed the floor to join different political parties?
Mr. Randall: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but first past the post applies to constituencies and single members. Rightly or wrongly, most people do not vote for the person, but the party. Those elected always claim that they were voted in as a person. However, the system that I am describing is overtly wrong because people vote for a party, and the system does not stand up when those elected change their party allegiance. I often wonder what would happen if a by-election were always necessary when members crossed the Floor; I doubt whether they would be so ready to do so. It is largely a matter for individual Members' consciences, but if people are elected under a party system there should he no doubt about what that should entail. That is just one example of why people regard the processes of the EU as undemocratic.
202WH
The hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke about rolling six-month presidencies. I understand his point, but further questions arise about a directly elected president. No one wants failed politicians dumped into that position in order to get them out of the way. Who will do the direct electing—the whole population or a smaller constituency? How will that affect smaller countries, which might conclude that there will always be a French, German, Italian or British president? The system is so large and unwieldy that we must be careful about how we progress.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting counter-point. In a European Union of 25 or more countries, the presidency might come round to every country once every 12 years or so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, we need to rethink the process and find a way, perhaps through regional blocs within the EU, to establish agreement on how to organise the presidency in future.
Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not advocating a particular system. I am not sure of the benefits of the current presidency system even with the existing number of member states. With an enlarged EU, it would become unwieldy.
I have always shied away from the complexities of the European Union and concentrated more parochially on matters that affect the United Kingdom and, more importantly, my constituents in Uxbridge. The EU's problem is that it seems distant from the everyday lives of my constituents, except when they are seemingly told that they cannot do this or must do that because of Europe. That is a spurious impression, which we in this House sometimes use as a let-out. However, if their Member of Parliament—admittedly not one of the world's greatest brains—cannot give an answer, it is difficult for the average person in Uxbridge to ascertain how decisions are made.
Time is short, and I do not want to labour the point, but if the EU is going to persuade the people of this country of the merits and benefits of membership, it must get its own house in order. For the EU to ask for reruns of referendums until it gets the right answer is more like what happens in Whips Offices than what happens in a democratic institution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton):I call Mr. Win Griffiths.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I had not requested to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have to leave before the end of the debate, and it would not be fair on other Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have never been present at a debate of this importance in which no one has risen to speak.
Mr. Moore rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Michael Moore will start the winding-up speeches for the Liberal Democrats.
11.31 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like you, I think it is a shame that there are not more willing participants in the Chamber for such an important debate. It rather weakens the argument of this place that we want more scrutiny over European affairs if we cannot muster more than two contributions before the winding-up speeches. However, that does not detract from the importance of the issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on once again focusing our minds on an important aspect of European business. There is perhaps nothing more fundamental than the democratic nature of the institutions of the European Union.
The EU has been in existence for close to 50 years and has evolved considerably during that period. Its original aims and objectives focused on underpinning the security of nation states that had spent much of the previous few hundred years at war with one another. It also had the desire to develop and promote prosperity within the member countries, and at all times it has been a club for democrats. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, within living memory the Governments of Spain, Portugal and Greece were not suitable for membership of the EU. There were dictators at the heart of Europe, but the carrot of EU membership was important in those countries' rapid progression towards democracy. Those democracies have undoubtedly developed and are now full partners in the Union.
We hope that we are poised on the verge of significant enlargement. Many countries that were once under the shadow of the USSR are poised to entrench their democracies in the EU. Of the current applicant countries, only Turkey fails to meet the political criteria set out by member states years ago at the Copenhagen summit, and cannot expect to join until that is resolved. Those countries are rightly focused on the democratic values and institutions that allow them to become part of the EU, but as the hon. Member for Caerphilly briefly outlined, there is an unhappy contrast between the democratic responsibilities of those who wish to be part of the club and the practices of the club itself. He mentioned that in 1989 the question was asked whether the EU would be admitted to its own club—and many could still argue that point today, but I hope that we can afford to be optimistic that the process of reform will develop a momentum to tackle many of the weaknesses.
The crisis of legitimacy, which is at the heart of the EU, rightly gives rise to much soul searching. We hear a lot about the democratic deficit, the failure of accountability and the need to reconnect the electorate with a plethora of unloved European institutions. Many of the failings of those institutions have been rehearsed this morning. There is a lack of clarity about the EU's purpose, with no clearly defined mission statement and a legislative footprint some 80,000 pages high, and rising. There is no clear focus on subsidiarity, which would ensure that decisions were taken at the most appropriate level in the EU.
As has oft been remarked, there is clearly a lack of openness in key institutions. Perhaps most damagingly, there is a lack of accountability, because of the inherent imbalance both among the EU's institutions and between the institutions and member states.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that one of our greatest challenges is to end the perception that the EU is based simply in Brussels, rather than also being close to home, with member state Governments and devolved Governments? Ending that perception might help to change the way in which the Government work in a European context. The EU is not only over there; it is over here, too.
Mr. Moore: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was an unasked question about how the Scottish Parliament and other devolved institutions should relate to that idea, and I agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly that this is clearly an evolving process. No one would accept that those relationships are fully developed, but as devolution beds down, we need to learn what the right level for decision making is.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as a minimum, we should hold to the rules clearly laid out in the concordats that govern the relationship between the UK Government and the Executives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Devolution is an evolving process, but when the relationship between Governments is governed by rules, those rules should be held to, and they should be transparent.
Mr. Moore: I must make it clear that I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of what the devolution process might evolve into in the end, and I have no wish to see Scotland independent from the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I agree that rules should be adhered to, and I pay tribute to his sometimes lonely one-man battle against everything in. Whitehall in which he feels that Scotland is not getting its share. I wish him luck in that.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Obviously it is essential that the Scottish Parliament should be deeply involved in Europe, and that Scotland should also be part of the UK. However, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the real challenge, especially in view of the enlargement of the EU, is to connect with the people in more detail and ensure that they understand EL procedures? We do not want them to feel divorced from the decision making.
Mr. Moore: I am in danger of talking myself into a cul-de-sac in which I shall not be able to make the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I am grateful to him for refocusing our discussion. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) may not agree, but because Scotland is still in the early years after devolution, we should see how its relationship with Europe develops and recognise that its future is best secured as part of the United Kingdom.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moore: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice already, and I want to make progress—
Mr. David Drew rose—
Mr. Moore: I shall take just one more intervention, and give way to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
Mr. Drew: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being present at the start of the debate; otherwise, I would certainly have tried to catch your eye.

205WH
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the isolation of MEPs. My problem is more with what happens when they come over here. I am thinking of the farce of the current so-called foot and mouth investigation being carried out by MEPs. We should examine more fundamentally the relationship between MEPs and Members of this House, because of the way in which people can trample into one's constituency without any recognition of the damage done. All the wrong impressions can be created, so is it not time to examine the relationship more carefully?
Mr. Moore: I do not want to be dragged into the hon. Gentleman's private grief. He has clearly suffered from specific difficulties, on which I cannot comment. However, those problems can emerge as democracies evolve—in Scotland, for example, because of the Scottish Parliament. Some hon. Members are unhappy about the presence of Members of the Scottish Parliament on their territory. Frankly, we all have to learn to live with one another. It would surely be wrong to prevent MEPs elected in this country from visiting parts of it to investigate important issues on a European basis.
Before I generously gave way to several colleagues, I was arguing that over many years we have lost any clear focus on what European institutions are about. The lack of openness and accountability has led to increasingly poor awareness of what is going on among EU voters and growing hostility to much of what the EU quite properly seeks to achieve. A quick glance at the Eurobarometer polls will confirm that.
The EU has several handicaps to overcome. It is necessarily distant because it is "over there". I welcome the participation of its representatives in domestic British political life as well as in Strasbourg and Brussels. Much EU argument is also necessarily technical, but perhaps the biggest handicap is that the EU has had to evolve from tackling one set of problems from a particular era to tackling another set in today's considerably different political context. It is right to scrutinise the purpose of European institutions and to realign them to tackle today's problems more effectively.
We cannot afford to be apologists for the EU, but we can dare to be optimistic. As the EU prepares to admit up to 10 new member states, we know of widespread acceptance of the need for reform, and the convention on the future of Europe is addressing that right now.
Our party is reviewing its policy towards the EU to take account of the changing nature of the European body politic. We have consistently supported the need to reform European institutions and warned of the urgent need to tackle the alarming gap between those institutions and the electorate. First and foremost, we need a clear statement of what the EU is about. We therefore vigorously support the idea of a constitution for the EU, simplifying the many treaties currently in existence, and defining and limiting its powers. If citizens are to have a stake in the European Union, the charter of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the constitution. It is vital for the institutions to make subsidiarity a reality. Decisions should be local where possible, national where necessary, and European where appropriate.
206WH
Not only should the principles be embedded in a constitution, but we should ensure that the European Parliament and national Parliaments have an ongoing role in putting them into practice. Much greater openness is required to achieve those aims. All institutions should, as a basic premise, conform to the principles of freedom of information. The Council of Ministers should meet in public when it discusses legislation. A full account of those proceedings and the decisions that have been taken should be published as a matter of course, and should be available for scrutiny in the European Parliament, and in this and other national Parliaments. We should not have the constant battle of having to table the right parliamentary questions to get information out of Ministers.
Greater accountability is also important. The leader of the country that holds the presidency should appear before the European Parliament before and after meetings of the Council. Many different views have been expressed about a rotating presidency. The Liberal Democrats are agnostic on the issue at present—we will watch how the debate develops. The annual "State of the Union" address given by the President of the European Commission should be accompanied by detailed proposals and justification for them under the constitution—particularly with regard to subsidiarity. Commissioners should be scrutinised about their proposals by the European Parliament, which should have the power to vet and veto each Commissioner, not simply the whole group en masse.
The most important aspect of the matter relates to Westminster—we too need to step up a gear. I pay tribute to the work of the Committees that scrutinise European Union activities in both Houses. However, we need to make Ministers' accountability a bigger deal. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he expects to give evidence to the Committees on the work of the convention, and particularly on the Government's view of how Europe should look after 2004. He had an opportunity to set that out in a recent debate before the Laeken summit, and he has another opportunity to do so this morning. We are still short of specifics. As we approach the recess, and face the prospect of the convention making some key decisions before we return in the autumn, it is scandalous that we still do not have a clear picture of the specifics that the Government will propose and the position that they will seek to negotiate in the convention.
In this Parliament, we pride ourselves on being closer to those who elect us than the European Union institutions are to those who elect them. That may be one of our bigger conceits. If we are to ensure that it is true, we need to raise our collective game. We need to ensure that all substantial Government plans for the Council of Ministers are put to Committees before they are discussed in the Council of Ministers itself. Ministers should, as a matter of course, be required to attend key Committees after meetings of the Council, in order to be scrutinised on what they have been doing.
Europe is, unfortunately, largely unloved. That is partly the fault of those who represent its institutions to the outside world and partly a result of the actions of those who disagree with its very construct. That is politics. We should be ambitious for the European Union; it is a precious idea that needs fostering. However, those ambitions should relate not simply to

207WH
extending the scope and power of the institutions, but to reforming what we have. We should make the European Union more capable of carrying out its existing functions and more in touch with the people on whose behalf it exists.
11.49 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing this debate. He is a passionate enthusiast for enlargement, and I applaud him for that. I entirely share those sentiments. I also thank him for his insights based on his knowledge of the European Parliament and its workings, which are an important part of the architecture of the European Union.
A lively debate is taking place about democracy and the EU, much of it surrounding the convention on the future of Europe. We believe that reform of the EU's institutions should be based on three elements. First—this is now almost universally agreed—the EU suffers from an acute democratic deficit. The power wielded through its institutions must be made more accountable through greater transparency and greater responsiveness to people's wishes. Secondly, the principle of subsidiarity—at present theoretically embedded in the acquis communautaire but in reality ineffective—must become truly efficacious. That is a crucial point. The history of the EU has been one of working from the top down. That is no longer acceptable. The EU must now work from the bottom up.
Thirdly, it should be recognised that the member states are the fundamental constituent entities of the EU. Any reform that fails to understand that will not succeed; indeed, the first two principles fold into the third. The peoples of Europe naturally look to their national Parliaments to hold the exercise of power to account. They are also the main means for the expression of their wishes. That has become even more the case now that we have moved away from the first-past-the-post system for elections to the European Parliament. Change in Europe should flow upwards from the peoples of Europe; they should not be driven centrally. If we cleave to those three principles we can help to cure the alienation of the EU from the peoples of Europe, and reform an enlarged EU into something that delivers what its peoples want.
Angus Robertson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is well read, so I am certain that he will have read The Scotsman yesterday. On the issue of centralism and power exercised at the centre, was he as surprised as I was—I was delighted, although slightly confused—to read that
"Jack Straw has dropped his opposition to Scotland having more 'independent' influence in Europe"?
Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that we have not heard anything officially from the Government on this? Does he share my hope that the Minister, who was mentioned in the article, might be able to tell hon. Members what the Government's policies are?
Mr. Spring: I am sure that the Minister for Europe will have heard that, and he will be able to confirm or
208WH
deny what was reported in that august newspaper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that leaks and spinning, rather than directly telling Parliament what is going on, is one of the Government's most unattractive characteristics.
I am sorry to say that the Government have been disappointing in their failure to find constructive solutions to the challenges that the EU faces. They have had two big ideas for the reform of the EU's institutions. One has been shot down in flames, and the other has done a magnificent job of raising the hackles of the smaller member states. The Prime Minister's proposal to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament was greeted with silence and/or embarrassment by our EU partners. The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee rejected the proposal and the subtitle of the report by the House of Lords European Union Committee—
"an Unreal Solution to Some Real Problems"—
spells out its unacceptability. I hope that the Government will stop promoting this impractical scheme and turn to something more constructive.
Mr. David: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that by raising the issue of a second chamber of the European Parliament, the Government have ensured that the debate about the role of national Parliaments is centre stage?
Mr. Spring: The fact is that there is a void in the Government's practical thinking on the future architecture of the European Union. I do not accept that the Prime Minister raised the issue simply to underline the importance of national Parliaments, and I do not believe that our European partners saw it in that light either.
The plan for a president of the European Council was referred to as—I quote from the Financial Times:
"someone Europe's citizens would identify as the driving force of the European agenda".
His legitimacy would, apparently, be that he would be
"responsible to elected heads of government".
There are three main difficulties with that proposal. There is insufficient time to discuss the first, which is such a president's over-powerful and undefined role in foreign policy. The second is the matter of accountability, which was tellingly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). How would that individual be appointed? To whom would he or she be answerable? How could he be sacked if member states were unhappy with his conduct? The proposed position would be influential, but at present its legitimacy would be tenuous. Those are all-important questions.
It is absolutely right that we should consider the role of the presidency in the light of the enlargement process, but it is important to ask how such a post would enhance democratic accountability in the European Union. We accept that that will be a major challenge. I hope that the Minister will answer those questions in some detail in due course. Thirdly, any proposal for reform of the European Union must take account of the different hopes, needs and fears of its larger and smaller members if it is to be workable.

209WH
To be fair to the Minister, I welcome the reform of the workings of the Council introduced at Seville. Britain played its part in bringing them forward, but it is disappointing that the Government have not spent more of their time on practical, substantive reform measures
Mr. Drew: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but they would have more credibility if the previous Government, whom he supported, had not ceded economic power through the Single European Act. Would the hon. Gentleman care to wax lyrical on the dreadful mistake that his Government made in giving away economic powers? Now it looks as if we are giving away political powers too.
Mr. Spring: I hope that the Minister heard that comment. The creation of the single European market has been the crown jewel of what has happened in the European Union. An enormous trading area, which will be expanded in due course, and which has greatly benefited all Europe's citizens, has been created. I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's view, as I cannot think what the alternative would be. This is one instance in which the European Union as a trading bloc has particular clout in its discussions with other important trading countries and blocs. The sooner we remove the inhibitions to trade across the European Union and diminish the restrictions involved, the better. It was one of the most impressive things that the Conservative Government sought to introduce, given our commitment to the free enterprise system.
The European Scrutiny Committee's report must be commended; it is a model of intelligent analysis of the EU's failings and needs. It rightly identifies the disconnection between the EU and its peoples as a central problem. As it says, the Council's lack of openness is unacceptable, and a few television cameras will not mend that. If the Council, which should be the driving force in the European Union, cannot become accountable, the EU will never be properly answerable to its citizens. As the report says, parliamentary scrutiny needs to be fundamentally enhanced.
I was interested in some of the points made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale(Mr. Moore) about how we could enhance scrutiny. Consideration of how that can most usefully be done crosses any party political divide.
Angus Robertson: As for cross-party unity on scrutiny, does the hon. Gentleman agree that scrutiny should also be exercised in relation to the scrutiny reserve in Parliament and the Assemblies of the United Kingdom that have a legislative role, so that where power is exercised by people elected to those Administrations, they can influence the European decision-making process more effectively?
Mr. Spring: Scrutiny in any Parliament, Assembly or council in the United Kingdom is vital to the democratic process. We are especially persuaded by the recommendation to replace civil service representation on COREPER with a senior Minister based mainly in Brussels, but answerable directly and regularly to the House of Commons. That would be a great advance in making the Council's processes accountable to national Parliaments. By taking that step, Britain could set an
210WH
excellent example to other member states. I was delighted that the Council's report backed the creation of a subsidiarity watchdog. Conservatives have been pressing for such a body for some time. I am especially pleased that the Scottish First Minister backed the idea that I put to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament when I gave evidence for its report on the governance of the EU. The hon. Member for Moray(Angus Robertson) will be aware of that. As the Scottish First Minister says:
"The new Subsidiarity Council would be able to stop the EU from interfering in areas better handled at a more local level. The new Europe should be more diverse, less centralised".
I hope ghat the Minister, too, will agree with our sensible proposal.
Importantly, the Committee's report proposed that such a body should be composed of elected politicians, not judges. No one disputes that the European Court of Justice cannot help but prefer action to be taken at a European level, as it is a European body. That is clear from its poor record of enforcing the principle of subsidiarity in its judgments. The only way of making subsidiarity real is through the enforcement of that principle by a body composed of politicians from national Parliaments.
No part of the European process creates more unease among Europe's citizens than the so-called ratchet effect. Europe appears to many to be on a journey with no clear end, and with ever more powers pushed towards the centre. That end must be defined, as we need a sense of finality. That worry is not confined to Britain. The German länder are concerned about their relationship to the federal Government, and about the intrusion of central European institutions.
Two actions must be taken if such intrusion is to be stopped. First, we need the clearest possible definition of competencies. I was pleased that the European Scrutiny Committee reached the same conclusion, that what is done should be the minimum possible. Secondly, it should be clear that we shall obtain a sense of finality only when the phrase "ever closer union" is deleted from the treaties. It sums up the perception in the EU that the Union is engaged in a one-way process towards greater centralisation, regardless of what citizens want. The report of the European Scrutiny Committee was clear about that. The removal of the phrase could help to guide the European Court of Justice towards a less centralising jurisprudence, and send a signal that there had been a reappraisal of what an enlarged EU is all about.
I shall add one last point. It is widely recognised that the Community method, particularly the role of the Commission, is not democratic. Unless there is reform we will never achieve the end that we desire: a democratic and accountable European Union. I understand that the smaller member states regard the Commission as necessary to ensure that the larger states do not dominate the EU, but we believe that the Commission's role must be transformed. It must work much more as the servant rather than the master of the European process.
A European Union of nation states, with national Parliaments at its heart, is not only desirable but achievable. Indeed, we believe that only a union based clearly on member states and recognised as such will

211WH
satisfy today's need for democracy and reverse popular disconnection and disengagement from Europe's institutions. Archaic dirigiste structures and grand constitutional plans will not achieve that end. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have frequently analysed correctly and persuasively the challenges facing the EU, but have totally failed to come up with specific, substantive and clear proposals to address those challenges. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to show the leadership and direction required to fill that void.
12.6 pm
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I may surprise the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in the next few minutes. I agree with much of what he said. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) for initiating the debate. He brought to it the considerable expertise that he developed before coming to the House in his role as a senior member of the European Parliament and a respected leader of the Labour group. I am also grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, for its excellent report, to which we will soon reply formally.
The suggestion by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that we have not been open about our role in the convention could not be further from the truth. This afternoon I shall give evidence on the reform agenda in Europe, the Seville proposals and the work in the convention to the House of Lords Select Committee. Next week I shall give evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee of this House. Both those will be second appearances on that agenda.
Mr. Moore: I do not suggest that the Minister has not made himself available at the right moments; I said that we did not have a specific list of proposals that the House could scrutinise and debate. Have the Government plans for a White Paper on Europe, for example, setting out such proposals?
Peter Hain: We have no anxiety about openness but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. We are in the early stages of the convention. We are in the process of charting where the land lies and seeing which ideas will gain support. We are therefore reluctant to present at this stage a White Paper or blueprint to assemble coalitions of support—although that is what I seek. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we will keep the House continually informed.
The exercise of democratic control goes to the heart of people's concerns about Europe: the idea that its decision-making process is impenetrable and indistinct, and that there are no clear means by which they can influence those decisions, so Europe is something done to them, not by them. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) asserted in The Times last week that the EU was not democratic, and could never become so because it is impossible t o create pan-European institutions that people in nation states
212WH
with such fundamentally differing value systems could respect. I do not accept that. The scale and diversity of the EU undoubtedly present particular challenges but it is as wrong to assert that Europe has no democratic legitimacy as it is to say that we cannot improve on what we have.
Mr. Randall: I feel a bit guilty for interrupting the Minister's flow, but on the subject of democratic deficiency, does he agree that the effective disfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar does not set a good example? Is he confident that they will be able to vote for a Member of the European Parliament by the time of the next European elections?
Peter Hain: Yes
The EU is a unique and ambitious construct, and has been remarkably successful. It has been a key factor in preserving peace in western Europe for the longest period in the continent's history. It is an engine for jobs, investment and economic growth through the single market. The EU is a force for better environmental protection, and against cross-border crime. Our security, prosperity and quality of life are enhanced enormously by common action on those and other matters.
The hon. Members for Uxbridge(Mr. Randall) and for Iweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale rightly referred to enlargement. Both made the important point that extending Europe's boundaries will extend the zone of democracy, stability, peace and respect for human rights. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made telling points about the fact that Portugal and Spain, as modern European democratic nations, are unrecognisable when we think of their history of fascism. The same will apply in due course to Bulgaria and Romania, about which he also made valid points.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would be admitted to the Council of Europe. The intention is that that will happen at the ministerial meeting in November. However, we and others seek further undertakings between now and then on co-operation with the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague.
The structures that we have set up to deliver on Europe's ambitions are necessarily unique. For people who are used to the decision-making structures of nation states, that is unfamiliar and sometimes uncomfortable. There is, thank goodness, no single Government to elect or throw out, but that does not make the EU undemocratic. I am held to account by the House, as all Ministers in the EU are by their Parliaments. The Commission must regularly account for itself to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly reminded us, that consists of elected Ministers, representing elected Governments. The base of authority is democratic.
The EU's authority also comes from a framework of treaties that have been agreed unanimously by member states' elected Governments, and ratified by their elected Parliaments. The base of democracy is also established in that way. To the extent that the treaty provisions involve pooling of sovereignty, that has been freely

213WH
accepted by elected representatives in Britain and throughout the EU. The same applies to the supranational institutions that we have established. Successive British Governments and Parliaments have signed up to those not because of a dogmatic commitment to greater European integration, but because each has believed that that was in our national interest.
Let us nail the nonsensical view that it is inherently undemocratic, and peculiar to the EU, to set up unelected institutions with their own powers. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea asserted that it was undemocratic of the European Central Bank to set the euro interest rate. However, we granted the Bank of England independence over the sterling interest rate. That has been hugely successful, and has widespread support in the United Kingdom. The principle of ceding control to independent bankers has been accepted; the question is whether they are British or European.
Whether at EU or national level, we need powerful independent bodies to implement policies decided by politicians. The Commission's determination to push through the single market programme has been a key factor in its success. Its rigorous approach to state aids has been crucial to the competitiveness of British companies abroad. The same applies to the European Court of Justice: we need a body that can enforce the obligations that member states enter into.
The basic framework and its institutions are not undemocratic, but the way in which power is exercised within that framework and by those institutions can be much better policed by democratic bodies—a point that has been made throughout the debate.
How can that happen? First, we can have a clearer treaty framework. People feel that the complexity and ambiguity of some of the treaty's provisions are ripe for exploitation. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that he shied away from the complexities of the EU—a luxury that I do not have. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly that we need to concentrate more on the practical benefits that membership of the EU brings to all our citizens in their daily lives—better job opportunities, greater prosperity, more security from the threats of crime, drug running, human trafficking and terrorism, and higher environmental standards. Air pollution knows no national boundaries. We should speak more about those practical daily life benefits rather than use the continuous Eurospeak that streams out of Brussels.
The convention on the future of Europe is currently considering how to use the treaty to state more clearly what the EU is for and where we want it to act. We also need to be aware of its limits by establishing more clearly what should be done at a European level, and what should be left to member states at national, regional or local level.
Secondly, we need to clarify through our institutional arrangements that elected national Governments accountable to their Parliaments are the principal source of the EU's legitimacy. That means focusing on the European Council and its sectoral Councils, on which elected Ministers sit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for West Suffolk in describing independent nation states as the bedrock of the EU. My hon. Friend in particular
214WH
provided a good definition of EU members as "independent sovereign states who decide from time to time to pool their sovereignty".
Angus Robertson: While we are talking about independence and sovereignty within Europe, the Minister will be aware of yesterday's article in The Scotsman, which, under the headline "Straw backs Scotland's Euro role", stated:
"Jack Straw has dropped his opposition to Scotland having more 'independent' influence in Europe".
A source for the Scottish Executive is quoted as saying:
"Initially, the Foreign Office were hostile, but"
Jack McConnell
"has now started to win them over. He has got Peter Hain on side and Jack Straw also sees the benefits."
No further details are provided in this story, so will the Minister clarify what independent influence within Europe is envisaged? Will it be direct and automatic representation on the Council of Ministers? Will it allow Scotland to nominate a Commissioner, as independent countries within Europe can? Will it mean a near doubling of MEPs, which a country of 5 million within the EU would have? Will it be real independence within Europe, or is it all a second-rate spin effort by the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government?
Peter Hain: It is neither independence nor second-rate spin; it is not first-rate spin either, for that matter. That is a straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
We agreed last month at Seville that heads of Government in the European Council will set an overall strategic agenda and use their four meetings a year to deliver. We must make the sectoral Councils of Government Ministers beneath the European Council much more efficient. At Seville we took a step towards that by reducing the number of Council formations.
The next stage must be to find alternatives to the stop-start effect of the six-monthly rotation of the presidency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) pointed out, the EU is likely to be 25 strong in a couple of years' time, so each nation is likely to secure the presidency only once every twelve and a half years—hardly much to be pleased about. The six-monthly rotation has worked against developing a strategic agenda and consistency of expertise, as well as a mature relationship with the Commission and Parliament.
We and others have suggested different national presidents for each Council, serving a longer period—perhaps two and a half years, which is half a Commission or European Parliament term—and working together as a team meeting regularly to implement the European Council's strategic agenda under a full-time president elected by heads of Government.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked me to spell out how that would enhance democracy. I am happy to do so. It would enhance democracy by creating a much more authoritative and accountable head of Europe who was democratically elected and answerable to elected Governments. That individual would be elected by the heads of Government, and would regularly

215WH
report to them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this issue on its merits, rather than in a prejudiced fashion.
One of the problems with Europe is that there is no visible authority that people can identify and hold accountable, so the decisions made in Brussels are not adequately scrutinised. We think that having an elected president of the Council would solve that problem, because that person would be answerable and accountable to elected heads of Government.
The proposal would also answer another demand. I agree with the people who talk about the need for Europe to have a much more prominent global role—for it to be taken more seriously in global affairs, as a force for good. That is important. To achieve that, we must answer the famous Henry Kissinger question, "To whom do I pick up the phone in Europe?" It is not realistic to suggest that one can pick up the phone to a president who serves for six months—or to the President of the European Commission, as some people suggest should be the case—because that individual is not accountable to elected Governments and national Parliaments. We need someone to whom President Bush can pick up the phone when he wants to find out Europe's views. That would enable Europe to play a more authoritative role on the world stage. That person would also ensure that Europe's agenda was driven through the Council more effectively than at present, so that it delivered better for its citizens—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.
Angus Robertson rose—
Peter Hain: I will give way again shortly, as I am in a generous frame of mind, after I have addressed another issue.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an important point—to which the hon. Member for West Suffolk added—about the sensitivities of small countries. We are very alive to that. When the membership of Europe expands to 25 countries, 19 of them will be small countries. Those countries will be in a very powerful position, not least in determining who will be elected to the presidency of the European Council, if a decision with regard to that is eventually taken—by an intergovernmental conference, because that change would require a treaty change.
I have described the team presidency with different sectoral Councils underneath it. Five countries might share those Councils to form a team presidency, which would inevitably have a majority of small countries. It is conceivable that the president will be from a small country, and the arithmetic of the situation would lead to the majority forming the team presidency. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman is expressing concerns that exist, they can be allayed by that proposal.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous about interventions. I am very sympathetic to the case that he is making for more consistency in the Council, but I have a question about how that might work effectively in practice when the different domestic political cycles of member states
216WH
might make it impossible for somebody to have a full term in the convenership of the Council, or on one of the lower tiers of the Council of Ministers, because people would be elected as individuals rather than representatives of a member state. How would that work effectively?
Peter Hain: We envisage that the job of elected president of the Council would be permanent, and that the post would not occupied by a serving head of Government. Therefore, the president would not be subject to the rise and fall of any particular Administration in any particular country, although he or she would be accountable to elected Governments from time to time, as and when they were formed. With regard to the team presidency, the country concerned would still hold the presidency of, for example, two sectoral Councils.
Mr. Spring: Perhaps I misunderstood what the Minister was saying, but he said that the post would be permanent. He cannot be serious, can he?
Peter Hain: No, it would be for five years. I am sorry; I did not willingly mislead the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made myself clear.
Mr. Spring rose—
Peter Hain: I have to make some progress, although I am happy to be open. If I have the time, I will undoubtedly take more interventions.
The proposal has still to be worked through in greater detail, but the idea widely shared by other European Governments, both large and small, is that there should be an individual elected by heads of Governments for five years. That would coincide with the length of service of a Commission or a Parliament, so there would be some continuity.
We need more openness in the Council when it is legislating, and I strongly agree with criticisms in the European Scrutiny Committee's report that meeting in private is both objectionable in principle and makes it much more difficult for national Parliaments to hold Ministers to account. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale said, we need more openness. The agreement in Seville to open Council meetings to the public for co-decision dossiers at the beginning and end of the process is a welcome first step.
I hope that we will, in due course, be able to persuade our partners to go further and open up all meetings in which the Council is legislating. We also need to strengthen the role of national Parliaments. Their principal role is, of course, to hold national Governments to account for the decisions that they take in the Council. I believe that the Scrutiny Committee does that well. We are studying the suggestions for improvement in the Scrutiny Committee's report, and will reply formally soon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, national Parliaments should have the collective role of focusing on subsidiarity. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are enshrined in the treaty. Europe should act only when it adds value to national action, and when it acts, it should do so as lightly as possible,

217WH
leaving some flexibility in implementation to member states. However, we have no effective means of enforcing that. Subsidiarity is in principle judicially enforceable, but in practice it is primarily a political judgment about what adds value. I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk about that.
We need a political body to police subsidiarity, a body of representatives who will be credible, have a direct link to people, understand and respect national prerogatives, want to safeguard diversity in Europe, and have no vested interest in action at a European level. National parliamentarians fulfil those criteria. It would make a real contribution to democratic legitimacy if there was an ad hoc committee of national parliamentarians who examined the European Union's work programme and relevant proposals critically, and who had powers to make the Commission and Council think again when they were over-legislating. That would combat the sense that European institutions are arrogating ever more power to themselves.
Although the hon. Member for West Suffolk was rather sarcastic about the Prime Minister's original proposals, it was the Prime Minister who put the principle on the agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly pointed out. However, I agree that elected politicians, not judges, should be the arbiters on subsidiarity.
The European Parliament also has an important role. To make Europe work, Member states take many decisions by majority vote. That makes it possible for national Ministers to be outvoted, and the powers of national parliamentarians in holding them to account can be limited as a consequence. That is one of several ways in which the European Parliament plays a key role as a further democratic check.
218WH
However, there are problems. The electorate needs to understand what the European Parliament does. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need more openness in co-decision, for example, rather than letting the European Parliament have more powers for the sake of it, as he put it. However, I also agree with him that the European Parliament has an important role to play, one of which is summoning Commissioners and questioning them closely about the implementation of the work programme and the use of budgets. We need to find better ways of explaining to the public how that is done.
I do not agree that giving the European Parliament the right to elect the Commission's President would enhance the legitimacy of either institution. The proposals misunderstand the nature of the Commission as an honest and independent broker between different interests An election of that kind would place the President at the mercy of the largest political group in the Parliament. It is precisely the Commission's independence from day-to-day political interference that is its strength. Holding to account through regular and detailed scrutiny, yes; election, no.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised interesting ideas about the European constitution. We are open to the idea of a European constitution, which would simplify the structure and establish clarity. There are serious problems associated with incorporating the charter into the treaties wholesale. It is a "motherhood and apple pie" charter, and we must be careful not to undermine our democratic decision-making procedures.
I would be happy to consider scrutiny prior to Councils. However, that would mean that we would have to meet on a Friday, and I do not think that hon. Members would want to do that—
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order. We now come to our next debate, which is on royal finances.

Royal Finances
12.30 pm
Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to have half an hour to discuss with the Minister royal finances and the Government's attitude toward them.
I recognise that the present arrangements are steeped in antiquity in many ways, and that some aspects have been unchanged for centuries. However, other aspects were adversely changed, from the point of view of the taxpayer, during the 20th century. The key argument that I shall deploy is that the arrangements are unsuitable for the 21st century, and I am keen to persuade the Government of that point of view. I recognise that there have been publications in recent days relating to royal finances. That is a step forward, and if the Government had any say in encouraging that, I congratulate them on taking that line.
The basis of my argument is that all citizens in this country should be treated equally on taxation—I include the Queen as a citizen, if I am allowed to do that. Royal finances should be transparent, as one would expect because public money is being spent. I make a distinction between matters that are properly private finances and those that are public finances. There should be proper control and auditing of the way in which public money is spent on royal finances, which is the case for every other area of public expenditure. There is no reason why royal finances should be different.
I shall address equal treatment. It is difficult to justify one individual, who happens to be the Head of State, having absurdly preferential terms of tax payment compared with other people in the country, particularly since the person who holds that office happens to be very rich. How can it be justified that the monarch s exempt legally from income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and requirements to which everybody else in the country must conform? That position seems to be indefensible.
I accept that the 1993 memorandum of understanding under the Conservative Government represented a step forward and attempted to regularise the position. However, the memorandum outlined a situation in which the present Head of State—the principle does not extend into the future, except in so far as it relates to the Prince of Wales, who also agreed to the memorandum—agrees to pay voluntarily income tax and capital gains tax, but not inheritance tax. Of course, the Queen therefore received an estimated windfall of between £20 million and £25 million due to the sad death of her mother. That represents a great loss to the Chancellor, and as he is notoriously prudent in his attempts to control public finances, no doubt he did not welcome that big hole appearing in the Government's income stream.
The memorandum was presented as a step forward in 1993, and recognised matters by putting them on paper. However, George III paid income tax when it was first introduced in 1799—there was nothing exceptional about that. When income tax returned in 1842—it was abandoned for a period—Queen Victoria and Edward VII paid it. The requirement of the monarch to pay income tax was removed only during the reign of George V in the last century in exchange for paying the costs of
220WH
visiting Heads of State. The idea that monarchs are exempt from income tax is not traditional, but a recent idea from the last century.
During George VI's reign in 1937–38, his requirement to pay income tax on his private income was removed. I tried to find out more about that after being directed to it by various august publications, but I understand that the relevant files on the agreement have been destroyed. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. It would be very unfortunate if those files have been destroyed.
The 20th century has been seen as a time when steps were taken to regularise royal finances by bringing them into line with the taxes and arrangements applicable to everyone else in the country. Actually, however, the arrangements are even more beneficial to the holder of the office of Head of State.
The 1993 memorandum of understanding says that the present occupant of the post will pay income and capital gains tax voluntarily. It is not clear, however, at what level that tax will be paid. It is not mentioned in the memorandum, the justification being that it is improper to discuss individual tax arrangements. I would be happy to accept that argument were normal taxation arrangements to apply to that individual as to all others. However, as the arrangements are unique, we have a right as taxpayers to know what they are.
I should be interested to know what the voluntary arrangements have meant in practice since 1993. Do income tax payments made by the present monarch correspond to those that would be required were she subject to mandatory taxation requirements, as everyone else in the country is? Or, for example, has she sought not to pay the 40 per cent. top rate? That needs clarification, because it is not clear from the memorandum of understanding.
From my understanding of the document, voluntary tax could be a very low taxation yield indeed. It could even voluntarily disappear altogether. There are historical precedents for taxes voluntarily being paid by members of the royal family and those contributions subsequently withering on the vine. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, we have no guarantee that taxation is paid as it is by a normal citizen, and that that practice will continue.
Equal treatment is a matter of fairness and equity. It is—dare I say—in line with the Government's general philosophy towards the application of taxation. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to those points. Historically, such arrangements are not ancient, as I have said. Many are the benefits that the Government of the day were persuaded of during the 20th century—Parliament had little say in the matter. Paragraph 31 of the 1993 memorandum of understanding states that arrangements can be changed at the will of the monarch—not the Government. I therefore wish to ask the Minister whether that clause has been invoked since the memorandum was introduced.
I have dealt with the first point—that of equal treatment for citizens. The second point of principle is one of transparency. Again, no doubt largely due to historical accident, there is not the transparency in royal finances that we would wish. Certainly, there is not the transparency that would apply in other areas of public

221WH
finance. For example, the status of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster is unclear. The Duchy of Cornwall is entitled to benefits that are allegedly given away to the monarch, even though the title is traditionally held by someone else. Even if a case could be made for unique taxation benefits for the monarch, is unclear why they should also be extended to the Duke of Cornwall.
The Duchy of Lancaster is regarded as a private income for the monarch, yet there is confusion about which elements of the privy purse are used for public and private purposes. That is unclear and needs to be made clear. It is also historically unclear why Duchy of Lancaster lands and assets were not transferred, as the Crown estates were, to Parliament in 1760, and why they subsequently retained that unique status.
The status of other assets held
"by the Queen in the right of the Crown",
such as the royal collection, is unclear, too. What is the Minister's understanding of the status of those assets" My understanding is that they are state, or public, assets that are owned by this country's citizens but happen to be held for the country by the monarch of the day. That would seem to be justified by the fact that they are not subject to the taxation treatment expected of private assets. In the unlikely event that this country becomes a republic at some distant point, would assets such as the royal collection pass to the state, or to the deposed monarch? It would help if the Minister would confirm that they are state assets, so that we are clear about the status of the royal collection and other such matters.
We also need a public inventory of assets held in that way, such as the royal collection, that are regarded not as the private property of the Queen or whoever happens to be Head of State at the time but as being held by the Queen or monarch for the public good. We need to make it clear what is public, and a public inventory of such assets would help.
It would also help if the Minister would make clear the position of gifts. My understanding is that gifts provided by the monarch or members of the royal family for visiting Heads of State are paid for out of public funds, although I am not sure whether from the privy purse or the civil list. Is that so? Do gifts received by the monarch in return from visiting Heads of State become public property, or are they regarded as the Queen's private assets? I am sure that the Minister would agree that it would be invidious if the state pays for gifts but the Queen keeps gifts that she receives, and I hope that she will tell me that that is not so.
Transparency requires public scrutiny of the accounts. I recognise that we are moving towards that but we are not there yet. It requires the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to be involved, just as they are in the case of other major pockets of Government expenditure. I see no reason why royal finances should not be subject to that rigour Knowing how keen the Chancellor is to have tight control of public finances—he does well in doing so, in many respects—I cannot believe that he is happy with such a loose arrangement that involves many millions of pounds.
On proper control of public money, it is appropriate to look at the civil list. I notice that £37 million has built up in balances—a huge amount. Indeed, it increased last
222WH
year, from £35 million, as it is gaining interest and is not being spent or reclaimed by the Government. The reason for that goes back to 1990, when an absurd settlement was reached that allowed an inflationary increase of 7.5 per cent. a year. That was welcomed by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock. It was left to some of the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues to question whether a 7.5 per cent. inflation estimate was sensible. They turned out to be right to do so, because it was not, and a huge balance has built up over that period.
We need to be able not simply to freeze the civil list, as that allows balances to increase, but to find a mechanism to reclaim some of the money held there, return it to the Exchequer and use it for decent public purposes. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.
The civil list should recognise the contribution of the Head of State, his or her spouse and the heir to the throne. It is inappropriate in the 21st century for it to be so exhaustive and to include so many minor royals. That arrangement may have been appropriate 200 years ago, but it is not appropriate today. It also reflects the fact that the present royal family, notwithstanding the spin from the palace that they cost us only 58p a year each—that does not, however, include all the tax breaks—is more expensive than other European monarchies.
This debate has been not about whether we should have a monarchy, but about equal treatment of everybody's finances, transparency and proper control of public money—matters that the Government hold dear. To those who think that the debate is about the monarchy, it could be argued that the changes that I advocate would do more to solidify the foundations of the royal family and the monarchy than do the present arrangements, which leave them open to justifiable criticism on financial grounds.
12.45 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for the clarity with which he advanced his arguments and sought information about the royal finances. I spoke to him briefly before the debate and will endeavour to answer his every question. However, if, in scrutinising the record afterwards, he finds that I have missed anything or run out of time, I will certainly write to him.
The hon. Gentleman talked about unique arrangements, the importance of transparency, and the auditing arrangements. He then asked specific questions about those arrangements. He asked why Her Majesty the Queen's circumstances have changed with regard to the agreement's being voluntary, whereas her predecessors may have paid. However, such payments have always been purely voluntary and, over the years, as the burden of taxation increased and the monarchy's financial position changed, successive sovereigns have had to take a view on how far that voluntary agreement went.
The hon. Gentleman has considered the memorandum of understanding carefully, which details the voluntary arrangements on income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax for the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I draw the hon.

223WH
Gentleman's attention to that issue in particular, because, as he rightly said, the debate is not about whether we should have a constitutional monarchy, but about public finances. It is important to draw clear lines between private moneys in the tax system and those assets that are held by the sovereign on behalf of the nation. However, paragraph 9, under the inheritance arrangement, states towards the end that the monarchy as an institution needs sufficient private resources to enable it to continue to perform its traditional role in national life and to have a degree of financial independence from the Government of the day. That principle must be balanced with the principles on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated: transparency and paying tax in the circumstances in which other citizens do.
The basis for the memorandum of understanding is the long-standing rule of statutory construction that statutes do not bind the Crown, including the Queen in her private capacity, unless they are expressly enabled to do so by necessary implications, and legal advice has confirmed that. The arrangements in the memorandum were discussed and agreed between the Government and Her Majesty. At the time the Government said that they welcomed the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's offer to pay tax voluntarily, and that the arrangements in the memorandum were a fair and proportionate way in which to take that into account. In law, the sovereign is not liable to pay unless required explicitly to do so by an Act of Parliament. Given that the sovereign is entitled to the revenues when there is no Duke of Cornwall, Crown exemption applies also to income received by the Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Since 1993, Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales have paid tax on voluntary arrangements agreed with the Government. That means that most sources of income, such as private investment income money, profit and losses from farming at, say, Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor, or from opening to the public the houses and gardens at Sandringham and Balmoral, are dealt with in accordance with the usual tax rules. However, the memorandum of understanding includes special arrangements. The hon. Gentleman asked whether income tax is paid at the usual level, and the answer is yes. Capital gains is another example. It is not a negotiable lower rate.
Income tax is paid on all private sources of income. The memorandum of understanding includes provision for calculating the private taxable proportion of the Prince of Wales' income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Tax is also paid on the Queen's privy purse income, which includes income received from the Duchy of Lancaster to the extent that it is used for personal purposes. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific point about that and I shall write to him.
The memorandum of understanding provides for capital gains tax to be paid on gains from the disposal of private assets and on the private proportion of capital gains on the assets of the privy purse. Assets of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do not belong to the Queen or the Prince of Wales and are not theirs to dispose of. The duchies may sell assets from time to time, but the policy is to apply any proceeds to maintain their capital base for the future. Capital gains are not
224WH
distributed and, under the terms of the memorandum, there is no capital gains tax in such circumstances. The position is not dissimilar to rollover relief that exists within the system.
As for inheritance tax, the memorandum of understanding recognises the need for assets to pass to successive sovereigns if the monarchy, as an institution, is to continue to play its part in the nation's affairs and to have some financial independence. It therefore provides for assets to pass from one sovereign to another without the payment of inheritance tax, but if the sovereign makes gifts or bequests to another person other than the new sovereign, the normal inheritance tax rules operate as they do for all members of the community. There are no special rules for other members of the royal family. They are fully liable to tax on the same basis as the rest of us.
The hon. Gentleman kindly drew attention to the fact that the civil list annual report has been published for the first time. It now joins the annual reports on grant in aid for the maintenance of occupied royal places and grant in aid for royal air and train travel. Such documents are available for scrutiny. The audit position was endorsed by Ministers as recently as 1998 after consultation with the then leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. That reflects the clear and long-standing bipartisan policy that accounts should not be laid before Parliament, or be subject to national audit scrutiny. However, the accounts are audited in accordance with the high standards of all auditing—and how the money is spent is also thoroughly explained.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the memorandum had been varied in any way in recent years. It might amuse him to learn that minor changes have been made to take account of the introduction of the self-assessment system. Those are the only changes. That reinforces the point that—except in the unique circumstances of transfer from sovereign to sovereign the usual tax system operates.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about gifts received. He has not yet been given responses to a parliamentary question that he asked about that, and to a parliamentary question on a different matter, and I apologise to him for that. We have not yet received all of the information that he asked for, and we are checking what we have received, but his question will be answered. Gifts received in an official capacity belong to the nation; if Her Majesty receives a gift when she is performing her official role, that belongs to the nation. However, gifts received in a personal capacity are subject to the usual tax rules.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the art collection and, for instance, the use that is made of the revenue from entry fees into the palaces. I have forgotten the name of the charitable trust that was mentioned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that, but I shall write to him about it. There are other relevant issues, such as the exact terms of the holding of the works of art on behalf of the nation, the obligation to maintain them, and the use of those monies to contribute to that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the surplus in the civil list. He may well have views about whether the agreement of 10 years ago should have been struck, but it was, and it must be honoured. A surplus has arisen,

225WH
and I understand that it is being used to pay for maintenance of the palaces and public buildings I believe that the contribution is about £7.5 million, and that the rest is drawn down from the surplus. However, I shall double check all of that to ensure that he receives accurate information.
I come now to the matter of the civil list and annuities The Queen repays directly to the Treasury—and back into the Consolidated Fund—the annuities for all the members of the royal family, other than those paid to the Duke of Edinburgh in relation to his official duties Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can see that in all respects—with the exception of the exclusion of inheritance tax due to the unique circumstances of transfer from sovereign to sovereign—the usual rules of the tax system that would be applicable to the rest of us are followed. The provisions with regard to transfer from sovereign to sovereign are a recognition of the role of the monarchy, and they seek to maintain its independence from the Government of the day.
As time is short, I undertake to double check the accuracy of my answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions and, if there are any questions that I have not answered in this brief response, I shall ensure that he receives that information. I am grateful to him for the way that he has pursued this morning's debate, and the straightforward and supportive fashion in which he has genuinely sought information on an area that is of interest to all our citizens who have celebrated the great contribution that Her Majesty the Queen has made to our nation with her and her family in this jubilee year.

Bank Holiday Pay
1 pm
Mr. David Watts: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this important issue on behalf of my constituents and, I believe, thousands of low-paid workers throughout Britain. I have attempted to secure the debate for nine weeks, and I am grateful to the Speaker's Office for allowing me to take a slot that became available due to a cancellation late last week. I apologise because I am full of cold at the moment, so if I break into a coughing fit, please excuse me.
I do not wish to undermine the Labour Governments' great economic achievements since 1997. We have one of the most successful economies in the world, and it would be foolhardy to do so. I am sure that the Chancellor and the Government would not allow me to do that even if I wished. However, it is possible to have both a strong economy and a flexible work force while having good working conditions without exploitation. I hope to convince the Minister that the present balance is wrong and that further attention to legislation is required.
We need stronger employment rights and regulations to protect the most vulnerable members of our communities. The Government are justly proud of their economic performance. We have the lowest levels of unemployment for 30 years and historically low rates of interest and inflation, and we have experienced sustainable growth for five years. Most workers have enjoyed the benefits of our strong economy. They have received increased pay and longer holidays, and experienced better working conditions. Good indicators of the benefits derived from a strong economy include record car sales, more people taking foreign holidays, house prices and restaurant trade.
However, not all workers have enjoyed the same benefits from our strong economy. I accept immediately that the introduction of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, in addition to four weeks' holiday entitlement for all employees, have gone a long way towards improving the conditions of some of the lowest paid workers in our country. However, such measures offer only basic employment rights. In my view, British workers are still the poor men of Europe and too many British workers are paid poverty wages. They work long hours in poor working conditions and they enjoy little employment protection.
About three months ago, a constituent contacted me about bank holidays. I ran a story in the local press, and I was amazed to be contacted by several of my constituents, who were mostly such employees as security staff, hairdressers and warehouse men. Nevertheless, several middle managers and management graduates raised issues that affected the way in which they worked and the conditions under which they worked.
We hear much about the need for flexibility, and although a modern nation must have a flexible work force, that should not be used as a guise to undermine basic trade union and employment protection. Examples of exploitation that I shall outline relate to bank holidays. I was amazed to learn from a constituent that we are not automatically entitled to bank holidays. Unlike the rest of Europe, we must negotiate them with our employers. I spoke to several of my colleagues in

227WH
Parliament who were equally amazed by that. It is not well known that workers are not automatically entitled to bank holidays with pay, and my colleagues were shocked that that is the case in a modern Britain.
I was also amazed to find out that workers are often asked to take the four weeks' holiday to which they are now entitled at inappropriate times. I was told about an employer who forced his employees to take their time off in January and February. The argument was that the company had few orders during that period, and it was more convenient for the employer if employees took time off then. That meant that a married man with a family had no holiday entitlement in the summer, so while everyone else was going off on their summer holidays, that gentleman and his family were not able to do so, as he had no control over when he could take his holidays. There was no mutually agreed system; employees had to take holidays when the employer wanted them to.
Mr. David Laws: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue. Is he aware that many of my constituents were obliged to work on the recent jubilee bank holiday, or else come in on the previous Saturday to make up for it? Does he agree that that is absurd in this day and age?
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I intended to come to that subject at some stage, but he has highlighted the problem.
I found that many people are asked to work unpaid hours. As I come from a trade union background, I did not think that that was acceptable, but several of my constituents tell me that their employers insist that they work extra hours without pay, and they do not even get time off in lieu. The Employment Bill has just come before Parliament, and one of the issues that I ask the Minister to address in it is enforcement. It may be illegal—I think that it probably is—to make people work unpaid hours and not give them time off in lieu, but many people, including middle managers and those in their first graduate jobs, are forced to work extra hours.
I am told that a 50-hour week is not unheard of for those in the retail business who have signed contracts to work 38 hours a week. Those who have come to see me tell me that if they were to try to enforce their employment rights, they would not last two minutes, and they would lack protection. Those people are not in trade unions. As a rule, they will accept overtime without pay.
The use of agency staff is a worry for many people throughout the country. Increasingly, it is the practice for many employers to replace those on permanent contracts with agency staff. Once again, the Employment Bill deals with that, but I should be interested to know what enforcement powers the Government will have.
Finally, I shall mention the way in which many employees are kept in the dark about consultation with their companies. Employees often find themselves made redundant willy-nilly. They do not have any warning, and are not allowed to consider the issues and negotiate
228WH
with their employers to discuss solutions other than closure or job losses. I understand that that issue, too, is addressed in the Employment Bill. It is crucial that the Government act to protect groups of workers who are Vulnerable, and who have no trade union power or skills that would allow them to negotiate good pay and decent conditions of employment.
In addition to the issue of unpaid bank holidays, there is the fact that we are badly treated as far as such holidays are concerned. Germany has 10 to 14 bank holidays, France has 11, Belgium has 10, and Spain and Portugal have 14, but British workers are not automatically entitled to any bank holidays. The number of bank holidays and the protection given to employees as regards payment for them are issues that need to be addressed.
Employment protection needs a serious second look. I know that the Government have done a great deal and I do not want to desecrate the great work that they have done, but without good employment regulation, many of my constituents feel as though they are economic slaves, and that they have no power to influence the decisions of their employer. They believe that they are exploited and abused, and feel that they have little option but to accept the boss's offer, which is often made on a take it or leave it basis. Macho management is still alive and kicking in the United Kingdom. It is not unusual for many of my constituents to be bullied by their employers. People who come from an area of high unemployment are hardly likely to stand up to their bosses if they lose their jobs and cannot find another.
I know that people believe that regulation should not be extended. We often hear the argument that it is anti-competitive, that there are too many Government controls and too much bureaucracy, but such views should be ignored. Frankly, the people who make such claims would not accept the employment conditions faced by many of my constituents. Such people would not accept that they could not take bank holidays off, or poor pay and bad conditions. We should not take any notice of people who set double standards—they want Fetter rights for themselves and their families but not for other people.
It is clear that the present relationship between employer and employee is unbalanced. Without trade union membership or skills, it is difficult for people in my constituency to negotiate decent working conditions. I recommend that people join trade unions. It is interesting that, on average, trade union members get six more bank holidays than workers who are not in trade unions. Once again, there is a benefit in joining a trade union. However, the people that I am talking about are often not in trade unions. They work in small companies where they are easily abused and not given the right wages and conditions.
In many areas in the north-west with high levels of unemployment, there are still some very poor employers. In such cases, the Government should do what they can to protect the workers involved. The Government have made an excellent start with the Employment Bill, but much more must be done to bring about the level of employment protection enjoyed by our European partners. I ask the Government to build on what they have achieved so far. I note—as I have on three occasions now—the benefits that will derive from the new Employment Bill, but there is now a greater

229WH
need to protect vulnerable workers. The Government have done a great deal on family-friendly policies, but it is not family friendly to be poorly paid, unable to take bank holidays or told to take holidays at inappropriate times.
On the subject of bank holidays, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) mentioned the jubilee. Some months ago, I was contacted by a constituent whose employer had told him that he would not be paid if he took the jubilee bank holiday off. He described that as like being invited to a party but being told, "Bring your own beer and sandwiches." When the Government announced the jubilee bank holiday, most people thought that they would be able to take part in the celebrations. Sadly, that was not always the case. I hope that when such events take place in the future, people will be able to enjoy the benefits of good bank holidays, pay and conditions.
I hope that the Minister will take my comments on board and address some of the important issue's affecting many of my constituents.
1.13 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Hurst. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens. North (Mr. Watts)—who is with us courtesy of Nurofen—on raising the issue of bank holidays. He has consistently raised and championed this issue, and if the day ever comes when we do provide statutory pay for bank holidays, we should call it Watts payments day in recognition of his efforts.
The gist of the argument was put by my hon. Friend, but I approach it from a different perspective. We cannot isolate the issue of bank holidays from all the other protections being provided for workers in this country. He mentioned that, despite our good record, we were the poor relation in Europe. I do not agree with that description. It is true that every country in the European Union pays for some bank holidays, but not all. For example, France does not have statutory provision for payment for all its bank holidays, and if we look more widely at non-European Union G7 countries, we find the same picture.
The question in the United Kingdom is where we set the priorities. My hon. Friend, when making the argument that we are the poor relation in Europe—a notion that I hope to disabuse him of in my contribution—also mentioned that he is a trade unionist. Like me, he will recall that unlike every other European Union country, the trade union movement in this country opposed right up until the 1980s the implementation of minimum standards through the law It opposed a national minimum wage, concepts such as the working time directive and the right to paid holidays. Like me, he will remember that, when we wore our flares and tank tops, the argument in the UK trade union movement was that those matters should be settled through free collective bargaining, that there should be no state interference in them and that civil rights at work came with the union card.
I make those points because we must put this matter in context. It is true that when we came into power in 1997 there were more bank holidays in the rest of the
230WH
European Union than in the UK, and that more of them were paid. However, we also had then no national minimum wage and no entitlement to paid holidays or a union recognition procedure. In many areas, there was no protection. It was then, as now, questionable whether bank holidays should be placed further up our list of priorities.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Employment Bill. I am delighted to announce that that is now the Employment Act as it received Royal Assent at 10.25 pm last night. That will affect some of the points that my hon. Friend raised about his constituents. The Employment Act will affect individuals who felt unable to raise those grievances in the workplace, because it insists that every workplace in the country, irrespective of how many people it employs, whether that is one or 1,000, must have a statutory grievance and discipline procedure as part of the protection available.
It is illegal for workers to receive no money for extra hours, not just in civil law but in criminal law because it breaches the national minimum wage. We have not only set a national minimum wage and uprated it this morning by statutory instrument, but set up a helpline whereby the Inland Revenue—which strikes fear into the hearts of everyone, not only employers, and has cruel arid unusual punishments—will pursue a case such as that described by my hon. Friend, without the employee having to approach the employer at all. Employees can ring the helpline and the rest is done for them. We have found that compliance with the national minimum wage has increased dramatically from its early days, April 1999.
As well as providing the protection for constituents that my hon. Friend mentioned, we are now ahead of most countries in Europe—in the top three—on paid maternity leave. We have uprated statutory maternity pay by 60 per cent., the largest increase since 1948.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend says that if someone is being asked to work longer hours than stated in their contract, they can take action by reporting that to the Inland Revenue. I want to be clear about something. If a contract says, as I understand that they often do, that someone is required to work 38 hours a week but will have to be flexible, does that element of flexibility include that person being asked to work long beyond the 38 hours? How would that be enforced? What kind of contractual arrangements deal with that, bearing in mind that we are often dealing with people who are unorganised, who are not in trade unions and who have little individual power?
Alan Johnson: I was referring to people being asked to work far no hourly rate, for nothing. Yes, there can be flexibility of hours, but there are no circumstances that I am aware of in which anyone can be asked to work those hours for no remuneration whatever.
I shall check on the other points that my hon. Friend made, and perhaps write to him about the protection on hours. We have, of course, an opt-out from the working time directive, and we are the only country in the European Union to do so, but the onus is on the individual; if they wish to work more than 48 hours, they can sign the opt-out. Protection does exist, and the introduction of the Employment Act 2002 means that

231WH
we are well ahead of Europe on matters such as the right to be accompanied; any worker for any size of company in this country can be accompanied by a trade unionist, whether their union is recognised or not, at any discipline or grievance case. That is not mirrored elsewhere in Europe. We are well ahead of the game.
We are also introducing statutory paternity pay and paid adoption leave for the first time. Other measures include the extension of union learning representatives, and the right to paid time off and facilities. My hon. Friend said that we are the poor relation in Europe, but he should consider where we stand following five years of various pieces of employment legislation and now the Employment Act.
My hon. Friend said that people were not informed and consulted. I remember a particular case in his constituency that he came to see me about, which is now being addressed with the implementation of the information and consultation directive. In response to the idea that we are the poor relation in Europe, I say that over the next few years workers will have the right not only to a discipline and grievance procedure in their workplace, to a minimum wage, to paid holidays, to be accompanied, and to various other measures, but to request flexible working if they are the mother or father of a child up to six years old.
The workplace up to 2010—the measures will be introduced at various stages—will be very different. We will outlaw discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation, religion and disability.
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order. I am sure that the Minister is aware that he is covering a broad sweep. The subject under debate is bank holiday pay.
Alan Johnson: Absolutely, Mr. Hurst. I accept that it is a broad sweep, but I am replying to the allegation that we are the poor relation in Europe.
The first question is where we place our priorities. Secondly, we must consider the cost that businesses, particularly small businesses, would be asked to bear as a result of the measures. Many businesses complain about an incremental stacking up of costs. We have sought to introduce the measures in a way that takes businesses with us into the brave new world of minimum employment standards in the workplace.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend makes the point that some employers would object to the introduction of statutory paid bank holidays. I have been in contact with small employers who very much resent the fact that those whom they regard as poor employers are competing alongside them without providing decent conditions, pay or holiday entitlement. Does he agree that that can have an anti-competitive effect?
Alan Johnson: I do agree. I am not saying that the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend are not legitimate or pertinent. We estimate that about 17 per cent. of full-time and part-time workers are not paid for bank holidays, so 83 per cent. are paid. As my hon. Friend knows, the Bank Holidays Act 1871 has remained virtually unchanged. It was revoked and reintroduced in
232WH
1971, but for 131 years of our history the situation has been has it is now: bank holidays, whether paid or not, are a contractual matter between employee and employer.
Mr. Laws: Does the Minister agree that now would be a good time to review people's entitlement to bank holidays? Does he not understand that many people find it surprising that a Labour Government could defend a situation in which the worst employers can exploit some of the most vulnerable employees in the labour market?
Alan Johnson: I hope to answer the point about this being a good time when I come to my feeble peroration.
Labour Governments under Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan did not address such issues in any way. They did not introduce a national minimum wage or a right to four weeks' paid holiday, whereas this Government have.
We have not as yet addressed the important points raised about bank holidays, which have a 131-year history. The cost of the Employment Act 2002, as Opposition Members pointed out during its passage, is considerable, and my hon. Friend talked about not just paying for bank holidays, but increasing their number. A TUC paper in August 2001 suggested that we increase the number of bank holidays by three. Taken together, hat would mean a cost to business of £6.5 billion a year.
I do not think that there would be any disagreement between us on the fact that many workers have to work on bank holidays, whether they are in the health service, in transport or, increasingly, in tourism, when we as consumers insist that there are facilities for us on bank holidays and where most of the costs fall on small businesses that are seeking to recover after foot and mouth disease.
We have to consider the question proportionately in terms of where the cost would fall and where it would stand in our priorities. We are probably a rather curmudgeonly and miserable nation in the days that we allow for celebrations, but in the rest of the EU the bank holidays exist for a reason. They were not just created because someone in France said, "We have two fewer bank holidays than in Germany—let's create a couple." Days such as Bastille day exist for historical reasons. The last time that happened was when a Labour Government introduced the May day bank holiday. There has to be a reason for the nation to celebrate; I do not think that one can manufacture a reason for a bank holiday, although we have done so, most recently for the Queen's golden jubilee, and we did so for the royal wedding in 1981, and there have been a couple of other occasions where there have been one-off bank holidays.
We estimate that it would cost £500 million if existing bank holidays were paid, given that we are talking only about 17 per cent. of the work force, but that is in the context of all the other changes that we are making. There is bound to be a cost for information and consultation, tackling age discrimination in the workplace, the worker versus employer argument that we are consulting on at the moment and all the other measures that we have in our exciting and rather full agenda during the next few years. Would we make this matter a priority in that debate?
Mr. Watts: Many of my constituents would say that many measures that we have introduced are aimed at

233WH
people who are well organised, from the middle classes and who can afford to represent themselves. We are not addressing the basic, fundamental conditions of employment, such as bank holidays and time off. There is a view that our priorities are wrong, and we need to refocus on some of those issues.
Alan Johnson: I accept that, from the correspondence that I have received from my hon. Friend and others, this may be becoming a higher priority for workers and constituents. I think that he would accept that it was not the highest priority in 1997. We are still only five years into this brave new world.
We have a practical consideration. We have to consider those people who have to work on bank holidays and what they would be paid. Would it be a day in lieu? Would it be one of the things that I used to negotiate as a trade union leader: time and a half and a day off, or double time and a half? That creates practical problems. Generally, the most positive thing that I can say is that I would not rule out a review on the status and structure of bank holidays in the future. It is not an issue that is at the forefront of our employment legislative programme, but it is important, and one that we shall look at perhaps in our third or fourth term of government.

Contracted Care Workers
1.29 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the opportunity to initiate the debate for two reasons. The first is to press the Government to introduce a long-delayed reform that they have been promising for some years but which has failed, inexplicably, to materialise. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will use his response to give some reassurance and to promise some recompense to one of my constituents, who faces severe personal financial strain because the reforms are not yet in place. Indeed, my constituent's clients face the prospect of losing the services that the business supplies and perhaps even of ending up as more of the hospital bed blockers whose numbers the Government rightly are determined to reduce.
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members of the words of the Speaker as to dress in the Chamber. For that purpose, Westminster Hall should be treated in the same way as the Chamber.
Mr. Rendel: Let me start by describing my constituent's case and then I shall fit it into the wider picture of desperately needed Government reform, which has been so long delayed. My constituent, Mrs. Angela Reed, runs her own business providing infirm and disabled people with care, much of it of a medical nature, in their own homes. She trades in her own name as a sole proprietor and employs staff to assist her in the provision of services. Like others working in the field, she provides valued services, often on behalf of the local authority, to some of the most vulnerable people in our community and, because the services are provided in the home, they maximise the independence of the individuals concerned.
Given that the Minister is doubtless a proponent of joined-up government, this seems an ideal opportunity to remind him and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry of the words of the Department of Health's 1998 White Paper "Modernising Social Services", which stated that
"when people need social services help, that help will be arranged in a way that lets them do as much as possible for themselves; and allows them wherever possible to live in their own homes."
The type of care provided by Mrs. Reed is VAT exempt if it is provided by or supervised by a medically qualified person such as a nurse or doctor. Since the beginning of the year, Mrs. Reed has employed medically qualified staff in a supervisory capacity. However, that was not the case earlier, so her services did not fall under the statutory VAT exemption, despite the fact that they were often recommended by medical practitioners who knew of her great and long experience in providing such services.
Accordingly, when it emerged that her turnover had exceeded the VAT registration threshold in early 2001, she was obliged to commence charging VAT to her clients, the elderly people who benefited from and were happy with her care services, which they desperately needed if they were to be able to remain in their own homes, but which many of them could afford only with difficulty. Many were unable or unwilling to pay the extra amount, and custom was lost as a result.

235WH
Moreover, because it was not immediately apparent that she had exceeded the threshold, Mrs. Reed faces retrospective registration and VAT payments amounting to approximately £10,000. The situation has placed her and her business under considerable strain. Mrs. Reed's accountants—James and Cowper, a local firm—have been in correspondence with Customs and Excise in the hope of persuading it that the VAT exemption should apply in her circumstances. They have not been successful. I shall not argue today that that is an incorrect interpretation of the legal position, but there is a strong case for arguing that the situation conflicts with stated Government principles and policy.
I come to the general position to prove my point. If Mrs. Reed operated as an agency, not a proprietorial business, to provide the services of her staff, she would be in a much more favourable position in relation to VAT. Agencies are not regarded as supplying the full service of the staff whom they place, so VAT is due only on their placement commission. That is due to change. The Department of Trade and Industry proposes to change the status of workers placed by such agencies so that they will become full employees of the agency. The contractual relationship will therefore be with the bureau or agency that supplies them, not with the client who hires them. However, there has been a severe delay in implementation. Changes to the employment status of temporary workers supplied by employment bureaux were first announced more than three and a half years ago in September 1998. Eight months after that, on 31 May 1999, a consultation document entitled "Regulation of the Private Recruitment Industry" was published. In its business brief 13/99, dated 18 June 1999, Customs and Excise indicated that the regulations were expected to come into force at the beginning of 2000.
In an Adjournment debate on 29 October 1999, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and others expressed the concern that the changes would increase the amount of VAT charged to people buying care in their homes, some of whom are often the most vulnerable members of our society, as hon. Members said. In another business brief 3/2000, dated 22 February 2000, Customs and Excise reported that there would be an extra-statutory concession for home care services. The brief makes it clear that the main reason for the concession was that Customs and Excise and the DTI recognised that the changes would
"place an increased VAT burden on some of the most vulnerable people in society".
The concession
"will be introduced to coincide with the introduction of the DTI changes in the Summer."
The summer of 2000 has come and gone, and two years and a general election later we are still waiting. The extra-statutory concession will be welcome when it is introduced. Business brief 3/2000 makes it clear that the concession will apply to non-agency care providers, such as my constituent. It will also apply to home care
236WH
services, including personal care such as bathing, and help with practical tasks such as house cleaning where there is an obvious client need.
As the Paymaster General, in a written parliamentary answer on 29 January 2001 in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and (Cheam) said:
"Customs will implement the Extra Statutory Concession to coincide with the changes in the Department of Trade and Industry regulations on the private recruitment industry. A side effect of these changes could have been an increase in the VAT paid for necessary home care provided by employment bureaux. The concession will mean that the VAT burden on those least able to look after themselves is not increased as a result of the DTI changes, and in many cases will actually go down."—[Official Report, 29 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 39-40W.]
I welcome the Government's clear statement of intent, and their commitment to ensure that there is no inequity of treatment on VAT between agencies and proprietorial businesses providing similar services in competition with one another. However, will the Minister account for the extraordinary delay in implementing the proposals? Hon. Members will note that the Paymaster General's parliamentary answer is dated one year after the announcement of the extra-statutory concession. Why have those changes still not come into effect?
In another written parliamentary answer, dated 25 January 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam asked the Secretary of State for Health
what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the implementation of the proposed extra-statutory concession on VAT and home care; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State at the Department of Health replied:
"The Department has been liaising closely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of Trade and Industry on their proposals since 1997. The proposed Value Added Tax concession will mean that people receiving care in their own homes will not pay VAT on the wages element of that care. We will continue to make every effort to promote home care as a choice for individuals in need of support."—[official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 689-90W.]
Therefore, this matter has been under discussion since 1997. The Government are committed to promoting home care as an option for the individuals concerned, but no action has been taken for five years.
One year further on and the Treasury was repeating the same mantra. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
"when he expects Customs and Excise to issue details of the proposed extra statutory concession in respect of VAT on supply of services agency workers for domiciliary care."
The Financial Secretary replied:
"Details of the proposed extra statutory concession on the VAT liability of home care will be available when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry lays before Parliament revised regulations governing the conduct of the private recruitment industry."—[Official Report, 25 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1150W.]
So details will be announced when they are announced. That is very helpful.

237WH
If the new regulations had been introduced in the summer of 2000, the timing initially announced by Customs and Excise, my constituent would not be in the position she is in now. This is not simply a case of a particular business reporting a grievance to the local Member of Parliament and calling for a change in the law. This is a case where the Government have been promising to change the law for several years, but have failed to fulfil that promise, to the great disadvantage of my constituent.
I hope that the Minister will today be able to announce when those changes will be introduced. Meanwhile the delay has had severe consequences for my constituent and her business. Her business provides important care services for many elderly people, in keeping with the principle of independent living, which is rightly at the heart of the Government's thinking on social care. Under those circumstances, can the Minister provide an assurance that the needs of care providers who have fallen foul of the existing VAT regulations will be taken into account when the expected reforms are finally announced?
Given that my constituent would never have got into her present financial difficulty had the Government brought in the relevant legislation according to their original timetable, it seems only fair that the retrospective VAT that my constituent is now being asked to pay is either waived or counterbalanced by a compensation payment to her of the same size paid on the grounds of the Government's maladministration of their own legislative programme. The local council and the local medical services value my constituent's work, and so, very much so, do her clients. The Government's policy, quite rightly, is to enable people to obtain the care they need to remain in their own homes. It is also the Government's policy therefore that VAT should not be charged on the provision of home care services. For the sake of my constituent, but above all for the sake of her clients, she should not have a VAT bill to pay, just because the Government have failed, after five years of waiting, to get their act together.
1.44 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on securing the debate on such an important issue. It is a reflection of his strong track record in the House. He speaks up on such issues both in policy terms and to make active representations on behalf of his constituents, including individuals who are sometimes affected by residential care matters. The constituent in this case has been affected as a provider of services to people in their own homes.
The hon. Gentleman raised some important matters, and I am glad of the opportunity to reply, because improving the standard of care for elderly people in care homes and their own homes is a priority for this Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the national service framework for older people, which was published last year, is a significant step forward. With the new National Care Standards Commission now being merged with the social services inspectorate, an important element of protection and consistency for elderly people, many of whom are very vulnerable, has been introduced into the system.
238WH
The hon. Gentleman will also know about the significant additional spending that the Government have put into personal social services. It is available to support the services to take care of people in their own homes and in residential care homes. Nationally, resources have increased on average in real terms by 3 per cent. a year between 1996–97 and the current year. In addition, as we recently announced, the real terms increase between 2003–04 and 2005–06 will be the equivalent of 6 per cent. per year. That is in stark contrast o the record of the previous Government, who between 1992 and 1997 oversaw a real term's annual growth of 0.1 per cent. It is an important context for what will be a more technical discussion.
The Government are keen to see initiatives for the development of not only better standards in care homes but intermediate care services of rehabilitation and support, which can increase individuals' independence and help them remain in their own homes and out of institutionalised care homes for longer. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's greeting for our proposals for an extra-statutory concession, and it may be helpful to give some background detail to our decision to introduce it. I will then explain why I dispute his contention that there has been a long delay in the introduction of the measure per se, by explaining its crucial link to the proposals for amending Department of Trade and Industry regulations for governing the activities of employment agencies.
The activities, nature and regulation of employment agencies and bureaux are at the heart of the proposal to introduce an extra-statutory concession. At present, employment bureaux can arrange their affairs for VAT purposes so that they act as either an agent or a principal in supplying staff. The hon. Gentleman touched on that point. For the sake of clarity, an agent is someone who makes arrangements for the supply of goods and services by another person. When care services are arranged through an agent, even though one invoice and charge may be raised, there are two distinct supplies: the agent's services—the making of arrangements for the supply by someone else, such as a self-employed worker—and the care service itself, which is supplied by the worker.
As in the case of Mrs. Reed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who had to make a choice as part of setting up and running her business, personal businesses must choose either to use an agent to arrange for the supply of an exempt service on their behalf or to act as a principal. A principal is a person who makes or receives a supply, so when an employment bureau is a principal, for VAT purposes it is akin to an employer of staff in that it is responsible for providing the services carried out by them. A principal does not therefore merely make arrangements for the supply of a third party, but supplies the services carried out by its staff.
The introduction of the extra-statutory concession is crucially linked to the proposals that were produced by Government and led by the Department of Trade and Industry and which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, were published in 1999. The amendments and reform of the regulation of the private recruitment industry were aimed at providing employee protection to temporary workers supplied by employment bureaux. It was thought that a side effect of those changes would be that employment bureaux acting as agents, which previously

239WH
had to charge VAT only for the service of making arrangements, would have to charge VAT on their total fee, including the agency worker's salary costs. Following close scrutiny by the Treasury and on the Chancellor's initiative, we investigated ways of minimising the potential VAT impact of the DTI's proposed changes on home care services so that people in their own homes were not faced with increased VAT payments—hence the extra-statutory concession.
The concession means that when the new DTI regulations come into effect, people in their own homes who are in need of care will not pay VAT on the wages element of taxable care. The arrangement fee will, however, remain taxable in the same way. The hon. Gentleman quoted correctly our intention of introducing the concession to coincide with the DTI regulations. The DTI is considering the many responses to its consultation document. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, several complex issues—not least the tax dimensions—are connected with the proposed changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard what he rightly described as our "clear statement of intent" as our determination to introduce an extra-statutory concession when the regulations are introduced and for the purpose that I explained earlier.
There is therefore no sinister reason for the delay in introducing the extra-statutory concession; the matter is perfectly simple. We announced that we would introduce the concession when the DTI regulations are laid before Parliament and that position remains. The concession is being introduced to offset the danger that people who purchase care that enables them to continue to live in their own homes will be liable for extra VAT, particularly on the costs of the care services and the relevant worker salaries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that our statement of intent in that regard remains clear and strong.
Mr. Rendel: I quite believe the Minister and the Government when they say that they will introduce that concession when the DTI changes its rules. The danger for people like my constituent is not that they might be charged VAT and have to pass that charge on to their clients because they already have to do so as they are not bureaux and agencies that work in the way that will be affected by the DTI change. They have to charge VAT now and their clients already have to suffer, and they will go on doing so because the longer the DTI takes to make its changes, the longer it will take for the extra-statutory concession to come in—unless the Minister can do something about it straight away.
John Healey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point but if my memory serves—I will check the Official Report—he said that Mrs. Reed had altered the way in which she provides her services and that they are now supervised by a nurse. The key element for the provision of care is therefore not liable to VAT, although the commissioning or arrangement fee still is, as I have explained. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is, understandably, the position that Mrs. Reed has taken.
Mr. Rendel: The Minister is right that, because Mrs. Reed changed her arrangements, she has got round the problem. However, there will be other people throughout the country who are still providing services directly, without medical supervision. Mrs. Reed has had to employ people deliberately to get round the VAT problem, which seems an absurd way to do it.
John Healey: We concur at least on the way in which Mrs. Reed organises her business. It is a quite sensible adaptation to the provision of services. Clearly, the quality of services that she offers to people living in their own home cannot be reduced or damaged by the involvement of a qualified nurse.
We are discussing the territory of VAT in care services, and the hon. Gentleman has made a number of powerful points. I hope that he at least recognises that the Government are aware of the impact that VAT can have on care services and vulnerable or sick people, both in their own home and in care homes.
VAT is not chargeable on care services that form part of the care or treatment of a person in a nursing or similar residential home. That includes care provided by staff employed by the institution, and care provided by contracted staff. Nor is VAT chargeable on medical, personal or nursing care services provided or supervised by a nurse, whether they be provided in a nursing home, another home or someone's own home. We have just discussed that point. VAT is not chargeable on any welfare service, including care services, in a residential home or at a home that is provided by a charity or a local authority under a statutory duty. Mrs. Reed is clearly running an agency that is a business. She now delivers such services under the supervision of a nurse, so the workers' salaries are not subject to VAT.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are constrained to some degree by long-standing agreements with our European partners. The United Kingdom can maintain existing VAT zero rates and exemptions but, under the same Community agreements, we may not introduce new reliefs or make anything more than marginal adjustments to existing reliefs. Currently, there is no exemption for the services of employment bureaux, so there is a significant constraint on our ability to reduce the VAT chargeable on the arrangement fees or commission services of agencies such as that of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Clearly, it would be more than a marginal adjustment to try to shoehorn such an exemption into an existing relief.
That does not mean, however, that we can do nothing in this sector. Indeed, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we moved rapidly in March when a High Court judgment on VAT and residential care threatened to limit the exemption for residential care. We immediately put VAT exemption beyond question through the Value Added Tax (Health and Welfare) Order, which was statutory instrument No. 762/2002. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees that as evidence of decisive and prompt action to confirm that vulnerable people will not face VAT on residential care. We are determined to ensure that vulnerable people do not face a greater VAT burden than is absolutely necessary.

241WH
I end by confirming the timing of the extra-statutory concession, as the hon. Gentleman requested. We still intend to introduce the concession immediately the new Department of Trade and Industry regulations are laid. I cannot, however, assure him on the retrospectivity that he seeks on the VAT payable by people such as his constituent at present. I hope that he feels that this short
242WH
debate has been valuable. Our general approach to social care is that we are committed to increasing the level of funding, and determined to raise standards of care and to ensure that tax, as a proportion of costs, plays no greater part than is necessary.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the seaworthiness of ships that will carry cargoes of nuclear waste from Japan to Sellafield. [68090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ships are subject to mandatory survey by their flag administration in accordance with the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation. The ships that are transporting MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield are flagged with the UK and so the survey and certification arrangements are the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

  The ships have been subjected to the proper survey regime and hold valid certificates of compliance with the IMO requirements, including the special requirements applicable to ships meeting the highest Class 3 of the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Waste on board Ships.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the risk to coastal areas from ships carrying cargoes of nuclear waste to Sellafield. [68089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 1995 and 1999 the UK participated in an international research project, co-ordinated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which studied the risks associated with ships carrying radioactive material of all kinds, including nuclear waste. The results of that study were published in IAEA-TECDOC-1231, "Severity, probability and risk of accidents during maritime transport of radioactive material", in July 2001, which is available on the IAEA's website at http://www.iaea.org/ns/rasanetlprogramme/ rad i ation safety/transportsafety/Downloads/Files2001/t1231.pdf.

  Fareham
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many transport(a) surveys and (b) studies under way cover Fareham. [68095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is currently undertaking the South Coast Multi Modal Study, which includes consideration of strategic transport issues from Southampton to Margate, including Fareham. One of that study's eight strategy development plans centres on the south Hampshire area. The responsibility for local transport issues in Fareham is a matter for Hampshire County Council, who will periodically undertake surveys and consultation events in connection with the local 792W
  transport plan and specific measures such as the development of the light rail line from Fareham to Portsmouth via Gosport.

  EU Committees (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of recording equipment in road transport (tachographs) 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. [68590]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee for Adaptation to Technical Progress (CATP) last met in September 2001 and currently there are no plans for further meetings. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for the tachographs is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee for the establishment of conditions for the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system 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. [68585]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The next meeting of this Committee is scheduled for 30 September 2002. Officials from the Strategic Rail Authority, assisted by HM Inspectorate of Railways, represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for the transport trans-European network is a reserved matter. However, my officials would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the reciprocal recognition of national boatmasters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway 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. [68581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This Committee has not met for some time and it is not known when it will next meet. Officials from my Department would represent the UK on this Committee as responsibility for policy on national boatmasters' certificates is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the System of Changing for the Use of Transport Infrastructure 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. [68575]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this Committee but we expect it to be held in the Autumn. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for EU transport infrastructure charging issues is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish
  793W
  Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on unfair pricing in maritime transport 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. [68598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not known when this Committee will next meet. Officials from the Office of Fair Trading, the Department of Trade and Industry and my Department, as appropriate, represent the UK on this Committee as competition policy is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in segregated ballast of oil tankers 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. [68599]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee has never met and there are no plans for it to do so.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of roadworthiness tests of vehicles 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. [68588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for the meeting of this Committee but we expect it to be held in the autumn. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for the roadworthiness testing of vehicles is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on application of the legislation on the minimum level of training for seafarers and the recognition of certificates issued by training institutes or administration of third countries 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. [68597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this committee. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility is a reserved matter. My officials will consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the transfer for ships from one register to another within the Community 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. [68603]
  794W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee has never been known to meet and there are no plans for it to do so. Officials from my Department would represent the UK on this committee since policy on ship registration is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on the Transportation of Radioactive Waste (Surveillance and Control) 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. [68565]

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

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee for granting Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks on transport 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. [68584]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this committee but we expect it to be held in the autumn. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility for the transport trans-European network is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the Development of Trans-Europe Transport Networks 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. [68574]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this committee but we expect it to be held in the autumn. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility for the transport trans-European network is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress of Legislation concerning the Transport of Dangerous Goods 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. [68592]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no date set for the next meeting of this committee, but it is expected to be in late 2002. Officials from the Department for Transport, and the Health and Safety Executive represent the UK on this committee, as responsibility for the transport of dangerous goods is a reserved matter, pertaining to transport safety.
  795W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on Transport is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been arid (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68577]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee was established under Article 79 of the EC treaty. But, as far as we are aware, the committee has not met in recent times and there are no plans for it to do so. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been-and would not in the future be—members of the committee as EU transport policy is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on aids to transport by rail. road and inland waterway 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. [68580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This Committee was established under the provisions of Article 6 of the 1970 Regulation on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70). As far as we are aware, the Committee has not met for several years and there are no plans for it so to do. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been—and would not in the future be—members of the Committee as policy on state aids is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Implementation Committee on minimum requirements for vessels bound for and leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods 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. [68600]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has been fixed for the next meeting of this Committee. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as responsibility for maritime safety and pollution prevention is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on the definition and use of compatible technical and operating standards and specifications for the procurement of air traffic management equipment and systems 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. [68602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This Committee meets only on an ad-hoc basis. and no meetings are scheduled at present. Officials from my Department would represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility on air traffic management is a reserved matter. However, my officials would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation 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. [685951
  796W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation is established under the provisions of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) 3922-91. The Committee meets only on an ad-hoc basis and no future meeting is currently scheduled. It is composed of officials competent in the sphere of aviation safety regulation and each Member State may nominate one official to represent it. Since aviation safety regulation is a reserved matter, representatives from the Scottish Executive would not attend Committee meetings. However, the Government would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the driving licence 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. [68594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for this Committee but we expect it to be held in the Autumn. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee, supported as necessary by colleagues from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Driving Standards Agency. Policy responsibility for driving licences is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in air transport is next due to met; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [67737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in air transport is established under the provisions of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) 3975/87. The Committee meets only on an ad-hoc basis and no future meeting is currently scheduled. It is composed of officials competent in the sphere of air transport and agreements and dominant positions and each Member State may nominate two officials to represent it.

  Since regulation of aviation and air transport, and of anti-competitive practices and agreements and abuse of dominant position, are reserved matters, representatives from the Scottish Executive would not attend Committee meetings. However, the Government would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Technical Adaptation Committee on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work 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. [67754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK representatives at such meetings would be drawn from staff with the relevant technical and policy responsibilities within the Health and Safety Executive. During the last 12 months HSE have received no invitations to such technical meetings; nor are any currently scheduled.
  797W
  Health and safety at work does not fall within the responsibilities of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales, and they do not have separate representation in the European Community. However, central Departments are under an obligation to consult them if matters negotiated at European level touch upon the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Technical Adaptation Committee on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels 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. [67755]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee has never met, and there are no plans for it to do so.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in the shipping industry 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. [67757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions meets on an ad hoc basis when there are decisions or legislative proposals to discuss. It is not known when it will next meet. Officials from the Office of Fair Trading, the Department of Trade and Industry and my Department represent the UK on the committee as competition policy is a reserved matter.

  London-South Midlands Multi-Modal Study
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the re-opening of the Luton-Dunstable-Leighton Buzzard railway line is to be assessed as part of the transport strategy being developed in the London-South Midlands Multi-Modal Study. [67144]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Multi-Modal Study is a strategic study looking primarily at the needs of long distance traffic in the study area. The re-opening of the Luton-Dunstable-Leighton Buzzard railway line. which would primarily serve local needs, has therefore, not been considered in detail within the context of the study.

  Travel Awareness Campaigns
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to fund travel awareness campaigns(a) this year and (b) in future years. [67538]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This year we are supporting the "Walk to School", "Bike Week" and "In town, without my car" campaigns and are considering further promotion of "traveline", the public transport information service. We are also providing practical support for other sustainable travel initiatives including funding local authority school and work place travel plan co-ordinators, free consultancy advice for schools and organisations wanting to develop travel plans, regional cycling co-ordinators, and cycling projects through the Cycling Projects Fund. We shall shortly be inviting local authorities to bid for funding to run personalised travel planning demonstration projects. Some of these projects will stretch over several years, others are still under development.

  London Transport Studies Model
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a copy of the London Transport Studies Model, as used for the 10 Year Plan, in the Library. [67722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: I have arranged for the document pack "London Transportation Studies Model", published by the Government Office for London in 1999, which is referred to on page 13 of the Transport 2010 Background Analysis to be placed in the Libraries of the House. Transport for London is now responsible for maintaining and updating the model.

  Airline Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps are taken to prevent airline pilots from operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol; [67571]

  (2) how many aircraft pilots and crew have been found under the influence of (a) alcohol and (b) drugs in the past year. [67574]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is an offence under the Air Navigation Order 2000 for aircraft pilots to carry out their duties whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs. As part of the process for obtaining an Air Operator Certificate from the Civil Aviation Authority, airlines are required to establish policies on alcohol and drugs to ensure compliance with this provision. The detailed implementation of such policies is a matter for the airlines. In addition, pilots have to undergo regular medical examinations which will pay attention to any evidence of excess alcohol intake or substance abuse. The Authority is not aware of any UK licensed professional pilots flying whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in the past year.

  We intend to enhance the statutory provisions by introducing a prescribed blood/alcohol limit for safety critical personnel in aviation, and powers to allow police to test suspected offenders, at an appropriate legislative opportunity.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many commercial aircraft have not met safety requirements in the past year. [67573]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for the implementation of safety standards for all UK registered aircraft and airlines. Its Safety Regulation Group audits and inspects aircraft and airlines on an on-going and systematic basis and takes appropriate regulatory action as and where necessary.

  Operators of commercial aircraft must hold an Air Operator Certificate which places on them responsibilities to ensure that any aircraft is fit to make its intended flight. If an aircraft is not fit to make a particular flight the operator will correct the problem before allowing the aircraft to fly. As a result, UK registered aircraft should not fly commercial operations unless they meet safety requirements and the CAA is not aware of any that have done so in the past year.

  Should an aircraft not he fit to make an intended flight as a consequence of one of the conditions which must be reported under the CAA's Mandatory Occurrence

  799W
  Reporting Scheme, the operator will advise the Authority accordingly, thus meeting the safety requirements placed upon them.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with and representations he has received from(a) the Health and Safety Executive, (b) National Air Traffic Services and (c) the CAA on safety breaches by low-cost airlines; and if he will make a statement; [63975]

  (2) if he will list (a) published and (b) unpublished reports on safety of (i) airlines and (ii) National Air Traffic Services prepared by (1) the Health and Safety Executive and (2) the Civil Aviation Authority since 1 June 2001; and if he will make a statement; [63977]

  (3) what recent assessments have been made of the safety of (a) airlines and (b) National Air Traffic Services by (i) the Health and Safety Executive and (ii) the Civil Aviation Authority since 1 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [63976]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for the implementation of safety standards for National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS) and all UK registered airlines. Its Safety Regulation Group audits and inspects these companies on an on-going and systematic basis and takes appropriate regulatory action as and where necessary. There are statutory prohibitions on disclosing information supplied to the CAA in its safety regulatory capacity and the authority does not publish the reports of its inspections of airlines or NATS. Public disclosure of such reports, related to specific companies, could have an adverse effect on the openness and effectiveness of the established auditing and reporting procedures. Evidence of any concerns regarding the safety of a UK registered airline should be reported to the CAA for further investigation.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has made one recent assessment in connection with NATS which concerned the possible risks to health of those operating the air traffic control system at Swanwick. The ensuing report was sent to NATS and to representatives of the relevant employees. There are statutory restrictions on the disclosure of information obtained by the HSE in pursuance of its powers that apply to this report.

  Air Travel (Security Surcharge)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what impact the £7 security surcharge is having on the number of passengers travelling on United Kingdom flights; [68326]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure money raised from the £7 security surcharge on United Kingdom flights is invested into security at United Kingdom airports; [68321]

  (3) what extra security arrangements were required by the Government in UK airports following the events of 11 September 2001; [68610]

  (4) what representations he has received calling for the £7 security surcharge on United Kingdom flights to he abolished. [68320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have not introduced a security surcharge on United Kingdom flights.
  800W
  Following the attacks on 11 September, heightened aviation security measures were introduced at all UK airports and for all airlines operating from the UK, and security remains at an enhanced level. We do not discuss the details of our aviation security requirements, although I can say that the UK does have one of the most demanding aviation security regimes in the world.

  It has long been central to UK aviation policy that users should pay the full costs of air travel, and this should include the costs of whatever level of security is deemed appropriate in the light of prevailing circumstances. Many United Kingdom and other European carriers have already imposed ticket surcharges to reflect increased insurance and security costs, and this is the pattern which we believe the industry should follow. This is a matter for them and I see no grounds for Government intervention in this area.

  Different airlines have been affected differently in the aftermath of 11 September. Some airlines' passenger numbers are still well down on June 2001. On the other hand, no-frills carriers are reporting an increase in passengers. This does not suggest that having to pay additional security costs is having a major impact on people's decision on whether or not to fly.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67092]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary on Monday 8 July 2002.

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the eligibility criteria for concessionary travel schemes in the next four years. [67492]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From 1 April 2003, men aged 60–65 will benefit from the concessionary travel arrangements available in their area. At present we have no other plans to extend eligibility for concessionary travel schemes.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to fund the full cost of concessionary travel schemes in(a) London and (b) all other local authority areas. [67493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Government provision for existing concessionary travel schemes is included in the general grant for local authorities. This is distributed using standard spending assessments and it is not possible to provide a meaningful allocation for each authority. Future levels of spending are currently under consideration in the Spending Review. It is for local authorities to decide their spending priorities in the light of their responsibilities and the wishes of their electorate.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in his Department and associated agencies was

  801W
  in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65959]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department was formed on 29 May.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Leslie) on 8 July 2002, Official Report, column 679W.

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no overall departmental policy covering the use of national rate (0870) telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. National rate numbers are not used anywhere in the centre of the Department. Usage in the various departmental agencies is as follows.

  DVLA use national rate (0870) telephone numbers for the main inquiry lines that answer general queries about driver licensing and vehicle registration and licensing. This is to ensure that all callers receive a fair and equitable service in as much as they pay the same telephone charge no matter from what part of the country they call.

  The vehicle inspectorate uses a national rate (0870) number as an additional service above and beyond the local contact numbers that are available to the trade and general public.

  The Driving Standards Agency uses a national rate (0870) number for telephone bookings for driving tests at their two call centres, based in Newcastle and Cardiff. This ensures equity of payment for all customers using booking services without resulting in increased fee levels.

  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency Rescue use a national rate (0870) number for their information line, which handles general inquiries about the MCA.

  Highways Agency and Vehicle Certification Agency do not use national rate numbers.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech made by the Minister to the international travel information seminar in London on 26 June; [66248]

  (2) what speeches have been made by his Ministers to external organisations or events since the beginning of June; and if he will place copies in the Library; [66245]

  (3) if he will list speeches which he has made to external organisations or events since the beginning of June; and if he will place copies in the Library. [66247]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a speech to the Railway Forum on 2 July. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport addressed the annual rail freight conference on 20 June, the 5th United Kingdom Transport conference on 25 June,802W
  the Passenger Transport Executive Group on 27 June and the aviation club on 3 July. I made two speeches on 26 June, one to the international travel information seminar and one to the Baltic Exchange Golden Jubilee reception. Where appropriate, ministerial speeches are placed on the Department's website.

  Health and Safety Legislation
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what responsibility his Department has for workplace-related health and safety legislation; [65490]

  (2) what responsibility his Department has for workplace-related health and safety legislation. [65489]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport currently answers to Parliament on all activities of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, except when these come within the specific area of responsibility of another Secretary of State. Under section 11 (2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Secretary of State may approve proposals from the Commission for regulations, and under section 15 (1) of the Act may also introduce health and safety legislation, provided the Commission is consulted.

  In tandem with the recent machinery of government changes, it was announced on 29 May that there will be a review of departmental responsibilities for health and safety issues. An announcement on this will be made in due course.

  Joint Working
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the protocols for joint working between his Department and other Departments and (b) the Government code of practice under which his Department operates when working with other Departments; and if he will make a statement. [66008]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With regard to protocols for joint working between my Department and other Departments, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 777W. When consulting other Departments on the development of policy, my Department follows the guidance in volume 1 of the Directory of Civil Service Guidance. hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61065]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is fully committed to the training and development of its staff. In the last five years it has spent the following amounts:

  1997–98—£1.9 million—Department of Transport and Department of the Environment

  1998–99—£2.9 million—DETR

  1999–2000—£3.2 million—DETR

  2000–01—£4.5 million—DETR

  2001–02—£6.5 million—DTLR.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department and its predecessors since 1997; if copies were available(a) online and (b) in print in each case; and on what date the period for responses (i) opened and (ii) closed. [66651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A full list of the public consultations undertaken by the Department or its predecessors since 1997 has been placed in the Libraries of the House, including the dates for which the period for responses opened and closed. The list is based on central records and reflects the public consultations undertaken within the areas for which the Department is currently responsible. The Department does not, however, keep central historical records relating to the availability of consultation documents online or in printed form.

  Bull Bars
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent assessment he has made of the likely impact of bull bars on pedestrians who are involved in collision with the front of vehicles at varying speeds; [68381]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of proposals to ban the fitting of bull bars to the front of vehicles in the United Kingdom; [68382]

  (3) how many vehicles with bull bars were licensed for use on United Kingdom roads in each of the last five years for which records are available. [68380]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government funded a comprehensive TRL study that looked into the likely effects of bull bars on pedestrians and recommended test procedures to identify aggressive designs. The report "Assessment and Test Procedures for Bull Bars" by G. Lawrence, C. Rodmell and A. Osborne has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  We have concluded that the most effective way of controlling aggressive bull bars would be on a European basis, and welcome the commitment by the European Motor Industry to stop fitting rigid bull bars to new cars from this year.

  We have also submitted a technical proposal to the Commission, based on the TRL work, setting out how after-market bull bars and bull bars fitted to larger vehicles could be dealt with through European legislation. We are pressing the Commission to take this forward.

  The number of licensed vehicles fitted with bull bars is not officially recorded. However of the 23 million licensed vehicles on UK roads, we estimate that there are around 600,000 vehicles fitted with bull bars.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the EU on plans to introduce legislation and directives to make the front of vehicles safer; [68373]
  804W
  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation to make the fronts of vehicles safer. [68375]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Legislation covering the design of new cars is dealt with at a European level. We welcome the proposal by the European Commission for an agreement with the motor industry to design car fronts to reduce the injury to pedestrians in the event of an impact. We are now awaiting a further proposal from the Commission to provide a legislative framework for this agreement.

  Driver Competence
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the development of a national framework of assessment of continuing medical competence to drive of those who have experienced trauma, illness or infirmity. [67111]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In common with all drivers who may have a medical condition affecting their safety to drive, those who have experienced trauma, illness or infirmity are assessed against the standards of medical fitness contained in Directive 91/439/EEC, and against the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and its associated Regulations. A practical assessment of a driver's competence following head injury or other conditions, such as a stroke, is available at 15 mobility centres around the UK. This facility is used at the request of the medical advisers at DVLA, doctors and the drivers themselves. The Department is in the process of commissioning a research programme to assess the most appropriate means of evaluating drivers with residual deficit following trauma, illness or infirmity.

  Tankers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) United Kingdom registered bulk tankers and (b) tankers registered elsewhere have been lost in each of the past five years. [68327]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lloyd's Register—Fairplay Ltd. World Casualty Statistics indicate the following number of losses in the world fleet for Tankers and Bulk Carriers. There have been no UK registered losses for these types of vessels in the past five years.

  Tankers

  Bulk carriers

  1997

  24

  16

  1998

  15

  29

  1999

  15

  19

  2000

  14

  21

  2001

  12

  9

  Highway Construction Workers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many statutory notifications there have been of injuries among highway construction workers in each of the last 10 years. [68224]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following is the available information.
  805W

  Injuries to workers occurring in the processes of road repairs and surfacing, and in street cleaning and verge maintenance,1996–97 to 2000–01

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries

  Over three day injuries

  Road repairs/surfacing/maintenance

  Road verge maintenance

  Road repairs/surfacing/maintenance

  Road verge maintenance

  Road repairs/surfacing/maintenance

  Road verge maintenance

  1996–97

  5

  —

  107

  16

  614

  79

  1997–98

  4

  —

  95

  18

  557

  95

  1998–99

  3

  —

  91

  17

  526

  109

  1999–2000

  2

  —

  75

  11

  444

  80

  2000–01

  9

  1

  59

  13

  377

  68

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to employees and the self-employed.

  2. Injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995.

  3. The table sets out data from 1996–97 onwards. Access to earlier data is available only at disproportionate cost

  4. Statistics relate to the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his timetable is for the introduction of car emission labelling on new cars; and if he will make a statement. [67655]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Labelling for new cars showing fuel consumption information has been a legal requirement in the UK since 1983. Since 1999 the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) has had a voluntary system of labelling based on the requirements of the EU directive for labels to show CO2 emissions as well as fuel consumption information. The EU directive was formally implemented in the UK in November 2001. The Government have recently consulted on proposals to pilot a possible new form of label to ensure that it is as meaningful and informative as possible. Responses to the consultation are now being considered.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the contribution the vehicle labelling scheme on car emissions can make to the United Kingdom Kyoto targets. [67658]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The EU vehicle labelling scheme is part of the Community's wider strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars. It is designed to support and complement other strands of this strategy including voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to reduce average CO2 emissions, and fiscal measures. Provision of information on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under the labelling scheme is a tool with which to influence consumer demand towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. It could also provide an added incentive to manufacturers to produce vehicles with lower fuel consumption. As an integral part of the strategy to reduce CO2 emissions it is difficult to isolate the contribution made by the labelling scheme from wider changes going on in the new car market. Nevertheless, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions labelling is expected to have a smaller impact than for example voluntary agreements with manufacturers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the contributions made by other EU countries on the subject of the emission ratings on new cars in order to meet Kyoto targets. [67656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The EU is keeping its requirements on labelling under review in the light of member state's experience with their different labelling systems 806W
  introduced under the EU labelling directive. The directive requires member states to provide a report by the end of 2003, discussing the lessons learned from implementing the labelling scheme. That report may better enable an assessment to be made of the contributions made by other EU countries on emissions ratings for new cars and the contribution to meeting CO2 emissions reduction targets.

  Motoring Statistics
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average expenditure on motoring per car per week was in the last 12 months for people living in(a) Wiltshire. (b) Dorset, (c) Hampshire and (d) Somerset. [67834]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on motoring expenditure is not available at county level.

  Car Use
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce air pollution caused by car use in London. [67578]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Central and local government both have a role to play in reducing air pollution caused by car use in London.

  The Government has introduced a range of measures to encourage environmentally friendly transport. These include lower fuel duties for cleaner fuels and grants under the PowerShift and CleanUp programmes to help car owners, hauliers and transport operators to buy or convert vehicles to run on cleaner fuels such as LPG natural gas and electricity.

  The Mayor of London has produced a Transport Strategy for London and is due to produce an Air Quality very shortly which will contain policies to reduce air pollution from vehicles.

  London boroughs have a key role to play through the Local Air Quality Management regime. Most boroughs have drawn up, or are in the process of drawing up, air quality action plans under section 84 of the Environment Act 1995, setting out what they are doing to improve air quality in their areas. These action plans are likely to include measures targeted at reducing emissions from road transport.

  Road Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the next national road traffic forecasts are due to be published; and if he will make a statement. [66675]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No decision has been made on when new national road traffic forecasts will be published.

  New Cars
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what prediction he has made of the numbers of new cars on the road in the United Kingdom in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06. [67657]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not forecast either the total stock of cars or the number of new cars purchased each year. Instead, forecasting work projects forward Census figures for car ownership by households. Current published figures show an increase from a projected 25.6 million cars in households in Great Britain in 2001 to 27.7 million in 2006, an increase of approximately 420,000 cars each year, equal to a growth rate of around 1.6 per cent. per annum. This increase is driven by population growth, income growth, and a trend towards higher rates of licence-holding, particularly among females. The figures will be reviewed when 2001 Census data becomes available.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost in 2002–03 is of administering vehicle excise duty; how many officials are involved; where they are located; and what the annual salary bill has been in each of the last three years. [66701]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 Jul 2002]: The costs and staff involved in the collection and enforcement of vehicle excise duty (VED) in Great Britain are shown in the table.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cost of administering VED (£ million)

  100.2

  103.3

  110.5

  Number of officials (estimated)

  2,100

  2,200

  2,300

  Salary costs (£ million)

  34.6

  36.4

  39.3

  The number of officials shown (full-time equivalents) is an estimate, based on the apportionment of the total Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) staff. The collection of VED is integrated with the registration of vehicles and the ongoing maintenance of the vehicle register. Staff involved are not dedicated wholly to registration or licensing activities. The number of officials figures do not include non-DVLA staff working at post offices involved in VED collection and vehicle registration.

  The DVLA staff are located at the headquarters in Swansea and at 40 local offices spread throughout Great Britain.

  Signage
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the final draft of the TSRGD, he will ban 808W
  from the trunk road network local government boundary signs welcoming motorists to towns or cities that they are still some distance from. [68613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no plans to do so. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) make no distinction between boundary signs on trunk roads and other all-purpose roads. We consulted last year on proposals to allow the signing of local authority administrative boundaries including district councils that take their name from a town within the district, and the responses have generally been in favour. Decisions on particular signs on the trunk road network will be taken in the light of local circumstances.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will provide for the marking of the historic county boundaries in the United Kingdom within the final draft of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions; [67726]

  (2) if he will make regulations under section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the erection and maintenance of suitable traffic signs to mark the boundaries of the historic counties of the United Kingdom where they cross motorways and class A and B roads; and if he will make a statement. [67728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This would not be appropriate. Traffic signs are provided for safe and efficient traffic management and should inform road users about current road conditions.

  Road Accidents
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) road accidents and (b) fatal road accidents occurred on minor single-carriageway roads in each of the past 20 years. [68226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The percentage of personal injury road accidents and of fatal road accidents on public roads in Great Britain which occurred on single-carriageway roads of B classification or below was as shown in the following table.

  All injury accidents

  Fatal accidents

  1981

  42

  34

  1982

  46

  36

  1983

  47

  36

  1984

  47

  35

  1985

  46

  34

  1986

  46

  33

  1987

  46

  34

  1988

  46

  34

  1989

  45

  34

  1990

  46

  35

  1991

  46

  35

  1992

  46

  36

  1993

  45

  35

  1994

  45

  35

  1995

  45

  36

  1996

  46

  36

  1997

  45

  35

  1998

  45

  36

  1999

  45

  35

  2000

  44

  36

  2001

  45

  35

  809W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to reduce the number of road accidents. [68524]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's wide-ranging road safety strategy is set out in "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", published in March 2000. The strategy is aimed at delivering three road casualty reduction targets by 2010—each compared with the average for 1994 to 1998:

  a 40 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries;

  a 50 per cent. reduction in child deaths and serious injuries; and

  a 10 per cent. reduction in the rate (by vehicles kilometres) of serious injuries.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will commission a study to investigate ways of reducing the number of road accidents. [68474]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department continues to commission a substantial amount of road and vehicle safety research into the many and various causes of accidents to inform our road safety strategy. A synopsis of recently completed and on-going projects, as well as new research, may be found in its publications:Road safety research: Compendium of projects 2001–02
  Vehicle standards and engineering research: Compendium of projects 2001–02.

  Copies of each publication have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the trend of(a) fatalities and (b) child fatalities in traffic accidents in residential areas over the period 1997 to 2001. [67432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of fatalities on residential roads are shown in the following table. For this purpose, residential roads are defined as those with a speed limit of 40 mph or less and where street lighting is present.

  Fatalities from accidents on residential roads: Great Britain

  Child

  Adult

  All1

  1997

  137

  1,190

  1,327

  1998

  110

  1,125

  1,237

  1999

  115

  1,162

  1,285

  2000

  116

  1,142

  1,264

  20012

  132

  1,109

  1,252

  1 Includes age not reported.

  2 Provisional.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of research by the IPPR showing that children from socially excluded backgrounds are more likely to be involved in road collisions than children from other socio-economic groups; and what plans he has to take action to reduce road collisions affecting these children. [67494]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are aware of the work of the Institute of Public Policy Research in researching child pedestrian casualties and, while they have yet to report, know their preliminary findings.

  Our own research had already drawn similar conclusions. When the Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", was published in March 2000, it included challenging targets to reduce killed and
  810W
  seriously injured road casualties by 40 per cent. by 2010. Recognising the particular issue of child casualties, there is a specific, more stretching target, to reduce child killed and seriously injured casualties by 50 per cent. in the same time period. The strategy acknowledged that children in the lowest socio-economic group (SEG) are five times more likely to be killed as pedestrians than their higher SEG counterparts.

  Since child pedestrian casualties are a particular problem, we have begun a child pedestrian training project, making £10 million available to local authorities over five years, to improve practical roadside training. Deprivation is a significant factor in deciding which authorities are selected for this scheme. The results will he fully evaluated. The issues which suggest why children from the lowest SEG may be more vulnerable generally are complex and we are continuing to research them.

  Wealden Line
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the electrification of the Wealden Line to be completed. [67943]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend has accepted advice from the Strategic Rail Authority that there is currently no case for electrifying the Wealden Line, as the costs far outweigh the benefits. Equivalent passenger and operational benefits will be secured, significantly earlier, by introducing modern diesel trains to replace the 40–year-old trains currently operating services on the line. However, it is recognised that circumstances may change over time and the SRA therefore intends to secure a full electrification study after the new South Central franchise has run for five years.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the salary of the chairman of the SRA counts as public spending; [67058]

  (2) if capital spending by the SRA counts as Government capital spending. [67059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All SRA expenditure counts as public expenditure.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Strategic Rail Authority will remain a public sector body. [67246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes.

  Rail Infrastructure Investment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the cost of infrastructure investment in the railways(a) before and (b) since privatisation. [66055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No direct comparison can be made between investment before and after privatisation due to the different nature of individual projects and the externalisation of costs (such as possessions and the cost of capital) that were previously internalised under British Rail.
  811W
  The Rail Regulator sets out the expected cost of infrastructure investment through the periodic review process.

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has revised his forecasts for the growth in(a) passenger and (b) freight rail usage during the 10-year plan period. [66056]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Forecasts for(a) rail passenger growth and (b) rail freight growth are set out in the 10-year plan for transport.

  Railway Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what progress has been made on the introduction of special purpose vehicles on Britain's railways; when the first is expected to begin; what timetable is proposed; and if he will make a statement; [64099]

  (2) what changes have taken place to the (a) timetable and (b) levels of investment in connection with the special purpose vehicle being developed by Govia: and if he will make a statement. [64098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Special purpose vehicles will be commercial entities aimed at securing third party investment in major infrastructure works on the railway. Several possible opportunities for the establishment of SPVs have been identified, but no SPVs are currently in place.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on debris on railway lines. [67729]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on 8 July 2002,Official Report, columns 662–63W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of safe limits on the number of passengers travelling in an individual railway carriage. [67702]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no statutory limits on the numbers of passengers that can be carried on trains. The Health and Safety Executive, has advised that all rolling stock is designed to operate safely even when fully loaded.

  London Underground
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what success fees are to be paid to the sponsors and advisers of Tube Lines on the signing of the PPP contract; what services have been provided in return for these fees; and what effect these fees will have on the equity return of Tube Lines; [65488]

  (2) how much is to be paid to sponsors and advisors in development costs on the closing date of the London Underground PPP contract; how much is to be paid to lenders and loan insurers on that date and what arrangements have been made for payments to Bakerloo
  812W
  Central Victoria (sub-surface lines) on the same date; and why these payments are being made before the commitment for improving underground performance is met. [65754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 4 July 2002,Official Report, columns 459–60W. Any success fees contained in the bids will only be recovered by bidders, as part of the ongoing, performance-related Infrastructure Service Charge, after they have first been verified by London Underground.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the scheduled journey time for each month, and for the period from 1 April to the end of each month, for each of the last three years, for the London Underground. [66797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground (LU).

  The scheduled journey times (using LU's weighted measure) for each of the last three full financial years were:

  1999–2000–35.58 minutes

  2000–01–35.38 minutes

  2001–02–35.33 minutes.

  I understand from LU that the figures for scheduled journey times may fluctuate during the course of the year as a consequence of closures for engineering works and revisions to timetables.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the London Underground network has a crowding ratio of actual passenger volumes to planned train capacity greater than 1 with regard to morning peak two way flows. [67720]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: I refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport (Mr. Spellar) gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 5 December 2001 Official Report, column 378W.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the financial statement for Network Rail will be consolidated in those for the Strategic Rail Authority. [67791]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his capacity as statutory auditor of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), has concluded that Network Rail should be accounted for as a subsidiary of the SRA. This means that the financial accounts of Network Rail will be consolidated on a transparent and open basis within the balance sheet of the SRA.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total liabilities on the balance sheet of the SRA will be if it underwrites the proposed finance for Network Rail; if he will list the liabilities on the SRA balance sheet; what the total value of assets held by the SRA is; and which SRA assets banks whose loans to Network Rail are underwritten by the SRA will hold charges against. [66054]
  813W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 June 2002,Official Report, columns 971–973. The assets of the SRA were outlined in its 2000–01 annual report and will be updated in its 2001–02 annual report to be published shortly.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the legal status will be of the operating subsidiary of Network Rail, as described in the Minute to Parliament. [67166]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Sales
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) overseas visits by Ministers in his Department and (b) visits to Ministers in the UK by overseas Government Ministers and officials have taken place in each of the last three years in which UK arms sales have been discussed. [65262]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information about Cabinet Ministers' overseas travel including the destination and purpose of each trip is published annually by the Cabinet Office. Copies of the lists covering the period 2 May 1997 to March 2001 are in the Libraries of the House. The list for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 is currently being assembled, and will be published in due course. Information about visits to Ministers in the UK by overseas Government Ministers and officials is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Russia
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what injuries were sustained by his Department's staff during the construction of the new Moscow embassy. [66109]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As far as our records show, UK-based members of staff sustained a total of 17 injuries on the construction site of the new embassy in Moscow during the period August 1997 to December 1999. Injuries included cuts, sprains, bruises and one case of fracture. We do not have access to records of injuries caused to local construction workers, but there was one fatality.

  Thailand
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 814W, on Thailand, when a report on the action taken by the Thai police into the case was received; whether it explains why Mr. Sinnott's body was moved to Bangkok; and for what reason the British Consular Agent in Bangkok was not informed. [65850]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The final report by the Thai police, detailing their investigation into the death of Peter Sinnott, has not yet been received. Our embassy in Bangkok is continuing to press the authorities for the report which we hope will deal with some of these issues.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many oral questions he has transferred to other Departments in each of the last 18 months. [65511]

  Mr. Straw
  According to our records, this Department has transferred out six oral questions to be answered by other Departments since June 2001.

  Oral questions are only transferred out when it is more appropriate for another Government Department to answer the question, and when the other Government Department has accepted that they should answer. Also, we normally only transfer out questions that are unlikely to be reached on the day of oral questions and that would therefore be given a written answer. Of the six questions transferred out, only one would have been answered orally. This was a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) asking about the Ilisu Dam, which was transferred to the DTI for answer.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the FYR of Macedonia regarding membership of NATO. [67181]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed NATO issues with the Macedonian Foreign Minister on 22 May.

  We strongly support the enlargement of NATO to countries ready for the responsibilities of membership.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the commitments are of the G8 regarding the situation in Zimbabwe. [67128]

  Mr. MacShane
  At Kananaskis on 27 June the G8 agreed that they would focus their development efforts "on cultures that demonstrate a political and financial commitment to good governance and the rule of law, investing in their people and pursuing policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty".

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British passport holders in Zimbabwe have a right of entry into the UK. [67580]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are approximately 26,000 British nationals registered with the High Commission in Harare. The overall size of the British community is estimated to be up to 40,000. The majority of these are British citizens who have right of abode in the UK and therefore enjoy unrestricted entry into this country.

  India
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 814W, on India, if he will make a statement on the effect of the disturbances in

  815W
  Gujarat on British citizens and their relatives; and what further assistance the High Commission has given them. [67762]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The violence in Gujarat which began on 28 February 2002 has now largely stopped. There were two reported British deaths from communal violence in June. However the situation is still tense in some urban and rural areas. We are continually monitoring the situation and ensure that our travel advice is always up to date.

  Consular staff in India and London will continue to offer all possible assistance that it properly can to relatives and to all British nationals affected by the disturbances, though the British Consulate in Bombay has not received any such requests in recent months.

  We remain in close contact with the Indian authorities over the safety of British nationals in Gujurat.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held on 17 and 18 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [67731]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the June meeting of the General Affairs Council.

  The Council took note of the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament at its May part sessions in Strasbourg and Brussels (Documents 9076–02 and 9316–02).

  The Council adopted the 'A' points listed in Document 9830–02.

  Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Progress of work in other council configurations

  The Council took note of work under way in other configurations of the Council on the basis of a presidency progress report, in particular noting the importance of the political agreement reached on the 'pension funds directive', as well as the final adoption of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant.

  Preparation of the Seville European Council

  The Council discussed measures to prepare the Council for enlargement. on the basis of a report by the presidency and the Council Secretary-General. This set out proposals for consideration by the Seville European Council on the preparation. organisation and conduct of the European Council, the structure of Council formations, improvements to the functioning of the presidency and greater transparency in the Council's legislative activity. The UK supported the broad direction of the Presidency's proposals.

  The Council discussed the EU's strategy in preparation for the World summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. The Council agreed on the need for the EU to continue to be proactive, to show leadership and to take initiatives to contribute to a successful outcome at the summit. The UK strongly agreed. The Council agreed Conclusions setting out the EU's position, to be forwarded to the Seville European Council.
  816W
  The Council took note of the contributions submitted to the Seville European Council by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 June and discussed several aspects of immigration policy, in preparation for discussion at Seville. The debate focused in particular on how to co-operate with third countries against illegal immigration.

  In discussion of enlargement, the Council reached agreement on a framework for handling the issue of direct payments which will be incorporated in the EU common positions on agriculture. This noted that,
  "In accordance with the timeframe agreed in Goteborg and Laeken, this decision [on direct payments] will be taken in due time to comply with the steps and timetable to be agreed in the Seville European Council in relation with the final phase of the enlargement negotiations, and without prejudging the forthcoming internal discussions on Community policies."

  Middle East

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed recent developments in the Middle East and the way ahead, in preparation for further discussion at Seville.

  India—Pakistan

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed the tensions between India and Pakistan. While welcoming recent improvements, they noted that the situation nevertheless remained precarious.

  EU Special Representatives—Afghanistan

  The Council agreed on the nomination of Francesc Vendrell as the next EU Special Representative for Afghanistan to succeed Klaus-Peter Klaiber, whose mandate expires on 30 June 2002.

  ESDP

  The Council approved a general framework for the financing of EU operations having military or defence implications. This framework covers two types of costs:
  common costs, i.e. costs that cannot be allotted to individual states taking part in an operation. This covers a number of costs for headquarters for EU-led operations (e.g. transport costs. administration, communications, transportation/travel, barracks and lodging/infrastructure) and for supporting the operational force as a whole (such as infrastructure);
  all other costs, which will be considered individual and financed on a 'costs-lie where they fall' basis.

  The Council agreed to decide on a case-by-case basis whether transportation of the forces, barracks and lodging for the forces would be funded in common.

  A full review of this framework will take place after a first operation is concluded or by June 2004, or earlier if necessary, taking into account the lessons learnt from conduct of any operations and their administration.

  Iran

  The Council adopted Conclusions restating its support for the process of reform in Iran and its willingness to strengthen relations between the EU and Iran. The Council reached political agreement on negotiating directives for a trade and co-operation agreement with Iran, which would be linked to separate instruments on political dialogue and counter-terrorism. The Council stressed that the launching of negotiations and progress in matters of concern, such as human rights, nonproliferation and counter-terrorism, will contribute to strengthening dialogue and co-operation. The Union sees progress in all these areas as interdependent, indissociable and mutually reinforcing elements of the EU's overall approach to EU-Iran relations.
  817W
  Western Balkans

  The Council heard presentations from High Representative Solana on the implementation of the Serbia and Montenegro agreement and from EU Special Representative Le Roy on the situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It adopted Conclusions: welcoming progress in implementing the Serbia and Montenegro agreement; recalling the importance of the FRY's international obligations, including to the ICTY; supporting UNMIK's work in Kosovo and its co-operation with Macedonia on the 2001 border agreement; underlining the importance of a free and fair election campaign in Macedonia. The Council thanked the departing Bosnia High Representative, Ambassador Wolfgang Petritsch, for his efforts and congratulated Lord Ashdown on taking up his functions as new High Representative and EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Council welcomed the fact that the work on the negotiating mandate for a stabilisation and association agreement with Albania had been concluded. The mandate will be adopted and negotiations opened after the summer, depending on further progress on the reform agenda and political stability.

  Zimbabwe

  The Council adopted Conclusions expressing deep concern at the deterioration of the situation. The European Union believes that the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has an important role to play and will seek to build an enhanced dialogue with the SADC and other relevant international actors.

  International Criminal Court (ICC)

  The Council adopted Conclusions, recalling its Common Position on the ICC and welcoming the forthcoming entry into force of the ICC statute on 1 July. The EU expressed its concern about the draft US legislation which would restrict US participation in UN peacekeeping operations, prohibit transfer of information to the ICC or prohibit US military assistance to parties to the ICC.

  Afghanistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were taken prisoners in Kunduz since November 2001; when these arrests took place; what the nationality of these people was; and if he will make a statement. [67759]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have asked about this but the relevant authorities in Kabul have told us that there is no accurate information available on the number of prisoners taken at Kunduz or of their nationalities.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many prisoners-of-war were transported from Kunduz to(a) Sheberghan and (b) Mazar-i-Sharif since November 2001; when these transports took place; what the nationality was of the transported people; and if he will make a statement [67758]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have made inquiries but the relevant authorities in Afghanistan have said to us that there is no accurate information available on the transfer of prisoners of war from Kunduz to Sheberghan and Mazar-i-Sharif.

  Korea
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to improve diplomatic relations between North Korea and South Korea following recent incidents. [67536]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission, of which the UK is a member, is investigating the recent confrontation between the naval forces of the DPRK and the Republic of Korea.

  We maintain links with the Governments of both countries through our embassies in Seoul and Pyongyang, and we strongly encourage the preservation of regional stability, and the promotion of inter-Korean relations through a process of dialogue.

  Visas
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when normal visa services will resume at posts in(a) New Delhi, (b) Mumbai, (c) Islamabad and (d) Karachi, and if he will make a statement. [68383]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In India, we continue to operate a full service in Chennai and Kolkata and the service in Mumbai and New Delhi continues to expand. But it is too early to say when a full service there can resume.

  Because of the continuing terrorist threat, an early resumption of a full service in Pakistan is unlikely, although every effort is being made to maximise the number of applicants who can use the courier-assisted service.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  End-of-life Vehicles
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the cost to(a) local authorities in London and (b) all other local authorities if the European End of Life Vehicle-Directive is implemented with the cost of (i) de-pollution, (ii) recycling and (iii) scrapping of the vehicle being placed on the last owner; [67552]

  (2) what plans she has to fund the costs of removing abandoned vehicles by local authorities. [67553]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 592W.

  Fuel Companies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps Ofgem is taking to ensure that fuel companies offer fuel efficiency advice in line with their Social Action Plan at the point when salesmen contact customers with a view to transferring. [67312]

  Mr. Wilson
  Current supply licence conditions require suppliers to prepare, and seek Ofgem approval of, a code of practice setting out how they will make energy
  819W
  efficiency advice available to customers. It is not a formal licensing requirement to do this in discussions over transfer from one supplier to another.

  Ofgem has recently published its "Report on the quality of energy efficiency advice provided by gas and electricity suppliers", which concluded that all the companies could do more to help customers. Ofgem will be discussing the report with suppliers and considering the need for further action to ensure that companies meet their licence obligations in this area.

  As regards marketing by gas and electricity suppliers, Ofgem has recently consulted on proposals to make the regulation of this activity more effective. Ofgem is currently considering the next steps, including areas of possible research.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many times consumers have been compensated by fuel companies, following erroneous transfers, in line with licence condition 48; and if she will make a statement; [67314]

  (2) what steps Ofgem has taken to ensure that fuel companies are training their marketing staff to ensure that they are not misleading customers, in line with licence condition 48. [67313]

  Mr. Wilson
  These are matters for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). I have, therefore, written to the chairman and chief executive of Ofgem, setting out the questions raised and asking him to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of representation by members of small businesses on the boards of Government-funded organisations charged with supporting SMEs. [66749]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Council advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Chief Executive of the Small Business Service on the needs and concerns of SMEs. As of 1 July it has 23 members, all but one are from small businesses.

  The Ethnic Minority Business Forum advises DTI Ministers and the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service on the right help and advice ethnic minority businesses need for growth and success. All 20 members are small business owners.

  Contract grant

  Project title

  Start date

  Value(£)

  End date

  Total cost of project (£)

  Percentage of funding from DTI

  DTI spend1 (£)

  SRC Harvesting and Logistics—Phase 2

  25 February 2002

  133,519

  24 February 2004

  267,038

  50

  0

  Integrated Biofuels, Pyrolysis and Energy Conversion Demonstration Plant

  9 January 2001

  1,161,300

  8 July 2003

  4,645,100

  25

  321,620

  Investigation of Low-till Systems for the Establishment of Willow Coppice in Grassland

  1 January 2001

  76,500

  28 February 2003

  153,000

  50

  47,657

  Investigation of Single Stem Tree Plantations for Bioenergy

  1 April 2001

  29,500

  30 June 2002

  59,000

  50

  11,458

  Development of an Integrated Wood Fuel Supply System to Deliver SRC from Field to Power Station

  15 March 2000

  173,041

  31 July 2002

  346,082

  50

  154,671

  820W
  The Business Link Operators have an average of 55 per cent. SME representation on their boards.

  The Small Business Service's new Strategy Board will include up to six non-executive independent members. At least two members will have a small business background.

  Used Tyres
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the work of the joint Government/Industry Scrap Tyre Working Group since July 1999; and what the most recent figure is for the percentage of scrapped tyres from which the industry recovers value. [67680]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Used Tyre Working Group (UTWG) publishes a report each year which is distributed to interested parties and made available through its website at www.tyredisposal.co.uk. The latest report is dated July 2001 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The UTWG intends to publish its 2002 report later in the year in light of responses to the DTI's March 2002 discussion paper on used tyre issues. Copies of this paper can also be found in the Libraries of the House.

  UTWG statistics for 2000 show that the industry recovered value from around 63 per cent. of the 450,000 tonnes of tyres disposed that year. This was less than in previous years due to the closure of the UK's single largest used tyre treatment facility in 2000. Since then, significant new processing capacity has been developed. The UTWG is currently compiling statistics for 2001 which are expected to show this processing capacity feeding through to an improved recovery rate.

  Aggregates Industry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in the United Kingdom aggregates industry. [67455]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Quarrying/Aggregates industry directly employs around 20,000 people.

  Bolda Biofuels Ltd.
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been granted by her Department to Bolda Biofuels Ltd. in the last three years, under what grant regime, on what date, for what purpose it was granted; and if she will make a statement. [64672]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following projects involving Border Biofuels have been supported under the Department's Sustainable Energy Programme in the last three years:
  821W

  Contract grant

  Project title

  Start date

  Value (£)

  End date

  Total cost of project (£)

  Percentage of funding from DTI

  DTI spend1 (£)

  Overcoming Planning Barriers for Biomass Power Plants

  6 August 1999

  80,000

  1 September 1999

  80,000

  100

  80,000

  The Effects of Pollution Abatement Techniques Applied to Biomass Pyrolysis Energy Plant

  21 July 1999

  42,654

  31 August 2000

  60,935

  70

  42,654

  Provision of Site Services in Aid of Ecological Monitoring

  15 February 1999

  20,867

  14 February 2004

  20,867

  100

  20,387

  Evaluation of Low-cost Establishment Systems for Short Rotation Coppice

  1 January 1999

  211,560

  30 June 2003

  391,120

  50

  170,856

  The Export of UK Bio-Energy Expertise: A Study of the Feasibility of Working in Poland by a Consortium of UK Companies

  1 January 1999

  14,776

  31 December 2000

  36,940

  40

  14,776

  Design Construction and Testing of a Continuous Flow Wood Fuel Dryer Using Low Grade Heat

  1 March 1998

  270,870

  30 September 2000

  816,365

  33

  270,870

  1 To date

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects consultations to begin on draft regulations to prohibit the compilation of worker blacklists by employment agencies for the purposes of discrimination in relation to recruitment and the treatment of workers already employed. [66051]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: No date has been set for the commencement of consultations on such draft regulations.

  North-West Development Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs in(a) the north-west, (b) Lancashire and (c) Burnley have been (i) created and (ii) sustained in the last year as a direct result of the work of the north-west development agency. [65550]

  Alan Johnson
  During 2001–02, 14,655 jobs were created, and 14,868 jobs were safeguarded, across the north-west as a result of the work of the north-west development agency. Of these, 1,651 jobs were created, and 1,684 jobs safeguarded, in Lancashire; and 593 jobs were created, and 311 jobs safeguarded, in Burnley during the same period.

  Construction Industry
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 936W, on the construction industry, which organisations have made representations; what progress has been made to resolve concerns raised about the operation of the Construction Skills Certification Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [66042]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received correspondence from a number of MPs, who have written on behalf of companies, about the operation of the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS Ltd.). Representations to the Department, are generally held to have been received in confidence and I have no plans to disclose details of correspondence made to me about CSCS Ltd., an independent private company.

  As regards the question on progress made to resolve concerns raised about the Construction Skills Certification
  822W
  Scheme (CSCS), I understand from CSCS that discussions are on-going with the various associations about affiliation and the Department is being kept informed of developments.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of her Department's funding of RDAs was spent on physical regeneration in financial years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [66241]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2000–01, the RDAs had a number of programmes that could contribute to physical regeneration. None of the DTI's funding for RDAs was for this purpose. The reported spending on "Land and Property", the RDAs' main programme that includes physical regeneration, by the RDAs was £171.98 million gross spend).

  For 2001–02, final figures on spending by the RDAs on physical regeneration are not yet available; figures for the "Land and Property" programme will be published in the RDAs annual report.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many registered(a) architects and (b) chartered surveyors are working in each regional development agency. [66242]

  Alan Johnson
  There are two registered architects working for the Regional Development Agencies, both with Yorkshire Forward. A total of 131 chartered surveyors are employed by the Agencies and this figure is broken down as follows:

  Area

  Advantage West Midlands

  13

  East of England Development Agency

  6

  East Midlands Development Agency

  10

  North West Development Agency

  25

  One NorthEast

  23

  South East of England Development Agency

  14

  South West of England Development Agency

  24

  Yorkshire Forward

  16

  Brownfield Development
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the projected amount of brownfield land to be redeveloped is, broken down by regional development agencies. [66211]

  Alan Johnson
  RDAs were required to set targets for the amount of brownfield land they will remediate in 2002–03 and 2003–04. These targets are set out in the following table:

  Hectares

  Agency

  2002–03

  2003–04

  North-east

  80

  60

  North-west

  442

  602

  Yorkshire Forward

  86

  127

  East Midlands

  119

  125

  West Midlands

  299

  468

  East

  20

  20

  South-East

  40

  43

  South-west

  140

  140

  London

  30

  30

  Waste Disposal
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the vitrification process; and what studies the Department has undertaken of its validity as a form of disposal. [66099]

  Mr. Wilson
  Vitrification converts liquid high level radioactive waste into a solid and stable form. The Department has undertaken no studies of vitrification.

  Industrial Training Construction Board
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964, amended by The Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964 (Amendment) Order 1992 in respect of the Construction Industry Training Board levy; and if she will make a statement. [67429]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964 (Amendment) Order 1992 defines the activities of the construction industry in relation to which the Construction Industry Training Board exercises its functions. The definition was decided in full consultation with the industry through its main employer organisations and would only be reviewed if it was felt necessary or desirable to remove an activity from the scope of the Board. I have not received any proposals from any part of the industry to amend the definition.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many performance targets she has set for her Department; and how many that were set for last year have been dropped this year. [64273]
  824W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Department's performance targets are set out in Public Service Agreements (PSA) agreed as part of Spending Reviews and are published in Spending Review White Papers, available from the House of Commons Library; or from the Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. The most recent targets were agreed as part of the Spending Review 2000; we have not dropped any of these. However, employment related targets transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions following machinery of government changes after the last general election.

  Performance against our PSAs and other high level supporting targets is published in our departmental annual report, available from the House of Commons library or via our website, www.dfes.gov.uk.

  Schools (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) pupils and (b) teachers there are in each school in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if she will make a statement. [65064]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the following table. This relates to numbers of pupils published in the Primary and Secondary School Performance Tables for 2001. Otherwise, school level information is not routinely published.

  Number of pupils on roll in schools1 in Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Total pupils

  Maintained primary schools

  Buildwas Primary School

  84

  Church Preen Primary School

  73

  Grafton Primary School

  40

  Minsterley Primary School

  150

  Coleham Primary School

  393

  Crowmoor Primary School

  335

  Mount Pleasant Junior School

  158

  Harlescott Junior School

  374

  St. George's Junior School

  353

  Meole Brace Junior School

  193

  The Wilfred Owen School

  239

  Oakland Community Primary School

  117

  Belvidere Primary School

  228

  Greenfields Primary School

  328

  The Martin Wilson School

  217

  Radbrook Primary School

  272

  Bicton Church of England Primary School

  87

  Christ Church Church of England Primary School

  133

  St. Andrew's Church of England Primary School

  72

  Hadnall Church of England Primary School

  62

  Longnor Church of England Primary School

  87

  Pontesbury Church of England Primary School

  203

  Bomere Heath Church of England Primary School

  105

  Oxon Church of England Primary School

  349

  St. Giles Church of England Primary School

  300

  St. Lucia's Church of England Primary School

  129

  St. Thomas and St. Anne Church of England Primary School

  134

  Long Meadow Church of England Primary School

  336

  Trinity Church of England Primary School

  129

  Condover Church of England Primary School

  102

  Dorrington Church of England (Aided) Primary School

  58

  Longden Church of England Primary School

  97

  Westbury St Mary's Church of England (Aided) School

  99

  St. Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School

  141

  Holy Cross Church of England Junior School

  303

  The Grange Junior School

  212

  Greenacres Primary School

  260

  825W

  Number of pupils on roll in schools1 in Shrewsbury and Atchant

  Total pupils

  Maintained secondary schools

  The Priory School

  739

  The Wakeman School

  661

  Sundorne School

  446

  Belvidere School

  747

  Meole Brace School

  1144

  The Mary Webb School

  573

  The Grange School

  579

  Special schools

  Severndale

  201

  RNIB Condover Hall School

  63

  Independent schools

  Adcote School for Girls

  86

  Concord College

  292

  Cruckton Hall School

  55

  Shewsbury High School

  577

  Shewsbury School

  696

  The Orchard School

  7

  1Only includes schools which have pupils eligible for Key Stage 2 tests or pupils aged 15 and for whom results are published in the Primary and Secondary Performance Tables. The Primary Performance Tables only include maintained primary schools with Key Stage 2 eligible pupils. Independent schools and infant schools are therefore excluded.

  Source:

  2001 Primary and Secondary Performance Tables.

  Amraf Training plc
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received concerning the closure of Amraf Training plc and payments to it by her Department. [65492]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Administrative receivers were appointed to Amraf Training plc on 1 October 2001. To 28 June 2002, the Department has received 66 representations concerning the closure. Details of any payments made by the Department to Amraf Training plc are held as commercial in confidence.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) paper and (b) other goods purchased by her Department was recycled paper in each year since 1997; what the annual total cost of these purchases was; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if she will make a statement. [65767]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department changed stationery supplier in December last year because our previously contracted supplier ceased trading. As a result, we have been unable to obtain accurate data concerning the annual total cost of purchases. Mechanisms are now in place to ensure that this information will be available in future.

  Green Minister
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who her Department's Green Minister is; when they(a) have attended and (b) plan to attend meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee; what the outcomes of meetings were for her Department's activities; and if she will make a statement. [65985]
  826W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Our Green Minister is Baroness Ashton of Upholland.

  Following the general election in June 2001, the previously informal Green Ministers Committee was upgraded to a Cabinet Sub-Committee of ENV and it is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. Therefore I cannot relate progress or outcomes by my Department to anything that has been discussed.

  However, I am happy to confirm my Department's commitment to promoting sustainable development, including green issues. Our departmental strategy to 2006 mentions sustainable development in relation to our investment strategy for schools, colleges and universities and in the modernisation of the Department's estate.

  Rural Secondary Schools
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) environmental assessment and (b) assessment of the traffic implications she has made with respect to the specialisation of secondary schools in rural areas. 166780]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: No assessment has been made of environmental or traffic implications of specialisation for secondary schools in rural areas. We do not expect specialist school designation to have a significant impact on transport in rural areas. Specialist school designation is about raising standards of achievement across the whole school. Specialist schools enrich the learning opportunities and broaden the range of courses in their designated specialism, but they continue to teach a broad and balanced curriculum and meet the needs of all their pupils.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the extent of specialisation of secondary schools in rural areas. [66785]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Of the 992 specialist schools to be operational from September this year, 21 (2.1 per cent.) are located in areas defined in the Register of Educational Establishments as mixed, predominantly rural or wholly rural areas. This compares with 2.8 per cent. of secondary schools nationally.

  From October 2002, in order to assist small mainstream schools (many of them in rural areas) with their specialist school applications we have reduced the sponsorship requirement. Those with under 500 pupils on roll will have to raise sponsorship on the basis of £100 per pupil. subject to a minimum of £20,000.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66938]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  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
  827W
  value of claims met would exceed the cost of 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 30.2.11a).

  My Department building insurance, however, is paid on an annual basis, so any impact from September 11 has not been reflected as yet. The total insurance paid in 2001–02 was £121,171.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66956]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A list of the buildings owned by my Department and their estimated market value are detailed within the National Asset Register, published in July 2001 (Cm5221). This register lists all assets owed by Departments and their valuation.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will provide detailed information on PFI schemes, withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, to bona fide research bodies to make objective assessments of their value for money. [67076]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has no PFI schemes, which have been withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Connexions
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the piloting of Connexions in rural areas. [67087]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: Tackling rural issues was one of the aspects which was tested in the piloting of the Connexions Service, the results of which were published by the Department for Education and Skills in the 'Lessons Learned from Connexions Pilots' report on 17 October 2001 (Research Brief ref: RB 308, Research Report ref: RR308). The document is available in the House of Commons Library.

  We have also recently commissioned the University of Hull to conduct a study into the relative costs associated with delivering Connexions in rural and urban areas. This study will run from July to November 2002 with a report to be published by the Department for Education and Skills within three months of the completion of the field work. The findings of the study will help to inform a planned review of the Connexions funding arrangements due to be undertaken during 2003. All Connexions Partnerships have been informed of the study and are welcome to be involved where they feel that they have a particular contribution.

  The Connexions Service is also involved with the Countryside Agency's study developing practice in rural Connexions Partnerships. This study is at the
  828W
  commissioning stage, but we will in due course be disseminating examples of innovative approaches to help Partnerships deliver a high quality multi-agency support service to young people living in rural areas.

  Diversity Pathfinder Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities are taking part in the diversity pathfinder scheme. [67189]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: There are six Local Education Authorities involved in the Diversity Pathfinders Project. They are;

  1. Birmingham

  2. Cornwall

  3. Hertfordshire

  4. Middlesbrough

  5. Newham

  6. Portsmouth.

  Warwickshire and North Tyneside have been invited to join the project as they are implementing interesting plans to promote diversity in their regions. Their activities are not being funded by the DfES but they are involved in the associated research project.

  LearnDirect Plus
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have enrolled on LearnDirect Plus in West Derbyshire constituency since it began. [67431]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  660 people have enrolled on learndirect courses in the West Derbyshire constituency since Ufi/learndirect was rolled out nationally in October 2000.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment her Department has made of the percentages of pupils staying on in full-time education or training post-age 16 in(a) schools with sixth forms and (b) schools without sixth forms in the last period for which figures are available. [67629]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The primary source of information on the changes in the activities of young people after completing compulsory education is the Youth Cohort Study (YCS). The following table shows details in the figures requested.

  In full-time education or training post-age 16

  Comprehensive schools—with sixth form

  86%

  Comprehensive schools—no sixth form

  83%

  These estimates are for England. Equivalent estimates for schools other than comprehensive schools are not available.

  Formula Grant
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to ensure that
  829W
  the costs associated with high pupil turnover in schools in London are compensated for (a) in the education service block in formula grant and (b) by specific grant. [67813]

  (2) what plans she has to reflect the costs associated with educating children in areas of high ethnicity in (a) the education service block in formula grant and (b) by specific grant. [67814]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the financial effect of changing the measure of ethnicity within the education formula grant from a country of birth indicator to an English as a second language indicator, broken down by local authority. [67815]

  (4) what plans she has to redirect education funding to ensure that the Government's national child poverty targets are met. [67816]

  (5) what plans she has to reflect problems associated with the recruitment and retention of teachers in London (a) in the education service block in formula grant and (b) by specific grant. [67817]

  (6) what plans she has to reflect the costs of high population density in relation to school transport. [67818]

  (7) what estimate she has made of the financial effect of changing the measure of ethnicity within the education formula grant from a country of birth indicator to school census data indicator, broken down by local authority. [67819]

  (8) what plans she has to reflect the costs associated with educating children in areas of high social exclusion and deprivation (a) in the education service block in formula grant and (b) by specific grant. [67820]

  (9) if she will make a statement concerning the impact of her proposed changes to the area cost adjustment on schools in London. [67825]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government announced today the issue of a consultation paper on options for reform of the distribution of grant to local authorities: copies have been placed in the Libraries. Within the consultation paper there are four options for reform of the education SSA formula. All these options have a common structure consisting of an amount per pupil together with top ups for areas of significant deprivation and areas where it costs more to recruit and retain staff. The options exemplify different measures of deprivation including children in families on income support or working families credit, children with English as an Additional Language, and children from ethnic minorities. The options do not include factors for high population density or high pupil turnover. The paper contains exemplifications of the changes to total SSA for 2002–03 that would result from each of the four options. It does not separately identify the contribution to change of each element of the formula, because it would not be meaningful to do so: nor does it identify the contribution of each element of the formula to the total. We will be making the data underlying the options available to interested parties, so that they may make a full contribution to the consultation. Decisions on specific grants will be announced following the spending review outcome.

  London Academies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated timetable is for the opening of the proposed London academies; and if she will make a statement. [67838]

  Mr. Miliband
  Academies will open this September in Haringey and Bexley. We expect more to open year on year with at least 25 London academies open by 2007. Academies are an important strand of the Government's drive to raise standards, improve behaviour and widen choice across London.

  School Violence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information the Government have collated on the number of teachers in maintained schools who have been the victims of serious assaults by(a) pupils and (b) parents in each of the last five years. [68260]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government do not collect statistics in the form requested. However, 135 serious injuries to teachers caused by violence were reported to the Health and Safety Executive in Great Britain in 2000–01, the same number as in 1999–2000. Statistics for earlier years are not available. The provisional figure for 2000–01 was 130. The figures, which relate to all schools and cannot be broken down further, cover major injuries and others resulting in more than three days' absence from work. Information is not available on whether the assaults were carried out by pupils, parents or others.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been inspected or reinspected in each year since 1997 by Ofsted and of those how many(a) were found to have serious weaknesses; (b) were found to be failing, (c) were found to have moved from 'serious weakness' to 'failing'. (d) were found to have moved from 'failing' to 'serious weakness', (e) were found no longer to have serious weaknesses and (f) were found no longer to be failing. [68650]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. I have asked HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Local Education Authority Inspection
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities have been inspected or reinspected in each year by Ofsted since 1997; and of those how many(a) were found to be failing, (b) were found to be failing on reinspection and (c) were found no longer to be failing. [68651]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. I have asked HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gibraltar
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason he has declined to meet the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [68046]

  The Prime Minister
  My diary commitments have meant a meeting has not been possible. I have encouraged the Chief Minister to continue his dialogue with my right hon. Friend's the Foreign Secretary and Minister for Europe. The Foreign Secretary met the Chief Minister on 3 May.

SCOTLAND

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken against employers in Scotland who are failing to pay the national minimum wage. [65305]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Inland Revenue has specialist enforcement teams in Aberdeen and East Kilbride who are responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage in Scotland. The teams follow up complaints made by workers and third parties about non-compliance and use other Revenue risk based data to identify employers for inquiry. Since April 1999, the teams have issued 19 enforcement notices and 29 penalty notices, leading to recovery of over £600,000 in wage arrears for low paid workers.

  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure the enforcement of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [65308]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Inland Revenue enforcement teams in Aberdeen and East Kilbride are responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage in Scotland. Since April 1999, they have completed over 1,700 investigations, discovered non-compliance in 27 per cent. of cases and recovered over £620,000 in wage arrears for low paid workers.

  Defence Employment
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs in Scotland are(a) directly and (b) indirectly related to the defence industry. [65306]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Expenditure on defence equipment is estimated to support approximately 6,000 jobs in Scottish businesses directly and a further 3,000 jobs indirectly.

  Aircraft Carriers (Employment Prospects)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the number of potential defence related jobs in Scotland in connection with the two planned UK aircraft carrier contracts. [65307]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to announce decisions around the end of the year on the selection of the prime contractor for the new aircraft carriers. The carrier programme will 832W
  provide work for thousands of employees in defence industries across the UK. Scottish shipyards have been involved in supplying support to both of the competing prime contractors and clearly have good opportunities to secure a share of the work.

  Waverley Line
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has held with the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority about the future of the Waverley line from Edinburgh to Carlisle. [65309]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I understand that the Waverley Railway Partnership recently launched a consultation process, which will run until the end of August, in conjunction with detailed technical assessments of the route to give the people of Midlothian, the Borders and Edinburgh an opportunity to comment on the re-establishment of the line.

  I hope to discuss a range of issues including the proposed reopening of the Waverley line when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet senior management of Railtrack later this month.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the future of nuclear energy provision in Scotland. [65310]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The future role of nuclear energy in the UK is one of the issues included in the current consultation which follows the PIU review of energy policy to 2050 and which forms part of the preparation for a Government White Paper around the turn of the year.

  Scottish Regiments
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the implications for Scotland of the future of Scottish regiments. [65311]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).

  Enterprise
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met CBI Scotland to discuss enterprise in Scotland. [65312]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I attended a dinner with CBI Scotland's Growing Business Forum on 24 June, together with the Scottish Executive Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, to discuss a range of issues relating to enterprise in Scotland.

  Cross-border Road Links
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on cross-border road links, with special reference to the Al. [65313]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers on a variety of transport issues including cross-border road links. The Scottish Executive
  833W
  plan to upgrade the A1 to dual carriageway standard between Howburn and Houndwood in the Scottish Borders at a cost of nearly £5 million. Construction is due to start on 15 July and should be completed in 2003.

  Euro
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meetings she has had with business and industrial leaders regarding the impact on Scotland of the United Kingdom joining the euro. [65314]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular meetings with businesses and industrial leaders to discuss a wide range of issues.

  The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor in October 1997, and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999.

  The five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

  Scottish Parliament
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she plans to make a statement on the consultation process on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [65315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I expect to be in a position to announce the outcome of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament in the autumn.

  Airports
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the ability of Scotland's airport infrastructure to keep up with projected growth in passenger numbers. [65316]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government will, jointly with the Scottish Executive, very shortly publish a consultation document on the future of Scotland's air services and airports for the next 30 years. We intend to undertake an extensive consultation process. I hope that this will result in a productive debate on all aspects of the matter.

  Drug Crime (Asset Seizures)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the action being taken to seize the assets of drug barons in Scotland. [65317]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Strengthening the powers to confiscate illegal gains, from drug dealing and also other serious crimes, is a priority for the Government. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will put in place an enhanced and effective system for seizing assets that have resulted from criminal activity.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the European common fisheries policy as it affects Scotland. [65318]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Responsibility for fisheries policy in Scotland rests with the Scottish Executive.
  834W
  The European Commission has recognised that the Common Fisheries Policy is in need of reform. HM Government and the Scottish Executive are working together to ensure that the United Kingdom's and Scotland's interests are fully represented as member states discuss the Commission's reform proposals.

  Asbestosis Compensation
  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in securing the payment of compensation to asbestosis victims in Scotland. [65319]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There continues to be good progress. In relation to Chester Street, over £3 million has now been paid out by the Association of British Insurers and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in cases where the insurance policyholder is insolvent. In addition, the Government have welcomed the recent judicial decision by the House of Lords in relation to the Fairchild case.

  Manufacturing
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the recent performance of the manufacturing industry in Scotland. [65320]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The manufacturing sector continues to be very important to the economy of Scotland, employing around 281,000 in December 2001 and supporting a further 180,000 jobs in the Scottish economy.

  Oil and Gas Taxation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to the oral answer of 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 708, on oil and gas taxation, what action she has taken to investigate the procedures for subcontracting work in the oil industry. [65321]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I take every opportunity in discussions with the oil and gas companies to underline the strengths of the UK supply and contracting industries. Provided that the UK supply and contracting industries can remain competitive in the European and global context I am confident that they will continue to win work.

  Financial Exclusion
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next plans to meet representatives from credit unions in Scotland to discuss financial exclusion. [65322]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I am very aware of the importance of credit unions' role in tackling financial exclusion in Scotland and look forward to meetings with representatives. The Financial Services Authority commenced its new regulatory regime for credit unions at the beginning of July. This regime is in place to ensure that depositors are appropriately protected. The Scottish Executive have made available funding support which, among other aims, is designed to help unions adjust to the new arrangements.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  European Law
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Advocate-General what role she has in relation to challenges which are alleged to be contraventions of European law. [65327]

  The Advocate-General
  Court actions against the Scottish Executive or challenges to legislation of the Scottish Parliament alleging failure to comply with European law must be intimated to me as devolution issues. I then decide whether it would be appropriate for me, as Advocate-General, to intervene. That will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Advocate-General what representations she has received in the previous month relating to possible breaches of rights within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights. [65328]

  The Advocate-General
  In the past month 22 devolution issues, intimated to me in terms of the Scotland Act, have concerned matters under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have received no other representations about the ECHR.

  Devolution
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised with her since 11 June. [65329]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris).

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since 11 June under the Scotland Act 1998. [65330]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris).

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since 11 June under the Scotland Act 1998. [65331]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris).

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised since II June under the Scotland Act 1998. [65332]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris).

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Census 1901 Website
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the 1901 online census service will be fully functional. [65333]
  836W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I cannot give a firm date when the 1901 Census will be fully functional. However I can state that QinetiQ Ltd., who are the contractors responsible for setting up the site and providing the online service, have been making technical improvements to it. QinetiQ Ltd. is currently testing the site and the Public Record Office is also carrying out its own independent test programme. Once the final results of these tests are available, it will be possible to decide whether the service is sufficiently robust for it to go live. The final testing is under way and we anticipate that it will be completed by the end of July.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the 1901 Census Online is expected to be available at service centres; and at what date he expects that Internet access will be restored to the Census. [67577]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this day to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the proposals in Making Decisions; and if he will make a statement. [65339]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government remain committed to reforming this important area of the law. When parliamentary time allows, it will legislate to improve and clarify the decision-making process for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves or who cannot communicate their decisions. In advance of securing parliamentary time, the Government are taking forward a number of initiatives that will benefit people, and enable legislation to be effective quickly. We are supported in this work by our recently established Consultative Forum on Mental Incapacity, involving a wide range of stakeholders, to develop a shared understanding of how we can best improve the lives of people with mental incapacity and their carers.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures she is taking to protect people with mental incapacity in the courts system. [65346]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are working with the Consultative Forum on Mental Incapacity to develop a shared understanding of how we can best improve the lives of people with mental incapacity and their carers, and we remain committed to reforming this area of law.

  Also, in civil proceedings the Official Solicitor can act on behalf of parties with mental incapacity. Guidance has been issued to court staff in the Crown and county courts on the service they should provide under the Disability Discrimination Act.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to draw the attention of the Judicial Studies Board to the
  837W
  comments about rape trials made in the HMIC/CPSI Thematic report on rape; and if he will make a statement. [65340]

  Yvette Cooper
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) chaired by Lord Justice Waller.

  The board provides specialist training to those judges authorised to hear cases of rape through its regular Serious Sexual Offences Seminars.

  The Criminal Committee of the JSB will be considering the comments made in the joint inspectors report over the coming months.

  Transsexuals
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made with the review of the law relating to transsexuals; and if he will make a statement. [65341]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the inter-departmental working group on transsexual people. [65343]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Inter-departmental Working Group on Transsexual People's Report was presented to Parliament in 2000. The report has been under active consideration within Government since then. The working group has now been reconvened to look further into the implications of the possible changes in policy identified in the report. The group will report to Ministers later this year.

  >Electoral Register
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make copies of the marked electoral register more widely available. [65342]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are reviewing the legislation relating to the current availability of the marked electoral registers in the light of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations which the House has been asked to approve. In reaching any conclusion the Government will in addition wish to take account of the Electoral Commission's review of absent voting.

  Sheriffs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her review of Under High Sheriffs, Under Sheriffs and Sheriffs' High Court enforcement functions. [65344]

  Yvette Cooper
  The review of High Court enforcement is part of the comprehensive review of the enforcement of civil court judgments which has been going on since 1998. On May 8, 2002, my noble Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, announced the publication of the post-consultation report for the Green Paper "Towards Effective Enforcement—A single Piece of Bailiff Law and Regulatory Structure for Enforcement" (set out in her reply of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 1242).

  Court Dress
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 713W, on wigs, if she intends to canvass the views of all members of the legal profession in connection with her review of court dress. [65345]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor will publish a formal consultation document on court working dress, informed by the results of the public opinion survey, later this year. The views of all members of the legal professions will be welcomed, but the consultation will be public and we hope other interested parties, such as the general public, court users, judges and court staff, will also respond.

  Fines
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fine-defaulters were in full-time employment since 1990. [65123]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is currently not collected centrally but we are examining whether it would be possible by research or sampling to estimate the data requested, as well as new ways to collect information on defendants' means.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fine-defaulters in full-time employment had attachment of earnings orders imposed in each year since 1990. [65122]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is currently not collected centrally but we are examining whether it would be possible by research or sampling to estimate the data requested. This department has commissioned research into the can't pay/won't pay divide. The outcome of that research will inform future enforcement policy. In addition we are considering new ways to collect information on defendants' means.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure tines handed out by magistrates are subsequently collected. [65654]

  Yvette Cooper
  Fines are imposed by both Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Court, but all are collected by Magistrates' Courts and their staff.

  The Government is committed to improving the enforcement of financial penalties. We have transferred lead responsibility for warrant execution from the police to Magistrates' Courts Committees, on 1 April 2001. We have established an information-sharing scheme, which enables Magistrates' Courts to obtain basic information on defaulters from the Department for Work and Pensions. We have set performance targets for 2002–3 and Magistrates' Courts Committees have also been given nearly £10 million extra from April 2002, ring-fenced for enforcement purposes. Further measures are being developed as part of the Criminal Justice White Paper. We will monitor the position carefully to check that performance improves.
  839W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fine-defaulters had one or more county court judgments against them in each year since 1990. [65121]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not kept centrally.

  Child Contact Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the mapping exercise of child contact centres(a) started and (b) is expected to be completed; how many whole-time equivalent staff are working on the mapping exercise; and what budget is provided for the mapping exercise. [67633]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The work is being carried out under the auspices of the Child Contact Working Group, which is facilitated by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The mapping exercise forms part of the working group's consultation on a new referral mechanism to ensure families are directed to the service that meets their needs. The consultation was launched on II May and concludes in October. The mapping exercise will initially be conducted in three areas—Inner London, Manchester and Norfolk. Currently, two LCD staff support the work on a part-time basis. There is no specific budget for the working group, but expenses are paid to members.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the statistics that are collected by her Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if she will make a statement. [67103]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent to him by the National Statistician dated 8 July 2002.

  Solicitors
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to meet the Independent Commissioner who will deal with complaints against solicitors. [67934]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Sir Stephen Lander's appointment as the Law Society's first Independent Commissioner has recently been announced. Ministers look forward to meeting him after he takes up his new post overseeing the Law Society's Consumer Redress Scheme in November 2002.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the backlog of cases is at the Office of Supervision of Solicitors. [67933]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The most recent progress report from the Law Society shows that as at 31 May 2002, the total outstanding caseload at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was 8,255.

  Judiciary (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints he has received since April 1998 concerning the conduct in Northern Ireland of individual(a) judges, (b) officers of tribunals and (c) resident magistrates. [38291]
  840W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for the delay in providing this reply which is due to an administrative oversight. There have been three complaints concerning the conduct of members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland since 1998.

  (a) Judges—1 complaint was received concerning a High Court Master in 2001

  (b) Tribunals—no complaints have been received

  (c) Resident Magistrates—2 complaints have been received concerning Resident Magistrates in 1998 and 2000.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to issue his consultation document in response to the OFT report on the reform of the QC system. [65347]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Queen's Counsel system is one of a number of issues relating to the legal profession raised in the OFT report, which fall to my Noble and Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider. The Government plans to consult on those issues before 30 July.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on parliamentary questions. [65354]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I broadly welcome the Report on Parliamentary Questions. The Procedure Committee is to be congratulated on their thorough study. The recommendations are far-reaching and justify careful study. It may be sensible for the House to debate this at the same time as the parallel report from the Modernisation Committee.

  Scrutiny
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to ensure that more Bills in the next session are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. [65355]

  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to ensure more Bills in the next Queen's Speech are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. [65357]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend's to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the Privy Council last met; and if he will make a statement on arrangements for convening meetings of the Privy Council. [65356]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Privy Council last met on 26 June. The Queen normally holds a Council every month except January, August and September. Additional meetings are convened if urgent business requires it.

  Lords Reform
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions he has had with representatives of peers about when they will confirm their membership of the Joint Committee on the Future of the House of Lords. [65358]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The House of Lords agreed their membership of the Joint Committee on 4 July and the first meeting took place this morning.

  Programming Motions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment he has made of the impact of programming motions on the number of amendments to Bills discussed. [65359]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I understand that some groups of amendments on programmed bills have not been reached. If there is engagement on all sides, I hope the number of such groups can be minimised. We should also remember that in the past, many groups of amendments on guillotined bills were not discussed.

  Modernisation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council what further proposals he plans to put before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on working hours of the House. [65360]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend's proposals were set out in his memorandum to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons which the Committee published last December.

  Westminster Hall
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment he has made of the Westminster Hall experiment; and what plans he has to develop the experiment. [65362]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Westminster Hall has offered backbenchers and select committees vastly increased opportunities for debate. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons will need to review its operation before the end of the Session and I hope their recommendations will build on its success.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by his Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64638]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Eight statutory instruments have been introduced by my Department since 1 January, of which none removed others and one amended an earlier one. None of these instruments were introduced in my capacity as Leader of the House. A larger number of Orders in and of Council, introduced since the date mentioned, are also statutory instruments. These are included in the parliamentary answers given by the Departments from which they originated, so as to avoid double-counting.
  842W
  The other information sought is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Visitors' Facilities
  Jim Knight
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what assessment he has made of the new visitors' facility in Westminster Hall; and what plans he has to extend the facilities further. [65361]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Opening up Parliament to the public is one of the Commission's strategic aims, and the Jubilee Cafe, which was opened by Mr. Speaker in May, is a welcome development. It seats 100, serves modestly priced light refreshments and is fully wheelchair accessible. It also provides long-overdue toilet facilities for visitors. It is still too soon to make any formal assessment of the success of the new facilities, although early feedback from visitors indicates a high level of satisfaction with the range and quality of food provided. The Finance and Services Committee has asked for a full report from the Director of Catering Services in the autumn.

  More generally, a feasibility study on visitor facilities for Parliament is currently under way and will shortly make recommendations. These will include options for an information and visitor centre.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Path ways
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department measures ease of use on country paths. [66764]

  Alun Michael
  A definition of "ease of use" was developed by the Countryside Agency in conjunction with our officials an the County Surveyors Society and the Audit Commission in order to provide an appropriate measure for performance indicators. This was refined last year when it became a Best Value performance indicator under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999. The definition can be revised each year if necessary but there are advantages in avoiding change so that there is consistency in the data collection over a period of years.

  Ease of use is measured according to the percentage of total length of footpaths and other rights of way which are easy to use by members of the public. This involves consideration of the extent to which a footpath or other right of way is signposted or waymarked; the extent of unlawful obstructions and other interference, including overhanging vegetation, to the public rights of passage; and consideration of the good repair of the surface and lawful barriers, such as stiles and gates, to a standard necessary to enable the public to use without undue inconvenience.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the reasons for which no English county council has met the national target of easy-to-find pathways. [66778]
  843W
  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency's Rights of Way Condition Survey 2000 was conducted to establish how easy it is to find, follow and use public rights of way. Whilst it found there had been a substantial improvement in "easy to find" category, I am concerned that no survey region met the national target of 95 per cent. of their paths signposted. No formal assessment has been made of the reasons for this, although lack of funding and low priority are generally seen to be the cause. It is because the Government wants to be able to establish where the performance of local highways authorities could be improved, that we introduced a provision in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, section 71, that will enable the Secretary of State to require local highway authorities to publish reports on the performance of their functions relating to rights of way.

  Rights of Way
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government plans to implement powers in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which will allow local authorities to divert or close rights of way for the purpose of crime prevention; which areas the provision will apply to: if she will make a statement. [668311

  Alun Michael
  I have published proposals to implement the provisions in 'Crime Prevention on Rights of Way: Public Consultation paper on the Designation of Areas and Other Procedural Matters'. This was published on 19 June and a copy placed in the Library of the House. Once the arrangements are in place it will be for the appropriate authorities to apply for designation. Normally the application will be made by the highway authority for a ward area or areas, but I have proposed some flexibility in my proposals. I am arranging for a copy to be forwarded to my right hon. Friend.

  Incinerators
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment has been conducted by(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency into the destination of waste from municipal waste incinerators; if she will place copies of this documentation in the Library; and if she will make a statement; [65624]

  (2) which UK heat stations have supplied incinerator ash for construction; if she will list (a) the total amount of ash produced by each station and (b) the proportion of ash for each method of disposal or use; and if she will make a statement. [65622]

  (3) if she will list those applications where incinerator ash, waste lime or dust was ultimately released to land by (a) site location, (b) year, (c) tonnage, (d) source and (e) end-use in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [65623]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has completed their investigation into the destination of ash from municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs). The Agency has accounted for all the solid residues produced between 1996 and 2000 by MSWIs in England and Wales. and has evaluated the environmental implications of the 844W
  residues' use, including use in construction. It has also looked at what steps may be needed in the light of these findings.

  Four municipal waste incinerators sent ash for processing with a view to its subsequent use in construction during the study period. Details of the total amounts of ash produced from each plant and the proportions sent for processing and landfill are in the table as follows (IBA--Incinerator Bottom Ash, ESP—Electrostatic Precipitator Ash):

  Percentages

  Incinerator

  Total ash (1996–2000) in tonnes

  Proportion to landfill

  Proportion to processors

  Teeside

  212,000 IBA

  67

  33

  Edmonton

  717,000 IBA/ESP

  70

  30

  Lewisham

  577,000 IBA

  59

  41

  Birmingham

  343,000 IBA

  79

  21

  The Agency's investigation, summarised in their report "Solid Residues from Municipal Waste Incinerators in England and Wales" has now been published and I will ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy of it. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. It is also available on the Agency's website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

  The Agency's investigation covered the period 1996 to 2000. The report itself lists annual tonnages of ash for the period covered by the investigation, and sites where MSWI residues were sent for disposal or reprocessing. Data on the end use of residues for 2001 are not available. Figures for 2001 for air pollution control residues will be available later in the year.

  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Agency to contact the hon. Member in due course, to see whether she should require further information after having had the opportunity to consider the report.

  Used Refrigerators
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial help her Department is giving to county councils with the task of disposing of used refrigerators. [67687]

  Mr. Meacher
  In December 2001, we announced a payment of £6 million to go to local authorities to cover their costs up until March 2002 for the disposal of refrigerators. We realise local authorities are in need of further funding and intend to make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2002, ref 64247, what financial aid is being made available to each local authority in 2001–02 to help with the storage and disposal of refrigerators. [67533]

  Mr. Meacher
  £6 million was allocated to local authorities for the extra costs they faced from 1 January to end March this year as a result of the disposal of refrigerators regulations. This money was added to local authorities' general grant for the current financial year and distributed using standard spending assessments. It is not possible to provide a meaningful allocation for each authority.

  Crabs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to limit the landing of crab-claws to 75 kilos per trip. [64381]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]: Yes.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what average number of hours per week is spent on veterinary surgeons in her Department in herd testing programme for Bovine TB; and if she will make a statement. [65469]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: Veterinary Officers of the State Veterinary Service (SVS) are supported by approximately 100 Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs). During the six-month period December 2001 to May 2002 these veterinary surgeons spent approximately 15 per cent. of their time on TB-associated duties.

  In addition over 4,000 Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs) are eligible to carry out TB testing.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons in each regional office of her Department work on the herd testing programme for Bovine TB. [65470]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: The State Veterinary Service (SVS) comprises five regions and 23 divisions. Veterinary Officers of the SVS are supported by approximately 100 Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs). During the six-month period December 2001 to May 2002 these veterinary surgeons spent approximately 15 per cent. of their time on TB-associated duties.

  In addition over 4,000 Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs) are eligible to carry out TB testing.

  Provision of the number of veterinary surgeons who work on the bovine TB herd-testing programme, broken down by region. could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the pilot areas for the use of the gamma interferon test for bovine TB: [61606]

  (2) when the use of the gamma interferon blood test for bovine TB commenced in pilot areas. [61607]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answers 19 June 2002]: Pilot areas have not yet been identified. The matter is currently being considered by our veterinary and scientific advisers.

  Molluscs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect harvested molluscs from pollution. [67204]
  846W
  Mr. Meacher
  We are committed to protecting and improving the quality of water in which bivalve molluscs grow. Under the EC shellfish waters directive we have designated 93 waters in England, harvested for shellfish, and have agreed water company spending of over £50 million on improvements to coastal sewage treatment and storm overflows up to 2005 specifically to improve water quality at these sites. Our target is for all commercial harvested shellfish beds to achieve at least category B under the EC shellfish hygiene directive, which includes provisions to protect public health.

  EU Committees (Scottish Representation)
  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 protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 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. [64883]

  Mr. Meacher
  The committee last met on 17 June 2002. No date has yet been set for the next meeting but the committee usually meets every six months. A representative from the Scottish Executive is invited to attend each meeting as part of the UK delegation.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Scientific Committee on Food is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61697]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate for the scientific committee for food (SCF) is set out in European Commission (EC) Decision 1997/579/EC. The committee advises the Commission on any problem relating to the protection of the health and safety of persons arising or likely to arise from the consumption of food, in particular on nutritional, hygienic and toxicological issues.

  The committee has met six times in the last 12 months and there have been numerous working group meetings. The SCF is composed of independent experts (with experience in related scientific fields) and does not represent the views of the member states in which they work. Three members with expertise in food toxicology and microbiology are based in the UK.

  The committee is accountable solely to the EC which pays the travel and subsistence costs of members. There are no additional costs to UK public funds.

  The committee is currently considering a number of issues relating to food additives, flavourings, constituents of packaging material, aspects of nutrition and genetically modified food. Minutes, current agendas of meetings and opinions of the committee can be found on the SCF website.
  847W
  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 Application of the Community Award Scheme for an Eco-label 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. [68547]

  Mr. Meacher
  The next meeting is scheduled for 25 September this year. The European Commission has not yet circulated a final agenda, but the Committee's normal business is to vote formally on new or revised technical criteria that manufacturers need to satisfy to obtain the eco-label award for their products.

  The Committee—now called the Eco-label Regulatory Committee—consists of member states' nominated representatives. The UK is represented by an official from this Department. Representatives from the Scottish Executive have not attended, because the Executive has asked DEFRA to carry out all functions in relation to the EU eco-label on its behalf, as have the new Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. We liaise with the Administrations on relevant matters, and before each Regulatory Committee meeting DEFRA consults the new Administrations about the matters to be voted on.

  We actively support the eco-label award scheme, whose aims are to promote products which can reduce negative environmental impacts, and to help provide consumers with accurate information about these aspects. The scheme was set up in 1992 by EU Regulation 880–92, which was revised in 2000 by Regulation 1980–2000. To obtain the award, companies must prove that their products meet the appropriate environmental criteria agreed by EU member states, which are published on the Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/ environment/ecolabel/.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Government Ministers will attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [67016]

  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, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will attend the summit. Ministerial representation at the summit will reflect the cross cutting nature of sustainable development.

  Johannesburg Earth Summit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals her Department will take to the Johannesburg Earth Summit. [66641]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: We hope that the summit will complement the Doha Development Agenda and the Monterrey Consensus by accelerating implementation of Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals. We strongly support the priority areas of water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity identified by the UN Secretary-General.

DEFENCE

  Expenditure Plans
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish the 2002–03 to 2003–04 expenditure plans for his Department. [68864]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's expenditure plans 2002–03 to 2003–04 for the Ministry of Defence are published today. The document provides details of the Government's plans for defence expenditure for the two years 2002–03 to 2003–04. It complements the MOD's Performance Report 2000–01 (Cm 5290, November 2001) submitted to Parliament last year.

  The document is part of a series of departmental reports which, along with the main estimates, and the document "Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2002–03", present the Government's expenditure plans for 2002–04.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the EU directives relating to his Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64953]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is consulted by other Government Departments on the negotiation or implementation of various European directives (for example, those concerning employment and workers' rights). But EU directives do not generally relate specifically to the MOD and the MOD has not been the lead Department dealing with any amendment or repeal of the directives in 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [64974]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is consulted by other Government Departments on the implementation of various European directives or regulations (for example. those concerning employment and workers' rights), but is not generally the lead Department dealing with implementation and has not been in relation to any directives or regulations in 2002.

  As I stated in my answer on 10 April 2002, Official Report,column 32W, the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Macedonia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much unexploded ordnance was dumped into Lakes Prespa and Dolnolipkovsko in Macedonia in September 1999; and what other waste was dumped there; [64721]

  (2) for what reason KFOR will not allow independent researchers to investigate what kind of waste was dumped into Lakes Prespa and Dolnolipkovsko and with what impact. [64722]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am not aware of the dumping of either unexploded ordnance or other waste into lakes Prespa or Dolnolipkovsko in Macedonia although I am aware of
  849W
  reports published on the internet. If the hon. Member would care to write with more details, I will investigate further.

  Sub-continent (Weapons Capability)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations his Department has received regarding increases in Pakistan's(a) offensive and (b) defensive weapons capabilities from November 2001 to June 2002; [65447]

  (2) what representations his Department has received regarding increases to India's (a) offensive and (b) defensive weapons capabilities from November 2001 to June 2002. [65446]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence have received a number of representations regarding Pakistan's and India's weapons capabilities from members of both Houses of Parliament and from members of the public. Currently the number of Parliamentary Questions stands at 39, and approximately 30 letters have been received from members of the public.

  I am aware that other Departments have also received representations. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Astute Class Submarine
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the scheduled launch date is for each of the Astute class SSNs; [66030]

  (2) what the in-service date is of HMS Astute. [67565]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The first Astute class nuclear powered attack submarine, HMS Astute, had been expected to enter service in June 2005. The prime contractor, BAE Systems is achieving improvements in cost compared with previous submarines. However, the company has made slower progress in the detailed design and in the build up of production than anticipated. The first of class, HMS Astute, is now not expected to enter service before late 2006, although this date has yet to be agreed with the contractor. BAE Systems is taking a range of management and other actions to minimise the slippage: this includes a re-assessment of the optimum time to perform the launch during the build sequence. Revised launch dates will not be available until later in the year.

  After the initial entry into service, the plan calls for a considerable trials and work up period before the boat will become fully operational. The Ministry of Defence will work with BAE Systems to recover as much as possible of the delay in this period. BAE Systems is working to minimise any delay to the other two submarines on order, HMS Ambush and HMS Artful.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 749W, on married quarters, what plans he has to improve the standard of service families' accommodation in Wiltshire. [66239]
  850W
  Dr. Moonie
  I regret that the information given was incomplete and gave numbers of houses managed by only one of the four areas of the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) involved. The reply therefore understated DHE's achievement in improving the overall quality of service housing. There are 5,921 properties in Wiltshire, of which 1,389 (23 per cent.) are at standard 1 for condition, 3,404 (57 per cent.) at standard 2, 1,005 (17 per cent.) at standard 3 and 123 (3 per cent.) at standard 4.

  There is a major project under way in Tidworth which will provide 484 new properties by 2004. 47 have been completed so far. Additionally, the following upgrade projects are planned for possible implementation in due course, to deliver 696 upgrades at an estimated cost of £30 million:

  Upavon—158

  Colerne—160

  Bulford—205

  Larkhill—63.

  Arms Fairs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the arms fairs organised, supported and sponsored by his Department in each year since 1997, indicating the(a) name, (b) location and (c) cost to the Department and organisations attending each event. [65791]

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

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the arms fairs that are to be organised, supported and sponsored by his Department in 2002 and 2003. [65792]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since September 1997 the Ministry of Defence no longer organises defence exhibitions.

  However, in support of the Government's commitment to a strong United Kingdom defence industry, the Ministry of Defence undertakes a broad range of activities in support of the organisers of defence exhibitions. Normal marketing support to UK exhibitors is provided by the Defence Export Services Organisation, and other assistance includes helping the organisers ensure maximum exposure of UK products to potential customers by supporting officials' inward visits.

  This year the MOD will participate in the Farnborough Airshow, which is a commercial event organised and run by the Society of British Aerospace Companies. In 2003, the MOD will participate in the Defence System and Equipment International exhibition, organised by Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd.

  In addition to these events, DESO have either supported or currently expect to support the following shows:
  2002

  Aid & rade International, Switzerland

  Pacific 2002, Australia

  Asian Air, Singapore

  851W

  DEFEXPOL, India

  FIDEA, Chile

  DSA Malaysia, Malaysia

  Eurosatory, France

  Africa Aerodef, South Africa

  Defendory, Greece

  Sofex, Jordan

  Euronaval, France

  Euronaval, Chile

  2003

  Avalon, Australia

  Aero India, India

  IDEX, Abu Dhabi

  Aviation World Fair, USA

  LAD, Brazil

  IMDEX, Singapore

  Paris Air, France

  Aviation North America, USA

  IDEF, Turkey

  Kormarine, South Korea

  Seoul Air, South Korea

  Dubai Air, Dubai

  LIMA, Malaysia.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the buildings owned by his Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66941]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave him on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 339W.

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what A400M spares will be stored in the United Kingdom; 166759]

  (2) where the spares store for the A400M will be located. [66758]

  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom, together with its partner nations, has initiated work to produce a Common Support Strategy for A400M. We plan to make a decision on this aspect of the programme by 2005, after considering a range of options. It is not yet possible, therefore, to say what A400M spares will be held in the UK, and where A400M spares will be held.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the wings for the A400M will be transported from Filton to the main construction site in France. [66757]

  Dr. Moonie
  Final assembly of the A400M aircraft will take place in Seville, Spain. A400M wings will be transported to Seville by the Beluga aircraft (a modified Airbus A300) already used by Airbus UK to deliver wings for Airbus commercial aircraft.

  Thailand
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Government of Thailand about the sale of warships. [66760]
  852W
  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence held discussions, during his recent visit to Thailand, with his Thai counterpart and other senior Thai officials in support of proposals put forward by United Kingdom companies.

  Police (Accommodation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what MOD properties are being used by police forces to house police officers undergoing their initial training; and if he will make a statement. [66821]

  Dr. Moonie
  All initial training for Ministry of Defence police recruits is conducted at the MDP Police Training Centre (MDP PTC), Wethersfield, Essex. In addition to this CENTREX have been conducting initial training for Home Office police force recruits at MDP PTC Wethersfield since January 2001. The recruits have been accommodated in the standard student accommodation blocks.

  A number of former married quarters at Mill Hill, now owned by Annington Homes Ltd. are occupied by Metropolitan police cadets.

  Barracks Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the date was of each death of a member of HM armed forces through non-natural causes(a) in and (b) in the vicinity of military property since 1990; and what the name of the barracks was in each case. [66697]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 1990 and 1 July 2002 there have been 1,748 deaths in the regular armed forces due to injury. The following table shows these injury related deaths broken down by geographical region. Information on precise location of deaths is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost and it would compromise Service personnel confidentiality.

  Location

  Great Britain1

  Northern Ireland

  Germany BAOR

  Others

  Total

  1990

  133

  14

  37

  33

  217

  1991

  105

  14

  42

  63

  224

  1992

  84

  20

  32

  31

  167

  1993

  108

  14

  19

  28

  169

  1994

  85

  6

  23

  37

  151

  1995

  87

  12

  18

  29

  146

  1996

  62

  5

  15

  24

  105

  1997

  79

  2

  8

  18

  107

  1998

  65

  3

  11

  31

  110

  1999

  68

  1

  9

  21

  99

  2000

  76

  5

  8

  21

  110

  2001

  89

  5

  5

  18

  97

  20022

  28

  5

  2

  10

  45

  Total

  1,049

  106

  229

  364

  1,748

  1 Includes UK waters and north Atlantic

  2 As at 1 July 2002

  Canberra PR9
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the Canberra PR9 reconnaissance aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [67142]

  Mr. Ingram
  For the last financial year 2001–02, the total resource running costs of the five Canberra PR9 aircraft in 39 Squadron was approximately £15.5 million.

  Army Vehicles
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the content of British manufacturing in vehicles used by the Army. [67140]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information relating to a selection of vehicles used by the British Army (Warrior Armoured Personnel Vehicle (APV), Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank

  Vehicle

  Manufacturer

  Warrior APV

  Vehicle design authority

  Alvis Vehicles Ltd. (UK owned)

  Hull manufacture

  Alvis Vehicles (UK manufactured and owned)

  Engine and transmission

  Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company)

  Turret design authority

  Vickers Defence Systems (UK manufactured and owned)

  Track

  William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned)

  Challenger 2 MBT

  Vehicle design authority

  Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned)

  Turret design authority

  Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned)

  Track

  William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned)

  Engine

  Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company)

  Transmission

  David Brown Defence (US owned and UK manufactured)

  Laser Range Finder

  Simrad (Norwegian owned and manufactured)

  DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC)

  Parent company

  PACCAR (US owned)

  Vehicle design authority

  Foden (UK owned)

  Manufacturer

  Foden (UK owned and manufactured)

  Engine manufacture

  (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar)

  Transmision manufacturer

  ZF (German owned and manufactured)

  DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC)

  Parent company

  PACCAR (US owned)

  Vehicle design authority

  Leyland (UK owned)

  Manufacturer

  Leyland (UK owned and manufactured)

  Engine manufacture

  (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar)

  Transmission manufacturer

  ZF (German owned and manufactured)

  Landrover

  Parent company

  Ford (US)

  Vehicle design authority

  Landrover (US owned)

  Manufacturer

  Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)

  Engine manufacture

  Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)

  Transmission manufacturer

  Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of the armed forces pension scheme in the last five years due to(a) wage inflation, (b) longevity. (c) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (d) other factors; and if he will make a statement. [67023]

  Mr. Ingram
  A detailed breakdown of reasons for the increased liabilities of the armed forces pension scheme cannot he provided. However, the most significant factors in the increase from 43.7 billion at 1 April 1997 to 51 billion at 1 April 2001 have been price inflation and real wage increases. Trends in pensioner longevity will also have had an impact but the effect of rights of part-time workers is considered to have been minimal.

  Tank Warfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct a cost and 854W
  (MBT), Landrover and the Demountable Rack Off Load and Pick up System (DROPS) vehicle) is set out in the table.

  Information on the content of British manufacturing for every vehicle used is not held centrally and as such an overall assessment could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The British manufacturing content of each of the vehicles, set out in the table, is 85 per cent. or more.

  effectiveness comparison of alternatives to using depleted uranium in gun-launched Kinetic Energy penetrator projectiles to defeat threats from tanks; and if he will make a statement. [67840]

  Dr. Moonie
  Operational analysis (OA) studies into the cost-effectiveness of tank-launched depleted uranium ammunition have taken place since the 1970s when it was assessed that the existing tungsten Kinetic Energy (KE) projectile for our main battle tank would not be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the next generation of battle tanks. OA and scientific research showed that a battle winning UK capability against emerging armour technologies could be achieved by replacing the tungsten penetrator with one made from DU.

  Although research to identify more effective alternative KE tank rounds has been undertaken, no satisfactory alternative to DU has yet been identified which achieves the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. At this time. the use of DU ammunition remains the most operationally effective capability and the

  855W
  use of non-DU ammunition would significantly threaten operational success and potentially could lead to increased UK casualties.

  We will, however, continue to carry out work on alternatives to DU. The DU research proposal which was announced earlier this year, 14 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1177–78W—also published on the web at www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/du_research.htm—includes, at section 2.5, OA studies on the types of engagement where DU ammunition is required and the consequences of not using DU, together with cost-effectiveness studies into other means of defeating heavy armour. The proposal also includes, at section 2.6, work into radical alternatives (for example. guided missiles) to DU KE penetrators to defeat heavy armour.

  Skyguardl Radar
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to bring back Skyguard radar to the Somerset area in the next year. [67590]

  Dr. Moonie
  Use of the Skyguard mobile radar system to monitor military aircraft activity is covert and details are not made public in advance of deployment. As is customary. I shall let the hon. Member know in confidence when the next deployment of Skyguard is imminent in his area of Somerset.

  Eurofighter
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra costs(a) have been and (b) will be incurred by the delayed introduction of the Eurofighter into RAF service until the end of the year. [67707]

  Dr. Moonie
  No additional costs have been incurred by the delayed introduction of the Eurofighter into Royal Air Force service, and none are expected to be incurred. Initiation of contract support of initial flying will not commence until the first RAF aircraft has been accepted. We believe we will be able to maintain the planned operational employment date for Eurofighter, therefore, allowing existing aircraft to be withdrawn from service as scheduled.

  Warship Construction
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department intends to spend in each of the financial years from 2004 to 2008 inclusive on new warship construction; and what the cost of refit and repair work will be. [67567]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Based on current plans. we expect to spend the following sums on new warship construction (including submarines):

  £ million

  2004–05

  735

  2005–06

  1,890

  2006–07

  1,146

  2007–08

  1,126

  The planning cycle for naval support expenditure covers four financial years. We estimate that the cost of planned maintenance (including refits) and repair work on warships (including submarines) and Royal Fleet
  856W
  Auxiliary vessels will be in the region of £500 million in each of the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. These figures exclude the cost of upgraded equipment. Estimates for 2006–07 and 2007–08 are not available.

  Figures are for planning purposes only and are subject to regular review.

  Overseas Naval Procurement
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent expressions of interest he has received from the Government of Thailand about the purchase of Royal Navy warships; and if he will make a statement. [67568]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency (DSA) has received no formal expressions of interest from the Government of Thailand about the purchase of Royal Naval warships in recent years.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expressions of interest he has received from the Chilean Government in respect of the possible purchase of type 23 frigates. [67569]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Chilean Government have expressed an interest in the possible purchase of type 23 frigates in the future. Discussions are currently ongoing.

  Search and Rescue Helicopter
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the plans to move the Portland search and rescue helicopter to Lee-on-Solent. [68371]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to a continuing helicopter search and rescue capability along the south coast. Discussion between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other organisations about the future location of the helicopter based at Portland are continuing. No final decisions have been made.

  Asylum Centre (Throckmorton)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making to conduct an environmental impact assessment for the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton; and when that assessment will be available to the planning authority. [59085]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have agreed with Wychavon District Council that an environmental impact assessment will be submitted with the planning notification.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Women's Organisations
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what women's organisations have been
  857W
  consulted on proposed legislation by his Department during 2000–01 and 2001––02 Sessions; and if their responses have been published [66528]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland consulted the following; groups during the period in question.

  Lesbian Line

  Omagh Women's Area Network

  Women's Resource and Development

  The Women's Centre

  Women's Forum NI

  NI Women's Aid Federation

  Mid-Ulster Women's Network

  Family Planning Association NI

  Derry Well Woman

  Newry and Mourne Women

  Fermanagh Women's Network

  NI Women's European Platform

  Gay and Lesbian Youth NI

  Women's Support Network

  Women's Information Group

  NI Women's Coalition.

  The responses from these cc nsultations have not been published.

  Data Commissioning
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997. [66527]

  Jane Kennedy
  During 2001, the Northern Ireland Office commissioned the 2001 sweep of the Northern Ireland Crime Survey, which contains data on the gender, race, disability (or activity-limiting long-standing illness) and age of each of the 3,010 respondents.

  Also, in 2002 the NIO published "Gender and the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System", which presents a wide range of statistical data and research findings on the Northern Ireland criminal justice system in terms of gender comparisons. Similar Northern Ireland criminal justice system publications focusing on age and race are planned for 2002–03.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask th:, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [66525]

  Jane Kennedy
  There have been no specific single gender impact assessments put to consultation or published by the Northern Irelalid Office since 1997.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved. [66526]
  858W
  Jane Kennedy
  Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to 'promote equality of opportunity' and have regard to 'promoting good relations' within Northern Ireland. The legislation also requires them to produce an 'Equality Scheme' stating how they will fulfil these requirements. In January 2000 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) commissioned the preparation of an 'Equality Scheme' which was approved by the Quality Commission for Northern Ireland on 20 November 2001. The Scheme sets out how the Department and its Agencies fulfil their duties and obligations with regard to all of their policies, functions and duties.

  An 'External Assessor' has recently produced the first Annual Progress Report on the operation of the NIO's Equality Scheme. The report looked at the work of the Department to date and commented favourably on progress.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the next programme of inspections for the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. [69184]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) latest programme of activity includes inspections of both central and local government.

  The local authority inspections will focus on various aspects of benefits administration and counter fraud performance in the following local authorities:

  Crawley district council

  Barnsley metropolitan council

  Basingstoke and Deane district council

  Waveney district council

  Castle Morpeth district council

  East Renfrewshire council.

  This is the first programme of inspections following the publication of the "Performance Standards for Housing Benefits" in March 2002. The BFI inspections will consider, among other things, the progress councils have made in assessing their own performance against the standards.

  BFI will also inspect a number of councils to test compliance against the Race Relations Amendment Act 2001 in the area of benefits administration.

  BFI will be writing to Chief Executives with more details in the coming week.

  BFI will also be undertaking an inspection of Jobcentre Plus to establish how the new organisation is taking forward the recommendations made in the BFI report on the Benefits Agency's relationship with local authorities, published in September 2001.

  Alongside these inspections, BFI will continue to contribute to the comprehensive performance assessments of local authorities.

  Poverty
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he will consult on the definition of older persons' poverty. [59601]

  Mr. McCartney
  Poverty can be caused by a number of factors and no one measure cal capture all of these factors. Accordingly, we have developed a number of measures of poverty which we track and report on in the annual "Opportunity for All" report.

  Child Support Agency
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have been prosecuted for making a false statement to the Child Support Agency in respect of their income; and if he will make a statement; [65782]

  (2) what measures are taken by the Child Support Agency to ascertain that details of claimed income by an absent parent are correct; and if he will make a statement; [65783]

  (3) how many cases were raised by hon. and right hon. Members with the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years for which figures arc available. [65784]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to tie hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Bob Russell, dated 8 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pc nsions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask three questions:
  1. How many people have been prosecuted for making a false statement to the Child Support Agency in respect of their income; and if the Secretary of State for Wort and Pensions will make a statement.
  Our aim is to encourage parents to support their children. In the majority of cases our demonstrated intention to take a case to court has been sufficient to encourage the non-resident parent either to provide the correct requested information or to make arrangements to pay maintenance.
  Against that background since April 2002, four cases have been taken to court in regard to the provision of false information.
  2. What measures are taken by the Child Support Agency to ascertain that details of claimed income by an absent parent are correct, and if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement.

  The Agency requests verification of all income declared by our clients before the maintenance is calculated.
  If we are unable to get the necessary information from the client, either because they are unable or unwilling to provide it, we will contact third parties who might reasonably be expected to hold relevant information.
  3. How many cases were raised by hon. and right hon. Members with the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  860W
  Members of Parliament have written to the Agency through Parliamentary Correspondence Unit about the following total number of cases in each of the last five years:

  April 1997 to March 1998: 6962

  April 1998 to March 1999: 7690

  April 1999 to March 2000: 5338

  April 2000 to March 2001: 4218

  April 2001 to March 2002: 3050

  Members of Parliament are also encouraged to contact our offices directly in relation to cases. We do not have a central record of the total number of those cases.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1212W, on the Child Support Agency, when testing of the child support reforms new rules implementation IT project will be complete. [66588]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 8 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask pursuant to the Answer of 19th April Official Report column 1212W on the Child Support Agency when testing of the Child Support Reforms New Rules Implementation IT project will be complete.
  The testing of the new IT system to support Child Support Reform is progressing. When this work is complete I will advise the Secretary of State accordingly.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people were committed to prison because they had committed offences relating to the work of the Child Support Agency in each year since the Agency was established; [62577]

  (2) how many parents have faced criminal sanctions under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 because they have (a) failed to provide the Child Support Agency with required information and (b) provided false information. [62606]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Willetts, dated 8 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask two questions;
  how many people were committed to prison because they had committed offences relating to the work of the Child Support Agency in each year since the Agency was established and
  how many parents have faced criminal sanction under the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 because they have (a) failed to provide the Child Support Agency with required information and (b) provided false information.
  861W
  Our aim is to encourage parents to support their children. In the majority of cases our demonstrated intention to take a case to court has been sufficient to encourage the non-resident parent either to provide requested information or to make arrangements to pay maintenance.

  Against that background:

  Since April 2001, one person has been committed to prison. Prior to this, the information wasn't centrally gathered.

  There have been no cases taken to court in respect of failing to provide required information.

  Since april 2002, four cases have been taken to court in regard to the provision of false information.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2002.Official Report, column 1140W, on incapacity benefit, what data his Department hold on (a) the number of incapacity benefit claimants who have been required to attend repeat Benefits Agency medical assessment, (b) the number of incapacity benefit claimants who have lost their entitlement as a result of a repeat Benefits Agency medical assessment and (c) the number of incapacity benefit claimants transferred to a different benefit as a result of a repeat Benefits Agency medical assessment. [66592]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Data collected on the number of people referred for a Personal Capability Assessment does not distinguish between initial and subsequent referrals.

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's review of the schedule of occupational diseases for which benefits are paid will be published. [65046]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In February 1997 the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council announced that it would review the schedule of occupational diseases in respect of which benefit can be paid.

  This review is a major task. The Council has therefore decided to publish reports on discrete parts of the list of diseases as the review progresses rather than producing a single report. The findings of the review that have been published so far are; Diseases induced by Ionising and Non-Ionising Radiation (Cm 4280) published in March 1999 and Conditions due to Chemical Agents (Cm 5395) published in February 2002.

  The Council will continue to review all the evidence it receives and reports of its further findings will be published in due course.

  Change Programme
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the savings achieved under the change programme. [57139]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department is in the early years of a major change programme with considerable savings planned for the later years. The savings achieved by the former DSS change programme in 2001–02 are £3.1 million administrative expenditure and £73.3 million programme expenditure.

  Consultants
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many contracts the Department of Work and Pensions has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50834]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department currently has 177 consultancy contracts in place let via framework agreements, including the Office of Government Commerce's Service Categories IT and Business Services Catalogue. Each agreement has its own standard set of Terms and Conditions—including levels of professional indemnity insurance.

  Standard terms set Limitation of Liability for damage to property at a maximum of £1,000,000 and other defaults at a maximum of £50,000 or 150 per cent. of the value of the contract. Professional indemnity insurance is generally set at a level appropriate to the size of the contract and the level of risk involved.

  In addition to framework standard Terms and Conditions, special terms specific to the requirement in hand can be agreed to adjust the limitation of liability.

  On discussions with other Government Departments I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 689W.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been in receipt of housing benefit in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [67327]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit case load at February of each year from 1998 to 2002

  Angus

  Government office region of Scotland

  1998

  8,300

  530,000

  1999

  8,000

  518,000

  2000

  7,600

  487,000

  2001

  7,600

  467,000

  2002

  7,300

  453,000

  Notes:

  1. Data for Angus relate to the Angus council area.

  2. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  3. Figures for Angus council are rounded to the nearest 100; figures for Scotland are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  4. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. counts taken in February of each year.

  Retirement Age
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he has made to his policy on the age of retirement since 1998. [68076]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have made no change in the policy on state pension age since 1998. Legislation was introduced in 1995 to equalise state pension age for men and women. Women's state pension age will be increased gradually from 60 to 65 between the years 2010 and 2020.

  But we are looking at the factors that help determine the age at which people actually retire. Too many people experience a cliff edge between work and retirement. We need to be able to provide real opportunities and incentives to enable people to stay in the work place for longer—where they want to. We also need to tackle the perverse incentives to retire even when it might suit people to carry on working, perhaps part-time, for longer. We are looking at options for providing people with greater flexibility about when they retire.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will respond to the letter of 13 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) regarding a constituent, Mrs. P. Baker, New Dear, Aberdeenshire. [67650]

  Maria Eagle
  A reply to the letter of 13 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was sent on 8 July.

  Self-employed Disabled People
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to allow greater flexibility in the calculation of the annual permitted work rules in respect of average rather than actual weekly earnings for self-employed disabled people. [59756]

  Maria Eagle
  The new permitted work rules, introduced on 8 April, give all people receiving incapacity benefits the chance to start moving back into full-time work. When attributing income from irregular work undertaken by self-employed disabled people, decision makers must treat each case on its merits. Guidance advises decision makers to look at income and hours worked over a period of time so that income can be attributed in a fair and equitable way.

  We keep all our policies under review. However, we believe that there is sufficient flexibility within the present rules and have no plans to change them.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's public service agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [60889]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department's public service agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its service delivery agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Each year the Department publishes 864W
  performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used in its departmental report.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [61632]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department's public service agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its service delivery agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Each year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used in its departmental report.

  Benefit Statistics
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much benefit was paid, by category, in(a) the UK and (b) rural areas in each of the last 10 years; [63646]

  (2) how many benefit claimants, by category, there were in (a) the UK and (b) rural areas for each of the last 10 years. [63645]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is given by(a) his Department and (b) the IMF to the recent human rights record of the country concerned during the consideration of providing assistance under the HIPC initiative. [68509]

  John Healey
  The UK continues to be at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues, and continues to press for the rapid and full implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative. One of the necessary conditions for countries to qualify for debt relief under HIPC is the formulation of a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). For low-income member countries, the IMF has placed PRSPs at the centre of its efforts. Pro-poor growth policies help to increase the amount of resources available that are required for the progressive realisation of human rights, including civil and political rights, and social justice. These strategies are designed in collaboration with civil society and the private sector and describe a country's macroeconomic, structural and social policies, setting out the policy action governments propose to take to reduce poverty. They provide a budgetary framework, not only for spending the savings from debt relief, but also for allocating other government revenue and support from the World bank. IMF and donor countries, hence enhancing transparency
  865W
  over fiscal expenditure. IMF programmes in HIPC countries pay particular attention to promoting pro-poor growth and improving governance.

  Home Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the VAT treatment of the services of home care agencies and home carers. [67634]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for mid-Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 5 July 2002,Official Report, columns 627–28W.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total revenues were which he received during 2001–02 as a result of the climate change levy. [60478]

  John Healey
  Table 2.1D in the ONS publication "Financial Statistics" (May 2001) shows cash receipts from CCL to be £551 million for the year 2001–02; on an accruals basis this is equivalent to £831 million.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many opencast mines have applied for exemption from the Aggregates Levy in respect of their sales of surplus aggregates by-product; [67231]

  (2) for what reason aggregates created as by-product from open cast mining are excluded from the Aggregates Levy; [67232]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the proportion of aggregates used in the United Kingdom that will be exempt from the Aggregates Levy; [67228]

  (4) what systems are in place to detect fraudulent avoidance of the Aggregates Levy. [67230]

  John Healey
  Open cast mines which do not produce any taxable aggregate are not required to register for the levy.

  Current revenue forecasts use only those aggregate arisings which are subject to the levy, and therefore no assessment has been made of the proportion of aggregates used in the UK that will be exempt from the levy.

  The spoil arising from the separation of coal from rock after it has been extracted from an open cast mine is exempt because it is a waste material and its use as aggregate is specifically encouraged in the Government's mineral planning guidelines.

  Customs are utilising audit trails which already exist within business accounting records and are targeting resources in accordance with perceived risk. Where fraud is detected, Customs will use their powers to recover the revenue due and impose penalties.

  Aerospace Industry
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to help alleviate the problems experienced by the aerospace industry since 11 September 2001. [68216]
  866W
  Dawn Primarolo
  In Budget 2002, the Chancellor announced the extension of the R&D tax credits to all companies, following the introduction of an R&D tax credit for small companies in Budget 2000. The credit will be worth £400 million per annum. Aerospace manufacturers, which undertake 10 per cent. of the UK's R&D, will be significant beneficiaries of this measure.

  Tax Returns
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the electronic filing of tax returns requires a password to be sent by post. [68369]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To electronically file a tax return using the Internet Service for Self Assessment a user must first register. There are two methods by which a customer can register, they can register on-line by choosing a password and a user ID will be sent to them by post or by using a digital certificate. For security purposes we need to be confident of the identity of the user and our registration process enables us to do this.

  Tax Offices
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason tax offices do not offer e-mail contact points. [68370]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most tax offices do not offer e-mail contact points but as part of an external e-mail trial., 10 Inland Revenue offices are offering e-mail contacts to customers.

  The trial findings will be used to inform the Department's strategic solution for improving electronic customer contact.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff within his Department are allocated to consideration of regional funding mechanisms. 1679301

  Mr. Boateng
  There are 10 people in the team responsible for advising Treasury Ministers on regional policy in England, EU structural funds, the Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales Offices, and funding arrangements with the devolved Administrations. Devolved funding arrangements are set out in the Statement of Funding Policy.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the 2002–03 Scottish Executive budget is affected by the Barnett formula. [67931]

  Mr. Boateng
  Around 83 per cent. of the 2002–03 Scottish Executive total managed expenditure is the Departmental Expenditure Limit assigned budget, increases in which are determined by the Barnett formula.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether loans provided by the Strategic Rail Authority and drawn upon by Network Rail under the arrangements announced by the Secretary for Transport on 27 June will be included in the net cash requirement for the year in which they are drawn down. [68215]
  867W
  Mr. Boateng
  Yes. Lending to the private sector by Government is a determinant of the public sector net cash requirement. So lending by the SRA to Network Rail would increase the public sector net cash requirement in the year the loans were made.

  Departmental Spending
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levels of departmental spending. [69035]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I propose to make a statement to the House on Monday 15 July.

  Double Taxation Agreement (Taipei)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the British Trade and Cultural Office, Taipei, has concluded a Double Taxation Agreement with the Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom. [68863]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Double Taxation Agreement was concluded between unofficial representative offices because Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Taiwan as a state and so do not enter into treaties with the Taiwanese Government. The agreement was signed on 8 April. The text has been deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. It will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid for consideration by the House at the earliest convenient opportunity.

  Retail Investment Review
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Sandler review of retail investment will be published. [68662]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ron Sandler's report is being published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House. It is also accessible on the Treasury website.

  Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to bring benefits for consumers, for the retail investment industry and to improve the workings of the market. They will mean more competition, greater efficiency and more productive investment.

  Simpler, safer investment products of the kind Mr. Sandler proposes would be easier for consumers to understand. Greater focus on product design could clear the way for a more streamlined sales process. This would make it profitable for providers and distributors to sell to a wider range of less well-off people. That will encourage people to save.

  Building on Mr. Sandler's suggestions, we will be consulting consumers' representatives, the industry and the FSA on these stakeholder products and how they might be designed. We will be working closely with the FSA who will separately want to consult on how a regime for their sale might be implemented.

  The proposals also represent a real opportunity for the industry and others to think radically about the provision of financial advice. They offer the potential to extend access to low cost, good quality, generic advice to the mass market.
  868W
  Mr. Sandler has tackled long-standing concerns about with profit policies, while at the same time recognising the value that many people give to being able to smooth out investment returns. He has recognised that change in this market cannot come over night. Mr. Sandler's balanced approach represents an opportunity to move to a new stable future for with profits.

  The FSA will be consulting on Mr. Sandler's proposals on with profits—which build on earlier work they have carried out—as part of their own continuing consultations on with profits.

  Mr. Sandler's proposals on distribution of investment products, consumer education and investment will produce a more transparent, better-informed and hence more competitive market.

  We will consider Mr. Sandler's proposals on tax as part of the Budget process in the usual way.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Charitable Status
  Lembit Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) for what reasons the Budget proposal to offer mandatory 80 per cent. rate relief to amateur sports clubs has been limited to clubs prepared to register as charities; and if she will make a statement; [67080]

  (2) what tax concessions will be available to amateur sports clubs that do not have charitable status, with particular reference to those relating to mandatory rate relief; and if she will make a statement. [67083]

  Mr. Caborn
  For those clubs who do not fulfil the criteria for charitable status, the Chancellor has announced a package of tax reliefs, available directly from the Inland Revenue. The main features are: fundraising income up to £15,000 exempt from tax; income from interest exempt from tax; rental income up to £10,000 exempt from tax; disposals exempt from capital gains tax; gift aid on individual donations; inheritance tax relief on gifts; gifts of assets on no-gain, no-loss basis for capital gains; business relief on gifts of trading stock. Eligible sports will initially be defined with reference to those recognised by the national Sports Councils.

  The presentation of taxation policy is a matter for HM Treasury and the tax relief package for amateur sports clubs proposed in the Treasury consultation document "Promoting Sport in the Community" did not include mandatory rate relief. However, any non-profit making sports clubs that do not meet the expanded definition of charitable purposes remain eligible for the existing 100 per cent. discretionary rate relief. They could also benefit from the new mandatory relief of up to 50 per cent. proposed for small businesses and non-profit making bodies, where they fall within the rateable value limits of that scheme. This scheme was introduced by the Department of Transport, London and the Regions in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" published in December 2001.

  Supporters Direct
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of Supporters Direct; and what Government resources are available to it. [67677]

  Mr. Caborn
  I fully support the work of Supporters Direct, and I congratulate its staff and Board on their efforts in helping to establish supporters' trusts at 57 of the 92 professional clubs in England. I am also very pleased that, with the assistance of funding from the Scottish Executive, the work of Supporters Direct is to be extended to Scotland.

  Supporters Direct receives £250,000 per year from income from the Reduction in Pool Betting Duty under arrangements which expire in March 2003. My Department has, in principle, approved the extension of funding from this source until March 2004. This is subject to the provision of a satisfactory business plan. I expect to receive this shortly with Supporters Direct's assessment of its 2003–04 funding needs.

  Drug Testing
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the report produced for the Chief Executive of UK Sport by Dr. Roger Jackson on the UK system of drug testing; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [67682]

  Mr. Caborn
  The issues raised by Dr. Roger Jackson in his informal commentary to UK Sport's Chief Executive were fully considered by UK Sport during its review of anti-doping procedures in the UK. The review formed part of two years' intensive work undertaken by UK Sport in the preparation of the new national anti-doping policy, launched in January 2002. DCMS officials have been in regular discussions with UK Sport about all aspects of the development and implementation of the national anti-doping policy.

  It would not be appropriate to place a copy in the Library as it was not commissioned by UK Sport as a public document. It was a private, informal commentary prepared for the Chief Executive of UK Sport.

  Gaming Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on the gaming industry and its potential role in the regeneration of coastal towns in the UK: and what recent discussions she has had with gaming companies; [68240]

  (2) which coastal resorts in the United Kingdom are to be locations for resort casinos; and what assistance will be given to companies to encourage them to locate there; [68340]

  (3) what proposals she has for a pilot project for a gaming designated area; and if she will make a statement on the progress of the development of casinos and gaming shops in coastal areas. [68241]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under our proposals for reform of the laws governing gambling in Great Britain, as set out in "A Safe Bet for Success", current statutory barriers to the establishment of resort casinos—whether in coastal towns or elsewhere—would be removed. Whether such casinos 870W
  are established will be primarily determined by local authorities, exercising planning and premises licensing responsibilities, and prospective operators themselves, in considering whether and where to make the necessary investment. My Department has had a number of discussions with prospective operators, who anticipate that resort casino developments could have a part to play in local regeneration strategies. It is not, however, the Government's intention to establish a pilot project or to make any special arrangements to encourage the establishment of a resort casino in any individual location.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Bank
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the World Bank's research, supported by the British Government, into the impact of service liberalisation in developing countries to be published. [67689]

  Clare Short
  The World Bank Research Programme on Trade in Services started in 1997 and is due to continue until 2004. The programme aims to generate and draw together data and research, with the objective of improving services trade policy formulation and facilitating the services negotiations at the WTO. One of the central components of the programme is the creation of a database on measures affecting trade in services. Other components include policy research projects, which are expected to result in a series of conceptual and empirical papers.

  All papers and studies produced by the Programme are published on the World bank website http:// wwwl.worldbank.org/wbiep/trade/services.htmfitoverview as they are completed. This website will also provide access to the Trade in Services database, for which the first results are expected to be available by the end of August.

  Jenin Refugee Camp
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in the Jenin Refugee Camp in the occupied territories. [67036]

  Clare Short
  Jenin remains under military curfew, and has been subject to intermittent military incursions since the beginning of April 2002, when the Government of Israel began Operation Defensive Shield in the west bank. UNRWA estimates ten per cent. of the camp was destroyed. Over four hundred families have been made homeless, while another 1,200 shelters are in urgent need of repair. The social and economic well being of both the camp and town residents is deteriorating as the incursions and restrictions continue. UNRWA is responding to the situation in Jenin Camp by providing humanitarian supplies, clearing unexploded munitions and rubble, and reinforcing, or removing, damaged buildings. We are in the process of recruiting and funding, on behalf of UNRWA, a small team of engineers to manage the camp rebuilding process.

  Dengue Fever
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans are in place to provide funding for the development of a vaccine for dengue fever. [67034]

  Clare Short
  We recognise that dengue is a major public health concern in many developing countries. Global prevalence has grown dramatically in recent decades, with the disease now endemic in more than 100 countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 500,000 people are hospitalised with dengue haemorrhagic fever and shock every year.

  In response, vector control and clinical management strategies for dengue require further strengthening. New vaccines would also be of considerable benefit, if used appropriately. Vaccine development for dengue is difficult because any of four different virus strains may cause disease. However, progress is being made in developing vaccines which may protect against all four strains. WHO estimate it may be at least 7–10 years before vaccines are available for public health use.

  The WHO Tropical Disease Research programme and Health Technology and Pharmaceutical Cluster are leading international efforts to develop an effective and safe dengue vaccine. DFID support to these efforts is through our partnership with WHO, assisting them to develop a collective, coherent organisational response and to work closely with other agencies. DFID has also prioritised the strengthening of health systems to effectively deliver vaccines and other interventions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has committed in 2001–02 to control programmes for dengue fever. [67035]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer on dengue (67034).

  My Department's support to dengue control is principally through our partnership with the World Health Organisation (WHO). In addition to their priority work on dengue vaccine development and other research, WHO are engaged in disease surveillance, prevention and control. DFID's contribution to WHO in 2001–02 was £10.4 million. We are also providing support to tackling dengue in Central America through a Communicable Disease Control Project with the Pan American Health Organisation, for which £500,000 was disbursed in 2001–02.

  We have also prioritised efforts to strengthen developing country health systems and improve environmental health, both essential in tackling dengue and other communicable diseases of poverty.

  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 sustainable livelihoods in infrastructure and urban development projects. [67522]
  872W
  Clare Short
  The Infrastructure and Urban Development department currently allocates a £3 million annual budget for specific sustainable livelihood projects in both rural and urban areas.

  1998–99: No budget

  1999–2000: £615,303

  2000–01: £2,119,726

  2001–02: £2,336,165

  2002–03 (so far): £389,149.

  It should be noted, however, that sustainable livelihoods is a flexible approach, applicable to many different contexts. Sustainable livelihoods approaches are therefore also incorporated into many other infrastructure projects including Water and Sanitation, Energy, ICT, Human Settlements and Engineering Knowledge and Research 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 information development as part of infrastructure and urban development projects. [67519]

  Clare Short
  My Department has spent £8.75 million since 1998–99 on focused programmes on 'information and communications technology for development' as part of our infrastructure and urban development work.

  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 appropriate technology as part of infrastructure and urban development projects. [67517]

  Clare Short
  My Department's expenditure on appropriate technology as part of Infrastructure and Urban Development projects since 1998–99 has been as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  9.581

  1999–2000

  17.398

  2000–01

  9.436

  2001–02

  13.413

  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 promoting private sector initiatives as part of infrastructure and urban development projects. [67520]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports a number of important initiatives aimed at promoting various aspects of private sector participation in the provision of infrastructure and urban services, particularly to the poorer sections of the developing world's population.

  These are primarily undertaken in association with other bilateral and multilateral development agencies. During the period in question the Department has contributed the following:

  To the Private/Public Infrastructure Advisory Facility—£14.83 million.

  To the Public/Private Partnership for the Urban Environment—£1.53 million.

  To the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund—£26.72 million. Business Partners for Development—£1.72 million.

  AID to various small activities—£1.70 million.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total amount was of her Department's financial contributions in 2001–02 to the Millennium Development goals. [67480]

  Clare Short
  DFID's total consumption of resources in 2001–02 is provisionally estimated at £3,310 million. Of this, £129 million is accounted for by overseas superannuation payments and our contribution to the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund. The remainder, estimated at £3,181 million, contributes towards the achievement of the Millennium Development goals.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial contribution her Department will make in 2003–04 and 2004–05 in support of Pakistan's Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility. [67482]

  Clare Short
  My Department has made a three-year commitment to provide £105 million, in support of the IMF Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility, which was agreed in December of last year. In 2001–02 DFID disbursed £20 million financial aid to Pakistan. We are planning to provide a further £40 million in 2002–03, and £45 million in 2003–04.

  International Humanitarian Agencies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the improvements in the work of international humanitarian agencies that have been assisted by financial support from her Department. [67486]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports improvements in various international humanitarian agencies through jointly agreed Institutional Strategy Partnerships (ISPs) with the agencies which identify long-term priorities. Focus is on developing better systems and procedures at headquarters to ensure that programmes in the field are delivered in a timely, appropriate and effective manner in the event of a crisis. All ISPs are independently evaluated. This funding is provided in addition to grants made to the international humanitarian agencies for response to specific emergencies.

  Social Development Programmes
  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 social development knowledge programmes. [67518]

  Clare Short
  The figures given in the table represent an estimate of centrally funded expenditure.

  £ million

  Social development research

  Social Science research

  1998–99

  2.0

  5.1

  1999–2000

  1.4

  6.0

  2000–01

  1.7

  6.6

  2001–02

  2.3

  8.1

  874W
  Social development knowledge is also generated from my Department's regional programming, and from support for enhancing research capacity in poorer countries. However, provision of this additional information would entail disproportionate cost.

  Bilateral Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of the expenditure described as 'other bilateral' on page 81 of the Departmental report 2002. [67483]

  Clare Short
  A detailed breakdown of this expenditure is provided in table 4 of annex 1 of the Departmental report, on pages 102 to 105. A revised version of annex 1 of the report with corrected figures will shortly be made available on DFID's website, and a copy placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Engineering Resource Centre
  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 the engineering resource centre. [67523]

  Clare Short
  My Department has engaged, on a competitive basis, a number of engineering resource centres to provide specialist technical advice and expertise in the infrastructure and urban development sectors. Expenditure on the engagement of these services since 1998–99 has been as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  0.937

  1999–2000

  1.165

  2000–01

  2.007

  2001–02

  1.263

  Overseas Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the investment made by her Department in information systems to improve her Department's communication links with overseas offices. [67488]

  Clare Short
  We have an on-going programme of upgrades, the core of which is the Enhanced Overseas Communications Links (EOCL) project costing £8 million. Part of this is a system we are implementing jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

  The links include virtual private networks where sufficient bandwidth is available in country from local internet service providers, and satellite links to other countries. We are also installing internet protocol enabled switches, which allow voice communication (telephone calls) to be carried on the network. 98 per cent. of our overseas staff now have direct links to our central systems.

  The links are capable of carrying video conferencing (VC) facilities and we will shortly commission a 'VC bridge', which will allow simultaneous conferences to up to eight locations.

  Social Policy Initiatives
  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 Social Policy Initiatives. [67515]

  Clare Short
  Provision of the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  UN Programmes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reforms in the UN Development Programme and the UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation have been assisted by financial support from her Department. [67485]

  Clare Short
  UNDP has embarked on an ambitious and wide-ranging reform programme which includes sharpening the focus of UNDP's programmes, improving the quality of its Resident Co-ordinators and developing its results-based management system. DFID has committed about £3.5 million in technical co-operation to support UNDP's reform programme. Our support is helping UNDP to strengthen its results-based management; to strengthen its partnerships with civil society, international financial institutions and the private sector; to focus the UN system around the Millennium Development Goals; and to develop the competencies for senior UNDP posts overseas. DFID is also providing significant support to build UNDP's capacity to respond to crisis and emergency situations.

  DFID has collaborated with UNESCO to develop its results-based programming system and helped with training to the value of £100,000 for UNESCO's staff in project cycle management. DFID is supporting training (£750,000) for UNESCO staff in the use of new financial, budget and accounting systems, which support the results-based programming system. DFID also provides support (£250,000) for the evaluation work of UNESCO's new internal oversight system.

  Departmental Office, East Kilbride
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of the costs of the refurbishment of the Department's offices in East Kilbride. [67487]

  Clare Short
  The estimated total budget for the full rehabilitation and the new annex is £17.6 million. The final design of the rehabilitation has still to be completed but the estimates are:

  Annex—£2.1 million

  Main building rehabilitation—£11.6 million

  Professional fees—£1.4 million

  VAT © 17.5 per cent.—£2.5 million.

  Statistical Capacity
  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 Statistical Capacity referred to on page 104 of the 2002 departmental report. [67514]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is committed to improving the capacity of Governments in developing countries to produce, analyse 876W
  and disseminate statistical information. This is essential to provide Governments with the information needed to prioritise scarce resources, to develop and monitor effective policies, and to monitor progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.

  The majority of DFID' s activities in this area consist of working with partner Governments directly to support their statistical capacity building programmes.

  Recognising that there is a limit to what we can do individually, the Department is also increasingly supporting international statistical capacity building initiatives. This is the 'Statistical Capacity' expenditure given on page 104 of the Departmental Report. This includes providing funding to a World Bank Trust Fund for Statistical Capacity Building (TESCB), supporting the Partnership in Statistics for development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) initiative (a consortium of statisticians, policy makers and civil society working to improve statistical capacity globally) and supporting poverty monitoring as part of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and similar country-owned poverty reduction strategies.

  A detailed breakdown is provided in the following table. Please note that this excludes expenditure going directly to countries, which is included within the bilateral country and regional programme expenditure. It also excludes any expenditure on statistics spent through sector programmes such as health or education.

  DFID expenditure on international statistical capacity building initiatives

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  World Bank TFSCB

  227

  1,451

  1,720

  PARIS21 initiative

  —

  401

  410

  PRSP poverty monitoring

  —

  —

  400

  International comparisons programme

  —

  —

  210

  World Bank poverty statistician

  —

  163

  116

  Training and research

  3

  33

  241

  Total

  230

  2,049

  3,097

  As a comparison, the total expenditure going directly to statistical capacity building programmes in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 was £0.5 million, £3.6 million and £5.7 million, respectively. In addition to the expenditure in the table, these totals include some country statistical programmes. But these figures still exclude the majority of statistical capacity building assistance which is normally provided as part of broader development programmes and not recorded separately in our systems as statistical capacity building.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Social Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many English planning appeals in each of the past three years have resulted in increased social housing provision. [68615]

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

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether a decision has been taken to authorise the replacement of the existing ozone-depleting CFC-based air conditioning chillers at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre with a new refrigerant system. [68861]

  Mr. Leslie
  The existing QEII Conference Centre air conditioning system uses CFC as a refrigerant. Legislation resulting from the Montreal Protocol proscribes the supply and topping-up of CFCs for the maintenance of refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. Taken together with the age of the existing plant, a replacement system is required.

  Following extensive consultations and evaluation, I have decided to authorise the replacement of the old ozone-depleting CFC air conditioning chillers at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.

  The optimum replacement solution has been identified as ammonia-based chiller technology, which has no ozone or global warming depletion potential. Ammonia-based chiller technology is widely accepted as the most efficient and environmentally friendly refrigerant, has better whole life costs and represents value for money.

  This decision has been taken fully in accordance with Government policy and the UK climate change programme.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to pay grant to local authorities under round 4 of the Invest to Save Budget and under the local government on-line programme. [68860]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have today laid before the House a report which sets out my Department's intention to pay some £21.7 million of grant to local authorities to support 23 innovative projects under round 4 of HM Treasury's Invest to Save Budget (ISB).

  As is often the case with pioneering work, there have been some delays for a minority of projects funded under previous ISB rounds in achieving their key milestones. The report therefore contains powers to roll forward unclaimed grant to these projects to enable them to complete their work.

  The report also contains powers to pay grant under the £350 million local government on-line programme of up to £47 million to help develop and support 64 e-government partnerships and up to a further £1.75 million to support further dissemination of best practice from the 25 e-government pathfinders.

  Development Plans
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department will publish guidance on the better management and preparation of development plans. [68765]

  Mr. McNulty
  Today I am pleased to announce that we are launching a document called "Making plans".

  Development plans are a way of mapping the future for communities and are critical to improving our towns and cities. So it is vital these must be up-to-date to reflect the
  878W
  changing aspirations and priorities of the community. Plans which do not have people at their heart are destined to fail.

  It is time for councils to get on with these plans and not wait for any new legislation as the basic principles of good planning won't change. Plans need to be clear and they need to involve the community.

  The guide makes it clear that many of the principles set out in last December's planning Green Paper can be acted on now. It emphasises the need for a clear strategy with an implementation programme.

  But most of all it stresses a principle central to the Green Paper that real, proper participation by the community from the start of any planning process leads to much better plans at the end.

  The report, produced by the consultants Baker Associates with BDOR and Gradwell Corporate Design, is available in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many homeless households were living in(a) bed and breakfast and (b) temporary accommodation in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [65853]

  (2) how many households are living in accommodation arranged by local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996; and if he will make a statement; [65859]

  (3) what estimate he has made of how many homeless people living in (a) bed and breakfast and (b) temporary accommodation are ex-service men; and if he will make a statement; [65991]

  (4) how many homeless people are living in (a) bed and breakfast and (b) temporary accommodation, broken down by ethnic group; and if he will make a statement; [65852]

  (5) what estimate he has made of how many children were homeless in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [65855]

  Mr. McNulty
  Summary information on activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Department by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and the number of these households resident in various types of temporary accommodation at the end of each quarter.

  National and some regional information on local authorities' activity is provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Table 6 presents a breakdown of numbers of households in various types of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast, as at the end of each quarter since 1995. Copies are available in the Library, and also via the ODPM's website. The latest edition, published on 17 June 2002, presents statistics up to the end of March 2002. A copy is enclosed for the hon. Member's use.
  879W
  Available information collected centrally on the number of households living in various forms of temporary accommodation does not distinguish those including ex-service personnel, nor an analysis by ethnic group.

  Precise information on the total number of children in households accepted as homeless is not collected, but rounded estimates derived from data reported by local authorities in England are as follows.

  Households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need during the year

  Total households with children

  Estimated number of children

  1997

  58,780

  104,100

  1998

  61,400

  109,100

  1999

  62,000

  108,4(X)

  2000

  64,980

  112,600

  2001

  66,970

  112,7(X)

  Source:

  ODPM quarterly PIE housing activity returns

  For corresponding information about Welsh authorities, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were homeless in(a) England, (b) the South-West, and (c) the Yeovil constituency in each year since 1985–86; and if he will make a statement. [66297]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Yeovil constituency is within South Somerset district council area, which also includes part of the Somerton and Frome constituency. The available information is as follows:

  Households accepted by local authorities as unintentionally homeless, and in priority need

  England

  South West

  South Somerset district council

  1985–86

  183,710

  6,580

  171

  1986–87

  191,960

  6,940

  170

  1987–88

  198,890

  7,260

  173

  1988–89

  1102,500

  7,640

  124

  1989–90

  1110,380

  8,140

  189

  1990–91

  1128,090

  9,040

  209

  1991–92

  139,630

  8,940

  236

  1992–93

  136,230

  8,910

  221

  1993–94

  125,360

  9,550

  303

  1994–95

  116,850

  9,320

  353

  1995–96

  116,550

  9,970

  373

  1996–97

  110,810

  9,450

  367

  1997–98

  102,650

  9,000

  331

  1998–99

  104,150

  8,920

  397

  1999–2000

  106,130

  9,790

  416

  2000–01

  114,350

  11,210

  484

  2001–02

  118,360

  11,200

  2—

  Households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need: rural authorities in England

  Financial year totals

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  North East

  1,200

  900

  900

  1,000

  1,200

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1,200

  1,100

  1,100

  1,000

  1,000

  East Midlands

  1,900

  1,700

  1,700

  1,900

  2,000

  Eastern

  3,000

  2,600

  2,600

  2,700

  2,700

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  2,900

  2,500

  2,400

  2,400

  2,600

  South West

  4,800

  4,300

  3,900

  3,800

  3,800

  West Midlands

  1,000

  900

  900

  800

  1,000

  North West

  1,100

  1,000

  900

  800

  1,000

  All rural local authorities

  17,200

  15,100

  14,400

  14,500

  15,200

  880W
  1 Denotes calendar year data.

  2 Not yet available.

  Sources:

  England and the South West from 1991–92:

  ODPM quarterly PIE returns.

  Southern Somerset and South West prior to 1991–92: ODPM annual Housing Investment Programme returns.

  National and some regional information on local authorities' activity in recent years is provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies are available in the Library, and also via the ODPM's website. The latest edition, published on 17 June 2002, presents statistics up to the end of March 2002.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since 1997, indicating for each consultation(a) if copies were available online, (b) if copies were available in print (c) the date the time period given for responses opened and (d) the date the time period given for responses closed. [66041]

  Mr. Leslie
  A full list of the public consultations undertaken by the Office or its predecessors since 1997 has been placed in the Library, including the dates for which the period for responses opened and closed. The list is based on central records and reflects the public consultations undertaken within the areas for which the Office is currently responsible. The Office does not, however, keep central historical records relating to the availability of consultation documents online or in printed form.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 902W, on rural housing, how many households were identified as being in priority need for housing in each year since 1996 in local authorities defined as rural, broken down by region. [61191]

  Mr. McNulty
  Summary information on activity under the statutory homeless provisions of the 1996 Housing Act is reported to the Department by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need. The numbers of these households in authorities classified as either "mixed rural" or "deep rural" are as follows:
  881W
  Notes:

  Includes estimates for any non-responding local authorities.

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Source:

  DTLR PI(E) housing activity returns.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the White, Green and consultation papers his Department plans to issue within the next year. [61615]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will issue whatever White, Green and consultation papers are necessary for the conduct of its business.

  Queen's Jubilee Medal (Fire Service)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many firemen will receive the Queen's Jubilee Medal; and how many fire controllers will not receive the Queen's Jubilee Medal. [61920]

  Housing capital resources1

  £ million

  Allocations to local authorities2

  HIP3

  Capital receipts initiative

  Other4

  Total

  Housing corp. ADP5

  Other6

  Total

  1997–98

  692

  174

  60

  926

  727

  —

  1,653

  1998–99

  612

  569

  30

  1,211

  732

  —

  1,943

  1999–2000

  682

  570

  —

  1,252

  816

  —

  2,068

  2000–01

  770

  —

  1,622

  2,392

  808

  70

  3,270

  2002–03

  881

  —

  1,704

  2,585

  941

  140

  3,666

  1 Figures exclude extra resources for housing PFI schemes (£760 million for 2001–02 to 2003–04).

  2 Estate Action allocations, which were treated as housing allocations up to 1994–95 but now come under regeneration, are excluded. Capital grants for gypsy sites are also not included.

  3 The Housing Investment Programme (HIP) figures exclude the element for expenditure financed from authorities' capital receipts included in allocations to individual authorities.

  4 Other allocations cover: Major Repairs Allowance (from 2001–02), Arms Length Companies (from 2003–03), and Cash Incentive Schemes (1997–98 to 1998–99).

  5 The Housing Corporation ADP figures are net figures and include support for City Challenge(1997–98 to 1998–99), Rough Sleepers Initiative, ERCF schemes, Major Repairs Initiative (from 1999–2000), and remodelling works (from 1999–2000).

  6 This covers the Starter Homes Initiative and the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund.

  House Building
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses have been built in(a) London, and (b) each county in the south of England in each year since 1997. [64372]

  Mr. McNulty
  The figures for the number of permanent dwellings completed since 1997 are given in the table. They are shown in the county structure of 1997 prior to local government restructure.

  House building: permanent dwellings completed

  Number of dwellings

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  London

  13,074

  12,898

  12,704

  12,962

  14,564

  South East

  Berkshire

  2,207

  2,604

  2,292

  2,564

  2,288

  Buckinghamshire

  3,322

  2,870

  2,670

  2,655

  2,465

  East Sussex

  2,002

  1,779

  1,814

  1,724

  1,992

  Hampshire

  6,272

  4,854

  4,596

  4,189

  3,858

  Isle of Wight

  665

  394

  398

  365

  358

  Kent

  3,935

  4,098

  4,239

  4,564

  4,511

  882W
  Mr. Leslie
  Records are currently being checked by brigades to ascertain how many firefighters meet the detailed eligibility criteria for receipt of the Jubilee Medal. While there are 33,200 whole-time firefighters and 15,000 retained, we estimate that around 6,000 of these will not meet the criteria. There are approximately 1,500 control room staff none of whom will qualify for the award under the eligibility criteria set up by the Inter-departmental Steering Group established for this purpose.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the cash value of Government investment in housing, excluding(a) housing benefit, (b) mortgage tax relief and (c) council tax relief in each year since 1997. [64370]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table shows housing capital resources allocated to local authorities in each year since 1997.

  House building: permanent dwellings completed

  Number of dwellings

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Oxfordshire

  1,797

  2,526

  2,448

  2,113

  1,850

  Surrey

  2,673

  2,462

  2,439

  2,310

  2,607

  West Sussex

  2,776

  2,533

  2,015

  1,763

  1,506

  South West

  Avon

  5,444

  3,523

  2,899

  2,351

  2,190

  Cornwall

  1,424

  1,935

  1,923

  2,108

  2,150

  Devon

  3,567

  3,099

  3,668

  3,114

  3,187

  Dorset

  2,215

  1,819

  2,082

  1,968

  2,014

  Gloucestershire

  1,773

  1,902

  1,665

  1,687

  1,683

  Somerset

  1,443

  1,490

  1,806

  1,826

  1,775

  Wiltshire

  2,839

  2,684

  2,019

  2,240

  2,329

  Station Houses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many station houses have been provided for key workers in London in each year since 1997. [64371]
  883W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Fire Service has single person quarters in four dwellings in London. Each provides accommodation for four fire fighters, let on a non-secure tenant basis.

  Mayoral Management
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons he decided to end the practice of compulsory referendums for mayoral management of local authorities. [65997]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I set out the reasons behind the Government's approach to the use of the Secretary of State's powers to direct councils to hold mayoral referendums in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on 25 June 2002,Official Report, columns 812–13W. Within the framework of freedoms and flexibilities that we are introducing for councils, we believe it is more appropriate for councils themselves to make and justify to local people their own judgments on the outcome of any consultation about proposals for a new constitution.

  It continues to be the case that where 5 per cent. or more of a local authority's electorate sign a petition calling for a mayoral referendum to be held, the council will be required to hold such a referendum.

  Social Landlords
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government plan to introduce financial incentives to encourage the transfer of council homes to social landlords; and if he will make a statement. [65992]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Decent Homes Target
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on achieving the Government's decent homes target; and if he will make a statement. [65864]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Based on social landlords' current plans, we believe we are on course to meet our 2004 milestone target to reduce by one-third the number of households living in social housing that is not of a decent standard. We will be able to report on progress during 2001–02 later in the year once Government offices have completed their assessment of local authority business plans and the Housing Corporation has considered housing association decent home returns.

  Thames River Crossing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2002, ref. 63796, on a new Thames crossing, if his Department has been invited to the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership's meeting in July on the possibility of a new Thames crossing; and if he will make a statement. [66077]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not been invited to a meeting with the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership in July to discuss proposals for a new Thames crossing.
  884W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when local councillors and local hon. Members will be invited to the summit between Government Ministers, hon. Members, officials and council leaders, to discuss plans for a new Thames river crossing, east of Dartford; and if he will make a statement. [66000]

  Mr. McNulty
  No such summit is planned at this time.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money was spent by the relevant pension fund on paying pensions to retired(a) local government employees and (b) firefighters in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in (i) five years' time, (ii) 10 years' time, (iii) 20 years' time and (iv) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (a) unfunded pension schemes and (b) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [66563]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Pension Scheme (the LGPS) is a funded scheme administered at local level by authorities in England and Wales. For the year 2000–01, the latest for which we hold information, payments for LGPS pensioner members amounted to £3.5 billion.

  The Firefighters' Pension Scheme (the FPS) is also administered locally by individual fire authorities. Its liabilities are not subject to pension funds. For 2000–01, the latest year for which returns are available, the provisional net total of payments under the scheme for fire authorities in England was £250 million.

  Estimates of projected liability expenditure from both the funded LGPS and the unfunded FPS are not held centrally for the periods in question.

  Housing (South-west)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what action he is taking to increase the supply of affordable housing in south Somerset; and if he will make a statement; [66296]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effects of the increase in property prices in south-west England since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [66299]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government recognise the pressures on affordable housing in many parts of the country, including south Somerset. Through the Housing Corporation the Government will provide £1.8 million towards delivering affordable housing in south Somerset this year. This represents an increase of £200,000 on last year, when 160 affordable housing units were provided most of which were for rent.

  According to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Survey of Mortgage Lenders, house prices in south-west England rose by 31.8 per cent. during the three years 1999 to 2001. Home ownership is affordable for most people. Homeowners are benefiting from low interest rates, low unemployment and robust income growth. For people purchasing a home in south-west England during 2001, total mortgage payments averaged 17.44 per cent. of their income. This compares to 28.42 per cent. of income in

  885W
  1990, and is lower than 1999 (17.91 per cent.) and 2000 (19.43 per cent.). However we are well aware that there can be serious problems for many first time buyers in areas of high demand.

  Public Amenity Buildings
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) schools, (b) hospitals, (c) housing and (d) other public amenities were built on (i) greenfield, (ii) brownfield and (iii) former landfill sites in each year since 1997; on each occasion what was the nature of funding for the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [65600]

  Mr. McNulty
  For housing, the number of dwellings completed in England each year between 1997 and 2001 was as follows:

  1997: 149,100

  1998: 141,400

  1999: 140,200

  2000: 136,700

  2001: 127,700 dwellings.

  The proportion of dwellings built on previously developed land (`brownfield land'), including conversions, was as follows:

  1997: 56 per cent.

  1998: 58 per cent.

  1999: 59 per cent.

  2000: 60 per cent.

  2001: 61 per cent. (provisional).

  The proportion on former landfill sites is not available annually but is estimated at around 0.1 per cent. of all dwellings.

  For the other categories requested, the latest available reliable estimates are for 1997 and for the area of land. In England in 1997, an estimated 575 hectares changed to community buildings, covering (a), (b) and (d), excluding leisure and recreational buildings. Of these, around 355 hectares (62 per cent.) came from previously developed land. Less than five hectares came from minerals and landfill.

  Information on funding is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses in multiple occupation have had their licences revoked in areas where local authority licensing schemes are in place, broken down by local authority, in the last year. [66677]

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

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have compulsory registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation: and how long each of these schemes has been in place. [66678]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following local authorities in England have adopted compulsory registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation. The date in column three is the date on which the scheme began (if known).
  886W

  Government office region

  Authority

  Date

  South East

  Ashford

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Brighton and Hove

  1 April 2002

  Canterbury

  1 September 1998

  Cherwell

  Dacorum

  Dover

  1 May 2001

  East Hertfordshire

  Eastbourne

  31 March 2000

  Gravesham

  Guildford

  1 June 1998

  Hastings

  3 September 2001

  Newbury

  North Hertfordshire

  Oxford

  1 September 1999

  Portsmouth

  1 September 1997

  Rother

  Rushmoor

  Shepway

  20 November 2000

  Southampton

  1 January 1999

  Surrey Heath

  Test Valley

  8 March 1995

  Thanet

  2 March 1998

  West Berkshire

  West Oxfordshire

  Wokingham

  Worthing

  South West

  Bournemouth

  1 July 1998

  Bristol

  1 March 1999

  Cheltenham

  3 March 1999

  Isles of Scilly

  Mid Devon

  North Somerset

  1 July 1999

  Stroud

  Torbay

  West Devon

  Weymouth and Portland

  London

  Barking and Dagenham

  1 June 2001

  Bexley

  30 April 2000

  Brent

  1 July 1999

  Bromley

  1 March 2001

  Camden

  3 March 1999

  Croydon

  1 March 1999

  Ealing

  1 April 1998

  Greenwich

  1 January 1991

  Hackney

  1 March 1999

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  21 July 2001

  Haringey

  1 May 2001

  Harrow

  10 January 2000

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  12 January 1998

  Islington

  1 October 1998

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  1 August 1999

  Lewisham

  1 August 1991

  Newham

  1 March 1999

  Southwark

  1 July 1999

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Westminster

  5 April 1999

  East

  Basildon

  1 August 1999

  Cambridge

  31 May 1999

  Colchester

  1 September 1998

  Fenland

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  Luton

  1 April 1999

  Mid Bedfordshire

  North Norfolk

  Peterborough

  1 January 2000

  St Albans

  4 March 1999

  Tendring

  Watford

  1 July 1999

  Waveney

  East Midlands

  Derby

  1 July 1999

  Kettering

  Mansfield

  2 June 1999

  887W

  Government office region

  Authority

  Date

  Melton

  Newark and Sherwood

  1 November 1999

  Nottingham

  1 June 2001

  Rushcliffe

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  13 December 1995

  Bromsgrove

  Herefordshire

  1 October 1999

  North Warwickshire

  30 May 2000

  Redditch

  Wolverhampton

  1 August 1995

  Wyre Forest

  North West

  Allerdale

  Barrow In Furness

  Blackpool

  1 April 1998

  Bolton

  Bury

  Carlisle

  Chester

  Lancaster

  1 October 1998

  Preston

  Salford

  Sefton

  Warrington

  Wigan

  Wirral

  1 August 1999

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  10 July 1998

  Calderdale

  Doncaster

  1 April 2001

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Harrogate

  Hull

  10 January 2000

  Kirklees

  26 January 1998

  North East Lincolnshire

  1 April 1998

  North Lincolnshire

  Scarborough

  10 April 1995

  Sheffield

  2 April 2000

  York

  1 March 1998

  North East

  Blyth Valley

  Castle Morpeth

  Darlington

  1 August 1999

  Gateshead

  Middlesbrough

  Stockton on Tees

  Sunderland

  1 April 2002

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which companies submitted bids for the grant awarded to Northcote KeyStart Homes under the second round of the Starter Home Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [67447]

  Mr. McNulty
  Bids for Starter Home Initiative (SHI) Round 2 funding were invited from registered social landlords, local authorities and key worker employers. Northcote Housing Association was allocated £1.056 million SHI Round 2 funding to assist a total of 103 key workers in Buckinghamshire, Slough, Reading and Oxford. The funding will be used to provide £10,000 equity loans to key workers in these areas to assist their house purchase. The funding allocated also includes £25,750 towards the Association's costs in administering the scheme.

  Local Authority Staff
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of how many people were employed by local authorities in England in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [67448]
  888W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The numbers of employees in local authorities in England in the last five years are given in the table.

  Numbers employed by local authorities in England1

  Full time equivalents

  Thousand

  Mid-year counts2

  1998

  1,404

  1999

  1,420

  2000

  1,435

  2001

  1,474

  20023

  1,495

  1 Excludes police and magistrates courts

  2 End of June

  3 End of March

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Housing (North-East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve housing conditions in North-east Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [67205]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have selected east Lancashire as one of nine Market Renewal Pathfinders, aiming to provide lasting solutions for communities blighted by low demand housing. Under this initiative east Lancashire has been allocated £2.66 million of pump-prime funding to undertake background analysis and help develop a delivery process and master plan. Substantive funding is being considered as part of the comprehensive spending review specifically to tackle this issue of housing abandonment.

  Nationally housing capital resources through the housing investment programme will rise to some £2.6 billion in 2003–04 and east Lancashire should benefit from this increase. Four east Lancashire authorities are receiving from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund some £20 million over the three years to 2004 in addition to other European and domestic funding for regeneration. Housing investment is more effective when used in conjunction with wider regeneration initiatives.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer regarding children in care of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 196W, what information he collates on children in care who are (a) homeless, (b) in bed and breakfast accommodation and (c) in temporary accommodation. [67690]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities are obliged to ensure that children in care are placed in settings that are approved to meet their needs. Therefore they would not be homeless. Given local authorities' responsibilities towards children in their care it would be rare for a child in care ever to be placed in temporary or bed and breakfast accommodation.

  On 31 March 2001 38,400 (65 per cent.) children were placed with foster carers, 6,200 (10 per cent.) were placed in children's homes, 3,100 (6 per cent.) were placed with families approved under the Adoption Agency regulations and there were 6,900 (12 per cent.) children who were placed with parents.

  Planning
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether planning authorities are obliged to take into account relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 before reaching conclusions on planning matters; and if he will make a statement. [67639]

  Mr. McNulty
  The introduction of the Human Rights Act means that all public authorities, including central Government and local authorities, must act compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In planning this means that decision makers at all levels in the planning process must consider what impact

  Homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation1 provided by London boroughs. and housing benefit costs

  Number of households reported as at 31 March 2002

  Housing benefit subsidy 2000–01 (£)

  Number of household days provided during 2000–01

  Average housing benefit subsidy per household 2000–01 (£ per week)

  Barking and Dagenham

  19

  0

  395

  0.00

  Barnet

  154

  4,318,364

  91,447

  330.56

  Bexley

  50

  394,360

  25,753

  107.19

  Brent

  631

  3,133,652

  172,715

  127.00

  Bromley

  104

  905,376

  46,426

  136.51

  Camden

  157

  1,984,626

  103,295

  134.49

  Corporation of London

  7

  216,857

  14,058

  107.98

  Croydon

  539

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Ealing

  619

  1,649,055

  106,626

  108.26

  Enfield

  188

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Greenwich

  21

  0

  0

  0.00

  Hackney

  155

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  549

  1,885,236

  121,910

  108.25

  Haringey

  166

  7,566,028

  319,956

  165.53

  Harrow

  9

  845,092

  56,552

  104.61

  Havering

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hillingdon

  481

  2,522,971

  87,500

  201.84

  Hounslow

  310

  1,135,275

  64,350

  123.50

  Islington

  94

  2,283,611

  61,262

  260.93

  Kensington and Chelsea

  436

  5,171,930

  3—

  3—

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  8

  149,106

  7,886

  132.35

  Lambeth

  353

  0

  3—

  0.00

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0.00

  Merton

  57

  239,853

  14,112

  118.97

  Newham

  782

  3,078,413

  187,706

  114.80

  Redbridge

  267

  1,773,346

  96,360

  128.82

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  77

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Southwark

  233

  1,261,741

  83,783

  105.42

  Sutton

  46

  541,947

  32,322

  117.37

  Tower Hamlets

  341

  2,568,636

  65,731

  273.55

  Waltham Forest

  91

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Wandsworth

  445

  1,421,638

  70,733

  140.69

  Westminster

  851

  5,503,102

  385,436

  99.94

  1"Bed and breakfast" includes hotel annexe-style accommodation with shared facilities. Cases include those accommodated pending completion of inquiries prior to a decision, and any households found to be intentionally homeless being housed for a limited period only.

  2Denotes non-response to the survey

  3Denotes data not available

  Note:

  Average subsidy is derived from the aggregate reported housing benefit subsidy and the total number of nights provision.

  Sources:

  ODPM quarterly PIE housing returns; GLA monthly homelessness survey. CIPFA Homelessness Statistics 2000–01 Actuals annual survey.

  Housing (Learning Disability)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions are taking place with the local authority associations regarding the housing needs of people with a learning disability who live with older parents; and if he will make a statement; [66306]

  (2) what guidance is forwarded to local authorities regarding the priority for housing provision to be given to
  890W
  their decisions may have on the human rights of parties affected by them before reaching a conclusion.

  Homelessness
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for each London borough for the latest available date, how many families were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation under homelessness provisions; and what the average cost was to the housing benefit budget for each family. [68616]

  Mr. McNulty
  Latest available information, in respect of all homeless households as reported by London boroughs, is as follows:

  people with a learning disability whose elderly parents are no longer able to care for them; and if he will make a statement; [66305]

  (3) what steps are being taken to ensure that all local authorities are developing a comprehensive support programme for people with a learning disability; and if he will make a statement. [66304]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.
  891W
  The Government's strategy for improving services for people with learning disabilities and their families is set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21' Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001. Implementation guidance HSC 2001/016: LAC(2001)23 was issued to local authorities on 31 August 2001. Copies are available in the Library.

  Our strategy sets out a range of targets and objectives to support and improve the lives of people with learning disabilities and their families. Key to the implementation of these changes are learning disability partnership boards now established in each local authority area. All partnership boards have prepared local joint investment plans to improve services for this vulnerable group of people. Partnership boards are being supported in the delivery of the White Paper objectives by a director of implementation and a valuing people support team with members based in each of the nine social services regions. There is also the learning disability task force which will monitor implementation and report progress to Ministers who in turn will report to Parliament.

  "Valuing People" recognises the concern about the position of people with learning disabilities living with older carers. They and their families must be able to plan for the future in good time. Promoting supported living for this group of people is one of the priorities for both the revenue and capital elements of the £42 million learning disability development fund announced in the White Paper. The fund has been distributed to the new learning disability partnership boards from April 2002 to support the implementation of "Valuing People". The needs of elderly carers and the development of supported living
  892W
  approaches for people with learning disabilities living with older carers are also identified as priorities in the implementation guidance, which was sent to all local authority chief executives, social services directors and directors of housing.

  Partnership boards, working with local housing authorities, people with learning disabilities, carers and service providers; are required to develop local housing strategies by winter 2002–03. Joint guidance will be issued shortly by the Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to help partnership boards develop their local housing strategies. The valuing people support team will also provide specialist support and advice to help this process. An important element in the development of each strategy will be the assessment of both current and future need which will include identifying people with learning disabilities and their carers who need support now and in the future. The joint guidance will restate the priority that should be given to people with learning disabilities living with older carers. Local housing authorities also have a responsibility to produce a housing strategy which sets out plans addressing the range of housing needs in their area. This includes all groups with special needs where the strategy must link into provision of associated support services.

  Both the local government association and the association of directors of social services are represented on the new learning disability task force. A key function of the task force is to oversee implementation of "Valuing People". the director of implementation also met recently with the local government association to discuss housing issues.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what area of land is required to construct each of the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [45558]

  Beverley Hughes
  I apologise for the delay in answering this question due to an administrative oversight in my Department. It is envisaged that in order to provide a full range of on-site services for a total of 750 asylum seekers, a site of around 20 to 25 acres will be required.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on local(a) labour markets and (b) small businesses of the establishment of asylum accommodation centres in remote rural locations; and if he will make a statement. [59273]

  Beverley Hughes
  These assessments are being made as part of the planning process.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 803W, on RAF Turnhouse, for what reasons his Department has not reached a final decision on the suitability of RAF Turnhouse for an asylum seeker accommodation centre. [62063]

  Beverley Hughes
  Immediate priority has been given to the three sites for which it has been decided to submit planning notifications. A final decision on the sites still under consideration, including the Royal Air Force (RAF) Turnhouse, has not been reached simply because further work on evaluation is still in progress. As I have stated previously, we will reach a decision as soon as possible on the suitability of RAF Turnhouse.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 803W, on RAF Turnhouse, which of the criteria listed (a) Killingholme and (b) Hooton Park failed to meet. [62178]

  Beverley Hughes
  We do not consider there to be any genuine public interest in disclosing the reasons why sites have been found to be unsuitable for the development of accommodation centres.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47140]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2002, special advisers have accompanied the Home Secretary abroad on six occasions at an average total cost of £2,030.02 for all involved in the trip. the countries visited were Spain,
  894W
  France and Belgium. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by his Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48357]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Home Department does not pay any subscription to (a) digital terrestrial and (b) digital satellite television. The Department does pay subscriptions to (c) digital cable television used in a departmental building from which Ministers work. Use of these services is limited to Ministers' private offices, the Legal Advisers Branch and the Communications Directorate. Details of cost and purpose are as follows:

  Subscription: 37 digital cable subscriptions £420.00.

  Cost per year: £15.540.00.

  Purpose: To monitor upcoming and breaking news, and parliamentary news to brief Ministers.

  Private offices which support Home Office Ministers, pay an annual maintenance cost of £1,231 for a range of services, including a live feed from the Commons and Lords chambers, and access to House of Commons/ Lords annunciator.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60938]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

  During the period May 1997 to March 1998, in this Department there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £43,991; two Ministers of State, at an annual salary of £31,125; and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, one in the Lords at an annual salary of £43,632 and two in the Commons at an annual salary of £23,623.

  From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £68,157; three Ministers of State, two in the Commons at an annual salary of £35,356 and one in the Lords at an annual salary of £68,283; and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, at an annual salary of £26,835.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61022]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is provided in the following table.
  895W

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Annual departmental expenditure limit (DEL)(£million)

  10,731

  10,230

  Staff costs (£ million)

  1,477

  1,688

  Staff costs as proportion of annual DEL (Percentage)

  13.8

  16.5

  The 2001–02 DEL includes £826 million from the DEL Reserve, voted in the Spring Supplementary Estimates, mainly to fund asylum expenditure. If this is discounted, the staff costs for 2001–02 constitute 16.1 per cent. of the DEL.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers living in Falkirk, West constituency are awaiting(a) the outcome of their asylum applications and (b) the outcome of appeals against decisions made in respect of their asylum applications. [63380]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 1231W.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of in-kind support is available to asylum seekers in NASS accommodation. [66873]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]:The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation is fully furnished including items such as crockery and kitchen utensils. The costs of accommodation including associated utility bills and council tax are met centrally.

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which his Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45400]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Since the Home Office publishes considerable amounts of information, it is not possible to identify all that falls in this category without disproportionate diversion of resources and further delay. However, as work proceeds on the development of a publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act, we intend to increase the volume of such material in accordance with recommended practice. The publication scheme will be operational in November this year and will set out the classes of information that the Home Office will publish routinely. We aim to include information from administrative manuals and internal guidance.

  Firearms
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths were attributable to firearms in the last year in Portsmouth, South; how many of these were with licensed firearms; and if he will make a statement. [64725]
  896W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There were no deaths attributable to firearms, recorded by the police in Hampshire for 2000–01 (year ending March).

  The Home Office firearms database does not hold figures for locations below police force area. Information relating to the number of licensed firearms is recorded on a calendar basis, figures for 2001 are not currently available.

  Drug Arrests
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug arrests there were in the Portsmouth, South constituency in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [64588]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information on the number of persons arrested for notifiable offences is collected by police force area only. Available data on the number of persons arrested for drugs offences within the Hampshire police force area are given in the table for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Statistics for 2001–02 will be available in the autumn.

  Number of persons arrested, for drug offences in Hampshire police force area

  Number of persons

  1999–2000

  3,768

  2000–01

  3,059

  Crack Cocaine
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were arrested for possession of crack cocaine in Weston-Super-Mare in the past five years. [64934]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is not collected centrally at the level required.

  Marsham Street
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what art will be incorporated within his new headquarters on Marsham Street; and what resources have been allocated to art as(a) an overall figure and (b) a percentage of the final capital value of the new headquarters. [65069]

  Beverley Hughes
  This is a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project being carried out by Annes Gate Property plc for the Home Department. The current scheme design agreed by Annes Gate Property with Westminster city council includes provision for art as this was a key consideration in the planning application discussions. The indicative capital sum provided in Annes Gate Property's cost plan is approximately one per cent. of the total capital spend. The art element is generally integrated into the scheme and relates to treatment of external finishes, elements of the hard landscaping, external lighting and other items as detailed in the planning consent.

  Brixton Prison
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Irish prisoners who died in Brixton during the last six years were on suicide watch; and whether in each case guidelines were followed; [65439]
  897W
  (2) whether the relevant cell alarm system was in working order on each occurrence of a cell death in Brixton during the last five years; [65438]

  (3) how many prisoners have died in HMP Brixton since 1995. [65442]

  Hilary Benn
  The tables detail the 14 self-inflicted deaths and three deaths by natural causes that have occurred at Brixton since 1995. Four of the 14 were Irish citizens and a further three of Irish extraction. One prisoner of Irish extraction was subject to intermittent observation and the investigation under way is reviewing the care he received.

  Cell alarm systems are checked as a matter of routine, but there is no record available to show that alarms, in every cell where deaths occurred, were working at the time. Cell alarms checked, or their use noted, as part of an investigation into a death in custody, but only where it is considered relevant.

  Issues about the use of a cell alarm were addressed in one investigation, with no evidence found to support claims made that an alarm was activated but not responded to.

  Deaths at HMP Brixton: 1995–2002

  Number

  Self-inflicted deaths

  1995

  0

  1996

  1

  9197

  2

  1998

  1

  1999

  4

  2000

  2

  2001

  2

  20021

  2

  Total

  14

  Natural causes deaths 1995

  1995

  1

  1996

  0

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  1

  2001

  0

  20021

  0

  Total

  3

  1As at 25 June 2002

  Visitors' Bonds Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on Government proposals to introduce a visitors' bonds scheme. [65607]

  Beverley Hughes
  A consultation paper, "Financial Bonds for Visitors", was issued in October 1999. This sought views on a number of key questions, including the scope of any scheme, the nature and amount of the bond, and the locations for the proposed pilot study.

  The response to the consultation paper was generally negative. Many respondents—particularly those from the ethnic minority communities—simply did not support the idea of a bond scheme, either in principle or because of worries over discrimination or affordability. Of those who responded more positively, many wanted a very low
  898W
  level of bond that would not have offered sufficient disincentive to fraud. The scheme also attracted considerable adverse reaction from the countries proposed for a pilot study.

  Simultaneously, work on moving towards a more flexible approach to the operation of the immigration control made it difficult to design a simple, quick scheme for providing a bond facility for visitors and recording their entry to and departure from the United Kingdom.

  It was also considered that the re-introduction of a right of appeal for family visitors in October 2000 would provide a more effective way of addressing the concerns of the ethnic minority community about visa refusals for family visits.

  For all these reasons it was decided not to pursue the proposed pilot scheme—a decision that was generally widely welcomed. An announcement to this effect was made in a response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 28 July 2000.

  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", published in February 2002, explained the negative response to the financial bond scheme proposals. It also referred to exploring community-based or other collective mechanisms, or a way of requiring people to report back to posts when they return, and invited views. We are currently considering the responses.

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66191]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Department has no central policy on this matter. Each case is decided on its merits.

  Indefinite Leave to Remain
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons came to the UK as visitors in 2001 and subsequently applied for indefinite leave to remain. [66335]

  Beverley Hughes
  The requested information is not currently available.

  Air Weapons
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offences were recorded involving the use of an air weapon in each year since 1997; [65288]

  (2) what advice he has received from the Firearms Consultative Committee on the purchase, possession and use of air guns: and if he will make a statement; [65287]

  (3) what progress he has made in implementing the recommendations which the Government accepted from the Home Affairs Committee's report, "Controls over firearms"; and if he will make a statement; [65284]

  (4) if he will introduce a licensing scheme for air rifles; and if he will make a statement; [65285]
  899W
  (5) how many offences resulting in injury to the person were recorded involving the use of an air weapon; and how many of these are recorded as attempted murder or other acts endangering life in each year since 1997; [65289]

  (6) what action he plans to take on controls on air rifles following the shooting with an air rifle; and if he will make a statement. [65286]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: The Government totally condemns the misuse of air weapons and has the deepest sympathy for Tommy Morris and those others who are seriously injured by people who

  Violence against a person

  19971

  1998–992

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Air weapon offences

  7,506

  8,665

  10,103

  10,227

  Offences resulting in slight injury

  1,065

  1,381

  1,806

  1,654

  Offences resulting in serious injury

  129

  133

  171

  166

  Homicide

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Attempted murder and other acts (including wounding) endangering life

  75

  88

  80

  62

  1Calendar year.

  2There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998. Crime figures no longer exclude offences where the value of criminal damage is under £20. 75 per cent. of air weapon offences consisted of criminal damage.

  The laws concerning air weapons are already very strict, as are the penalties for misuse. We believe that much can be done to improve the situation through the enforcement of existing legislation and public education, and we are at present considering the Firearms Consultative Committee's advice on how this should be taken forward. The shooting associations and the police are already working closely together and have launched a campaign designed to create a greater awareness of the requirements of the law and to emphasise the basic principles of safe and responsible shooting. We believe that this will help to check the rise in criminal damage and to sustain the welcome reduction last year in the total number of injuries.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not yet replied to the letter to him dated 18 March from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to an Afghan asylum-seeker ref. DEV/OU/1506. [66486]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I provided to him on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 264W.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan of 1 May on animal experimentation. [67648]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 May 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to 900W
  use their guns in an irresponsible or criminal manner. The question of introducing a licensing regime for air weapons as recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee has been carefully considered by the Government. As the committee recognised, there are resource implications in setting up and running an effective registration system and we are reviewing these practical issues as part of an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the existing wide range of controls governing the sale and use of air weapons.

  Information about the number of offences involving the use of air weapons, and the number of resulting injuries in each year since 1997, is given in the following table:

  him dated 30 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. F. A. Malik. [66209]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27 June 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not yet replied to the letter to him dated 9 April, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Rahemi Aminullah. [66487]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I provided to him on 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 180W.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not yet replied to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton with regard to Mr. S. Balekey. [66485]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend's letter of 22 April 2002 was not received by the Home Office until 7 June 2002. It was then immediately forwarded to the Immigration and Nationality Department (Integrated Casework Directorate) for consideration.

  A reply was sent to my office for signature on 27 June 2002, and despatched on the same date.

  Drug and People Smuggling
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with European counterparts regarding increased co-operation between police forces in tackling drug smuggling and people smuggling. [66633]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have regular discussions with our European counterparts about increased police co-operation in tackling organised and international crime. Most recently, at the Justice and

  901W
  Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 13 June 2002, the Home Secretary stressed the need for action at European Union (EU) level to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. This was subsequently reflected in the conclusions of the Seville European Council.

  In advance of the Danish presidency of the EU, the Home Secretary met with the Danish Justice Minister on 19 June 2002 and discussed the issue of drug trafficking at EU level. The United Kingdom (UK) will work with the Danish presidency to ensure that the framework decision on drug trafficking is agreed as soon as possible, and that the mid-term review of the EU Action Plan against Drugs is productive in taking forward co-operation at EU level.

  The Home Secretary also met with the French Interior Minister, M. Sarkozy, for bilateral talks on 25 June 2002 and they agreed that joint UK-French teams should work together to tackle people trafficking.

  Based on the Framework Decision on Joint Investigation Teams, which was adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in June, work is under way on the formation of a joint investigation team to combat cocaine smuggling.

  Youth Justice Board
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Youth Justice Board will publish its annual review for 2001–02. [68764]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Justice Board annual review for 2001–02 has today been laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Youth Justice Board was established in 1998 by the Crime and Disorder

  Schemes which are operational

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Financial close date

  Operational date

  Carlisle Hospitals

  65.00

  3 November 1997

  29 May 2000

  Dartford and Gravesham

  94.00

  30 July 1997

  11 September 2000

  Queens Medical Centre—Nottingham University Hospital

  16.60

  24 May 1999

  1 October 2000

  South Buckinghamshire

  45.10

  14 December 1997

  17 October 2000

  Sussex Weald and Downs

  22.00

  24 June 1999

  31 January 2001

  Oxleas—Queen Mary's Sidcup

  20.30

  1 December 1998

  19 February 2001

  Greenwich Healthcare

  93.00

  1 July 1998

  1 March 2001

  North East London Mental Health

  10.80

  4 July 2000

  4 March 2001

  North Durham Health Care

  61.00

  31 March 1998

  2 April 2001

  Calderdale Healthcare

  64.60

  31 July 1998

  8 April 2001

  South Manchester University

  65.60

  8 June 1998

  25 July 2001

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  28.07

  1 December 1999

  1 September 2001

  Norfolk and Norwich Health

  158.00

  9 January 1998

  21 September 2001

  Hereford Hospitals

  64.10

  31 March 1999

  1 March 2002

  Barnet and Chase Farm

  54.00

  1 February 1999

  2 March 2002

  Worcestershire Acute

  86.60

  18 March 1999

  18 March 2002

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health

  18.00

  15 August 2000

  18 March 2002

  Cornwall Healthcare

  10.20

  31 October 2000

  1 June 2002

  South Durham Health Care

  48.00

  28 May 1999

  8 June 2002

  East London and The City Mental Health—Newham

  14.50

  5 September 2000

  9 July 2002

  902W
  Act to reform the youth justice system. The annual review provides evidence of success in meeting the principal aim of the reformed youth justice system to prevent offending.

  The Government's pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders has been achieved. It has been reduced from an average time of 142 days in 1997 to 67 days in the first quarter of 2002.

  The review shows that effective use has been made of police Final Warnings, bail supervision and support programmes, robust new sentences and the new Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme to reduce re-offending.

  The review also presents evidence that targeted prevention work with young people at risk, use of parenting programmes and education, employment and training initiatives are effective to prevent and reduce offending rates.

HEALTH

  Hospital Construction
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) medium-sized and (b) major hospital schemes are planned under the NHS plan; when (i) construction is due to commence and (ii) schemes will be completed; and what the cost is of each scheme. [56939]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan states that there will be further major expansion in new hospital buildings which mean over 100 new hospital schemes in total between 2000 and 2010.

  Lists of medium-sized and major hospital schemes which are planned under the NHS plan, giving details of the capital cost of the scheme; when the scheme is expected to reach financial close and when the scheme is expected to become operational are in the following tables. The total number of projects is 107.
  903W

  Schemes which have reached financial close but not yet operational

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Financial close date

  Planned operational date

  Bromley

  117.90

  19 November 1998

  30 April 2003

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  121.90

  16 August 1999

  1 April 2003

  Swindon and Marlborough

  96.00

  5 October 1999

  15 January 2003

  King's Healthcare

  64.00

  6 December 1999

  31 January 2003

  Leeds Community and Mental

  47.00

  1 March 2000

  1 December 2002

  St. George's Healthcare

  49.00

  17 March 2000

  1 April 2003

  University College London

  404.00

  12 July 2000

  1 April 2005

  Northumbria Healthcare—Wansbeck

  14.69

  16 November 2000

  1 April 2003

  Luton and Dunstable

  14.70

  21 November 2000

  27 August 2002

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  22.00

  8 December 2000

  30 January 2003

  West Middlesex University

  60.00

  30 January 2001

  1 April 2003

  Berkshire Healthcare

  29.70

  1 April 2001

  9 March 2003

  Northumbria Healthcare—Hexham

  28.80

  27 April 2001

  1 July 2003

  Dudley Group of Hospitals

  137.00

  1 May 2001

  30 September 2004

  Royston Buntingford and Bishop Stortford PCT

  14.75

  4 May 2001

  31 May 2003

  Surrey Hampshire Borders—Farnham

  15.00

  29 October 2001

  1 September 2003

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  12.80

  20 March 2002

  1 July 2003

  Nuffield Orthopaedic centrel

  32.00

  20 April 2002

  28 February 2004

  Gloucestershire Royal

  32.00

  22 April 2002

  1 September 2004

  North Durham Health Care—Chester-le-Street

  10.40

  1 June 2002

  31 July 2004

  Schemes yet to reach financial close. Operational dates to be determined as part of the PFI process

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Planned financial close date

  Parkside Health

  11.00

  1 August 2002

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals—Wharfedale

  10.00

  1 August 2002

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals

  148.00

  1 September 2002

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire*

  178.00

  1 September 2002

  Southern Derbyshire Acute

  177.00

  30 November 2002

  Newbury PCT

  18.00

  24 July 2002

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  70.30

  1 September 2002

  Mid Devon Primary Care Trust

  12.00

  30 July 2002

  The Whittington

  25.00

  31 July 2002

  Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare

  11.30

  30 July 2002

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  23.70

  31 July 2002

  Kingston Hospital

  21.00

  1 August 2002

  Sandwell and W. Birmingham Hospitals—City Hospital

  19.00

  14 August 2002

  Northamptonshire Healthcare

  19.80

  31 August 2002

  Bath and West Community

  10.00

  31 August 2002

  South West London Community—Queen Mary's Roehampton

  24.80

  21 September 2002

  Newham Healthcare

  24.90

  1 October 2002

  Northumberland Mental Health—St. Georges Morpeth

  25.00

  1 November 2002

  Burnley Health Care

  13.65

  26 December 2002

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  123.80

  1 February 2003

  Portsmouth Hospitals

  121.00

  15 February 2003

  East Kent Community

  11.10

  1 March 2003

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals

  95.00

  15 March 2003

  Central Manchester Healthcare*

  199.00

  1 June 2003

  Barts and The London

  620.00

  1 June 2003

  Brighton Health Care

  10.40

  30 June 2003

  Brighton Health Care

  25.00

  1 July 2003

  Lewisham Hospital

  44.00

  1 July 2003

  Nottingham Healthcare

  13.90

  30 June 2003

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  125.00

  1 August 2003

  St. Mary's (Paddington Basin)

  327.00

  14 August 2003

  North West London Hospitals

  60.00

  1 October 2003

  Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health

  48.00

  1 October 2003

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals

  60.00

  1 January 2004

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  53.00

  1 January 2004

  North Middlesex Hospitals

  74.00

  1 January 2004

  University Hospital Birmingham*

  306.00

  1 April 2004

  Southampton University Hospitals

  52.00

  1 July 2004

  South Devon Healthcare

  65.00

  1 July 2004

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

  41.00

  1 July 2004

  Peterborough Hospitals

  250.00

  1 July 2004

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals

  66.00

  1 July 2004

  St. Helens and Knowlsey Hospitals

  228

  1 July 2004

  North Staffordshire Hospital

  254.00

  1 October 2004

  Walsall Hospitals*

  44.00

  1 January 2005

  Tarneside and Glossop Acute Services

  41.00

  1 January 2005

  Pinderfield and Pontefract Hospitals*

  200.00

  1 January 2005

  904W 905W

  Schemes yet to reach financial close. Operational dates to he determined as part of the PFl process

  NHS Trust

  Value (1 million)

  Planned financial close date

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  175.00

  1 January 2005

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells*

  175.00

  1 January 2005

  United Bristol Healthcare

  104.00

  1 January 2005

  Whipps Cross Hospitals

  313.00

  1 January 2005

  University Hospitals of Leicester

  263.00

  1 January 2005

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  79.00

  1 July 2005

  East Kent Hospitals

  102.00

  1 July 2005

  Mid Essex Hospitals

  110.00

  1 July 2005

  Plymouth Hospitals

  101.00

  1 July 2005

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  110.00

  1 July 2005

  Bradford Hospitals

  116.00

  1 July 2005

  Publicly procured schemes operational

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Tender awarded

  Operational date

  Rochdale Healthcare

  24.00

  14 August 1998

  1 Augsut 2000

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  24.00

  19 September 1998

  1 February 2001

  Publicly procured schemes with tender awarded

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Tender awarded

  Planned operational date

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital

  75.00

  24 August 1998

  27 July 2002

  Thames Gateway NHS Trust

  13.50

  1 December 2000

  1 September 2002

  West London NHS Trust

  14.00

  1 December 2000

  1 May 2003

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  11.80

  1 May 2001

  1 May 2003

  Barnet PCT (Edgware Community)

  23.80

  1 April 2001

  1 December 2003

  Wigan-Royal Albert Edward Infirmary

  24.60

  1 November 2000

  1 April 2004

  Guys and St. Thomas

  50.00

  19 September 1998

  1 May 2004

  Capital Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major acute hospitals(a) have been procured and (b) are being procured via the PFI process; what the capital value of each project is; and what stage they are at in the PFI procurement process. [59838]

  Acute schemes operational

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Financial close date

  Operational date

  Carlisle Hospitals

  65.00

  3 November 1997

  29 May 2002

  Dartford and Gravesham

  94.00

  30 July 1997

  11 September 2000

  South Buckinghamshire

  45.10

  14 December 1997

  17 October 2000

  Greenwich Healthcare

  93.00

  1 July 1998

  1 March 2001

  North Durham Health Care

  61.00

  31 March 1998

  2 April 2001

  Calderdale Healthcare

  64.60

  31 July 2998

  8 April 2001

  South Manchester University

  65.60

  8 June 1998

  25 July 2001

  Norfolk and Norwich Health

  158.00

  9 January 1998

  21 September 2001

  Hereford Hospitals

  64.10

  31 March 1999

  1 March 2002

  Barnet and Chase Farm

  54.00

  1 February 1999

  2 March 2002

  Worcestershire Acute

  86.60

  18 March 1999

  18 March 2002

  South Durham Health Care

  48.00

  28 May 1999

  8 June 2002

  Acute schemes reached financial close with planned operational date

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Financial close date

  Planned operational date

  Bromley

  117.90

  19 November 1998

  30 April 2003

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  121.90

  16 August 1999

  1 April 2003

  Swindon and Marlborough

  96.00

  5 October 1999

  15 January 2003

  King's Healthcare

  64.00

  6 December 1999

  31 January 2003

  Leeds Community and Mental

  47.00

  1 March 2000

  1 December 2002

  St. George's Healthcare

  49.00

  17 March 2000

  1 April 2003

  University College London

  404.00

  12 July 2000

  1 April 2005

  Hull and East Yorkshire hospitals

  22.00

  8 December 2000

  10 January 2003

  906W
  Mr. Hutton
  Since May 1997 64 major acute schemes have been approved under the private finance initiative IPFI). The following tables list details of their capital value together with the stage they are at in the PFI procurement process.
  907W

  Acute schemes reached financial close with planned operational date

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Financial close date

  Planned operational date

  West Middlesex University

  60.00

  30 January 2001

  1 April 2003

  Berkshire Healthcare

  29.70

  1 April 2001

  9 March 2003

  Dudley Group of Hospitals

  137.00

  1 May 200 1

  30 September 2004

  Gloucestershire Royal

  32.00

  22 April 2002

  1 September 2004

  Schemes yet to reach financial close. Operational dates to be determined as part of the PFI process

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Planned financial close date

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals

  148.00

  01 September 2002

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire

  178.00

  1 September 2002

  Southern Derbyshire Acute

  177.00

  30 November 2002

  Blackburn. Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  70.30

  1 September 2002

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  123.80

  1 February 2003

  Portsmouth Hospitals

  121.00

  15 February 2003

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals

  95.00

  15 March 2003

  Central Manchester Healthcare

  199.00

  1 June 2003

  Barts and the London

  620.00

  1 June 2003

  Brighton Health Care

  25.00

  1 July 2003

  Lewisham Hospital

  44.00

  1 July 2003

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  125.00

  1 August 2003

  St. Mary's (Paddington Basin)

  327.00

  14 August 2003

  North West London Hospitals

  60.00

  1 October 2003

  Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health

  48.00

  1 October 2003

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals

  60.00

  1 January 2004

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  53.00

  1 January 2004

  North Middlesex Hospitals

  74.00

  1 January 2004

  University Hospital Birmingham

  306.00

  1 April 2004

  Southampton University Hospitals

  52.00

  1 July 2004

  South Devon Healthcare

  65.00

  1 July 2004

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

  41.00

  1 July 2004

  Peterborough Hospitals

  250.00

  1 July 2004

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals

  66.00

  1 July 2004

  St. Helens and Knowlsey Hospitals

  228.00

  1 July 2004

  North Staffordshire Hospital

  254.00

  1 October 2004

  Walsall Hospitals

  44.00

  1 January 2005

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services

  41.00

  1 January 2005

  Pinderfield and Pontefract Hospitals

  200.00

  1 January 2005

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  175.00

  1 January 2005

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells

  175.00

  1 January 2005

  United Bristol Healthcare

  104.00

  1 January 2005

  Whipps Cross Hospitals

  313.00

  1 January 2005

  University Hospitals of Leicester

  363.00

  1 January 2005

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  79.00

  1 July 2005

  East Kent Hospitals

  102.00

  1 July 2005

  Mid Essex Hospitals

  110.00

  1 July 2005

  Plymouth Hospitals

  101.00

  1 July 2005

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  110.00

  1 July 2005

  Bradford Hospitals

  116.00

  1 July 2005

  Fees
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised or is anticipated will be raised from each of these fees in each year from 1989–90 to 2004–05; which of these fees count as negative expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [59876]

  £million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Health authority

  Fees and charges

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67.7

  90.1

  92.0

  1113.8

  Other income

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  283.4

  185.1

  137.9

  144.1

  1136.9

  District Health Authorities

  154.7

  124.9

  124.9

  156.0

  140.7

  152.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Family Health Service Authority

  6.6

  5.9

  64.8

  75.8

  74.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NHS Trusts

  Road traffic accident income

  —

  —

  —

  13.1

  13.1

  13.5

  16.6

  19.6

  91.4

  122.7

  Amenity beds/prescription charges

  5.0

  29.8

  55.5

  97.1

  110.1

  138.8

  169.6

  216.7

  224.2

  266.0

  908W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Department, its agencies and associated bodies collect fees or charges on a statutory basis and make charges where legislation allows on commercial services. Listed in the table is information where a fee or charge can be separately identified in accounts or departmental returns. Where fees or charges are not separately identified income has been attributed to the receiving body.
  909W

  £million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  NHS Supplies Authority fees

  —

  52.0

  62.9

  52.9

  50.5

  44.0

  39.1

  36.1

  20.3

  20.4

  District Health Authorities—amenity beds

  —

  1.7

  1.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  District Health Authority—road traffic accident income

  —

  7.3

  3.5

  0.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dental charges

  404

  394.8

  367.0

  383.3

  381.2

  383.0

  388.4

  419.6

  431.2

  453.1

  Prescription charges

  215.2

  242.0

  265.3

  287.2

  298.7

  295.7

  320.9

  341.3

  366.7

  386.9

  Nursing home inspection fees

  —

  3.9

  4.2

  4.1

  4.7

  4.8

  4.8

  8.8

  9.5

  9.8

  English National Board for Nursing: registration fees

  —

  1.9

  1.7

  1.7

  1.3

  1.4

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  Subsidised dried milk

  0.6

  0.8

  1.0

  1.0

  1.6

  2.2

  2.5

  2.6

  2.4

  2.4

  Medicines Control Agency—licences and inspections

  17.7

  21.0

  23.3

  25.6

  22.4

  26.8

  28.1

  26.6

  29.4

  34.1

  Youth treatment service income

  1.8

  1.2

  1.5

  2.4

  4.6

  3.0

  4.5

  4.7

  4.6

  0.1

  NHS Pensions Agency fees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  2.3

  6.2

  2.2

  1.8

  Medical Devices Agency Fees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: licence fees

  —

  0.6

  0.9

  0.8

  1.0

  1.0

  1.3

  1.4

  1.6

  1.2

  1 Inc. PCTs.

  2 NHS Logistics.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for completed financial years only. Subsequent years will he reviewed in light of changes in costs in the coming periods and cannot be forecast at this stage.

  2. All income is either appropriations in aid on votes, consolidated fund extra receipts or is retained by the body concerned to offset expenditure.

  Natural Health Products
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the request of 25 April by Consumers For Health Choice for a meeting with the Under-Secretary to discuss regulation of the Natural Health Products Sector. [60201]

  Ms Blears
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Hunt), and I will be holding meetings during July with representatives of a range of interest groups in the herbal sector, including consumers for health choice, to discuss the regulation of herbal remedies and supplements.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 26 April, about NHS dental services. [61953]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 8 July.

  Secondments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from organisations outside his Department have been seconded to start work in his Department since 1 January 1999. [63087]

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

  Number of secondments

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  62

  2001–02

  49

  Total

  131

  Source:

  Department of Health Interchange database 1 April to 31 March

  Hospices
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much National Cancer Plan funding has been allocated to hospices in(a) Suffolk and (b) the eastern region. [63807]

  Mr. Lammy
  Voluntary hospice services in eastern region are, in common with the rest of the country, funded from a variety of sources in addition to voluntary funding.

  Priorities for development are determined by each cancer network board (of which health authorities; primary care trusts and national health service trusts are part).

  Palliative care priorities for development (including hospices) are first determined within each network's palliative care strategy and then prioritised against other cancer priorities as part of the network's overall three year strategic plan.

  Suffolk Health Authority invested £1,460,858 in voluntary hospices in 2001–02 rising to £1,527,757 in 2002–03.

  During the same period the whole eastern region invested £8,177,426 in voluntary hospices in 2001–02 rising to £8,545,111 in 2002–03.

  Hepatitis C
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on making financial arrangements for sufferers, and their families, of Hepatitis C caused by infected blood products. [64262]

  Ms Blears
  We deeply regret that so many people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through blood products. But the fact is that as soon as a technology became available to make blood products free from hepatitis C the national health service introduced it. There is therefore no legal liability to justify compensation for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C.
  911W
  This Government and their predecessor have held that compensation is only paid to patients when the NHS has been at fault and that an exception to this rule is not justified in the case of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C.

  We met the haemophilia society and members of the all party group on haemophilia on 12 June to discuss the `Report of the Hepatitis C Working Party' which was produced for the haemophilia society and published by them on 17 June. We will respond to this report when we have given it our full consideration.

  Cancer and Mental Health
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was earmarked for cancer and mental health treatments for(a) PCT and (b) health authorities in the latest year for which figures are available. [64337]

  Ms Blears
  Health authorities share their total recurrent allocation between their constituent primary care trusts in line with guidance issued by the Department.

  In 2002–03, health authorities were instructed to allocate earmarked funding to primary care trusts on the same basis allocations were made to health authorities.

  Primary care trust shares of health authority earmarked funding for cancer and mental health are shown in table 1 and the health authority totals in table 2.

  Table 1

  £000

  Primary care trust

  Cancer

  Mental health

  Adur. Arun and Worthing

  360

  355

  Airedale

  172

  170

  Amber Valley

  181

  178

  Ashfield

  118

  117

  Ashford

  140

  138

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan

  485

  479

  Barking and Dagenham

  262

  258

  Barnet

  521

  514

  Barnsley

  385

  380

  Basildon

  158

  156

  Bassetlaw

  150

  148

  Bath and North East Somerset

  239

  236

  Bebington and West Wirral

  161

  159

  Bedford

  208

  205

  Bedfordshire Heartlands

  317

  313

  Bexhill and Rother

  135

  133

  Bexley

  302

  298

  Billericay, Brentwood and Wickford

  186

  184

  Birkenhead and Wallasey

  361

  356

  Blackburn with Darwen

  245

  242

  Blackpool

  257

  254

  Bolton

  444

  438

  Bournemouth

  259

  255

  Bracknell Forest

  128

  127

  Bradford City

  228

  225

  Bradford South and West

  229

  226

  Brent

  471

  465

  Brighton and Hove City

  422

  417

  Bristol North

  347

  342

  Bristol South and West

  287

  283

  Broadland

  152

  150

  Bromley

  423

  417

  Broxtowe and Hucknall

  197

  194

  Burnley. Pendle and Rossendale

  401

  396

  Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth

  198

  195

  Bury

  271

  268

  912W

  Table 1

  £000

  Primary care trust

  Cancer

  Mental health

  Calderdale

  296

  292

  Cambridge City

  184

  182

  Camden

  413

  408

  Cannock Chase

  173

  171

  Canterbury and Coastal

  250

  247

  Carlisle and District

  174

  172

  Castle Point and Rochford

  226

  223

  Central Cheshire

  347

  343

  Central Cornwall

  289

  285

  Central Derby

  183

  181

  Central Liverpool

  463

  457

  Central Manchester

  305

  301

  Central Suffolk

  126

  125

  Charnwood and North West Leicestershire

  318

  314

  Chelmsford

  155

  153

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

  210

  207

  Cherwell Vale

  163

  160

  Cheshire West

  231

  227

  Chesterfield

  171

  169

  Chiltern and South Bucks

  210

  207

  Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford

  181

  179

  Chorley and South Ribble

  289

  285

  City and Hackney

  467

  461

  Colchester

  229

  226

  Cotswold and Vale

  266

  262

  Coventry

  496

  489

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District

  290

  286

  Crawley

  156

  154

  Croydon

  515

  508

  Dacorum

  198

  195

  Darlington

  161

  159

  Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley

  317

  313

  Daventry and South Northamptonshire

  118

  116

  Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire

  117

  115

  Derwentside

  142

  140

  Doncaster Central

  164

  162

  Doncaster East

  135

  134

  Doncaster West

  172

  170

  Dudley Beacon and Castle

  162

  l60

  Dudley South

  283

  280

  Durham and Chester-Le-Street

  230

  227

  Durham Dales

  144

  142

  Ealing

  551

  544

  Easington

  180

  177

  East Birmingham

  398

  393

  East Cambridgeshire and Fenland

  208

  206

  East Devon

  179

  176

  East Elmbridge and Mid Surrey

  364

  359

  East Hampshire

  265

  262

  East Kent Coastal

  388

  383

  East Leeds

  236

  232

  East Lincolnshire

  402

  397

  East Staffordshire

  174

  171

  East Surrey

  212

  209

  East Yorkshire

  202

  199

  Eastbourne Downs

  284

  281

  Eastern Cheshire

  259

  255

  Eastern Hull

  196

  193

  Eastern Leicester

  269

  266

  Eastern Wakefield

  288

  284

  Eastleigh and Test Valley

  190

  187

  Eden Valley

  98

  97

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  126

  124

  Enfield

  409

  404

  Epping Forest

  153

  151

  Erewash

  143

  141

  Exeter

  183

  180

  Fareham and Gosport

  250

  247

  Fylde

  106

  105

  Gateshead

  343

  339

  913W

  Table 1

  £000

  Primary care trust

  Cancer

  Mental health

  Gedling

  137

  135

  Great Yarmouth

  145

  144

  Greater Derby

  221

  218

  Greenwich

  380

  375

  Guildford and Waverley

  328

  323

  Halton

  190

  187

  Hambleton and Richmondshire

  154

  152

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  311

  307

  Haringey

  429

  424

  Harlow

  122

  120

  Harrow

  297

  293

  Hartlepool

  152

  150

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  159

  157

  Havering

  350

  345

  Heart of Birmingham

  470

  464

  Herefordshire

  241

  238

  Hertsmere

  126

  124

  Heywood and Middleton

  122

  121

  High Peak and Dales

  146

  144

  Hillingdon

  369

  364

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  124

  122

  Horsham and Chanctonbury

  119

  118

  Hounslow

  370

  365

  Huddersfield Central

  212

  210

  Huntingdonshire

  185

  183

  Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  174

  172

  Ipswich

  207

  205

  Isle of Wight

  210

  207

  Islington

  407

  401

  Kensington and Chelsea

  378

  373

  Kingston

  246

  243

  Knowsley

  269

  265

  Lambeth

  546

  539

  Langbaurgh

  153

  151

  Leeds North East

  229

  226

  Leeds North West

  260

  257

  Leeds West

  170

  167

  Leicester City West

  220

  217

  Lewisham

  445

  439

  Lincolnshire South West

  247

  244

  Luton

  277

  274

  Maidstone Weald

  308

  304

  Maldon and South Chelmsford

  103

  102

  Mansfield District

  140

  138

  Medway

  361

  357

  Melton, Rutland and Harborough

  181

  178

  Mendip

  145

  143

  Mid Devon

  139

  137

  Middlesbrough

  319

  315

  Mid-Hampshire

  232

  228

  Mid-Sussex

  181

  179

  Milton Keynes

  301

  297

  Morecambe Bay

  473

  467

  New Forest

  252

  249

  Newark and Sherwood

  169

  166

  Newbury and Community

  134

  132

  Newcastle

  455

  449

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  155

  153

  Newham

  490

  484

  North and East Cornwall

  227

  224

  North Birmingham

  236

  233

  North Bradford

  141

  139

  North Devon

  218

  215

  North Dorset

  123

  121

  North East Lincolnshire

  243

  239

  North East Oxfordshire

  86

  85

  North East Warwickshire

  249

  246

  North Eastern Derbyshire

  229

  226

  North Hampshire

  244

  241

  North Hertfordshire and Stevenage

  264

  261

  914W

  Table 1

  £000

  Primary care trust

  Cancer

  Mental Health

  North Kirklees

  260

  257

  North Lincolnshire

  221

  218

  North Liverpool

  190

  187

  North Manchester

  276

  273

  North Norfolk

  150

  148

  North Peterborough

  168

  166

  North Sheffield

  208

  205

  North Somerset

  266

  262

  North Stoke

  221

  218

  North Surrey

  289

  285

  North Tees

  276

  273

  North Tyneside

  331

  326

  North Wilts and Kennet

  256

  253

  Northampton

  295

  292

  Northamptonshire Heartlands

  383

  378

  Northumberland Care Trust

  470

  463

  Norwich

  205

  203

  Nottingham City

  480

  474

  Oldbury and Smethwick

  171

  169

  Oldham

  368

  363

  Oxford City

  256

  253

  Plymouth

  381

  376

  Poole

  247

  244

  Portsmouth City

  292

  288

  Preston

  231

  228

  Reading

  293

  289

  Redbridge

  246

  243

  Redditch and Bromsgrove

  207

  204

  Richmond and Twickenham

  279

  276

  Rochdale

  217

  214

  Rotherham

  384

  379

  Rowley, Regis and Tipton

  133

  131

  Royston, Buntingford and Bishop's Stortford

  95

  94

  Rugby

  120

  119

  Rushcliffe

  153

  151

  Rushmore and Hart

  234

  231

  Salford

  394

  389

  Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale

  239

  236

  Sedgefield

  154

  152

  Selby and York

  378

  373

  Sheffield South West

  190

  188

  Sheffield West

  184

  181

  Shepway

  156

  154

  Shropshire County

  389

  384

  Slough

  179

  177

  Solihull

  291

  288

  Somerset Coast

  205

  202

  South and East Dorset

  217

  214

  South Birmingham

  540

  533

  South Cambridgeshire

  118

  116

  South East Hertfordshire

  228

  225

  South East Oxfordshire

  102

  100

  South East Sheffield

  272

  269

  South Gloucestershire

  290

  286

  South Hams and West Devon

  152

  150

  South Huddersfield

  123

  122

  South Leeds

  230

  227

  South Leicestershire

  187

  184

  South Liverpool

  152

  150

  South Manchester

  240

  237

  South Peterborough

  125

  123

  South Sefton

  266

  263

  South Somerset

  203

  201

  South Stoke

  217

  214

  South Tyneside

  263

  260

  South Warwickshire

  329

  325

  South West Dorset

  205

  202

  South West Kent

  240

  236

  South West Oxfordshire

  236

  233

  South Western Staffordshire

  244

  241

  915W

  Table 1

  £000

  Primary care trust

  Cancer

  Mental health

  South Wiltshire

  163

  161

  South Worcestershire

  373

  368

  Southampton City

  359

  354

  Southend On Sea

  275

  272

  Southern Norfolk

  270

  267

  Southport and Formby

  178

  175

  Southwark

  457

  451

  St. Albans and Harpenden

  177

  174

  St. Helens

  299

  295

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  150

  148

  Stockport

  427

  422

  Suffolk Coastal

  133

  131

  Suffolk West

  307

  303

  Sunderland Teaching

  483

  477

  Sussex Downs and Weald

  202

  199

  Sutton and Merton

  536

  529

  Swale

  134

  132

  Swindon

  261

  257

  Tameside and Glossop

  361

  356

  Taunton Deane

  147

  145

  Teignbridge

  157

  155

  Telford and Wrekin

  222

  219

  Tendring

  222

  219

  Thurrock

  205

  202

  Torbay

  212

  209

  Tower Hamlets

  365

  360

  Trafford North

  149

  147

  Trafford South

  186

  183

  Uttlesford

  90

  88

  Vale of Aylesbury

  247

  244

  Wakefield West

  221

  218

  Walsall

  403

  398

  Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone

  280

  276

  Wandsworth

  476

  469

  Warrington

  278

  274

  Watford and Three Rivers

  248

  245

  Waveney

  184

  181

  Wednesbury and West Bromwich

  189

  186

  Welwyn Hatfield

  138

  136

  West Cumbria

  207

  204

  West Gloucestershire

  303

  299

  West Hull

  253

  250

  West Lancashire

  160

  158

  West Lincolnshire

  312

  308

  West Norfolk

  212

  209

  West Of Cornwall

  237

  234

  West Wiltshire

  155

  153

  Western Sussex

  311

  307

  Westminster

  478

  472

  Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead

  227

  224

  Witham, Braintree and Halstead'

  179

  177

  Woking area

  248

  245

  Wokingham

  173

  171

  Wolverhampton City

  392

  387

  Wycombe

  184

  181

  Wyre Forest

  148

  146

  Wyre

  190

  187

  Yorkshire Wolds and Coast

  211

  208

  England

  76,000

  75,000

  1Planned care trust from 1 October 2002.

  Table 2

  £OO

  Health authority

  Cancer

  Mental health

  Avon

  1,428

  1,409

  Barking and Havering

  612

  604

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  1,360

  1,342

  916W

  Table 2

  £000

  Health authority

  Cancer

  Mental health

  Barnsley

  385

  380

  Bedfordshire

  802

  791

  Berkshire

  1,134

  1,119

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  1,105

  1,091

  Birmingham

  1,645

  1,623

  Bradford

  770

  760

  Brent and Harrow

  768

  758

  Buckinghamshire

  941

  929

  Bury and Rochdale

  610

  602

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  892

  880

  Cambridgeshire

  989

  976

  Camden and Islington

  820

  809

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  753

  744

  County Durham

  1,010

  997

  Coventry

  496

  489

  Croydon

  515

  508

  Doncaster

  471

  465

  Dorset

  1,050

  1,037

  Dudley

  445

  440

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1,232

  1,216

  East Kent

  934

  922

  East Lancashire

  840

  829

  East London and the City

  1,322

  1,304

  East Riding

  861

  850

  East Surrey

  575

  568

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1,202

  1,187

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  606

  598

  Gloucestershire

  778

  768

  Herefordshire

  241

  238

  Hertfordshire

  1,474

  1,454

  Hillingdon

  369

  364

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1,018

  1,004

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  856

  845

  Kingston and Richmond

  526

  519

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,448

  1,429

  Leeds

  1,124

  1,109

  Leicestershire

  1,299

  1,281

  Lincolnshire

  962

  949

  Liverpool

  804

  794

  Manchester

  821

  810

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,011

  998

  Morecambe Bay

  473

  467

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  786

  775

  Norfolk

  1,135

  1,120

  North and East Devon

  719

  709

  North and Mid Hampshire

  710

  700

  North Cheshire

  467

  461

  North Cumbria

  478

  472

  North Derbyshire

  546

  539

  North Essex

  1,252

  1,236

  North Nottinghamshire

  577

  569

  North Staffordshire

  743

  733

  North West Lancashire

  765

  755

  North Yorkshire

  1,061

  1,047

  Northamptonshire

  796

  785

  Northumberland

  470

  463

  Nottingham

  967

  954

  Oxfordshire

  843

  832

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  707

  697

  Rotherham

  384

  379

  Salford and Trafford

  729

  719

  Sandwell

  493

  486

  Sefton

  444

  438

  Sheffield

  854

  843

  Shropshire

  611

  603

  Solihull

  291

  288

  Somerset

  700

  691

  South and West Devon

  902

  890

  South Cheshire

  962

  950

  South Derbyshire

  845

  834

  South Essex

  1,051

  1,037

  South Humber

  463

  457

  South Lancashire

  449

  443

  South Staffordshire

  788

  778

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  800

  790

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  567

  560

  Stockport

  427

  422

  Suffolk

  957

  944

  Sunderland

  483

  477

  Tees

  901

  890

  Wakefield

  509

  503

  917W

  Table 2

  £000

  Health authority

  Cancer

  Mental health

  Walsall

  403

  398

  Warwickshire

  699

  690

  West Kent

  1,360

  1,342

  West Pennine

  729

  719

  West Surrey

  865

  853

  West Sussex

  1,127

  1,112

  Wigan and Bolton

  929

  916

  Wiltshire

  835

  824

  Wirral

  522

  515

  Wolverhampton

  392

  387

  Worcestershire

  728

  719

  Total England

  76,000

  75,000

  All practitioners1 in England by age and health authority as at 30 September 2001

  Region name/HA name

  HA code

  Total

  Under

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  QDD

  354

  26

  49

  55

  68

  56

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  QDT

  344

  17

  32

  66

  72

  57

  County Durham Health Commission

  QDE

  377

  13

  41

  83

  66

  77

  East Riding HA

  QDF

  334

  9

  31

  60

  68

  55

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  QDG

  219

  8

  24

  48

  43

  34

  Leeds Healthcare

  QDH

  493

  29

  49

  102

  112

  72

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  QDJ

  308

  14

  27

  72

  70

  63

  North Cumbria HA

  QDK

  235

  5

  23

  47

  66

  37

  North Yorkshire HA

  QDR

  561

  31

  72

  109

  132

  97

  Northumberland HA

  QDM

  231

  26

  28

  37

  45

  33

  Sunderland HA

  QDN

  166

  13

  17

  19

  25

  29

  Tees HA

  QDP

  327

  11

  41

  56

  61

  60

  Wakefield Health Care

  QDP

  215

  14

  26

  48

  42

  27

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  QCG

  130

  6

  14

  21

  19

  20

  Doncaster HA

  QCK

  164

  6

  15

  17

  32

  29

  Leicestershire HA

  QCL

  571

  20

  79

  93

  124

  101

  Lincolnshire HA

  QCM

  387

  17

  42

  68

  94

  81

  North Derbyshire HA

  QCH

  234

  17

  28

  46

  51

  35

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  QCN

  221

  10

  27

  33

  41

  34

  Nottingham HA

  QCP

  403

  27

  48

  76

  76

  75

  Rotherham HA

  QCQ

  134

  9

  13

  20

  33

  19

  Sheffield HA

  QCR

  388

  28

  47

  69

  83

  64

  South Humber HA

  QDL

  185

  1

  10

  27

  41

  30

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  QCJ

  347

  22

  49

  73

  61

  63

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  QA6

  323

  10

  25

  61

  53

  59

  Cambridgeshire HA

  QER

  485

  16

  64

  86

  103

  91

  Hertfordshire HA

  QEX

  682

  36

  99

  124

  154

  106

  Norfolk HA

  QET

  524

  10

  45

  104

  116

  93

  North Essex HA

  QAX

  513

  11

  42

  83

  111

  113

  South Essex HA

  QAY

  351

  4

  16

  48

  60

  60

  Suffolk HA

  QCF

  440

  13

  42

  73

  112

  79

  London

  Barking and Havering HA

  QAP

  202

  3

  13

  27

  16

  26

  Barnet Enfield and Haringey HA

  QEW

  541

  22

  40

  66

  83

  79

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  QEY

  413

  17

  34

  58

  73

  72

  Brent and Harrow HA

  QAR

  331

  13

  36

  34

  38

  46

  Camden and Islington HA

  QAT

  278

  13

  44

  52

  45

  35

  Croydon HA

  QAD

  180

  10

  16

  19

  29

  34

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  QAV

  448

  14

  64

  68

  55

  55

  East London and the City HA

  QAW

  447

  11

  48

  66

  70

  49

  Hillingdon HA

  QA2

  149

  8

  16

  22

  18

  24

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  QA3

  265

  8

  42

  41

  47

  36

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  QAG

  242

  21

  45

  36

  47

  32

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  QAH

  516

  14

  61

  90

  92

  79

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  QAJ

  405

  16

  65

  66

  71

  57

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  QA5

  259

  8

  22

  26

  37

  31

  GPs
  Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how may GPs are working in the NHS, broken down by age group in (a) England and (b) each health authority. [64327]
  Mr. Hutton: The information requested is shown in the table. 'All practitioners' include general medical services unrestricted principals, personal medical services (PMS) contracted general practitioners (GPs), PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 statement of fees and allowances), PMS other and GP retainers.

  All practitioners1 in England by age and health authority as at 30 September 2001

  Region name/HA name

  HA code

  Total

  Under

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  South Eastern

  Berkshire HA

  QA7

  503

  18

  59

  76

  99

  93

  Buckinghamshire HA

  QA8

  452

  15

  57

  91

  80

  78

  East Kent HA

  QAE

  352

  10

  25

  58

  71

  75

  East Surrey HA

  QAK

  281

  17

  51

  42

  56

  44

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  QAM

  476

  16

  47

  104

  95

  77

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  QEV

  430

  14

  47

  73

  81

  99

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  QDI

  358

  16

  46

  67

  81

  50

  Northamptonshire HA

  QCC

  342

  16

  37

  72

  82

  45

  Oxfordshire HA

  QCE

  440

  14

  58

  90

  96

  65

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  QD3

  386

  16

  51

  66

  81

  61

  West Kent HA

  QAF

  592

  23

  48

  89

  109

  101

  West Surrey HA

  QAL

  409

  21

  45

  80

  81

  65

  West Sussex HA

  QAN

  497

  24

  63

  108

  97

  89

  South Western

  Avon HA

  QD8

  740

  26

  102

  140

  180

  118

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  QDV

  375

  14

  44

  59

  94

  62

  Dorset HA

  QDW

  534

  19

  72

  116

  117

  91

  Gloucestershire HA

  QDY

  420

  19

  42

  82

  89

  89

  North and East Devon HA

  QDX

  399

  20

  49

  70

  93

  71

  Somerset HA

  QD5

  375

  15

  36

  71

  87

  69

  South and West Devon HA

  QD6

  437

  13

  48

  94

  102

  77

  Wiltshire HA

  QD7

  400

  13

  49

  83

  82

  68

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  QD9

  665

  28

  75

  111

  109

  88

  Coventry HA

  QEA

  185

  6

  12

  21

  32

  43

  Dudley HA

  QEC

  179

  12

  7

  30

  37

  23

  Herefordshire HA

  QED

  137

  8

  19

  29

  28

  16

  North Staffordshire HA

  QEH

  256

  4

  23

  37

  44

  36

  Sandwell HA

  QEE

  174

  12

  11

  22

  13

  20

  Shropshire HA

  QEF

  274

  9

  24

  53

  67

  55

  Solihull HA

  QEG

  128

  6

  19

  25

  28

  18

  South Staffordshire HA

  QEJ

  323

  11

  30

  57

  69

  47

  Walsall HA

  QEK

  135

  2

  10

  11

  15

  14

  Warwickshire HA

  QEL

  316

  12

  41

  71

  60

  44

  Wolverhampton HA

  QEM

  141

  2

  13

  25

  24

  23

  Worcestershire HA

  QEN

  350

  15

  38

  70

  70

  63

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  QCT

  234

  7

  27

  41

  47

  44

  East Lancashire HA

  QCX

  302

  10

  33

  40

  50

  52

  Liverpool HA

  QC2

  291

  14

  39

  48

  36

  54

  Manchester Health

  QC3

  312

  14

  56

  39

  50

  49

  Morecambe Bay HA

  QC4

  215

  10

  21

  46

  45

  29

  North Cheshire HA

  QCV

  179

  9

  20

  33

  41

  27

  North West Lancashire HA

  QCY

  268

  9

  25

  50

  58

  39

  Salford and Trafford HA

  QC6

  253

  11

  25

  39

  48

  40

  Sefton HA

  QC7

  173

  8

  18

  36

  43

  26

  South Cheshire HA

  QCW

  479

  29

  76

  101

  95

  75

  South Lancashire HA

  QCI

  180

  8

  16

  37

  28

  28

  St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  QC5

  202

  6

  15

  37

  37

  27

  Stockport Health

  QC8

  199

  16

  27

  33

  45

  26

  West Pennine HA

  QC9

  236

  5

  26

  44

  33

  42

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  QDA

  308

  16

  28

  36

  52

  51

  Wirral HA

  QDC

  221

  11

  27

  43

  43

  31

  England total

  31,835

  1,325

  3,578

  5,591

  6,254

  5,221

  Region name/HA name

  HA code

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70 and over

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  QDD

  46

  33

  15

  6

  0

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  QDT

  33

  38

  25

  3

  1

  County Durham Health Commission

  QDE

  46

  35

  14

  2

  0

  East Riding HA

  QDF

  48

  37

  19

  7

  0

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  QDG

  35

  15

  8

  4

  0

  Leeds Healthcare

  QDH

  61

  34

  22

  11

  1

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  QDJ

  33

  20

  8

  1

  0

  North Cumbria HA

  QDK

  32

  22

  3

  0

  0

  Region name/HA name

  HA code

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70 and over

  North Yorkshire HA

  QDR

  57

  38

  4

  3

  0

  Northumberland HA

  QDM

  26

  31

  5

  0

  0

  Sunderland HA

  QDN

  21

  26

  10

  6

  0

  Tees HA

  QDP

  51

  28

  16

  3

  0

  Wakefield Health Care

  QDQ

  33

  14

  8

  3

  0

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  QCG

  20

  16

  10

  4

  0

  Doncaster HA

  QCK

  27

  28

  5

  5

  0

  Leicestershire HA

  QCL

  73

  57

  19

  5

  0

  Lincolnshire HA

  QCM

  50

  19

  12

  3

  1

  North Derbyshire HA

  QCH

  30

  17

  9

  1

  0

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  QCN

  32

  25

  15

  3

  1

  Nottingham HA

  QCP

  43

  40

  14

  3

  1

  Rotherham HA

  QCQ

  16

  12

  10

  2

  0

  Sheffield HA

  QCR

  47

  32

  11

  6

  1

  South Humber HA

  QDL

  22

  36

  13

  5

  0

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  QCJ

  40

  24

  14

  1

  0

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  QA6

  60

  32

  16

  4

  3

  Cambridgeshire HA

  QER

  66

  42

  13

  4

  0

  Hertfordshire HA

  QEX

  99

  43

  15

  5

  1

  Norfolk HA

  QET

  89

  58

  8

  1

  0

  North Essex HA

  QAX

  75

  64

  10

  4

  0

  South Essex HA

  QAY

  61

  60

  27

  15

  0

  Suffolk HA

  QCF

  65

  47

  9

  0

  0

  London

  Barking and Havering HA

  QAP

  41

  37

  28

  11

  0

  Barnet Enfield and Haringey HA

  QEW

  97

  85

  38

  26

  5

  Bexley. Bromley and Greenwich HA

  QEY

  60

  49

  35

  9

  6

  Brent and Harrow HA

  QAR

  61

  59

  32

  11

  1

  Camden and Islington HA

  QAT

  37

  23

  20

  9

  0

  Croydon HA

  QAD

  29

  17

  16

  8

  2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  QAV

  71

  64

  32

  22

  3

  East London and the City HA

  QAW

  92

  40

  37

  31

  3

  Hillingon HA

  QA2

  17

  29

  11

  4

  0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  QA3

  38

  21

  18

  13

  1

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  QAG

  33

  18

  8

  2

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  QAH

  78

  50

  47

  12

  3

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  QAJ

  46

  50

  20

  10

  4

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  QA5

  59

  41

  16

  15

  4

  South Eastern

  Berkshire HA

  QA7

  80

  49

  20

  7

  2

  Buckinghamshire HA

  QA8

  78

  37

  14

  2

  0

  East Kent HA

  QAE

  60

  41

  11

  1

  0

  East Surrey HA

  QAK

  33

  27

  8

  2

  1

  East Sussex. Brighton and Hove HA

  QAM

  61

  49

  21

  4

  2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  QEV

  57

  45

  12

  2

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  QDI

  60

  33

  5

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire HA

  QCC

  44

  34

  10

  2

  0

  Oxfordshire HA

  QCE

  67

  44

  6

  1

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  QD3

  55

  45

  10

  1

  0

  West Kent HA

  QAF

  102

  67

  40

  13

  0

  West Surrey HA

  QAL

  70

  28

  17

  2

  0

  West Sussex HA

  QAN

  65

  33

  17

  1

  0

  South Western

  Avon HA

  QD8

  104

  59

  8

  3

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  QDV

  56

  41

  3

  2

  0

  Dorset HA

  QDW

  81

  31

  6

  1

  0

  Gloucestershire HA

  QDY

  55

  37

  6

  1

  0

  North and East Devon HA

  QDX

  54

  37

  5

  0

  0

  Somerset HA

  QD5

  53

  28

  14

  2

  0

  South and West Devon HA

  QD6

  52

  35

  15

  1

  0

  Wiltshire HA

  QD7

  65

  32

  8

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  QD9

  101

  76

  58

  18

  1

  Coventry HA

  QEA

  26

  25

  15

  6

  0

  Dudley HA

  QEC

  31

  23

  14

  2

  0

  Herefordshire HA

  QED

  21

  14

  1

  1

  0

  Region nume/HA name

  HA code

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70 and over

  North Staffordshire HA

  QEH

  42

  35

  24

  9

  2

  Sandwell HA

  QEE

  43

  30

  18

  5

  0

  Shropshire HA

  QEF

  35

  22

  7

  2

  0

  Solihull HA

  QEG

  11

  13

  6

  2

  0

  South Staffordshire HA

  QEJ

  57

  36

  9

  7

  0

  Walsall HA

  QEK

  32

  25

  20

  6

  0

  Warwickshire HA

  QEL

  39

  34

  10

  5

  0

  Wolverhampton HA

  QEM

  25

  13

  11

  3

  2

  Worcestershire HA

  QEN

  55

  30

  8

  0

  1

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  QCT

  29

  18

  16

  6

  0

  East Lancashire

  QCX

  47

  34

  26

  10

  0

  Liverpool HA

  QC2

  39

  44

  10

  5

  2

  Manchester Health

  QC3

  49

  34

  16

  4

  1

  Morecambe Bay HA

  QC4

  38

  21

  3

  2

  0

  North Cheshire HA

  QCV

  20

  19

  8

  2

  0

  North West Lancashire HA

  QCY

  41

  28

  14

  4

  0

  Salford and Trafford HA

  QC6

  34

  33

  15

  5

  3

  Sefton HA

  QC7

  15

  12

  13

  2

  0

  South Cheshire HA

  QCW

  56

  36

  10

  1

  0

  South Lancashire HA

  QC

  129

  26

  6

  2

  0

  St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  QC5

  33

  26

  14

  6

  1

  Stockport Health

  QC8

  24

  18

  8

  2

  0

  West Pennine HA

  QC9

  42

  26

  11

  7

  0

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  QDA

  63

  33

  20

  9

  0

  Wirral HA

  QDC

  37

  22

  4

  3

  0

  England total

  4,680

  3,244

  1,396

  486

  60

  1All practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA), PMA Other and GP Retainers.

  Source:
  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  NICE
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 247W, on NICE, what assessment he has made of the level of non-compliance by healthcare professionals with the recommendations of NICE. [64485]

  Ms Blears
  Detailed audit of the implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's guidance is only feasible at local level. The Institute has however commissioned a research project through the national health service research and development methodology programme to evaluate the impact of its guidance on clinical and managerial practice. A team from York University has been appointed to carry out this project. Preliminary results are expected in December 2002.

  Building Capacity Grant
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people benefited from the building capacity grant. [64515]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 168W.

  This approach has already led to over 1,000 hospital beds no longer occupied by people awaiting discharge from hospital over the period from September 2001 to March 2002. Half of the £100 million allocated in 2001–02 was spent on additional packages of care, either in residential homes or patients' own homes.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64644]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department holds no information on the average annual leave entitlement. Actual leave entitlement for staff is currently set at 30 days.

  Electronic Health Records
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the introduction of electronic health records. [65187]

  Mr. Lammy
  On 12 June my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, (Lord Hunt of Kingsheath) outlined a programme to deliver information technology in the national health service "Delivering the NHS Plan" based on the principles of "Information for Health". The programme states that by December 2005 we will have developed an electronic record service which will be accessible nationally for out of hours emergency reference. By December 2007 we will have expanded the records to contain more data and reference links to primary care and hospitals in order to support integrated care.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions his Department has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to Taiwan's application for observer status at the World Health Organisation. [65216]
  925W
  Mr. Lammy
  Prior to the May 2002 world health assembly, the Department consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the position the UK should take in EU co-ordination discussions on Taiwan's application for observer status of the world health organisation.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [65969]

  Mr. Lammy
  Two officials (full time equivalent) have been employed within my Department's regulatory impact unit for each of the past five years. The unit works with the Department's policy officials and the Cabinet Office regulatory impact unit to prepare regulatory impact assessments and identify suitable regulatory reform measures.

  Respiratory-related Diseases
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will develop a national service framework for treatment of respiratory-related diseases. [66433]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no plans to extend the national service framework (NSF) programme at present to include respiratory related diseases. People with respiratory related diseases will benefit from other initiatives to improve quality of treatment and care, and to improve access to services.

  The NSF programme currently includes frameworks for mental health (1999), coronary heart disease (2000) the national Cancer Plan (2000), older people (2001) and diabetes standards (2001). The diabetes NSF delivery strategy is due to be published in 2002 and work is in hand on national service frameworks for renal services, childrens services and long term conditions. These frameworks amount to a significant programme of quality improvement across the national health service.

  Green Ministers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who his Department's green minister is; when they(a) have attended and (b) plan to attend meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee; what the outcomes of meetings were for his Department's activities; and if he will make a statement. [65989]

  Ms Blears
  I am the Department's Green Minister. I took up my post on 10 June 2002 and I am scheduled to my first Green Ministers' Committee meeting on 15 July 2002.

  The Department's previous Green Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), regularly attended all Green Ministers' Committee meetings.

  The Department takes a close interest in all Green Ministers' Committee discussions and takes action where appropriate to implement decisions or set work in train. For example, climate change adaptation was considered by Green Ministers' Committee in March 2002. Although the Department is not the lead Department on this issue, it does have an important role in assessing the likely impact on
  926W
  health of climate change. The Department's report "Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK" has been circulated widely for comment and is due to be published in August. Also discussed at the March meeting of Green Ministers' Committee was target setting for the Government Estate in respect of environmental management systems (EMS). The Department is implementing EMS across its estate as appropriate.

  National Human Stem Cell Bank
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the institutions being considered to host the National Human Stem Cell Bank; and when he will make a decision. [66088]

  Ms Blears
  The recommendation to establish a stem cell bank came from the Chief Medical Officer's expert group (the Donaldson Committee) in 2000. Since then the Medical Research Council (MRC) has been making progress in establishing the national stem cell bank and invited interested centres to tender in March 2002.

  As the process of considering bids is, as yet, incomplete, it is not possible to provide a list of those under consideration.

  The MRC is expected to make an announcement about the location of the bank later this year.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population is registered with an NHS dentist; and if he will make a statement. [66076]

  Mr. Lammy
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to national health service services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that even if a patient chooses not to register with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  47 per cent. of the population, 60 per cent. of children and 43 per cent. of adults were registered with a general dental services (GDS) dentist in England at 30 April 2002. Registrations lapse if patients do not return to the dentist within 15 months.

  Underspend
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of his Department's allocated spending is forecast to not be spent by the end of the financial year; and if he will make a statement. [65582]

  Mr. Lammy
  Details of 2001–02 underspends will be published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper. There are no planned underspends in 2003–04.

  Podiatry and Chiropody Services
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the level of unsatisfied demand for podiatry and chiropody services in Essex. [66340]

  Mr. Lammy
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are best placed to assess the needs of the local community. They are now responsible for providing local national health
  927W
  service services, including chiropody, and have to clinically prioritise their services to meet local demand. Each PCT is free to determine its local priority criteria.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he will take to increase the provision of chiropody and podiatry care in the South of England; and if he will make a statement; [66430]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of commissioning primary care trusts on the provision of podiatry and chiropody services in the South of England; [66431]

  (3) if he will issue guidance to PCTs setting out the level of service that should be provided for podiatry and chiropody by patient classification; [66432]

  (4) if he will issue a national strategy on the provision of podiatry and chiropody services. 166342]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no plans to issue any guidance on the level or strategic provision of podiatry and chiropody services. Chiropody/podiatry services are essential parts of the national service frameworks for older people and diabetes as stated the Department's literature. We have also launched a national primary and care trust programme designed to support primary care trusts (PCTs) in delivering their key functions which will be:

  Improving the health of the community

  Securing the provision of high quality services

  Integrating health and social care locally.

  As local organisations, PCTs are best placed to understand the needs of their patient populations. This will ensure that the right services are delivered to the right people in the right location at the right time.

  Asylum Seekers (Children)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children seeking asylum who have arrived in the UK in the last five years have been placed as children in care. [67635]

  Jacqui Smith
  Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are being separately identified for the first time in the Department's statistical collections on looked-after children for the year ending 31 March 2002. At present these data are still being collected and validated. It is anticipated that preliminary figures will be available in the autumn of 2002.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued in 2001–02 for medicines used to treat mental illness. [68052]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for the treatment of mental illness during the financial year ending 31 March 2002 is given in the table.
  928W
  Information about the diagnosis for which the drugs were prescribed is not available. Drugs used to treat mental illness have therefore been defined as those within British National Formulary paragraphs Hypnotics and anxiolytics (4.1), Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders ( 4.2) and Antidepressant drugs ( 4.3).

  Prescription items dispensed in the community for treatment of mental illness, for the year ending 31 March 2002

  England BNF description

  Prescription items (thousands) 1 April 2001–31 March 2002

  4.1 Hypnotics and anxiolytics

  16,687

  4.1.1 Hypnotics

  10,646

  Benzodiazepine

  6,643

  Chloral and derivative

  165

  Other hypnotics

  3,838

  4.1.2 Anxiolytics

  5,989

  Benzodiazepine

  5,873

  Other anxiolytics

  116

  4.1.3 Barbiturates

  52

  4.2 Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders

  5,680

  4.2.1 Antipsychotic drugs

  4,722

  Atypical Antipsychotics

  1.998

  Other

  2,724

  4.2.2 Antipsychotic depot injections

  199

  4.2.3 Antimanic drugs

  759

  4.3 Antidepressant drugs

  24,787

  4.3.1 Tricyclic and related antidepressant drugs

  9,770

  Tricyclic antidepressants

  9,241

  Related antidepressants

  529

  4.3.2 Monoamine-oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)

  91

  4.3.3 SSRIs

  12.399

  4.3.4 Other antidepressant drugs

  2.528

  Notes:

  1. The therapeutic classifications are based on British National Formulary. Number 42 (September 2001).

  2. These data are based on items dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis system.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which prisons have mental health in-reach services; [68054]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 127W, what the distribution to young offender institutions is; and if he will make a statement; [68269]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 470W, on prisons with no mental health in-reach services, if he will list the prisons for which mental health in-reach services are planned by 2004. [68264]
  929W
  Jacqui Smith
  During 2001–02 mental health in-reach services were being established in the following 18 prisons in England:

  HMP Birmingham

  HMP Belmarsh

  HMP Brixton

  HMP/YOI Bullwood Hall

  HMP/YOI Chelmsford

  HMP Durham

  HMP/YOURC Eastwood Park

  HMYOI/RCFeltham

  HMP Frankland

  HMP/YOI Holloway

  HMP Leeds

  HMP Leicester

  HMP Pentonville

  HMP Wandsworth

  HMP Whitemoor

  HMP Winchester

  HMP Woodhill

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs.

  It is planned to establish in-reach services in the following 26 further prisons in England during 2002–03:

  HMP/YOI Ashfield

  HMP Bedfor

  HMP Blakenhurst

  HMP Bristol

  HMP/YOU/RC Brockhill

  HMP Dorchester

  HMP/YOI/RC Exeter

  HMYOI/RC Glen Parva

  HMP Holme House

  HMP Hull

  HMP/YOI Lewes

  HMP Lincoln

  HMP Liverpool

  HMP Long Lartin

  HMP Manchester

  HMP/YOI Moorland

  HMP/YOI New Hall

  HMP/YOI Norwich

  HMP Nottingham

  HMYOI/RC Onley

  HMP Parkhurst

  HMYOI Portland

  HMP Preston

  HMP Rochester

  HMP/YOI Styal

  HMP Wakefield.

  The distribution of new mental health in-reach services for 2003–04 has not yet been decided.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what meetings have taken place between Ministers in his Department and Home Office Ministers since 27 February concerning mental health services in prisons; [68053]
  930W
  (2) when he last met the Home Secretary to discuss the training of prison nurses to carry out mental health assessments. [68056]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are in regular contact with our counterparts in the Home Office on a range of prison health issues, including mental health services in prisons and the training of nurses and other health care staff working in prisons.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 457W, on mental health, what conclusions have emerged from the work of the Homelessness Directorate as to the reasons for refusals of offers of help by rough sleepers in so far as they relate to health issues. [68265]

  Jacqui Smith
  The reasons why some rough sleepers refuse help are complex. A significant proportion of those rough sleepers who are still sleeping rough have some kind of mental health problem, and the large majorityhave some physical health problems. These health needsare often compounded by alcohol and drug misuse.

  The Homelessness Directorate's report, 'More than a roof', acknowledges that there is much more work to be done to help those that remain on the street and that addressing their health needs is a critical part to help them to start to rebuild their lives.

  The Department is working with the Homelessness Directorate to ensure that there are appropriate and effective health services for vulnerable rough sleepers that will enable them to get relevant treatment for their health needs. The Mental Health Bill will also help to target services on some of those who are unable to request treatment for themselves.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places have been delivered at Rampton and Broadmoor for dangerous and severe personality disorder sufferers. [68055]

  Jacqui Smith
  Work is well under way to deliver tv new units at Rampton and Broadmoor that will deliver 140 places for people suffering from dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD). There will be a 70–bed unit at each special hospital and both developments are currently on target for completion by 2004.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to publish the consultation responses he received in respect of the draft Mental Health Bill.

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The consultation responses received in respect of the draft Mental Health Bill will he made publicly available subject to respondents' requests for confidentiality.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how his Department plans to publicise the amendment to Regulation 5 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 to(a) local authorities, (b) care home owners and (c) residents and their families; [43897]

  (2) who will be asked to he members of the consultation exercise on the amendment of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 Standard 5; how it will be publicised: how much he expects the exercise to cost; and when he will publish the results. [43900]
  931W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The draft amendment to Care Home Regulations 2001 was issued for consultation on 19 June for comments by 18 July. A copy has been placed on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/freenursingcare.htm. The national health service and local authorities were notified via the chief executive's bulletin on 21 June. Copies of the draft regulations have also been sent direct to the bodies that represent the interests of providers and the elderly and care home residents and their relatives. It is, of course, open to any individual or organisation to comment on the proposed amendments.

  Care Homes (Darlington)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) care homes have been closed and (b) care beds have been lost in each year since 1997 in the Darlington constituency. [53327]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Information on care homes and places is not available at constituency level. The available information presented in the table shows the number of registered care homes and places in the Durham area at 31 March each year.

  Residential and nursing care homes and places in Durham area at 31 March

  Residential care homes1

  Nursing care homes, hospitals and clinics2.3

  Homes

  Places

  Homes

  Places

  1997

  318

  4,469

  114

  4,597

  1998

  289

  4,544

  123

  4,537

  1999

  284

  4,801

  118

  4,230

  2000

  325

  4,978

  104

  3,675

  2001

  314

  5,082

  101

  3,251

  1 Information for 1997 is presented for Durham county council, and following local government re-organisation, information for 1998 onwards is presented for the remaining part of Durham county council and Darlington unitary authority.

  2 Information is presented for County Durham and Darlington health authority.

  3 Information for 1997 relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions of(a) dextroamphetamine saccharate, (b) amphetamine aspartate, (c) dextroamphetamine sulfate and (d) amphetamine sulfate (dexidrine) were issued in each of the last five years for (i) attention deficit disorder and (ii) attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder dispensed in the community broken down by (a) health authority and (b) region. [63813]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: We have no prescribing records for drugs named dextroamphetamine saccharate and amphetamine aspartate. Amphetamine sulfate (dexidrine) was last prescribed in the community in 1997 when two items were dispensed.

  Information on the prescribing of dexamphetamine sulphate, for all treatment uses, is shown in the table. Information prior to 1999 is not available.
  932W

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for dexamphetamine sulphate by health authorities and regions, 1999 to 2001

  Prescription items (thousands)

  Health authority and region1

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Eastern region

  Bedfordshire

  1.2

  0.8

  0.6

  Cambridgeshire

  2.6

  2.4

  2.2

  Hertfordshire

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  Norfolk

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  North Essex

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  South Essex

  1.0

  0.8

  0.8

  Suffolk

  1.5

  1.3

  1.2

  Total for Eastern region

  8.6

  7.5

  7.2

  London region

  Barking and Havering

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  Brent and Harrow

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  Camden and Islington

  1.2

  1.2

  0.9

  Croydon

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0.7

  0.9

  0.8

  East London and the City

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  Hillingdon

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  1.1

  1.1

  1.0

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  Total for London region

  8.4

  8.6

  8.0

  North West region

  Bury and Rochdale

  1.9

  1.0

  0.9

  East Lancashire

  1.6

  1.5

  1.6

  Liverpool

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  Manchester

  4.3

  1.8

  2.4

  Morecambe Bay

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  North Cheshire

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  North West Lancashire

  1.4

  0.7

  0.6

  Salford and Trafford

  1.8

  0.9

  1.0

  Sefton

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  South Cheshire

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  South Lancashire

  0.7

  0.2

  0.2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  Stockport

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  West Pennine

  0.9

  0.4

  0.4

  Wigan and Bolton

  1.6

  1.5

  1.2

  Wirral

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Total for North West region

  16.4

  9.8

  10.1

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  Bradford

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.7

  0.8

  0.7

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  East Riding and Hull

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Leeds

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  0.9

  0.5

  0.4

  North Cumbria

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  North Yorkshire

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Northumberland

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  Sunderland

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Tees

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  Wakefield

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Total for Northern and Yorkshire region

  4.7

  4.5

  4.3

  South East region

  Berkshire

  0.5

  0.7

  0.7

  Buckinghamshire

  1.1

  0.9

  0.9

  East Kent

  1.0

  1.1

  1.0

  East Surrey

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1.1

  1.2

  1.0

  933W

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for dexamphetamine sulphate by health authorities and regions, 1999 to 2001

  Prescription items (thousands)

  Health authority and region1

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  4.5

  1.3

  1.3

  North and Mid Hampshire

  0.9

  1.1

  1.1

  Northamptonshire

  0.5

  0.4

  0.3

  Oxfordshire

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  4.3

  2.9

  2.3

  West Kent

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  West Surrey

  0.6

  0.7

  0.8

  West Sussex

  1.1

  1.1

  0.9

  Total for South East region

  17.9

  13.2

  12.2

  South West region

  Avon

  0.7

  0.5

  0.5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3.0

  2.7

  2.5

  Dorset

  0.7

  0.9

  0.9

  Gloucestershire

  0.7

  0.7

  0.6

  North and East Devon

  2.1

  1.4

  0.7

  Somerset

  0.5

  0.8

  1.1

  South and West Devon

  1.5

  1.4

  0.9

  Wiltshire

  1.0

  0.8

  0.8

  Total for South West region

  10.1

  9.3

  8.2

  Trent region

  Barnsley

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Doncaster

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Leicestershire

  0.9

  0.8

  0.7

  Lincolnshire

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  North Derbyshire

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  North Nottinghamshire

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  Nottingham

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Rotherham

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Sheffield

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  South Humber

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  South Derbyshire

  0.6

  0.6

  0.4

  Total for Trent region

  4.8

  5.0

  4.8

  West Midlands region

  Birmingham

  9.8

  11.2

  11.2

  Coventry

  0.9

  0.7

  0.8

  Dudley

  0.4

  0.3

  0.2

  Herefordshire

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  North Staffordshire

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Sandwell

  0.7

  0.6

  0.5

  Shropshire

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Solihull

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  South Staffordshire

  0.7

  0.5

  0.7

  Walsall

  1.1

  1.3

  1.1

  Warwickshire

  0.7

  0.6

  0.6

  Wolverhampton

  3.1

  0.8

  0.6

  Worcestershire

  1.2

  1.3

  1.0

  Total for West Midlands region

  19.4

  18.1

  17.5

  England

  90.2

  76.0

  72.3

  1 In which prescription items were dispensed.

  Notes:

  1. Dexamphetamine sulphate is defined within the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.4, central nervous system stimulants.

  2. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis system and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in England. The system covers prescriptions originating from general practices and also those written by nurses.

  NHS Complaints Procedure
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made with reforms to the NHS complaints procedure. [66262]
  934W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: We are currently considering reform of the NHS complaints, procedure following the independent evaluation in 1999–2000 and the subsequent listening exercise completed in October 2001, as well as the Chancellor's Budget statement and the subsequent publication of "Delivering the NHS Plan" in April this year. "Delivering the NHS Plan" set out the proposal to establish a new Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection among whose responsibilities will be the independent scrutiny of complaints. The Chief Medical Officer is also considering, the scope for closer links between the systems for dealing with complaints and clinical negligence claims among the possible alternatives for clinical negligence reform. We hope to be able to indicate the way forward on the reforms soon.

  Changes to the complaints procedure will need to take place in the context of the wider measures to empower patients and increase patient involvement in the development of health services. For example, patient advice and liaison services have already been or are being established in NHS and primary care trusts to help sort out problems on the spot.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the annual growth rate of emergency admissions for people aged over 75 years for each year since 1997–98 to the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [66287]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Emergency admissions for people aged 75 and over

  Percentage increase on previous year

  1997–98

  912,347

  —

  1998–99

  939,276

  2.95

  1999–2000

  954,542

  1.63

  2000–01

  961,275

  0.71

  Note:

  Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/ invalid clinical data, except for 2000–01, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  The emergency admissions targets, as set out in the Planning and Performance Framework, are being met and good progress is being made.

  NHS (West Surrey)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the funding of NHS services in west Surrey has been reduced since 1997 to bring it into line with the requirements of the Resource Allocation Working Party. [67456]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: Actual funding for the national health service in west Surrey has risen from £369.8 million in 1997–98 to £485.9 million in 2002–03. This represents an increase of 31.4 per cent.
  935W
  Real terms percentage allocation increases in west Surrey and nationally are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Year

  Real terms increase

  Average increase in England

  1997–98

  2.54

  2.04

  1998–99

  1.35

  1.90

  1999–2000

  2.91

  4.00

  2000–01

  3.67

  4.18

  2001–02

  5.91

  5.85

  2002–03

  6.89

  7.20

  During this period, changes in the resource allocation formula have meant that west Surrey has moved from being 1.71 per cent. above its target in 1997–98 to 3.63 per cent. above target in 2002–03.

  Castle Award for Equal Pay
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has applied for a Castle award for equal pay. [65226]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has not applied for a Castle award in 2002. We are committed to review our pay systems in response to the Equal Opportunities Commission Task Force "Just Pay" report, in which the Government have committed Departments and Agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps.

  CJD
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the tenth annual report of the National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit. [69001]

  Ms Blears
  The National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit's tenth annual report has been published today. The report documents the unit's findings in relation to sporadic, familial and iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob 936W
  Disease (CJD), and also variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), up to 31 December 2000. Copies have been placed in the Library, and are available on the unit's website at www.cjd.ed.ac.uk

  Care Leavers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1047W, on leaving care, how many care leavers have been assisted by their local authority to stay within education and training on an agreed programme by health authority. [67622]

  Jacqui Smith
  Further to my previous reply of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 736W, we do not hold this information centrally at present. However, we will be publishing, in the autumn, information on care leavers in education and training. This will include data on the percentage of those young people who were looked after on 1 April in their 17th year (aged 16) who were in education, training or employment at the age of 19. These data will show how progress is being made towards the Government's objective of increasing the level of employment, training or education among young people aged 19, who were looked after at age 16.

  Radiotherapy Waiting Lists
  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 increasing the number of training places for radiographers.

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.

Tourism
Lord Lukeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that London is an effective gateway for tourism into the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport promotes London as a gateway both via our sponsorship of the British Tourist Authority and via the grant that we give to the Greater London Authority. The Government require the BTA to attempt to increase the amount that overseas tourists spend outside London. Our agreement with the Greater London Authority stipulates that it must promote London as a gateway to the rest of the UK. The work is carried out on behalf of the GLA by the London Tourist Board.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she encourage the agencies, including the ETC in its proposed new marketing role, to direct a much greater proportion of their available resources towards selling Britain as a package tour, with London as its focal point—bearing in mind that, as of 2000, some 80 per cent of overseas visitors to London never leave London except to go home?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I will. It is vital that we encourage visitors to London to take a trip outside the city as well. Recent surveys suggest that many visitors who decide not to travel to the rest of the UK do so merely through lack of time. Many say that on a second visit to the UK they will set aside time to visit places outside London. The BTA is trying to encourage people to take packages involving particular types of trips: for example, a royal heritage trail all over the country, and even a "Harry Potter: discovering the magic of Britain" initiative.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the quickest ways to help the London tourism industry is to restore to the English Tourism Council, when it is reformed, the marketing function enjoyed by the three other home country tourist boards?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept what my noble friend says. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Tourism have been meeting with the
556
industry to examine the whole issue of how to restore to the ETC its marketing role, not just in terms of London but throughout the UK.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that England is the natural place where people who come to London go—not necessarily Scotland? Scotland has its own gateways. London's brand image is very strong. Everyone in the world knows about London—and visitors come to London in vast numbers—but they do not necessarily know about England. Following on the previous question, how is the brand image of England to be improved and increased, so that people will be encouraged as a matter of course to travel from London to the rest of the English countryside and to English towns?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. Work must be done to make sure that people understand about the amazing, wonderful and rich sights to be found outside London. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, the BTA is doing all that it can abroad to encourage visitors to come not merely to London but to other parts of the country through the kinds of packages I have described. Its target is to bring UK expenditure from incoming tourists outside London to at least 45 per cent of the total.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the current traffic gridlock in central London is a major negative factor in the promotion of London as the tourism gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware of the growing suspicion that the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is deliberately allowing massive and unco-ordinated roadworks in central London so as to justify the introduction of congestion charges next year?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question. But having suffered this morning as a result of massive gridlock in London, I am sympathetic to much of what the noble Lord has said. I cannot speak for the GLA or for the Mayor. Tourists, like everyone else, want to move about within London and all over the country. Therefore, it is important to have a co-ordinated response and to attempt to improve public transport in the city as well as the movement of private cars.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, recognising the importance of tourism to our economy and the crucial importance of London, and the vital need for full ministerial attention to be given to the challenging situation at the present time, how much time does the Minister expect to be spending on the affairs of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, for which I understand she is now responsible?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Avon arid Somerset Constabulary. I think that the noble Lord has been seriously misled by articles in the newspapers that do not represent reality. I am one of 10 Ministers responsible for

557
supporting Home Office Ministers in relation to the Prime Minister's street crime initiative. The reason I am one of those 10 Ministers is that an important part of this initiative is to organise diversionary activities for young people in the area of the arts and sport, in order to keep them off the streets in the summer holidays. The evidence suggests that less crime is committed as a result.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every year Westminster City Council carries out a survey of tourism in Westminster? The survey shows that 41 per cent of people spend only one day in London. One of their great complaints is about the beggars and the lack of personal safety in the city. Does she think it important that those issues should be addressed if London is to become a gateway? The city must attract people if they are to come to London and then go on from there.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I agree. It is for those reasons as well as many others that the Prime Minister is determined that we should reduce the amount of street crime, not just in London, but across the country.
Lord Fearn: My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the BTA, which, through its Britain Visitor Centre, now deals with 450,000 visitors a year? Most of those are shelved off to other areas of Britain. Many of them come to Southport for golf, because we have seven golf courses.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. The Britain Visitor Centre in Regent Street, which is run by the BTA, has been enormously successful in getting visitors to come in and find out what is available around the country, including in Southport.

Money Laundering
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which government departments last year authorised or instigated the inquiries which bankers, accountants, stockbrokers and others were required to make of their customers to discourage money laundering; and what results ensued.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the role of the Government is to ensure that the necessary regulatory framework to fight money laundering is put in place. The law imposes specific duties on financial institutions, such as those of identifying customers and staff training. The provisions will be strengthened under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, currently before your Lordships' House, and by forthcoming revisions to the money laundering regulations, which are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
558
In 2001, 31,251 reports of suspected money laundering were submitted to the authorities by financial institutions and other bodies.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not suppose that I have a chance of persuading the noble Lord that there is something reprehensible about twisting the arms of private sector organisations into grilling their customers for information, some of which they have already and other aspects of which are none of their business. I am not impressed by the noble Lord's bureaucratic answer, but perhaps I can persuade him that this is just another of those vexatious intrusions that cause the private, law-abiding individual a great deal of irritation and would not cause a money launderer to do more than twitch.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that my chances of persuading the noble Lord that the Government might have a point here are rather slim. Increasingly, we are getting tremendous levels of co-operation from the private sector. Some 62 per cent of reports of suspected money laundering activity come from banks, 14 per cent come building societies and 7 per cent come from other financial institutions. Surely this is an issue on which those on all sides of your Lordships' House should agree. We welcome support, particularly from the Opposition, for aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the aim of which is to tackle money laundering fundamentally. We should all support that.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the introduction of large denomination notes is a significant factor in the facility with which money may be laundered? What evaluation, if any, have the Government or the European Union made of the impact of the introduction of the 1,000 euro note on money laundering activities throughout Europe?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with his great knowledge of the accountancy profession, the noble Lord has got the better of my briefing. I am more than happy to indulge in some correspondence on the issue. The noble Lord's point is relevant.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton ought to be addressed, not merely discarded as an unworthy consideration?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, makes a point, but I would have thought that it was in society's interests generally to tackle fundamentally issues such as money laundering, not least because it is greatly associated with evils such as drug trafficking, people trafficking and terrorism.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to demand of elderly people, who may have held an account with a particular bank for more than 65 years, that they must suddenly prove their identity is often alarming and always insulting. It shows that the Government's obsession with money laundering is going over the top. Secondly, if the requirement is to be extended to everyone in the country who holds a bank or building society account, what will be done about those many people who do not possess a passport or a photographic driving licence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had hoped that there would be Cross-Bench support for our offensive on money laundering. It is not a matter of the law being overbearing. Surely this is a major issue. In 2000–01, £l9 million was recovered as a product of our efforts to tackle drug trafficking and other criminal activity. That shows the extent of the problem that we are beginning to tackle fundamentally. I hope that the Government will be widely supported on that.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, has not my noble friend Lord Peyton touched on a point of great concern to all of us, as he so often does? Will the Minister cast his mind back to the wise advice of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who said in the second of our emergency debates on terrorism that perhaps the best way to defeat terrorism was to follow the money? The noble and learned Lord told us that the Government had frozen, I think, £63,180,000 of terrorist-related finance in UK bank accounts. Can the Minister tell us what that figure is today?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have that figure at my fingertips. I am quite happy to undertake the research that the noble Lord suggests, and am more than happy to correspond with him on it.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister, like me, unsure as to where the Official Opposition are on this matter? May I assure him that we on these Benches are fully supportive of the Government's action on money laundering? Can he say whether there has been success in getting co-operation from professions other than banking, such as the accounting and the legal professions? It is quite clear that many professional advisers become involved in money laundering. Unless we all believe that it is our responsibility, the money launderers will succeed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am drawn to supporting the noble Lord's comments. I, too, am puzzled as to where the Official Opposition are coming from on this issue. They have not been overly supportive of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The noble Lord is also right to draw attention to the important role of other professions in this field. Of the many thousands of reports made to NCIS, only 0.35 per cent come from accountants and only 1 per cent from the legal profession. Noble Lords might be drawn to conclude that these professions could be more helpful to the police in their inquiries.

Coal Industry
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their long-term policy for the coal industry, including the import of foreign coal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government's long-term policy for the coal industry is being reviewed in the context of the new European coal state aid regulation. This allows countries to pay operating and investment aid. However, as with the current European rules, it prohibits state aid from allowing the price of subsidised coal to undercut international competition. As long as the competition is fair, we welcome the security and flexibility that the geopolitical diversity of coal suppliers provides.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend confirming that an agreement was recently reached in the European Union on state subsidies for deep-mined coal? If so, will he confirm that this country was fully involved in those talks and committed to the results? As the present aid scheme, as he knows, ran out last month, there has been urgent concern that the gap between operation of the new agreement and expiration of the old one might well lead to the closure of another six pits in this country. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government's policy is that coal will continue to play a major part in this country's energy mix, particularly as the demand for coal is now growing?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we were very pleased to be part of reaching the agreement, on 7th June, on the new European coal state aid regime. We fought very hard to secure the flexibility to pay investment aid and I am delighted that we were successful in that regard. The new rules will come into effect immediately after expiry of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty on 23rd July. Coal will continue to play a major part in our energy policy, but on the basis of the ability to draw on coal supplies from around the world.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 2001, after decreasing for a number of years, CO2 emissions in the UK increased because power generators switched from gas to cheap imported coal? Have the Government any plans actively to dissuade the generators from using cheap imported coal—even though such plans might risk provoking the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, as they would involve twisting the arm of an independent organisation? Does the Minister agree that reducing CO2 emissions must be the priority in this instance?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, reducing emissions is clearly one of the key objectives of our energy policy. One should always remember, however, that energy policy has a number of objectives: cost is one, environmental impact another, and energy security the third. Within that, we are very keen to promote the use of clean coal technology which is very relevant to this issue.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, in May 2002 alone, international coal production increased by more than 5 per cent, caused largely by the opening up of new capacity in China where wage levels are rather lower than they are in Europe. Do we really believe, as we have done in the past in other industries of this type, that there is any likelihood of reversing the trend of a steady reduction in British coal capacity?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the issue of the future of individual coal-mines ultimately has to be a matter for the owners of those mines. We can only make certain that there is a fair market internationally for British coal and that British coal is not penalised by subsidies for other countries. That is what we are concerned to do.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on CO2 emissions, does the Minister agree that the future of coal is closely linked with overcoming the current environmental objections to it, and that the most effective way of doing that is to develop the process of clean coal technology associated with CO2 recovery and storage? When will we have an effective demonstration plant to that effect in the United Kingdom? It would have enormous export potential.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the future of coal is closely linked with the question of its environmental impact. As the noble Lord will recall, we conducted a review of the possibility of a clean coal technology demonstration plant. We found that most of the available technologies have already been fully demonstrated. So there is really a very small case for a demonstration project. However, the review also concluded that there is a case for modest support for retrofitting more efficient combustion plant technology in existing power stations, particularly to help to demonstrate the technology and to support exports—the point that the noble Lord raised. We are pursuing how best to take that particular project forward.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is desirable to maintain a sufficiently large coal industry in Britain to sustain our mining engineering technology industry? It currently has a considerable international opportunity, especially given its skill in safe mining, a need demonstrated only the other day by the disaster in the Ukraine.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is very difficult to argue that we should maintain the coal
562
industry for the purpose of maintaining the coal mining technology industry which depends upon it. I think that we have to examine this issue fairly and squarely and try to sustain our coal industry. However, it will be sustained only if it can operate on an economic basis. I think that that has to be the first consideration.

Badgers
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to deter and prosecute those responsible for digging and baiting badgers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are committed to cracking down on wildlife crime, including badger crime, and provide strategic support for the network of police wildlife liaison officers through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that badger digging and baiting continue in contempt of the law and with delight in the most cruel practices? Would it not be appropriate for the courts to provide a deterring sanction that can and should include the confiscation of that which is used in committing the offence, particularly the terriers and the motor vehicles without which these crimes could not proceed?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the penalties available to magistrates in the courts include a maximum penalty of a fine of £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. Where a dog has been used in the commission of an offence, the court may make an order for the destruction or disposal of the dog and disqualify the offender from keeping a dog. The magistrates can also consider carefully whether a vehicle was used as a tool in the commission of the crime.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the actual level of fines that are levied for this crime?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not able to give that detailed information to the noble Lord but I shall, of course, write to him. I do not know how long it will take to collate the information as I do not know whether it is collated nationally.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that much cruelty is caused to various wild species through non-management of those species? I refer, for example, to foxes with mange which stray through cities. On the "Today" programme this morning there was mention of the Scottish proposal to kill 5,000 hedgehogs when English gardeners are crying out for hedgehogs to

563
predate on slugs which are an enormous problem in a wet summer such as we are having. Does not the Minister think that the Government should do more in terms of having a pro-active species management plan?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as regards hedgehogs, the report on the radio this morning was not accurate as it has not yet been decided what action should be taken. Press reports which state that there will be a cull are misleading. Hedgehogs are not native to the Scottish islands. Six years of research has demonstrated that they are a threat to dunlin, redshank, snipe and lapwing. That is a matter for the devolved administration in Scotland to consider. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will consider any proposal that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, may wish to put forward with regard to the humane expatriation of hedgehogs to those gardens whose gardeners wish to have them. The treatment of foxes with mange in cities constitutes a more complex task. The management of wildlife in cities is difficult. I was not aware that foxes in cities contracted mange. I see foxes most frequently in Leicestershire. They certainly do not look mangy.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who owns a couple of badger setts, albeit in Scotland. I refer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the fact that the curtailment of hunting with dogs would almost certainly cause a reduction in the number of privately funded individuals managing the welfare of wildlife. The Minister mentioned strategic support for wildlife officers, but have the Government quantified the number of new rangers, or the extra funding, that may he required to have in place people with powers to act against those who infringe the law we are discussing?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Duke has wide knowledge of this field but he asks a question that is impossible to answer simply because, as he is aware, at the moment there are detailed discussions within the European Union on the future of the CAP. Were the changes for which many noble Lords have pressed to be secured by the Government, there could be—I stress the words "could be"—a switch of funds from production to environmental protection. Therefore, it is impossible to measure against a moving target, even if it were possible to quantify the impact on the environment of the banning of fox hunting.
Lord Carter: My Lords, what is the latest situation regarding the badger culling trials? They were understandably delayed last year as resources were diverted to control the foot and mouth outbreak. Does my noble friend agree that it is important that the trials are brought to a speedy conclusion to enable us to know once and for all whether there is a link between bovine TB and badgers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that diverting
564
resources to the foot and mouth outbreak had a temporary impact on the trials. My noble friend will be pleased to learn that we expect the trials to finish only a few months later than they would otherwise have done. As my noble friend said, this is an extremely important matter. There is a strongly held rural belief that there is a link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB. However, we need clear evidence one way or the other.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend re-emphasise the final point in her initial Answer; namely, that the courts are entitled to order the confiscation of the motor car which is used to commit the offence?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I make clear that it is for the courts to reach their own judgment on cases; it is not for the Government to interfere in that. Having said that, the courts may take such matters into account in some cases. However, I stress that ultimately this must remain a matter for the courts. They must consider whether it would he appropriate in a particular instance to take such matters into account.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Sandler review of retail savings.

Business of the House: Standing Order 42
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 42 (Postponement and advancement of business) be dispensed with to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Baroness Amos on 16th July to be advanced to 10th July.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Finance Bill
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Friday 12th July.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Establishment of centres]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State may arrange for—

(a) the provision of facilities at or near an accommodation centre for sittings of adjudicators appointed for the purpose of Part 5 in accordance with a determination of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4;

(b) the provision of facilities at an accommodation centre for the taking of steps in connection with the determination of claims for asylum (within the meaning of section 16(3))."

The noble Lord said: As the Committee will be aware, although there has been support in principle for the idea of accommodation centres expressed by all three main parties both here and in another place, concerns have been expressed about whether in practice they would fulfil the potential that those on all sides of the Chamber would wish. Concerns have centred around the issue of whether in practice increased speed in dealing fully and fairly with applicants for asylum would be achieved through the use of accommodation centres.
The specific challenge that was raised in another place concerned whether a paperchase would continue without having case workers and adjudicators on site to consider appeals in accommodation centres and that the sort of delays that have unfortunately been experienced when backlogs of asylum claims have built up might continue.
This group of amendments relate to the issue of undertaking appeal hearings and casework on site at accommodation centres in order to create a "one-stop shop". The Home Secretary said that he was sympathetic to an amendment tabled in the other place by the right honourable Member for West Dorset, Oliver Letwin. He accepted that there should be a presumption that adjudicators should be on site in the trial accommodation centres, and that he would talk to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the best way to organise it with a view to bringing forward a government amendment to make clear our intentions on the face of the Bill.
We have now discussed matters with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and concluded that it would be appropriate to amend Clause 14. Clause 14 provides that the Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of premises (to be called
566
"accommodation centres") for the accommodation of persons in accordance with Part 2 of the Bill. It provides the necessary powers for funding and building accommodation centres. The government amendment reflects our firm intention that accommodation centres should be about more than just housing and supporting asylum seekers. It provides us with an express power to fund and build hearing facilities and caseworking facilities at an accommodation centre, so that we may integrate support and processing and take an holistic approach to dealing with asylum seekers' claims.
It is for the Lord Chancellor to determine where immigration adjudicators sit to hear appeals. It would not be appropriate for the Home Secretary, as the Secretary of State with responsibility for determining asylum claims, to direct adjudicators to sit at accommodation centres. The amendment therefore does not seek to do that. The Lord Chancellor, by virtue of Schedule 4, already has the power to direct adjudicators to sit at times and places that are determined by him. Thus, if Members of the Committee agree to the amendment, the Lord Chancellor may direct adjudicators to sit at accommodation centres in hearing facilities that will be provided by the Home Secretary as part of the wider accommodation centre complex.
I say "wider accommodation centre complex" because it is important that we preserve and are seen to be preserving the independence of the judiciary. It is not just a matter of providing a couple of rooms for adjudicators within the accommodation centre and asking them to get on with it. Hearing rooms need to be separate from the accommodation centre, with a separate identity. So the adjudicator needs to be next door—on hand rather than on site. The amendment deals with that by referring to hearing facilities "at or near" an accommodation centre.
The opposition amendments, which have not yet been moved, seek to require us to take decisions, hear appeals and serve decisions on site at accommodation centres. We cannot agree to that requirement but I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that in spirit and in practical application we are not so far apart.
We agree that it is desirable that as many facilities as possible should be available to asylum seekers on site at accommodation centres. We are trialling accommodation centres to see if they work and, as part of that trial, we want to test the hypothesis that co-location of the casework and appeals functions will help to minimise delay.
However, we need to bear two things in mind. First, accommodation centres are a trial and therefore we need flexibility to try out approaches. Secondly, we need to have regard for taxpayers' money.
In respect of hearing facilities, evidence from the Immigration Appellate Authority already suggests that smaller hearing centres are less efficient and therefore more expensive overall than larger ones. I have already explained that hearing facilities cannot just be a couple of hearing rooms. In addition to

567
courtrooms, we need office space for adjudicators, presenting officers and support staff. We also need a waiting area for appellants and consultation rooms for them to meet legal advisers in private. That is quite a substantial funding commitment. Opposition Members of the Committee have been making the case for smaller centres and we have undertaken to look seriously at that. However, Members of the Committee cannot have it both ways. If we are to have a genuine trial with flexibility for smaller centres, which the legislation provides, the legislation must also provide for flexibility in respect of some on-site services.
The Immigration Appellate Authority is currently expanding to meet its commitment to take on 6,000 appeals per month from November this year. It is opening up new hearing facilities around the country. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that it would not be good value for money if, for example, facilities were readily accessible from an accommodation centre but we were expressly obliged by statute to build a brand new hearing centre next door to the accommodation centre. That is what Amendment No. 109 would require.
I have discussed appeals. The noble Baroness's amendment also seeks to require us to take asylum decisions on site. Again, we cannot support the literal interpretation of that because we believe that it would unnecessarily straitjacket our ability to deal with cases as efficiently as possible. Nevertheless, there is some support for her objective.
A blanket requirement for all decisions to be made on site would remove the flexibility to respond to surges in intake and staff fluctuations (for example, through illness) by reducing our ability to use the main Croydon and Liverpool caseworking groups as backup, as well as sources of expertise for difficult cases. Members of the Committee may think that I am being unduly negative. I am not seeking to be; I merely want to make it clear that a blanket requirement is not the way in which to achieve efficiency, although I do not necessarily believe that that is what lies behind the amendment.
It may help if I explain what we actually intend to do. Our general presumption is that both caseworking and appeal hearings should take place on site at accommodation centres unless there are sound pragmatic reasons for not doing so. To that extent we have been persuaded by the Opposition's arguments, which were advanced in another place and in this place at Second Reading. We intend to co-locate hearing facilities with the trial accommodation centres in all circumstances where it makes sense to do so. As I have mentioned, exceptions might be if there were existing hearing facilities within striking distance, which it would not be sensible to replace.
By caseworking on site, again based on pragmatism, what we intend is that the initial interview should take place on site, any further representations should be received on site and all decisions, including appeal determinations, should be served on site. The full case-file would remain on site while the applicant is resident
568
there and appeals would be lodged on site. With all of that face-to-face activity taking place on site, the strong likelihood would be that it would make sense to take decisions on site, too. So we would plan to do that, but with flexibility to do what works best and to call on central resources where necessary.
With those undertakings, I hope that both Opposition Benches recognise that we have moved a considerable way towards meeting the arguments that were made in another place. I also hope that they will accept that the amendment is reasonable and that the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendments. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 109 and 136, which are in my name. They are grouped with government Amendment No. 97, which the Minister has just moved. They were tabled before the government amendment, which is extremely welcome. My questions will simply seek elucidation of the Minister's remarks. I welcome the amount of information that he has given and his undertakings with regard to proceedings on site. He has successfully managed to head off a number of questions with those undertakings.
As the Minister said, there is support in principle for the building of accommodation centres as a way in which to process asylum claims faster, more effectively and in a manner that is fairer to those in the centres and to those who are considering coming to this country. We support the principles that were enunciated by the Minister. He rightly referred to the concerns expressed in another place and to the fact that when my right honourable friend Mr Letwin sought to introduce a new clause on Report on 11th June to ensure that the adjudicators would make their decisions on site, the Home Secretary offered to speak to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the chief adjudicator about the best way forward. I welcome the progress that has been made since then; it resulted in the amendment.
As the Minister said, the government amendment is different from my amendments in one clear respect. The government amendment states that adjudicators will not necessarily be on site but that they will be "near an accommodation centre". He sought to argue that the Opposition cannot have it both ways with regard to changes to the way in which accommodation centres are built and run. He suggested that if we want smaller centres that may be sited near urban areas, there has to be some flexibility with regard to the services that are provided. He also said that the Lord Chancellor already has the power to determine where adjudicators may sit and that it is up to the Lord Chancellor to determine where they should sit. I certainly accept that that is the case.
I welcome the information that was given by the Minister about the facilities that would be required properly to provide services for adjudication. He talked about the importance of the judiciary being seen to be independent as well as being independent.

569
Certainly I appreciate that that is always the case. I recall the time when magistrates' courts commonly sat either in police stations or in part of a police station site considered to be appropriate. During the building programme of the past 20 years, magistrates' courts have been seen to be independent by being sited separately. I am sure that the Government are right to seek to ensure that any adjudicator who hears a case should be seen to be independent of the government. That ensures, first, that the asylum seeker should be in that accommodation centre, having no choice as to where he should live, and, secondly, that he should then have the application processed by the adjudicator.
I accept much of the Minister's argument that perhaps adjudicators should not always be directed to be present on site. I still have some concerns about the fact that, under the noble Lord's amendment, asylum seekers may well have to travel some distance from one accommodation centre to another in order to seek advice. Of course, if the Government persist in their current intention to build accommodation centres at rather remote places, it is possible that the level of rural bus services will simply not be sufficient to provide easy access for people to adjudication services. I think in particular of families with children and the elderly and infirm.
Therefore, although I welcome the commitment shown by the Government today, I shall have to reserve my position over the summer in order to take advice on these matters from the Immigration Advisory Service and ILPA. I want to know what implications they see for applicants as a result of the commitments which the Minister has made today and of which we did not have prior knowledge.
Earl Russell: I, too, welcome both the Minister's amendment and the speech which he made in putting it before us. It reassured me on a number of points about which I had previously been in a little doubt. I also express my agreement with the vast majority of what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said and express approval of her Amendment No. 109.
The idea that hearings should take place at the centres, or as near as is convenient to them, is important. Incidentally, it will save the Minister from a long string of questions from my noble friend Lord Greaves about the timing of the earliest trains from Preston to London. Some of the early hearings conducted by NASS were something of a dog's breakfast. Indeed, they were appropriately timed before the earliest train that would enable the asylum seeker to get there so that he would end up spending the night sleeping on Euston Station. I believe that the amendment will get us away from that situation.
I take the noble Lord's point about the independence of the judiciary. It explains a number of points which I should have spotted were due to that but where the amendment is not particularly specific, clearly because it is not within the noble Lord's authority to make it so.
570
I take his point with regard to flexibility; that is, that where there is an appropriate building next door, it is absurd to insist on a purpose-built building to avoid a walk of a couple of hundred yards. On the other hand, I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It is a different matter when one is dealing with families with children, but without the language, who must take bus journeys of 20 or 30 miles or perhaps half-way across a county, probably run under rather erratic and infrequent services. This will clearly be a matter of horses for courses. One cannot account for that type of situation in the drafting of general primary legislation; nor, indeed, I suspect, in the drafting of general secondary legislation. It will be a matter for consultation and for reasonableness, and I welcome the Minister's commitment to undertake to do that.
However, from our point of view, one vitally important element is still missing from the amendment. It does not lay on the Secretary of State any duty to make legal advice available at the centre. The Secretary of State "may" arrange for,
"the provision of facilities at an accommodation centre for the taking of steps in connection with the determination of claims for asylum".
But it does not say that he "shall", and it does not say that he will make legal advice available for claimants.
Throughout, the Government have been concerned about speed, and I understand why. I have heard of cases of asylum seekers who have waited for a decision on their application for as long as 10 years. I shall not soon forget hearing Lord Taylor of Gosforth very shortly before he died describing the time-consuming character of listening to a litigant in person. Therefore, in terms of speed there are advantages in legal advice being available on site.
There are also advantages in terms of reasonableness, fairness and a level playing field between the Home Office and the applicant. The Home Secretary occasionally sounds as though he has a problem with what he describes as "ingenious" lawyers. One does not always feel certain that the adjective is intended as praise. Perhaps I may offer him a quotation from Mr Justice Megarry:
"As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change".
It is perhaps, ultimately, not so very different from politics.
The earlier in the process that those matters are cleared up, the more quickly and more fairly the issue can be resolved. I believe that that is in the interest of both the Home Office and the applicant. It has been our opinion throughout that the major cause of delay in the asylum system is the poor quality of the initial decision-making: the insistence on an appropriate standard of proof; inaccurate information on the country concerned; or, occasionally, simply insufficient attention to the evidence provided.

571
All that can be put right more quickly if the applicant has access to legal advice at the earliest possible moment. That is most likely to produce a quick decision and a fair one. That is a point to which we on these Benches must return. However, with that single reservation, I welcome the Minister's amendment, I thank him for it and I am happy to accept it.
Baroness Whitaker: I rise in support of Amendment No. 97, but, following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I simply want to ask my noble friend whether he will clarify one point. Incidentally, I apologise to my noble friend for having just missed the beginning of his introduction, but I am advised that he did not mention this point. Will he clarify that the legal advice which the Secretary of State may arrange for, if, indeed, that is what is meant in the amendment, should be independent? Will he also clarify that information should be made available to people in the accommodation centres as to what that advice should consist of and what their rights are?
The other document at which I am looking is the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where we made it clear that we believed that people in accommodation centres should have independent legal advice and also information about their rights and where the legal advice was. Therefore, I hope that that can be positively clarified in my noble friend's response.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps the Minister will answer one or two questions in his response. While I express our broad support for the amendment, the Minister talked about the provision for adjudicators and appeals. One area with which we are concerned is the relationship between the appeal mechanism and those who provide advice—in this instance, we are talking about bodies such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre. All those bodies which provide on-the-spot advice will have to travel substantial distances for this purpose.
Do the Government understand that in many cases they are hand-to-mouth organisations, which depend on a substantial amount of charitable funds and, in some cases, government grants? Do they intend to ensure that such organisations are appropriately grant-aided in order to function effectively? That would not only be in the interests of the individual but in the interests of justice.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: When we consider this government amendment we need to keep a sense of proportion. We must remember that something like 2 to 3 per cent of all existing and future asylum cases will relate to people accommodated in accommodation centres. That will be the situation up until at least 2006. If Members of the Committee wonder why I think that those are the correct proportions, I refer them to the helpful notes produced by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
572
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it will be just as important that the centres provide the highest quality first decisions. If we can achieve that high quality there will be fewer appeals and fewer cases referred for judicial review. Independent legal advice has been mentioned. I hope that the Government will reassure us that that will be fully provided and, in some cases, fully funded.
Another point arises from getting good quality first decisions; that is, the vital need for interpreters for those asylum seekers who do not have a command of English. As I may have said before, it will be important to ensure that the interpreters are capable of entering, in a sympathetic way, into the difficult situation which often faces an asylum seeker. I look forward to further government reassurance on at least two counts.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like all who have spoken, I welcome the Minister's proposals and the fact that it is now intended that adjudicators should be available at accommodation centres. Perhaps I may refer to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If one is to have early and fair adjudications, it is equally important that the asylum seeker should have the opportunity of having available to him independent legal advice. The noble Earl suggested that at present that is not fully covered by the Bill. If it is not—I rather thought it was—can the Minister assure the Committee that he will also consider that matter? It seems to me that the success of this part of the Bill will depend on the ability to provide a system which will allow for adjudication as quickly and fairly as possible and, as a result, will lead to as few appeals as possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some of the centres are likely to be in Scotland. Amendment No. 97 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, to which the amendment refers, explains that the Lord Chancellor will decide where and when adjudicators will sit. I have always understood that the Lord Chancellor's Writ does not run in Scotland. I wonder whether the amendment will need to be amended to take account of that fact or whether there will be a further amendment from the Government.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I join the general welcome given to the government amendments by Members of the Committee and underline the critical importance of early and easy access to legal advice. The Minister will be aware that a number of the voluntary organisations which have been involved at Oakington from the start of the process had and still have access to give both legal and expert advice to those who are there as part of the process of dealing with asylum applications.
After the first few months of the opening of that centre, the voluntary agencies concerned in offering such advice were comfortable with the fact that in a high percentage of cases—I cannot remember the exact figure; it may be that my noble friend has that to hand—the initial advice offered had been subsequently upheld in the appeals process. That is a

573
great tribute to the organisations involved at Oakington. It also raises another point, which is easy to overlook.
As far as I am aware—perhaps my noble friend will confirm this—nowhere in that process are the Government concerned with the provision of legal advice to those seeking asylum. That is traditionally left either to independent lawyers or, indeed, to voluntary and charitable agencies which specialise in that field. It is not a matter for the Government. The only responsibility—I believe that is the best word—resting on the Government as part of that process is to provide suitable accommodation for those willing to provide such advice at the premises in which those seeking asylum are to be found.
That is an extremely important point. Surely, the whole of the Bill is concerned with making the process more sensible, fairer and faster. Everyone then knows exactly where they are from start to finish and are then given leave to remain; granted refugee status; or told that they cannot stay here and, where safe to do so, returned to their country. The provision of early advice, which is easily accessible at the start of the process and throughout, is critical. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that that has been a success where practised at Oakington.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It might be convenient at this point to state that I look forward to receiving the support of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when finally we reach Amendment No. 118 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. That amendment seeks to achieve exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, hopes for; that is, the provision of legal services on site at accommodation centres. The amendment appears in its proper place in Clause 26.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question which has been running through my mind during the debate. He spoke about "trialling" the accommodation. Presumably he means that initially only a single accommodation centre will be built at which the Government will test the availability of all the facilities to see whether or not they work before they go on to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in rolling out the whole programme.
Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government will not embark upon the whole programme until the first test has been fully undertaken and everyone can see how it works so that an awful lot of money is not wasted on providing facilities that may not be right for the purpose?
I sympathise with everything the Minister said when introducing this group of amendments. We certainly agree that on the whole it is best if the facilities can be provided either on site or in the immediate neighbourhood of the accommodation centres.
574
However, let us first see how it works before we embark on an expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Her Amendment No. 118 is a good one and I welcome it. Its sits next to our Amendment No. 117, which says exactly the same thing. I would be happy with either of the amendments and am perfectly happy to leave the choice to the Minister.
Lord Filkin: I am deeply troubled to hear of this fraternisation taking place on the Opposition Benches, given the dire import for subsequent stages that it might imply. Seriously, I thank both Opposition Benches for their generally supportive comments and for the commonsense way in which they have responded to what we have said.
The first point concerns the Government's commonsense approach. If there is already an adjudication centre near an accommodation centre one would not want to be forced to build a new one. Clearly, that would be nonsense. The debate related to how far away it would be reasonable to have one. The short answer is that in the trials—we intend that there should be four pilots rather than the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred—the presumption is that there would be adjudication on site, unless there were very good reasons not to have it.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, answered the question as well as it could be answered. He signalled that these matters could not be specified further in terms of any roll-out of the programme, either in primary or secondary legislation. One would have to look at the experience of the early centres and see what was workable. The spirit of the matter is to try to speed up processing while retaining fairness. Therefore, one is trying to avoid either paper chases or people chases or adjudicators having to waste time. We are trying to maximise the amount of co-location as is sensibly possible.
We shall be referring to legal advice. Therefore, I shall not deal with it exhaustively at this point, except to mark that in general terms there are benefits in having independent legal advice available at all stages. The one area of difference is that the Government do not believe that it is essential for a legal adviser to be present at an initial interview. That is frequently the case, but we do not believe that the absence of a lawyer should inhibit the proceedings of the initial interview.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker and one or two other noble Lords raised the question of facilities. The noble Baroness asked about facilities on site. The Home Secretary, through the Bill and his powers, is providing facilities on site to enable interviews between an independent lawyer, or an independent voluntary organisation, and his client to take place in private—all the necessary facilities that support an independent judicial process, which is what a hearing before an adjudicator is.

575
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the appeal mechanism and how it will work in practice. The simplest way to illustrate that is if, as we intend, these centres contain 750 people, up to 1,000 to 1,500 initial considerations and a potentially near to that number of appeals could take place each year. Already that gives a picture. It starts to be efficient and potentially economic to bring other support facilities closer on site. It makes it easier to provide independent legal advice to asylum seekers, which is funded by the Legal Services Commission. It may make it easier for voluntary organisations to have a presence—not necessarily a permanent one but a supportive presence—on site.
However, we do not have a fixed view on that issue with regard to NGOs, the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service. We want to consider further and to look at the implications of how co-location of those functions can assist in the voluntary sector's contribution. We shall, as ever, be open to receiving its views and thoughts in that respect.
I was asked a good question by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The Lord Chancellor's writ does not run to Scotland. As she knows, it is the Lord Advocate. I am told that we shall consider the point further and consider whether we need to make specific provision in respect of Scotland. I think that that counts as a half hit at least.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, marked, quite rightly, that initially this is a trial whereby we shall test whether what we believe to be sound policy and practice works well. In the early years most decisions will not be taken in accommodation centres; the existing processes will continue. I agree with the noble Lord on his central point that high-quality first decisions lead to fewer—I am not sure that they lead to fewer appeals but certainly they lead to fewer successful judicial reviews. There is evidence to support that. So I am with the spirit if not the full detail of his point.
The noble Lord made a point about the importance of interpretation on site. He spoke of the potential benefits in having decent sized accommodation centres with concentration by particular language groupings making the provision of interpretation facilities simpler. As he rightly said, it is crucial that people are advised both about the process and about their rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, spoke about early and fair adjudication. I strongly agree with him. In a sense that issue is not specifically covered by the Bill, although we shall debate the matter later as signposted by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
My noble friend Lord Corbett made similar points about the contribution of NGOs and of the benefit of legal advice. He spoke also of how well, by and large, despite initial concerns, the Oakington centre works. One cannot necessarily read across from Oakington to accommodation centres, but one should not believe that specialist bodies, organisations or facilities necessarily are against the interests of applicants.
576
Clearly, they have led to faster decision-making at Oakington, which we hope will be one of the benefits of accommodation centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, remarked that there were four centres in the initial trial or pilot. He then asked about research evaluation. They will be evaluation-led by the research division of the Home Office. We have not yet finalised the detail of that. But it is likely to be ongoing action monitoring and research so that we try to learn the lessons relatively rapidly, rather than running them for two years, letting a university contract and then waiting for another two years at the end. For reasons which noble Lords will understand, that would be too slow. But we expect that there will be a thorough evaluation, which is objectively done. No doubt we shall have an opportunity at a subsequent stage to explore its findings.
On Question, amendment 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.

Retail Savings
3.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement about the Sandler review, published this morning, and the Government's preliminary reactions to it.
"Twelve months ago, the Government asked Ron Sandler to review the market for medium and long-term retail savings and I am extremely grateful to him for his work in producing this report.
"Its remit was,
'to identify the competitive forces and incentives that drive the industries concerned, in particular in relation to their approaches to investment, and, where necessary, to suggest policy responses to ensure that consumers are well served. It will look at the applicability of the principles of investment proposed by the Myners review of Institutional Investment'.
"Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to bring benefits for consumers and for the retail investment industry and to improve the workings of the market. They will mean more competition, greater efficiency and more productive investment.
"That builds on the agenda we started in 1997 in introducing ISAs, CAT standards and stakeholder pensions as simple, easy to understand savings vehicles. They also build on our agenda to improve the effectiveness and competition within financial markets.

577
"The review proposes a set of simple, safer investment products—that it calls 'stakeholder products', building on the concept of stakeholder pensions and CAT standards. These products would have a strict cap on charges, restrictions on investment profile and the ability to exit easily on reasonable terms. As regulation would be built into the products themselves, firms would be allowed to sell them through a streamlined system of sales regulation.
"A set of 'stakeholder products' would provide safer, good value products that ordinary people can understand. Greater focus on product design could clear the way for a streamlined sales process. This would make it profitable for providers and distributors to sell to a wider range of less well-off people. That will encourage people to save.
"The review shows how the sales process for investment products can be costly and time-consuming, disenfranchising many on low and middle incomes from investment that would benefit them.
"Shifting the burden of regulation from the sales process to the products themselves, for products aimed at the smaller investor, would help to improve access to saving without sacrificing consumer protection. For people with more sophisticated investments, more complicated products may still be appropriate. The new products would therefore not replace but complement the existing market and for many products the present regulatory approach should remain.
"Building on the review's suggestions, we will consult consumers' representatives, the industry and the Financial Services Authority on the stakeholder products and their design. We shall work closely with the FSA, which will want separately to consult on the regime for their sale.
"I should stress that seeing value in simpler products with simpler sales regulation does not mean that we do not value financial advice. On the contrary, the review presents a challenge for the industry and others to think radically about how it provides advice. Advice is too often understood as an adjunct to a sale, not something valued in its own right. As a result, it is perceived as costly, time-consuming and inaccessible to those on low incomes. But it is simply not the case that only the wealthy need or would benefit from advice.
"The review's proposals should make it possible for the industry to offer to the mass market good quality, high-level advice that helps people to understand their financial needs and the products that can meet them as a complement to the sale of stakeholder products. I look forward to the industry response.
"Those on lower incomes also need financial advice. Citizens advice bureaux and other money advice centres across the country offer good quality, impartial advice to many people in financial difficulty. People have argued that their remit
578
should cover financial advice more generally. I am pleased to say that the FSA has offered to fund research into extending the role that those organisations may be able to play. I welcome that, and look forward to reading the results.
"The review proposes reform to with-profits policies and describes an ideal model of such a policy. It would still allow the smoothing features that so many investors have found valuable, but it would be transparent, allowing investors to understand and choose the policy that is best for their needs. It would also clearly separate policyholders' and shareholders' interests, which are intertwined in the current, dominant 90:10 model.
"The review does not propose that every aspect of the ideal model should be mandatory—except for a with-profits policy sold as part of the stakeholder suite of products. But it suggests that much of the transparency of the ideal model could be applied to existing with-profits policies.
"With-profits policies are a huge feature of the British savings landscape. Many people have valued—and will continue to value—being able to smooth out investment returns. So change in the market cannot come overnight. But with-profits policies need to change. Indeed, recent work by the FSA and the industry itself has already begun that process. The review proposes a balanced approach that represents an opportunity to move to a new, stable future for the with-profits market.
"The FSA will consult on the review's proposals on with-profits policies, which build on earlier work that it has carried out as part of its continuing consultation on with-profits policies. The review strongly supports the FSA's proposals to reform the market for the distribution of investment products. It also makes some specific recommendations about how independent financial advisers should be remunerated.
"It will be for the FSA to consider the review's recommendations as part of its consultations on reforming the 'polarisation' system. But it has the potential to bring benefits of increased choice for the majority of consumers who currently invest through the tied channels, which offer the products of only one provider.
"The review proposes an increased and ring-fenced consumer education budget for the FSA and better co-ordination of the Government's work to provide financial education. The FSA has welcomed that suggestion and will consult on whether to increase its consumer education budget. Meanwhile, the Treasury has begun work to co-ordinate the Whitehall effort devoted to financial education.
"The retail savings market is clearly one that many consumers find complex and hard to understand. One answer to that is to simplify the market. But the essential complement to simplification is creating better financial knowledge among consumers and driving competition. The

579
review proposes a set of investment principles for providers of retail investment products, building on the approach taken in the Myners review. The review proposes that this disclosure should, in most cases, he voluntary. The Government agree that such disclosure should help to produce a more transparent, better informed and hence more competitive market. We shall be advancing that proposal in consultation with consumer representatives, the industry and the FSA.
"Finally, the review contains a wide-ranging analysis of the impact of the taxation system on the savings industry, urging that the system should be as simple as possible. It makes several proposals on specific current tax rules: abolishing qualifying life policies and the 5 per cent tax deferred withdrawal rule for life insurance policies; equalising treatment with respect to exemption from value added tax on fund management fees; simplifying the pensions tax regime; considering changing the rules for individual pension accounts; and revisiting the maxi/mini-individual savings account distinction. We shall consider the review's proposals on tax as part of the Budget process in the usual way.
"Ron Sandler has produced a set of proposals that have the potential to produce a simpler, more transparent and more competitive retail investment industry. In so far as his proposals relate to pensions saving, they will also be advanced in the context of the Government's proposals on pensions, which we will set out this autumn. The Government believe that Ron Sandler has tackled long-standing concerns about with-profits policies, giving the industry the chance to draw a line under the problems of the past and to build a new, stable future for with-profits schemes. His proposed stakeholder products, which will be easier for people to understand and viable to sell to a wider range of less well-off people, can only help to meet our ambition to raise the level of long-term saving."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Financial Secretary. I also declare an interest as chairman of a company pension fund.
Some aspects of the report are certainly to be welcomed—for example, the proposals for education and the careful analysis of with-profit policies. But the report must be appraised against the current background of a crisis in pensions provision that is a cause of grave concern and of a collapse in savings. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the present savings ratio compared to 1997. I understand that it has virtually halved in that period—obviously a matter of great concern.
Clearly, some causes of that situation are beyond the Government's control, but many—perhaps most—are the result of government action: most notoriously, perhaps, the stealth tax on pensions introduced by the Chancellor in his first Budget. I say a stealth tax, but
580
the effect of that change is now all too apparent. Since then, the pensions industry has suffered a loss of about £5 billion a year—effectively, a reduction in savings. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what he estimates to be the total increase in Government revenue as a result of that change since they first came to office.
Perhaps the report's most important recommendation is the call for simplification—what it calls its driving principle—and the proposals for so-called stakeholder products. That must obviously be considered against the background of the Government's introduction of stakeholder pensions, but that matter is dealt with only briefly at paragraph 5.70.
It is apparent that take-up of stakeholder pensions by the target group has been disappointing, to say the least. They were aimed at about 5 million people who have no pension provision. In fact, the report suggests that only 631,000 policies have been sold. It is not even known exactly how many of those were hitting the target audience. The figure seems likely to be about 100,000, about 2 per cent of the target. It is rather surprising that the report is so enthusiastic about stakeholder products, given the limited success of the stakeholder pension.
Of course, the whole problem of complexity is partly due to the Government themselves. We could take for example the proposal to renege—that is the right word—on the manifesto promise to retain SERPS and to substitute a second state pension that, many expert commentators believe, should not go ahead.
However much one simplifies, the real reason why there is such a problem is that savings depend on confidence. That is not dealt with adequately in the report. In many respects, the Government have undermined confidence. As my honourable friend Mr Willetts pointed out in another place a few weeks ago, ahead of anyone else, the Government overestimated the extent of savings in this country by £35 billion, because of double counting. They then tried to blame the mistake on the Office for National Statistics, and now, following that, they want to change the definition to include other asset classes to make the figure look better. I hope that the Minister can give us the Government's present estimate of the true figure for savings, with which the report is concerned.
Confidence has been undermined in a series of other ways. There was the disaster tragedy, perhaps—of Equitable Life. Instead of setting up a single inquiry with adequate powers to go into the matter, the Government set up a multiplicity of inquiries, only one of which has, so far, seen the light of day. One cannot help but feel that it is partly because the industry—Equitable Life, in particular—was supervised by the Treasury at an earlier period that that is the case. That has also shaken confidence.
Perhaps the most important effect on savings is that caused by the minimum income guarantee and the enormous increase in means-testing under this Government. I think I am right in saying that the report does not cover that matter. If people invest in

581
the way the report suggests, they may find that, when they retire, they will get absolutely nothing for their savings because they will have been deducted from the minimum income guarantee. The Minister shakes his head. Can he tell us how much one would need to have in a savings fund in order to get any benefit over and above the minimum income guarantee at retirement?
Confidence has also been undermined by the situation in the stock market. In its second paragraph, addressed to the Chancellor, the report says that consumers have benefited from equity market returns in recent decades, indicating an incentive to save. Can the Minister tell us to what extent the value of the stock market has increased since the Government came to power?
The crucial issue here is the transfer of assets between one generation and another and the extent to which a particular generation makes provision for its future. We find the Government adopting an extraordinary position and failing to tell us their estimate of the value, in terms of liabilities, of the basic state pension. The way in which statistics are not revealed is extraordinary; it is difficult for the public, the Government and, indeed, the House to appraise the true position.
The present situation is dangerous. We must hope that the report helps to achieve some improvement, particularly with regard to taxation. The changes in taxation have done little, if anything, to improve savings. The opening words of the statement were about individual savings accounts, which were, of course, less generous than the personal equity plans they replaced. That is typical of the way in which the Government fail to deal with the fundamentals. We must hope that the report will be helpful and that the Government will pay attention to what has been said. In particular, we must hope that the Chancellor's taxation policies improve the situation: so far, they most certainly have not.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place.
On these Benches, we welcome this thorough review. We are cognisant of the words of Sheila McKechnie, who said:
"This is a powerful report. It has correctly diagnosed the fundamental failings of the financial services industry. It offers a way forward which focuses on the needs of consumers, not industry".
The report is underpinned by some good, hard-hitting analysis that shows the lack of transparency and competitive forces in the industry. The industry is shown to operate in a market distorted by commission-based selling and, as the Consumers' Association said, is full of,
"poor products, bad advice and failed regulation".
The report makes some good, practical recommendations, especially those relating to a new generation of products tailored to low income groups.
582
We welcome specifically the notion of the introduction of simple, regulated products. We like the idea of simplifying the tax structure, which is also recommended. The recommendations relating to the need for clarity about financial products, for removal of unnecessary jargon and for demystification of with-profits funds are also particularly good.
I note that the report asks for a clear definition of mis-selling. That would be desirable. If nothing else, such a move would cut compliance costs. The proposal that exit charges for withdrawal from funds should be regulated is particularly welcome. Anybody who suggests—as the report does—that financial advisers should have further in-depth training will have my support.
Several questions are left open. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about how the Government propose to deal with the gap in savings. The industry cannot do it. Sandler opposes tax incentives. The Government oppose compulsion. What is left? Do the Government have a target, and can the Minister tell us what it is? Can the Minister give an outline of the Government's strategy to fill the gap?
How is consumer confidence in financial advice to be restored? Will the Government consider radical options, such as asking—or telling—the industry to get together with the citizens advice bureaux to promote a nation-wide pro bono financial advice service? How is the confidence of consumers who have been seriously ripped off to be restored? When will the Government-sponsored Penrose report be available, so that we can draw a line under the Equitable Life debacle? If the Government will not agree to a comprehensive review of the mis-selling of endowment mortgages, will they, at least, name and shame the main culprits? When will the Government introduce new rules for orphan assets that will prevent companies from expropriating policyholders' funds for their shareholders?
I conclude by welcoming the report. Ron Sandler has done a thorough job. Most of all, he has shown us that there is a great deal of work to be done.
4.9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in all honesty, I can thank only the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, for his welcome for the review. In a dense and closely argued speech, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said not a single word about whether Mr Sandler had done a good job. I suppose that, given the weakness of his fundamental position, there was not much else that the noble Lord could do.
It strikes me as extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, should use as the basis of his attack a comment on the collapse of the savings ratio. Yes, the savings ratio today is 5.6 per cent; and, yes, in the mid 1990s it was of the order of 10 per cent. Therefore, the noble Lord is correct in saying that the savings ratio has declined.
But savings ratios are not an end in themselves. It depends what savings are for. Apart from an investment in pensions, we see net savings as being

583
thoroughly desirable. They are necessary for people and households to have for family occasions, university education or whatever. We are certainly anxious to improve the savings ratio. However, much of the saving in the 1980s and 1990s under the noble Lord's government was a hedge against the mismanagement of the economy for which his party was responsible. People had to save because they did not know what would happen to inflation; what would happen to interest rates; or what would happen to their jobs. We now have a more stable economy with stable interest rates and we have a recovering employment situation. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that there should be a reduction in the savings ratio.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, moved on to the familiar attack on what he called the "stealth tax" in pensions. It was the removal of the double tax incentive for pension schemes which ensured that the companies in which investments were made distributed dividends rather than investing in the future of their companies and of this country. If the noble Lord is arguing that savings depend on confidence—and he did so repeatedly in his speech—he must recognise that the pensions industry is part of the economy of this country and a large part of investment in our service and manufacturing industry. He must recognise that the success of the economy has made it possible for us to correct the imbalances and imperfections in the taxation system relating to pensions.
The noble Lord approves of the proposals for simplification, but implies that stakeholder pensions are not a success. The figure is more like 820,000 rather than the 600,000 that he mentioned. But we are talking about the first year and we believe that there has been a promising start. We agree with Ron Sandler that the analogy between stakeholder pensions, with a cap on charges and greatly simplified provisions, is the correct one for the medium and long-term savings industry. I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, agrees with that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, then asked what happened to our manifesto promise to maintain SERPS—and that from the representative of a party which did its best to destroy SERPS in 1988. It removed the link between earnings and benefits and did everything it could to get people out of SERPS. It even went so far as to remove the condition that employers could require that their employees contributed to a pension scheme. I would like to know whether he now believes that any of the changes made in 1988, which we have had to correct at great cost with the state second pension, were justifiable.
The noble Lord had some justification in mentioning the mistake that was made on double counting. We have apologised for that mistake and we have corrected it.
It is remarkable that he should say that under this Government there has been a shake in confidence, in particular because of what happened to Equitable
584
Life. Confidence in the capitalist system is a little more shaken than that, as events across the Atlantic go to show.
The noble Lord queried whether the savings for pensions have not been invalidated by the minimum income guarantee. I noticed that ultimately he did not oppose the minimum income guarantee or the measures which the Government have undertaken to deal with pensioner poverty. But neither did he note that the pension credit, which comes into effect next year, will ensure that everyone who saves for their retirement benefits from it. The tapers, which discouraged saving, have been removed.
I have nothing to say about the value of the stock market as an indicator of the economy. The fundamental soundness of the economy has been shown by consumer confidence during the period in which the stock market has been declining.
I am grateful for everything the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, says about the analysis. He is right that the retail savings industry is not so much under attack—yes, it is under attack from the report, let us be honest. However, it is not in danger from the report because the retail savings industry will always have a number of more complex products in addition to the simplified products. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, was right to say that the lack of transparency and commission-based selling has meant that the retail savings industry has missed a large part of its potential market. That is what Sandler proposes to overcome. I do not know that I have a definition of mis-selling and I suspect that it would be a semantic exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, properly asked me about the savings gap and about our target. It is not one of the measures we have used and therefore it is not appropriate for me to comment. He also asked about more radical options such as the development of pro bono financial advice. That is exactly what Sandler recommends and what the FSA is taking up with some enthusiasm. I agree with him about the need to restore consumer confidence not so much in the economy as in large parts of the financial services industry. Given the fact that I have run over the available time, I would like to write to the noble Lord about the review of endowment mis-selling and about orphan assets.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I listened with considerable interest to the Statement, particularly as I am a non-executive director of a life assurance company and an investment trust company. Does the Minister agree that openness and transparency are highly desirable, but that the costs of compliance and regulation are escalating enormously? For example, some five years ago in the life assurance company with which I am involved the compliance department consisted of three people. It now consists of 25 people and it is growing. Those costs affect the costs of the financial products in which we hope the public will invest for the purpose of saving. Therefore, will the Minister reassure me that if the recommendations of the report are fully implemented, the costs of implementation will be rigorously studied?

585
My second question concerns the training and education of independent financial advisers—which, again, I welcome, as did my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. Who is to pay for this training?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, makes a valid point about the costs of compliance. Sandler addresses this issue in his report. The most important recommendation in his proposals for stakeholder products is that the regulation should be transferred from the seller, which is where all the costs of compliance come in, to the product itself. In other words, a stakeholder savings product, a retail savings product, will itself be subject to regulation at source. Once approval has been given then, comparable to CAT standards, the need for expensive regulation at the point of sale will be reduced. I hope that the company of which the noble Baroness is a non-executive director will recognise and welcome that.
The noble Baroness is also right about training and education. That is why the FSA is investigating that issue. On the general principle that the work of the Financial Services Authority is paid for by the financial services industry—including the consumer education part of its work, which Sandler recommends should be ring-fenced—the industry will be paying for it. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that ultimately this will be very much to the benefit of the industry.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report—or reports of it in the press over the week-end—produced by Professor Anthea Tinker of the Age Concern Institute of Gerontology at King's College? It is the first time that I have seen in print the assertion that today's young people will be the first generation to be poorer than their parents. That is a very important point. It sums up why the Sandler review and others that are due are so very important. I hope that we will see the other reviews shortly.
I welcome the Sandler review specifically because we all have to understand that the implications of our ageing society are that we cannot live longer, retire earlier and expect to enjoy a long and prosperous retirement unless we save a very much higher proportion of our earnings over our working lives. What plans do the Government have to make this clear to the population as a whole, and in particular to young people?
I welcome the proposals for making savings and pensions simpler—it has been very problematic—and more flexible, which is also very important. Given their reluctance to introduce any kind of compulsion, do the Government have plans to ensure that people save more? I welcome the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in regard to those issues and in regard to the huge savings gap. They affect especially the less well off among our population, who will suffer most if we do not get this right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess that I have not seen the report to which the noble Baroness referred. Nor have I seen newspaper reports about it over the weekend. From what the noble Baroness said, I am bound to agree with her conclusions. We all know from our own experience that this may be a generation—whether or not it is the first I do not know—in which children are poorer than their parents.
As the noble Baroness said, it is necessary to make people understand the limits of what the state can do without them contributing when the ratio between working and non-working life is changing so radically. In the long term, I suppose, the solution will be to change the ratio back by increasing the retirement age or by increasing the possibility for people to work longer if they are healthy and fit to do so. I am not claiming that that is a government policy, but it is something that we all recognise.
As to the issue of compulsion, there is a substantial level of compulsion already. We have the compulsory national insurance contributions to the basic state pension and the compulsory second state pension for those in work in that they have to contribute to pension schemes up to a certain level. I am not sure how much further one can go in the direction of compulsion, but we should recognise that it already exists.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister enlarge further on the question of independent financial advice? On page 3 of the Statement it states:
"Advice is too often understood as an adjunct to a sale, and not something valued in its own right".
I still do not get it. Either we were being naïve when we all agreed that there should be something called "independent financial advice"—not realising that we were not told about commissions and so on—or there is something naïve in the Statement in that advice must be an adjunct to the sale or else there is no profit in the adviser giving the advice.
Ten or 15 years ago the advice I received from Lloyd's Bank was probably more reasonable from my point of view than the advice I am allowed to get today. Either Lloyd's Bank will tell me what it is selling or I shall go to someone else who may or may not tell me the basis on which he or she is selling. Are we moving forward—I hope that the answer is in the affirmative; that is why I am asking the question in this slightly barbed tone—to a position where the average punter can believe that there is something called "independent financial advice" which is not intended for any other motivation?
I am still a sceptic in the sense that this is not perhaps what the structure of the industry can provide. Can my noble friend help me in my scepticism?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a detailed analysis of this issue in the report. As my noble friend Lord Lea knows, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the polarisation regime, whereby

587
you can offer only the products of a single firm or independent advice across the full range of available products. The Sandler review proposes to "tweak" this system in order to encourage the independent financial sector in a depolarised regime. The FSA is considering that proposal. The changes would make advice from independent financial advisers dependent on a payment agreed between the consumer and the adviser rather than through commission agreed between him and the product provider. The first advantage of that will be greater transparency.
There will always be a need for independent financial advice. I suspect that that need will grow. We are looking at ways of expanding the advice into something that gives value in its own right. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, we are enthusiastic about the proposals, for example, to talk to citizens advice bureaux about the possibility of pro bono independent financial advice for those who simply cannot afford it or who think they cannot afford it at the present time. The FSA is very keen on moving that forward.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, has the irony struck the Minister that a Government which are addicted to double counting in their public expenditure announcements should have been hoist with their own petard in terms of the double counting of pension contributions? Is it not an index of the dominance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over his subordinate economic Ministers that none of the latter asked the questions which caused that double counting to be exposed but that it was left to the shadow pensions team in the House of Commons, which had less access to information? Secondly, in the month of the fifth anniversary of the stealth tax, when will sufficient time have passed for the Government to analyse whether their economic justification for change has been justified by long-term returns?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is only fair to pay tribute to and congratulate the honourable Member, Mr. Willetts. He was perspicacious and uncovered an error that had not been revealed before. It has been corrected.
As to the correction of the anomaly of taxation on pension funds, clearly the benefits vary at different times in the economic cycle. One could call a halt and do a summing up at any stage but I do not believe that would be particularly valuable. In return, I ask when the Conservative Party will say that it would repeal what it calls the stealth tax. Thus far, it has conspicuously failed to do so.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lack of confidence in the life insurance industry is much more the result of the activities of the industry itself over the past decade than anything the Government might have done? Does the Minister agree also that the costs of compliance are relatively insignificant compared with the amounts paid in commission—which boost the prices paid by consumers for the policies that they purchase? I refer in particular to with-profits bond policies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am reluctant to place all the blame on the life assurance industry. After all, it was invited to indulge in a campaign of mis-selling by the then Conservative Government and the semi-abolition of SERPS in 1988. One cannot blame the industry for taking advantage of the opportunity that was thrust upon it. One can blame the industry for handling that change so badly—as is evidenced by the time it has taken to put matters right. I agree with the noble Lord's second point.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement on this massive report. The noble Lord stated that the review contains a broad-ranging analysis of the impacts of taxation systems on the savings industry and urges that they should be as a simple as possible. The lesson seems to be that the Government accept simplification is absolutely essential. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House agree. Will the Government give some indication of when they intend putting into train simplification of the whole industry? How will that come about? Will the House debate the matter? Also, do the Government accept the recommendation in paragraph 10.166 at page 208? It states:
"The Review therefore recommends that, in future, governments should avoid introducing new tax-based savings incentives if their aim is to increase aggregate savings levels. The core objective of policy in this area should be simplification".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to confirm that we all agree that simplification is desirable. The report is directed not only at the Government but the financial services industry. The review is directed at the Government in respect of taxation but our response will be and can only be in the context of consideration of tax policy in preparation for the pre-Budget report and the Budget itself. As to the recommendation that the Government should avoid introducing new taxed-based saving incentives, many already exist—not just pensions but ISAs, National Savings, premium bonds and so on. If one adds up the incentives available to the average two-adult household in terms of tax-based savings, one finds that many people do not pay tax and that very few people do.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 14.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 9, line 8 at end insert—
"() An accommodation centre shall not provide accommodation for more than 200 persons."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment's purpose is to put on the face of the Bill the requirement that accommodation centres should not house more than 200 asylum seekers at any one time. I was distressed to

589
hear the Minister say openly and blatantly, when speaking to Amendment No. 97, that the number proposed is 750. I had hoped that we had moved some way from that figure but it seems that the Government are set on it.
On Second Reading my noble friend Lady Carnegy was right to say that the Government are aiming their policy at a moving target—never more so than in the clauses that establish accommodation centres. The Government say that they hope to trial when the centres are built in three years. Although we welcome the concept of accommodation centres, they could be established in a better way. Our objections relate to the centres' size, location and facilities. Amendment No. 98 deals with the first of those. Size is key to fairer, safer and more rapid processing of claims.
The Immigration Nationality Directorate website states that the Government intend to establish four accommodation centres providing 3,000 places. When speaking to the previous amendment, the Minister said that if the Opposition wants smaller centres, facilities will have to be reconsidered and we cannot have it all ways. There is a mixed message on size. Size does matter and I hope that the Minister will say how much consideration the Government have given to smaller centres as a solution.
In Committee in another place, the then Minister, Angela Eagle, stated that the Government were examining the use of smaller centres to see whether they would work any better. What is the result of that further thinking? It does not seem to have gone far.
As the number of claims is 80,000 a year and rising the four centres will not be able to process many applications. The Refugee Council has expressed its concern at the proposed size of the centres. It says that the Government's current proposals would make the centres too large to be effective. The council states that undoubtedly there will be pressures and tensions in a centre that holds as many as 750 or anything like that. Smaller centres in urban areas are less likely to be regarded as skewing local life. The smaller the centre, the less institutional it should feel and more likely it is that managers will be able to create an open regime with a reasonably relaxed atmosphere.
That is vital for single men but also for parents with children. If centres are a sensible size, it is more likely that local authorities will be able to provide all the necessary services, which will make it easier for successful applicants to be integrated into the local community.
The Churches Commission for Racial Justice notes:
"While accommodation centres worked well in relation to those needing temporary protection following the Kosovo crisis, the Refugee Council's experience in running such centres suggests that they should not exceed 100 beds. The current proposals envisage groups of 750—often alienated—young men living in one isolated place for extended periods without the right to work … Small community-based accommodation would be vastly preferable to large isolated accommodation centres".
The Immigration Advisory Service believes that the experience of reception centres in other European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands is that
590
they are more effective if they contain no more than 200 to 300 people. Is the Minister aware that when the chief executive of IAS visited a centre at Dordrecht in the Netherlands on Friday, 28th June, this year, the Dutch officials informed him that, in their experience, putting a large number of people in an accommodation centre was likely to make unmanageable the personal contacts between residents and staff? Can the Minister confirm a similar finding by the IND's immigration research and statistics service officers who visited Belgium, Denmark and Sweden? Can he explain why the Government have not followed that advice?
The smaller the number in each centre, surely the more likely it is that the centre will be efficient, humane, decent and safe. Local residents would find smaller centres easier to cope with and understand. It would be better for everyone. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: If I may say so, that was an extremely well-argued, coherent and persuasive case. We on these Benches are also in favour of smaller centres. My honourable friend Mr Hughes thought 250 a reasonable number. We shall not split hairs over the difference between 200 and 250. We are prepared to support the amendment.
What matters is the ability to create a sense of community within a group of people. I have seen in the larger Oxford and Cambridge colleges how people stick in small groups and shut themselves off from the rest. They are frightened of making new acquaintances. The ideal size is somewhere around 220, which just about splits the difference between us.
On the other hand, I take the point made by the Minister about the need to provide interpretation facilities and that being a countervailing pressure. It is possible by skilful selection of people going into centres to square that circle. I would be prepared to cooperate in attempts to do so. Meanwhile, I look for a very much better atmosphere, a very much happier set of people and very much less disturbance than we had in some of the larger places. If one has large numbers of people with nothing to do, as the Minister and the noble Baroness said, one is setting up a prescription for trouble.
We hope that the Government will look with sympathy on the amendment. If the Government want to argue about small differences in numbers or small variations for particular circumstances, we should be less ready to listen to such arguments. Meanwhile, we thank the noble Baroness for a well put case and wish the amendment well. We support it.
Lord Monson: The amendment is excellent so far as it goes. But does it go far enough? If the amendment were passed into law there would surely be nothing to prevent the Government erecting two or more asylum centres, each containing 200 people, no more than 50 yards apart.
Lord Chan: I support the amendment on limiting the size of an accommodation centre in order to meet the

591
health needs of asylum seekers. A study of health needs of asylum seekers and refugees by Drs Burnett and Peel in the British Medical Journal in March last year found that 16 per cent of them had significant health problems.
Health problems identified were physical and psychological. Diseases found among asylum seekers and refugees depend on the country of origin. For example, when I was asked to screen Vietnamese refugees in the mid-1980s one in five was a carrier of the hepatitis B virus and 1 per cent had active tuberculosis. The study reported by Drs Burnett and Peel last year and carried out in Blackburn among 1,085 immigrants found 11 cases of tuberculosis—that is 1 per cent. The purpose of screening for tuberculosis among refugees is to treat the disease effectively. The more people in contact with an infected person, the more difficult the treatment programme is to implement.
Asylum seekers from tropical countries, in particular in Africa, are likely to be infected with malaria, a disease normally not managed by a primary care doctor in Britain.
That brings me to my question to the Minister. What arrangements will there be for the health needs of asylum seekers in accommodation centres? Local GPs and their teams could cope with about 200 but a special service, such as used in prisons, may be needed if more people are put in accommodation centres.
Psychological problems among asylum seekers are usually complex. They may have come from countries where they were subjected to threats, assault, rape and torture. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture is particularly concerned about screening survivors of torture and assisting them with psychological support. Accommodation in a large centre will make that more difficult to achieve. I support a centre of no more than 200.
Lord Hylton: I support the principle of much smaller centres than the Government appear to envisage. We have to anticipate that a large proportion of young males in those centres may easily become bored and aggressive, in particular towards other ethnic groups or unaccompanied women and children who will be very vulnerable. Secondly, it would be much easier to fit smaller centres into urban areas where the full range of services is already available.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I wonder how any noble Lord can come to any reasonably based conclusion that this or that size of centre is ideal. As the Government have explained, they are contemplating a trial for these centres, having hit on the number of about 750. It is extremely unlikely that in the early years of these centres that maximum number will be maintained for anything like 52 weeks of the year. The Government have also made clear that they are listening to a suggestion from the Refugee Council—there may be others—to undertake these matters in a different way. For example, the distinguished Mr Nick Hardwick has suggested that such arrangements could be made around a cluster of
592
hotels or hostels so that all the important services required during the assessment of asylum applications can be provided. That is my first point: it is a trial.
The figure of 200, or 250 as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is no more than a guess. As a guess, it is no better than the Government's guess of 750. I do not argue that that is a better number for more economical provision of services although that is not unimportant in the spending of public money. None of us wants to be reckless with that. The figure of 200 or 250 is put forward; the Government's preference is 750.
We all share the ambition that the centres should be as decent and humane as possible, providing a calm and supportive atmosphere in which those making asylum applications can be looked after and feel that they are safe, their applications being considered speedily within the necessary process. However, I should like to argue that there is also some strength in having clusters of people. In passing, I should observe that this may be one of the lessons from Sangatte, although I accept that that is a totally different kettle of fish in every other sense; indeed, I believe that it was designed for about 800 but accommodates around 1,200 or 1,300 people. There is some strength in the suggestion that people and families from the same country with the same background should be accommodated together. In that way they will be able to understand each other's origins and give each other support. There will also be powerful arguments during our debate on the education aspects of the Bill in terms of the treatment of very small children.
This consideration also applies to mothers and fathers who come to this country with dependent children. Perhaps Members of the Committee could bear in mind for a moment the backgrounds of many of these asylum seekers. They are not used to either the kind of life that we live in western developed countries, or the range of our way of life. Many of these asylum seekers come from countries such as Iraq, and Iran; and, in the past, they came from Ethiopia and the Sudan. Their countries have little or no development, and there are none of the facilities that we take for granted; for example, our huge urban centres. Furthermore, there is nothing even in the most remotest of the rural areas within these islands that compares with remote rural areas in, say, Afghanistan. There is some strength in the argument for having clusters of people from the same areas with the same backgrounds.
I turn to the services being provided either by the Government, as regards those who are paid to assess the asylum applications, or by the NGOs and other organisations providing advice to asylum seekers. There is a strong argument for those people having detailed in-country knowledge of more than a single sheet of newspaper. I believe that this matter was mentioned yesterday in Committee. We heard of people's experiences regarding civil servants, who are, no doubt, performing an honourable job; but, none the less, getting it wrong because they have no intimate knowledge of the countries from which these applicants have come and are dealing with such

593
applications on the strength of the papers available. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned this problem. Therefore, in-country knowledge is also an important consideration.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to large numbers of people with nothing to do. I absolutely agree with him. However, we are not talking about a prison life in the sense that many of us object to; for example, too few prison officers and not enough educational opportunities for many in our prisons, which can lead to exceptionally dangerous situations. No, that is not the case here. Alongside all the processes through which asylum seekers pass in order to have their claims properly processed—and, if needs be, the lodging of appeals—the idea of these centres is that facilities will be available for applicants to learn language skills, and so on, as well as familiarising themselves with their new surroundings, so as to prepare them for the future should their applications be successful. Therefore, it is part of the beginning of a process through which these people can begin to acclimatise themselves to the country where they wish to live. Again, in that sense, there is strength in having sufficient numbers of asylum seekers in such centres so as to make viable the provision of those services.
At the end of the day, I do not believe that it is basically an issue of size. It is true to say that the only institution that has attached a great deal of importance to size over the past two centuries is the British Army. The platoon size was based on the number of our Lord's disciples. This is a serious point. The whole of the Army's structure was built upon that foundation. So there is an exceptionally important point in this debate about the number of people who can sensibly be managed in one unit. I do not draw that analogy too far, but I mention it because it is not the size of the establishment; it is the way in which it is managed. It depends upon the skills, the expertise and the training of those who are managing, as well as of the staff who are providing the services that are on offer to those who have been taken into such centres while their asylum applications are being processed.
It is out of this world for anyone to imagine that these accommodation centres will be some kind of huge shed like the one at Sangatte, where people are simply tipped in and have to find a hole in whatever porta-cabin or tent is available. That is not the case. Such accommodation can be managed in discrete units. However, I believe that it would be sensible to group such people in, if you like, "country families", according to their place of origin. Indeed, within the overall accommodation there could be, say, little villages containing groups of people from similar backgrounds. Such an arrangement would make them feel more comfortable and would also make the process of dealing with their applications that much easier.
I am not at all convinced that plucking an alternative number out of the air for such centres is sensible. I make a plea to Members of the Committee that they should respect the Government's judgment and accept this proposition on the basis that it is a trial.
594
However, if experience shows that it does not work, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure noble Lords that the Government will be first in the queue to say, "We've got this wrong, and want to try it in a different way".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has made a very strong argument for the large-number proposition; indeed, there is no questioning that fact. However, before any of this can happen, local communities will have to accept that they will have a centre, or more than one centre, in their midst. The Government have a preference for introducing such units in the countryside.
The noble Lord said that there was no issue as regards size. When the public considers the matter, when planning permission is sought, and when local councils discuss the matter and consult upon it, I believe that the size of such centres will become a very great issue. Asylum seekers will not always stay in the accommodation; indeed, they will be coming and going. They will represent a large influx of people into the community. Therefore, it is unrealistic for the noble Lord to speak in that way because none of these developments can take place unless the local community accepts the position and planning permission is gained.
Although I accept that we need not necessarily have a specific number, the general principle that it should be small seems to be important. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches regarding the health of asylum seekers. That aspect of the matter had not occurred to me, but it is probably quite an important consideration. From the point of view of the people in these centres, there is no questioning the fact that a smaller number of people would be better. I agree with the suggestion that it is desirable for all of them to come from the same area, because they would be more likely to flourish in those circumstances. But if any noble Lord thinks that it is cosier to be in an asylum centre containing 700 people as opposed to one with 200 people, he is misled.
The Earl of Sandwich: I have grave reservations about the whole concept of accommodation centres. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put the case for the Refugee Council very well, but perhaps not strongly enough. The council would prefer an improved method of dispersal. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, talking about "clusters" and group nationalities, which are both very enticing ideas. However, I submit to the noble Lord that the latter are not really compatible with the concept of enormous accommodation centres. I prefer to talk in terms of reception centres.
I hope that the one of the pilots, as indicated by the Home Secretary, will be a very much smaller centre. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Refugee Council has already held discussions with the Home Secretary in this respect. I also remember what the Minister said earlier in our debates about languages. Does he agree that smaller centres are more compatible with language training?
5 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: I had not intended to make a contribution to the debate because the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, more than adequately put forward all of our views on the issue. However, my noble friend Lord Corbett made a number of comments that have led me to consider many more questions than would otherwise have been the case. I ask the Committee's indulgence to speak for a couple of minutes.
On a number of issues—education, health, housing, community building and so on—the Government always argue that "small is better". They ask for more precise, more comprehensive services to be provided. The proposal for centres housing around 750 people is somewhat contradictory. I should be interested to hear an explanation from the Minister as to how the idea has arisen that 750 is better than any other number. I do not accept the premise put forward by my noble friend Lord Corbett that the number should be based on military principles. Military principles are essentially about brotherhood. Asylum seekers will represent all kinds of regions, nationalities, languages, countries, cultures, and so on. They would not conform to that kind of brotherhood, so the analogy does not apply.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right about the issue of language training. More importantly, we are assuming that, for example, 750 Iraqis will all apply at the same time and will be housed in one centre. I understand from the briefing provided by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that large numbers of applications come from Europeans. So Iraqis or Iranians might be somewhat isolated in the centres.
It cannot for a moment be suggested that a centre will be a utopia for learning English—one of the ambitions is that those housed at a centre will have access to training courses. I am deeply troubled—indeed, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, commented on this point—about the fact that women and children will be housed at a place where large numbers of single men will be able to roam free, walk free, sleep free or whatever. There are deep concerns about child welfare and child protection. I should be interested to know how it is intended to ensure that all these people are checked by the police. They will, of course, be living under a large number of checks of all kinds, but how will that happen? So there are concerns about size. More importantly, we need to be assured about the rationale behind the proposed size of the centres. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I cannot improve on the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I shall not try.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made reasonable points in his intervention. But to be fair to my noble friend and to the noble Earl, they did adduce case histories in support of the figures for which they were arguing. The late Professor Parkinson, in his term,
596
once did valuable work on the ideal size of human groups, and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made an allusion to that in terms of the size of military units. The noble Lord's point about putting nationalities together argues for smaller centres rather than larger ones in order to confer the maximum flexibility.
My main point is that, if the Minister is minded to resist the amendment, he owes it to the Committee to produce quantitative justification, not just in terms of economics but in terms of social return, for the figures that are the Government's preferred numbers.
Finally, as a rural resident, after a quarter of a century, like the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, as an inner-city MP, I wholly support the views of my noble friend Lady Carnegy about avoiding a scale in the centres which dominates local communities.
The Countess of Mar: I remind the Committee of my membership of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I support the noble Baroness's amendment wholeheartedly. I come from not very far from Throckmorton, in Worcestershire, and I know the locality very well. I am hugely concerned that there will simply not be the infrastructure there to support accommodation for 750 asylum seekers. We already know that the local residents are extremely upset about the idea. They were upset enough when the foot and mouth funeral pyres were put there. This seems to be another punishment for them.
That aside, a great number of studies have indicated that crowding people together under stressful conditions creates problems. From my own experience of working with asylum seekers, I can confirm that they are under a huge amount of stress. They are in a strange country. They do not know what will happen to them or what the procedures are. They have not been informed in advance of what they should do or what they should expect. Each nationality has different dietary needs, and that is true even within nationalities.
Putting people together in smaller groups rather than in larger numbers would work much better. It would probably be better if they were also accommodated on the edge of urban conurbations where they would find people of their own ethnic origins who have already settled in this country and who could be brought in to help and advise them and to show them the way. Putting them in the middle of Worcestershire, for example, where we have a very small ethnic population, would not work. As my noble friend has said, the hospital facilities in Worcestershire are already over-stretched. I know that from my own personal experience. I assume that that would be the case in other rural communities.
We must look at the whole package. If we are going to put people of different nationalities and different ethnic origins together, we must make sure that they will not strike sparks off each other and create greater problems than they may possibly have encountered in their own countries. I support the amendment.
Lord Greaves: Like other Members of the Committee, I congratulate the noble Baroness,

597
Lady Anelay of St Johns, on putting forward the amendment. It allows us to have an important and basic debate—the first of several on the nature of the proposed accommodation centres.
The various amendments that we shall discuss deal with issues of size, location and function. It is difficult to separate them neatly into those categories. It might have been better had they been grouped together so that we could discuss all these issues at once.
Size and location are closely linked. As I understand it, the reason why the proposed sites are in rural areas relates simply to their proposed size. Sites for accommodation centres of about 750 are much easier to find in the countryside—disused airfields, for example—than they are to find in the middle of Manchester or Leeds. That is a simple fact of life. So the two matters are closely and intimately related.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made a cogent case in favour of the concept of reception or accommodation centres. There is indeed a very good case to be made out for such centres for some people who apply for asylum, for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord; namely, that they offer an opportunity to provide the kind of services and support to asylum seekers which are all too often lacking in the present system of dispersal into the community. Whether it is possible to provide those services on a dispersed basis is a matter of argument. I believe that it would be possible if it were done better. Nevertheless, the basic argument for accommodation centres must be that it will be possible to concentrate services, resources and support for people who are often under great stress and do not know what is going to happen to them. They have reached a traumatic stage in their lives which many of us would find it difficult to understand.
My noble friend Lord Russell talked about a sense of community. I shall focus on the ethos of the centre, how it works, how the people there relate to the centre and how they live there. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, is wrong. He suggested that we had no evidence and no reason to choose between 200 and 750, or any other figures. That is not a sustainable argument. There is a great deal of research about the nature and management of institutions of different sizes and of all kinds. Apart from that, we all know from experience that institutions of around 200 people are different in kind from institutions of 700 people, which in turn are different in kind from institutions of 5,000 or 10,000 people. That is a fact of life. We know what the size of different institutions means and we can make competent and legitimate decisions about them on that basis. That does not mean that there should not be further research into the subject.
The noble Lord said that it was not a matter of size, but a matter of the way in which the centres were managed. That is true up to a point. But we are looking for institutions that are humane, that treat people decently, that are pleasant places to live in and that provide the supportive environment that such people need. It is easier to manage an institution of 200 people than an institution of 750. It may be possible to manage an institution of 750 or even 5,000 in such a
598
humane and practically sensible way, but it is more difficult. Better managers and better systems are needed. Many of us are not confident that the Home Office and the people it employs are always as competent and humane in managing things as we would all like. I am not saying that in some cases they do not.
As a member of Sub-Committee F, I have recently had the privilege, along with other noble Lords, of visiting two contrasting institutions. The Red Cross centre at Sangatte, near Calais is an open institution where people can walk in and out. It is a refuge, not a detention centre. The centre at Harmondsworth is a detention centre that holds people pending their removal from this country. If I were to spend a week in either, I would prefer to spend it in Harmondsworth, for all the fences, barbed wire and goodness knows what other security around it, than at Sangatte, which is a dreadful place. To some extent that supports the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, in his view about management.
There is no doubt that institutions differ. Institutions such as detention centres, which on the face of it are undesirable places in the sense that in an ideal world we would not have them, can be run humanely if the resources and the right management are put in. Our view was that a good job was being done at Harmondsworth in very difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, we are not legislating for the best; we are legislating for ordinary people in the real world and for what would be most sensible.
The Minister says that these are trials. We know the likely sites of three of the accommodation centres. We understand that the Government are still looking for a fourth. They will all house around 750 people. If these are genuine trials, why are we trialling four examples of one model instead of four different models? That is fundamental to the case against what the Government are doing. If they were planning one type of trial in an urban locality, a different sort of unit in a rural locality, one big unit and perhaps something else, many of us would still be unhappy about some of the proposals to be trialled but at least we would accept that there was some sense in trialling a range of options.
The Minister says that it is open to the Government to have smaller units once the first four are under way. It is the first time I have heard that from the Government. Perhaps the Minister is prepared to explain what he means and tell us what progress is being made with the idea of trialling a centre of 200 in an urban area.
It is an interesting question why we are having accommodation centres for some asylum seekers and a system of dispersal for the other 90 per cent, or whatever it will be, in the next few years—people who will be in the community, supported by NASS in the present way. Some of the ideas being explored by Nick Hardwick should be followed up. In an urban area that already has a community of asylum seekers, an accommodation centre could also act as a centre for services for asylum seekers living out in the

599
community. That is the core and cluster model that various social services and health authorities use for mental health patients. Some people live in the centre because it is more appropriate to them while others living out in the community can use the centre to access legal advice, adjudication and other services specifically designed for the needs of asylum seekers, such as health services, which are difficult for them outside. Has anyone here tried to find a dentist recently? Have you tried to find an NHS dentist recently? Have you tried to find an NHS dentist if you are an asylum seeker recently? It is not easy.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the idea of providing services for asylum seekers generally within a centre in which some of them might live, on the core and cluster basis. If the Government are genuine about trialling different options, they might like to consider that.
My final point is not directly related to size, except in the sense that bigger institutions may cause a problem in the community. Some accommodation centres will cause great difficulty locally simply because they are, in the best sense of the word, alien institutions in the area. I do not use the word "alien" in any pejorative sense. A demand will arise to stop people from the centre going into local pubs, wandering across local fields or hanging around in villages. The same might happen in urban areas if the centre is too big. There will be demands for stricter curfews than are proposed, not just night-time curfews. There will be demands for people to be kept inside the centre—where they belong, as some will see it—and not allowed to wander around the countryside in a way that local people worry about, even without making a nuisance of themselves.
As with people dispersed in the community, there will also be a tendency for people living in asylum seeker accommodation centres to find a way of disappearing towards the end of their presence there if they believe that their application is likely to be turned down in order to avoid being picked up the morning after their final appeal is refused. It is clear that some people will do that, because that is what some people do at the moment. They move out of their NASS accommodation at the appropriate time so that they cannot be found when the removal squads employed by the Home Office turn up to find them. Subsequently they live in the community as illegal immigrants, with the unknown number—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of other illegal immigrants. That will happen, and it will increase the pressure for greater security.
What guarantee does the Bill give that the accommodation centres will not be turned effectively into detention centres that do not allow people to leave? Where is that guarantee? The Government can say that that is not their intention, but where in the legislation is a guarantee that accommodation centres will not eventually or overnight become detention centres?
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am sorry to inject a slightly discordant note into the happy unanimity that
600
200, 250 or 220 is automatically better than 750. When we started this debate I had great sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Subsequently, I have listened to the speeches with increasing scepticism. When I try to measure my own experience of schools, universities and military establishments, it seems to me by no means a foregone conclusion that 200 or 250 is better than the sort of size proposed by the Government.
All the arguments about people wandering round fields or filling up the pubs could equally be used against a barracks or against students at universities and schools. There are very good schools, such as Eton, that have well over 1,000 pupils. There are also good universities with large numbers of students. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I both belong to a college which I believe now has 14,000 or 15,000 students. I am worried about this because I think that size could be a distraction from rather more crucial issues—such as appropriate resources for these accommodation centres, if we are to have them, and good management. The factors that make a good comprehensive school good are appropriate resources and good management
I still have an open mind on the issue, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: In some ways I sympathise with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Some large institutions are incredibly effective. As we know, however, the bigger the institution—and let us speak about prisons for a start—the more difficult it is to cater sensitively and responsively to those accommodated there. That is true also of universities and schools. This is about the extent to which one is able to respond to the numbers; the greater the number, the more difficult it is to respond appropriately.
I raise the issue—as I did at Second Reading— because, like others, I am concerned about the position of women and children. I am worried about safeguarding women from domestic violence and from random sexual and non-sexual violence within accommodation centres. I also have concerns about the protection of children.
Recently, at the Government's instigation, the Home Office began consultation with lawyers and women's groups on gender guidelines for initial decision making. We are very pleased that this is now taking place. The purpose of the consultation is to facilitate separate claims from women. We are worried that accommodation centres will throw up barriers to that process. How will a separate claim be encouraged or facilitated without rendering the woman a target for male relatives who may object to her claim, particularly if it based on domestic or sexual violence? How will confidentiality be maintained for women reporting sexual abuse in their country of origin but fearing rejection by male relatives, partners or a community that may be rather unwilling for that to be publicly expressed?

601
We raise the issue because it would be much easier to deal sensitively with these problems if the facilities had fewer people. As we know, prisons with fewer inmates are better. Big schools can work, but they work better with smaller classes. We need to resource the facilities and enable them to work in a sensitive way. Institutions, unless they are resource rich, usually work better with smaller numbers. Unless they are resource rich, large universities, particularly the new ones, find it more difficult to function well with huge numbers of students. My question for the Minister is just how resource rich will the accommodation centres be? We suspect that they will not be rich at all.
Will there be separate family-only units? I see the Minister nodding, and I am reassured. However, I think that we all want reassurance on that point. Will there be the opportunity for self-catering? That may not seem a terribly important point, but the facility to cook for one's family and make one's own family arrangements is very important to people from some other countries. The opportunity to access one's own food supply also can be very important in facilitating family security.
Will there be monitoring of the mental and physical health consequences of living in the centres? How will we address the protection issues affecting women and children? How will we ensure that they are able to access the right type of healthcare and legal advice? I simply want the Minister's assurance that we can address these issues when the numbers are as great as 700. We have usually discovered that, in such institutions, the smaller the number, the more effective it is.
Earl Russell: I should like, if I may, to respond very briefly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the college to which we both belong. It is constructed, if I may say so, on a principle somewhat akin to that of the European Union. That is a real unit, and I speak as a good European. However, at the different sites of our college, there is very much more a principle of what has been described as "cluster". Not one of these sites is anything like the size that the right reverend Prelate quoted. At its collective size, it is all right. However, I think it works very much better because it is divided into those smaller units.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I genuinely thank all who have contributed to this important debate, which—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, signaled—is the first of an interconnected set of debates. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I spend a few minutes setting out the broader context before replying in detail to the many points that have been raised.
We spoke at Second Reading about the reality of the challenge facing Britain, both government and society, in this regard. The Committee does not need reminding that we have seen a threefold increase in the number of asylum claimants since 1996, producing an enormous challenge at a fairly obvious level. Yet, at
602
the end of the processes of initial assessment and/or legal claims, about 10 per cent are accepted and found to be refugees under the 1951 convention. A further 15 or 16 per cent are granted exceptional leave to remain in Britain because it is not realistic to return them to their countries. These are the figures for 2001. In 2001, 74 per cent were found not to have a valid claim for refuge under the 1951 convention.
Earl Russell: I presume that the Minister is quoting only figures for initial decision. What are the figures when the appeal results are taken into consideration?
Lord Filkin: No; I am quoting the figures for cases brought to a conclusion in 2001. It is the totality.
Lord Avebury: Surely the Minister cannot be quoting figures for 2001. Most of the appeals lodged in 2001 would not have been heard by the end of the calendar year; they would still be pending.
Lord Filkin: I was talking about cases brought to a conclusion in 2001. By saying this initially, I am signalling that, as we acknowledged at Second Reading, we have to find a better way of discovering as quickly as we can those with a genuine case for refuge in this society. All Committee Members want to give genuine refuge. At the same time, however, we want to identify those who, for understandable reasons, are essentially economic migrants. That is the challenge that we face and the context within which the discussion about accommodation centres is relevant.
Why should we have accommodation centres? The Government propose to set up trials of accommodation centres to determine whether they constitute a better way to provide support for people who have lodged an asylum claim and who state that they are destitute. They are saying that they wish to be supported by the state while their asylum claim is considered. As soon as their asylum claim is accepted, they should be integrated into society. They have no further place in accommodation centres. The question that society faces concerns what is the best way to provide the support that those people undoubtedly need while at the same time seeking to accelerate the process of considering asylum claims in a way that is fair and meets people's legal rights. That is the central challenge that accommodation centres seek to address. We seek to determine whether they could be a better way to address the problem than the system we have had hitherto; namely, dispersal. We seek to determine whether they will provide speedier consideration of claims, better contact between relevant persons, less of a burden on pressed local services and whether they will work better than the system of dispersal.
At this stage no one on the Government Benches is being absolutely dogmatic and saying that it is axiomatic that all of those benefits must self-evidently be produced. We are saying that we want to provide the centres and then to evaluate how they work to see whether they fulfil our hopes and intentions. We want to assess whether accommodation centres provide a

603
more supportive environment for asylum seekers. That will be one of the criteria that we shall consider in the evaluation.
As regards the four centres with a capacity of 750 places in each, producing approximately 3,000 places for which we have funding in the trial period, we have indicated—the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right to mention this—that we shall consider whether one of the sites could be smaller during the trial phase. The Refugee Council has indicated that it wishes to hold discussions on that matter. The Home Secretary has said that he would be pleased for officials to hold such discussions. I believe that they will start next week. If they result in a positive outcome which is acceptable to the Government, we shall not for one second wish to be doctrinal or dogmatic in that regard and shall wish to move forward in terms of considering whether yet a further variant may be possible.
However, setting on the face of the Bill a limit on the numbers who could reside in accommodation centres, as has been suggested, would lock in the pilots and any development of centres in the future. We consider that that would be completely wrong in principle. If that proposal were accepted and we discovered that a variety of sizes of centre worked better in different circumstances, the Bill would state that any centre with more than 200 places would be out of the question. However, I am certain that the amendment is a probing one rather than wishing to place a precise provision on the face of the Bill.
There is a need to think seriously about alternative ways of providing support which may differ slightly, or perhaps significantly, from the dispersal arrangements. We must remember that many of the people who make claims for asylum, whether or not they are eventually found to have a valid claim under the 1951 convention, will frequently have travelled long distances, be in a state of some turmoil and will have great hopes of establishing themselves in Britain. However, they will not necessarily feel comfortable or secure. Many of them will have arrived in the UK without shelter or security or the means to feed themselves or their families. They may also feel afraid. They may be traumatised and some will have health needs. They look to the Government to deal with their claim for asylum fairly and efficiently and to provide them with the support that they have asked for. If they do not want support, their asylum claim can still be considered but they do not need to follow either the dispersal route or that of accommodation centres. Many of these people will have considerable needs. Because we are a civilised society we have to consider how best we can meet those needs while assessing claims efficiently and considering the impact on local services.
I turn to the central issue. There is no mysticism as regards the figure of 750; one would be foolish to claim that there was. However, there clearly is an issue as regards the size of a centre and the scale of facilities that can be provided approximate to it and within it. That is the nub of the issue. While people are waiting to have their claim for asylum determined, the Government believe that they should be provided with
604
as much support as possible at the site where they are living. We are not talking simply of providing accommodation but rather of an integrated package of support and services which we believe are in their interests and in the interests of efficient processing. For example, asylum seekers will have self-catering facilities. There is good evidence that self-catering facilities preserve traditional family structures and traditional family roles and allow people to choose the cuisine and form of cooking that they prefer. An on-site shop will be provided with prices set at normal supermarket rates. However, clearly, people will be free to shop elsewhere if they prefer. Family accommodation will be in self-contained units with sleeping, residential and cooking facilities.
We shall discuss children's education later but it is relevant to mention it now. It will mirror that provided in schools and will be based on the national curriculum. However, it will be tailored to the needs of the children in the centres. Some differences in their education as opposed to that of children who are not seeking asylum will be evident given the former's particular needs both in terms of potential trauma and the difficulties of learning a new language. On-site provision will allow more targeted support to be given. It will include education for under-15s and some provision for 16 to 18 year-olds.
Lord Judd: I have listened with great interest to my noble friend's comments and appreciate his genuine commitment to the well-being of the people who will live in the centres. However, does he not accept that in the realm of education there is one specific issue that needs to be addressed? If we accept that a significant number of the children will ultimately remain in this country, is it not the case that participation in nursery education in the general community is one of the best investments imaginable in terms of successful subsequent integration? Therefore, would it not be unfortunate for children who will remain in this country to be given separate education at the nursery stage which might make subsequent integration more difficult rather than easier?
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: I refer to self-catering facilities and to the availability of food. Do the Government have a sum in mind per child or per adult per day to buy food as opposed to eating food that may be available at the accommodation centre?
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to respond to those points before I complete my remarks.
I return to my remarks on our proposals in terms of the facilities at accommodation centres. We have concluded that we should provide healthcare at least at the primary level within accommodation centres; that is, facilities similar to those at a GP's surgery. Dental care will also be provided. However, we shall not dogmatically draw the line at primary care. Given the circumstances of many of the people in accommodation centres there may be a case for

605
providing some secondary mental healthcare and support facilities. If we find that that is the case, we will provide it because it seems to us right to do so.
There will also be purposeful activity. In centres, children will be at school but we also think that adult education should be provided—or at least offered, because one cannot compel people to take it up. One would expect English language, IT, some other skills training, and, possibly, basic literacy and numeracy, to be provided. There will also be sporting facilities on site, including football pitches and other facilities, the details of which are yet to be finalised.
Volunteering will be encouraged by accommodation centre residents within their own community and, I hope, in the wider community within which they sit; it is right and proper that people are given those opportunities if possible.
There will be facilities for religious observation. There will be Muslim prayer facilities, a Christian chapel, a multi-faith room and a member of staff who is designated with a particular responsibility for religious observation.
Transportation facilities will be available when people need to move to particular functions. However, in view of what I said about adjudication, one hopes that many of the transportation needs will be met within the centre itself because people will be able to walk to the facilities.
Interpretation facilities will be provided in centres. Again, the issue of size is relevant: it will be simpler to provide a range of good interpretation facilities in a decently sized centre rather than in a smaller centre. There will be access to legal advice, although we will discuss that later.
We mentioned in relation to an earlier amendment that there would be adjudicators and appeal hearing rooms. Most of the case-work would be done on site. We think that that is right. The tone of our discussion on that amendment suggested that the Committee also thought that that was right. That is for the very good reasons that were advanced by Opposition Members at Second Reading and at earlier stages of the Bill's scrutiny. As well as caseworkers, people will be able to have briefing, advice and information that is more targeted to their needs.
The challenge, therefore, is clear. If we think, as we do, that those facilities are right and proper and could potentially provide better support, better services and more rapid processing than we have previously been able to achieve, they could provide better services, support and accommodation than exists anywhere else in Europe. We therefore think that it is right to trial such centres with those services and to establish whether or not our hopes prove to be true. That is why, as Members of the Committee may be able to sense, I am resistant to putting a figure such as 200 in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, implied that economic or social reasons lay behind the Government's consideration of the figure of around 750. I am not
606
being arithmetic in referring to that figure; one is talking about a figure that is substantially larger than 200.
It is pretty obvious, in terms of the economics involved, that one could not provide that range of facilities in a centre of about 200 people. It is not remotely conceivable that one could do so. One would have to provide such services, if one wanted them, from within the local community and from local services. That is what we have, to some extent, already tried through the dispersal arrangements. In some places in Britain, there are already 200 asylum claimants, and many more are living in the sort of concentrations that we are discussing in relation to the four pilots. They get their support services from the local community. Those arrangements are not disastrous, but they are not without their problems either. We therefore have a benchmark for comparison. That is what is going on in Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and many other major urban centres. The challenge is whether we can do better than that in terms of support and the speed of processing. That is why we are strongly committed to making the pilot work and to evaluating it objectively to establish whether it does work.
It would help if at some stage we gave Members of the Committee an indication of the sort of accommodation centres that we are considering. Perhaps we should do so informally, because there is no formal process for doing so. I should be happy to share plans with any Member of the Committee who is interested. I came to this debate thinking that an accommodation centre meant a big building. Clearly, one is talking about not even a large Oxford or Cambridge college but a range of buildings that form, in effect, a village complex. Some of those buildings would be family units and others would be for single men—there would be physical separation—and administration centres, let alone the adjudication centres that we have already discussed. If it would be of interest, I will share with Members of the Committee details that give a better feel of what those places might look like, although one can never get a total picture from architects' plans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about Home Office research. The short answer is that there was an attempt by Home Office officials to get alongside the experience regarding accommodation centres in other European countries but it was more of a quick fact-finding exercise than research. We were trying to see what they had done in terms of evaluation. Very little had been done, which was a pity. Having said that, the exercise was not without its uses and we learnt something. We found that there were many different sizes of such centres and many different functions were covered by the term "accommodation centre". However, there was nothing that afforded us a scientific evaluation. I have already discussed the central issue: whether one is able to provide better support by having more support services on site rather than leaving that to the happenstance of what can or cannot be provided by the community.

607
I have mentioned that we are already considering the Refugee Council proposal. I am reminded that we are due to meet next week on Monday the 15th. I have signalled that we are pleased to look positively at those proposals to establish whether they can be made to work. The individual houses—we have already discussed them in terms of what will take place in accommodation centres—have the potential to create a sense of a smaller community within the larger community of the accommodation centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly reminded us that all of these proposals are subject to planning permission; I agree with her. Planning permission has to be obtained before any such facilities can be built.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, discussed healthcare screening. In a sense, he is right. There could well be some specialist health needs. That is why we believe that effectively having a GP premises on site, which would allow specialisms to develop—it would be supported, no doubt, by relevant local hospitals—involves a better healthcare service than that under which people are scattered across the community. However, that is to he proven through evaluation rather than assertion.
The key point is to emphasise the range of services that will be provided. 1 was deeply grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for injecting a questioning tone. This is not simply a question of size; it is also a question of resources and management and of how the whole constellation of facilities can be brought together to provide better support while at the same time producing more rapid but fair processing of claims for asylum.
We have made it clear that we intend to provide at least trial accommodation centres in non-urban areas; we have discussed that. A question-mark remains about the Refugee Council arrangement. As we shall discuss later, that is partly because 45,000 people are already accommodated in urban areas through NASS support. We are concerned in this regard with accommodating 3,000 people in the rest of Britain in rural areas. We want to establish whether a different model from that which we have already undertaken works better.
We want viable communities to develop within the centres and we very much want viable communities to develop between the centres and the surrounding area. I understand why and respect the fact that people are currently upset about this change to their life through the planning applications. That is normal; it is human nature.
But I also hope—I do not hope; I am confident—that if planning permission were granted for some or all of the centres, and if they were built and managed well, the decency and support that we have seen offered by people in many urban areas to asylum claimants and refugees in their midst would be offered to those people by local communities in rural areas. I am confident that that is what we shall see when people have a chance to experience what we are trying
608
to achieve. Of course, none of that prejudges whether planning permission will be granted for the centres. That is a separate matter.
There are a number of other points which I should seek to answer. My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised the question of women being at risk from violence. She is right. The issue of both relative violence and wider sexual violence is important. I believe it is an open question as to whether women who are exposed to such threats will be more or less at risk in an accommodation centre. My own view is that it is more likely that they would be protected if they had other people around them than if they were scattered around dispersed units and lost in the local community. But that is to be proven, and my noble friend is right to challenge the Government to demonstrate that women will be properly supported, cared for and protected from abuse in that way.
My noble friend Lord Judd raised the issue of nursery education. He is absolutely right. Good nursery education is extremely important. The point is that, as a result of faster processing in accommodation centres, as soon as people are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, they will move out into the community. So they should, and it is the responsibility of central and local government to support them in their integration. Therefore, I believe that children will move into nursery education more rapidly than would otherwise be the case.
The other point that I should mark is that the process of moving to an accommodation centre from an induction centre and, eventually, into settlement in the community could be quicker—in process terms rather than in time—than under the current arrangement. If a person is to be dispersed, under the current process he will go initially to an induction centre. He will then often be placed in emergency accommodation while dispersed accommodation is found. Then, if he is accepted as a refugee, he will find a permanent home. Therefore, three moves are involved after time has been spent in an induction centre. That is not ideal or desirable. The intention is that a person should move straight from an induction centre to an accommodation centre; he should have his claim determined rapidly; and, if it is successful, within two months or less he should be in the community and resettled in a permanent home and, it is hoped, welcomed by the wider society.
For the reasons that I have given, we believe that this trial should proceed and that it should not be constrained on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to evaluate it openly and fairly in the way that we have been challenged to do by this debate.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: In relation to the services and, in particular, the skills that will he required to manage the centres, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government feel confident that the level of skill required for the management,

609
operation and provision of the services is available and whether people can be recruited successfully to run the centres in the way that he envisages them running.
Lord Filkin: The gung-ho answer would be: of course. But the sensible answer is: we must test that through a procurement process. With an open mind as to how they might be supplied, we must test whether, through a proper process of procurement, adequate skills are available. However, I do not start from a position of questioning why that should not be possible. In such a centre one would need to harness a wide range of different skills from a wide range of disciplines, such as education, healthcare, housing management and so on. But that is the challenge that we must meet, and we see no reason in principle why it should not be met.
Baroness Uddin: Before my noble friend sits down, will he kindly ensure that, if at present he is unable to respond to the question that I asked, he will write to me with the answer?
Lord Filkin: I have been reminded of having overlooked my noble friend's question. We have yet to determine the precise amount of cash support that will be made available to families in accommodation centres. However, it will be substantially more than pocket money and in the region of full NASS subsistence support. We need to work through exactly what the allowance will be, taking account of what is provided at nil cost in accommodation centres and what must be purchased by families in order to cater and care for their own needs, particularly their feeding and cooking needs.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may put a question to him which I believe he failed to answer in his response. It was a question posed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about the impact on community relations in rural areas, in particular, of the influx of a large number of people who are not normally resident there. Has any research been undertaken about the effect that such an influx would have? If no research exists, perhaps I may refer the Minister to a report and study undertaken by the Commission for Racial Equality about such an impact on the West Country. The title of the report demonstrates precisely the conclusion that the commission reached. It is, Send Them Back to Birmingham.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for reminding me, and I regret that I did not respond immediately to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I shall certainly take note of that book and draw it to the attention of officials in the department to see whether it assists us in our thinking.
Apart from what we learn from the CRE report, the issue of the impact on community relations is, in a sense, difficult to grip. But we should not pretend that there has not already been an impact on community
610
relations over the past 10 years. By that I mean that at least 750 people have been moved into existing communities in Britain in geographical areas similar to those which we are discussing. Large concentrations of NASS accommodation and support have been provided in some of our major cities in ways that have often challenged local communities, and, in many cases, those communities have risen to the challenge.
It is not possible to prove the case one way or the other. When decisions are finally taken after whatever fair process, a commitment is required from all parties to make the situation work. I believe that that commitment will involve government, local authorities, the police force, health authorities, social services, civic society and the Churches. Collectively people need to say, "This is a challenge faced by all society. We must seek to make these things work rather than try to prove that they cannot work". I am confident that that is how civic society will respond.
Lord Greaves: I asked a question, which I intended should be serious, on a matter which I believe the Government must face. First, in the future what will stop the centres being turned into detention centres due to local political pressure?
Secondly, the Minister referred to some statistics for, I believe, 2001 concerning the number of people who, in different ways, were allowed to stay in this country. Those statistics differ considerably from those put forward by expert organisations in the field. I believe that this is an opportunity to get to the bottom of those statistics, which, at the least, are opaque and somewhat obscure.
For example, I have here a booklet produced a couple of weeks ago called Refugee Week. The booklet, which states on the back that it is partly funded by the Home Office, says that the Refugee Council estimates that at least 51 per cent of asylum seekers were successful in 2001. I believe that "successful" is defined as being allowed to stay at some stage in the process. A briefing from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants states:
"The figure for 2001 shows that 26 per cent were granted exceptional leave or refugee status. Once allowed appeals are taken into account, the figure is expected to show around 50 per cent of applicants are eventually granted protective status".
A briefing from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which claims to obtain its information from the House of Commons Hansard of 9th May 2002 and Home Office news release 127/2002 of 14th May, states:
"The Home Office does not issue any statistics on the overall success rate of asylum claims, i.e. taking account of successful appeals and other legal challenges".
That is the nub of the problem. No one knows the final figures. Statistics are issued for initial decisions and various stages of appeals, but not comprehensive statistics. Those involved with asylum seekers know

611
that some people are mysteriously granted leave to remain between stages. Such people do not appear to be counted in any of the statistics. The briefing continues:
"When the (anecdotally common) concession of appeals by the Home Office … and successful applications for judicial review in the courts are taken into account, the overall success rate will eventually be in excess of 50 per cent".
The figures provided by expert organisations in the field are considerably greater than those provided by the Government. It seems to me that the Government now have an opportunity, while the Bill passes through this place, to state the full figures which they believe are the facts. Those figures can then be challenged by such organisations and anyone else so that we can get to the bottom of the issue once and for all.
6 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his intervention. He first asked what guarantee there is in the Bill that accommodation centres will not be detention centres. We have no intention of operating them as such. We have ensured under Clause 27 that conditions are reasonable and do not amount to de facto detention. Accommodation centres are clearly distinct from immigration removal centres, which are regulated under Part VIII of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The JCHR clearly also draws the attention of the Government to the obligation under the ECHR that no de facto detention is possible through accommodation centres. We are fully aware of that and are clearly committed to accommodation centres not becoming detention centres by a process of allusion or transition.
As regards statistics, perhaps the most straightforward way to deal with the point is for me to make a statement on our next day in Committee and/or to provide a submission to the Library, which will be accessible to all Members. I do not pretend that that will answer every question about asylum volumes. However, we shall try to give a fair picture in a short and succinct form of some of the key data.
Earl Russell: 1 warmly thank the Minister for the care, thoughtfulness and concern he gave to the questions raised. It was a truly impressive performance. I was pleased to hear his comments on family units and on self-catering. However, the significance of the concession on self-catering, which is potentially considerable, would be somewhat weakened by the difficulty of buying tropical produce in rural Worcestershire. That raises the question of where the centres should be located.
Like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I was somewhat distressed by the appearance, which was most clear in the exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the Minister assuming that the vast majority of asylum seekers do not have genuine claims and will not be successful. The quotation from the Home Office news release, referred to by my noble friend Lord Greaves, which states that the Home Office keeps no figures taking account of appeal results, is fairly conclusive.
612
I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to give further information. In order that he should understand where we on this side of the Committee are coming from as regards the proportion of refugees who are genuine—I do not intend to raise that question now but it must be debated before the Bill is passed—perhaps I may ask him to read before we return to the issue two publications by Alastair McKenzie of Asylum Aid, entitled, No Reason at All, and Still no Reason at All. The quotation is taken from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, who stated that reasons which are unintelligible amount to no reason at all. When the Minister has read those two publications he may understand a little better why we on these Benches believe that it is far from clear that the majority of asylum seekers do not have a genuine claim. We approach the whole question with that assumption.
The most discouraging aspect of the debate on accommodation centres—indeed, removal centres as they are described at some point—is the assumption that they are for people who will not remain here. That deeply saddens us.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate which sets the scene for our discussions on what asylum seekers can expect to be their lives, first in the centres which the Government are trialling but certainly, if those trials are successful, in accommodation centres which will be applied more generally in years to come. It is right that noble Lords pay such care and attention to the details of the debate.
I shall turn last but not least to the two noble Lords who disagreed with me: the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and the Minister. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for keeping an open mind on this matter. I appreciate the way in which he approached the debate and his concern that in talking about numbers we should not be distracted from the important questions of resources and management. Indeed, those two issues have underpinned the whole way in which I intended to approach the debate.
I note that, like the Refugee Council, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, considers my amendment second best. I appreciate that others would prefer to see no accommodation centres. However, we on these Benches have made clear that as a matter of principle and practice we believe that they could be a way forward if the trials prove successful.
I shall not refer in detail to the contributions of each and every noble Lord. That has been covered well by the Minister. Indeed, some points made were so important in detail that it would be unwise For me to try to summarise them briefly at this stage. However, some vital points were made as regards the needs of those who will be in the centres. I took careful note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chan. In a matter as important as TB screening, one has to take account of health needs which may not be commonly seen by local GPs or hospitals. Sensitive expertise is needed in dealing with health screening. I listened carefully to the comments made by the noble

613
Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, because of her wide experience both within and outwith this Chamber in learning about the needs of families, mothers and children, who could well be at risk in such environments.
The Minister tried to respond well to the attacks made on government policy. However, I refer him to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Brooke, who encapsulated the whole problem. He challenged the Government to come up with quantitative evidence with regard to the economic and social advantages of the model the Government are determined to have in this trial. Despite all the helpful information given by the Government, they have shown that they do not have that quantitative evidence to go ahead with the experiment at a size of 750. I have been reminded by the Refugee Council in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that its concern about the size of centres is based on experience of running reception centres for asylum seekers in recent years. Such experience shows that smaller, community-based centres are much more likely to be successful. I have to reflect upon the experience of those who have already done, as opposed to those of us in politics who are trying to create for the future.
The whole point of a trial is that we must get it right. We are talking of the future of human beings—not of trying to tick a box stating that we are successful in a management scheme—and of people who have been harassed from shore to shore, who come here with hope for a future. We must get the plans right for them and right for this country. They deserve nothing less.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. This matter is too important for me to plough ahead and test the opinion of the Chamber tonight. I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that next week he is to meet with the Refugee Council with the thought of looking at different models. My disappointment is that I do not want to see those models waiting until 2003–04. I want to see them in position now alongside these larger centres.
So, yes, the Minister has given us much food for thought, but I am greedy on behalf of people whom we want to see in this country. Although I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I am sure that on another occasion on Report I shall bring the matter back in order to take it further.
I ought at this stage to say to Members of the Committee that the amendment ranged more widely than I had anticipated or intended. Noble Lords have very properly in the course of the debate covered the issues that I intended to raise by my next amendment. Amendment No. 99 deals with the matter of facilities which might be provided. Therefore, I think that it would be proper for me not to move that amendment when it is called so that we can continue on to Amendment No. 100. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 100:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
"() Prior to providing an accommodation centre, the Secretary of State shall consult with the relevant local authorities, health authorities and police authorities."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 100 is slightly different. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, earlier took me to task and asked why we had not grouped these amendments together. There was a method in my—not quite, I hope—madness. On this occasion I am looking at the planning process. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised a nugget of this in our last debate.
Amendment No. 100 is a probing amendment. It asks the Minister to clarify the rules that will govern the siting of the new accommodation centres, in particular, the guidelines for the construction of new centres in rural areas where public services are already overstretched.
I note that in a Written Answer in another place the Minister, Beverley Hughes, stated:
"We expect the first trial accommodation to open during 2003".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/02; col. WA 736.]
Will the passage of the Planning Reform Bill, which is widely expected in your Lordships' House next Session, have any impact upon the rules to be followed? One assumes that the Government must have a good idea of the impact of that Bill because it has become clear from reports in the press and debates in the Chamber that the Government intend to leap straight from the Green Paper—recently debated in this Chamber—into legislation.
Therefore, this is a matter where policy, one assumes, is fairly well advanced. It is not just a matter of concern as to which sites will be chosen but what kind of buildings will be erected on the site. The Minister has adduced some evidence as to wanting some flexibility about how those sites might be planned. I welcome his offer of giving noble Lords some sight of the Government's ideas on the matter.
At the moment the Government propose to use Crown land. One supposes that it is easy for them to get at. Can the Minister explain the ramifications of the processes of planning circular 18/84 which allows both fast and slower track processes for the local authority? The Minister in another place stated:
"We are considering using the slower track rather than fast. We want as much support and engagement for the matter as we can muster among local authorities and those involved in areas where accommodation centres are being sought".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 7/5/02; col. 77.]
That reassurance is undermined by the Government's publicly stated intent to appeal if their first applications for centres are turned down. That makes it look as though they are determined to go ahead with the sites already identified, whatever local views may be.
I have been invited to visit one of the potential sites in Bicester this summer. My honourable friend Mr Baldry has arranged the visit so that I can meet some of the local people and the organisations to learn their views.

615
Last week I received a letter from the Bicester Action Group. It acts on behalf of the people of Bicester and the surrounding villages, including Piddington, Arncott, Ambroseden and Blackthorn, which are the four villages most affected. Is the Minister aware that it expresses its dismay at the Government's proposals for an accommodation centre at the MoD site in Bicester? It says that it is difficult to see how a new mini-township of 750 people plus staff could possibly be unobtrusive. It points out that the population of the two closest villages— Piddington and Arncott—is less than the total which the accommodation centre is likely to accommodate.
Those villages have only three shops and two public houses between them. Piddington does not have a shop or a Post Office and only one bus to Oxford each day. Bicester does not have the facilities for its local inhabitants. It has no cinema or recreational opportunities. It cannot offer proper facilities for the needs of a large number of residents in the accommodation centre. The Bicester Action Group states that it is at a loss to understand why the Government have chosen to ignore the advice of the relevant refugee support groups, which are highly critical of these large centres in rural areas. So am I. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend on the amendment. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. Therefore, perhaps I should disclose that many years ago while I was a Home Office Minister I was, for four-and-a-half years, responsible for immigration and asylum.
There were scarcely any asylum seekers then, but we had thousands of immigrants who were entitled to come here from the Commonwealth. Their numbers and the problems they created were so great—housing, accommodation, the education of their children and one thing and another—that we had to do something about the situation. So we persuaded Parliament to pass the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. That reduced the problems; it did not solve them.
Now we have a similar problem on a similar scale. I feel sorry for the Government in having to deal with it. I think that we are right to give the Government all the support they need in dealing effectively with the problem.
Having used those general words I turn to Amendment No. 101, which has just been moved by my noble friend. I support it. But of course it overlaps with Amendment No. 126, which is grouped with it, and which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord will forgive me, we are on Amendment No. 100. Amendment No. 101 comes next.
Lord Renton: I apologise to Members of the Committee. I thought that I heard that it was not going to be moved.
A noble Lord: No, that was Amendment No. 99.
Lord Renton: Having heard that, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 100, which I very much
616
wished to speak to. The preliminary remarks that I have made apply just as much, perhaps even more, to Amendment No. 100. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Amendment No. 100 states that,
"the Secretary of State shall consult with the relevant local authorities."
I hope that that will include local parish councils. They represent the residents of the area where these accommodation centres will exist. If they are not consulted there will be a feeling that local democracy is not working. That is an important factor to bear in mind. Therefore, that is all that I need say for the moment.
Earl Russell: I am no believer in gilding of lilies and I am mindful of the Committee's time, so I shall say only that we, on these Benches, support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: I also support the amendment. Consultation on the setting up of the accommodation centres must clearly be an important part of the whole process in order for them to work satisfactorily.
However, I would go beyond that. When we discussed Amendment No. 98, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that a successful application would mean that the person or family would immediately move out of the centre to somewhere else. I want the Government to consult on where that "somewhere else" will be. In the case of rural accommodation centres, it will almost certainly be an urban area, so the move may be over a considerable distance. That will require forethought. I hope that the Government will accept at least the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Chan: I, too, support the amendment. It is important that the relevant authorities are consulted. Perhaps I may cite the experience of Liverpool, as I live just south of the river there. We regularly see asylum seekers. There has not been proper consultation, especially about asylum seekers accommodated by private landlords. As a result, unnecessary trauma and rejection of asylum seekers by local people has been caused.
The other important issue is that of children and families. I am especially concerned for the welfare of children because of the harm that can be done to the psyche of a child if it is rejected and abused in public by people who mistake it as unwelcome. Whatever we do, we must remember that the welfare of children is paramount. That will happen only if the relevant authorities are consulted.
I presume that not only the authorities but the voluntary sector would be included in that consultation. In my experience with Vietnamese refugees, the most important source of goodwill was the voluntary sector—the Churches, Rotary Clubs, and other friends and neighbours. As a result, people were willing to have other people living next door to them in the community. That is an important way to ensure that people are not left in ghettos. Even though

617
they are being assessed, it is important in the present situation that they realise they can live at peace with those around them and that local people can treat them as friendly people to whom they can some day look up and with whom they can live.
Lord Avebury: I should like to pursue the question of the voluntary sector raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and to highlight one aspect of it: the provision of religious facilities for people in accommodation centres. There is only one sentence in the documents about such provision. In reply to the previous debate, the Minister said that there would be a chapel, a Muslim prayer room and a space for multi-faith religious observance. I suggest that Minister consults about that with the leaders of the various faiths.
In the past, failure to consult in the case of private prisons led to disaster. I speak in particular of Dovegate and Rye Hill prisons where, because there was no consultation with the religious authorities, the space provided was grossly inadequate. It was nothing like as good as previously afforded to religious minorities. In the case of accommodation centres, it will be even more important to cater for such variability in the population. At one time there may be a large influx of people from a place such as Kosovo where people are primarily Muslim; at another, they may come from a country such as Sierra Leone, a mixture of Christian and Muslim; or from China, where a large proportion are Buddhist. Accommodation centres must attain a maximum degree of flexibility. I am not sure that that is reflected in the Government's thinking. The Minister kindly offered to display the architectural plans, which, I understood him to say, have already been finalised without any of the consultation for which we are asking.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider and not only to consult the authorities mentioned in the amendment but to think carefully about how religious facilities are to be provided in those centres. We must ensure that they provide the maximum flexibility to cater for the population concerned.
The Countess of Mar: The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked that local authorities, health authorities and police authorities be consulted. The suppliers of public utilities such as water and drainage, telecommunications, electricity and public transport should also be consulted. To consider Throckmorton again, the lanes to it from the main thoroughfares are narrow. The roads would have to be altered. Unemployment in not rife in Worcestershire; we are well provided for with employment. Where will the staff of the centre come from? Where will they be accommodated? What sort of transport will be provided for them to reach the establishment. All those issues need to be considered.
The noble Baroness mentioned public libraries and cinemas. People need places of entertainment. People from Throckmorton, for example, would have to go to Pershore, Evesham or Worcester, all of which are
618
some distance from the village. How will those facilities be provided for them? They cannot be thrown together in a year, or even in 18 months, they must be planned for over a long period. Health services, in particular, must be planned for over a long period. Especially if we are considering a number of 750 rather than 200, I ask the Minister to reconsider the timescale.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As I understand it, my noble friend's amendment applies to the establishment of the centres and requires consultation before the provision of the centre is begun. Can the Minister confirm that any application for such a centre will require normal planning permission? If so, will it not be necessary for him to consult the local authority in advance and will not all the matters that my noble friend mentioned and the many others mentioned during the debate be relevant to the planning inquiry that will follow that application?
Baroness Uddin: I, too, support the principle behind the amendment, especially in relation to the local authority, police authorities and those concerned with the welfare and protection of children. They must not just be consulted on planning permission. Whether people are contained in an accommodation centre or in a family unit, times will inevitably arise when services will be required from outside. Local authorities, health authorities and police authorities, alongside others, will need to ensure that protocols and procedures are in place to incorporate services for women and children. I also concur entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about consulting religious and faith leaders. Given that it is a pilot scheme, it will stand us in good stead if we get it right.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws spoke about services for, in particular, women and children caught up in domestic violence. It is important that police procedures be amended to include services for women. Can the Minister assure us that women who require women-only provision, such as women GPs or women-only leisure facilities, will also be considered in this context? Local authorities already make women-only provision, and health authorities make women-only provision for female patients and female customers or service users. It is important that such things are taken on board in the provision of services at accommodation centres.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have not had the opportunity to participate in our debate this afternoon until now. My noble friend the Minister wants the proposed accommodation centres to work. It is as simple as that. It follows from that that there will be proper consultation with everybody who is affected by the proposition.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, I do not think that she has defined adequately the people whom my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues will consult. There are many more people whom he will be inclined to consult

619
about the importance of the situation of the accommodation centres. If planning permission is required, everybody mentioned in the amendment will be entitled to be heard. That being the case, it is important that we should not divide on the issue tonight. My noble friend should have the opportunity to consider whom he will consult and whether it is necessary for this proposition—or something like it—to be included in the Bill. At present, I am far from satisfied that it is; I will have to be convinced about that.
It is accepted that the widest possible consultation will be undertaken. I have not heard anything that confutes that proposition.
Lord Judd: Does my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis agree that wide consultation is not just a matter of bringing in the relevant experts and authorities? There is the whole matter of community dynamics. If a centre is not to be a threat to a local community, there must be responsible and positive attitudes towards the centre in the community. The amount of time that the department puts into preparing the ground is central, in a positive sense, to the success of the operation.
My noble friend the Minister has continually emphasised the fact that he wants the centres to be models of humane policy. I believe him. However, if that is to he the case, there must be a positive social dynamic, and there must be full consultation. If he can assure us that that will be a firm part of government policy, the amendment will be unnecessary.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I cannot remember an occasion on which I failed to agree with my noble friend Lord Judd. I share his view. However, the point that he made cannot be adequately recorded in the Bill.
Lord Greaves: At the risk of incurring the wrath of my noble friend Lord Russell, I shall make two or three additional points that have not yet been made. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said some of the things that I was going to say but said them rather more eloquently than I would have done.
The Minister said that he had some plans that he would like to show us. Like other noble Lords, I would he glad to see them. If there is a plan for the site at Throckmorton, for example, and the other sites, planning for the sites must be at a rather more advanced stage than application for an outline planning decision on principle as to whether it would be sensible to have an accommodation centre at a particular site. Sensible developers often apply for outline permission before they go to the trouble of drawing up expensive detailed plans. Can the Minister clarify the position for us?
In February, I believe, the Home Secretary promised full consultation on all the sites with a range of different bodies, including local communities. What consultation with local communities has taken place so far? Some of the sites have been public knowledge for a considerable time. What consultation with local
620
communities is proposed? By local communities, I mean parish councils and local residents, not just local authorities. Will the Minister tell us about that?
The Minister rightly said that 44,000 people had been dispersed to NASS accommodation in the community. Over half of those people live in the three regions of the North of England. I have no complaints about that. Because the Minister happens to have sent some of them to the little textiles town—as it once was—of Nelson, my life has been enriched by my getting to know some extraordinary people, discovering their history and helping some of them to settle in this country. That is fine. If the Minister wants to send more to Nelson, many of us would be delighted. However, Nelson is a town of 28,000 people. If the Minister suddenly decided to send 50,000 people—all the dispersed people—to Nelson, I would complain. That is the difference: it is a matter of scale.
The Minister asked whether it was a bad thing to send 3,000 people to the rest of Britain. He is not sending 3,000 to the rest of Britain; he is sending 750 to four specific places. That is why the planning application and the consultation are so important.
I have read the Hansard reports of the debates in another place. Several Members of Parliament—mainly Conservatives—expressed some concerns. Members of the Government accused them, in no uncertain terms, of Nimbyism. Nimbyism is often not a generous or attractive thing, but the fact that someone lives in a particular place does not mean that they do not know about that place and cannot put forward perfectly good arguments about the effect that things will have on it. The people who are called Nimbys, just because they happen to live in a particular place, are not necessarily wrong. They are not necessarily right either. They have the same right to put forward their views and arguments as everybody else, and they have more motivation to do so because they live there. The instant and rather shallow accusation of Nimbyism is often a cover for not being able to answer the arguments. I am not suggesting that the Minister has done that today—clearly he has not—and that is to his credit.
Finally, in such developments the law of unintended consequences must be considered. Two examples of the problems caused in the area were given to us when we visited Sangatte and met the mayors of Sangatte and other local villages. Some members of the group laughed at them and thought, "Here are parish politicians, local peasants, introducing irrelevancies". Some of us who have a history of grass-roots political activity thought that what we were being told was really quite exciting.
First, we were told about local bus services. From the rural areas there was not a good bus service into Calais and other centres. Fifty residents of the Sangatte centre suddenly turned up at a bus stop and boarded a local bus. People who used the bus service to take their children to school or to go shopping suddenly found that they could not do so because it was full of young men from Iran, Afghanistan and so

621
forth. That is innocuous in itself but needs to be taken into account when putting a big institution in the countryside.
Secondly, we were told that many people there who come from Afghanistan or Kurdistan were used to countryside in which they had what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I know as "the right to roam". That was mentioned in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. It is open pastoral country and people walk anywhere without complaint from anyone. Therefore, when those people wanted to walk from the Sangatte centre into Calais or to the rail terminal, they merely walked across the fields as though they were at home. It has therefore been necessary for them to undergo an education process; that in the enclosed farmland of the Calais area it is not done and people stick to footpaths.
I then wondered what recreational facilities people will have in the areas we are considering. Jokingly, I thought that the Home Office should perhaps fund the local county council to have a rights of way improvement programme in the areas surrounding the accommodation centres because walking in the countryside will be about all they can do. I then thought that perhaps that was not such a daft idea because if people want to walk from A to B, footpaths and roads must be provided, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, pointed out.
Those small changes will make all the difference in ensuring, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that if the accommodation centres are built, they fit into the local communities. They will bear on whether the centres cause all kinds of difficulties and problems which people have not considered or planned for in advance because they seem trivial.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the planning application goes forward, all these points will arise. I believe that the Government will not have an easy time obtaining planning permission.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about consultation on the provision of spiritual care for those who live in the accommodation centres. It is an important matter. I speak not from personal experience but from that of episcopal colleagues. For example, at Yarl's Wood a slightly different kind of accommodation has been provided. The Church of England worked extremely hard to provide good chaplaincy care. However, we are talking about a wide range of spiritual care for people from all over the world.
In my previous post, I had responsibility for West Dorset where there were three penal institutions: a young offenders' institution; a local prison; and a high security prison on Portland. Most of the prisoners had been picked up for drug trafficking offences at ports and airports. They came from all over the world. It was a cosmopolitan population. My conversations with the chaplains there centred on how extremely difficult it was to make adequate provision for the spiritual care of members of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu
622
faiths. Those who cared for them came only infrequently and sometimes had to travel long distances.
The proper care of those who will live in accommodation centres is highly relevant. It is yet another reason why we should not place large groupings of such people in rural areas where that provision will be difficult.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: The amendment is designed to ensure that accommodation centres can be established only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that consultation has taken place with the relevant local authorities, health authorities and police authorities.
I want to reassure the Committee that we understand the need to engage with relevant bodies in assessing the suitability of the location of accommodation centres and the adequacy of the facilities on site. We are committed to making the accommodation centres work. The Home Office recognises that it does not have a monopoly on expertise. We need the input of others. We want to work closely with others; to harness their experience so that the accommodation centres cater for the needs of residents; to minimise any adverse impact on local services; and to provide the necessary assurances to the local community.
We are meeting local authorities in the areas where we have decided to submit planning notifications; that is, in Bicester, Newton and Throckmorton. We will do so in respect of any other sites where planning notifications will be made. We have arranged regular meetings with the Department of Health to take forward healthcare issues. It is using its knowledge and experience and has involved the primary care trusts in the areas concerned.
With the police, security is obviously of major importance. Asylum seekers in the centres need to feel safe and members of the local community also want reassurance. Let me stress that there is no evidence that asylum seekers are more prone to committing crimes, but of course I understand the concerns that any community will have when a new establishment is created nearby. Again, we are meeting police forces in the relevant areas and that will be part of a continuing dialogue.
I do not want to pre-empt discussions on later amendments, but our creation of a monitor for accommodation centres makes clear that we expect the monitor to consult appropriate bodies. That reflects the fact that we will be working closely with bodies such as the police and we want the monitor to be looking at how we have done that.
We are intending to provide a wide range of services and facilities on site, including education, healthcare, purposeful activities and access to legal advice. The aim has been to minimise the impact on local services and aid the creation of self-contained communities within the centres. But, clearly, where further facilities are necessary—and secondary healthcare which cannot be provided on site is a good example—we

623
want to ensure that, through discussions with the relevant bodies, we take full account of these in deciding on the site's location.
Let me also stress that we are committed to full consultation on the proposed accommodation centre sites. Exhibitions took place in the Bicester area on 10th and 11th June and more than 300 people attended. Exhibitions in respect of the RAF Newton site were held in the Nottingham area on 18th and 19th June and more than 800 people attended. Beverley Hughes has also visited Bicester and Newton and met local representatives and we will do the same in the other places in due course. We have not yet Finalised proposals for the Throckmorton area.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we have not used the fast-track process, known as "special urgency procedures", following representations from local people. We want to engage fully with local people. Clearly, if there were to be an adverse planning consideration by the local authority, it would be open to the Government to lodge an appeal if they thought that appropriate.
Furthermore, planning notification for Throckmorton is still in preparation, although we have submitted it for Bicester and Newton. We understand that two notifications are being considered by the planning authorities this week. If planning is refused, we will consider the basis of the rejection and reflect on it. After proper consideration, we may decide to appeal. If we appeal, we will send the papers to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the DPM will decide what to do in that respect under his planning responsibilities. In such a circumstance, it is likely that a public inquiry will be arranged. The planning inspectorate within the ODPM will appoint an inspector and manage the public inquiry process and the inspector will then make a recommendation to the DPM. There will be no attempt to override normal processes. The opening date of 2003 is entirely conditional upon the planning process. We do not yet know the position in respect of notifications. As to a planning reform Bill, planning applications for trial centres will be made under existing legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked whether parish councils are being consulted. They are, as part of the planning process. Officials have visited the accommodation centre locations at Bicester and Newton.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the important issue of religious observance. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to arrange facilities under Clause 26(1)(h). They will include appropriate washing facilities, quiet association rooms and small prayer rooms—and there will be a manager of religious affairs at each site.
Lord Avebury: I asked whether the Minister thought that it would be appropriate to consult the leaders of the relevant faiths—an action lacking in the past.
Lord Filkin: It is a good day for interventions. If the noble Lord had waited 15 seconds, I would have come to that point. Drawing on experience of prisons and
624
detention centres, a religious advisory group has been established to develop policy and offer advice. It is chaired by the director of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and comprises eight members from various faiths—including the chaplain general of the Prison Service. As ever, we are open to further advice and views. We want to work with local religious leaders and organisations on detailed implementation, if it comes to that, at any of the specific sites. Some have already made clear their wish to be involved.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised a number of points about planning and infrastructure. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, indicated, the notification will deal with each of the points raised as part of the planning process. The notification of the Throckmorton site has not yet been submitted, precisely because work on detailed points is still being done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, asked about women-only provision. If strictly necessary for planning permission, such a provision will certainly be considered. If women-only provision is part of a wider question, we will consider how best to address it.
The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Greaves, asked about the status of plans. No architectural plans have been finalised but the Home Office has through its advisers, produced a generic model as a starting point—to give some understanding of how things might be done, for discussion with potential contractors and others.
I strongly agree with the stress placed by the right reverend Prelate on spiritual care. If he feels that we ought to bear in mind further representations, we will receive them with gratitude.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the educational process—for example, UK norms in respect of walking through fields. We have anticipated that we will need to do some orientation on UK cultural and social norms as part of the initial purposeful activities for adults.
The debate ranged over the consultation that is right and necessary as part of a planning application. I have signalled how we will respond. It would be proper to have wider and continuing consultations in respect of any site or location if it looked as though an accommodation centre were to be built there. That is different from the planning process and involves further consultation with service providers and local communities about the construction period, developing facilities and involving the local community. The Government want those forms of wider consultation and involvement over and above and beyond the planning process. In light of that information, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The amendment's purpose was to obtain clarification of the rules that will govern the choice of locations. My noble friend Lord Carlisle hit the nail on the head. If proper planning processes are followed, all the right people

625
should be consulted. Until today, our concern was that the planning procedures had not been put on the record. I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to follow that through.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for questioning the Minister over the impression that decisions have already been made. We gained that impression after debates in another place and from conversations with outside organisations. The Minister said that the architectural information will take the form of a generic model rather than a signed, sealed and delivered final plan. That statement will reassure people living near a proposed accommodation centre.
This pump-priming debate was designed to identify which organisations ought to be on the Government's list for consultation. My noble friend Lord Renton reminded the Committee of the importance of parish councils as the starting point for local democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, reminded us of the importance of consulting voluntary organisations. I was intrigued by the reference to his experience of welcoming refugees from Vietnam. In the 1970s, I worked for a while as a volunteer with the Ockenden Venture and had experience of providing the right kind of facilities in welcoming people from different communities to this country.
I am grateful to the Minister for putting on the record more clearly than before the steps that the Government are taking to stage exhibitions for the guidance of people who are likely to find themselves living near accommodation centres, so that they can ask questions and find out precisely what will be in store. We will hold the Minister to his commitments and may return at Report stage to questions about planning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"ESTABLISHMENT OF VISITING COMMITTEES AND INSPECTION ARRANGEMENTS

(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a committee (in this Part referred to as a "visiting committee") in respect of each accommodation centre established under this Part.

(2) The functions of visiting committees shall be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall include provision as to the following—

(a) the making of visits by members of a visiting committee to an accommodation centre,

(b) the hearing by members of a visiting committee of complaints made by persons accommodated at an accommodation centre,

(c) the making of reports by a visiting committee to the Secretary of State, and

(d) the right of each member of a visiting committee at any time to enter an accommodation centre and to have free access to every part of it and to every person accommodated or otherwise present on the premises.

626

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall include further provision in respect of the membership of visiting committees, and in particular shall include provision as to the following—

(a) the minimum number of members of a visiting committee,

(b) the appointment of members of a visiting committee, and

(c) the appointment to each visiting committee of persons holding a particular qualification or occupying a particular position.

(5) An accommodation centre may also be inspected (and a report on the inspection made to the Secretary of State) by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Social Services Inspectorate whenever either thinks it appropriate.

(6) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament an annual summary of the reports submitted to him in respect of accommodation centres by virtue of the provisions of this section.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe that other persons and bodies may have such functions in respect of the visiting and inspection of accommodation centres as may be specified in the order.

The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137, 127 to 131, 133 and 134 in my name and to Amendments Nos. 126, 135 and 132 in the name of the noble Lord the Minister.
I welcome the latter amendments, which reflect the Government's commitment at Second Reading to respond to the proposals made by my honourable friend Mr. Malins at Report stage in another place. I am glad that my honourable friend—who is the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which I live—was so persuasive that the Government have brought forward their own amendments.
The establishment of visiting committees—or advisory groups, as the government amendments describe them—is, I hope, an uncontroversial issue. Before I entered your Lordships' House I served as a magistrate and visited prisons occasionally, so have first-hand experience of the work done by visiting committees. I was always impressed by the high quality of their work. They have no axe to grind and talk to inmates, hear grievances and make positive suggestions. Visiting committees are an important safety valve.
I have tabled amendments to the government amendments as the basis for questions. I am intrigued by the creation of two structures to do the job of a visiting committee. It seems that there will be both an advisory committee and a person or job share person who will monitor accommodation centres. That may be a great improvement on my amendments but I need to scrutinise the Government's proposals. What is the differentiation between the advisory committee and monitor as regards their duties, powers and accountability to the Secretary of State and Parliament? It seems as the advisory committees will have no teeth. When they report to the Secretary of State, will they produce recommendations? What will the Secretary of State do with them? Will they be published? Will we be able to see them? What will be their status if they are published?
As to the monitor, what influence will he or she have in making sure that wrongs, if they exist, are put right? In particular, what role will the monitor have in regard

627
to resolving any contractual difficulties that may arise as a result of disputes over the proper provision of contracted-out services?
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 126 states that the Secretary of State "may" by regulations confer functions on advisory groups and make provision about their constitution and proceedings. I ask the usual question: why not "shall". If "shall provide" is not in the Bill, it looks as though the Secretary of State simply will not put into effect his plans for these advisory groups.
Subsection (6) states that the Secretary of State may defray the expenses of members of the group or make facilities available to them. If the Secretary of State did not do that it would be a nonsense because no work would take place.
What is likely to be the membership of the advisory group? Will the members be representative of professional or cultural groups? What is the Government's intention on this matter? How will they go about appointing them? It is vital that people from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of experience are encouraged to become members of these advisory groups and to apply to become the monitor. The Government will not attract such people unless they can clearly see that it is a responsible, accountable and worthwhile job. Will the Minister tell the Committee how he would persuade a likely applicant that that is the case? I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: We on this side of the House support not only the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but a number of the suggestions in the government amendments. From my own involvement as a magistrate at one time and a member of a board of visitors, like the noble Baroness I can see that this pattern fits in with the concern that has often been expressed concerning the need for appropriate visiting committees, advisory committees or advisory groups to assist in the task faced by such accommodation centres.
Perhaps I may ask one or two questions. First, will the situation envisaged in the government amendment run somewhat parallel to the situation in prisons in the sense that the monitor's function will follow very closely that of the prisons ombudsman? I am not quite sure whether the explanation that has been offered here reflects precisely that situation.
My second point concerns the membership of the advisory group or the visiting group. There is a need to involve voluntary agencies and someone from the local area in the membership of such groups. We have heard many arguments, some of which have put forward practical suggestions, but if local people are involved in the accommodation centres through their membership of these groups it will certainly help. The involvement—we spoke earlier of consultation—of religious groups in these bodies would also be beneficial.
The suggestion for visiting committees was initially made by Sir David Ramsbotham in one of his reports after he had inspected a detention centre. We are on
628
the right track here. All that we need to do is to tidy up the differences between what is suggested in the noble Baroness's amendment and what the Government have in mind. If we bring them together I am sure that we shall have an active, participating committee, which will be to the benefit of not only the Government and the accommodation centre managers but of all those involved in the process.
Lord Judd: These amendments are extremely important. As I argued earlier, we want a positive attitude in the community towards these cent res. What the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said is very significant. It is important that active organisations with social commitment within the community should have access to these places as a natural part of their activity. It would be good to have ministerial assurance that that will be possible.
I cannot help being slightly amused by the debate. I feel that if our positions were reversed—God forbid—and we were sitting on the Opposition side of the House and the Opposition were sitting on this side, there would be a reversal of roles in terms of the arguments being advanced. I can imagine that we would be saying, very toughly, "No. If we are going to have supervision it must have muscle. It must be regulatory. It cannot be only advisory because that would be a tool of the administration. We want to make sure that there is real, independent judgment".
This is an important point. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it seriously and deal with it. We do not want to feel that this is only a fan club for the administration, albeit by another name. We want to feel that it is a body which is doing a real job on behalf of the community.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Perhaps I may ask two questions in regard to the amendment. First, what kind of persons will the visitors be? Will they be volunteers, as so many prison visitors are? There are not many people outside this House who will do a job without expenses, particularly young people with responsibilities. What kind of people have we in mind who will take on the job of being visitors?
My second question concerns timing. I have seen nothing about how many times visitors will call in. It is important to know whether it will be once a year, once every six months, or whatever. All noble Lords who have had constituencies can envisage a situation where some person who is appointed as a visitor turns out to be a real busybody. We propose giving them the right to go in at any time, with free access to every part of and every person in the centre. If there are no regular meetings, who will say whether it is right and proper for a single visitor to appear at any time and demand to see X or Y? I can envisage the severe difficulties that that would cause for the staff.
I apologise to the Committee that, due to an arrangement that I cannot alter, I am unable to remain in the Chamber. I shall read in Hansard the Minister's replies to the questions I have raised.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to explain why I believe that Amendment No. 101 is preferable to

629
government Amendment No. 132. First, the hearing of complaints, which Amendment No. 101 specifies, is a highly important function. It is not laid down as one of the functions of the Government's proposed monitor.
Secondly, free access at any time is also an important component of effective checking and monitoring. The fire which destroyed the Yarl's Wood centre broke out at night-time. One is therefore led to believe that disturbances and problems are likely to be at their worst at night.
Perhaps I may illustrate the possible working of Amendment No. 101 from my experience in Northern Ireland. NIACRO, of which I have the honour to be president, organised the recruitment and the training—which will be very important for visitors—of lay visitors for so-called training schools in which young offenders are kept for quite long periods. The impact of these trained lay visitors has been favourable and positive, particularly because they have been able to listen to inmates' complaints.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I sympathise with the amendment principally on the grounds set out by my noble friend Lord Judd. If accommodation centres are to function properly it is important that they are not seen as detention centres or prisons by another name. They have to work as part of the local community. I am well aware of many criticisms regarding the proposal for accommodation at Throckmorton. If and when the centres are established, I hope that they will reach out to the local community. In areas with few leisure and other facilities it may be possible to welcome people from the local community into the centres. I hope that church groups and nursery and other schools would want to build links, going into the centres, with those in the centres taking part in the local community. I was impressed by earlier remarks about encouraging residents in that regard.
Does the Minister feel able to accept the principle underlying the establishment of visiting committees? I assume that it will be one visiting committee per accommodation centre in order to encourage and foster local links along the lines of boards of visitors in prisons of which I have some experience. I have a great deal of pride with regard to one board of visitors but I shall not weary the Committee with that.
The establishment of a visiting committee is not in opposition to the appointment of a single monitor for the accommodation centres. The two can run side by side. The monitor may welcome the grass roots eyes-and-ears work of such visiting committees. That work may supplement the monitor's work. He or she may travel throughout the country, initially to four centres, but over time perhaps to many more. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the proposal out of hand but will consider whether the two bodies can run side by side.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord talks a great deal of sense from experience. Some time ago I, too, was involved in a visiting committee. One became an advocate for the establishment within the locality.
630
The one I represented was a borstal; it was a long time ago. It was a fairly small organisation. It was important that it was accepted within the community. But the members of the visiting committee, or whatever it is called, must be local people. One or two members may come from a distance; I do not know. But if we are to believe that the proposal will work, the Minister must give us that assurance. The main purpose of a visiting committee is to advocate the institution to the community. It also assists with complaints, and so on, but that can be done in other ways. I hope that the Minister will take on board the crucial fact that the members must be local.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I am a little concerned that Amendment No. 126 is extremely vague about what the advisory groups will do and the manner in which they are to be appointed or dismissed. I had some involvement in a controversy—the Minister may remember it—relating to the board of visitors at Haslar where the Secretary of State at the time, having taken it into his head that certain members of the board of visitors were not doing their job properly, dismissed them. I am concerned that there is no provision in Amendment No. 126 for proper appeals to be allowed in cases where the Secretary of State decides that such action is the right course to pursue.
I presume that the Minister wants the advisory group to be fully independent and to act in an analogous way to the board of visitors in a prison. The advisory group should be totally independent of the Government and should report fearlessly on any matters which come to its notice with regard to the proper operation of the accommodation centre. Therefore, safeguards against the arbitrary dismissal of members of the advisory group should be written into the statute.
If the advisory group is analogous to the board of visitors, the monitor is analogous to the chief inspector. In that regard, perhaps I may ask the Minister why the monitor does not have the right or duty to make reports on particular accommodation centres. He or she is only to report once a year to the Secretary of State on all the matters which come within his purview. It would be wise to provide him at least with the power to inspect individual accommodation centres, with or without notice, and to make reports on that accommodation centre to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government are sufficiently flexible to take these matters into consideration.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the discussion. I believe that we have made progress. I hope that some of the responses I give in Committee will put minds at rest on the intention behind the Government's amendment.
We said in another place that we were considering carefully the merits of something along the lines of a visiting committee for accommodation centres. I argue that government Amendment No. 126 reflects the

631
outcome of our deliberations. Visiting committees are, after all, an established feature of removal centres. I want to emphasise again that accommodation centres are very different in concept to removal centres. In particular, residents will not be detained. They will be free to come and go subject to certain residence and reporting requirements.
Having said that, we recognise the need to be open and transparent and to ensure that those concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers in accommodation centres receive assurance and reassurance. There is a commonality within this Chamber that that is our aim.
We shall set up accommodation centre advisory groups, one for each accommodation centre. Before I get into more of the detail, perhaps I may say a word on the name. We felt it important to differentiate between accommodation centres and removal centres, partly clue to the different nature of the centres but, on a more practical level, to avoid any potential confusion for those who may wish to become a member of such a group. But beyond that, we have based the functions of the advisory groups very much on the model for visiting committees. Members of the groups will visit the centre, hear any complaints made by residents of the centre, and have the opportunity to report to the Secretary of State on their findings.
We are ensuring also that the manager of the centre must permit a member of the advisory group to visit the centre at any time on request and to visit any resident of the centre at any time on request, provided that the resident consents.
Government Amendment No. 135 is consequential on the above and includes reference to advisory groups in Clause 33. This will mean that the regulations made in respect of the advisory groups will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, reflecting a similar level of scrutiny to regulations made in respect of visiting committees for removal centres under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made plain that her amendments were tabled very much to probe the Government's intentions by saying that it would be very odd to make it a duty to have regulations conferring functions on an advisory group, and making provision about consultation and proceedings of advisory groups.
In Section 152 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which relates to visiting committees for removal centres, a similar form of words is used whereby the function of a visiting committee may be prescribed by removal centre rules. We see no need for Amendment No. 127. Amendment No. 128 would require regulations to make provision for advisory groups to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, in addition to submitting a report to him. Again, we do not see that as necessary. I am sure that any reports will contain recommendations where the advisory group believes that this is both necessary and appropriate.
Amendment No. 129 would require regulations to make provision for advisory groups to report to the monitor of accommodation centres, as well as the
632
Secretary of State. It is not clear from the amendment whether separate reports are envisaged. Again, we do not see the need for this requirement. In any event, the monitor will be under a duty to consult such bodies, as he considers appropriate. Where he sees the need to consult advisory groups—I am confident that the monitor will—the groups will no doubt be able to make any of their findings known to him. I should also be happy for the Secretary of State to make any reports made by advisory groups available to the monitor where it was felt that it would be appropriate.
Amendment No. 130 would make it a duty on the Secretary of State to defray expenses of members of an advisory group and make facilities available to them. This seems a rather onerous proposition. The Secretary of State will want to reimburse fully the members of advisory groups for reasonable expenses incurred, and to make the facility available to them. There is no indication that existing arrangements in respect of payment of expenses for visiting committees have run into difficulties. There is no statutory obligation in that case.
Amendment No. 131 would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual summary of reports and recommendations received from advisory groups. We see no need for a statutory requirement for this to be done. Naturally, the Secretary of State will want to pay close attention to reports from the advisory group. He may also want to consider whether a summary of all, or some parts, of the report should be published, or brought to the attention of Parliament. Again, I should stress that the report from the independent monitor will, in any event, be laid before Parliament.
The Government's amendment, Amendment No. 132, requires the Secretary of State to appoint a person as a monitor of accommodation centres. We believe that the creation of a monitor demonstrates the clear commitment on the Government's part to ensure that centres are run efficiently and that asylum seekers are treated well with their needs being met. This will also provide a valuable contribution to the overall evaluation of the accommodation centres during the trial period.
We have considered most carefully the question of inspection arrangements, a point valuably raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We want to do all we can to ensure that there is confidence in the system. By introducing both advisory groups and, now, a monitor, we are providing the necessary reassurances to those who have expressed concern about the way that asylum seekers will be treated and about the overall operation of the centres. In particular, we have provided for the monitor to consider the quality and effectiveness of the accommodation and the facilities provided. Clearly, the accommodation provision will be of great importance to those required to reside there. As we have made plain, we want t o get that right.
We have also made clear our desire for asylum seekers to be occupied at the centres through a 'wide range of facilities, such as basic skills training, sporting activities and IT skills and development. Again, this is

633
vital if the centres are to work in the way we envisage. The monitor will look at these activities to assess the quality and range of provision and the overall effect on the residents.
We also think it right for the monitor to consider the nature and enforcement of conditions of residence. By virtue of Clause 27, the conditions will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Anyone required to leave an accommodation centre as a result of breach of conditions will have a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator. But, naturally, the conditions and how they are enforced will have an important bearing on the whole nature of the centres. We are well aware of the concerns expressed in another place about the effect of breaches of conditions, and the withdrawal of support. I believe that the monitor's role in that regard will help provide another level of reassurance about how we are enforcing conditions of residence, and how we seek to ensure a common-sense approach that takes account both of the importance of asylum seekers complying with their obligations and the need not to over-react to minor instances of breach. For example, the monitor will be able to consider whether guidance has been followed consistently across different accommodation centres.
The monitor will need to have access to a wide range of people to gain the full picture of how the accommodation centres are run, what their purpose is, and the treatment of residents. So we have made provision for the monitor to consult the Secretary of State, and any other person the monitor may feel is appropriate. In this other category, I should envisage in particular the involvement of local authorities, the police, and especially refugee organisations.
The monitor will provide an annual report to the Secretary of State that will be laid before Parliament. Again, this demonstrates the Government's commitment to openness. It is not just a case of the need for a once-a-year report. We all want to improve and develop as we go on, building on examples of good practice—and challenging any examples of bad practice—that are encountered.
Finally, we have made provision for more than one person to act jointly as monitor. We believe that this is a sensible provision, given the fact that we are trialling the accommodation centres and that there will be a limited number in the trial phase. If they are successful—clearly the monitor's reports will help us establish whether or not that is the case—we shall want to create more. At that stage, we shall need to review whether the necessary work could be carried out by just one monitor.
In the light of those arrangements, I argue that the Opposition's amendments are unnecessary. I refer to Amendment No. 101, which has attracted a degree of sympathy during this discussion, and Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. Just as we would expect the monitor to consult such bodies as the police and refugee organisations, we would expect consultation to take
634
place with advisory groups. However, it is right to allow the monitor to make the final judgment as to whom he considers appropriate.
A number of additional points were raised regarding membership of an advisory group; for example, who might be members and how people could become members. I shall try to answer those points. I was asked how someone could become a member. The Secretary of State will be responsible for appointing members. We are likely to build on existing arrangements for visiting committees. We certainly intend to ensure that information about how one can join an advisory group will be made easily accessible. It will certainly be posted on the IND website.
I was also asked whether members of an advisory group would be paid. I believe I made it clear that travelling expenses will be covered. Again, that is very much in keeping with current visiting committee arrangements. The number of members on an advisory group was also queried. We have not yet sought to specify a minimum or a maximum number because we want further to consider the matter. We shall listen to what noble Lords have to say in that respect so as to ensure that the groups can be effective in discharging their functions.
Lord Avebury: Can the Minister say what arrangements the Secretary of State intends to make for ensuring that the members of visiting committees are adequately representative of the ethnic minorities who will be housed in the accommodation centres?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. It is important for such a consideration to be put on the record. We do not have preconceptions as to who might be a member of an advisory group. We believe that there will be a wide range of interested persons. We expect representations from Church and charitable organisations to come forward with a particular interest. We want to encourage people with compassion, understanding, an open-minded approach, and, obviously, a sense of justice and fair play.
Given the nature of the work involved, we also envisage making security and status checks on all candidates—and, also, to the extent permissible, on their spouse or partner. We envisage applicants completing a form in which they will need to specify any conviction. So we want people of good standing in the community.
The question was raised as to whether people from the local population might want to join advisory groups. We would want to encourage that as it may well be in the best interests of the development of the groups. I hope that I have covered the range of questions on this matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether the monitors would have a role in resolving contractual disputes. We do not see a role for the monitor in those situations. Our view is that the contract will be between the Secretary of State and the provider of services. But the monitor will bring

635
concerns that have been expressed about the operation of contracts and arrangements to the Secretary of State, and they may well be reflected in any annual report that is made.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry to stop the noble Lord when he is getting on so well, but I am thinking about what would happen in the case of a centre in Scotland. Is it anticipated that the Secretary of State referred to in Amendment No. 132 will be the Secretary of State for Scotland, appointing a monitor for the Scottish centres; or will the Home Secretary monitor all the centres through appointments made by him? I do not know whether the point has been considered. It is clearly important. This is not a simple devolution issue; it is a reserved matter and the centres are being placed in Scotland as part of a system. It will certainly need to be thought about if that has not happened already.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should perhaps have anticipated that the noble Baroness would raise the Scottish question. My understanding is that it is a reserved matter, so I believe that it will fall to the Secretary of State. However, if I am wrong, I shall endeavour to correct that statement.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Which Secretary of State?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Home Secretary.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the question of whether the monitor's function was close to that of the prisons ombudsman. The monitor will be required to monitor the operation of accommodation centres. It is not our intention that the monitor should deal with complaints. The advisory group will want to do that.
I was asked whether the monitors would have teeth. Yes, it is our intention that they will have teeth. I am sure that Parliament will want to hold us properly to account on that. It is only right that that is carried through.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised. The debate has been most helpful. It will help us to focus on what will need to be the content of the regulations. We have listened carefully to what has been said in the debate and we shall reflect on all the important points raised. I very much welcome the support that we have received across the Dispatch Box from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I believe that we have come a long way in meeting many of the concerns expressed in another place and by Members of the Committee this evening.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think the Minister is slightly ahead of himself on this occasion. I have not quite withdrawn my amendment yet; he must give me a chance.
I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on this rather large group of amendments covering an important issue. I am
636
grateful to those noble Lords who expressed some sympathy with what is perhaps the slight superiority of my Amendment No. 101 because of the extra authority that it would give to what I would term the visiting committees and the Government refer to as the advisory group and the monitor.
I was particularly struck by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that we must be careful not to let the accommodation centres be detention centres by another name. It is important that people appointed to the advisory groups reach out into the community and that the community takes part in the life of the accommodation centre so that there is integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made a point about discussions with outside groups which was referred to only briefly by the Minister. I shall have to examine the remarks carefully in Hansard. The point is that we are seeing the setting up of an organisation for just four trial places, but it will need to be flexible enough and have sufficient authority to be able to act properly in respect of all other areas.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was, as ever, right to raise the Scottish question. I shall want to examine the Minister's response carefully and take advice on the matter.
At this stage, it is right that I consult the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Council as to whether they think that the very full answer given by the Minister has addressed all their concerns, or whether there are any remaining matters that we may need to bring back. This is the first occasion that we have had the opportunity of hearing such a full explanation of how the Government intend the new advisory groups and the monitor to act.
Now I can please the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill should begin again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002
7.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations will help local authorities to improve air quality by reducing the number of illegally polluting vehicles on England's roads.

637
No new offences are created. What we propose are powers for local authorities to enforce what are already statutory offences. These powers have already been trialed successfully by seven local authorities. We are imposing no new burden on local authorities, as the powers will be optional—although we hope that many local authorities will be keen to adopt them.
The regulations provide two sets of powers. The first will enable local authorities with severe air quality problems—defined as air quality management areas—to carry out tests at the roadside of any car, bus or lorry to identify and penalise those who exceed prescribed emissions limits. It is a sad fact that many drivers pay little attention to their vehicle except when their MOT is due. The National Audit Office has estimated that up to 20 per cent of vehicles on Britain's roads are polluting illegally. We hope that knowing that they could receive a £60 penalty for failing a roadside test will encourage more drivers to take proper care of their vehicles.
The second set of powers will enable all local authorities in England to take action against drivers who leave their vehicle engines running unnecessarily when parked. The few drivers who refuse requests to switch off their engines may face a £20 penalty. There are many examples, but I am thinking in particular of coaches in busy town centres and cars outside schools or railway stations. I think we all know how unpleasant this can be, as well as unhealthy.
No one should be in any doubt as to how to avoid these penalties, as local authorities will be publicising them quite widely.
There are 25 regulations, which I can read out in detail—but there are indications that that would not be welcome. So, in conclusion, I have no hesitation in commending the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of the regulations. I declare an interest, as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and am closely involved with many other trade associations.
I do not support the principle behind the regulations. I believe that they will not be effective and that they will be an unnecessary interference with motorists. I shall try to explain why.
The first problem is that, when vehicles are presented for an MOT test, they have to be specially prepared to make sure that the engine will not be damaged during the testing procedure. A particular weak point is the cambelt. Failure of this can cause serious damage to the engine. What precautions will be taken before the emissions test takes place, or is it entirely different from the test carried out at the MOT station? If so, will this test be effective?
638
The second problem is that the tests are unnecessary. Tests are already carried out during the MOT test. The Minister alluded to that. Is there a problem with the tests undertaken at the MOT station? These tests are carried out in a controlled environment. The testers have to be careful to make sure that the engine is at the right operating temperature. I have referred to maintenance problems. On average, vehicles cover only 12,000 miles per annum. They will not go out of tune in that distance. Of course, some vehicles, particularly those used for commercial travelling, cover very high mileages, but they are generally in fleets, they are generally new vehicles and they are generally well maintained.
A third problem that worries me is Regulation 12, which deals with the stopping of engines when vehicles are stationary. It refers to "a stationary idling offence". What offence is that? There is no cross-reference in the regulations. I was not aware that it was a specific offence. It is obviously undesirable to leave an engine idling for long periods. I often switch off my engine for that reason. However, it could be counter-productive to stop an engine, because certain types of engine can emit large amounts of pollution on start-up. Do Euro emissions standards cover emissions on start-up of an engine?
Surely the issue is a matter of judgment for the driver. Education of the driver will be far more useful. That links in with my other concerns about improving general driving standards. To switch off an engine is just good driving.
We are looking at penalising drivers for the technicality of not stopping an engine, but on the other hand inconsiderate and discourteous drivers will get away scot-free.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. My party supports the detail of the regulations and the principles that lie behind them. We particularly welcome the fact that they come about after the trials have taken place. That enables lessons to be learnt.
Local authorities in particular will welcome the offer of an extra £4 million in grant towards the cost of running the emissions testing. The trials have proved that it costs a good deal more to run the tests than is received in fixed penalty income. That could create a perverse incentive for local authorities. Those that were effective in running deterrent and educational campaigns would lose more money than those that were not. The provision is most welcome.
It is also important to address the fears, however unfounded, that some local authorities may use the tests as a revenue-raising mechanism rather than to achieve air quality targets. I have two questions for the noble Lord. First, can he confirm that, although local authorities will carry out the emissions testing, only the police have the power to pull vehicles over? In that case, is it possible for local authorities to use the grant to help towards the police costs of running these tests? If the police choose not to use their resources in that way, the entire strategy will begin to collapse. The tests

639
are also very useful to the police, because vehicles that are the worst offenders on emissions often do not have an MOT or valid insurance and road tax.
Secondly, why do the emissions testing provisions relate just to designated air quality management areas, while the provisions on idling engines are universal?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is against the regulations. I find them eminently acceptable, especially for commercial vehicles. The noble Earl has said that commercial vehicles have to be specially prepared for the MOT.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I said that all vehicles, particularly light cars, have to be specially prepared.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point. However, if they have to be specially prepared, that means by inference that before testing, and presumably at some time after testing, they do not comply with the regulations. The regulations will cover those whose emissions are no longer within the specified limits.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sorry to test the patience of the House. By "specially prepared" I mean that it is necessary to make sure that the camshaft drive-belt has been changed within the period stipulated by the manufacturer. If the camshaft drive-belt breaks when the engine is being revved at high speed, it will cause catastrophic failure of the engine. I am not referring necessarily to trying to make sure that the engine is up to emissions standards. It is purely to make sure that the cambelt is in good condition to withstand the test procedure.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Earl is saying. However, the camshaft belt is a standard item that has to be changed when it is due to be changed, otherwise the consequences can be dire.
I support the regulations, but I have one question. A vehicle can idle anywhere. Supermarkets have come within the regulations concerning various matters. Will idling the engine while waiting for x number of minutes for someone in a supermarket to come out fall within the regulations?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have one question, which is proactive rather than reactive. I admire the nature of the regulations. I was an inner-city Member of Parliament covering a local authority that was given responsibility for carrying out the pilot projects on this form of testing. My recollection is that at that time the local authority took the view that a considerable amount of the air pollution in the centre of London was caused by the fact that 20 per cent of taxis were maintained in cowboy garages on the perimeter of the inner city. I drive a diesel-powered car, but I very rarely drive it in London because I am conscious that it is a great deal less efficient there than it is outside. Is there any provision in these 25 regulations for moving against the cowboy garages, or
640
is the responsibility entirely on the owners or drivers of the vehicles? Only the other evening I was discussing the economics of the taxi trade with the person who was driving me. Taxi drivers are always free with their advice on such matters. It was clear why, in tough times for taxi drivers, economies on maintenance may sometimes be pursued.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister knows that I admire his versatility—not a talent that I am often able to exercise in this Chamber. On these regulations I speak more from personal experience than from expertise.
The regulations give greater power to local authorities. I often take an hour or more to drive in the seven miles from Blackheath. My impression is that local authorities are largely responsible for the amount of pollution caused by the traffic congestion due to their own inefficiency. South London seems to be almost cut off. There has been an enormous hole in the A2 for weeks, diverting polluting juggernauts all over the south of London. The New Cross bridge has broken down. A traffic calming measure on the river road is causing vast congestion because of a local authority measure. I took 35 minutes to go 150 yards trying to get into the Blackwall Tunnel the other night. The other day the noble Lord was resisting claims about what was happening on the south side of Westminster Bridge. I hope that he might make representations on these matters, as he agreed to do in that case.
I have only two specific points. The first relates to Regulation 9, under which the authorised person is to carry out a roadside lest immediately, subject to paragraph (3), which may enable him to do so later. As many drivers may be trying to get to an important engagement, should they not also have the option, if they wish, of having the test performed within 24 hours, for example, rather than on the spur of the moment?
My other point is on Regulation 12 and the issue of fixed penalty notices for idling offences. The regulation provides that a driver may be stopped if there is reasonable cause to believe that he is stationary. According to paragraph (2), if the driver fails to comply, he is subject to a fine and so on. Regulation 14, however, refers to the power to demand from someone,
"his name and address … his date of birth",
and so on. Surely that power should apply only in the case of Regulation 12(2) where the driver has refused to comply. A local authority official should not be able to ask the person stopped for all these details if that person readily agrees to the inspection.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the House will forgive me for speaking once more; I have one question. Buses no longer have conductors. Will buses waiting to load passengers and take fares be subject to these regulations?
7.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been a short debate but there is quite a lot to answer. I am grateful to everyone, except the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for supporting the regulations. I shall try to deal with each point in turn.
The first point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was on the emission test and the possibility of damage to the cambelt. This will be an exhaust test, and clearly there will be a different exhaust test for diesel and for petrol engines. However, local authority staff will be trained to look out for damage to the cambelt. If there is any danger, the test can be deferred and administered at an MOT centre. I think that that also answers a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
The noble Earl's second point was that the tests are unnecessary because the MOT test is performed every 12 months. Unfortunately, an awful lot of vehicles become more polluting in the time between those 12-month inspections. It is of course a matter of common sense that, under the regulations, local authorities will be targeting polluting vehicles. They will not implement the regulations at random but look for vehicles that are visibly polluting or they suspect from the general condition are likely to be polluting. According to the National Audit Office, the evidence is that despite the MOT test and the addition of emission controls to the MOT test, up to 20 per cent of vehicles are polluting illegally. So there seriously is a problem, and the tests are certainly not unnecessary.
The noble Earl asked me for the statutory authority for the idling offence. It is Regulation 98 of the construction and use regulations. He also asked me about the Euroemissions standards. They are set standards to which we have signed up, and they define whether there should be an air quality management area. We shall stick to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me first about the suspicion that the regulations might be a revenue-raising device for local authorities. Alas, the pilot did not show that there was any capability of local authorities making money out of them. She is quite right that the power to stop a vehicle can only be with the police. The local authority will have to make arrangements with the police to stop the vehicle so that local authority staff can carry out the test. However, the grant made available to local authorities for this will include the possibility of payments to the police for that purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked the same question about whether the worst-polluting vehicles do not have MOTs. I address this answer also to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We estimate that more than 4 per cent of vehicles do not have road fund licences. We can presume that they do not have MOTs either. It is a fair guess that many of them will not have MOTs because they know that they would not pass them and that they are polluting. So her support for the regulations is clearly justified on those grounds.
642
Finally, the noble Baroness asked why the regulations apply only to air quality management areas. It is simply because that is where the worst air pollution occurs and where we are more likely to pick up bad polluters. We do not want this to appear as a new type of random checking on all motorists in all places at all times. About 60 local authorities have air quality management areas, some of which are very extensive. The whole of Islington, for example, is an AQMA. So the regulations are not that restrictive, but they are deliberately concentrating on and targeting—as I think we would now say—the worst areas.
My noble friend Lord Simon asked whether we could apply the regulations in supermarket parking lots. The answer is, no; they can be applied only on the public highway. I am sorry, but I cannot read my notes regarding his second question.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, it was about buses idling because of no conductors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we would not stop buses with passengers in them anyway; I think that that would be counterproductive. However, if buses or coaches are idling outside bus garages or coach stations then we certainly would be stopping them. That is precisely the type of thing that we are looking to stop.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on Westminster and his point about taxis being maintained in cowboy garages. That is not the subject of these regulations; it is a matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. However, I shall see to it that his comments are drawn to the attention of the Vehicle Inspectorate.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in answers to other noble Lords. I think that it was he who made the point about Regulation 12 and details being taken from drivers who agreed to the test. We would not do that. We would take the details only of drivers who refused to switch off their vehicles and to whom we issued a fixed penalty notice. We would take only the details necessary for enforcement.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if that is so then Regulation 14 should refer to Regulation 12(2) and not 12(1).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not caught us out, and I doubt it, but I shall take that point away and look at it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I agree with the Minister and with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the problem of vehicles travelling without an MOT is a serious one. However, during our debates on the Transport Act 2000, I tabled an amendment suggesting that we should have an MOT disc alongside the tax disc. Unfortunately, that amendment did not find favour with your Lordships or even with the noble Baroness.

643
Has the Minister reconsidered having an MOT disc on the windscreen to make it easier to detect vehicles travelling without an MOT?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, drivers cannot obtain a tax disc unless they have an MOT. That is the answer to that.
Earl Attlee: Yes, my Lords, but they can obtain a tax disc if they have only a couple of weeks remaining on an MOT certificate. They can then run for 50 weeks without an MOT.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall consider the matter and write to the noble Earl. I believe that I have answered all the questions that were asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Electronic Communications) (Child Benefit) Order 2002
7.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order will put in place a legal framework that will give child benefit customers the choice of transacting business with the Department for Work and Pensions through a secure Internet-based channel.
The order is using the affirmative procedure as required by Section 9(4) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 in an order to which Section 9(3) does not apply. It uses the powers contained in Section 8(4)(g) of the 2000 Act and in March 2000 the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, gave an undertaking that,
"the affirmative procedure would be adopted for new issues on important subjects".—[Official Report, 14/3/00; col. CWH 23.]
Security has been one of two main considerations in the development of the e-service. Preserving the privacy of customers' personal information and ensuring that benefit is paid only to those who are entitled to receive it will be achieved through adoption of thoroughly tested systems using recognised industry, government and departmental security standards. I am confident that the proposed electronic service will be no less secure than the current service.
The second main consideration has been that of facility of use. This service will not just be an alternative channel to sit alongside paper and telephone-based services, although these will remain available. The service will be available at all times, often suiting better the disrupted daily clock of the new mother or busy family. It will use modern technology to give greater help to customers when completing forms, often at times when no other help would be
644
available. When necessary, additional data appropriate to customers' individual circumstances will be gathered without the need to await receipt of extra paper forms.
Once the order comes into force on 28th October—both Houses of Parliament so willing—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions may approve the detailed method of electronic claim and authorise people to use it. However, before doing so my right honourable friend will obviously want to be satisfied that the new system is robust, secure and reliable, and that it has been thoroughly and successfully tested. If there is any doubt on these matters then he will, as I am sure that the House would expect, take a cautious approach towards introducing the electronic service until he is satisfied.
Responsibility for the administration of child benefit will transfer to the Inland Revenue in April 2003 and development of the new channel has taken place in close consultation with Inland Revenue colleagues.
The preamble to the order provides the statutory assurance that the availability of any records created for the use of electronic communications and storage for the purposes provided for by this order will be as satisfactory as in other cases. My department manages data about customers in electronic form in accordance with the Data Protection Act and appropriate security standards. Records created as a result of this new channel will be subject to the same rigorous standards and equally available.
Articles 3 and 4 provide the legal framework for customers to claim child benefit, provide information and report changes of circumstances electronically.
Schedule 9C sets out conditions to be met to complete a valid transaction; for example, that the identity of customers must be authenticated in an approved manner. These protect both the customer and my department from misuse of the service, and allow for proof in legal proceedings, that the identity of the sender, the fact of, and time of, delivery and the content of the electronic communication will be presumed to be that recorded on an official computer system.
I am satisfied that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the order shows touching faith in the reliability of the department's computers which past experience may not wholly justify. The order is limited to claims involving child benefit and guardian's allowance. Are other benefits dealt with in other orders?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, we are introducing the measure through the order. There is

645
little fraud in regard to this benefit; it is a universal benefit. If this introductory method works, it may or may not be extended to other benefits in future.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I can see no reason to object to the order. It brings child benefit into the age of e-mail. I am glad that it is permissive. The Minister will be familiar with my concern for the rights of illiterates. I shall continue to press a similar concern for the rights of e-illiterates. Only today I discovered that an important brief containing an amendment that I should have moved today is floating somewhere in the e-ether and has not come anywhere near me. As soon as the Minister or her successors forget about the permissive quality, I might start to make some objections. I make none now.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so would I as I belong to the same generation as the noble Earl. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord and the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Amendment (Intercalating Students) Regulations 2002
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like the previous measure, these regulations are benign and I hope will be welcomed. As I say, this change is entirely beneficial. These regulations are being introduced as part of our ongoing review of student provision within the income-related benefits and to meet a commitment we made when we introduced the Social Security Amendment (Student) Regulations in June 2000.
At the moment part-time students are eligible to claim social security benefits just like anyone else. But students undertaking a course of full-time study are not able to receive the income-related benefits—income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. As your Lordships know, this is because support for students comes from the student support system, which is designed for their needs, and not the social security system, which is not.
We made an important change, however, in June 2000. On that occasion we introduced regulations which, among other things, entitled certain full-time students, who had interrupted their course—usually due to illness—with the permission of their educational establishment, to claim jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit as appropriate. The students concerned were those who had had to interrupt their course because they were ill or because they had caring responsibilities, but had recovered from that illness or their caring responsibilities had ceased, and were not able to return to their course immediately.
646
However, we limited the period during which these students could claim the relevant benefit until the shorter of either their return to the course or the start of the next academic year. This was to ensure that students returned to their studies as soon as practicable. When we introduced these regulations we agreed to keep them under review, and have done so.
The National Union of Students, among others, has drawn to our attention the fact that, by restricting these students from claiming beyond the start of the next academic year, hardship may be caused for some who are prevented by their educational institution from returning until later in that year—perhaps because they are not permitted to return until the anniversary of the point at which they interrupted their studies.
I give an example that I am sure will be familiar to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Someone may have completed two terms of a three-term preliminary course. He or she then becomes ill. Even when they recover, it is not necessarily appropriate to rejoin the non-preliminary course one term or two terms after it has started. It makes sense for them to rejoin the university at the end of the preliminary course and start the non-preliminary course as a beginner for the full term. At the moment that would not be possible under the regulations. However, as a result of the benign changes that we propose, it would. That is why I hope that your Lordships will welcome them.
We are therefore proposing that, where students are not permitted by the educational institution to return to their course until after the start of the next academic year—it might be two terms after that start—they will be able to claim the relevant income-related benefit until such time as they are permitted to return to their course. However, in order to ensure that they return as soon as possible, the period during which they may claim is limited to one year. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it would need to go beyond one year.
As I say, we work closely with colleagues throughout government and elsewhere to ensure that we provide that support in the appropriate way. We believe that the regulations will help those who are recovering from illness and those who have been carers to claim JSA, HB and CTB and that they will not find themselves caught between our regulations and the requirements of the institution. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the concession. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I remember once asking the Minister, as being learned in both points, to act as interpreter between government and educational institutions. I am tempted to think that we see here the first fruits of her acceding to that request.
I entirely welcome what is in these regulations. Although I have a fair amount to say, it is almost entirely about what is not there because the interface between social security support and education support

647
is a very ill-constructed jigsaw—the sort of thing that used to drive me absolutely screaming mad when I was four.
The immediate concession is of course entirely welcome. The fact that one often cannot return until the beginning of the next academic year is very like the fact that one cannot introduce a new parliamentary Bill in August; there is a calendar from which we cannot get away. That arrangement produced a period during which people have been without any support at all. The Social Security Advisory Committee in 2000 enunciated the principle that everybody should be eligible to receive either educational support or social security support. That is a good principle but we are still a fairly long way from achieving it.
The Minister said that she cannot imagine any circumstances in which people might want the provision to extend for more than a year. I can imagine such a situation—I currently have a relevant case before me. The problem is that of intermittent mental illness from which the man made a recovery, relapsed and is now again unfit. That problem exists and will recur.
The NUS welcomes the consultation that the Government have undertaken with it and so do I. I do so in my capacity as a life member of my college's students' union, so I have a special entitlement to do so.
Some, but not very many, people will be worse off as a result of the changes. I refer, for example, to students with disabilities who are in halls of residence. It is also good that courses can be recognised as not always being done in strict multiples of one year. In further education in particular that is welcome.
There is still a problem with postgraduates writing up. The department's concept of education is still based on the notion of the course and assumes that everybody is always engaged in classwork. That is not at all the case with postgraduates who are writing up. The Minister's special skills in communication—she is, if I may say so, doctor utriusque juris; that is, doctor in either law—might enable her to do something rather useful. There is still a problem with lone parents whose entitlement to social security benefit ceases immediately that the child reaches 16. That could, without undue profligacy with Treasury money, be allowed to continue until the parent finishes the course. There are cases of lone parents in the middle of a degree being required to go to work-focused interviews because their youngest child has reached 16. That was not the intention of work-focused interviews and I hope that the arrangement will stop.
There is also a problem about the time when support stops. Social security support stops under the regulations on 1st September but the terms of many colleges do not begin until quite a bit later than that. Local authorities are by no means always prompt in paying grant cheques. A good deal of my time each year is taken up dealing with that problem. There is apt to be a period of three or four weeks during which the person is absolutely without support, and that is not a good thing.
648
I turn to another point that is worthy of some thought. On average rents, as the NUS has found by survey, and on an average loan of £3,815 a year, £29 a week is left over for everything else. The applicable amount under income support would be £42.70, so there is a shortfall of £13.76. That, for most people, is made good by parents; in fact, it is more than made good by parents. The Government rightly concern themselves with the small proportion of children from poorer families who are going to university arid they should consider those figures. Frankly, I would advise those who cannot get support from their parents not to go to university at present in their own interest. I should advise them to save up money for several years and to go to university as a mature student. If the Government find that universities are not getting a larger intake of working class students, they might, before they try to cast out the mote in universities' eyes, try to cast out the beam in their own eye.
I am afraid that I have asked the Minister to do quite a lot of work. She has done a good deal already and she has done that well. I hope that she will be as successful with the rest.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness know more about this matter than I do. I shall detain the House for just a moment or two.
I have one point which I hope the noble Baroness will clarify. As I understand it, the powers relate largely to lone parents and disabled students who become unwell and interrupt their studies. The Minister is shaking her head; in which case, I misunderstood the situation. It is not clear why in the circumstances that are understandably covered by the regulations, those people may be entitled to jobseeker's allowance, when, presumably, they will eventually resume their studies. It would appear to be more appropriate if they had some benefit other than jobseeker's allowance, which presumably relates to only a short period.
Earl Russell: My Lords, what normally happens if people are away from university for six weeks or so is that they cannot come back and they get a temporary job; they seek jobs, and if they seek jobs they should be allowed the jobseeker's allowance.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in that case, I need not wait for a reply from the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is exactly right. The assumption is that JSA will kick in when the student was well but unable to re-enter university. I shook my head because lone parents can now be eligible for benefits in certain circumstances. In these regulations, we are seeking to ensure that we do not artificially time-limit someone's eligibility for JSA in the situation in which one is past the point of the beginning of the academic year and the educational institution said that the person may not return until later in the year. I gave the example of the prelim course.

649
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right: there are still issues involving the need for seamlessness between the support that is offered by my department and that offered by DfES in those circumstances. The noble Earl gave me a shopping list of matters that are not in the regulations, which I need to look at. I shall take that away and come back to him to explain where we are in relation to any of those points and to establish whether I can help. We are dealing for the most part with very small numbers of students in those circumstances. One piece of news that he might find of interest is the fact that any lone parent or any full-time student who, in terms of his or her hours of work, qualifies for WFTC—for a lone parent, that is only 16 hours a week—will be eligible for WFTC. That may be of interest in particular to postgraduates who are writing up, to use the noble Earl's example, where there is some autonomy or flexibility of hours. Anti-social hours in particular may be involved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was hoping that the Minister would say that. I thank her very warmly for doing so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for lone parents the figure is 16 hours; a single person over 25 would involve the 30-hour rule. None the less, there are opportunities in that regard that have not been available previously, which may help some students in future.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right; I will have to take some of these points away. They are not part of the regulations; they are at the interface of our relationship with the DfES. Many of those issues are currently under discussion. If we have any movement on them, I shall be the happiest person to write to the noble Earl. With that, I ask the House to accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved. I shall also speak to the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002.
The first of those two child support provisions involves the revival of what has become known as the deferred debt scheme.
This set of regulations will modify subsection (5) of Section 27 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and Regulation 3 of the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment
650
Scheme) Regulations 2000 to revive the deferred debt scheme. The reason is that the scheme was good and benign but was time-limited under the existing legislation until 31st March this year.
The regulations before us today provide for agreements under the scheme to be made until 31st March 2005. Those agreements will expire by 31st March 2006 and final compensation payments will be made in 2006. There is no significance attached to those dates. We have simply given ourselves plenty of head space.
I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the scheme is to be revived. It helps non-resident parents who are faced with substantial arrears, partly through no fault of their own, and provides encouragement for them to keep up regular payments of maintenance.
Essentially, where the CSA has been responsible for a delay of at least three months, the deferred debt scheme allows the agency to come to an agreement with the non-resident parent. If the non-resident parent agrees to pay at least six months' worth of his arrears, as well as his existing continuing liability, the agency can suspend any collection and enforcement action on the balance of the arrears.
It is possible that a person will have arrears of, say, £20,000. He may be self-employed and may not enter the system. The regulations will enable us to negotiate with him and, if he pays his current liability reliably for the next 12 months, he need pay only six months' worth of that debt, which may be, say, £5,000 or £3,000. The remainder will be suspended. If that money is paid, the agency may then make a compensatory payment to the parent with care if the money is owed to her or him, as the case may be. Sometimes the money is owed to the Secretary of State and sometimes to the parent with care. As a result, if the non-resident parent keeps to his agreement, he will cease to be liable for the remaining arrears. However, if he defaults, the remaining arrears will remain payable.
The intention behind the regulations is to ensure that where the agency has been in part responsible for the delay, non-resident parents do not find themselves with a hill to climb that they cannot manage. In this way, we hope that we may get them into the habit of paying regular maintenance. It is good for the child; it is good for the parent with care, who will receive the remainder of the arrears; and I hope that, as a result, we shall have brought someone out of the shadows. The regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I turn to the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002. This order has been made by the Lord Chancellor under the power in subsections (1) and (7) of Section 45 of the Child Support Act 1991. It has been made by the Lord Chancellor because it relates to the family courts. However, it mainly covers child support policy, which, as noble Lords will be aware, is my responsibility. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor has agreed that it is sensible to debate this order alongside the amending child support regulations.

651
Appeals against child support decisions are made under Section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991. Such appeals are normally determined by an appeal tribunal established under the Social Security Act 1998. But appeals on the ground of disputed parentage are routed to a court instead of an appeal tribunal by the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993.
Of course, declarations of parentage have a wider legal application beyond child support. They are binding, for example, in immigration and inheritance disputes in the same way as they are binding on child support issues. Therefore, we believe that it is sensible to import the existing powers to go to the courts into the new child support regulations. As a result, this will be binding on the agency.
A non-resident parent can declare and reply directly to the court at any time. Such a declaration is then binding on the CSA. If the person in question is found not to be the parent of the child, any child support maintenance that he may already have paid will be refunded in full by the agency. As I said, the question is simply where the appeal goes. We are suggesting that it is appropriate that it continues to go via the court simply because the declaration of parentage has implications which go wider than child support.
I could elaborate but I do not believe that I need to do so unless your Lordships wish to push me on any aspect of the order. It is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. So far as concerns the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002, perhaps I may ensure that I understand what the noble Baroness has just said. The scheme provides that, in cases where there has been a delay of more than six months in making a maintenance assessment and where at least three months of the delay was due to the Child Support Agency, the absent parent may be allowed to pay only the last six months' worth of the arrears of child support maintenance that has accrued.
I am not absolutely clear whether that concession means that the parent with care will receive any less than he would otherwise have done or whether the difference is made up by the taxpayer. That is essentially the point which has given me some cause for concern.
I also understand that the arrears are suspended if the individual concerned agrees to pay the future charges regularly. But is it the case that that suspension will continue indefinitely, even though the individual continues to pay on a regular basis? Is there a time limit?
So far as concerns the order, as I understand it, effectively it perpetuates the existing situation introduced by Statutory Instrument 9396 and
652
maintains the position that decisions on parentage should be decided by the courts rather than by a tribunal. That seems to me eminently sensible. Indeed, it has some topical interest in that it relates to a case which hit the headlines this morning. It is obviously a decision that should be made by a court. Therefore, I have no reason to object to what is proposed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, have no objection either to the order or the regulations. The temporary compensation scheme has always been a sensible approach to a problem which has been capable of turning into an avalanche falling on to the head of a parent whose assessment has been delayed. Its continuation is clearly necessary because of the delay in the introduction of the new Act. I believe, first, that that delay is no fault of the Minister. Secondly, in the course of proceedings on the Tax Credits Bill we have already had our pound of flesh. I do not believe that we are entitled to a second and I shall not ask for one.
With regard to the jurisdiction of courts, I believe that clearly it is sensible that questions of paternity, which have wide ramifications and raise rather complicated questions about rules of evidence, should go to the courts. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I believe that that case appears a great deal stronger today than it did yesterday.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response. I believe that the precise questions to which I need to return are those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concerning the parent with care and her position under the regulations. Your Lordships will forgive me if I use gendered language in relation to this matter.
The parent with care would not receive any less, although she may well receive it later. Let us assume that a person is self-employed. He has arrears of £10,000. As a result, he has been ducking and weaving. He may still be seeing the child but not paying any money. He is liable for £30 a week, but he regards the £10,000 as too much to pay and therefore continues to operate in the shadows.
We may be able to come to an agreement with him whereby he pays the £30 a week. He pays off six months' worth of arrears, which, although I am unable to work it out, may amount to approximately £1,500. He pays regularly over the next 12 months and also, over that period, pays back six months' worth of the arrears. If he does that satisfactorily for 12 months, those arrears will then be suspended indefinitely and he will not have to pay any more. However, if, in the process, he falters, the arrears can still come back into play.
As for the parent with care, at the end of 12 months some of the £10,000 which is owed in arrears may be owed to the Secretary of State if the individual is receiving benefit. Some of it may be owed to the parent if she has entered work. If it is owed to the Secretary of State, it is put aside. If it is owed to the parent, the taxpayer will make up the difference. Therefore, the parent recovers the money that would have been paid

653
because we accept that, to a degree, the agency was culpable in not getting the money to her earlier. For our purposes, the important point is that that arrangement has proved successful in bringing people out of the shadows and into paying maintenance reliably in future, thus reducing future burdens on taxpayers to support parents on benefit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Functions of Local Authorities: Income-Related Benefits) Order 2002
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the responsibility for administering housing benefit, council tax benefit and discretionary housing payments rests with local authorities. Local authorities can already contract out many aspects of that work.
However, there are important functions which cannot be carried out. Contractors or agency staff cannot at present make the decision which determines entitlement to benefit. They can make recommendations, but an officer directly employed by the local authority must make the final decision. Neither can contractors or agency staff make decisions on the award of discretionary housing payments.
Checking the work done by the contractor or agency staff and making a benefit decision places a large burden on local authorities. It involves unnecessary and expensive double handling. Everything has to be done twice. We want to see improvements in benefits administration and we hope that the order, which is warmly welcomed by local authorities, will help us to do so.
The provisions are as follows. First, the order gives local authorities a power to authorise other people to undertake functions relating to housing benefit, council tax benefit and discretionary housing payments that at present only the local authority can undertake. That will enable contractors and agency staff to undertake those functions in so far as the local authority authorises them to do so. I refer to Article 3(1).
654
Secondly, it specifies the functions which the local authorities will not be allowed to authorise other people to undertake. Those are mainly areas which, because of subsidy or fraud implications, we believe should be reserved for the local authority to make the decision. I refer to Article 3(2). Thirdly, it imposes a condition that the authorised person passes a daily random sample of cases—10 per cent—to the local authority to enable the local authority to check the quality of the work. I refer to Article 4.
That requirement will apply only to people employing at least one other person; that is, only the contractor, not agency staff. I refer to Article 4(5). That is because local authorities have the same day-to-day control over agency staff as they do over their own employees. Finally, it provides that a local authority cannot give an authorisation to a person who has a financial interest in the outcome of a claim, or to whom rent is payable for a dwelling in respect of which a claim is made, to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I refer to Article 5.
I stress to your Lordships that the order does not remove any accountability from local authorities. They retain full responsibility, as now, for all housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure. They are expected to have proper controls and checks in place in order to ensure that the contractors are doing the work to an acceptable standard. In addition, authorities will remain subject to an independent check by external audit and by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. We see an increased role for the BFI to ensure that that is done.
I believe that the order will enable local authorities which use or want to use contractors or agency staff to have less of an administrative burden. We shall issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they have strong contract management in place when coming to such arrangements. There may be other issues we want to include in guidance. However, this is a discretionary and permissive power for local authorities which already contract out their work to be able no longer to have to do the same work twice over. There are proper sample quality controls in place. There will be codes of guidance to local authorities after consultation with them. I hope that, as a result of that, your Lordships will accept the order. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, having heard the explanation from the Minister, I have doubts about the order. The noble Baroness will know that I have always been somewhat concerned about the way in which housing benefit is administered by local authorities. However, as I understand it, the order will now enable them to contract out some of the responsibility for administering housing benefit, other housing payments, and so forth. Apparently, the way in which the contractor carries out the work will be checked by taking a random sample of 10 per cent of

655
cases. Why do the local authorities need to contract out? Why should not the local authority carry out the responsibilities Parliament has given to them.
Perhaps I may make another point. We know that such work involves confidential information. However, is that information, which presumably may be relevant to some of the decisions to be made by the contractors, to be passed on to them? That issue has been raised on previous occasions and gives cause for concern. Overall I am not clear as to whether this is a complete innovation or whether it has been done before. If it is an innovation, have we given sufficient consideration to the problems which may arise?
Finally, the noble Baroness stated that the sampling does not apply to people who do not have someone else working for them. That is not the same as the council having an employee, with all the usual requirements as regards national insurance contributions, and so forth. Should not an individual sub-contractor be subject to the same somewhat inadequate provisions for random sampling?
Earl Russell: My Lords, it seems to me that the order is a necessary consequence of the introduction of best value. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would not have great difficulty in persuading me that we might perhaps have given more thought to the concept of best value. However, that is now with us, and while it is with us, the order must be with us also. The debate on best value has taken place. The time to have it again has not yet come. In the mean time, I am happy to accept the order.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his response. He will know that at present something like 25 local authorities contract out their housing benefit administration to such companies as CSL, Capita, EDS, IT Net, and so on. The noble Lord will recall that there have indeed been problems with Hackney, and so forth, where administration has had to come back in-house.
At present, local authorities do not have the discretion to contract out all aspects of housing benefit administration—only some aspects. We are giving them a permissive power to contract out. However, as local authorities they still remain legally responsible for the work done for them. In housing benefit administration, nothing in the order jeopardises the rights of an individual to a tribunal procedure recently introduced for housing benefit circumstances.
As regards sample, agency staff are in the same position as a local authority. They are under the direct control of the local authority. Therefore, contracting out in that sense does not apply. By contracting out we mean an independent company as opposed to an individual coming in to cover sickness, maternity, and so forth. However, if I have misunderstood the point made by the noble Lord, perhaps he will come back to me.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not see why a so-called individual sub-contractor should riot be employed by the council. Why should we suddenly give local authorities that additional discretion?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, individual agency staff are effectively employed by the local authority for those purposes and are subject to local authority control and supervision. That perhaps meets the point. The noble Lord pressed me on confidentiality. Local authorities will be told that adequate safeguards must be put in place to meet data protection requirements. The situation is no different from that of banks, building societies and the like. In dealing with the Social Security Fraud Act we discussed fully the security which applies riot just to local authority staff but to contracting out. The same duty of care applies. Obviously, there will be circumstances within a local authority or outside where that slips up. I have no reason to think that that difference will occur between contracting out and non-contracting out because the Data. Protection Act applies in both cases.
Finally, I assure the House that in my view the provisions of the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

State Pension Credit Regulations 2002
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have a fairly full description of what the regulations do. However, I am mindful that, given that the first order of the day went well past its time, I do not want to trespass too largely on your Lordships' patience. I shall make two points. Perhaps I should then respond to questions rather than describe each of the regulations. Your Lordships, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will have recently taken part in the Bill. I am sure that every item is engraved on the noble Lord's memory.
The draft regulations cover the five main issues associated with pension credit: first, people not in Great Britain—the habitual residence questions; secondly, the calculation of the guarantee credit; thirdly, the assessment of income and capital; fourthly, the savings credit; and, finally, the assessed income period. They are full regulations, primarily because they incorporate rather than merely cross-refer to the core income support regulations of 1987. It seemed more sensible to reincorporate those old regulations into this so that there is, as it were, a clean read. We thought that that would be more helpful and transparent. For example, Regulation 22 on the diminishing notional capital rule is unchanged from the Income Support Rules of 1987.

657
That is what the regulations cover. I have a fairly full description of them because we had originally allowed ourselves 20 minutes for the discussion. It may be that it would be more helpful if I simply sat down at this point and sought to respond to questions. If your Lordships wish, I should be happy to try to describe in greater detail what the regulations do, but your Lordships may feel that having recently passed the Bill and having had, I hope, a helpful explanatory memorandum, that is not necessary. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is an absolutely marvellous opportunity to make another Second Reading speech on the State Pension Credit Act 2002. However, I think that it is true to say that while a number of noble Lords have arrived for a subsequent debate, those involved in this debate are probably those who might usually be described as "the usual suspects". We are not unfamiliar with this matter, which, as the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out, we have only recently discussed.
It is also right that the Minister's virtue should be rewarded, in the sense that during the passage of the Bill she—I think unusually—provided draft regulations in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading and so on, which cover much of what we have in the order. Therefore, it is not unfamiliar to us. So far as one can see, it does not contain any shocks.
Perhaps I may, therefore, just ask one or two questions. The first is a question to which I ought to know the answer and do not. In the order it says, as is normal, that the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee has not been taken because the Bill has been passed only a short time before. I am not absolutely clear whether the Social Security Advisory Committee expresses a view ahead of a Bill. Does it have an opportunity to make any comment after the Bill is passed and after it has seen these regulations, which it has not previously seen? It seems rather unfortunate that when it may have some comments on the regulations it is precluded from so doing. Probably the normal case is that the initial regulations come out within the six-month period.
Secondly, the orders cover a number of points with regard to absence overseas and whether individuals should or should not be allowed to continue to receive state pension credit when they are overseas. The order sets out the period over which they continue to receive the benefit, although that is a fairly tight limit—in some cases four weeks and in other cases eight weeks. It is particularly relevant in the context of the orders, which are concerned with what are described as "patients", that is to say, people who go overseas to receive medical treatment.
My impression is that the individuals concerned only continue to receive the state pension credit if they go overseas for medical treatment paid for by the
658
NHS. If that is true it seems to me quite wrong because the individual who pays has not only paid all the normal contributions for National Health Service treatment but has in addition paid for his own treatment, thereby relieving the state of that cost. Consequently, it does not seem to me that there should be a differentiation between people who go overseas for medical treatment under the NHS and those who go overseas for medical treatment privately. No doubt the Minister can respond to that and we can then consider whether we need to go further.
The only other point which one might consider is the question of the definition of income. In particular, the orders are concerned with the rate of return which is deemed to be received on capital. The Minister anticipates what I am going to say. The rate which is specified in the order would seem to imply a rate, once the initial tranche of capital has been taken into account, of something over 10 per cent. If the noble Baroness can tell me where I can invest money at 10 per cent at the moment I should be happy to hear from her. So will many other people suffering from the situation on the Stock Market.
The usual Treasury argument is, "Well, you must take the average rate of return, allowing for the fact that the first tranche of capital is not taken into account". It is the marginal rate which is relevant. Even if one were to take the average rate, it is still significantly higher than the rate one is likely to receive on risk-free investments at the present time. What I am really saying is that it does not seem to me that the rate which is set is as favourable or as sensible as it ought to be. The question then is whether there are sufficient powers to alter that rate in future.
Those are my main points. I shall not go over the fascinating aspects that we discussed on the recent passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, particularly with regard to polygamy and other favourite subjects of the noble Baroness. I look forward to hearing her specific answers to those points.
Earl Russell: My Lords, there are a number of items in the regulations that I welcome. I welcome the fact that refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain are exempt from the habitual residence regulations. I also welcome several items which my noble friend Lady Barker asked for during the passage of the Bill. In the process, I thank my noble friend for burning the midnight oil preparing a brief for me on the subject.
I welcome the disregard for royalties and income from public lending rights and the 13 weeks' extension for hospital downrating. I mention one technical problem about that aspect. Re-admission within 28 days is counted as a continuous stay in hospital. That raises the question, what if the re-admission is because of an inappropriate discharge? That, I know, is more a matter for the Department of Health than for the noble Baroness. I hope that they might possibly consult each other about the matter.

659
Among the various allowances dealt with there are various ones reserved for the care of children. There is no mention of adoption allowances. That may need attention after the Adoption and Children Bill has finished its passage. The allowance for aids and adaptations is welcome. But it is not clear whether it extends beyond those registered disabled to those who are victims of stroke or heart disease and are not registered disabled.
I declare an interest. My mother-in-law, although not on benefits, is aged 92 and suffering from angina. She has had to have a stairlift installed, which was quite remarkably expensive. People could really be in need of help for such an item. Perhaps the department might at some future date look at that matter.
My only other question of concern—and this has been a question throughout the Bill—is the complexity of the pension credit system. The DSS says that it will attempt to do the calculation for everyone, which is generous and warm-hearted of it. But it prevents people from being in a position to work out their own entitlement. If we are being told that we should make provision for our own retirement, and do so responsibly, it is a little easier if one knows what one is entitled to. That point might be worth some thought.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the brevity with which your Lordships have responded. It is pleasing that we have all resisted the temptation to make speeches suitable for Second Reading, Third Reading or any other Reading. I shall try to deal with the specific points that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the Social Security Advisory Committee. It can indeed comment; its advice was sought; and we have had the benefit of that advice. The noble Lord will know that the assumption concerning the sixth-month rule—although the Social Security Advisory Committee is not officially required to be consulted within six months of a Bill's passage—is that Parliament has clearly expressed its view when discussing the Bill. The job of the Social Security Advisory Committee is normally to advise the Secretary of State after that six-month period, when Parliament's intention may be more remote from what has since happened. But in this case, as I said, the Social Security Advisory Committee engaged in policy discussions on the matter, so that point is met.
On the question about overseas provisions, our views may be irreconcilable. The noble Lord's description of the situation was correct: medical treatment paid for by the NHS falls under the regulation. For anyone else, it is a matter of volition or choice to decide to seek medical treatment abroad and to pay for it. We have sought legal advice, and I understand there to be no legal difficulties with the provision. I suspect that whether the noble Lord
660
considers that approach to be desirable depends on his views about private medical treatment, which we may not share.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that seems very unfair. Given the income provisions of the tax credit, there will be few cases. People who have contributed towards the National Health Service and who are now relieving the NHS and the United Kingdom of that responsibility will be penalised. Someone treated on the NHS, to which everyone has contributed, will gain relief, whereas someone being treated privately will not. That is unfair.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that that is what the noble Lord believes, but that is no different in principle from the fact that people do not receive tax relief on contributions to medical insurance policies, for example, or anything of that sort. People make that choice.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is going further than that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, but my point is that if people pay for private medicine they make that choice. Whether or not they relieve the NHS of part of its responsibility has not been—certainly under this administration—a consideration affecting tax and fiscal policies. I know that the noble Lord disagrees with me on that, but that is entirely consistent with our tax treatment of the costs of medical treatment incurred on a private basis.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the definition of income shown on capital. He knows as well as I that if someone had capital of £12,000, the effective rate attributed to his capital would be 5.2 per cent average. That is because, when we consulted with Age Concern and other organisations, they preferred us to set a band of capital—£6,000—that was exempt. As a result, 85 per cent of all pensioners, who have savings of less than £6,000—will have no notional rate of return attributed to their capital. The notional rate kicks in above £6,000.
It is entirely reasonable that we should decide that the average should be, as it were, loaded on those with higher capital to benefit those with more modest capital. That was the advice offered to us by Age Concern, and that is exactly the policy that the Government have followed. Again, I know that we disagree on that, but that is what it is.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, when discussions took place, did Age Concern know what rate would be fixed?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I doubt that it knew what would be the specific rate. It would have known that, given the structure of pension credit, any abatement on the first £6,000 would have to be recovered by increasing the rate that applied above £6,000. That was always part of the discussions, and

661
that is what Age Concern signed up to, I understand. Of course, if I have misled the noble Lord in any respect, I shall write to him.
I should add that that is effectively half the rate of the existing minimum guarantee—which in turn follows previous income support rates for capital treatment. So we have got rid of the capital ceiling. As a result, it is reasonable to have a fresh look at how we appraise the notional return on capital. As I said, pensioners did not want each individual item to be assessed; they wanted a notional rate, which is what we have provided.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about adoption allowances. It may be good news for him that nothing related to children is relevant to pension credit; it is disregarded for those purposes. Any income from adoption allowances would not cut into entitlement to pension credit. He asked what provision is made when readmission to hospital is deemed to be the result of inappropriate discharge. The reasons for admission or discharge are not relevant to social security legislation. If there is a perceived problem in that regard, it is a matter for the Department of Health. Whether discharge was inappropriate would not determine the outcome of pension credit.
The noble Earl also asked about housing costs and respite care. That is dealt with in Schedule II at paragraph 4(9), which allows housing costs of people who are temporarily in care homes to be met, subject to a limit of 52 weeks, which I think covers the examples that he gave. Finally, he asked for a definition of a disabled person at Schedule 2(12)(2)(k). It is simply taken over from definitions under income support. That is an incorporation; there is no change; existing policy will continue.
I hope that that has met the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If your Lordships will agree, given the lateness of the hour, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
8.57 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 102:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886 (C. 38)
The provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (c. 38) shall not apply in respect of any damage caused to—

(a) an accommodation centre, or any property therein;

(b) a removal centre (as defined in section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)), or any property therein."

The noble Baroness said: I take this amendment seriously, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, during the dinner break. I think that I spotted
662
him passing on my concerns to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, so the Government are aware of my approach to the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if there were a repeat of the Yarl's Wood disaster in respect of either an accommodation centre or a removal centre, the provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 would not apply in respect of any damage caused. The Committee will recall the appalling consequences of the fire at Yarl's Wood earlier this year. In the aftermath of that fire, the insurers who act for the company that runs Yarl's Wood made a claim against the Bedfordshire Police Authority for almost £100 million. They are suing to recover what they have paid out.
As I understand it, the provisions of that Act apply even when there has been no negligence or default on the part of the police. The Act provides that where a police authority declares under the terms of the Public Order Act 1986 that a riot has taken place, police authorities become liable to pay for any damages to buildings and their contents arising through riots.
My question is: what will happen if there is a fire at an accommodation or removal centre in future? Will insurers be unwilling to cover renewals of existing policies in respect of removal centres? Are the Government destined to become the insurer of last resort?
In a debate in another place, my honourable friend Peter Luff voiced his concerns about those matters. He has a particular interest in the proposal to build an accommodation centre in his constituency. He asked:
"Is it true that some police authorities have declined to police those centres, or to provide the protection necessary? Who will be liable if there is a fire, such as that at Yarl's Wood? Who will insure this centre in the event of a similar disturbance? Is it not time to re-examine the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which I think puts the responsibility for damage on the police".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/02; col. 493–4.]
When the Police Reform Bill was debated in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tried to solve the problem by repealing Section 38 of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 in toto. That would have had an unfortunate and unwelcome consequence, although I recognise that the noble Lord acted throughout from good intentions. The amendments were not pursued, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, then a Minister at the Home Office stated:
"The Government are pursuing an urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. When we have pursued our urgent review, we shall report back to Parliament. However, I cannot guarantee that that will be in time for Report stage".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 805.]
The review was not completed in time for our Report stage, and today, as the Report stage of that Bill begins in another place, we are still waiting for the results of that urgent review.
I am being helpful to the House and to the Government. We need wait no longer. My solution, which would stop the problem recurring, is simple and timely. We should stop the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 from applying in the case of accommodation and

663
removal centres. That can be achieved through this simple amendment to the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
9 P.m.
Lord Greaves: We welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has proposed the amendment. It highlights something that has, since the Yarl's Wood fire, become a problem. We regard it as a probing amendment, tabled to let us see what the Government will do about the problem. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Avebury: On the last occasion I inquired, the Government said that they had to wait until insurance contracts relating to other removal centres came up before they could see what the position was on premiums. Has the Minister anything further to tell us about that? It is obvious that the events at Yarl's Wood must have had a knock-on effect on the attitude of insurers to the premiums that they would charge for detention centres and, further, for PFI prisons, which, I understand, are privately insured.
The outcome of the urgent review that the noble Baroness mentioned is important, not just for the detention centres but for every other PFI contract relating to a location where such events might—even remotely—be possible. The repercussions for government spending are so enormous that, I am sure, the Government must have considered the matter urgently. They should produce some figures. If they cannot deal with the questions about the urgent review, they should at least say what happened when other contracts came up for renewal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is certainly timely, and, in that sense, it is useful. It disinters an important issue. I do not claim that I can answer all the questions that have been posed in our short debate, but I recognise the great importance of that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly asked some hard questions about where this matter might leave us with other projects. In truth, the matter will, in the end, have to be left to the outcome of the review undertaken following the events at Yarl's Wood.
We must be clear about what the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 provides for. It provides for compensation to be paid from the local police fund under certain circumstances for losses incurred through injury, destruction of premises or stealing or destruction of the contents of those premises by any person involved in a riot. The Act also allows for insurance claims agreed to by insurance companies and accepted by the police authority to be refunded to the insurance company by the local police authority.
The subject has been brought into focus by the Yarl's Wood case and the claim against Bedfordshire police. The Government are undertaking a fundamental and urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 because of the many implications and ramifications that flow from it. I make it plain again that, when we have completed that review, we will
664
report fully to Parliament. I cannot, at this stage, say whether any conclusions will be reached about the future of the Act within the timetable for the Bill. All three noble Lords who contributed to our discussion should understand exactly why that is. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put his finger on it when he said that it was a complex subject. It seems unlikely that we will be able to conclude that review within the timetable for the Bill.
We understand entirely the concern felt by the Bedfordshire Police Authority and all other police authorities, which act in good faith to quell disorder wherever it occurs but still suffer financial penalties. At the same time, we must weigh the position of those who have insurance and those who do not. That is an important consideration; some authorities are, effectively, self-insured. We must also consider the overall impact of removing the protection afforded by the Riot (Damages) Act, as proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment.
The Home Secretary made the Government's position on Yarl's Wood clear on 25th February in his Statement about the riots and the insurers' claim against Bedfordshire police. The claim being made by the insurers is, unquestionably, way beyond the resources of the Bedfordshire police, and, as a responsible government, we intend to take whatever advice is necessary and work with the police to protect their interests and those of the people whom they serve in Bedfordshire.
Although the amendment is timely, it is also difficult for us to consider in the context of this Bill. I suggest to the noble Baroness that although this is an opportunity for her to test the Government's resolve, it is perhaps not the best occasion on which to do so. I suggest that we should take more time and have more mature reflection on the consequences of this claim and its wider, broader and deeper implications.
I realise that that does not satisfy the noble Baroness in terms of answering all her questions. I fully recognise that they are very important, but I suggest that in view of those comments she might find it within herself to withdraw her amendment today.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As always, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate as we canter towards the end of a long day. I thank the Minister for giving no answers to a series of questions. He did strive to give as many answers as he could manage not to; it might help if I were to get all my negatives together! The Minister referred to the fact that this is disinterring an important issue. My golly, this is an important issue which is well and alive to people in Yarl's Wood! Of course, I do not seek to make my measure retrospective. I fully appreciate the complexities of dealing with matters retrospectively, with all the legal consequences that follow. It is a live issue and a future one for the accommodation and removal centres which are at the core of this part of the Bill.
The Minister said that he could not answer the questions posed in this short debate. I do not believe that any of them came as a surprise to him as they were

665
raised in debate in another place, both in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber, and in a series of Questions for Written Answer. I have not posed any matter out of the blue.
The Minister disappointed me when he was unable to say whether a conclusion would be reached on an urgent review by the end of discussions on the Bill. That is where my matter of principle arises. If the Government give a commitment to carry out an urgent review on such a vital matter, there are times when they have to have their resolve tested. The Minister was kind enough to say in the first sentence of his remarks that the debate was timely and useful. I believe that this is the time when a timely and useful amendment needs to be put to the Committee. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Arran, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsay, E.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Bhatia, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burnham, L.

Mar, C.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chan, L.

Onslow, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Denham, L.

Sandwich, E.

Eames, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fookes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Joffe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Wakeham, L.

Kimball, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alderdice, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Alli, L.

Borrie, L.

Amos, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Andrews, B.

Brennan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brett, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Avebury, L.

Carter, L.

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Barker, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

666

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lockwood, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Craig of Radley,L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley,B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

McNally, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dubs, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rea, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Golding, B.

Rooker, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Russell, E.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Greaves, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grenfell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harrison, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskins, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thornton, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyte, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Islwyn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitty, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Layard, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 15 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:
9.20 p.m.
Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 103:
Page 9, line 11, after "accommodation" insert "in accordance with the principle of family unity"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 103 seeks to put on the face of the Bill the principle and important practice that families in accommodation centres should not be split up, that children should not be split from their parents and that wives and husbands should not be split up.
The Minister spoke earlier about the arrangements the Government propose to make in accommodation centres and their intention to provide family units. That is certainly a welcome step forward. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent families from being split, either on the same site or on different sites. This probing amendment is designed to discover what guarantees the Government can give that families will not be split in this way. This is on the basis of the principle set out in Preamble B of the 1951 convention which, among other things, recommends governments to ensure that the unity of a refugee's family is maintained.

667
It will be interesting to know the Government's thinking in regard to the proportion of families they expect to be housed in accommodation centres. Single males make up more than 80 per cent of asylum seekers; single women, families of various kinds and single children make up under 20 per cent. So families make up a small proportion of the total.
Much of the public discussion in regard to accommodation centres has centred around the position of children and families in relation to their education and so on. The impression has been given that there may be a tendency to put a higher proportion of families in accommodation centres than asylum seekers in general. Do the Government believe that the proportion of families in any given accommodation centre at any given time is likely to be 20 per cent? Will it be less than that or might it be 30 or 40 per cent? It will be interesting to know the Government's view on this issue. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I gladly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, not only because I believe in family unity but because I would not like it to be thought that it is only the Liberal Democrats who believe in family unity.
Lord Filkin: I shall be brief because the position has been made clear in the debates on earlier clauses. I want to make it absolutely clear that families placed in an accommodation centre will remain together. The residential units they occupy will allow for this. The precise nature of the residential units will be a matter for those who design the accommodation but it will accord to this general principle.
I do not think that a statutory reference is necessary or appropriate. For example, if a family arrives consisting of two parents, a young child and the older brother who may be, say, aged 25, naturally the parents and the young child would be placed together in the same unit but it might be more sensible for the 25 year-old, who would most probably be claiming asylum in his own right, to be placed in a separate unit. We would need to consider each case on its merits. But there is no disagreement with the purpose behind the amendment.
I just point to the existing situation in respect of removal centres and NASS accommodation where the same clear principle applies but without any statutory reference to family unity. I am not aware that there have been any suggestions that this principle has been compromised in those types of establishments.
I was asked what we thought would be the mix of families. It is a long way off. We are aware that it will be some time before the accommodation will be finalised. Therefore, at this stage I have nothing further to add on that but respectfully suggest that the amendment may be withdrawn.
Lord Avebury: Surely the Minister can at least give the figures for the number of families who apply for asylum at present compared with the number of single men. My noble friend thought the figure to be about
668
80 per cent single men and 20 per cent families. Is that confirmed by the Government? Would not it be logical, therefore, for the accommodation in the centres to conform with those numbers? Unless there is a radical change in the mix of asylum seekers between now and the date when the button has to be pushed for construction, would the Government have regard to the numbers in the asylum population in the past year or two?
Lord Hylton: When the Minister replies, can he say what principle of selection will apply to the centres, given that the great majority of asylum applicants will continue to be dispersed, as occurs at present?
Lord Filkin: I stand by my original indication that the point at which we finalise the accommodation and put families in it is some time away. As a rough and ready figure, about 40 per cent of the residents—counting every soul as one—might be part of a family compared with 60 per cent who are not. The 20 per cent figure for families relates to cases: one family equals one case. But those are only rough and ready figures at this stage for reasons the Committee will understand.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that information and for placing firmly on the record that families will not be split. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 9, line 12, after "centre" insert "for a maximum period of ten weeks, save in exceptional circumstances"
The noble Baroness said: The effect of Amendment No. 104 is to say that the Secretary of State can make provision for a person to stay at an accommodation centre for a maximum period of 10 weeks.
The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to ensure that the application for asylum made by a person who is required by the Secretary of State to be resident in an accommodation centre is processed within that period of 10 weeks. I believe it is vital that the process of deciding applications is as swift as possible, as I have commented previously. This is one piece of the jigsaw puzzle which we believe, if properly completed, would ensure that we have a one-stop shop in which all can have confidence rather than the half built affair proposed at present by the Government.
If there is no incentive on the face of the Bill—having a proper target as a time limit—the likelihood is that time will drift and people will spend far too long in the centres. My amendment would ensure that the Home Office reacts with speed and efficiency.
I have sought to be practical. I have included in the amendment the recognition that there may indeed be exceptional circumstances which means that the claim cannot be processed within the time limit of 10 weeks. Perhaps the Home Office may have asked for documentation in a timely manner; they may have

669
asked for documentation from another country and the other country fails to respond in the required time. That, of course, might be an exceptional circumstance.
The Government are not averse to setting time limits in other areas. The time limit in juvenile courts for the period between arrest and disposal of the case is an example in point. The Minister in the other place commented that this could not be a parallel because asylum claims entail overseas inquiries. Of course, my caveat of having the "exceptional circumstances" rider in the amendment would deal with that problem.
The Government have said that they expect six months to be the maximum time spent by most people in accommodation centres. That really is far too long. It is important that the claims are processed more rapidly than that if we are to be fair to the asylum seekers who need to know the result quickly. We need to be able to show people overseas that if they come to this country, they can expect a speedy and fair resolution of their claim.
By allowing the decision making to drift to a six-month limit the Government are also accepting that they will not process more than 6,000 of the 80,000 claims a year in accommodation centres. That is far too small a proportion even for what is to be a trial; it will leave the great majority still to face dispersal around the country, with all the problems that that causes for them. By accepting my amendment, the Government would set the objective of processing about 16,000 applications a year in accommodation centres rather than the paltry 6,000 that obtains at present. That would be a better target for all concerned. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Can the Minister tell me whether I am right in thinking that the target of two months for the initial decision and a total of six months for the whole process was originally contained in the White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum? If that is the case, is it not curious that the accommodation centres that are designed to speed up the whole process still maintain the same time limit? Surely the whole point of the exercise is to try to shorten the time-scale. I entirely agree with the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment, although the 10-week period that she has allowed is perhaps a little too strict.
In his letter to me of 8th July, the Minister pointed out that,
"53 per cent of applications received in the period April to December 2001, inclusive, had initial decisions reached and served within two months … [and] that 43 per cent of appeals received in the period April to December 2001, inclusive, were processed through both tiers of the IAA within 17 weeks".
So we are a long way off meeting the target suggested by the noble Baroness. While I hope that the accommodation will enable the process to be speeded up, I believe that a little more latitude should be
670
allowed the Government. But I agree in principle with the idea put forward by the noble Baroness; namely, that there should be some form of time limit in the Bill.
Baroness Whitaker: I am not sure whether I am in support of the amendment. That may depend on the response given by my noble friend the Minister. It is slightly tied in with the position of children. Although it is the subject of later amendments, it seems to me that six months is too long in the life of a child, especially if he is attending school inside the accommodation centre. I am talking about children who are already deprived of their rights under the UN convention because of the UK Government's reservations. If my noble friend were able to give some assurance that families with children would be fast tracked so that a shorter period than six months would apply—indeed, 10 weeks would be excellent, but even three months would be better—I would not need to support the amendment.
Lord Greaves: I shall speak to the three amendments included in this grouping that are tabled in my name, and those of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Dholakia. I refer to Amendments Nos. 107B, 111A and 111B. We are seeking to extend the time limit, which the noble Baroness's amendment sets at 10 weeks, to six months. The three amendments simply place the six months' limit in different parts in the Bill: in regard to the power to provide accommodation; in regard to the requirement on asylum seekers to reside in that accommodation; and to prevent them being kept in there after six months.
This matter was debated at great length in another place. A number of assurances were given by the Government as to their intentions and wishes, which are also set out in the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lord Avebury, to which he referred. But nothing has yet been done to set down in tablets of stone—in legislation or anywhere else—any guarantees that the six-month limit will be kept to.
There is a general view that six months is the absolute limit for the stay in an accommodation centre. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, for young children receiving an education, six months in a centre is too long a period. We are not suggesting that a period of six months should be the norm. We are suggesting that it should be the absolute limit.
Indeed, the Home Secretary himself is reported as saying in another place on 7th February:
"God forbid that anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/02; col. 1037.]
Clearly, some people will be there for six months, whatever God may or may not say, and we must hope that they are very few.
There are good reasons why in some cases it may not be possible to process claims fully through both the initial stage and the appeal stage in less than that time. The "two plus four" formula has been referred to; namely, that two months should be the limit for the processing of initial applications for refugee status or

671
leave to remain and that four months after that should be the limit for the two stages of appeals which will then be available.
For people who come to this country without any documents or information, with no proof of who they are or where they have come from, it sometimes takes quite a long time to obtain a certain amount of documentary evidence as to what they have suffered and what is the basis of their application for refugee status. If they do not have the opportunity to obtain those documents, it is simply their word against what the adjudicator may think. In those circumstances their application is less likely to succeed.
So, in fairness to the applicants, they need to be given sufficient time to try to obtain the necessary information to support their claims. I know from personal experience that obtaining documents from such countries as Iran or Afghanistan can be time-consuming. Getting them translated accurately also takes time. So there are processes to be gone through which take time and which justify saying that in many cases the initial decision cannot be made in less than two months. The same applies to the appeal process. At that stage people will have realised what is holding up their claim and will know what extra documentation and proof they have to find.
We believe—a point put forward in another place by my honourable friend Simon Hughes—that six months as a limit is not unreasonable. However, six months in an accommodation centre is bordering on the unreasonable. If it is the Government's belief that people should not be in accommodation centres for longer than six months, that ought to be clearly laid down somewhere. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment on the face of the Bill—I can understand the reasons why he might not—what is he prepared to do to provide a guarantee in black and white that people will not remain in the centres for more than six months?
One of the reasons put forward in another place was that having an absolute cut-off line was unreasonable because it might actually be unfair and unreasonable to individuals in some circumstances. People whose claim had been accepted on the border of six months, or whatever time was put forward, ought to be given a little time before being kicked out into the wide world to find their own accommodation. Alternatively, if someone was waiting for a decision that was due in a few days or the following week it would be unreasonable to make them find other accommodation in the community or to transfer them there. Similarly, to force people who had had their claims refused and who were waiting to be removed from the country into interim accommodation pending their removal might be unreasonable.
Those are good, sensible arguments, but they are arguments of detail, not arguments against the basic principle that six months in an accommodation centre is long enough for anybody, and certainly long enough for any family. Any person or family who is going to be settled in this country must start integrating into the
672
community before six months. People who are going to be removed ought riot to be held for longer than that. We ought to be able to deal with their cases.
What guarantees can the Government give us to allay our fears so that we are content to withdraw the amendment, as I am sure the Minister will ask us to do?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Six months is a very long time for children. The Refugee Children's Consortium told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that children should not be in accommodation centres at all. The consortium made nine points, which are put in legalistic terms, but they are very sensible. The shorter the time for children the better. If it can be reduced to 10 weeks, perhaps we can accept the idea of families being incarcerated in this way. I do riot know what the noble Lord is going to say, but that seems to be an argument.
The Earl of Sandwich: I support the noble Baroness. Her earlier simple amendment on numbers turned into an hour and a half long debate. This is a critical issue. The amount of time that people are going to spend in accommodation centres determines the nature of the centres and the resources that we commit to services. The more services and the larger the numbers, the longer people are going to stay in the centres.
The Government believe in targets, so why not set a target? It may not be on the face of the Bill, but let us hear a more definite target along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was going to mention detention. Many of us who have sat through these Bills have complained about how long people have to spend in detention centres. We believe that the Government are going to shorten those periods. Why can they not turn their attention to accommodation centres in the same spirit?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be extremely brief in support of my noble friend. I have read the Commons Committee debate on 9th May at cols. 106 to 119 of the Official Report. It was a long debate. If I may be allowed a Wimbledonian metaphor, by the final column the debate was at about deuce. Mr Malins, serving, raised a question about the words, "in exceptional circumstances". I acknowledge that the Minister, Angela Eagle, blocked it. I further acknowledge that the matter was resolved by force majeur in a vote in the next column so that the Committee could move on with proceedings on the Bill.
I also noticed the words that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quoted. On 7th February, the Home Secretary was saying God forbid that anybody should be in an accommodation centre for six months, but by col. 118, just before the Committee debate came to deuce, Angela Eagle said:
"On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that six months was about right".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 9/5/02; col. 118.]

673
That is clearly a different quotation from that which was used on 7th February. There has been some movement from the Government, possibly in the wrong direction. I have not found the Home Secretary's specific words at Second Reading, because the reference is not given in the text. As, in my view, it was about deuce after 12 columns of debate and my parliamentary neighbour in Kensington North—who had an asylum caseload very similar to my own in Westminster, South—expressed her own sympathy for the spirit of the amendments that we were moving, I shall be very interested to listen to the Minister when he responds to the remark about "in exceptional circumstances", given the fact that that is an addition to the amendment, since we moved a simpler amendment without it in Committee in the Commons.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I think that 10 weeks, as stated rather baldly in the amendment, is by itself too short. Can the Minister say how he envisages these accommodation centres working in practice? For example, will they be used in combination with reporting or in combination with cards giving access to various necessary services? If that were the case, then it might be possible to take only part of the total asylum decision-making process within the accommodation centres, allowing the possibility for the individuals or families to move on to another stage sooner than six months.
Lord Filkin: I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There is clearly not an issue between us on the importance of dealing with applications for asylum as rapidly and succinctly as we possibly can. I think that everything that has been said in our two sittings thus far has affirmed that. Such action is in the family's interests and in the Government's interest. The issue is whether it makes any sense in practice to have a statutory lock-in in the Bill as opposed to a process in which the Government clearly set themselves goals on what they seek to achieve. For reasons that I shall try to outline, I think that a statutory lock-in in the Bill would not be in the interests of good government or of families.
I start by trying to counter the view that accommodation centres are necessarily bad places. I hope that I have been able today to outline the quality of accommodation and the support that will be provided. It is not necessarily true that families will suffer from being there, although we recognise that, if it is positive, most families will be pleased to receive an early decision on their asylum application.
Amendment No. 104 would mean that people could be supported in an accommodation centre for a maximum of 10 weeks unless exceptional circumstances applied. Amendments Nos. 107A, 111A and 111B would mean that asylum seekers and their dependants could be there for a maximum of six months. We have made it abundantly clear that we do not want people to remain in accommodation centres
674
for long periods if it can be avoided. We are all agreed on wanting to process cases quickly while ensuring that decisions are fair.
We are trialling these accommodation centres. We expect them to deliver faster processing times, and we believe that the increased contact time they afford should reduce delays. I think that some of the features we have discussed today such as adjudicators and caseworkers on site are a very significant shift in the likelihood of being able to process asylum claims in accommodation centres much more rapidly than was envisaged when the Bill was first introduced in another place. I get a sense that the Committee generally welcomes that.
However, let us look at the reality of the situation. If by "exceptional circumstances" one means that a family did not go to appeal after a negative decision, I think that it would be slightly more realistic. However, families and individuals have a statutory right to appeal, and no one is suggesting that they should not do so. Particularly if they exercise their full range of rights, it is going to be extremely difficult for that process to be encompassed within 10 weeks, if possible, or within six months, as will often, if not always, be the case.
Let us consider the time periods allowed by statute for appeal. No one is arguing that we should reduce those. An asylum seeker who is refused has 10 working days in which to appeal to an adjudicator. If his appeal is dismissed he has a further 10 working days to appeal to the tribunal. If he is turned down at that point he will have 10 working days in which to apply for statutory review of the tribunal's decision. Alternatively, if leave is granted, there will be a substantive tribunal hearing on the application. Straightaway we are looking at four to five weeks before we begin to examine the time taken to interview, the need to check the information provided, any new circumstances which come to light, and so on.
Amendment No. 104 does at least provide for exceptions to the rule whereas Amendments Nos. 107B, 111A and 111B do not. But I would envisage all sorts of practical difficulties with interpreting what exceptional circumstances were. Would they be wide enough to cover a situation where a person was due to receive their final determination in a matter of days or weeks when it might make no sense to require someone to move to a dispersal area? Would they cover the situation where a person actually wished to remain in the centre pending a decision because the supportive environment catered for their needs or they needed a little more time to move on? Would they deal with a situation where there was a sudden significant increase in asylum applications because of a particular regional conflict which might have a short-term effect on processing times? If the amendment does not do this, it clearly makes little sense. If it does, then does it really achieve anything more than adding extra bureaucracy whereby the Secretary of State needs to authorise the additional exceptional period?
I am not complacent and I am determined that we must do better. But we are making real improvements. Our latest provisional data—I believe that the noble

675
Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned this—indicate that 53 per cent of applications received in the period from April to December 2001 had initial decisions reached and served within two months. Some 47,015 asylum appeals to an adjudicator were determined in 2001–02, an increase of three-quarters compared with 2000–01. It is also important to reflect on the point that the vast majority of those who are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain receive that status at the time of initial decision, as I believe was mentioned previously.
I should make some other important points. Accommodation centres are designed to provide a supportive environment for asylum seekers. Those who have come seeking refuge and who have also asked for support from the Government because they are destitute will have a roof over their heads, adequate food, activities to occupy their time, interpretation facilities and will be in contact with many other residents who speak the same language. They will also be in a centre which is designed to keep them informed about the progress of their case. The inclusion of a time limit by implication suggests that accommodation centres will be awful places. That is not the case. The logical consequence of these amendments is that, regardless of whether someone feels safe and secure, we have to move them to a different area. I heard the point that was made, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We would not want to have a situation whereby to meet some arbitrary time limit we had to move a family somewhere else just to keep faith with that time limit. That would be a case of turning government goals on their head and making the goal the objective rather than the interests of the family and the processing.
However, we have tabled an amendment in response to the concerns about the length of time families with children may spend in accommodation centres. We will come to that shortly but that is designed to reflect the particular concerns about children. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring him to consider after a period of time, likely to be six months, whether accommodation other than in an accommodation centre should be provided to a family, and after a period of time, likely to be nine months, requiring him to provide alternative accommodation should the family request it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned exceptional circumstances where delays overseas have resulted in claims not being processed in time. However, that is not always capable of being described as an exceptional circumstance. What would happen if the delay in a large number of cases was due to that? As I say, that circumstance could not always be considered exceptional.
As regards turnaround times, I wish to try to signal that we are not complacent. I shall not go into a lot of detail. The turnaround times that we have quoted previously relate to the processing of the massive backlog that started to build up when numbers of applications went through the roof from 1996 onwards. Therefore, the average is weighted by longstanding applications. As regards recent
676
performance, we are turning around about 70 per cent of cases in two months. That is extremely positive news. It is not as fast as we would like but it is a positive sign. The location of case workers and adjudicators on site should enable our initial decision-making further to speed up. However, as regards appeal processes, even with the increase in the consideration of cases by adjudicators to 6,000 cases a month by November—that is the target and will constitute a phenomenal increase in throughput—we cannot guarantee that all that will be done within a time limit on the face of the Bill.
There was some suggestion that families would be incarcerated in centres, but that is not true. They are free to come and go, subject to reporting restrictions. We do not think that the centres will be against the interests of children but we shall consider that in more detail later. Those centres will provide good education, good support for families, good play facilities and perhaps the first stability that some of those families have had for months. We strongly refute the view that they are bad for children or that they should not necessarily be there. Potentially, they will provide a better and more caring environment than will some dispersed accommodation.
I have no doubt that I have not answered all of the points at this late hour. For the reasons that I have suggested, we feel that although we are utterly committed to accelerating turnaround time while maintaining fair process, restrictions in the Bill would not be in anyone's interests, least of all those of families.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this debate at this late hour. I have been given much food for thought for the Summer Recess. There is much that I shall have to consider before taking this amendment forward. Perhaps I should say that at the beginning of my remarks rather than at the end.
I agree with the Minister that we start with the same objectives. We want a system that has speed but is fair. That is always a difficult balance to achieve in any legal system.
The Minister said that he objected to including a statutory lock-in in the Bill. Opposition parties always try to secure some kind of commitment for action from government rather than goals and targets that make a good headline one day but which the next day mean nothing to those involved, who find themselves trapped in the system. The Minister will not be surprised if I return to the issue of the statutory lock-in at some stage.
I was grateful to Members of the Committee for their comments and to my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lady Carnegy of Lour for their support. Although the Minister made some response to my rider about exceptional circumstances, that has not yet been properly addressed.
I was intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who proposed a system for fast-tracking families with children. I had not

677
considered that heretofore. I shall look carefully at my amendment before bringing it back in a different, more constructive, form. There are, we are told, relatively few families with children involved, so perhaps there could be a way of making the noble Baroness's suggestion a reality.
The Minister's reply was rather disappointing in many respects, but I have two points to make on it. First, his summary of the number of people who receive the determination and the period within which they do so does not quite fit with some of the information that I have to hand. I shall look very carefully at the figures that he gave and compare them with the information that I have been given by the Refugee Council and which I have received during the past few months in Written Answers.
Finally, it is important to welcome one part of the Minister's answer. It was absolutely right that he should recognise that those who apply for asylum here need proper time in which to make their application in the proper way and that they should have all the legal
678
advice that they may need. Too often the Government seem to think that the only delays that occur in our criminal justice system are created by the defence, not the prosecution. I hope that in the system for processing asylum appeals, we shall properly recognise the fact that those who process appeals can be just as at fault as—if not more than—those who are trying to make a proper application. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.

  Playing Fields
  Playing Fields
  Building Regulations: Part M
  Building Regulations: Part M
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Remit
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Remit
  Transport Projects Awaiting EC State Aids Approval
  Transport Projects Awaiting EC State Aids Approval
  Road Traffic Regulations: Metric Measurements
  Road Traffic Regulations: Metric Measurements
  Youth Justice Board: Annual Review 2001–02
  Youth Justice Board: Annual Review 2001–02
  Helsinki Conference, 16 and 17 September 2002
  Helsinki Conference, 16 and 17 September 2002
  World Food Summit
  World Food Summit
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Tanzania: Air Traffic Control System
  Tanzania: Air Traffic Control System
  Mr Manoochehr Mohammadi
  Mr Manoochehr Mohammadi
  Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks
  Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks
  Environmental Tectonics Corporation: RAF Centrifuge Contract
  Environmental Tectonics Corporation: RAF Centrifuge Contract
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Trading Standards: "Green" or "Environmental" Claims
  Trading Standards: "Green" or "Environmental" Claims
  Scotland: Nuclear Power Stations
  Scotland: Nuclear Power Stations
  Disabled Pupils: Exclusion
  Disabled Pupils: Exclusion
  EU Proposal Directives
  EU Proposal Directives
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
  Animal Feed: Nitrofen Contamination
  Animal Feed: Nitrofen Contamination
  NHS: Clinical Negligence Cases
  NHS: Clinical Negligence Cases
  National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit: 10th Annual Report
  National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit: 10th Annual Report
  Vaccines: Animal Materials
  Vaccines: Animal Materials
  Capital Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund
  Capital Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund