Sitting of 11 July 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair
PRIVATE BUSINESS
BARCLAYS GROUP REORGANISATION [Lords] Considered, to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Sub-post Office Network
    Tim Loughton: What recent representations she has received regarding the future of the sub-post office network. [66366]
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What recent representations she has received regarding the future of the sub-post office network. [66369]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I receive representations about the future of the sub-post office network from numerous sources, reflecting the valuable role that sub-post offices play in their local communities, particularly in rural areas and for the elderly and less mobile. The Government are committed to ensuring that the post office network has a thriving future.
    Tim Loughton: Well, that did not tell us much. A recent letter from Consignia to Members of Parliament stated:
    "Our network of post office branches is too expensive to maintain…loss of traditional business, such as benefits being paid into bank accounts, will only make this situation worse."
    How do the Government intend to deliver on the Prime Minister's pledge that all those who wish to continue to receive benefits in cash will be able to do so if more than half the sub-post office network is closed, especially in places such as Worthing in my constituency where there are a great many old people who simply will not be able to travel to the few post offices that are still open? Can the Secretary of State also guarantee that the post office-based universal bank will be open for business in April 2003, given both the recent resignation of Basil Larkins, the
    1018
    architect of the universal bank, and the fact that apparently no decision has even been taken on which software it will use?
    Ms Hewitt: We have significantly reduced the number of post office closures, especially in rural areas—[Interruption.] we have significantly reduced the number of post office closures. Two years ago, we lost more than 500 sub-post offices across the country, most of them in rural areas; last year, we halved the rate of closure, and more than halved it in rural areas. We are already seeing the benefits of our decision to put a duty on the company to prevent avoidable closures in rural areas. That is already benefiting customers of the Post Office
    We have made it clear that all claimants will be able to go on collecting their benefits in cash from the post office, whether they are using network banking, a new basic bank account or a post office card account. The universal banking service is indeed on track for introduction by April next year. The important point, which I have stressed to the sub-postmasters and mistresses, is that whatever kind of bank account or post office card account the claimant is using, they will be able to do their banking and get their cash at the post office, and the sub-postmaster or mistress will be paid for that.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: That answer sounded rather like Stalin claiming credit for the fact that he was running out of victims in the great purge. Is it not a fact that, up and down the country, hundreds if not thousands of communities fear the loss of their sub-post office, and hundreds if not thousands of people who invested their life savings in building up the business of the sub-post office network are wondering what is going to happen to their careers? When those post offices close—as they will continue to do—what compensation will the Government offer those people who have invested their life savings in building up businesses that are about to be destroyed?
    Ms Hewitt: The previous Conservative Government did nothing to reduce the rate of post office closures, nor did they do anything to compensate sub-postmasters and mistresses who needed and wanted to close their businesses. What we have done is to agree with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters a compensation package that will include not only compensation for sub-postmasters and mistresses in urban areas whose post offices are closing, but investment grants for sub-postmasters and mistresses to improve the remaining offices so that we can deliver a much better service.
    The fact is that there are too many underused post offices in some of our towns and cities. Indeed, a sub-postmaster in a part of my city—Leicester—said that there were 10 sub-post offices within a square mile. They were all competing against each other and none was able to make a sensible living or deliver a good service. That is why, under urban reinvention, the Post Office will be making proposals for a reinvention of that network, which will mean a better service for customers and a much better future for the sub-postmasters and mistresses.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not all black over Bill's mothers? In Bolsover, where there are more than 20 post offices in a constituency 30 miles long and where we have miners' welfare, there is an imaginative scheme to save the post

    1019
    offices—although we have hardly lost any over the years; I spend my time trying to keep them open instead of yapping in here. The latest scheme is to make sure that we get the miners' welfare at Palterton to take on the post office because we could not find anyone to look after it. That looks like being a rip-roaring success. Cheques from the DTI will be gladly received.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In many parts of the country, we are getting partnerships between community organisations and the Post Office so that we can keep post office services open, but not simply as part of free-standing post offices because half of the rural post offices that closed last year were part-time and had only 70 customers or fewer a week. By combining them with miners' welfare or other community organisations, we can substantially increase access to post office services. That is what we want to do, and I would encourage my hon. Friend's constituents to apply for a grant from our community fund, which is designed to support exactly that kind of initiative.
    Mr. LindsayHoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while Post Office bosses chatter, we see the network continuing to close? Will she use her good offices to ensure, as the sole shareholder, that the Post Office will remain a universal service but a sustainable one so that it will continue into the future? We need a good input from her good self.
    Ms Hewitt: One of the most important things that my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and I have done is to ensure that we have a new chief executive for the post office network—David Mills, who comes from a retail banking background. He is already considering ways in which we can make the post office network much more commercially successful, with products such as household and travel insurance and so on, which are already proving hugely successful. As I have said in the House previously, I am expecting David Mills and Allan Leighton to produce a new strategy for the future of the network in September, and we will do everything to support them in ensuring that our post offices are not only as commercially successful as possible, but continue to play their absolutely vital role in local communities.
    Brian Cotter: May I point out to the Secretary of State that there is a great lack of confidence in the Government among sub-postmasters? That has not been helped by the fact that in my part of the country claimants are saying that they have received letters from the Department for Work and Pensions asking for their bank details with a view to the payment of benefits in the future. Will the right hon. Lady investigate that urgently with that Department? Irrespective of whether that is the case, may I urge her to ensure that letters are sent to claimants clearly saying that they can carry on receiving their payments over the counter?
    Ms Hewitt: We have already stated publicly and clearly that all claimants who want to get their benefit in cash at post offices will be able to do so. I want to stress a point that I have made both in the House and directly to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters: the decision about what kind of account to use for benefit payments in
    1020
    future will be one for the claimant, but irrespective of whether claimants use their own existing bank accounts, new bank accounts, basic bank accounts, or the new post office card account, they will continue to be able to get their cash over the counter at post offices. They will also be able to gain access to a much wider range of banking services thanks to the universal bank, and the postmaster and postmistress will continue to be paid for those services. That will be hugely beneficial to sub-post offices in ensuring that they not only keep their existing customers but get new ones as well.
    Mr. Russell Brown: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I met representatives of Consignia last week, and one of the issues that we discussed was the whole concept of the one-stop shop pilot project in Leicestershire and Rutland? They have assured me that that has been a significant success and that the footfall that they required has been achieved. What plans are there to roll out that programme UK-wide?
    Ms Hewitt: We have now received the evaluation of the results of the pilot project, and we have been considering the response of members of the public, who in many ways have welcomed the very useful access to Government information and services that "Your Guide" has provided. We have considered whether "Your Guide" has brought in new customers to the post offices in those pilot areas, as that was part of the intention. Of course we are considering whether a national roll-out of the scheme would provide value for money to Departments. We will publish the evaluation report shortly, and then discuss it with all the interested partners before making a decision on a national roll-out.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: But the Postcomm report advising the Secretary of State how to provide financial support for the rural network has been sitting on her desk for six months. Four weeks ago she said that an announcement was imminent. The performance and innovation unit's report said that the full roll-out of the "Your Guide" electronic information system should be achieved by mid-2002, yet today the Secretary of State is unable even to say whether the Government have decided to go ahead with it. We have had no details of the universal bank, despite calls that it should be up and running well before the April deadline. There is less than nine months to go before the changes to the system take place, but all we have had are words. Time is running out. When will the Government start delivering?
    Ms Hewitt: The Government are already delivering, as the hon. Gentleman knows because we have discussed this matter on many occasions in the House. We have already radically restructured the management and leadership of the Royal Mail Group and of the Post Office. We have a new chief executive in place and we will soon have a new chairman for the Post Office network itself in place. The universal banking service, on which an enormous amount of work has been done, is on track, just as we said it would be. Sub-postmasters and mistresses will benefit enormously from the creation of the universal banking service. We will meet the commitment that the Prime Minister gave that benefit claimants will continue to be able to obtain their benefits in cash at the post office. We

    1021
    have significantly reduced the rate of post office closures, particularly in rural areas, and we are considering how best to put in a payment for the community service provided by rural post offices without in any way reducing the incentive to sub-postmasters and mistresses to maximise their commercial income as well.
    As I have just explained, we will publish the evaluation report on "Your Guide" shortly, and we shall consider value for money for the Government and, crucially, for the post offices. I should be astonished if the hon. Gentleman expected us to make a decision without taking value for money into account. We have, as I have said, a new chief executive who will come forward in the autumn so that we can put in place a comprehensive strategy to guarantee the future of our crucial post office services.
    Mr. Whittingdale: All that the Secretary of State seems able to say is that it will be all right on the night. Is she aware that this morning the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Village Retail Services Association, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, as well as Help the Aged, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Postwatch, the Government's own consumer body, have all joined us in expressing concern about the deafening silence from the Government on these vital issues? If she is not willing to listen to Conservative Members, perhaps she will start listening to those organisations.
    Ms Hewitt: We have been listening all the way through to all the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred and we have worked closely with them. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has warmly welcomed the compensation and investment package that we have put in place—some £210 million—for the urban reinvention programme. We discuss regularly with the federation and other partners who have an interest in the issue how best we can deliver on the strategy that was set out in the PIU report, and we shall continue to do that so that we have the action, not the words, that will deliver the post office services that everybody wants to see.

    Automotive Industry
    Lynne Jones: What action she is taking to support the automotive industry. [66367]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): Recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a package of £45 million for the automotive sector to include an automotive academy, two centres of automotive excellence, and support for cross-regional supply chains as a first step to implementing the recommendations of the automotive innovation and growth team. In 2001 the Department delivered regional selective assistance and training grant offers totalling £35 million. The Department also spent about £2 million last year on various other projects to promote competitiveness and productivity improvements in the sector. The Department is continuing to support process improvements through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders industry forum and
    1022
    research and development through the foresight vehicle programme, with commitments to date exceeding £13 million.
    Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend is aware that the livelihoods of many families in the west midlands depend on the success of the automotive industry. I welcome the setting up of the innovation and growth team and its report. My hon. Friend has given us some details of the action taken by the Government. What is he doing specifically to assist the components sector, which faces difficulties as a result of increased outsourcing from the eurozone?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have 17 of the world's top 20 tier 1 component manufacturers located in the UK. The recommendation of the innovation and growth team specifically dealt with that in its work on the supply chain. My hon. Friend knows that we had a project in the west midlands called "Accelerate", which we are spreading across the country, in accordance with the recommendation from Sir Ian Gibson and his team. That focuses on the supply chain, and component manufacturers in particular.
    Malcolm Bruce: How does the Minister think it will help the automotive industry for the DTI's recommendation that in the end-of-life vehicle directive, responsibility for the final disposal will rest with the final owner? Does he think that people who have bought a cheap car will accept that responsibility at the end of its life, or does he anticipate that we will have an increasing number of abandoned cars, which already cost us £400 million a year? Does he not believe that that will reflect badly on the automotive industry? We need a system that will ensure that vehicles are disposed of safely and quickly.
    Alan Johnson: The issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is still under consideration in Europe. As regards helping the industry, we have been instrumental in removing the block exemption scheme and in particular the location ban clause, which will allow retailers in this country to offer consumers better value in terms of new car sales. That, in turn, will help the automotive industry.

    Small Business
    David Hamilton: What steps she is taking to increase investment in basic skills among small firms. [66368]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government are committed to raising the level of adult literacy and numeracy in the work force and aim to provide free high-quality training and advice on basic skills for all small businesses. We have already trained 447 workplace basic skills brokers and we are recruiting employer champions, all with a proven basic skills track record in their sector, to help guide other businesses.
    David Hamilton: When I started in the coal industry in Midlothian at the age of 15, there were 12 companies employing more than 1,000 people. In Midlothian now, there are 1,000 companies employing fewer than

    1023
    12 people. It is therefore critical that people acquire not just the basic skills, but the trade skills that are needed throughout the area. In the past, it was easy to get plumbers, electricians and so on, but now it costs an arm and a leg to get them, and they come when they choose to come, because there are so few in the area. How can the Government assess those micro-industries, which in most cases are family companies, to see how best they can deliver, so that we remain the fourth state in the world in economic terms?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. The Government already support training in small businesses through the small firms training loans scheme. We strongly support modern apprenticeships. My hon. Friend will share my pleasure at the fact that 728 young people resident in Midlothian are working towards vocational qualifications through skill seekers' training programmes. We are committed to training and we welcome all the support that we are getting from small businesses, as well as from all hon. Members.
    Mr. Richard Page: The Minister will be aware that small firms have a limited time horizon, and their employees have great difficulty in getting away from work for any sort of training. As we are speaking of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of small businesses, what are the Government doing to support Learn direct on the Internet? What targets are they hoping to achieve for the hundreds of thousands of businesses that will qualify for such support, and how many people have indicated an interest so far?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting Learndirect. I had the pleasure of visiting J. and K. Ross in Warrington on 29 March this year to see the firm's pilot Learndirect pod. It is a worthwhile and valued project. We aim to roll it out as quickly as possible. We will learn from the pilots and then, I hope, apply them nationally.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of improving basic accountancy and engineering skills is for workers in small firms to form that firm as a co-operative? Will he ensure that the Small Business Service is mindful of the virtues of co-operative forms of organisation when it gives advice to small firms about their training needs?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that aspect. When I was in Plymouth I was able to visit a social enterprise and to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) the great value of co-operatives there. I also know of co-operatives elsewhere in the country.
    I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) in stressing the importance of co-operatives, the contribution that they make to the economy and the contribution that they make, which he asked me to highlight, to uprating the skills of the work force. Their commitment is second to none.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Basic skills, including reading and writing, are grossly inadequate in this country and rapidly falling behind those of our European competitors, and yet the Government
    1024
    consistently fail both to support the further education sector in the way that they should and to put in place initiatives to encourage businesses to work productively with the FE sector to the benefit of all concerned. Would the Minister care to comment?
    Nigel Griffiths: I was shocked to learn that as many as 7 million people in the work force are functionally illiterate; that is the case, according to Digby Jones of the CBI. I believe that that figure is an indictment and an indicator of the sad decline in education in the 18 years from 1979. We are doing a great deal, as I have highlighted in earlier answers, to reverse functional illiteracy in the work force, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is doing a great deal to ensure that before people reach the work force we eliminate that sort of functional illiteracy—a shameful legacy of a previous Government.
    Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. Friend recognise, as many of the more progressive employers throughout Britain do, the valuable work that the trade union learning reps do at the workplace? Will he use his good offices to work with the trade union movement in rolling out that programme, particularly among small businesses?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I am very pleased that in the Employment Act 2002 we have extended those facilities. Indeed, it is one of the great benefits of employers working with and recognising trade unions that they can ensure that the work force embrace that learning experience and upgrade their skills. That is vital for the modern economy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) pointed out, as more and more small businesses become the driving forces in the economy, it is vital that they too have the skills to allow us to compete in the modern world.

    Agricultural Produce
    Mr. George Osborne: What action her Department is taking to reduce barriers to trade in agricultural produce. [66371]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are working with our partners in the European Union and the World Trade Organisation to deliver the Doha development agendas, which commits us to substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.
    In parallel, of course, we are pressing within the European Union for significant reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Osborne: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will be aware that while the developed world spends £50 billion on aid to developing countries, we also spend £250 billion on agricultural subsidies and on tariff barriers which shut the poorest countries of the world out of our markets. I would agree with the right hon. Lady that we should practise what we preach when it comes to free trade and open markets. Will she assure me that the British Government will do all that they can not to let

    1025
    other European Governments—particularly the French Government at the moment—stop proper reform of the CAP and to pursue that agenda through the WTO?
    Ms Hewitt: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We welcome the publication earlier this week of the European Commission's mid-term review document on agricultural support. It will certainly form a good basis for discussion within the European Union, which reflects United Kingdom thinking on many topics but does not go as far as we would like. However, we will continue to argue very strongly within the European Union for a shift away from subsidies that are linked to production, to income support for farmers that is linked directly to environmental maintenance, and to a slashing—indeed, elimination—of the appalling export subsidies that do so much damage to farmers in developing countries. I am very glad that we shall have the support of at least the hon. Gentleman, and I hope his party, in pursuing those very important reforms.
    Mr. Andy Reed: In discussions between the all-party third world debt group this week and high commissioners from west Africa and other countries in the region, it was clear that, despite all the efforts that we are making on debt relief and on aid, the crucial difference that will be made for these countries will be by our giving them free access to western European markets, particularly for goods that are both produced and have value added in those countries. I understand that the negotiations will take some time, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that real urgency will be put into them? The situation facing Africa as a whole is so urgent that, unless things are done in months rather than years, many will suffer as a consequence.
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's points. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been pushing and working immensely hard for a new partnership for Africa that will include not only access for African producers to markets in the west—following the example of the European Union's everything but arms initiative—but will also encourage Governments in those developing countries to pull down the tariff and trade barriers that they apply against other developing countries. There is huge scope there for greater trade. I also agree that there is an enormous responsibility on the European Union, as we are the biggest provider of agricultural subsidies in the world, and we must stop that.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: What action have the Government taken to promote fair trade in agricultural produce within the United Kingdom, which would provide the primary producers of agricultural products with cost of production and some fair reward for their investment in labour, which wholesalers and retailers can achieve with much less risk than primary producers?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. As he will be aware, the whole issue of the relationship between the supermarkets in particular and the producers in the farming community has been considered extensively by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. We now have a code of
    1026
    practice agreed by the retailers with the Office of Fair Trading that is designed to give the producers of our food a much fairer deal in that marketplace.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Can I urge the Secretary of State to do as much as she can to abolish the common agricultural policy, not only to ensure that imports are allowed from the developing world and to cut the costs of living for families in this country—each of whom pay more than £20 a week in additional food costs—but to try to reduce the dependency culture that we have built up among farmers?
    Ms Hewitt: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that radical reform of the common agricultural policy will deliver enormous benefits to our consumers, benefits to farmers and rural communities, and, as we have been saying, real benefits to farmers and communities in some of the poorest countries of the world.

    Accounting Standards
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement about the findings of the review of accounting standards. [66372]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The group set up in February to co-ordinate the responses of the key regulators to issues for audit and accounting raised in the aftermath of Enron—and now WorldCom—will produce an interim report by the end of this month. The Government have made it clear that it is important to restore confidence in the independence of auditors.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Lady agree that our procedures are more robust, largely as a consequence of the lessons learned from the Mirror Group Maxwell affair? If so, will she say why the reaction of the stock market in this country has been more alarming even than that in the United States?
    Miss Johnson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our systems appear to be more robust than those of the United States. Indeed, the UK's principles-based regime is a more effective basis for accounting than the rules-based system of the United States. Clearly, consideration is now being given to what changes might be made across the Atlantic. The response of the markets is unsurprising, because no one suffers more than business if the legitimacy of business is called into question. We believe that trust and confidence are key, which is why it is so important that confidence must be restored.
    Mr. Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that accounting standards cannot be entirely divorced from corporate governance and, in particular, the role of non-executive directors? Does she also agree that such directors should be more independent, take responsibility for the audit function and report directly to the annual meeting?
    Miss Johnson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of non-executive directors. That is why the Government have commissioned the review that is being conducted by Derek Higgs into their role and

    1027
    effectiveness. The review was conceived before the events at Enron and WorldCom, but it is highly relevant to them. There is a question about the composition, duties and effectiveness of audit committees, and the review will look into it. We will consider the review and any other issues that arise post-Enron.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister accept that investor confidence in accounting standards has been seriously undermined as a result of the involvement of leading accounting companies in a succession of audit failures? If British standards are superior, as she said, why does she propose to abolish them in 2005 and replace them with an American-dominated global standard that will be significantly weaker?
    Miss Johnson: We certainly do not propose to abolish those standards and to replace them with any weaker ones. It is clear from current discussions in the USA that there may be significant changes in approach. Negotiations are currently under way to modernise EU accounting directives and international dimensions are also under discussion. Like the hon. Gentleman, we are keen, whatever happens, to examine ways to regain confidence in the independence of the auditor on both sides of the Atlantic, and we look forward to seeing regulatory activity and reform to support that aim.
    Mr. Colin Challen: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would have higher accountancy standards if there were a complete separation of accountancy services from consultancy services? How can accountancy firms advise the Government on PFI, but participate at the same time in consortiums that are making bids for those projects? We then get advice from other firms, such as Arthur Andersen, which seems to be the only advice yet available on the value for money of those bids. Does she agree that there should be complete separation?
    Miss Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the relationships between auditors and clients can be too cosy and that there is a need to demonstrate independence. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her recent speech to the Cambridge university faculty of law, there is a risk of having too many conflicts of interest. We are currently exploring questions in relation to audit firm rotation, more frequent rotation of partners and the supply of non-audit services to audit clients.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: In the wake of the problems faced by companies such as Enron, WorldCom and now Qwest, it is clear that the overwhelming priority is to reassure investors and markets. The Opposition welcome the review of accounting standards. However, does the Minister agree that when all the evidence is collected, many of the problems may turn out to have been caused by simple fraud rather than audit failures? Is not a calm, measured response required, rather than a rush to place unnecessary extra burdens on business?
    Miss Johnson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that in some of those instances outright fraud has clearly been perpetrated. We believe that it is important that regulators identify the changes that they think are needed, including any that involve accounting
    1028
    standards, audit firm rotation or the other issues that I mentioned. The co-ordinating group, which I lead with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, is ensuring that those issues are well thought through and properly "ordinated, and the Government will make any further changes that they believe are necessary. I agree that a considered response is needed.

    Broadband
    Jim Knight: What steps she is taking to encourage the take-up of broadband in rural areas. [66373]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): On 26 June, we announced a new broadband network of dedicated broadband advisers to help to boost roll-out and take-up of broadband across the UK. The Government have also made available £30 million as a broadband fund to help the regional development agencies and the devolved Administrations to develop schemes to extend broadband access.
    Jim Knight: I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that we are making some progress in the roll-out of broadband to rural areas. Indeed, this week BT Group wrote to inform me that it is upgrading the exchanges at Portland and at Swanage for its asymmetric digital subscriber line—ADSL—broadband service. However, I remain concerned about more sparsely populated areas that are not as commercially attractive. I am particularly interested to know what the Department is doing to ensure that cross-Department initiatives, such as the regional broadband consortiums from the Department for Education and Skills, are co-ordinated so that there is no duplication, so that opportunities for piggybacking are maximised, and so that the roll-out of broadband, especially in rural areas, is accelerated.
    Nigel Griffiths: It is very important that no one is left behind in the roll-out of broadband, and my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is taking three steps to ensure that it reaches rural areas more effectively: first, facilitating satellite broadband deployment through a fast-track online licensing regime and a review of planning regulations for satellite terminals; secondly, encouraging infrastructure sharing by industry to reduce the costs of roll-out; and thirdly, using more effective procurement of the public sector's broadband requirements to improve value for money and, in particular, to drive broadband into rural areas. I hope that those three measures will enable my hon. Friend's constituents to benefit from broadband through both private sector suppliers and the public services on which we all depend.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to mention satellite, but he knows as well as I do that that is very expensive. He may like to read a report about that in last month's "IEE Review". Given that the Government are very much concerned with joined-up government, has he read the report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, entitled "Communications", which includes a chart showing the penetration of broadband in this country? I am not talking about low band, but middle

    1029
    and high band broadband. In South Korea, penetration is 32 per cent., in Sweden it is four times that in Britain, in Italy it is twice that in Britain—indeed, the United Kingdom is right at the bottom of the table.
    Although I am pleased to hear that the Government are trying to expand broadband, will the Minister admit that we have a long way to go? Will he ensure that middle and high broadband are expanded, rather than the very low rates of transmission which are not much better than a telephone line?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is using out-of-date figures, and using them very selectively. I think that hon. Members will accept the straightforward fact that the need to drive forward the UK on broadband has been fostered partly by the success of narrowband and the fact that so many households—10 million—are connected to the internet. I gather that that is more than in any other country. In addition, more people are connected. The majority of the population use narrowband internet services. That slowed down some of the demand for broadband—(Interruption.] Many people can grasp that, even if the hon. Gentleman cannot, Mr. Speaker, but since his figures were wrong in the first place, it is good of you to be tolerant of him.
    The straightforward fact is that having made a tremendous success of internet access using narrowband, we are now extending that to broadband. We intend to honour our commitment to ensure that at the end of this year, and at the end of three years, we are in the lead in broadband in terms of Government procurement and Government services.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the fact that much of the work on expanding broadband will involve digging up roads, and that concerns are being expressed about road charging for that purpose, which could inhibit some of the important work that he identified? I know that a scheme that operates in Camden and in Middlesbrough is under review, but does my hon. Friend agree that the current position could represent a serious expense to the companies that are trying to follow the Government's lead by making broadband available all over the country?
    Nigel Griffiths: As the Minister with responsibility for small businesses, I hear the other side of the story about the disruption caused by too many people digging up roads too often. My hon. Friend is right to let me highlight the need to co-ordinate that. I gather that his suggestion is under consideration, and I hope that on behalf of all our constituents we can reach agreement that intrusion into roads should be minimal, that the disruption in our high streets should be minimised, and that those who cause unnecessary disruption should pay—but where it is co-ordinated, obviously those costs can be absorbed.
    Adam Price: The Minister referred to outdated statistics. I wonder whether he has seen the latest Federation of Small Businesses survey, which shows that just 2 per cent. of businesses in Wales have broadband connection, compared with 11 per cent. in London. Not one business in my constituency is connected because we do not have a single ADSL-enabled
    1030
    exchange. Does he not agree that the only sure-fire way of ensuring parity of access in rural areas is to make broadband part of the universal service obligation?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the fact that we need to ensure that every part of the country has access to broadband. My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and his predecessor stressed that and, indeed, developed a strategy which has seen us accelerate the deployment of broadband. I am confident that we shall be able to report to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can report to his constituents, that the figures will be considerably improved in the short and medium term
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Local loop unbundling was one of the key elements in the Government's programme for broadband roll-out, especially in rural areas. When that initiative was announced, the expectation was that by now a substantial number of local loops would have been unbundled. Will the Minister confirm that the number of loops that have been unbundled is measured in hundreds? In view of that, do the Government acknowledge that they were wrong, that the initiative has failed, and that local loop unbundling will not be a significant factor in achieving broadband roll-out?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that we are making considerable progress —with more than 400 unbundled lines and rising. More than 40 service providers—the competition that was once much lauded by the Conservative party now seems to be disparaged by it—are offering services over BT's DSL-enabled network. I am pleased to inform the House that the legal and regulatory framework for local loop unbundling is now in place. Good advances are being made.

    Free and Fair Trade
    Helen Jackson: What action she is taking to promote (a) free and (b) fair trade. [66374]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We played a very important role in securing agreement last November on the Doha development round. It is through the World Trade Organisation that we can create a framework of rules for free and fair world trade. We are working closely in the European Union and with other Governments across the world to ensure that we deliver on those Doha commitments.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend. She will be aware that the campaign for fair and free trade attracts people across social classes and ages, and gives the lie to the belief that there is political apathy in this country. I am now in contact with more than 150 constituents, more than 20 of whom took the time and trouble to travel down from Sheffield to attend the lobby on free and fair trade a couple of weeks ago. In that context, will she ensure that, in her discussions with her EU counterparts

    1031
    as part of the CAP mid-term review, she helps to establish a firm timetable for the elimination of export subsidies, to which the EU will make every effort to stick?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and, of course, we will continue to press for a firm timetable for reducing agricultural subsidies and then for eliminating them. I also agree strongly with the points that she made about the Trade Justice Movement, and I very much hope that the faith groups and other voluntary organisations involved in that movement will now spread their wings and make connections in other European countries and, perhaps most importantly, in the United States of America, so that we can spread throughout the rich countries of the world the understanding that we need free and fair trade, in the interests, above all, of the developing countries.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Affordable Child Care
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What steps she is taking to promote access to affordable child care. [66401]
    Mr. Anthony Steen: What steps she is taking to assist working mothers to obtain affordable child care. [66403]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are committed, through their national child care strategy, to ensuring that accessible, affordable and good quality child care is available in every neighbourhood. I am glad to say that, in the last five years, we have already created nearly 500,000, new child care places, which are benefiting nearly 1 million children, and that we are on track to meet our target of creating new places for 1.6 million children by 2004.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that after-school clubs—such as those provided at Vaughan first and middle schools, Pinner Wood first and middle schools, and Earlsmead first and middle schools in my constituency—are a key form of affordable child care? Does she understand the frustration of head teachers and school governing bodies that they are technically, in law, unable to provide the after-school clubs directly themselves, and that they have to set up separate organisations to do so, with all the extra work load that that creates? What are the Government's plans to tackle that issue? If we have not solved the problem, will she undertake to discuss it as a matter of urgency with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills?
    Ms Hewitt: I congratulate the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency that are already providing after-school clubs, which are hugely useful for children and their parents. In the Education Bill, we are already giving further powers to head teachers to deal with some of the problems that my hon. Friend has rightly identified. I will certainly ensure that we consider that matter in the review being led by the performance and innovation unit,
    1032
    in which we are looking at our child care strategy right across government to ensure that we are doing everything possible to ensure that parents and children get the child care that they need.
    Mr. Steen: The Minister will know that I am a great fan of hers. I hope, therefore, that she will understand why I wonder whether it is discriminatory that she is the Minister for Women rather than the Minister for Parenting. Does she agree that we need to change the business culture in this country so that businesses provide creches for parents—whether they are men or women—with young children? Should we not give them some kind of tax break to encourage this?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that balancing work and family, and meeting the needs of children, are issues for fathers just as much as for mothers. He will be aware that from next April, under the Employment Act 2002, two weeks paid paternity leave will be available to fathers for the first time. Indeed, Fathers Direct has announced that tomorrow night is the key date for would-be parents if they want to be among the first to take advantage of the new provisions.
    I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that workplace creches are not always the preferred choice of parents, particularly those who work in cities and do not want to take small children to work on what might be a crowded commuting journey. We are, however, examining all those issues in the PIU review, to ensure that, with the support of employers, education authorities, the voluntary sector and so on, we get the range of child care services that will meet different parents' needs.
    Glenda Jackson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are huge discrepancies with regard to affordable child care, particularly in London. One of the issues that is causing difficulty for some of my constituents who wish to expand the physical premises on which a nursery is held has to do with the planning system. Will my right hon. Friend please speak to her colleagues in the relevant Department to see whether there is a way of speeding up this process, if not of reducing the relevant requirements?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an immensely important point. Like her, I know of several nurseries and child care centres that are unable to expand because they simply cannot get the premises or the planning permission that they need. The Government have already embarked on a radical reform of planning law to ensure that businesses are not held back from desirable expansion, whether in this or any other sector. That reform will go ahead as quickly as possible.
    Sandra Gidley: Many organisations now require flexible working, but child care provision generally does not reflect that. Does the Minister agree that employers are best placed to make such provision? Is she happy with the fact that only 5 per cent. of employers provide creches, and if not, what will she do to remedy the situation?
    Ms Hewitt: There is no doubt that child care in the workplace can be useful in some circumstances. My Department provides several places at a Westminster

    1033
    nursery, which are very popular with some of my officials. As I said earlier, however, most parents say that they do not want to take young children to work, and would prefer other forms of support from their employers. Many employers do provide other forms of support, by subsidising the cost of child care elsewhere or simply by ensuring that parents whom they employ obtain adequate information about all the choices available to them. We will, however, examine the issue further in the PIU study.
    Caroline Flint: As I have said before, it worries me that those responsible for driving our economic agenda in the regional development agencies and the Small Business Service do not seem to consider child care an important part of the infrastructure to help families combine work and family life. Will my right hon. Friend, wearing her hat as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, seek reports from all the regional development agencies and, in particular, from the Small Business Service on what they contribute? Such provision is vital if we are to make work meaningful for people with families, and help others to get out of poverty and into work.
    Ms Hewitt: Following an earlier question from my hon. Friend, I raised the matter directly with the chairs of all the regional development agencies. I stressed that child care was as important a part of our economic and social infrastructure as roads, railways, broadband telecommunication networks and so forth. Increasingly, agencies are working with the Department for Education and Skills and other Departments involved in the child care strategy, and considering how they can help to expand child care facilities. That will depend on the particular needs of regions and on investment programmes.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Along with, I am sure, most working parents, I am bracing myself for the six-week summer holiday. I am sure that I am not alone in being dismayed by a survey published in The Times last week, which revealed that nearly 50 per cent. of all working parents have no relatives or friends on whom they can rely to look after their children during the holiday.
    How would the Minister respond to the criticism expressed by Stephen Burke of the Daycare Trust, a leading child care charity, who said that parents were
    1034
    forced to spend huge sums on child care during the summer holidays because of the shortage of play schemes? He added
    "Even where schemes do exist, they are beyond the reach of many parents".
    I hope that the Minister agrees that this is an area in which affordable child care provision is woefully inadequate.
    Ms Hewitt: We have been considering the whole issue and are looking at ways to expand provision of holiday play schemes for children of all ages throughout the country, but particularly in the most disadvantaged communities. Such schemes are hugely important, not just in ensuring that children are safe and properly cared for during the summer holidays while their parents are at work, but in preventing young people from being tempted into criminal activities because they have nothing better to do.
    Provision is indeed being expanded as a result of our early years partnership, but of course more needs to be done. That is why we are increasing investment in child care. We will soon have the PIU report, which will help us to do even more in this important area.
    Mr. Frank Roy: The Minister will know that the school holidays have already begun in Scotland. Thousands of working mothers are taking their children abroad. May I quote from the Civil Aviation Authority's cabin safety procedure bulletin?
    "Emergency situations have shown that the separation of family groups, especially children, may lead to problems in emergency situations. Of particular concern is that during emergency evacuations, group members…might seek each other out during the evacuation process. Such actions could have an adverse effect on passenger flow rates towards emergency exits, and might seriously"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I call the Minister to reply.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. I understand that some package holiday companies charge extra for a family who want to be seated together, even though, as he rightly says, the cabin safety guidelines say that that is desirable. I shall ask the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for consumer affairs, to look into the problem and give my hon. Friend a more detailed reply.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill. Followed by proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 16 JuLy—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. Followed by Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day, 2nd Half]. There will be a debate on the peace process in Northern Ireland on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 17 JULY—Debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
FRIDAY 19 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 22 JULY—Second Reading of the Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 23 JULY—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 24 JULY—The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
The House will wish to know that on Tuesday 16 July 2002, there will be a debate relating to 2003 Preliminary draft EC Budget in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 16 July 2002, the first meeting of the Committee on the convention on the future of Europe will take place to consider the First and Second Report of the United Kingdom representatives to the convention.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 15 July 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM, dated 5 July 2002, submitted by HMT; Preliminary draft budget 2003. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xxxvi (2001–02)].
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. I have no doubt that he will be aware of the publication today of the report by the Select Committee on Education and Skills, HC 445, on post-16 student support. As he always does his homework assiduously, I suspect that he will be aware that the
1036
conclusions and recommendations of the report of a Select Committee dominated, as they all are, by Government supporters and Labour Members include the following:
"It is our view that many of the problems encountered in the present system of student finance originate from a failure by the Government clearly in public to debate the essential elements of the Dearing proposals".
It goes on to say in paragraph 17:
"We believe that the current system of student support has failed in three important respects…The funding of institutions is a matter of grave concern…We have been disappointed in the Government's dismissal of the Barr and Crawford proposals."
I am sure that the Leader of the House, being a fair man, will want to make sure that the House has an opportunity fully to debate the conclusions of the Labour-dominated Education and Skills Committee. I hope that he will be able to give us an early date for that debate—he would not want to give us any impression that the Government wanted to avoid debating such an important Select Committee report.
On 4 July, the Leader of the House said in reference to the rather cloudy subject of the RMT union and hon. Members:
"I personally have no objection to putting in the Library exchanges with the RMT."
I stress that he referred to exchanges with the RMT. He went on to say, helpfully:
"For the avoidance of any doubt, I should perhaps say that we as a group acted collectively in responding to the letter from Mr. Crow the general secretary of the RMT. The collective response was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who is with me on the Front Bench and has given me permission to say that his letter may indeed be placed in the Library." —[Official Report, 4 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 397.]
I have just checked with the Library and, indeed, the letter from the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) is there, but surprise, surprise, the letter from Mr. Crow has not yet reached the Library.
I wonder why we have only part of this story. There cannot possibly be anything to hide, can there? I believe that you got involved in this issue, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you would not want to be in possession of only partial information. The Leader of the House said that "exchanges with the RMT" would be placed in the Library, but I have seen only one exchange, not plural exchanges. I ask him again a very simple question: may we please have in the Library the letter from that nice Mr. Crow, of the RMT, to Labour Members of Parliament? That perfectly simple request is completely in accord with the undertaking that the Leader of the House gave.
I want to refer again to PMPs. In the exchange of 3 July, the Prime Minister said:
"Care homes have expressed worries about regulations on wheelchair access, room size, lifts and so on. I simply point out that those do not come into force until 2007".—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 220.]
On 10 July, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took issue with that. He asked the Prime Minister:
"Of the 246 new rules that the Government are imposing, how many will take effect by 2007?"
The Prime Minister said:
"From memory, I said that provisions for matters such as widening rooms and bathing would take effect in 2007, and that those were the regulations about which people were complaining."

1037
My right hon. Friend pressed the Prime Minister on this point. He said that
"only four provisions do not come into effect until 2007. Almost all the others—some 240—came into effect on 1 April this year."
The Prime Minister replied:
"First, I said that the provisions that related to matters about which people were complaining, such as widening rooms, would not take effect until 2007." — [Official Report, 10 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 879–80.]
Will the Leader of the House tell us who is right: the Prime Minister, or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? It seems that, yet again, the Prime Minister changes his stories with great facility, shifts his ground and says the first thing that comes into his mind. May we have an explanation or an apology from the Prime Minister, or will the Leader of the House help to cure him of his apparent addiction to whoppers?
Mr. Cook: In a spirit of amity, I begin by recalling that, last week, the right hon. Gentleman celebrated Independence day with an appropriate tie, which resulted in exchanges in the House. May I take this opportunity to wish him a very happy forthcoming Bastille weekend? I am sure that he will wish to celebrate his enormous contribution to European equality, democracy and fraternity.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to describe me as a fair man, and as such I shall of course wish to consider the Education and Skills Committee's report fully and thoroughly. On the question of debating the report, I should point out that this Government have a good record in providing time for debating Select Committee reports. Of course, in the first instance the matter is one for the Liaison Committee, but there are a number of ways in which such a report can be debated. I am sure that many Members will want that report to be debated, and when it is, Labour Members will want to put it on the record that we are now spending a quarter more on education than did the previous Government. That has contributed to our having one of the highest rates of entry into higher education of any OECD country, and the second highest completion rate among students. A review of student finances is of course under way, and we can certainly consider the Select Committee report as part of it.
On the correspondence with the RMT, I am ashamed to say that it appears that I did not treasure, file and safeguard the letter that I received from the nice Mr. Crow as well as I perhaps should have done. However, I am now in a position to state that tomorrow the letter will be laid in the Library. Frankly, I doubt whether it will provide particular illumination for Members, or that they will wish to treasure it any more than I did, but it will be there for them to read when the Library receives it.
On the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises, he will not be surprised to hear me say that the Prime Minister was of course right. Indeed, the Prime Minister made it specifically clear on 3 July that he was referring to room sizes, and the provisions relating to them do not come into force until 2007—the year that he quoted. As the right hon. Gentleman asks, since yesterday I have checked with the authorities and I can confirm that the Prime Minister was also absolutely right to say that some 43,000 more households are now receiving intensive
1038
home care compared with when we took power. That is an increase of more than a third and is a tribute to our increased spending on social services.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We all recognise that there is great pressure before the summer recess for many statements to be made to the House, but why have we had no statement whatever on the very damaging announcements by Royal Mail about its reduction in service, especially for smaller businesses? The Leader of the House will have already seen what the Federation of Small Businesses has said, but the changes will also have a dramatic effect on the self-employed and other organisations. Although there was a brief exchange in Trade and Industry questions earlier, the Royal Mail is still a public service—thank goodness—and surely the Secretary of State should have made a statement to the House.
I shall take this opportunity to apologise to Royal Mail. The House may recall that on a previous occasion I drew attention to a letter that we had received addressed to Mr. David Lloyd George. Because the date stamp on it was indistinct, it looked as though it might have been delayed in the post since 1902. We have now had another letter, correctly addressed and with a date stamp for 2002, and I congratulate the Royal Mail on it having arrived at the correct address, despite the fact that the words "freepost" and "second class" have been written on it: there is, of course, no freepost to the House of Commons.
The other issue on which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should have made a statement is industrial relations and the Government's future relationship with the unions. The right hon. Lady was reported in The Independent this morning as saying that she
"will announce a government review of industrial relations legislation today."
Where will she make that announcement? It will clearly not be in the House, although she was here earlier. It is extraordinary that she should announce such an important issue in the columns of the press, and not in the House.
In the interview, the Secretary of State also said that the communication from the RMT, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) —his support is late, but welcome—placed "unacceptable demands upon MPs". The Leader of the House told me in response to my questions on 27 June that he had declined to sign up to the oath of loyalty, and I congratulate him on that. I am grateful for the assurance that he has given that the letter will be placed in the Library tomorrow, but will he confirm that a full inquiry will be held into what is happening to those Members of Parliament who have apparently accepted the terms of the letter that he and the Deputy Prime Minister found so unacceptable?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman does not know how true it is to say that we will have a large number of statements between now and the rising of the House for the summer recess. The House will already be aware that we have the statement on the comprehensive spending review on Monday and statements thereafter on aspects of that review. In that context, it will unavoidably be the case that we will have to decide what we can bring before the House in an oral statement and what regard we must at the same time have to the very important business of the House, as we have much legislative business to complete before we rise for the recess.

1039
On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the pilot scheme for charging for early delivery by Royal Mail, I would stress that the schemes are being introduced only after discussion and agreement with Postwatch, the consumer organisation, and the Communication Workers Union. Any individual or business who receives 20 letters a day will be guaranteed early delivery without any additional charge, which should take account of all Members of Parliament. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that his constituency correspondence will arrive early and on time.
The scheme is only a pilot. I understand the concerns that have been expressed by small businesses and the self-employed, who perhaps do not get 20 letters a day. Their concerns and experiences must clearly be part of the overall evaluation of the pilot study before any further decision is taken.
On the question of the RMT, I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have already given the House that the letter from Mr. Crow will be deposited tomorrow. I anticipate that we will have a full textual analysis of it when we meet again next Thursday.
On the hon. Gentleman's other question, to my knowledge—and I am reasonably certain of this point—no Member who was previously sponsored or had a constituency agreement with the RMT accepted the terms of that letter. The decision to reject the terms of the letter was a unanimous decision by all Members who previously had a connection with the RMT. I cannot speak for what further discussions may have taken place with other Members; I am not yet aware of any decision having been taken by any of them and, as far as I am aware, there is no basis at present to believe that the privileges of the House have been infringed by any offence.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When, on Monday and Tuesday, my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I expressed unease about the circumstances of the sale of spare parts for F-16s, we were advised to wait until Trade and Industry questions on Thursday. Since Question 8 was barely reached, there was no opportunity to raise this issue. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Monday?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend pursue the matter of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, proposed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)? It is an all-party Bill, and many of us stayed behind for it on Fridays. A great deal of work has been done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It has passed all its Commons stages and is now, by late skulduggery, being scuppered in the House of Lords. I have given my right hon. Friend the letter from Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I should be grateful if he could look at it. It is intolerable that this private Member's Bill, which has gone through all its Commons stages, should simply evaporate in the other place.
Mr. Cook: On my hon. Friend's first point, I cannot provide time for a statement on Monday—and I give notice that I will say the same to anybody else who asks
1040
for one—because, as the House will know, we will be having a statement on the comprehensive spending review, for which I anticipate Members will want an extensive period of scrutiny. The statement on F-16s was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his written answer, and my hon. Friend may wish to pursue the matter with him.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I was heavily involved in discussions to ensure that the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill got through its stages in this House. I took a full part in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the Bill's sponsors, and I am pleased that we managed to secure its passage through the House. I fully understand the strong feeling behind it and the wide constituency of support from the country, particularly from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
As Leader of the House, I have no responsibility for the actions of Members of another place. I regret that so many amendments were tabled by the Bill's opponents that it would require two and a half days of debate to clear the other place, and I am afraid that there is no realistic prospect of securing that before our last private Member's Bill day on 19 July. I am very sorry that this should have happened; I believe that it was a worthwhile Bill and regret that there are some in the other House who have chosen to stop it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that earlier this week the Government produced a massive document, "Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution"; that they have given all of three months for consultation; that that period will have elapsed before the House returns in October; and that, as the business stands at present, this House will have no chance to debate a document that affects every English Member? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore alter the business of the House so that we can discuss this most revolutionary change to local government finance and, if not, will he keep us here for an extra day to do so?
Mr. Cook: I am always open to representations to postpone the summer recess, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first of many to find reasons why we should do so. Perhaps I should warn the House that I might be open to receiving some of those representations and accepting them.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, the local government finance document is out for consultation for three months—the standard period of consultation. Indeed, our guidelines provide for a minimum of 12 weeks of consultation. Many of those who will be producing results are in local government and will not be taking a three-month recess. However, I have just announced that there will be a debate on the spending review in the last week that the House sits, and it will be entirely appropriate for right hon. and hon. Members to refer to local government finance then.
Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will know that the Tour de France is on and is being enjoyed by millions, although, sadly, in this country only viewers of ITV2 can watch it. Does he agree that a tour of Britain would be a wonderful opportunity not only to

1041
inspire our future cycling stars but to regenerate rural areas that suffered so badly from foot and mouth last year? Will he be able to find time for a debate on the future of cycling as a sport?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right. The Tour de France is followed closely by many residents of Britain. She made an interesting proposal, which I note was received favourably on both sides of the Chamber. For myself, as long as I do not have to take part, I am willing to give a fair wind to her tour of Britain.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will be aware of reports of an increasing incidence of air misses in United Kingdom airspace, as well as flight delays, following the institution of the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick. Our constituents are also worried about press reports of new runways being planned around London and the south-east generally. When will we have a Government statement on civil air transport, and the long-awaited White Paper on the industry?
Mr. Cook: I am very much aware of that last point, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is very much in Ministers' minds.
The reports that have been around today on near misses are very much exaggerated. Some hon. Members may have had the good fortune, as I did, to hear Mr. Chisholm of NATS on the radio this morning being quite categoric that the reports are false and exaggerated and that safety has not been compromised by Swanwick or any other development.
John Mann: When the United States introduced legislation restricting donations to political parties in 1995–96, money from corporations and wealthy individuals went to think tanks instead. I note, through Hansard, that there has been no debate on the issue in the past 30 years, although there have been plenty of debates on state funding of political parties. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on donations to think tanks such as the IPPR, which seems particularly keen on restricting donations to political parties?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend forcefully makes a very combative point that will not be lost on the IPPR. Political debate is enriched by those who may not necessarily be professional politicians and so perhaps have more leisure than we do to think deeply about such matters and stimulate future debate.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I want to press the Leader of the House on the document that was published earlier this week. It says right at the beginning that local authorities spend 25 per cent. of all Government expenditure. For the past 18 years, I have been reminded many times by him and his colleagues that Derbyshire had a rough deal, supposedly, from the last Conservative Government.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Hear, hear.
Mr. McLoughlin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement.
1042
Can the Leader of the House explain why Derbyshire will lose between £5 million and £2 million under the Government's proposals?
Mr. Cook: I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman thinks that one can reach a conclusion about the amount going to any individual local authority on the basis of a range of different options proposed in a consultation paper. The Government have been explicit: we do not favour any one of the options. [Laughter.]The position is quite explicit: only when we have listened to local government and heard the responses to the consultation process will we put before the House the option that we have selected. Until then, no local authority can possibly pretend to know what the consequences will be for its finances.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's proposals on changing the law on double jeopardy? I ask that on behalf of my constituent, Caroline Maddick, whose husband, Eddie Maddick, was murdered last year. Barry Whittle, a man clearly deeply implicated in the events surrounding the murder, was tried but, to general astonishment, acquitted, and the police are not pursuing any further inquiries. Mrs. Maddick is raising funds to pursue a civil case against Mr. Whittle, but is in a difficult position that could be eased if the Government implemented changes on double jeopardy.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that this matter has been under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for some time, and there may shortly be a further development. My hon. Friend makes a powerful case as to why it is necessary for us to re-examine this rule. I hope that when we introduce any changes to the rule, they will get support from both sides of the House, especially from the party that poses as the party of law and order.
Pete Wishart: May I inform the Leader of the House of an historic event that took place this morning on College Green? The event in question was the all-party egg-and-spoon race for Sport Relief, which was won by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Out of the five Members who took part in the race, two were from minority parties. If anything, we were over-represented in that race. Is it easier for minority parties to have access to charity sports events than it is for them to get representation on Select Committees?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the success of his political family. However, I offer him some avuncular advice: I would be careful how often I boasted about that success.
Glenda Jackson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the almost daily press reports averring that the American Government have taken the decision to make, and are preparing for, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. In addition to a statement on the Government's sale of spare parts for Israeli aircraft, may we have a full-scale debate on precisely what the British Government's approach is to any such pre-emptive strike in Iraq and to the worsening situation in the middle east?
Mr. Cook: I read with close attention the reports that have appeared in the press in the past few days. I have not

1043
seen any reports that a decision has been taken, although I have seen articles purporting that plans have been made by some in the US Administration. As I have said to the House repeatedly, and I say again, no decision has been taken by the British Government on this matter. No decision may ever be taken, but should we arrive at that point I am clear that the House will want to debate it thoroughly. In fairness, we have had several debates on our intervention in Afghanistan, and the Government's record on that is good.
Sir Michael Spicer: Is the Leader of the House able to give a definite date for the amendment to the data protection legislation, so that MPs can go about their business properly?
Mr.Cook: As the House will know from previous exchanges, I attach great importance to the ability of Members to fulfil their representational functions without being defeated by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I repeat that I am confident that, before the House rises, we will lay before Parliament a statutory instrument to exempt elected representatives—councillors, MPs, MEPs and Members of devolved Administrations—from the requirements of the 1998 Act when they are pursuing cases of constituents who have sought their assistance. I regret that it may not be possible for us to debate and approve it until we return from the summer recess, but the process is well under way.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the past few days the American Government have failed to meet their own deadline for announcing all the exemptions from the steel tariffs. That has made an already worrying situation much worse, not least because I now understand that no deadline is being given for when the work will be carried out. In the short time we have left between now and the beginning of the summer recess, will there be an opportunity to debate this issue or have a statement, so that we can find out what the British Government are doing about telling the Americans to get their finger out?
Mr. Cook: I do not see the opportunity for a debate or a further statement, but I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government continue vigorously to follow this matter and to work in close co-operation with our allies and partners in the European Union to ensure that we take every possible opportunity, bilaterally in Washington and multilaterally through the World Trade Organisation, to get that decision changed, because it is damaging to our industry. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is also damaging to American consumers of steel.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Leader of the House is very much aware of the widespread interest across the House in the future of British policy on Gibraltar. May we have an undertaking that there will be a statement on the Government's policy on Gibraltar before the House rises for the summer recess, and that it will not be smuggled in on a Friday when many of us will be in our constituencies, but will be made on another day of the week when the House is sitting?
Mr. Cook: We are well aware of the interest in the issue of Gibraltar, and we are conscious of the importance
1044
of keeping the House informed. If I recall rightly, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given an undertaking that he will report to the House before the recess. Without committing myself to an announcement of a specific date, which is not something that we do during business questions—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Friday is a working day.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. From time to time the House sits on a Friday, and I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will be in his place and will not let anything get passed that he believes should be challenged. I commend his diligence and assiduity to his hon. Friends on the Back Benches.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Next Tuesday will be a big day for the House because the Prime Minister will submit himself to parliamentary scrutiny by appearing before the Liaison Committee for three hours. My right hon. Friend will have read my early-day motion 1505, signed by a small but influential group of Members.
[That this House enthusiastically welcomes the Prime Minister's decision to appear before the Liaison Committee in July and thereafter on a regular basis as one way of enhancing the accountability of his Office to Parliament; believes that the Committee with 34 members is far too large and unwieldy to perform the scrutiny function effectively in a three hour session; further believes that the chairmen of all domestic committees should be excluded from sessions involving the Prime Minister, hopes that the remaining members agree to divide into three groups, each one in turn quizzing the Prime Minister at length and in detail over the forthcoming three sessions; and further believes that no serious purpose would be served if the Liaison Committee is unable to put the Prime Minister under sustained and rigorous questioning, testing to the limit his views and the Government's policies.]
I wonder what will happen on Tuesday if every single one of the 34 Members insists on firing a question at the Prime Minister. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell the House what the arrangements are.
Mr. Cook: I commend my hon. Friend for his initiative in tabling the early-day motion. I see that it was signed by 18 Members, which may be small, although I cannot comment with confidence on the degree of influence as the names are not listed yet—
Mr. Prentice: There are 26.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes the sum even bigger—36 is a significant number of Members.
The point raised by my hon. Friend is well understood in the Liaison Committee and I know that its members have held a number of discussions to ensure that they make a success of that first hearing. The matter is primarily for members of the Committee, not for me as Leader of the House; they have taken it on board and they understand that next Tuesday they will be as much on show as the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I remind the House that this is a substantial new step in the scrutiny of Government by Parliament. No previous Prime

1045
Minister has ever come before an investigative Select Committee for questioning, and it is to the credit of the Prime Minister that he is willing to do so.
Sir George Young: A few weeks ago, the Leader of the House asserted that in his view there had been too much spinning by the Government. Against that background, may we have an assurance that on Monday we shall hear the outcome of the comprehensive spending review from the lips of the Chancellor and that we shall not read about it in the weekend press?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that it will be my right hon. Friend the Chancellor who makes the statement on Monday, and I can also assure the House that my right hon. Friend will of course want to be the first to break the news to anybody. Let us be realistic, however: our friends in the Gallery will spend the whole weekend trying to break a story, and will break legs to get it. In the meantime, I can only suggest to Members that they do not necessarily believe everything that they read in the papers between now and Monday afternoon.
Mr. Colin Challen: May I ask for an early statement on the steps the Government are taking to co-operate with the Irish Government in the wake of the publication this week of their report into the Ansbacher offshore banking scandal? The report named a significant number of British nationals who were clearly using that bank to avoid paying tax. Are we co-operating closely, and may we have a statement?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that the British regulatory authorities co-operate very closely with their counterparts in other countries, especially in the European Union, where some special arrangements apply. It is very much in our interests to do so, because we depend on that co-operation being reciprocated when we pursue issues of concern in our country. If the Irish Government want to take further follow-up action, we stand ready to help them.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House aware that after last week's Hillsborough talks, when the Prime Minister promised to introduce moves to sustain the peace process and to report to the House by 24 July, it was widely reported and believed that that would actually give an amnesty for paramilitaries on the run, which would be unacceptable to many people on both sides of the House? May I have a categoric assurance from the Leader of the House that there will be a full statement from the Dispatch Box if that does occur and that such an amnesty will not be announced after we go into recess, as is so often the practice of the Government?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been a number of exchanges on that subject and that the Government's position on it has not changed. I fully understand the point that he makes—that if any such steps are taken, the House should be kept fully informed—and I know that it will be shared by Members from Northern Ireland. We are well aware of the undertaking that we would try to seek a way forward on the wider question by 24 July.
David Hamilton: Is the Leader of the House aware of the Daily Record campaign, which
1046
started—rather belatedly—on Monday, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of miners with chronic bronchitis? I belong to an ex-mining area. As I have been attempting to resolve the problem and speed up the process, I am well aware that the Department of Trade and Industry has done everything that it can. However, in thousands of cases it is possible, simply by looking at the medical evidence and without forcing the miner to come in for a medical, to see clearly that their circumstances are such that they would be entitled to an award. If that is the case, there is a regulation or a legal issue that must be overcome. If it was overcome, the process would be speeded up so much that it would help all those people, many of whom are dying before their award is made.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the Daily Record is delivered daily to my office, and I have indeed noticed the very extensive and forceful publicity that the newspaper has been giving to the issue in the course of this week. I also know my hon. Friend's constituency and know that there will be many former miners there who suffer from respiratory diseases, which are only too common in mining communities.
I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Minister for Energy and Construction, who, as he knows, has been very active in pursuing justice for miners and in dialogue with representatives of the mining communities. In so far as it is possible for us to respond to these concerns, I am sure that he will be willing to look sympathetically at how to do so.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the question of CAP reform? We now have the Fischler proposals, which were published earlier in the week. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot arrange a debate in Government time before the recess or next week, will he arrange for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), to appear before European Standing Committee A or B to set out the Government's reaction to these important proposals, in an attempt to allay some of the uncertainties that they have occasioned in the farming community throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Cook: I am certainly well aware of the importance of the proposals and I also fully understand the controversy that surrounds them. There is a limit to what I can offer the House in the remaining eight sitting days before we rise, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this will be a high priority for the Government and that I am under no illusions that the House will not wish to discuss this before any final decision is taken, which is some time away.
In conclusion, I add, as I have on previous occasions, that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot constantly demand reform of the common agricultural policy and then complain about the specific proposals that are put to us. If we want reform, we have to face up to some very difficult and painful choices.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: May I also request that we have an opportunity to consider the F-16s? Helping to supply arms to increase the spiralling

1047
bloodshed in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, does not seem a very ethical dimension to our foreign policy. Surely there must be political principles and moral values that we are not prepared to sacrifice to ingratiate an increasingly right-wing, hawkish and unilateralist United States Administration.
Mr. Cook: I entirely understand the concern of many hon. Members and the genuine deep worry, particularly given the very recent use of the F-16s in the occupied territories. These are matters that both the British and United States Governments have raised with the Israeli Government, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be very interested in any point that my hon. Friend wishes to put to him.
Gregory Barker: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread anger and disgust in my constituency at the Government announcement that they are going to muck about with local government finance? Is he aware that that is seen as a blatant attempt to channel money from the south-east and into Labour heartlands? Furthermore, is he aware that the leader of East Sussex county council, the poorest county council in England, has calculated that if this plan goes ahead, council tax will have to rise by between 25 and 33 per cent.? Which would he prefer—that council tax goes up that much, or that the council slashes public services to the vulnerable?
Mr. Cook: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last two general elections but, as it happens, we now have Labour heartlands in every region of Britain and it is simply not possible for us to be politically biased against any one region. I repeat what I have said before: the consultation document contains a series of different options—options for which we have expressed no preferences. It is therefore totally meaningless for any chief executive to try to pretend that he can produce a financial consequence for his local authority until the end of that consultation period. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman and his local authority's chief executive might recognise that there is merit in a local government grant distribution system that reflects changes in population, changes in the number of school pupils and degrees of deprivation.
Mr. David Kidney: I welcome all that my right hon. Friend has just said, as well as the consultation on local government finance, but may I point out to him that for 10 of the 12 weeks of the consultation period the House will be in recess and that for six of the 12 weeks schools, which are crucially affected by the proposals to change education funding, will be closed for their holidays? May I also impress on him that literally hundreds of right hon. and hon. Members who represent English constituencies have a very keen interest in how that debate will unfold? So may I make a plea that, as soon as we return in October, there will be time to debate that subject before the Government start to settle the provisional settlement for next year? May I make a
1048
helpful suggestion that, if there is no time in the Chamber for that debate, a full debate in Westminster Hall might be sufficient?
Mr. Cook: May I remind the House that we have put out for consultation the draft local government finance Bill, which is currently being considered by the appropriate Select Committee, and that this Government's record in trying to seek consultation on such drafts and proposals for change is very good. The House may well be in recess for the next 10 weeks; I personally think that is at the root of the problem. I have made proposals that we should return in September and should not have such long periods of absence from the British political scene. I very much hope that those proposals will be approved by the House. If they are, it will meet my hon. Friend's and other hon. Members' concern by ensuring that we are not absent for such a long period.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I pick up the request made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) in respect of the Government's consultation document on the resourcing of local government, not least because my own county, Cheshire, has been short-changed under successive Governments, so I do not seek to score a political point? That has a huge impact on education and social service provision, not least on the ability of social services to fund care homes, which are currently in crisis. The Leader of the House, who is a most reasonable man, has said that he wishes to introduce reforms, which many hon. Members support. Will he say whether the consultation period on that proposal, which I agree contains options, can be extended to enable hon. Members to express a view before the Government put any firm proposals to the House?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very diplomatically and temptingly, and I will certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions how best we can ensure that the House has an opportunity fully to express its view. The hon. Gentleman was quite frank and blunt in expressing his concerns on behalf of his local authority when he sat on the Government Benches, so, given the honourable role that he played, I exempt him from any criticism, but we should not lose sight of the fact that, of course, the Government have very substantially increased spending on education, social services and all the other aspects of local government spending. As a result, all the local authorities that have been mentioned are doing substantially better than they ever did under the previous Conservative Government.
Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the volume of parliamentary questions?
Mr. Forth: Nice tie.
Kevin Brennan: The Leader of the House will be aware from a parliamentary answer that he gave yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has now officially become the half-million-pound man, having asked 4,382 questions at

1049
a cost of £565,278 in this Session alone. Although in no way do I wish to fetter the right of hon. Members to hold the Government properly to account, is not there a difference between proper parliamentary scrutiny and the obsessive compulsive exegesis of the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Cook: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tie, and particularly on its admirable politically correct tone? On the point that he raises, it is not for the Leader of the House to discourage Members who believe that they have a bona fide concern from pursuing it through the Order Paper and parliamentary questions. I have answered many questions from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—I think that I have answered more questions from him than from the rest of the House added together—and I am relaxed about the fact that he chooses to table so many. It is perhaps time, however, that he reflected on whether the product, in terms of what he can do with those answers, has justified all the effort that he has put in. Perhaps the time has come for a redirection of his admirable energy into a more productive channel.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Foreign Secretary on United Kingdom-Iran relations? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to know what recent representation has been made to the Iranian Government about the continuing abuse of human rights by that regime of repressive, fundamentalist Islamic mullahs, which brutalises its people and uses torture and execution to terrorise its political opponents.
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the respect for human rights—or the absence of it—in Iran is a matter of high priority in the Foreign Office, on which representations are frequently made. It is also fair to note, however, that there have been movements in the politics of Iran that have resulted in a return to a democratic parliament, and the great majority of the public of Iran have voted for people who want to take Iran forward into the modern era and put behind them the rule of the mullahs to which he referred, which was the product of the revolution. It is in all our interests that we handle our relations with Iran so that we strengthen the role of, and support for, those who want to take Iran forward and enter into a responsible relationship with the rest of the world, and that we marginalise those who would rather take Iran back into the middle ages.
Mr. John Taylor: Can we have a debate on town and country planning, and particularly on the Government's planning policy guidance, which is elegantly known as PPG3? In my constituency, the planning department is under siege as developers put in application after application—followed by appeal after appeal—in respect of the same site, which causes considerable distress to long-suffering neighbours of the site who are objectors to the proposals. Is there an end in sight to these repeated, excessive and sequential planning applications and appeals?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that changes to planning law and guidelines are very much at the forefront of the Government's mind at present, and I am sure that, in the forthcoming Session, there will be
1050
opportunities to explore some of those issues. As I have mentioned to him, I am familiar with his vicinity, which has some admirable country that is well worth preserving, and it is very important that we make sure that our planning laws strike the right balance between ensuring that development can proceed, and, at the same time, protecting the rich heritage of our countryside. I am proud that, under this Government, the green belt has been expanded by a substantial volume of territory, and we do not want that put at risk.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement or debate on the future of the Millennium Commission, and on the way in which it has dealt with the 24 Landmark projects around the country? In particular, the debate should include discussion of the fiasco relating to the millennium tower in Portsmouth.
Mr. Cook: I sense that this is an important constituency issue, on which I regret that I am not briefed. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that he will find other ways to pursue it in the House.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that my constituent, Tony Martin, is back in the news again because he is being sued by one of the burglars who broke into his house? Does he agree that we ought to have a new legal principle whereby criminals who break and enter into properties leave their civil rights outside? Would he also agree that it is monstrous that someone should get legal aid in a case in which their solicitor has already agreed to act on a contingency—no win, no fee—basis? I am trying to table an early-day motion on this matter, but I am told that it may be sub judice because the case may be brought in the future. How would the right hon. Gentleman advise me to bring this protest forward?
Mr. Cook: As Leader of the House, I must strongly defend our convention on sub judice, however frustrating it may be from time to time. On the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises, it would plainly be proper for the courts to take into account the way in which the event took place, and the fact that the people in question had broken into property, in making any judgment about whether they were entitled to compensation. The Government have no control over the Legal Aid Board, to which, quite properly, we have devolved decision making. As a constituency Member, I frequently find its decisions baffling.
Hugh Robertson: The Leader of the House is aware that many hon. Members in all parts of the House represent constituencies where agriculture is a sizeable contributor to the local economy or shapes the pace of rural life and the environment. It is increasingly difficult to ask questions on particular aspects of farming in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, so will he make time available in the next Session for a proper debate on the future of farming?
Mr. Cook: I am conscious of the demand from both sides of the House for a proper discussion on the countryside, perhaps going wider than the agricultural

1051
economy. That is a matter that we will bear in mind. The matter of DEFRA questions was raised at the start of the Session, when DEFRA brought together the previously separate Question Times on farming and the environment. We considered the request from some hon. Members to separate out the time, but, on balance, we took a decision that the point of DEFRA was to ensure that we had a seamless approach to the countryside that embraced all other aspects of the countryside economy, and therefore that it was important to retain a single DEFRA Question Time, rather than suggesting that farming could be subdivided from it.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Since the Minister for Pensions told the House:
"Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres…or receiving home visits"—[Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 4.],
and since his account was directly contradicted in public evidence given to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions by a senior civil servant in his Department, Ms Alexis Cleveland, who said:
"We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit",
will the Leader of the House, notwithstanding what the Minister told the House yesterday, arrange for the Minister to come to the House and correct a serious error?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions informs me that he dealt with the matter at points of order yesterday, that he was absolutely correct and that the hon. Gentleman is in error. I shall happily discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman and write to him. I have the fullest confidence in my right hon. Friend, and if I am obliged on the spur of the moment to choose which advice to accept, I shall certainly take the advice of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On Wednesday and Thursday next week, the gentleman described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) as "the nice Mr. Crow"—most other people think that he is pretty nasty—is turning his bully-boy tactics against 3 million Londoners and is determined to disrupt the underground services. Does the Leader of the House accept that that is a political strike and, in that sense, an unusual strike, because the supposed justification for it—safety—has been removed by the approval of the safety case? Does he further accept that, because of its significance as a political strike and the disruption that it will cause, it would reasonable for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House early next week and explain what he intends to do to prevent similar strikes, and how he will alleviate the suffering that Londoners will otherwise undergo?
Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the safety case relating to the public-private partnership project for the tube has been thoroughly examined. We have given clear assurances on that, and we have made it plain that the Health and Safety Executive will have the
1052
final lock on whether the proposals are safe. There is therefore no valid ground of safety for an industrial dispute or for any other form of concern. I do not see any merit in the industrial action to which he refers, and I very much hope that those who work on the London underground will reflect on whether they are really assisting their own cause by taking part in it.
Mr. Mark Francois: On an entirely non-partisan point, as the proposer of a ten-minute Bill seeking to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to remove the impediments to hon. Members going about their duties on behalf of their constituents, I welcome the confirmation by the Leader of the House this afternoon that he intends to produce, by the Summer recess, a draft statutory instrument to resolve the problem. I and other hon. Members look forward to reading the detail of that statutory instrument and, hopefully, returning after the summer recess to vote it into law to solve the problem once and for all.
Mr. Cook: It would be less than gracious of me to do other than accept what the hon. Gentleman said and I am grateful for his support. I should clarify that it is not I who will lay the statutory instrument but my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, I shall make a point this afternoon of telephoning them as soon as I leave the Chamber to draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to their attention.
Michael Fabricant: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and other hon. Members, can the Leader of the House understand the frustration felt by teachers, head teachers and parents in Staffordshire when the formula grant distribution document offers four alternative options for the funding of schools in England that would leave Staffordshire worse off? One would leave us marginally better off but still with a greater distance than now between the richest and poorest counties. To put that in context, Staffordshire receives the lowest funding per pupil bar one other English county, and that is just not fair. Can we have a debate on the issue? In 1997, the Government promised to put the matter to rights. In this document, all four options make Staffordshire worse off, not better off.
Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman fairly said—I congratulate him on his candidness—there are a number of different options in the consultative document. It is open to his local authority and to others to object to any or all of those four options if they believe that they do not make the correct division. That is why we had a consultation period. I hope that when he corresponds with his local authority and his teachers, he will point out that spending on education is now one quarter higher than it was when the Conservative party was in office and, under the forthcoming spending review, there will be a further increase. There is no local authority in England that does not now have substantially more to spend on its schools and teachers than was the case before 1997. If he would care to admit that publicly, I shall listen sympathetically to what he says about distribution.

Pickering Review
1.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Pickering report that was published this morning.
The report is the culmination of nine months of hard work by Alan Pickering and his team. I should like to thank him and also everyone who took the time and effort to submit their views—some of whom are here today.
In his report, Alan Pickering acknowledges the encouragement that he received not only from my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister for Pensions, but also from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
Pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision. We need to deal with the complexities built up over the years by successive Governments.
Alan's report makes 52 recommendations. The key ones include: a new pensions Act to consolidate all existing pensions legislation; a new more proactive regulator; a better, more targeted approach for communicating with pension scheme members; more flexibility to modify schemes; allowing employers to make membership of their occupational pension scheme a condition of employment; and the ending of compulsory indexation for defined benefit pensions, and compulsory survivors benefits.
The report, together with Ron Sandler's proposals, announced by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on Tuesday, represents the first stage of a comprehensive review of occupational and personal pension provision.
The Government will take a radical look at the issues, together with the results of the Inland Revenue review of tax simplification, when that is completed. In the autumn we will come forward with our proposals in a Green Paper.
That will initiate a wide-ranging consultation. It will look at private pensions policy in the round, including the opportunities open to people around retirement, and will set out the Government's proposals to enable people to build up more pension savings.
Alan Pickering's report covers complex issues and includes some tough choices—the inevitable dilemmas faced by all simplifiers. The report presents challenges to us all: employees and their unions, employers and commercial pension providers, the Government and the Opposition. I believe that we will need to be guided by the following principles and objectives, grounded in a long-term approach: fairness; security in retirement; informed choice for consumers; simple and proportionate regulation; ensuring that incentives are effective and well understood; promoting employment among older workers; and flexibility to give individuals more choice about the pace at which they retire from the labour market. I hope that we can secure all-party agreement on those matters.
The Government believe that pension provision should be based on partnership, which can secure lasting buy-in from all key players. We must strike the right balances between sometimes competing goals. We want the
1054
simplicity that enables people to make informed choices without stifling product innovation and competition. We want a proportionate regulatory framework that provides sufficient security for savers while making it worth while for employers and commercial providers to make available good pension products. We need to ensure that we remove unnecessary barriers to employer provision and employer contributions. We also need to make it easier for people to save and make it easier to sell pension products, as Ron Sandler's report proposed on Tuesday. We need to achieve all that and more against the remorseless arithmetic that tells us that, because we are living longer and want to maintain a good standard of living in retirement, we need to save more or work longer, or a combination of both.
We wanted Alan Pickering to present a strong challenge to the degree of regulation around private pensions. He has done that—he has made some valuable proposals for simplifying pensions legislation and reducing administrative burdens on both schemes and employers, cutting costs and simplifying choices for individuals. His recommendations also present some tough choices. Take, for example, his recommendation that employers should have the choice to make joining a company pension a condition of employment. Some 16 per cent. of people who could benefit from a company pension scheme currently choose not to do so. Compelling people to join would restrict their choice, but against that consideration, we need to balance the beneficial effects for schemes and the overall effect on extending pension coverage.
Alan has also made a number of specific recommendations on easements of legislation—in particular, repeal of section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995. Again, that throws up a tough choice. The recommendation would mean that, if employers faced funding constraints on their scheme, they could have an option to reduce future funding costs rather than close the scheme. Of course, that would remove an absolute guarantee against the consequences of change, but might well secure a better outcome for members and the future of the scheme, set against the alternative of its closure.
Alan also recommends an end to compulsory indexation of pensions and removal of compulsory survivors' benefits as a condition of contracting out. On first reading, those proposals are not attractive. They go against the drive of the past 30 years to price protect pensions and to enhance survivors' benefits, but again, in the light of the report, we will need to look carefully at all the consequences.
As well as the big themes and recommendations to which I have referred, a number of more modest issues are addressed to my Department and others. For example, they include improving the way in which contracting out is administered; streamlining procedures and reducing general administrative burdens; looking at ways better to provide advice through the workplace; and improving information going to pension scheme members. Those recommendations have considerable merit, and subject to the responses that we receive to the report, I intend to take them forward.
In conclusion, I believe that Alan Pickering's report offers clear options for simplification and makes a valuable contribution to the debate that we need to have on the next stage of pension reform. We need to face up to the tough choices that he sets out. In seeking to simplify

1055
the future we must also face up to the—in many ways harder—challenge of simplifying the past, in that we need to simplify the different regulations that have built up over the years. Otherwise, we will end up adding yet another layer to the existing layer cake of regulation and complexity.
Alan Pickering's proposals are radical, ambitious and pragmatic. I urge hon. Members, the public, employers, trade unions and pension providers—all those whose partnership is essential for effective pension reform—to give them full and constructive consideration. The Government certainly will. The acid tests for the Green Paper must be increasing the level of savings for retirement and making a secure occupational pension accessible to as many people as possible
1.35 pm
Mr. David Willetts: I declare my interests that appear in the Register of Members' Interests and thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of this very important report
Let me make it clear that we welcome the report, just as we welcomed Alan Pickering's review when it was established. I join the Secretary of State in expressing our respect for the expertise and wisdom that Alan Pickering brought to the exercise. He has produced a valuable report.
Conservative Members respond to the Secretary of State's comments by saying that we understand that the regulatory regime for pensions must be stable to ensure long-term planning, and we will contribute constructively to the debate about the best ways of cutting the burden of regulations on pension funds. That is an obligation on all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The starting point of the debate has to be a frank recognition of the scale of the problem that faces funded pensions. For years, Ministers have been shockingly complacent, saying that everything was all right when it clearly was not, and citing statistics that they have since admitted were seriously misleading. The Secretary of State should accept the stark warning in Alan Pickering's report that
"without change, the current trajectory suggests less private pension provision in the future."
That warning lies at the heart of his report.
We shall obviously want to study the proposals in the Pickering report very carefully, but I can tell the Secretary of State that we welcome the themes that are expounded in it. For example, we support the call for a proportionate regulatory environment, and we welcome Alan Pickering's vivid expression that a pension is a pension is a pension. There are too many different forms of pension, and it is right to try to simplify them. It is also true that too much pension provision has become a form of archaeology, with pension providers delving deep into the past to identify the date on which a pension was first set up in order to understand the tax and regulatory regime around it. That needs to be tackled
Can I press the Secretary of State for more information about the timetable to which he is working? The
1056
recommendations will be pointless unless the Government act quickly. As Alan Pickering said in his report
"Time is not on our side."
Yet the Secretary of State offered us a second Green Paper on pensions. I have here the Government's previous pensions Green Paper, which was published nearly four years ago. That contained the Prime Minister's promise that his Government would increase the proportion of pensioners' incomes that comes from private savings from 40 to 60 per cent. Since then, the Government have made no progress whatsoever towards achieving that objective. Instead, they introduced stakeholder pensions that were supposed to go to the 5 million people in their target group, although they reached only about 100,000, and scheme after scheme has closed. Why should the second Green Paper make any progress, given the comprehensive failure of the first?
If we do not get legislation until 2004, as has been suggested, the changes will not be implemented until 2005 at the earliest. Yet, if pension scheme closures carry on at their current rate, there will not be any pension schemes open to new members by the time that the Government finally get round to implementing the proposals in Alan Pickering's report. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to inform the House of the likely timetable of any legislation to implement proposals for reform?
May I also press the Secretary of State for more information about the burden of regulation, which is still increasing? Since the Pickering review was established in September 2001, we have had 251 pages of new regulations. We are still waiting for the final results of the Myners review. It is good to see a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench because the Treasury, in its commitment to implementing Myners, has been threatening pension schemes with yet more regulation. There is a useful warning in Mr. Pickering's report: he hopes that the people taking forward Myners—he might be thinking of the Financial Secretary—will
"keep in mind our arguments for simplification."
Can we have an assurance from the Secretary of State, as the minimum to show his good will on this exercise, that more regulation will not be imposed on pension schemes while we wait for his supposedly deregulatory legislation? Without such an assurance, it will be difficult to take the Government's commitment to deregulation seriously.
The terms of reference for Alan Pickering's report were very narrow and excluded some of the main factors that have been driving the crisis in funded pension provision. Why was Alan Pickering unable to comment on the structure of state pensions, including the state second pension, which left-wing think tanks such as the IPPR are now saying should be abolished before it has even begun?
What about the burden of ever more means-testing of pensioners? Why could not Pickering comment on the spread of means-testing, which will soon result in more than 50 per cent. of all pensioners finding themselves on a means test? If so many pensioners are to face means tests, which will mean that they are not fully rewarded for their saving, does the Secretary of State recognise the serious danger that the main beneficiaries of the review could be the richer half of the population? They will not be trapped by the means test that he is imposing on the less affluent 50 per cent. of pensioners.

1057
What about the financial burdens that the Government have placed on pension funds which are their direct responsibility? What about the £5 billion a year tax on pension funds, and the £1.5 billion a year cost of the insufficient value for the contracted-out rebate? Does the Secretary of State recognise that that adds up to £6.5 billion a year being taken from our pension funds? That is the real reason why our pension funds are closing, and nothing that he said today showed any willingness to recognise the scale of that problem and what needs to be done to tackle it.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He was considerably more constructive at the beginning than at the end. Indeed, his tone at the beginning is the one more likely to lead to a productive outcome for this House, the country and pensioners at large. I appreciate his welcome for the report and echo his praise for Alan Pickering's expertise and everything that he and his team have brought to the recommendations.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to constructive engagement on these matters because pension policy is by definition for the long term. As Alan Pickering points out in his report, it does not coincide with the electoral cycle. All of us in this House have an interest in doing—indeed we have a duty to do—our very best to pull together to lay some foundations for occupational and private pensions that can stand the test of time. Therefore, as far as possible, constructive all party engagement on these issues is very much to be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of complacency. We are certainly not complacent on these matters. Indeed, the very reason that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), and the Chancellor commissioned not only the Pickering report but the Sandler review as well as the Inland Revenue tax simplification report before the recent events that have caused additional concern is that we were seized of the importance of getting the framework for occupational and personal pensions right.
There is a tendency for the debate to oscillate between hysteria at one extreme and complacency at the other. As a recent Financial Times editorial pointed out, the right thing to do is to take a hard-headed, realistic look at the challenge that we face—the challenge is certainly there, which is why we are producing a Green Paper—and not to be distracted from the seriousness of that purpose.
On the timetable, of course we want to move as quickly as is sensible on a matter such as this, but, to get a considered reaction to these complex and, in some areas, contentious, proposals, it would not be right to proceed without hearing what the public, the other parties in the House, and the providers—the essential partners to successful future pension provision—have to say about them. We also have to await the tax simplification review, and any tax implications from these proposals would, in any event, be considered on a Budget timetable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the burden of regulations, which we are countering here. As I said in my statement, we are tackling regulations that have been put in place by successive Governments. I do not want to turn this into a partisan ding-dong—
Mr. Andrew Love: Why not?
Mr. Smith: Tempting though my hon. Friend's suggestion is, the truth is that we have only to read the Pickering report to see the number of measures that he suggests need to be tackled that were actually the product of legislation passed by the previous Conservative Administration, albeit often with the best of intentions. One of our problems is that layer upon layer of complexity and regulation has been built up in response to short-term events, and that has left us all with a huge long-term problem.
On Myners, I am sure that we and the Treasury will bear in mind the need for simplification that Alan Pickering points to. On the hon. Gentleman's reference to means-testing, I have to say that the Conservatives seem deliberately and consistently to overlook the enormous benefit that the pension credit brings. It cannot be stated too often that, for those saving above the basic pension, the pension credit will, for the first time, reward that saving rather than penalising it as the Conservatives did.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's constructive response to the report, and I look forward to our working with colleagues on both sides of the House to carry this forward in an all-party spirit.
Mr. Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of this detailed report. I welcome the fact that Alan Pickering is seeking to create an all-party consensus on pensions structures, and I can confirm to the Secretary of State that, if he decides to approach prospective legislation in that way, the Liberal Democrats will certainly play a full and constructive part.
I want to raise two areas of concern, however. One involves issues that were in the report, the other matters that should have been in it. It terms of what was in it, I disagree with Alan Pickering in that I do not believe that benefits for widows, or the post-retirement raising of pensions, are bells and whistles. In our view—and, I sense, in the Secretary of State's view—they are an integral part of what pensions should be. Given that many old pensioners—the poorest pensioners in the land—are often elderly widows, can it be right to undermine provision for widows or to have more pensions frozen for 20 years of retirement? I do not believe so, and I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm his intention to look very sceptically at that proposal.
In terms of what the report perhaps should have said, will the Secretary of State accept that, given the tens of billions of pounds shortfall—whatever the figure is—in the amount of saving that should be going on, these proposals, although many are welcome, are not up to tackling that scale of problem? With the best will in the world, the Green Paper, and subsequent legislation a few years down the line that will probably take effect decades down the line, will not tackle the crisis now, though they are part of the overall strategy. Is it not time to require all employers to put money into their employees' pensions, and to give good employers and their employees the incentive to go further and to build on that? Without such provisions, we shall see a continued haemorrhaging of money from pension funds.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response, and for his commitment to resolving the matter with as much cross-party agreement as possible.

1059
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a description of survivors' benefits as bells and whistles. It is certainly not a description that I would use—such benefits are valued features of current schemes—but we cannot escape the tough choice, and the tough question, posed by Alan Pickering. He says that, in the event of a choice between maintaining those benefits and the closure of schemes—resulting in lower contribution rates—people might end up substantially worse off. I do not find that proposition attractive, but at this stage I am not ruling anything in or out. I want to examine all the proposals and all the responses.
As for the scale of the problem and the extent to which the report addresses it, the terms of reference can be found in the appendix. They refer specifically to simplification of regulation, and Alan Pickering rightly focused on that. Of course this report will have to be judged alongside our response to the Sandler report and the Inland Revenue's work on tax simplification. As I have said, the Green Paper will be a substantial and wide-ranging document that will meet what is a considerable challenge.
We must think carefully about the implications of compulsory employers' contributions. Again, I am ruling nothing in or out at this stage; but if employers withheld wage increases or even cut wages to pay for those contributions, as some might be tempted to do, the cost would be effectively transferred from employer to employee. Furthermore, if employers were tempted or indeed forced to cut jobs, people might lose not just their occupational pensions but their wages.
Those attracted by the Australian example would do well to remember not just the differences in basic state provision in that country, but the fact that compulsion was introduced there as part of an historic compromise with the trade unions. There was a deliberate drive to hold down wages to help pay for pensions. We need to think carefully before embarking on such action.
Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State told us more about what he hopes to do in six minutes than most of his colleagues tell us in five times as long. I thank him for his statement, and join him in thanking Alan Pickering for producing a report on how best we might protect the one obvious welfare success of the last 100 years—and, in so doing, serving up to the Secretary of State not just the soft options but some of the hard options that we may have to take in preserving that great welfare success.
When the Secretary of State drafts his Green Paper in the autumn, taking a radical look at what needs to be done, will he take account of the economic cost to taxpayers of past failures to ensure that everyone has an adequate, decent minimum pension in the first place? The current cost of those welfare failures to each standard-rate taxpayer is 5p in the pound, and according to the Government's own calculations it is expected to rise to 13p. Are there not better ways of spending taxpayers' money than paying the cost of a failure to guarantee adequate pensions for all in the first place?>
Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The whole House greatly admires and respects his expertise, even if we do not always agree with every detail of his proposals.
1060
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point about the importance of fully assessing economic costs, and I shall examine them closely. When considering the proper use of taxpayers' money, however, we must recognise the need for decisions about how thinly to spread resources for pension enhancement across the pensioner population, and about how much sense it makes to concentrate at least some additional state resources on the poorest pensioners. I make no apology for the fact that an important strand of the Government's policy has been concentrating a proportion of the available resources on the poorest pensioners, thus helping many out of poverty.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that Alan Pickering is a wise man and that the report will repay careful study? First, may I tempt the Financial Secretary to whisper in the Minister's ear the possible outcome of the Inland Revenue negotiations. Those in the industry to whom I have spoken are encouraged by the discussions so far and have been led to expect a fruitful outcome. However, it must be an early outcome, so can he say a word about that? Secondly, if he is being sceptical about some of these things—and I hope that he is—may I refer him to some of the advice that he may have been getting from the Government Actuary Department about the loss of cover to ill-health retirement as that would merely increase the number of people who would be passported straight on to incapacity benefit, which is already a huge problem for the Government?
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive remarks. He tempts me to say what the outcome of the Inland Revenue tax simplification review will be before it is completed. Sadly, I am not in a position to do that. However, it is important that every dimension of the review is approached in a radical spirit and that we entertain the bold action that is necessary as a consequence properly to secure the future for occupational and personal pensions. I also take his point about incapacity benefit.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am one of the culprits in introducing some of the previous legislation? As he rightly says, it was for good reason at the time, whether it was Robert Maxwell or pensions mis-selling or whatever. I thank the Secretary of State not only for what he said but for the tone in which he said it. In the interests of increasing the cross-party support that I am sure that this report will garner over the months, will he consider referring the pensions Bill which the Pickering report mentions to a Special Standing Committee rather than to an ordinary Standing Committee, so that evidence can be taken from pensions experts during the Bill's passage through the House and we can get the detail right on difficult issues such as pensions on divorce?
Mr. Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks on tone and reciprocate by thanking him for the way in which he made his remarks. I have noticed the spirit in which he has contributed to previous debates on this matter. It is good of him to own up as a culprit, having introduced some of the legislation that we are dealing with. I hope that I do not have to do the same at some point in future. He invites me to consider referring a

1061
future pensions Bill to a Special Standing Committee. I shall certainly consider it, but as he will understand, I cannot commit to that at this stage.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not important that all of us interested in occupational pensions, not only in the House, but in the country, study carefully the proposals in the Pickering report? It is also important that we do not allow a knee-jerk reaction because of the two headline-grabbing proposals that we may not like on index linking and pensions for surviving spouses.
My right hon. Friend referred to important matters to be included in the Green Paper that will be published later in the year. I remind him that pension security is crucial. In my constituency, so many pensioners in different schemes have lost out over the years, including those affected by the Bellings pension fraud, that we should make sure that all workers get what they expect from their pensions when they retire.
Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes some wise comments. On his second point on security, it is worth highlighting what Alan Pickering says in the foreword to the report:
"Our proposals will lift the regulatory burden on employers, but it remains incumbent on those employers to keep their side of the bargain with employees and meet their pension promises."
It is timely to have a reminder that rights and responsibilities in these matters cut both ways. My hon. Friend was wise to rule out knee-jerk reactions to the report.
The more one reads the report and sees its careful structure and inbuilt balances, the more one realises that it pays to reflect carefully on it before reaching conclusions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The sobering if joyous fact is that, in the year that I was elected to this House, the Queen sent 200 telegrams to those who had reached their 100th birthday, but last year, she sent 3,900 such telegrams. Does that not reflect the size of the problem? Will my right hon. Friend consider the difficult issue of whether equivalent pension benefits are to be commuted at the discretion of trustees, unless a member objects? That is an urgent problem.
Mr. Smith: On the first point, which my hon. Friend puts characteristically graphically, greater longevity is of course one of the challenges that we are addressing. It is great news that so many people are living much longer, and that many are receiving telegrams from Her Majesty, but as I said in my statement, that presents us with some remorseless arithmetic. Given that we are living longer, and that we want to maintain a high standard of living in retirement, we must either work more, save more, or a combination of both. I have noted my hon. Friend's concern about equivalence, and I shall certainly reflect further on it.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State is doubtless fully aware of the problems with which my local Buckinghamshire authority must deal in respect of pension funds, and of the fact that local council tax payers face the prospect of having to make up the shortfalls out of their diminishing pension income. Does he plan to review local authority pensions, will the
1062
forthcoming Green Paper deal with that issue, and does he consider that the Pickering report has any implications for such pensions?
Mr. Smith: As the hon. Lady should be aware, the system of allocation to local authorities through standard spending assessments is under review, and where relevant, the pensions aspect will doubtless be factored in. However, we are talking about a matter for which public authorities have to pay from their allocated budgets. As with other public bodies, it behoves local authorities properly to meet their responsibilities in this regard.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: So far, we have heard nothing about the self-employed, 54 per cent. of whom have no additional pension provision. Does my right hon. Friend see anything in the Pickering report to encourage the self-employed to take out pension policies? Can he confirm that the consultation will address this issue in particular, and will perhaps consider the question of compulsion?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend points to an aspect of the current pattern of provision that warrants re-examination. In the past, the general assumption has been that the self-employed are responsible for making their own provision. However, as he says, many do not—at least, not through pension products—although they might be building up other assets. As we draw up the Green Paper, I shall look closely at the position of the self-employed, along with other categories of workers.
Mr. David Ruffley: Has the Secretary of State ruled out making a second pension compulsory for everybody?
Mr. Smith: The statement is about Pickering, pensions and regulation. As I said in relation to the forthcoming autumn Green Paper, I am not ruling matters in or out, being just a few weeks into the job. However, I am not setting hares running on extending compulsory state second pensions.
Mr. Andrew Miller: As someone who, in a previous life, negotiated with large companies on pension matters, I know that many people will welcome simplification and better information in the workplace; indeed, that is mission critical to the success of future schemes. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I have had to deal with the sad case of a scheme that was abused by an employer, H. H. Robertson. [Interruption.] The Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) nods—he is obviously familiar with the background. When my right hon. Friend removes the parts of the legislation that he proposes to remove, may I caution him to ensure that he does not diminish the protection provided to workers under the Pensions Act 1995? Does he recognise the need for greater transparency so that employees can see problems arising earlier than they can at present?
Mr. Smith: I am not proposing to remove any parts of anything, because we are at present considering the recommendations that Alan Pickering has made. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. It is

1063
appalling when workers who have placed confidence in the conduct of their employers have that shattered by the sort of behaviour that he mentions. I agree that workers will welcome simplification and better information in the workplace, and that is one of Alan Pickering's recommendations that we will wish to take forward, in conjunction with the Financial Services Authority, in terms of education and information. I agree that more transparency is important and, as we prepare the Green Paper, we must also keep a close eye on the security dimension.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I thank the Secretary of State for the balanced tone in which he presented his statement and for responding so positively to the attempt—often made from this side of the House—at a constructive engagement with the long-term problem of pensions. Does he accept that if company pension schemes are freed from some of the performance indicators, it is likely to mean that final pay-outs will be lower? I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State did not sound too keen on the proposal to ditch the obligation to pay benefits to the widows of pensioners. That would be an anti-family proposal that would hit middle-aged women who have spent their life bringing up their family.
Mr. Smith: I welcome the tone in which the hon. Gentleman poses his question. He is right to say that if company schemes were given greater flexibility, that might result in lower final pay-outs, but the tough choice that the Pickering report invites us to consider—and which we would be wise to consider—is how far some modification, within certain limits, is preferable to the closure of schemes on the likely pretext of greatly reduced contributions, or is an essential element in making schemes simpler to administer so that we can overcome the layer cake of complexity to which I have already referred. Without ruling anything in or out, I have already given a clear signal of how I feel about the important question of survivors and widows. It is also important that when we prepare the Green Paper in the autumn—and I have already briefed my officials on this point—we have a comprehensive analysis of the implications for women of present private and occupational pension provision and the reforms we might entertain.
Miss Anne Begg: If the Government are to achieve their stated aim of a ratio of 60 per cent. private and 40 per cent. state provision of pensions, the issue of public confidence and trust is important. There is no doubt that the best way to provide for one's old age is through an occupational pension with employer contributions. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that at the end of this long process—and it will be long—if people of working age are to invest their hard-earned cash in occupational pensions, they will have to have a guarantee that the money will be there for them when they reach retirement age?
Mr. Smith: Yes, that is why I have said that security in retirement is one of the objectives against which our preparation of the Green Paper will be judged.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: It is a sad fact that in my constituency, the issue of pensions is fast
1064
becoming the biggest in my postbag. People are concerned about the collapse of occupational schemes, as the Minister for Pensions will know, as well as their closure to new entrants, so speed is of the essence.
On a more specific point, can the Secretary of State promise my elderly constituents that the forthcoming Green Paper will contain plans from the Government about the reform of annuities?
Mr. Smith: Yes, that is our intention. The hon. Lady will be aware of the consultation that we have already undertaken on the future of annuities, and we are considering the responses. We shall be making a further statement on this as part of the Green Paper. However, I do not want to raise the hon. Lady's expectations as she might subsequently be disappointed, and we would do well to remember that an annuity is still the only way of guaranteeing an income throughout retirement. That said, there are important changes in terms of encouraging a better, more competitive and responsive market in the sorts of annuities that are available, so that they suit individual preference. We will respond to that matter in the Green Paper.
Mr. Tom Levitt: It has always struck me as odd that those people who are for ever telling us that they are so valuable to the economy—the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the movers and shakers—tend to retire early on very generous pension packages, whereas those who have not been so fortunate have to work right up until state retirement age to get a modest income from their pensions. When reviewing his response to the Pickering report, will my right hon. Friend consider not only the interests of those on low pay and those entering or re-entering the labour market late in life but the pension rights of people who, after a lifetime of employment, seek to go to a step-down employment position for a few years before they retire which can, at present, jeopardise their pension rights?
Mr. Smith: Yes, I referred in my statement to the importance of the Green Paper looking at the wider opportunities around retirement, and this is precisely the sort of thing I meant. Instead of facing a cliff edge, many people would like to move into retirement more gradually. My hon. Friend is quite right that their options are artificially constrained. Indeed, there are perverse incentives on far too many people to pack in work sooner than they would like. I want the outcome of our further work and the Green Paper to bring forward some truly radical proposals that will open up new choices and opportunities for these most valuable members of the population.
Hugh Robertson: May I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests?
I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to take a radical look at this issue in the near future and, as part of that review, will he give an undertaking to look at the diversification of investment asset classes, particularly the cost of trading in and out of those alternative asset classes? For example, if people could have had greater exposure to the commercial property market in their pensions in recent years, the returns on them would have

1065
been significantly boosted. They are currently prevented from doing so by the level of stamp duty. Will the Secretary of State look at that?
Mr. Smith: I will look at these matters, but when investment in any form of asset is urged on me, in the House or elsewhere, it is wise to remember the adage about not putting all one's eggs in a single basket.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome the report and the commitment to a Green Paper in the autumn. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a tension contained in the report? Pickering argues that in the workplace, the pension is part of the remuneration package, yet one of the recommendations in the report is that section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 should be repealed, which would allow employers facing funding constraints to change their funding contribution to the scheme. It refers to an overall replacement of benefits, so although the overall benefits package from those employers may remain the same, unilateral change in the individual remuneration of workers might be possible. Will my right hon. Friend look extremely carefully at that recommendation before allowing it to go ahead?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I agree that it makes sense to consider that recommendation extremely carefully, not least because of its implications for the rights of individuals. One possible approach would be to put limits on any detriment that might be involved. We should not underestimate the importance of getting to grips with these issues if we are really to have the far-reaching simplification that we need. That is true not only for the ease of schemes' administration but to allow us to have some actuarial equivalence for all the different pots under different schemes for different periods that people have built up. There are great prizes in the efficiency and overall benefit of pension provision if we can crack that, which is why it would be unwise to rule out any change in this area.
Mr. Mark Hoban: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the cost to the Treasury of ending compulsory indexation and compulsory survivor benefits? It strikes me that the proposals will end up transferring costs from pension schemes to the Exchequer, so it is right to be wary of them.
Mr. Smith: I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury are keeping a close eye on that aspect of the proposals.
Mr. Jim Cousins: National insurance payers are a substantial collective investor in occupational pension schemes, so I urge my right hon. Friend not to accept the recommendations relating to survivor benefits and the provision of cost of living increases in pensions. Down that path lies not consensus but a great deal of hidden misery for people in occupational pension schemes and their relatives, when old. Many survivor benefits will go not to women but to men, and that should be borne in mind. Inevitably, following that hidden misery, there will be more means-testing and more cost to the Exchequer.
Mr. Smith: Those points are forcefully and well made and I shall certainly bear them closely in mind.
1066
I appreciate the arguments about the impact on individuals and families in the future, as well as the logic of the position concerning how far it is justified, when the national insurance system provides particular benefits, for schemes that are funded in part by contracting out from those benefits not to provide them in turn.
Sandra Osborne: I share the concerns of other hon. Members who have seen constituents paying into pension schemes all their lives only to find that they do not get the benefits when the time comes. I welcome the proposals for increasing scheme membership on the boards of trustees, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital that such trustees have the proper training, so that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to make sound judgments about pension schemes?
Mr. Smith: Yes. That is a very important part of the Myners agenda. Given the importance of the role that such trustees are fulfilling, it is crucial that they understand it and are well equipped to fulfil it.
Mr. Andrew Love: Like my right hon. Friend, I used to work for the retail Co-operative movement, which had a very good final salary scheme. In 1988, it was not allowed to continue to include all employees in the scheme, so many lower-paid employees left. They did not take up any of the alternative pension provision that was available, so they are now retiring on inadequate pensions. I commend the recommendation that employers should be allowed to have all employees included in their scheme.
I also welcome the emphasis in the report on simplification, and especially on education and advice for consumers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a system that people can fully understand will gain their trust and confidence, ensuring that we can fill the pensions gap?
Mr. Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He is right about the importance of education, so that people can have a better understanding of the pensions situation. One of the tragedies is that it is an impenetrable maze for many people. Tragically, workers have lost out because they did not understand what was happening to them or the choices that were open to them.
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and we will think carefully about the question of compulsory membership of schemes, which may not be to some people's advantage. Instead, they should have a good, defined contribution alternative. That depends on the level of contributions, which is the acid test against which proposals should be judged. It is the end result that is important—the level of contributions and thereby the security and standard of living people will have in retirement. I shall bear all my hon. Friend's points closely in mind.

BILLS PRESENTED

  CONTROL OF FIREWORKS (No. 2)
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, supported by Mr. Laurence Robertson, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the sale and use of fireworks; and for connected

  1067
  purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 172].

  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT (No. 2)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson presented a Bill to require the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine and report on the environmental impact of public expenditure, and the environmental performance of government departments and certain other public bodies against targets set by Ministers; to provide for the establishment of an Environmental Auditor General to carry out such functions and report thereon to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 173].
  HOME ENERGY CONSERVATION (No. 2)
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed presented a Bill to make further provision about energy conservation in relation to residential accommodation; to make further provision about the eradication of fuel poverty; to amend the definition of house in multiple occupation in Part 11 of the Housing Act 1985; to amend the law relating to registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 174].

Intelligence Agencies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
2.22 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): After the heat of yesterday, we have the cool of today. First, I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for sharing these annual debates. I will lead today and, God willing that we are still in present posts, he will lead the debate this time next year. I am not making any predictions, so hon. Members should not get hot under the collar.
It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend and I share these debates, because much of the work on internal security was undertaken by him when he had my present post, and his understanding has made a big difference in the past year when we have worked together with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on these important issues. Given the debates in the House in the past year—the Foreign Secretary has led on a number of them—hon. Members are familiar with the issues that have arisen following the tragic events of 11 September.
Hon. Members are also familiar with the debates that have taken place on the terrorist threat that has emanated from Ireland, and we pay tribute to members of the three major intelligence services, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude for the conduct of their work. That also applies to the anti-terrorist branch of the law enforcement agencies and those who work with them. There is now greater collaboration than ever before between the services and other agencies, including Customs and Excise and the immigration service.
I also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), as the new Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I welcome the considerable contribution that she and the members of that Committee, with their range of experience, have made to its excellent report. It deals with the important issues in depth, but because of its nature much of it must remain private. I commend the way in which they have handled that. It has enabled those of us who have regular briefings from the services to be open and transparent. My right hon. Friend and I greatly appreciate the report that they have produced.
I am also pleased to acknowledge that we and the Prime Minister were in agreement with the direction of the report and the powerful points that were made in it. That has enabled us to come to Parliament with confidence for today's debate, and for debates such as that on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Hon. Members would not forgive me if I did not pay tribute to the intelligence service, the interception commissioners and the president and members of the investigatory powers tribunal. They deserve our thanks, because they are unseen and do a tremendous job both at my elbow and for my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They also provide reassurance to the House and to the public.
Strange things have been written in recent weeks, and I heard at least one strange interview, which was rigorously taken up privately. It implied that some of us delegate our task, and that we nod things through. My right hon. Friend

1069
the Foreign Secretary and I can affirm that many hours are spent not nodding things through and not delegating the task entrusted to us. We take that task seriously: it is a matter of honour. We are responsible to the House and to the British people for getting it right. I mention that because there is a feeling outside the House that arbitrary action is taken and that there is no surveillance of our surveillance, but there is, although understandably little is known about it. The work that is undertaken makes a big difference.
I also want to thank John Warne, the director of the international and organised crime division, who is retiring. We wish him well and thank him for the work that he has done. We also thank Sir Stephen Lander, who is head of the Security Service and is also retiring. I do not think that their retiring has anything to do with me: they have come naturally to the point of retirement. Sir Stephen Lander has had a difficult task, which in recent years has become more transparent and visible to the world compared with the days when no one would mention the building they worked in, never mind the name of the director general of the service. We welcome Eliza Manningham-Buller, who is taking over from him and who I know will do an excellent job.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This may be an improper question that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to answer, but we read in the public press that Eliza Manningham-Buller led the investigation into Lockerbie from the intelligence point of view. Is there anything more he can say about that?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend answered the question before he asked it, for which I was grateful, because regrettably the answer is no. I admire his persistence.
The debate over the past 10 months has obviously been dominated by the tragic events of 11 September. It has thrown into sharp relief the importance of putting into perspective the question of how we deal not only with terrorism, but with the global nature of organised crime and terrorism and the methods used.
As I mentioned earlier, we have become tragically familiar over a long time with acts of terrorism both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland. That has developed expertise and skills in the security and intelligence services and the anti-terrorism branch of the Metropolitan police that have stood us in good stead. However, the current terrorist threat is perceived very differently by the public, as it is too—as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will explain in greater detail—from the point of view of the security and intelligence services in respect of our liaison with other countries.
It is worth noting that our links with Europe and with the FBI, the CIA and the NSA in the United States have been strengthened since 11 September, although they were already growing strongly. The will across our continent to link with others to counter threats of terrorism is standing us in good stead. We are co-operating not only to combat terrorism but, as we debated at great length in the autumn, on the directly related issue of organised crime. That co-operation assists us in combating non-violent but underpinning threats in respect of finance and other measures.
In the aftermath of 11 September, actions were taken globally some of which we all regret because we would have preferred not to implement such measures in a free
1070
society. Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which is emblazoned on my heart, is one such area of that debate and we shall return to it. Obviously, we have already agreed about the debate after 15 months. There will be a review of part 4 and we are grateful to Lord Carlile for undertaking it. Privy Councillors, chaired by Lord Newton, will review the whole Act. I am grateful to Lord Newton and the members of that committee for the work that they will be undertaking. There is also the sunset clause, so there are several safeguards and opportunities for review.
It is worth noting that all of us who deal with such decisions do so with regard to the sensitivity and proportionality that was promised before Christmas, and with regard to the real concerns expressed then and since by Members on both sides of the House. The role of Parliament, of a free society and of a free press is to give reminders and place restraints on Ministers—both those who see the internal advice and those who reflect on the nature of the threat—so that we are not allowed to let the task and the measures that have to be implemented get out of proportion.
We all understand that in the cut and thrust of debate it can be suggested that we take people's liberty lightly. That is not true. In a free and democratic society, it behoves Parliament and a free press to remind people in our position of that fact, and to see such reminders and checks not as detrimental but as an advantage. It is only because we have a free society that we can debate the protection of those freedoms as we do; otherwise we should not be holding this debate. Nor could those of us who are responsible for recent legislation be recalled. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary oversaw the passage of some difficult measures when he was at the Home Office. I am glad that he did so, because I should otherwise have had an even more difficult time during our debates in the autumn.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary also agree that, in the heat of debate, there can be a failure to recognise that those who want to draw attention to important civil liberties are also concerned about the safety and security of the people of this country? To pursue the civil liberties aspect, especially as Departments are notorious for inserting in legislation provisions that they have wanted to implement for a long time, is not to be unconscious of the security needs of the country, but rather to want to be certain that statutory measures that go beyond the normal powers of the state are wholly justified.
Mr. Blunkett: There is no dispute between us. In the heat of the moment, we may sometimes be a sword's length apart—it is probably a good job that the line was drawn. In the debates in which I was involved, we have always acknowledged that those who are questioning or opposing have an equal commitment to those safeguards and to securing our liberty and freedom. I am sure that was also true for my right hon. Friend during the debates on the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We attempt to achieve that by debating the right ends. I accept that we need to be vigilant about the propensity for people to seek, with the best intentions, wider powers than are needed, while ensuring that at a moment of crisis they are not held to account for having failed to see what might be coming.

1071
I think my right hon. Friend will have something to say about hindsight. One does not need a guide dog for hindsight—one of the things that strikes me most—but people always hold to account the current holder of the office, whether Foreign Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary or Home Secretary, for things that they might have done, perceived or legislated on if only they had seen them coming. We are all in that boat, whatever our political persuasion.
Some parts of the measures that we passed and some of our debates are not only right in the context of the legislation; they have an impact on the culture and on the way other people can contribute to safeguarding our liberty by being more vigilant. Such provisions can put those who would too easily take their liberty for granted on to another road; above all, they act as a deterrent.
Like the security and intelligence services, I am convinced that our actions during recent years have been a deterrent to those who would use our country as a base for terrorism, to set up cells and develop the support services and finance for terrorism. That rebuts newspaper reports in this country and elsewhere that suggest that we are a soft touch, and that prior to 11 September London was an easy base. People cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that our actions are on the very edge of disproportionality while countenancing the view that we host those who should be ejected from our country or incarcerated. We have to get the balance right; the fact that we have been well and truly taken to task by holders of both those points of view offers us reasonable grounds for believing that we have done so.
Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary has spoken in extremely measured tones, as one would expect him to do on this subject. In the light of his comments about the safeguards built into recent legislation, does he agree that those safeguards were the result of parliamentary intervention, which corrected, amended and improved the original measures? I hope that we would all agree about that.
There is however another safeguard that people outside this place regard as important: the independent judicial overview of any decisions that affect or take away someone's liberty, or give excessive power to the state. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the principle that if, for example, we take away the normal rights of defendants, there should always be independent judicial scrutiny—as provided by the commissioners to whom he has paid tribute—in addition to any scrutiny undertaken by Parliament?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's first point. That is why, although for obvious reasons I have not gone through every detail of the proceedings on the Terrorism Act that my right hon. Friend piloted through the House, on Second Reading of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act I deliberately made it clear that we would listen and respond and that we would remove provisions from the Bill, or amend it, in the light of the arguments made by the House, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. That is exactly what we did. Sometimes since then, I have been accused of making proposals and
1072
backing off; I should rather be accused of backing off and finding a different way forward than of blind stubbornness for the sake of it.
Parliament is at its best when hon. Members are prepared to listen to one another and respond; the press is at its worst when it misinterprets that as muddle, confusion, weakness or something else. We need to stick with that process if we believe in democracy. As we do not have the whole fount of wisdom in our heads and hands, we are prepared to do so, and I will carry on doing so whatever the consequences. We did not always agree, but amendments were made to improve the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and that is why the reviews are important in discovering whether any further change would enhance it.
Of course I agree on the second point. In fact, in the next few days, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and judges will hear major challenges in relation to the decisions that the House and Parliament as a whole have taken on derogations and the rights of the individual. That is how it should be, and it is proper that that should take place.
Measures were taken in part 4 of the 2001 Act to recognise that al-Qaeda was not finished and that there were networks abroad, as there had been in preparing to attack the World Trade Centre. That has since been proved true very recently in Germany and Milan, as well as in my right hon. Friend's bailiwick, given what has been taking place in Morocco and the attacks in Pakistan. Clearly, we receive evidence from time to time that risks are foiled by the early action that is now taken and the vigilance that exists. That is right, and it is true internally as well, with the security measures that we have been able to put in place, with the collaboration of Departments, with the work of the security and intelligence services and with the Civil Contingencies Committee and the committee established by the Prime Minister to develop internal security measures. All that has made a real difference to what we believe to be a safer Britain and United Kingdom since the events of 11 September.
Cash has been seized and assets have been frozen, under United Nations auspices in the latter case. Ministry of Defence police have been involved in such work on 19 occasions, including the use of armed patrols, as Parliament has granted them the ability to act outside their jurisdiction. Between the beginning of April and June, British transport police have been engaged in 375 arrests in interventions outside their former jurisdiction. That has been extremely helpful, and 16 separate bank accounts have been identified in relation to money laundering. So substantial change has been possible already because of the 2001 Act and the way in which it has been implemented.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Home Secretary is being characteristically generous in giving way. I hope that I have not anticipated his dealing with another matter, but it is widely reported that, when the new Cabinet Secretary takes up his post, responsibilities that might otherwise have been his will be discharged by Sir David Omand. Sir Andrew Turnbull and Sir David Omand are men of the highest integrity and reputation. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House—

1073
indeed, is it in his bailiwick to do so—precisely what advantages are thought to be derived from that departure from the previous arrangement?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal with that in a whole section in his speech, which I shall not presume to duplicate. Suffice it to say that Sir David Omand is assisting with civil contingencies in a very helpful way. He is leading that work, as has been reported to the Select Committee on Defence in its recent investigations. I am very pleased that he had agreed to do that because it will help us enormously. So there is a new role, and my right hon. Friend will expand on it very shortly.
I mentioned Irish terrorism, and it is very important that we do not allow the debate to pass without saying that the work of the security and intelligence services has made a difference to our safety, with the changing situation in the past year and the development of the peace process, but also with the continuing threat from the so-called Real IRA and the continuity group.
Co-operation has also developed in related areas. It would be remiss to allow the debate to pass without saying how important I believe such work has been in dealing with people smugglers and drug runners and in facing down organised criminals, and work has been done with Customs and Excise. That is a very important part of the security and intelligence services' role, and we should not underestimate the importance of maintaining of what we and the Intelligence and Security Committee described as the necessary back filling to ensure that that work can continue, while the reshaping of the focus on global terrorism has to be carried out.
I shall keep my speech short because other hon. Members will want to contribute and to allow time for proper debate, but it is important to recognise the enormity of the change that has taken place in the past 10 months. My role, as well as that of my right hon. Friend, has changed not only in terms of the time and energy devoted to such issues, but in terms of perspective, in linking that role with our wider roles and in trying to ensure that we do justice to it while not losing our focus on the other issues that are so important to the people of this country.
I want to thank those hon. Members who serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as those who serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs, particularly in relation to my responsibilities. We have not always agreed with them—sometimes the language used has been interesting to say the least—but when I take the first view of the morning newspapers, I reflect on the fact that, without them, it is likely that some of us would forget that we are accountable to Parliament and the people. If we forget that, we do so at our peril.
2.47 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I share the Home Secretary's pleasure in moving to a calmer moment in our proceedings. I have to begin by saying that I shall be brief because I do not believe that the major contributions to this debate can be made from the Dispatch Box, but rather by those who are members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have much to tell us and who know and understand things that, at least on this side of the House at the moment, we quite properly do not and cannot know or understand.
1074
I did, indeed, reflect when I realised that it was one of my tasks to speak in this debate on whether it needed to exist in the first place or whether it served any useful purpose, given the sublime level of ignorance that inevitably exists among Opposition Members, apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who serves on the Committee, but then I thought that it probably does make sense for this debate to occur.
I hope that it may be possible for the members of the Committee to play a more formal role in such a debate in future. However, this debate is useful, as it allows the Committee's role in relation to the security and intelligence services to be played more widely by the House in relation to the Committee. Each level of check and each level of limited transparency probably helps to reinforce the image of the security and intelligence services as bodies that are ultimately answerable to the electorate, not as items that spin off into a world of their own and engage in their own activities. That is a useful phenomenon.
I want to raise a specific issue and then to reflect a little further on the general question of balance, on which the Home Secretary also reflected. The specific issue relates to serious crime. The Committee tells us in paragraph 87 of its report:
"The Agencies, when engaged in fighting serious and organised crime…make a real and valuable impact".
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Which paragraph?
Mr. Letwin: Paragraph 87. But the Committee goes on to say:
"However, due to limited resources, their contribution is less than it might be. The Committee has commented on this twice before, making the point that providing extra resources to combat serious crime has been shown to bring a demonstrable return to society. Drug, tobacco and people smuggling could be further combated and curtailed."
I very well know that I shall incur the righteous indignation of the Home Secretary if I call for more resources without specifying how on earth they should be paid for.
Mr. Straw: Especially you.
Mr. Letwin: Especially, as the Foreign Secretary so rightly says, me. However, very conscious of the likelihood of these jolly jibes, I have investigated, to the limited extent open to a Member of the House who is not a member of the Committee, the distribution of expenditures within the security and intelligence services, and the Security Service in particular, because in relation to serious crime it is the Security Service that is most relevant, and most relevant to my brief.
I think that I am right in discerning that of the total of about £1 billion that is spent on the security and intelligence agencies, about £140 million is spent on the Security Service, and that of that, about 7 per cent. is spent on serious crime. I think that means that about £9 million a year is spent on what is classed here as combating serious crime, out of the total of £1 billion; or, by comparison with the police budget, out of the total of about £11 billion a year, including police and security and

1075
intelligence agencies, that is spent on protecting us in one way or another. In that context, £9 million is a fairly small sum. I think that I am beginning to understand the comments that the Committee has made in paragraph 87 of its report.
I do not know, am not in a position to know, and do not want to be in a position to know, to what extent it is possible for the proportion of the effort and money that is spent within the Security Service on terrorism to be distinguished from that which is spent on serious crime. The Home Secretary said in his remarks, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said in public speeches, that terrorism and organised crime are deeply linked, so I have no doubt that in combating the financial aspects of terrorism, for example, the Security Service is also combating organised crime to a considerable extent. Therefore I do not allege that the £9 million is the full extent of that which is spent on something that is, or is connected with, serious crime.
Nevertheless, when that small sum appears as the figure specifically quoted for serious crime and when the Committee—which the House has established specifically to look at these questions—comments, on the basis of what I take to be knowledge vastly greater than can be gained from public sources, that the resources devoted to serious crime are too limited, that does seem to me to call into question whether Ministers need to look at the distribution within the available resources to see whether more should be devoted to serious crime. [Interruption.] I want to make one more observation on that, but first I give way.
Adam Price: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House the source of these figures, because they do not seem to appear in the report.
Mr. Letwin: The total expenditure figures, which I quoted, appear towards the end of the report, under the heading, "Expenditure"—unsurprisingly—but the distributional figures are from the very secret source of the websites of these organisations, which the hon. Gentleman may consult. I do not have any special knowledge and, as I have repeatedly mentioned, I do not wish to have any special knowledge of these matters. It is the lucky case that it is the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary who have to deal with these on a day-by-day basis and I daily bless the fact that that is not something that I need to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): For a long time.
Mr. Letwin: Although I hope that it may not be as long as the hon. Gentleman hopes, I think that we can guarantee at least three years.
Having said that it seems important to focus more attention on the implications of paragraph 87 of the report, I want to add one further point on that specific issue. It seems clear that NCIS and the National Crime Squad are doing very serious and effective work, which has a long trajectory, beginning in many cases with the activities of the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned
1076
Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and carrying on through the previous Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—and into the aegis of the present Home Secretary. They are doing very serious and useful work in beginning to apply the most rigorous forms of high-level intelligence activity to unearthing the intricate connections that exist within serious crime.
Mr. Blunkett indicated assent.
Mr. Letwin: I am glad to see the Home Secretary nodding, not least because I much prefer to agree with him than to disagree with him; I have been doing a bit of disagreeing with him.
Sir David Phillips has personally developed a huge amount of international respect for the British model of high-level intelligence gathering and putting together. He and the Association of Chief Police Officers have done really sterling work in that respect.
It seems likely to me that if we are particularly good, given the scale of our own overall resources, at establishing those connections and at the work of criminal intelligence, the further integration—I take the points that are made elsewhere in the report about the degree of integration that already exists—of the Security Service with the work of NCIS and of the National Crime Squad may yield very considerable dividends. I tread warily here because I do not know whether it is true, as I suspect, that the Security Service has available to it talents and experience that are not normally available even to the most refined reaches of the police forces, but if it is true I suspect that the further integration of those people's expertise and abilities with NCIS and the NCS may yield surprising benefits.
If that were the case, it seems to me that we would see the effects very directly on our streets. I certainly do not want to re-enter yesterday's arguments about our drug policy but there is a point on which the Home Secretary and I would agree, which is that the heights of the pyramids that distribute the hard drugs in our country are intimately linked with the most serious types of financial crime and with street violence, which both he and I, in our different ways, seek to combat.
If we could find the means of disrupting those activities more effectively than at present, and if that were to involve spending some multiples of the £9 million—if I have the right figure—currently spent within the £1 billion, out of this budget, on serious crime, it might save 10 times that amount in policing at a lower level, if we were to achieve the same bang for the buck. Getting rid of people higher up those pyramids, doing better at disentangling the webs that join them to street crime, could have huge benefits. I take it that that is what the Committee, in its elegant and coded language, was trying to say when it said that there could be
"a demonstrable return to society."
It might also be a demonstrable return to the Exchequer, so I hope that that might recommend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman, given the severe injunction that he is under not to increase public expenditure, is in danger of misinterpreting the Committee's report, because what the Committee said

1077
was that resources added to this area could yield dividends, but nowhere in the report will he find an indication that there is other work being done by the agencies from which money could be diverted into this activity. It is a choice that is open to us to spend more money through the agencies using their talents, but the Committee has never indicated anywhere in its report that there is slack or spare in other key tasks, and indeed the political attractiveness of getting some work done on drugs and serious crime can be slightly dangerous if it reduces work on terrorism or other dangerous threats to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. If—and to the extent that—that is true, it may make sense, from within the totality of Home Office resources, to find such an addition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may even have other sources to apply. I do not want to enter that argument in detail, not least because of the profound ignorance under which I suffer about the coming comprehensive spending review announcements. What I am clear about, however, is that a tiny sum is currently being spent in this area, in which there might be great dividends. On that, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I might find ourselves in agreement.
On the balance between the activities that necessarily go on in secret, the statutory support that they receive, and our civil liberties, I want to put on the record, in the calm of these proceedings, a general position, which the Home Secretary sometimes finds inconsistent, but which, in fact, is consistent. He mentioned that we sometimes accused him of disproportionality, of going too far in invading civil liberties and of taking liberty too lightly. At the same time, however, he mentioned that we seemed to demand of him the protection of society against very dangerous and obnoxious elements. He displayed a little anxiety or irritation that we might be demanding of him things that were inconsistent. I recognise that sentiment, and I might even feel it were I sitting in his position—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary is chuntering happily from a sedentary position that these are the musings of a tortured liberal, and they are. The position of a tortured liberal is the only respectable position to adopt.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Blunkett rose—
Mr. Letwin: I shall continue in a moment, but I shall give way to the Foreign Secretary first.
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who, as the House knows, can speak very well for himself, said from a sedentary position that there were several of those whom he would like to torture himself—
Mr. Blunkett: With due trial.
Mr. Straw: With due trial, as my right hon. Friend says. I add for the record that what I was saying from a sedentary position to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was that I was encapsulating his remarks as those of the tortures of a Liberal by St. Oliver.
Mr. Letwin: This badinage is getting very rude, and I shall not continue it. All of us are tortured liberals in the
1078
sense that we all, to varying degrees, wish to protect civil liberties. I have to admit, in my better moments, that even the Home Secretary has that desire. We all wish to protect society against the dangerous elements against which it needs to be protected—in particular, the terrorist. It is a question of proportionality. I want to put on record a critical distinction, which I think is the foundation of the difference between us and the Government on a series of issues. By exposing it, the need for further such discussion may be prevented.
There is a difference between those agencies of the state whose primary function, and, in some cases, whose whole function is to protect us against people who want to blow us up, rob us or murder us, and other agencies of the state, whose primary and, in some cases, whole function is devoted to other ends. I draw a very clear distinction—clearer than Whitehall, under any Administration, is often inclined to draw—between those two kinds of agencies. I accept the need for the security and intelligence services to engage in activities that are necessarily intrusive and that are impediments to our liberty. Because I am worried about those impediments and intrusions, as Ministers in every Government for a long while have been, I welcome the intricate apparatus that has been devised, over a long period, to control those activities and to subject them to the kinds of scrutiny to which they can be subjected, consistent with their remaining secret as they need to so remain.
The Home Secretary is the principal locus of just that kind of scrutiny and control, but the Committee and other bodies, including, for some purposes, the courts—acting, in some cases, in special ways—are also part of that apparatus of control. Under the circumstances in which those controls are in place, I accept the need for that level of intrusion and that level of impediment to our liberties. I distinguish between that and the cases of those other agencies that are not involved in such activities.
The Food Standards Agency, the Environment Agency, the Post Office or any other such body will often find that their activities would be materially easier to carry out—or they imagine that, in some future world, they will find that their activities are materially easier to carry out—if they also have the ability to engage in activities that are intrusive and an impediment to our liberties. I understand that motivation, and were I working in those bodies, or were I an official charged with the question of how to make the work of those bodies easier, I would constantly be tempted to engage in enlarging the scope of their ability to intrude.
Parliament should not, however, accept the same kind of logic in relation to those kinds of bodies that it accepts in relation to the bodies that we are discussing today. That distinction is critical. If we could agree on that as a permanent feature of our political discussions, a good deal of the difficulties that we have had in the past nine months or so would evaporate. I am not saying that the disputes would not continue—they would at the margin—and I accept that, in relation to some of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, for example, we would continue to have real debates, as is proper. A large part of the difference between us, however, is related not to the scope of bodies that we are

1079
discussing today but to the scope of action of other bodies. In future, I hope that we make that distinction more clearly, and more as a matter of consensus.
Mr. Blunkett: It is a fair point, and we need to make clear what is new intrusion and what is an endeavour—including under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was responsible—to codify and pull in those things taking place around us. If we can do that—I respect those who believe that we were on the wrong trajectory, although, in fact, we were trying to do something that was totally misinterpreted and that looked, to the world outside, as if we were going the other way—we might get it right. I do not have a fundamental principled disagreement with that, as Parliament's role is to pull in, and to make sure that others do not have the right that the security and intelligence services have—under the kind of surveillance and review that they have—to intrude in other people's information or their lives. Getting that right will be important in future.
Mr. Letwin: That is welcome. As we move forward in the next few months and debate several of these issues, I hope that we can refer back to this discussion of general principle. It may frequently turn out to be the case that, as more transparency is given through the operation of the orders under the RIPA, we shall collectively discover what I must admit that I have been discovering—in some cases, agencies that are outside the sphere that we are discussing today are engaging in activities, and have been doing so for a long time, that are worrying in the degree to which they have not been properly controlled and made transparent. I see Ministers nodding. That is highly constructive. I hope that we can achieve a clearer basis on which to operate, and a clearer distinction between other agencies and those that are the subject of today's debate.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Home Secretary promised us a short speech. He has now been going for 22 minutes, ad-libbing in a rather unfocused way for the past 20 minutes. Is there some way in which Back Benchers can get a look-in, in what will be a truncated debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr Letwin rose—
Mr. Mark Prisk: My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) speaks of the need for greater transparency. Does he agree that one way in which we might achieve that would be for every piece of legislation, whether primary or secondary, to be tested, so to speak in terms of the specific impact that it would have on individual liberties?
Mr. Letwin: My answer to my hon. Friend is, as he knows, yes. I hope that that suggestion will be adopted; it is one that I made in the public prints.
I am acutely conscious of the observations of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I shall desist from engaging in further discussion, having made both
1080
the specific point and the general point that I wanted to make. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and others will have a chance to say what they wish to say to the House.
3.11 pm
Ann Taylor: I shall return to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), particularly in respect of serious crime.
I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his words about the report published recently by the Intelligence and Security Committee. We welcome the fact that Ministers responded speedily to our report this year; we also welcome the early debate.
The Committee, as the Home Secretary said, is a new Committee. Some of its members are new to the field, but several of its members have served on it for many years. As Chair of the Committee, I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their work over the past nine months or so. Many of them have found that it requires a greater time commitment than they anticipated, but I think that many of them have found it interesting and worth while.
I agree with the Home Secretary about the work and the quality of the agencies that serve us in the security and intelligence field. He said that we owe a debt of gratitude to them, and the Committee would agree. We state in paragraph 7 that although our report highlights areas about which the Committee has concerns, our concerns must not overshadow the tremendous work of the agencies and the quality of the staff therein. All members of the Committee share the Home Secretary's admiration for the level of co-operation between the agencies in the UK and between our agencies and those in other countries, particularly—but not exclusively—those in the United States.
As Chair of the Committee, I shall say a word at the outset about the Committee's work, especially our relationship with the agencies. I am sure that some colleagues in the House feel frustrated at times by the circumspect nature of the reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee, especially by such things as asterisks in our report. I see the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) nodding. We share that frustration at times. It is difficult sometimes to know things that one would like to say to colleagues, but cannot say.
As a new member of the Committee, as well as the new Chair of the Committee, I have been extremely impressed by the amount of information given to us by the agencies, the nature of the information available, the frankness of those who have given evidence before us and the documentary evidence that we have been able to see on some occasions, including some Joint Intelligence Committee assessments, known as JIC papers, which the Committee has found especially useful.
Our report covers all the issues that we are tasked to examine—the policy, administration and expenditure of all the agencies. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to cover in detail every issue that we raise in our report; some of my colleagues on the Committee will raise others.
Since the Committee was appointed last August, its work has obviously been dominated by the events of 11 September—but not to the exclusion of everything

1081
else. Every one of us—members of the Committee, hon. Members and members of the public—was incredibly shocked by those events, the scale of the tragedy, which was the biggest loss of life through any terrorist attack, the fact that such an attack could take place in the heart of the United States, and the fact that those who committed the atrocities had no regard for their own lives or the lives of thousands of other people of many different nationalities and religions.
In Britain, as the Home Secretary said, because of the threats that we have faced over many years from Northern Ireland-related terrorist groups, we have, unfortunately, had a great deal of experience of the shock of terrorist outrages. As a result, terrorism has always been a high priority of our intelligence agencies; it has, indeed, been the first order of priority for many years. We must recognise that, by their nature, it is very hard to penetrate terrorist organisations or get a real insight into them.
Experience over many years has shown us that that difficulty can too often lead to tragic loss of life. That is why a high priority has been given not just to terrorism from Ireland, but to international terrorism. The UK agencies have worked hard on that priority over many years, both internally and by monitoring people in various parts of the world, co-operating with agencies elsewhere, exchanging intelligence and comparing assessments. That has been going on for some time.
As the Home Secretary said, although it cannot always be publicised, there have been successes in countering the activities of terrorist organisations, including those related to Irish terrorism and those related to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In view of that, and because we are led to expect successes from our intelligence agencies, it was not surprising that after 11 September one of the first questions for the intelligence community was, "Was there an intelligence failure?" Perhaps that is the first question for the United States agencies. Congressional committees are looking into US agencies, what happened and what warnings were given. That dimension is not an issue for our Committee.
Perhaps the fact that the question is asked and that many people regard it as a genuine question is a symbol of what we expect from our agencies. In some respects, because we know that they are good, and because we know that they have intervened and prevented events from happening, some people assume that our agencies should know 100 per cent. of all that there is to know about everybody all the time, while, as the shadow Home Secretary suggested, protecting civil liberties at the same time.
Our expectations of the agencies must be realistic. It is clearly not possible for them to know everything all the time. The kind of question that we have to ask is whether the priorities set by the agencies are the right ones, whether enough attention has been paid to international terrorism, whether their levels of expertise are sufficient, whether there is sufficient co-operation, whether there is joined-up working, and whether information and assessment are adequate.
We say in our report that Osama bin Laden was a "notably hard target", and was recognised as such. We also say, and in some cases we quote papers that we have seen as well as evidence that we have been given, that there was
"an acute awareness in the period before 11 September that UBL and his associates represented a very serious threat".
1082
We report that
"the level of concern in June 2001"—
just a couple of months before the attack—
"was such that discussions about UBL and his organisation occupied a considerable time during a joint summit"—
between the United Kingdom and the United States. The Committee, in its report, also quotes a Joint Intelligence Committee assessment paper of July 2001 that concluded that
"plans for attacks were in their final stages but that the timings, targets and methods of attack were not known."
Dr. Julian Lewis: In view of the right hon. Lady's explanation of the difficulties that were faced by the intelligence services, does she agree that one unnecessary difficulty was that, after an earlier attack, it was disclosed that intelligence services in the United States had had some success in listening in on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone, but that thereafter they were never able to do it again? Does not that confirm exactly what the right hon. Lady has been saying about the balance that has to be struck between oversight and the maintenance of security on desperately secret information?
Ann Taylor: Yes, when I heard that information I was struck by exactly that kind of difficulty, although I am afraid that these days we have to expect that terrorists will be sophisticated and will have some idea of the attempts that are being made to monitor what they are doing. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and it was partly because of the openness of other people's systems that that information got out as early as it did; perhaps it would have been better if the information had not got into the public domain so quickly.
In looking back, the Committee asked itself whether the agencies had missed anything that they were in a position to know or whether assessments made at the time were wrong. That was not an easy question and our conclusion was that
"with hindsight"—
mention has already been made of that today because it is a wonderful thing—
"the scale of the threat and the vulnerability of Western states to terrorists with this degree of sophistication and a total disregard for their own lives was not understood."
I am pleased that in paragraph 6 of the Government response, which was published shortly after our report, Ministers indicate their agreement with our assessment.
We did not conclude—I want to make this point directly, and I am glad that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is in the Chamber this afternoon—that
"important indications in Summer 2001 that an attack might be imminent were not acted upon."
We did not conclude that, but I use those words because they come from the press release issued by the Foreign Affairs Committee when it published its report on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism on 19 June. My Committee takes issue with the Chairman of that Committee when the press release goes on to say:
"I note with interest that our Parliamentary colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee, who enjoy a degree of access to the security agencies which is denied to the rest of us, have concluded likewise."

1083
We have not concluded likewise and we think it important to put that on the record.
Donald Anderson: We await the results of the inquiries in the United States, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that we in the Foreign Affairs Committee made our conclusions on the basis of the information that was available to us. She and the members of her Committee have a certain degree of privileged access. She will recall that when the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which set up her Committee, received its Second Reading on 22 February 1994, the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, gave a pledge to the House that the new Committee would not truncate in any way the existing responsibilities of Select Committees. In the light of her experience, not least in an area such as this, does she in any way feel that that pledge has not been kept, and that perhaps Committees such as the Foreign Affairs Committee could be better focused if they had better access?
Ann Taylor: No, is the simple answer to that. All I would say is that the Foreign Affairs Committee did not have access to this kind of information before the Intelligence and Security Committee was established, so I do not think that that has made any difference to the work that his Committee can do. I take his point about the United States, but as I said earlier, we have not been looking at the agencies there, and it is important that parliamentarians here stick to their own ground rather than second-guess conclusions over there. I did think it important that we should not have any misinterpretation about what the Intelligence and Security Committee believes and that is why I sought to put it on the record, not to attack the Committee, as I believe an Opposition Member sought to suggest.
Mr. Alan Duncan: I do not want to throw the right hon. Lady off her stride, but in congratulating her and her Committee on their work, may I invite her to say, if she is able, whether she thinks that the two main intelligence agencies in Britain—the distinction between domestic and overseas intelligence having been rendered somewhat artificial by the modern nature of the terrorist threat—are now working well together to counter that threat, or does she harbour concerns that the separation remains?
Ann Taylor: I think that I can speak for every member of the Committee when I say that we are very impressed by the levels of co-operation between British agencies. We have all read discussions in the public domain about the situation in the United States. It is not for us to comment on that, but we are impressed by the level of co-operation that we have seen and know to exist between the agencies that we oversee.
That is not to say that we have no concerns at all. We do have some concerns, and, even following the point that I just made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) about 11 September and the build-up, we highlight some in our report. For example, we point out that the reduction in funding of the agencies in the 1990s meant that they were resource limited and operating under financial pressures, and that
1084
while there were improvements in the late 1990s, there were shortfalls that probably impinged on the work of the agencies in that longer-term context.
We were also concerned—one of my colleagues may wish to talk about this later—whether the agencies had sufficient flexibility to cover all the languages that were needed, and so respond quickly enough. Perhaps the most significant concern that we have post-11 September is the fact that the concentration of effort in that area of work means that gaps are developing that could lead to unacceptable risks in the future, although not necessarily at the moment. We believe that the agencies responded rapidly and well post-11 September. The staff worked long hours and were flexible and responsive to all the requests about what they should he doing. There was a great deal of co-operation and collaborative working.
The Committee also recognises that the Treasury responded very quickly and well to the agencies' extra needs, but even with those resources it will take time to recruit and train new staff, as they will be inexperienced and will have a lot to learn. We therefore believe—and perhaps it is timely for us to say so—that the agencies must have secure funding to allow them to fulfil the new demands that have been placed on them. We are worried about the gaps that are developing and believe that it is important that funding and planning are got right now to prevent the gaps from getting out of hand and creating serious dangers. To prevent that from happening, we need some very significant decisions now. That is why the Committee will consider with interest the statement on spending that the Treasury will make in the very near future.
I should like to turn briefly to one of the other matters raised by the shadow Home Secretary, which again is linked to funding: serious organised crime. We all recognise that such crime is an increasingly challenging problem for all law enforcement agencies and that the intelligence agencies can contribute in that regard. Class A drugs, organised immigration crime, serious financial crime and the funding of terrorist activity are all first-order priorities for the agencies. I hope that that will reassure him and others.
Of course, work in that area can make a tremendous difference. We cite one example in our report involving money laundering in the north-west, where fantastic amounts were channelled through bureaux de change over a very short period. The unique role and skills of the agencies, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, meant that they could assist law enforcement agencies in achieving a satisfactory result. We believe that such assistance shows its own worth.
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that the money was so limited. Ministers may want to put him right about that. The Committee mentions some of the ring-fenced money for drugs-related work that is in the public domain and which also goes to the agencies. None the less, he was right that the work was good value for money—I am not sure whether he is a good ally on that point—and that more should be available.
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), a colleague on the Committee, mentioned, it cannot be right simply to transfer money from another aspect of the agencies' work. If extra work is to be done, it will have to be done with new resources and new money. The right hon. Member for West Dorset will have

1085
to square that politically with his colleagues, although in political terms it is not a matter that the Committee even started to discuss. We regard such expenditure as an investment and make a very strong recommendation in our report that more resources are required in this area and that there will be a very good return for the Treasury as well as for society if we increase our activities in tackling drugs, money laundering and people smuggling. There is a very significant payback to the Treasury and, perhaps more importantly, to society.
I should like to say one or two more words about expenditure, although I do not want to continue for too long. The Committee was very pleased in conducting its investigations that the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence to it for the first time. We were slightly alarmed that he was moved from his position almost immediately afterwards, but we trust that the two events were completely unrelated and hope that the new Chief Secretary will give evidence in due course. The Committee made all those points about expenditure to the Chief Secretary, as one of its responsibilities is to examine the agencies' expenditure.
It is important to mention on the Floor of the House a couple of the Committee's concerns about GCHQ. First, for 2000–01, the Comptroller and Auditor General was
"unable to determine whether proper accounting records had been maintained",
so the validity of the GCHQ accounts was qualified. We regard that as a serious matter, not least because this is not the first time that it has happened. The Committee acknowledges that some action is being taken and recognises that GCHQ is getting help from the National Audit Office, but it believes that the director of GCHQ, the Cabinet Secretary and the Foreign Secretary must ensure as a matter of priority that appropriate management processes and procedures are in place.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the Committee has been watching with great interest the progress of the new accommodation project for GCHQ. In particular, we are concerned about the changes to the projected cost of relocating to the new building. Of course, the situation has changed since 11 September, because of the need for additional staff, which we know will result in extra costs, but we are worried that the agreed relocation budget may be too low. We do not want GCHQ to be forced to reduce its operational effectiveness in order to keep within the relocation budget. The Government say in their response to our report that they are confident that that will not be a problem, but we will watch the matter very closely indeed, as we think that it could be another difficulty that looms up in future.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the national intelligence machinery. As has been mentioned, recent changes have been announced by the Prime Minister, with the appointment of Sir David Omand as security and intelligence co-ordinator. The Committee has had the opportunity to discuss the changes that will take place with Sir Andrew Turnbull, who is to be the new Cabinet Secretary, as well as with Sir David. We have been able to discuss with them some of the thinking behind the change and the reasons for it. However, the system will be new and it is not yet in place. The Committee has already made it clear in its future work programme that we will consider the role and function of the national intelligence machinery. The Home Secretary indicated
1086
that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might say a little more about that later. We look forward to finding out about how the system will work and to hearing anything else that he has to say.
I must make one more point about the machinery before I conclude. I know that other colleagues will want to mention the same issue, on which the Committee of the previous Parliament also homed in: the fact that the ministerial committee on the intelligence services—the CSI—has not yet met. Obviously, since 11 September, there have been a lot of ministerial meetings on intelligence, but the whole Committee believes that it would be in everybody's interests for Ministers to have proper and formal meetings to discuss the overall performance, priorities and funding of all our agencies. I cannot understand why the CSI has not met. I think that it will be a great help to Ministers to discuss priorities collectively and that that will add an important dimension that is not available under the current system. I hope that they will consider that issue carefully and move in that direction.
As a newcomer to the process of oversight, I am pleased by the way in which the situation has evolved. This is still a relatively young Committee, and the access that has been given to it and the roles that it has taken on have evolved since it was first established. It represents a good basis for oversight of the agencies, but the situation is not static, and I am sure that oversight involving the Committee, as well as other aspects that have been mentioned, will evolve further over time. It is useful to have that oversight, and I thank my colleagues for their help and co-operation in my chairing of the Committee.
3.40 pm
Simon Hughes: I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall limit myself to 10 minutes. I hope that that will be helpful.
In following the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, I begin by saying that all those to whom I have spoken share the view that although it is good that we are having the debate—I hope that it becomes an annual, instead of an irregular, event in the parliamentary calendar—there should be a corresponding meeting of the ministerial group to which the right hon. Lady referred. I hope that between this year and next year the calendar for our discussion of these matters will be confirmed and Ministers will be able to find time in their diaries to come together under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister to review across all the relevant Departments the way in which our intelligence and related agencies do their jobs. We are all grateful to, and pay tribute to, those who work in those agencies, as well as to those who do similar work in the police and in the defence services, not least in the past year.
I do not come to this debate as an expert. In that respect, I defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who preceded me in speaking on home affairs for the Liberal Democrats and has for several years served with distinction on the Committee, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who has surveyed such matters from a foreign affairs perspective over many years. However, after two and a half years of

1087
dealing with home affairs, I am already a veteran of many pieces of legislation concerning such issues. The Home Secretary and his predecessor may have been trying to make us tortured liberals simply by giving us so much relevant legislation. We have survived, and I do not feel tortured yet.
I hope that the record will show that we have seen it as a fundamentally important part of our job to scrutinise legislation on increasing the general powers of the state or the specific powers of part of the state. Given that on one occasion last year such a piece of legislation was put through Parliament on an emergency timetable, we have had a particularly important job to do in ensuring that citizens' liberties are properly looked after and defended and that the legislation that we pass is subject to the same level of scrutiny as we would wish for were we on the receiving end of the activities of the intelligence services or other agencies of the state.
Until recently, intelligence issues were the interest of the few, but the events of 11 September have made them much more the interest of the many. The press—tabloid as well as broadsheet—report much more of what we and other countries do as regards such matters. It is fair to say not only that intelligence is as essential to our national security as it has ever been, but that our defence now depends as much on intelligence as on anything else. If one surveys what happens around the world, it is clear that the activities of enemies of the state, which used to be principally overt, have become increasingly covert, so we depend much more on intelligence activities to know what other countries and people are doing. At home, we have intelligence-led policing; in foreign affairs, we have intelligence-led foreign policy. That is right, and we need to ensure that the people who do that job are up to it.
Mention has been made of one balance that needs to be struck, but it seems to me that we need to strike two balances. There is the balance between the level of information and accountability that the intelligence services need to have to Parliament and the balance between the level of liberty and entitlement that the citizen has vis-a-vis the security and intelligence services.
Since 11 September, particularly in recent days, a huge debate has raged in the United States about whether everything was done properly as regards intelligence gathering and understanding. As a result, no less a person than the President has decided that there should be an entire review of the working of the traditional intelligence agencies—the FBI and the CIA—and effectively a new start through the creation of a new organisation. I think that my right hon. Friends share the view that because defining the boundaries between work at home and work abroad by people seeking to undermine the state is increasingly problematic, merely to collaborate and work well together—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—may not be sufficient. I should like both the Committee and the Government to look afresh at whether the old division between MI5 and MI6—the two principal services—and the link between them and the National Criminal Intelligence Service should be reviewed, because they often undertake overlapping and interconnected tasks in a way that may not be the most helpful, let alone the most efficient from a budgetary point of view.
1088
We have no reason to doubt that our services do a world-class job, and we pay tribute to them for that. Given that, Parliament perhaps needs to have more ability to direct, and Ministers to co-ordinate, what they do and how they do it. Four questions follow from that. First, one of the lessons of the past 12 months has been that we have benefited hugely from our intelligence-sharing links with the United States. That will remain fundamentally important, irrespective of our position in Europe and our Commonwealth obligations. However, if the US is now calling for much greater intelligence co-operation, and expects and needs that to happen, we must ensure that we are in a position to participate appropriately. That begs several questions. Are we sharing enough information? Are we sharing the right information? Are we sharing it with all the people who need it? If so, how do we regulate and manage the process to ensure that we do it properly and accountably?
Secondly, we are having this debate a matter of days before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, if more work is to be done in relation to internationally organised crime, such as drugs crime, the report does not suggest that there is any current capacity to secure additional resources for that, and there may be a case for providing more resources. If so, that should happen. Two areas leap out as being ones in which we cannot afford to have resources that are not up to the job.
The first is information technology. We have not been the best country in the world for public services with the most up-to-date and well-functioning information technology, and the report makes it clear that deficits in that respect need to be addressed.
The second area is secure communications equipment. Hon. Members will remember that that issue cropped up a few weeks ago in the context of somebody who had been intercepting domestic communications between special branch personnel guarding royalty and the diplomatic service. I happen to know from an incidental personal experience that the police have been very troubled by the inadequacy of their communications equipment. The report tells us that the same applies in relation to our intelligence agencies, so that, too, is a budgetary priority.
Thirdly, if terrorist organisations are increasingly involved with international criminality—if that is how they get their money and resource themselves—we need to consider with greater urgency the arrangements for co-operation between the intelligence services and domestic and other police services. I pay tribute here to the Metropolitan police, who, I know, do a lot of international anti-terrorist work, as do others. I have been privileged to understand, share and be briefed on a considerable amount of that work. The Met must be in the loop and part of the planning and decision making.
I want to take further the exchange between the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary. There have been four major pieces of legislation over the past two years: the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In addition, we are about to have a proceeds of crime Act. In each, we have looked afresh at the definitions of national security, and there have been different justifications for when agencies can intervene.

1089
For example, under the proposed extension of the RIPA to other agencies such as local government—a controversial issue on which the Home Secretary had to withdraw a Government proposal—there were eight grounds on which access to data could be justified. Some were to do with the economic well-being of the UK, public safety, national security, and the prevention or detection of crime. For the sake of everybody involved, there must be a common definition of when agencies working on behalf of the state can acquire information. I would welcome a debate across Departments and parties to ensure that we do not have to row about wording, which in the end produces different ad hoc solutions to very important and tightly defined areas of power and responsibility.
Lastly, now that we have dealt as well as we can with the events following last September, I suspect that citizens in this country think that the biggest threat facing the world—it certainly appears to be the view in the United States—is that posed by Saddam Hussein and his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons potential. Although my party, like others, has been appropriately briefed on the best information that there is about the weapons that he has and his capacity, it strikes me that if we are to make intelligent decisions on policies that have public confidence, they need to be informed by our own intelligence gathering and assessment. We must not rely on second-hand intelligence. If we are to be party to a responsive action with allies to deal with a threat from Iraq, we need to know of that threat from our own sources. The history of intelligence, perhaps as recently as last year, shows that one weakness is that although there may not have been a shortage of information, there has been a shortage of analysis and of understanding of the conclusions drawn from the information. If we do not analyse and interpret it properly, it is often not much use.
The report notes that we are deficient in people who speak all the languages that may be needed in the intelligence services. If the BBC World Service, to its great credit, can manage to recruit people to communicate across the world, especially in areas of tension and conflict, it is a great failing when the intelligence services cannot do the same.
The recruitment policies of intelligence agencies are much more open than they used to be. It is no longer exclusively the tap on the shoulder at university. Much more frequently, adverts appear in the weekly jobs column of the national press. We should be careful not to discriminate inadvertently against those whom we might need most. We need more people who come from the Arab world and from Muslim backgrounds in our intelligence services. I therefore hope that our deficiency in the spread of people doing the job can be urgently corrected.
Mr. Prisk: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to see a more positive approach to recruitment, I am sure that he recognises that the employment criteria and vetting for the intelligence services are somewhat different from that of the BBC World Service.
Simon Hughes: Absolutely; I mentioned the World Service only as an example.
There has been a terrible growth in gun crime in this country; we are not stopping guns coming across the borders. The Home Affairs Committee recommended a
1090
common border force. I would be interested to know whether the intelligence agencies and the Government have considered whether we would do far better on all our external border issues if we reduced the number of different agencies that have different objectives—the police, the immigration service, Customs and Excise—to achieve more efficient management of people, goods and traffic reaching our shores.
The Liberal Democrats have always argued that there should be greater accountability of the intelligence services to the House. We keep to that case: there ought to be and could be more openness, and it would be good if, in this Parliament, the Committee became a proper Select Committee like the Defence Committee. I hope that that can be achieved, and that we can therefore continue to support the intelligence services while exercising greater but appropriate scrutiny of them both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
3.55 pm
Joyce Quin: I too speak as a new member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and as someone who has found its work during the past year fascinating and worth while. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend—and good friend—the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who as a new Chairman has chaired it with skill and total fairness.
None of us who serves or who has served on the Committee could have expected that the issues with which we deal would suddenly become so pressing or topical as they certainly have been since the tragic events of 11 September. Indeed, it is remarkable that, in the debate in the House on intelligence services slightly more than a year ago, there was little mention of Afghanistan and no mention of al-Qaeda. However, it is also true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the then Foreign Secretary, struck a telling note when he said:
"The threats to our national security do not come only from other Governments. The danger to the life and safety of British citizens is more likely, in practice, to come from terrorist groups."—[Official Report, 29 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 1124.]
All members of the Committee are interested in and sometimes concerned about the perception of it. I well remember the recent press conference at which we presented our report. Members of the press were uncertain about which breed of dog we were—tame poodles or Rottweilers leaping from our kennels. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that people are sometimes inconsistent in criticising our work or that of the agencies as either threatening liberties or not going far enough in protecting our citizens and taking effective action against those who pose a threat.
I certainly did not join the Committee simply to listen meekly and accept what I was told unquestioningly. There would be little point in that and little job satisfaction in not using the opportunity of Committee membership to ask searching questions to probe the workings of the agencies. I therefore believe that all of us on the Committee approach that role very seriously.
From reading our debates in Parliament on the subject, I know that colleagues take a much more measured and realistic view of the Committee's role, although I note that interesting comments have been made about how it might evolve. As members of the Committee, we are always thinking about that. Occasions such as this allow

1091
opportunities for an exchange of views between those of us who happen to be members of the Committee and those of us who are not but who none the less are tremendously concerned about and interested in the issues with which we deal. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee recently sent hon. Members a booklet about its work, in which I hope all hon. Members, whether or not present today, will take an interest and use as a way to foster dialogue with those of us who serve on it.
I agree with the comments that have been made about the valuable nature of the work of the agencies. I also endorse what has been said about the fact that some of the targets that the agencies are attempting to find out about are, by their very nature, hard and elusive ones. Unfortunately, the price of failure by any intelligence agency anywhere in the world is high. It is often said that terrorists have to be successful only once to cause havoc and have a huge impact.
I shall refer briefly to one or two items in the report about which I feel particularly strongly. One involves resources, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned. We believe strongly that the services should be able to access the resources that they require, although it is always true that they could always do more with more money. That is self-evident, but, at the same time, we have to ensure as far as we can that they have the resources to carry out the necessary range of tasks.
Language training has been mentioned, most recently by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). That is an important issue, although it must be recognised that there is a long lead-in time involved in such training, which is why assessments, and their analysis, are important in ensuring that action taken to recruit and train can, if possible, be taken at the right time to ensure the availability of those language abilities to the services.
I also feel strongly about the issue of co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury mentioned the fact that the ministerial Committee had not met, and that is something that I, too, feel strongly about. Obviously, we know that the relevant Ministers meet during a crisis, and that has been happening with great regularity and frequency since 11 September. We all feel, however, that if hindsight is a wonderful thing, so are lateral thinking and the sharing of information. Having Ministers across the relevant Departments looking at the issues, evaluating trends, and asking questions of the services in a joined-up way is an important task that should be undertaken. I do not believe that there should be self-contained ministerial bailiwicks in this field. Having been a Minister myself, both in the Home Office and the Foreign Office, I am aware of the usefulness of co-ordination. If the Home Office is examining drugs policy, for example, the fact that some of the states that supply drugs might also—from a foreign policy point of view—present real dangers and threats to the rest of us should be considered jointly, and we would like to urge Ministers to adopt such a joint approach.
International co-operation is also important, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. Obviously, our co-operation with the United States is very close, and very welcome, as is our co-operation with other countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and, increasingly,
1092
with the European Union. We must also examine opportunities for working with other countries, as they appear. The situation with Russia, for example, is very different from what it used to be, and Russia and other countries could well have intelligence information that it would be extremely useful to share.
There are difficulties involved in such international co-operation. Building up sufficient trust presents a challenge, as does the fact that countries work in different conditions and geographical contexts, and have different legal systems and priorities. The gains from effective international co-operation are, none the less, important, and can benefit us all. One striking feature of the events of 11 September—and the preparations that had gone into them—was the fact that the terrorists concerned had passed through and stayed in several different countries, and shown themselves to be highly internationally mobile. International co-operation is, therefore, the key to an effective response to such operations.
A number of challenges have arisen specifically from the experience of 11 September. The disruption to terrorist networks is certainly welcome, but it may also mean that many well-known terrorist networks could now disappear or go underground, and that terrorists themselves could move on to different countries from the ones in which they have most recently been operating. That provides a real challenge for the intelligence services.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned, it is important that new technologies provide effective communications systems that can withstand electronic attack from outside, as well as systems that are capable of penetrating terrorist networks. That, too, is a continuing challenge.
New technologies must continue to be combined with traditional approaches. If we think of the threats to the communications and transport systems here in the capital, for example, vigilance by travellers and the public is also an important, but basic, need. The ways in which the Government and the police alert people to the action that they should take if they perceive a threat will continue to be important, and I urge Ministers seriously to consider that dimension.
Reference has been made to the new machinery of government that has been set up, along with the appointment of Sir David Omand as security and intelligence co-ordinator as well as permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office. I would like to take this opportunity to pay personal tribute to Sir David, with whom I had the pleasure of working when I was a Minister in the Home Office along with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who was a Minister with me at that time. My hon. Friend and I, and other hon. Friends, will be delighted that Sir David, after battling courageously with illness, has been able to take up such a key role, and it would be impossible to find a better qualified candidate to do this work. I hope that he will ensure that some of the points about co-ordination that we have raised in this debate will be properly addressed.
I conclude by reiterating my thanks to the staff of the services, who deserve respect for the work that they do in protecting and defending us in the sometimes dangerous and always complex world in which we live.
4.8 pm
Sir John Stanley: I wish to devote my remarks largely to the intelligence dimension prior to 11 September and, even more importantly, subsequent to that date. First, I wish to make a point about the status of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), made a helpful and informative speech, in which she said that her views on the evolution of the Committee were not static. I would like to offer her a proposal relating to evolution.
When the Committee was established under the previous Conservative Government, it was established not as a Committee of the House but under statute, reporting not to the House but to the Prime Minister. Those special arrangements were made as a reflection of the sensitive work of the Committee and were, by implication, coupled with a degree of anxiety at that time about the security reliability of a Committee of Members of Parliament. I am not a member of the Committee, but on the basis of many years' experience of its work I can say that, as far as I am aware, there has not been a single leak from it.
Some of us serve on Select Committees that deal with classified material from time to time—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Members must control electronic devices.
Sir John Stanley: I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which does indeed deal with classified material from time to time. I know of no occasion on which a Select Committee has not reached an agreement with the Government of the day on what material should be excised from its report on security grounds.
Against that background, I think it right in constitutional terms for the Intelligence and Security Committee to become a Select Committee of the House. That does not imply that there should be any change in its membership, or that it should cease to meet in private and at its chosen location. The intelligence services, however, are an extremely important element of the Executive of the day, and I believe that, like all parts of the Executive, they should be accountable to this sovereign legislature, the House of Commons.
Let me now return to 11 September, which was by definition an intelligence failure. Whether that failure was entirely forgivable and understandable in the circumstances or whether it was preventable remains to be seen. As the right hon. Member for Dewsbury said, the relevant congressional committees are subjecting the matter to detailed investigation; we await their reports and such evidence as they can place in the public domain. What is undeniable, however, is that the appalling and tragic events of 11 September were the logical continuation of a clearly established pattern of terrorism in which United States personnel were the principal targets and in which modes of transport were steered, directed or driven by those who were prepared to take their own lives in a suicide attack.
The use of suicide attacks by truck drivers began most intensively in Beirut in 1983. Members will recall that more than 200 US marines were murdered in that way. The mid-1990s saw the uncovering of a plot for the multiple takeover of US civil airliners, and the crashing
1094
of those airliners, with passengers, into the Pacific ocean. Less than a year before 11 September, al-Qaeda had adopted a new, seaborne mode of transport and had killed 17 US sailors on USS Cole. That was a demonstrable pattern of terrorist attack. It was observed and documented, and its logical progression was at least seen by a limited number of people.
In paragraph 18 of our latest report, we on the Foreign Affairs Committee refer to the report of the US National Intelligence Council, which was placed in the library of Congress in 1999. It stated:
"Suicide bombers belonging to al-Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA or the White House".
That was an extraordinarily perceptive and prescient warning—given, as I said, in 1999.
As the right hon. Member for Dewsbury observed, these issues are principally for the American intelligence agencies. The Committee rightly pointed out, however, that 11 September saw a greater loss of life among United Kingdom citizens than any other single terrorist attack. I feel that there are key questions for the British intelligence agencies, and therefore for the Committee.
First, is the Committee satisfied that our own intelligence agencies did all they could before 11 September to identify al-Qaeda operatives who were either living in or passing through this country? Details of a number of them have at least appeared in the press and in court proceedings since 11 September. Secondly, is the Committee satisfied that our agencies did all that they reasonably could in the circumstances to try to identify the target of the next al-Qaeda attack, of which there were clearly considerable, at least generalised, warnings?
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I ask a question in that context, relating particularly to the first point? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the assassination of General Masoud appears to have been orchestrated by a man called Yassir el-Sirri—who provided the assassins with press credentials which they used to get into Masoud's presence—that this man had been sheltered in London for a long time, and that we had refused Egypt's request for his extradition for past terrorist offences?
Sir John Stanley: I depend on open sources, as does my hon. Friend, but I am well aware of the extensive press comment about various individuals alleged to be associated or connected with al-Qaeda who have been resident in and have passed through this country.
I welcomed what the right hon. Member for Dewsbury said about the way in which 11 September issues had dominated the Committee's work. I was not sure whether that was so on the basis of the report, but the right hon. Lady made it very clear today. Looking at the paragraph about the future programme of work, I was somewhat surprised that it did not include—explicitly and clearly—scrutiny of the agencies' work to counter terrorist threats to the UK. Perhaps that is implicit, but the House and indeed the wider public might have been reassured had it been stated more explicitly.
Let me now deal with the situation post-11 September. Our intelligence agencies are now more important to the country's security than they have ever been in peacetime.

1095
Until the advent of al-Qaeda and 11 September, security in major defence terms depended essentially on deterrence, and on possession of military capability to ensure that deterrence was credible. Today, we must deal with a security threat to this country involving people to whom deterrence must be more or less meaningless.
I cannot believe that someone who is prepared to commit suicide as part of a terrorist attack will be influenced in the least by the prospect of retaliation. Nor can I believe that someone with nothing to lose—who is not head of a state organisation, and has no massive personal power as such—will be deterred by any prospect of retaliatory action.
Therefore, although for the whole period since the second world war we have relied on deterrence to protect the security of this country, and indeed it has done so, we are now confronted by a terrorist enemy for whom deterrence is no deterrent at all in terms of this country's military capability. In my view, that means that the intelligence agencies are now our first and possibly our last line of defence for the civilian population. Coupled with that is the clear evidence that this terrorist enemy is bent on moving from conventional attack to attack using weapons of mass destruction. That was made clear as early as 14 September last year by the Prime Minister. Three days after the terrorist attack on New York, he said to the House:
"We know that they would if they could go further and use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol. 372, c.606.]
The Prime Minister's statement on 14 September has subsequently been amply confirmed, certainly by what has appeared in the press, by the discoveries made by our forces in Afghanistan in al-Qaeda safe houses and buildings of documents clearly pointing to al-Qaeda's determination to try to move towards weapons of mass destruction.
The implications for the civil population of this country are potentially horrendous. Conventional attack can lead to the death of thousands as happened in New York. Attack using weapons of mass destruction could lead to the possible loss of lives in the hundreds of thousands or conceivably a million or more.
The Brooking Institution, in a detailed paper published in April, put the possible fatalities from a terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb detonated in a major US city at 100,000 and the possible fatalities of an
"Efficient biological attack (for example, clandestine wide dispersal of a contagious agent such as ebola, smallpox or anthrax)"
at 1 million.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the paper that it placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 4 February 1998, stated:
"One hundred kilograms of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill up to three million people."
I now move on to the probability or possibility of such a threat materialising and I refer to the House what was publicised by the European security chiefs just a few
1096
weeks ago. The article reporting what they said was published in a number of papers. On 20 June, the International Herald Tribune said:
"Top European security chiefs said Wednesday that a terror assault on Europe was almost inevitable, and that the next attack on the West could be nuclear.
David Veness, the head of Britain's anti-terrorist police, said that a nuclear or biological attack was 'sadly, the next logical step' while the director of the European Union's police agency, Europol, said that it was a question of 'when and where,' not 'if' an attack would occur in Europe."
Against the grim realities that deterrence cannot begin to be relied upon against this particular threat, that intelligence is now our first and possibly last line of defence, that al-Qaeda is moving towards acquiring weapons of mass destruction and that the top European security chiefs are saying that it is not a matter of if, but when and where, I believe that only one policy conclusion can be adopted. Nothing must be spared to give our British intelligence agencies the financial resources that they need, the skilled personnel resources that they need and the technology and equipment that they need in order to try to identify and prevent such an attack. I repeat: nothing must be spared—absolutely nothing.
4.25 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was a friend from 1967 until he died in March 1981 of the late Sir Maurice Oldfield, head of MI6 from 1973 to 1978. During my national service with the Scots Greys in the Rhine Army in 1951–52, I had a good deal to do with field intelligence. As Richard Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary from 1964 to 1970, on account of his wartime background in intelligence dealing with the Americans on General Bedell Smith's staff in Algiers from 1943 onwards, I got to know well George Wigg, Solly Zuckerman, Harry Chapman Pincher, Hugh Carlton Green and other members of the intelligence community.
I say this simply to establish that I am neither silly about nor antagonistic to the intelligence community. Many fine people have worked for it to the advantage of us all.
I want succinctly to raise one aspect of intelligence and it refers to Lockerbie. The Lockerbie relative, Martin Cadman, who lost his son in the Pan Am disaster, tells me that relatives of air victims including Dr. and Mrs. Jim Swire, Barrie Berkley, Mrs. Elizabeth Delude-Dix and himself met the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism in the US embassy in London on Friday 16 February 1990 from 18.10 to 19.10. Much of that important meeting was taken up with the treatment of relatives by the US authorities after the disaster.
After the meeting was over, Mr. Cadman, who is highly credible and well known to a number of hon. Members, said that one commissioner, whose name he did not know said to him:
"Your government and our government know exactly what happened at Lockerbie. But they are not going to tell."
That statement has been published in a letter to The Guardian, in the film "The Maltese Double Cross" and in the special report from Private Eye "Lockerbie, The Flight from Justice May/June 2001". It has never been denied.
The commission was set up on 4 August 1989. It began its work in November 1989 and reported on 15 May 1990. The seven commissioners comprised two members from

1097
the US Senate, two from the House of Representatives, representing both parties equally, and three other members from the private sector with expertise in aviation transportation, aviation security or counter-terrorism. Their names were as follows: the chairman was Ann McLaughlin, former Secretary of Labour; Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt from Arkansas; Senator Frank Lautenburg from New Jersey; General Thomas Richards, deputy commander of US forces in western Germany; Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York; Edward Hidalgo, the former US Navy Secretary and James Oberstar, Representative from Minnesota. They were serious people.
Against this background I ask the following questions. First, do the British security and intelligence services have any knowledge of an $11 million payment having been received by the PFLP-GC, the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command, on or about 23 December 1988 evidenced by a credit to a bank in Lausanne and a credit to the Degussa bank in Frankfurt and moved from there to an account at the Banque National de Paris and thence to one at the Hungarian Development bank?
Secondly, does British intelligence have knowledge of a payment of $500,000 on or about 25 April 1989 to Mohammed Abu Talb, a convicted murderer, who was an incriminee at the Lockerbie trial, and a long-term suspect in the Pan-Am 103 bombing? Incidentally, I was at Camp Zeist when Talb was questioned.
If the security and intelligence services had any knowledge of either payments, did they communicate it—in whole or in part—to any police force in the UK, and/or to the Crown Office, Edinburgh? If such knowledge was imparted, when was it imparted?
What was the relationship between British intelligence and two officials—Mr. Dana Biehl and Mr. Brian Murtaugh—from an office that forms part of the US Department of Justice, who sat beside the prosecution in a supposedly independent Scottish court throughout the Lockerbie trial?
These questions are well known to Ministers through the work of the distinguished Austrian jurist Hans Koechler, who was asked to attend the trial at Camp Zeist by Kofi Annan.
When Mr. Alan Turnbull and Mr. Norman McFadyen went to the US embassy in The Hague on the Lord Advocate's behalf on or about 1 June 2000 to view unredacted CIA cables—recording meetings with the prosecution witness, Jiacha—was an assurance or undertaking given by them, whether written or verbal, to British intelligence or to the US authorities that they would not disclose what they had been shown? If any such assurance or undertaking was given, to whom was it given, and in what words?
It is a matter of public record that the new head of MI5, Miss Eliza Manningham-Buller, has been greatly involved in Lockerbie. I do not know Miss Manningham-Buller, but I should recall that her father—the late Lord Dilhorne, as Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller—was the first Attorney-General in this House with whom I had dealings when I was a very young MP. He was extremely kind, painstaking and nice on the one occasion that I had to speak to him in his capacity as Attorney General, and subsequently as Lord Chancellor. I can say nothing other than that I think extremely well of him.
1098
Ministers should have a very frank discussion about what Miss Manningham-Buller and her colleagues know about the public record in relation to Lockerbie. We are not talking about simply a few who share my view. President Mandela has visited Abdel Bassett al Megrahi in Barlinnie prison. I spent two and a half hours visiting him, and in my view this is the most spectacular miscarriage of justice in not only Scottish, but British legal history. There ought to be a public inquiry, because in this instance, adversarial court procedures were wholly inappropriate to the objective of finding the truth. In keeping with his promise to the relatives, I hope that, before the summer recess, the Foreign Secretary will announce the setting up of a public inquiry into the international aspects of the crime that was Lockerbie.
4.34 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) by congratulating the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the way in which she has taken on her role. She has had the difficult task of keeping us effective and focused, and she has carried it off with style.
I should begin by declaring an interest. I am an underwriting member of Lloyd's, and as such I, along with other members, suffered in a financial way on 11 September. However, I should count my blessings. Many people lost much more than their money—they lost their lives or members of their family. On 11 September, the world came to recognise that not everyone shares the same values, and that if we want liberal democracies to continue to exist, we will have to fight for them. Indeed, that is what our intelligence and security services do, day in, day out. Although the Committee's report has criticised certain aspects of what they do, those criticisms must be seen in the light of the fact that this country is extremely well served by those services.
Take, for example, our criticism of the accounts of GCHQ, which was mentioned by the Committee's Chairman. It is a matter of serious concern to the Committee that GCHQ has yet to get to grips with the consequences of resource accounting. For GCHQ to have its accounts qualified two years running is not at all impressive, and the Committee is concerned that that might happen for a third year running. GCHQ really must begin to take this issue seriously. It says that it is doing so, and I hope that we shall discover next year that it has.
On the other hand, GCHQ's communications work is extraordinarily impressive, and after all, that is what it is there for. It makes an internationally and rightly acclaimed major contribution to the fight against terrorism, drugs and serious crime. So when we criticise the bean counting, let that not overshadow our views on the war fighting.
The same goes for the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service. They work energetically and effectively, and sometimes in circumstances of considerable danger, in defence of this country. I shall not discuss our report in detail because the House has read it and would rapidly lose patience, but in general, the intelligence machinery in this country works as well as we allow it to. It is clear that we put checks on the activities of the intelligence and security services, and for good reason—we were all brought up on the book

1099
"Nineteen Eighty-Four." However, in the Committee's opinion there is one respect in which the system simply does not work. Ministerial meetings to discuss the policy and direction of the intelligence and security services are, in the Committee's opinion, essential to scrutiny of the services, and to giving them genuine and informed political direction. Provision is made for such meetings, but for reasons which are not sinister, they simply have not happened.
As a result, although there is political direction from relevant individual Ministers—including the Prime Minister—no opportunity exists for Ministers to spark off each other, to cross-fertilise ideas, to fire the imagination of other Ministers, and to create a view that is perhaps anarchic but none the worse for that. Because of 11 September, the need now exists in this field for a sparky imagination—a point to which I shall return.
Inevitably, the Joint Intelligence Committee comes up with a pooled assessment of intelligence—that is what it is there for. In that respect, it avoids the communication problems—sometimes experienced in the United States—to which the existence of numerous different organisations leads. That is the advantage of our system, but the pooling process inevitably knocks some raw edges off the intelligence that passes through it. It may be unfair to call the product bland, but it would be fair to call it homogenised. In those circumstances, it is not at all a good thing that the ministerial committee for overseeing the intelligence machinery has not met, other than in the extraordinary circumstances of the War Cabinet. I do not believe that there is anything sinister about that, but only one person can put it right—the Prime Minister. It is possible that he may feel that the system works well enough. He sees the papers, receives the advice and gives the political direction, and he may feel that further ministerial involvement would be more of a nuisance and a waste of time than a benefit. If he does feel that, he is wrong. Collective discussion by Ministers about the general direction of the intelligence and security services might throw up ideas that people were not expecting, and the fact that Ministers might have an overwhelming number of issues to discuss should not be reason for failing to discuss any of them. The Prime Minister should perhaps remember that he leads the Government rather than is the Government.
I said that I would return to the issue of imagination, and I shall do so in the context of 11 September. How easy it is to say, with the torchlight of hindsight shining full on those dreadful events, that there was a failure of intelligence. In various respects, that can be said, but the agencies both here and in the United States received masses of bits of information—sometimes hundreds of different strands a week, some of it conflicting and almost all of it inaccurate. For us, with the benefit of hindsight, to expect them to know which bits were true and which were not, and to be able to add all those together in the right order and with the right emphasis and then to deduce some method of stopping what was about to happen, would not—on the basis of what I currently know—be either fair or realistic.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said that there was an intelligence failure, and he was right in some respects. However, for the intelligence services to know what was
1100
going to happen would have depended on a security lapse in the al-Qaeda organisation. That security lapse did not happen in a way that meant that the security services could take advantage of it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: If what my right hon. Friend is saying is correct, surely the implication is that the intelligence services have to be proactive. If we cannot rely on a terrorist cell to leak, we need to acquire enough intelligence to disrupt it so that it cannot proceed with its plans, even if we do not know what those plans are.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right to say that the intelligence services must be proactive. However, we should not give the impression that this country's intelligence services—or for that matter, those of the US—are not proactive, because they are highly so. However, they cannot know everything that is thought, done or planned. If they could, I suspect that the House would be extremely concerned.
In one respect, I agree with the remarks on the failure of intelligence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. The security of the western world has been predicated on the idea that those who would attack us would wish to survive themselves. We had not paid enough attention to suicide as a weapon. That charge cannot be laid solely at the door of the security services or those in charge of them in this country, because the western world as a whole had failed to follow through the implications of what had begun in Beirut, been taken up by Hamas and been pursued in the attack on the USS Cole. For example, the normal procedure in dealing with hijacking was that those in charge of the aircraft should go along with whatever it was that the hijackers asked. That was a weakness that Osama bin Laden recognised and acted on with ruthless imagination.
Osama bin Laden was capable of using imagination, and we knew that. He had done so in many different aspects of his life and the western world did not have the imagination to predict how far he would take it. So it was a failure of imagination more than a failure of intelligence. Our imagination could fail us again. If we spend the next few months trying to stop people flying aeroplanes into buildings, we will miss the point. We need to do that, but we also need to think more like those who threaten us think, instead of how we have thought in the past. The issue is not what al-Qaeda, or similar groups, did last but what they might do next.
Where are we vulnerable? We used to need to protect strong points, such as power stations, water supplies and critical manufacturers. Now that our society has become so complicated and interdependent, the key to our survival is not so much strong points as systems. Those systems are often in the control of the private sector. Public confidence in our computer systems, for example, is as important as public confidence in the World Trade Centre. Therefore, we need to use our imaginations to build up a picture of how those computer systems could be vulnerable. I know that much thought is going into that and it is essential that it should.
We also need to consider not only the spectacular results of terrorism, but what gives birth to terror in the first place. That is not an issue that we consider in our report, perhaps because we think that it would be more the province of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

1101
Nevertheless, the question came up at a conference that we hosted in May, in London, of international intelligence review agencies. It was suggested that one cause of terrorism was the widening global socio-economic divide. It is possible that the western world has drastically underestimated the effect of global climate change. As water becomes scarcer, or poor hot countries become less amenable to growing food for us, the seeds of conflict will grow. Those are essential questions and the country will need to be reassured that they are being considered by someone, whether in government, the agencies or the academic world, on the basis of proper intelligence and with the ability to take the necessary policy decisions that will flow from the answers. I should be most grateful for assurances on that issue from the Foreign Secretary when he winds up.
4.48 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is a conscientious and highly effective member of the Committee. I fully endorse the tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) for the excellent leadership that she has provided in the past year.
Four years ago I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak in what was the first parliamentary debate on an Intelligence and Security Committee annual report. It was the first speech I had made in the House since rejoining the Back Benches. I sought that opportunity to speak because of the importance I attached to the work of the intelligence and security services and the Committee. Having had a year as a member of the Committee, I am now very pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I feel that I have secured a better understanding of the state's security apparatus, and also believe that the Committee is well served by its staff.
I have never been under any illusion as to the necessity of deploying adequate resources in this area. It has been a pleasure to meet many of the dedicated public servants who work for the agencies. I do not intend to spend much time on the role of the Committee in relation to the agencies. It is a fascinating question, which I am still in the process of trying to answer for myself. However, I am convinced that there is a legitimate function for the Committee. I also believe that the senior people in our security and intelligence services recognise the Committee's value to the democratic process. One reason for that recognition is that, to my knowledge, no secret information shared with the Committee has leaked into the public domain, a point that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have made this afternoon. It goes without saying that the value of the work of the Committee depends on the extent to which senior Ministers and senior staff in the intelligence community are fully open with the Committee.
On the day my hon. Friends and I were appointed to the Committee last summer, no one could have guessed that before we would hold our first formal meeting, the landscape that the Committee surveyed would be drastically altered. It is worth mentioning that all four members of the Committee who have spoken so far this afternoon, including me, are relatively new and were appointed a year ago.
1102
I am in no doubt that the atrocities of 11 September changed the world because of the scale of the civilian slaughter, which left 3,000 people dead, the spectacular nature of the attacks—images of which were brought straight into our living rooms by television—and the level of organisation required to co-ordinate the strikes throughout the United States. Moreover, the United States had not previously seen its homeland as a target for international terrorism. It is my view that if the terrorists responsible for the atrocities on 11 September could have killed more people, they would have done so. We should be concerned that terrorists in the future will try to do just that.
In its second report published in December, the Select Committee on Defence concluded:
"There seems little doubt that terrorist organisations could obtain the necessary materials for chemical, biological or radiological weapons…Although we have seen no evidence that either al Qaeda or other terrorist groups are actively planning to use chemical, biological and radiological weapons, we can see no reason to believe that people who are prepared to fly passenger planes into tower blocks would balk at using such weapons. The risk that they will do so cannot be ignored".
The Select Committee is right. We ignore the risks of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction at our peril.
In its annual report, the Intelligence and Security Committee sets out a future programme of work. The threat from international terrorism is one reason why I am very pleased that the Committee has included in its future programme an item on the work of the agencies to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Committee looked at the issue and reported on it in its annual report of 1998–99, but matters have moved on in the three years since then, and we need to do more.
Until recently, terrorist leaders apparently did not consider that mass civilian slaughter on the scale that we have now witnessed would further their aims. Perhaps the Tokyo sarin gas attack in 1995 marked the watershed. The concern is that to achieve the desired effect—terror—terrorists need continually to increase the levels of violence to secure the necessary impact on the target population and in the media. We have to ask ourselves what they will try next. There is surely a real and increasing threat that terrorists will obtain and use weapons of mass destruction.
I should like to concentrate on the orthodox categories of chemical, biological and radiological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction, although the House will be all too well aware that terrorists have already proved capable of turning a jet plane into a weapon of large-scale destruction.
Acquiring chemical weapons is relatively easy. There is access to ingredients for nerve agents, and so on, on the open market, and the science is not difficult. As I have mentioned, the Aum group in Japan successfully prepared and released sarin gas in the Tokyo underground in 1995. Terrorists may not need to bother preparing chemical weapons—there are great stockpiles world wide. As the Defence Committee stated, there is concern that these weapons may find their way into the hands of terrorist groups.
Getting hold of biological agents can also be straightforward. Many agents can be bought from legitimate suppliers or acquired from laboratories by theft or through a laboratory worker. There have been a number

1103
of incidents in which terrorists have been found in possession of biological agents. Professor Graham Pearson, former director of the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down and visiting professor at the university of Bradford, told the Defence Committee that, of the three types of weapons of mass destruction,
"it is clear that biological weapons present the greatest danger today…as they are the easiest to acquire, have the weakest regime and yet have effects comparable to nuclear weapons."
The availability of the ingredients necessary to construct a nuclear device is increasing. With plutonium and highly enriched uranium becoming more available, it will be increasingly possible to get the fissile material necessary to make a nuclear explosive device. The increasing trade in mixed oxide fuel is of particular concern. The assessment of Dr. Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group is that it would be relatively easy to remove plutonium oxide from mixed oxide fuel and use it to fabricate a nuclear weapon.
Opinions vary as to whether terrorists could use nuclear material to manufacture and successfully detonate a nuclear bomb. Mr. El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last November that such a development is "highly unlikely" but that "no scenario is impossible". However, Dr. Frank Barnaby believes that the construction of a crude nuclear weapon need not be beyond the capabilities of a sophisticated and well resourced terrorist group.
There is a flourishing black market in fissile materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency recorded 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear material between 1993 and 2000, 18 of which involved highly enriched uranium or plutonium.
We should not overlook the risk that nuclear warheads in the countries of the former Soviet Union could fall into the wrong hands. The International Atomic Energy Agency observed:
"another legacy of the Cold War are the disturbing reports, albeit unsubstantiated, of missing nuclear weapons."
There are rumours of missing suitcase bombs. David Kyd of the IAEA told The Guardian in November that when he was in the Russian army, General Alexander Lebed claimed that a number of them had gone missing.
Finally, I should like to mention radiological weaponry. There has been a fair amount of press coverage recently of "dirty bombs"—that is, radioactive material distributed by a conventional explosion. Some radioactive isotopes suitable for constructing a dirty bomb have been smuggled on to the black market. Indeed, Chechen rebels placed a container of caesium-137 in a Moscow park in 1996.
IAEA experts are concerned that terrorists will develop a crude radiological dispersal device. The agency database includes 284 confirmed incidents of unauthorised movements of radioactive material other than nuclear material. Just two weeks ago, the agency warned that safeguards on powerful radioactive sources are inadequate, and called for cradle-to-grave control.
The security and intelligence services will be vital in countering the threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Human intelligence—infiltrating and recruiting—and signal intelligence in intercepting communications will be of huge importance. Because the
1104
wherewithal to create some weapons of mass destruction is available perfectly legally, intelligence will be our only defence against them.
Dr. Frank Barnaby warns:
"The intelligence and security communities should take the threat of the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction much more seriously than they do at the moment."
I do not consider myself in a position to assess whether that is the case. It is a crucial question, and I am glad that the Committee will address it in the coming months.
Organised crime and terrorism have long been closely linked, and with the increase in global transport, trade and communications, organised crime and terrorism are spreading and strengthening their links. As terrorism and international crime endeavour to globalise, we must ensure that intelligence and security services are not hindered by national boundaries. I was pleased to see that at the recent summit in Canada the leaders of the G8 countries agreed to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction to help prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of terrorist groups. I should be interested to learn what effect that programme may have on the work of our security and intelligence agencies in this field.
I said at the outset that I valued the opportunity to consider these matters, along with my colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The world did change on 11 September. The Government have already recognised that by providing extra resources for the agencies. I agree with colleagues who have said that further investment will be needed in the medium to long term. I look forward to an important announcement on that next week.
Of course, international terrorism is not the only challenge that the agencies face—far from it. Indeed, we were only recently reminded that we still have a significant domestic terrorist threat. It is hard to think of anything more degrading to civilisation than the wanton slaughter of innocent people. There is all the difference in the world between the loss of life on the battlefield, among combatants, and the killing of men, women and children who just want to go about their daily lives in peace.
Of course, we must not be blind to the underlying historical or social causes of terrorism, but at the same time the House and the Government should give the highest priority to thwarting terrorists from wherever they come.
5 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) is a conscientious new member of the Committee. In concentrating his remarks on traffic in weapons of mass destruction, he helps to underline the point that there are areas in which the agencies are currently actively involved from which it would be very wrong to divert funds. If we impose additional tasks on them, we must provide additional resources. We must maintain a high level of effort, but it does not come cheap: it is expensive and demanding work.
I echo the appreciation that has been expressed of the work of the agencies and their staff, and especially those who face real danger in going about that work. I also pay

1105
tribute to Sir Stephen Lander, who is about to retire and move into an interesting new field—I am glad that he is doing that rather than writing books. He has been an effective head of his organisation. He understood what it needed to do and what it was not appropriate for it to do. He knew where to concentrate the effort and where to draw the boundary lines.
I want to discuss the judgment on the forewarning, or lack of forewarning, of 11 September, and to underline what the Committee Chairman said: that we were talking about the United Kingdom, not about the United States. We have been in close contact with our US counterparts and observed their work, and clearly they have judgments to make about how the American system functioned or failed to function and about the movement of intelligence through that system. Information that could have been useful seems, to a layman, not to have been in the right place at the right time.
Our job was to consider the United Kingdom agencies, how they co-operated with the US agencies and the role that they played—especially in assessing the threat to the United Kingdom. We made a judgment on the basis of the information that was gathered and presented to Ministers in the Joint Intelligence Committee's assessment papers. We refined and worked over our judgment, modifying our conclusions to some extent, as we looked at the various documents. Our conclusion was not a snap judgment. It was reached very carefully.
We said:
"The July 2001 JIC paper concluded that plans for attacks were in their final stages but that the timings, targets and methods of attack were not known. This assessment was not a stark warning of immediate danger to the UK. The shortage of specific intelligence and UBL's record could have warned all concerned that more urgent action was needed to counter this threat. Whether this could have forestalled any of UBL's actions can only be a matter for conjecture."
Even if we had rushed additional resources into intelligence and prevention at that point, the information before Ministers was not sufficiently specific to enable our efforts to be directed in such a way as to prevent the attacks. The Committee concluded that,
"with hindsight, the scale of the threat and the vulnerability of Western states to terrorists with this degree of sophistication and a total disregard for their own lives was not understood."
We should be a bit careful about using the expression "intelligence failure", because it might be taken to imply that there is such a thing as total intelligence—knowing everything. The expression is more usually used in circumstances in which intelligence could freely have been obtained, processed and used, but was not. That was not the position with 11 September.
We reached a different conclusion from that of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which quite properly pointed out that it was not in possession of the same information. It said:
"It would appear that before 11 September both the US and the United Kingdom failed to gather or share good intelligence, or they failed to interpret it correctly, or they failed to act on it. We are not in a position to judge which was the case."
That implies that at least one of those alternatives was the case, but I am not convinced that any of them was. We did not fail to gather or share good intelligence. The UK gathering effort was significant, and the sharing effort considerable. I am not convinced that there was a failure
1106
to interpret it correctly, so it follows logically that there was not a failure to act on it, because it did not point clearly to a particular course of action.
I disagree with the Foreign Affairs Committee's conclusions in that respect, although the report as a whole is extremely valuable and useful, and I hope that hon. Members will take note of the many interesting points in it.
There may be a broader criticism to make of the west as a whole in its approach to Afghanistan. The Foreign Secretary reflected that when he said that the west had virtually walked away from Afghanistan, allowing problems to mount. It is conceivable that the west could have made a greater effort to stop a failed state falling under the total control of a terrorist organisation—for that is what happened. Along with the drugs trade, Al-Qaeda terrorists were the paymasters of the Taliban. With a great deal of hindsight, it is conceivable that we could have denied them that opportunity. It would have been no easy task, but not to have done it is perhaps a more perceptible failure than what some have described as an intelligence failure.
I want to comment on the new arrangements for dealing with intelligence. That gives me the opportunity to talk about the forthcoming retirement of Sir Richard Wilson as Cabinet Secretary. He has devoted a lot of valuable and productive effort to the intelligence community, and we should appreciate that. Responsibility for intelligence will now pass from the Cabinet Secretary to the Second Permanent Secretary, possibly because the Prime Minister wants the Cabinet Secretary to concentrate on service delivery—a commendable object on the face of it, but one about which one could have some suspicions concerning centralisation of power in the hands of the Government and the Prime Minister. Our concern today, however, must be with whether intelligence responsibilities will be effectively discharged when they are transferred to someone who does not have the status that the Cabinet Secretary has.
I venture to suggest that, if Sir David Omand had not been available to carry out the task of Second Permanent Secretary, the move would have been seen by many as a downgrading—and potentially a dangerous one—of intelligence. The Foreign Secretary has had to be away from the Chamber for some time, but I hope that this point will be drawn to his attention, because he should bear it clearly in mind.
Sir David Omand has a unique background in relevant areas of work and a unique standing. Indeed, some of us would argue that he could have been the Cabinet Secretary. The fact that he has taken on this responsibility is a fair indication that it will be made to work. I am far from convinced that this arrangement should be continued when the two present post holders eventually retire.
The Committee will want to review the arrangement as it beds in, but we also need to look ahead. We should consider whether that ad hominem arrangement will work because of the individuals involved but, if it were retained and became part of the practice of government, might in the longer term deny the intelligence community the position within government that the Cabinet Secretary's responsibility had previously given them. That position has been relevant in many ways. When problems occurred with the new accommodation project at Cheltenham, the role of the Cabinet Secretary was crucial.

1107
It should be said that access to the Prime Minister enjoyed by the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of agencies and Sir David Omand is guaranteed, as we are assured that such access will be undisturbed. I am more concerned about resourcing and the position of the intelligence community within government.
The Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee referred to the qualifying of GCHQ's accounts. It is pretty serious for accounts to be qualified two years in succession. Its appearance in our report is the alternative route available to the National Audit Office for its work in this field. The Public Accounts Committee cannot handle that side of the work, because it requires the security measures to which our Committee is subject. The Chairman of the PAC has access to what is being done, and as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee I am grateful that successive Chairmen of the PAC have worked so readily with our Committee and enabled us to give the NAO the public recognition that its report requires. The Comptroller and Auditor General wrote:
"I have not obtained all the necessary information and explanations that I considered necessary for the purposes of my audit; and I was unable to determine whether proper accounting records had been maintained."
That is a pretty serious matter.
I emphasise that the qualification is not about the new building, difficult though that project has been, and it is not about the operational efficiency of GCHQ, of which the Committee is well aware, and the remarkable contribution that it makes to intelligence work and to this country's readiness to deal with terrorist attacks. GCHQ is an extremely valued and internationally recognised asset. However, it is unsatisfactory that its financial procedures should merit such criticism. It is all about resource accounting and its failure to grasp the difficult task described by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who serves with me on the Committee, as bean counting—it has not been counting the beans accurately or has not known precisely where they all were. That problem needs to be remedied, and the Committee has spoken strongly on the subject.
I want to refer in these disparate points to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the orders that have been introduced under it, but I do not want to discuss them in detail. Communications data are important in the detection of serious crime and in dealing with threats to the United Kingdom. They are a valuable intelligence tool. The orders that were brought before the House recently were not primarily about that. They were about access to such data by a variety of bodies with legitimate responsibilities for food safety, public finance, preventing benefit fraud and other such matters. Many of us think that those bodies should not have such wide powers. I appreciate the distinction that was drawn by the Conservative shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), between the areas that are crucial to the central security of the country and its inhabitants and those many other important matters that do not merit the same range of powers. We share that view, and I am glad that he articulated it clearly, as it is relevant.
1108
There was some confusion, because different orders cover different things. I over-simplify a little, but the orders that related to covert human surveillance were, as the Home Secretary said, primarily about bringing under regulation things that happen already and that are, on closer reflection, recognised to happen, whereas those related to communications data went much wider and were rightly the subject of concern. The Home Secretary will have to have a major rethink about that.
My fear is that there is a real danger in extending security-related powers into other areas. That undermines the case for the highly selective use of powers that are regarded as intrusive if that is necessary to prevent major threats to our lives and our safety, and when those threats cannot readily be detected, investigated or challenged in other ways. It is of a piece with the tendency to use the need for security to justify matters that should not be given that justification. Every time that happens, it slightly undermines the credibility of powers in areas where they are vital. That is why we should be careful about using such justifications.
Over the years, emergency, fast-tracked anti-terrorism legislation has often included provisions that are not justifiable, or even justified, by Ministers on security grounds; they are merely slipped into the legislation. For example, anti-terrorism legislation included provisions relating to conspiracy because the Home Office saw a fast train so booked a seat on it for other, no doubt reputable, provisions that were thought justified. When we have to abbreviate parliamentary scrutiny on the ground of urgency we should be cautious about the extension of security justifications beyond their proper scope.
I offer another example. It was widely claimed that the failure to use competitive tendering for the smallpox vaccine was for security reasons, despite the fact that the United States had used open tendering for the same vaccine. If there had been a security reason for that closed process, I am sure that it would have been drawn to the attention of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it was not. I can say that openly because the Minister responsible confirmed it from the Dispatch Box in the other place—recorded in Lords Hansard on 22 May at column 765. He used a rather broader notion of security, which the statutory provisions allow, but it was not security in the sense that we are using the word in this debate, whereby it justifies extremely wide powers or special procedures. We must always beware of that factor in all our debates and discussions.
Finally, I want to discuss what the Committee is for. It has two broad aspects. The first is the scrutiny of the agencies; of their policy, administration and finance and, going more widely than their statute, their efficiency, probity and fitness for purpose. That is the job on which the committee spends a great deal of time. It draws those matters to the attention of the House through its annual report, which has to be published to the House by the Prime Minister. That also means that the committee draws those matters to the attention of the Prime Minister, which is one of the merits of our non-Select Committee status that might usefully be replicated if the Committee's status were to change.
The fact that the Prime Minister is under an obligation to meet the Committee, having read its report, and to discuss the report in some detail is generally useful and is one of the few means whereby the Prime Minister's mind can be focused on the broad issues of intelligence,

1109
especially in the absence of meetings of the ministerial committee to which several of my colleagues have referred. That is a valuable process, as most Prime Ministers would agree. That scrutiny process is one side of the Committee's work.
The second aspect of our work is reassurance. The Committee was set up—as were committees in several countries, including the United States—partly in response to the fear that all sorts of dubious things might go on within the veil of secrecy that surrounds intelligence and security organisations and nobody would know, possibly not even Ministers. Ministers might of course be party to such things, which might be done in their interest, and could be politically expedient or involve incursions into people's liberty far beyond those that could be justified in statute or publicly defended. There was a fear that such things might happen in future and some evidence that they had happened in the past.
Hon. Members look to the Committee to provide reassurance. The next best thing to every Member of Parliament being able to check for himself whether anything nefarious is going on is to have confidence that a group of colleagues in whom he can repose some trust has that access and would act if anything bad was happening. In order to provide that reassurance, the Committee must be privy to the widest possible range of information and, over time, we have reached that position.
Circumstances occasionally arise when we need to go further and there are sometimes skirmishes when we try to obtain the information that we require. Some of those skirmishes are ongoing, but it is vital for Members to be sure that we obtain the information and that when it is in our possession we apply the same judgments that they would apply. That is what members of the Committee try to do and we are enabled to do so by the now extensive range of information that we are given. It is what Members expect us to do and I hope that we live up to the task.
5.19 pm
Alan Howarth: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He was one of the founder members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and he and the longer serving members of the Committee have mentored those of us who are more newly recruited, and I hope that we have brought a useful, fresh approach. Let me add my appreciation of the admirable chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). Let me also express my appreciation of the immensely competent efforts and hard work done in support of us by our secretariat.
I wish to reiterate the admiration of the agencies' professionalism that we have expressed in our report. My impression is that the agencies' professionalism grew during the 1990s, and I suspect that that has something to do with the legitimation of their establishment and their work in legislation from the mid-1980s onwards, particularly under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. That may also be the view of the agencies themselves. It has been helpful that their task has been made explicit and defined more clearly. It has been helpful in establishing some boundaries for what they do. It has been good for their esteem and standing in the public eye, and it has assisted them in recruiting the sort of people whom they need to recruit.
1110
The agencies certainly need people with a remarkable range of skills and human qualities, among which is courage. The work at every level of the agencies is characterised by courage on the part of a very great many individuals, and I would add that the judgments and decisions that need to be made by those at the most senior level—particularly, of course, the chiefs—really do take courage. They undertake massive responsibilities on behalf of us all, so I gladly pay tribute to them, particularly Sir Stephen Lander, who is shortly to depart as head of the Security Service.
The Committee works on a basis of trust. The need-to-know principle is indispensable because, of course, sources must be protected. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has just said, we see a greater range of official papers and are privy to a greater amount of information than was the case in the past. One has to be pragmatic about this, but, because trust has grown, the scope for the Committee to work effectively has grown. When all is said and done, it is not in the interests of the agencies or Departments to fail to convince the Committee of the appropriateness of what they do, let alone to mislead us.
The Committee has done much to win the confidence of those whom it is our responsibility to scrutinise and, correspondingly, the Committee has much confidence in them, but it is, of course, our job to probe, to ask the awkward questions and to apply pressure, which is what we certainly intend to continue to do.
As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) noted, we are not a parliamentary Committee in a certain formal sense, but we are all extremely conscious of our responsibilities as parliamentarians and our responsibilities—albeit through the Prime Minister—to Parliament, so we must hope that our parliamentary colleagues trust us as members of the Committee. That is for them to judge and to say, but I have been pleased to hear several right hon. and hon. Members express their approval of the work of the agencies this afternoon.
Irrespective of whether the members of the Committee are appointed by the Prime Minister or whether we are constituted as a Select Committee, there would still be the need for confidentiality. I find it difficult to foresee that our modus operandi would change radically if we were to become a Select Committee, and I fear that those wretched asterisks would still appear in our reports. The irony is that we have to limit our accountability to Parliament to protect our democracy.
It is important that the agencies are in some ways insulated from the pressures of politics. Some of the earlier speeches, including that made from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), show us how public concern on high-profile and urgent matters—such as serious and organised crime—will very properly be mediated through Parliament. I am very well aware, as a Member of Parliament representing a Gwent constituency, how much we in Gwent and the Gwent Police owe to the expert support that the police have received from the agencies in certain investigations.
It has been noted that serious and organised crime is highly relevant to counter-terrorism. None the less, the agencies' priorities need to be balanced and must not be distorted by understandable public pressures.

1111
Counter-terrorism, dealing with espionage, and dealing with the very dangerous threat from the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) spoke so eloquently, are at the heart of what the agencies do and they must be enabled to pursue a balanced approach, as I believe that they do.
Often what we hear less about is no less important, and of course we rarely, as members of the public, hear about the successes of the agencies. Al-Qaeda has inevitably been a huge preoccupation over a very considerable period and well before 11 September, but the danger from Irish terrorism remains a major preoccupation. Although there is less in the media about Irish terrorism than there is about al-Qaeda it does not mean to say that it matters any less. Equally, the India-Pakistan conflict and problems of Kashmir are almost unspeakably important, and no amount of other public preoccupation should distract the agencies from what they need to do in respect of that problem.
The agencies work in a changing environment. We now live in a world of macro-terrorism. As the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (James Arbuthnot) put it very well, the world had really failed to grasp imaginatively the reality of the possibility of suicide missions in the west, and of terrorist activity on the scale and of the pitilessness and effectiveness that we witnessed on 11 September. The Home Secretary effectively acknowledged that, when he met us in the Committee. We need to be at new levels of alert, of vigilance and of protection.
We also live in a rapidly changing technological environment. The technical capacities of Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham, working very closely and effectively, as it does, with the National Security Agency in the USA, and of the Ministry of Defence and its agencies working with the American National Imagery and Mapping Agency, are extraordinary. The capacity may be great but that itself creates a new problem because, whereas in the past there was a problem of a lack of intelligence information on the scale that might have been required, the agencies now perhaps suffer from a surfeit of information. The problem is looking for the needle in the haystack and the new challenge is how to ask the right questions so that one can interrogate these colossal databanks in order to focus on and pin down the vital information.
Hon. Members have spoken about the difficulties of balancing security and liberty, but what is clear is that without security there can be no liberty, and that presents endless dilemmas upon which we can torture ourselves. Parliament is right to be vigilant about the extension of powers to obtain communications data, and about the systems to ensure that data requests are properly authorised. I very much appreciate the words spoken by the Home Secretary on that issue this afternoon, and the important and constructive exchange between himself and the shadow Home Secretary. These matters may primarily be the responsibility of Committees other than ours. The Intelligence and Security Committee, however, has an important responsibility to satisfy itself that systems of warrantry, which are a key part of the guarantee of freedoms in this area of work, are operating as they
1112
should. We have paid particular attention to questions of staffing. If—I am glad that it is only a hypothetical possibility—there were significant extensions of power to other agencies to obtain communications data, it would be extremely important that the commissioners have the staff that they need to be able to oversee the system. The Government, in their response to our report, assert that there will be an appropriate level of resources. The Committee will wish to satisfy itself as to what that may mean in practical terms.
As many Members have asked, and as almost everyone outside the House asks in anguish, could the horror of 11 September have been prevented? Like others on the Committee, I was startled by the press release from the Foreign Affairs Committee. We must guard against the search for scapegoats. If there really were culpable failures, they must be identified, but such inquiries need to be pursued in a calm frame of mind. They are being pursued in the United States, and we shall see what the findings prove to be. We raised in our report the question of whether the assessment made by the Joint Intelligence Committee in June and July was sufficiently stark. My view is that the agencies, the Joint Intelligence Committee, and, in their turn, Ministers, acted as they should have done in that period. There were many indications that something very important and very dangerous was afoot—the reports coming in to Ministers made it very clear that al-Qaeda was preparing something monstrous. I do not believe, however, that anybody—certainly, in our agencies—was in a position to identity the precise nature of that threat. After all, it is fair to recall that the atrocity did not take place in the United Kingdom, although it affected many British lives and families.
Attempting to be wise after the event, I ask, what might have been done differently? I think that we were too greedy with the peace dividend after the end of the cold war. Budgets were reduced, and they began to rise only at the end of the last decade and at the beginning of this one. Even the civil contingencies unit was disbanded, which was surely a mistake. It represented a naive view of human nature. Of course we wanted to turn swords into plough shares, and to release resources to spend on public services or other good projects, but it was foolish to suppose that, with the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war, human nature had somehow altered. Tragically, hatred, violence, conflict and terror are endemic in human affairs.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, and as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has already recalled, essentially, the west walked away from Afghanistan, ignoring the pathology of that failed state. We need to reflect on the lessons of that mistake. We do not have to agree with everything that has been proposed by Samuel P. Huntington in his extremely interesting book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order". We should take very seriously, however, his suggestion that the real faultline—the areas where the risk of conflict is liable to be most acute—is where different civilisations and cultures meet and encounter each other. The lesson from that, if I may risk stating the obvious, is that, where Iraq is concerned, we should handle with care. Were we to pursue policies that caused the Islamic world to forget its many differences and to rally in antagonism to the west, that would be devastatingly unfortunate. Equally, we do not have to accept everything that Mr. Robert Cooper

1113
suggests to us, to accept none the less that we should give our serious attention to the pathology of failed states. There are implications there for countries in the west that make fine professions—for example, in the Doha round—but then introduce protectionist policies that might have been calculated to further impoverish already very poor areas of the world and to make them breeding grounds for resentment, hatred and terrorism. The better our policies and our diplomacy, the less pressure there will be on our security and intelligence agencies and on our armed forces.
Thinking again about what might have been organised better over the period, it has become commonplace to note that one of the distinguishing differences in this area between ourselves in the United Kingdom and our friends and allies in the United States is that in the US there is no MI5. The FBI is an organisation of a different character. It is essentially a policing operation, and its remit has been to apprehend criminals and bring them to justice after the crime has been committed. The culture of the FBI is being radically recast and the US is engaged in the creation of its Office of Homeland Security, but that is a difficult culture change. It is an immensely important one, and I wish our friends and colleagues there well.
Simple security routines are always liable to be neglected. How do we maintain the state of alert that we need? Airport security, as we saw, was perilously lax before 11 September. It is more laborious now; I wonder whether it is yet as efficacious as it needs to be. How are we to scan the myriad parcels and containers that come into our country day by day? It is not in human nature to maintain a permanent state of vigilance, yet it is extremely important that we do so.
Andrew Mackinlay: I have been listening intently to my right hon. Friend and I agree with what he says. The Government should address themselves to the nature of our seaports, where there is wholly inadequate security and law enforcement. Most sensible countries have a dedicated police force in their ports and we do not. We should have one, which would supplement and complement the immigration service, Customs and Excise and the county police forces. In that regard, I think that we are sleeping while Rome burns, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind my intervening.
Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
I am mindful that other hon. Members want to speak. I will therefore not say what I would have wished to say about co-ordination, and I will not explain why I strongly support the arguments that have already been advanced by colleagues on the Committee as to why the ministerial committee on intelligence services ought to meet. I simply conclude by saying again how much I personally esteem and value the agencies. I believe that they are hugely appreciated in Washington; I know that they are greatly appreciated by Ministers. It is a pleasure and a privilege to have the opportunity to be a member of the Committee.
5.39 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) may be a new member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it is obvious to me as a non-member of that Committee
1114
that he has taken to his new role admirably. His comments, particularly about the continuing need to monitor and counter potential Irish terrorism, were well made. Indeed, one of the points that I wish to put before the House this afternoon is that intelligence must not be excessively compartmentalised. It may be that some of the techniques that Britain has sadly had to learn in combating Irish terrorism will need to be applied to the new threats that we face from fundamentalist Islamist terrorism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) rightly said that it cannot be regarded as a failure of intelligence not to know the details of a specific plan before it is put into action. He rightly talked of the need for imagination so that one does not spend one's time analysing what one's terrorist enemies have done in the past, but rather tries to foresee what new steps they are likely to take in the future.
What we have to face in dealing with fundamentalist Islamist terrorism requires a new type of approach and an ethos rather different from the way in which the Security Service has had to operate in the past. In the past, MI5 has often had to sit back, watch, monitor, bide its time and stay its hand so that when eventually the crisis came, speedy action could be taken. Now we are dealing with organisations that are rudimentary in terms of structure, lethal in terms of operation and limited in terms of numbers carrying out whatever particular plan they seek to implement.
It follows from that, as my right hon. Friend said, that unless there is some major failure of security within the terrorist cell itself—which will not happen often—one must be proactive, as I said in an intervention on him earlier, in seeking to dislocate, deceive and disrupt the organisation itself. We must keep the terrorist organisation on the back foot, and prevent it from having the time to reflect, plan and choose the moment at which it will implement action, rather being continuously on the defensive ourselves. In order to wage that sort of campaign against terrorism, we need a form of offensive intelligence.
In the slight spat that we have seen developing this afternoon between some members of the Intelligence and Security Committee and some members of the Foreign Affairs Committee over whether it was a failure, not necessarily on the part of British intelligence agencies, but on that of western intelligence agencies, that 11 September happened, I incline somewhat more to the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who made a superb, indeed magisterial, speech.
I believe that it was known that al-Qaeda existed, what aims it entertained and what modus operandi it preferred. As I said earlier, it is precisely because individual schemes are unlikely to leak in advance, that pre-emptive measures must be taken to undermine terrorist organisations before they can get anywhere near to putting those schemes into action.
Old habits die hard, and having been fortunate to be called to speak in every debate on the intelligence services since they began in the previous Parliament, I am well aware of the fact that there are Members wishing to speak in this one who are in danger of not being able to do so unless I am particularly brief, so that is what I propose to be.

1115
Last year I made rather a long speech about several small topics. This time I wish to make a much shorter speech about rather a large topic. The topic is, of course, terrorism, but only one aspect of it, and that links directly to something that has been a recurring theme in all my speeches, year after year, since we were fortunate enough to have these debates in the House on a subject that used to be regarded as out of bounds. That theme is the need for an active counter-subversion arm in the Security Service. We know that F branch used to do that job. We also know that with the end of the cold war, F branch was successively wound down and eliminated. I am not particularly concerned about whether, when the Security Service revives anything analogous to F branch—if it has not already done so—it uses the same name or an entirely different one. What we must realise is that in fighting fundamentalist Islamist terrorism, the Security Service has a particular task in hand: to ensure that such terrorism is not allowed to put down roots and grow, expand and fester in this country.
Terrorists operate in a strange arena of warfare. Using standard terror techniques, they can hope to do one of at least four things. They can hope indiscriminately to kill some hundreds or even thousands of civilians. More specifically, they can hope to target individuals such as politicians, service men, police officers or security personnel. By doing all that, they can hope to provoke repression in free societies. Sometimes, they can even hope, as is the case in Northern Ireland, to gain concessions, many of which they do not deserve.
By using weapons of mass destruction, however, terrorists can threaten the existence of entire communities and cities, and possibly even of entire democratic states. They are unlikely by themselves to be able to acquire free-standing weapons of mass destruction that would operate on the largest of those three levels. However, they have a way of getting around that problem by infiltrating other regimes such as those in countries that already either have nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, or may have nuclear weapons in future, such as some of the countries in the now notoriously named axis of evil. It is especially disturbing that time and again, while we hear that the President of Pakistan is doing everything that he can to help the alliance forces root out al-Qaeda and its sympathisers, those terrorists seem to be supported, buttressed and reinforced by elements of Pakistan's own intelligence organisation. That is a very worrying issue and it must be a prime concern for MI6.
Returning to the problem in this country, we have to be concerned that if the organisation is not to put down the roots to which I referred, it must be completely transparent to our security authorities. In making the one key point that I wish to make in this speech, I want to divert for a moment to an obituary from yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph. Its relevance may not be immediately apparent, but I assure the House that it will become so very quickly. The obituary is for General Benjamin O. Davis Jr., who was commander during the second world war of the 99th Fighter Squadron at Tuskegee, Alabama. He flew 60 combat missions and then commanded the 332nd Fighter Group, escorting US bombers on 200 raids over Europe and ensuring that not one of them was lost. That fighter group shot down 111 aircraft and destroyed 150 more on the ground, for
1116
the loss of 66 of its own fighters. It destroyed hundreds of railway wagons, dozens of boats and even sank a destroyer.
What is the relevance of that information? It is quite simple: all the pilots in those two units were black. All were fighting two wars—the first was against the Nazis, but the second was against the prejudice in their own great country, the United States of America, against black service men. The obstacles that they had to overcome to be able to volunteer to fight and go on those missions would have deterred most people from even wanting to bother. They were descendants of people who had not become citizens of the US voluntarily, but had been brought there against their will. They nevertheless fought to save an imperfect democracy, which, on occasion, had given them little cause to admire it. In short, they were proud to be American patriots.
In the fight against terrorism in this country, we need allies, and those allies are members of the moderate Muslim community. Those people—or their forebears—came to this country voluntarily because they thought that this country's methods, freedom and tolerance would give them better lives than the countries that they left. The appeal that I want to put out, in so far as I can do so through the medium of a House of Commons debate, is to ask members of the moderate Muslim community to follow the example of members of the black community in America—and, if I may say so as a member myself, members of the Jewish community in this country. Jewish people fought in all the conflicts that have taken place since they became a community here, and they have won awards—the Victoria cross, the George cross, and probably just about every gallantry medal imaginable—in the course of serving with Her Majesty's armed forces.
Members of the moderate Muslim community now have an opportunity to assist our democracy to fight against an extremist awfulness that any right-thinking person who wants to be a citizen of a democratic country would utterly reject. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), whom I am delighted to see in his place, made—if I may say so without prejudice against the many other excellent speeches—the most important single point when he said that it is vital for the Security Service to recruit members of that community to be able to wage the campaign against Islamist terrorism.
Joining the Security Service and becoming agents for democracy will be a very dangerous thing for members of the moderate Muslim community to do, but they will follow in a proud tradition. Black people fought for democracy in America, even at a time when America should have behaved rather better towards them. Those people have now risen to the very top. Colin Powell is Secretary of State and was formerly chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. I have every confidence that British moderate Muslims are as patriotic as British Jewish community members and British members of other communities that fought with the armed forces in war after war, for generation after generation. We think, of course, of the Gurkhas in particular.
I hope that one day, when people look back on this battle as they now look back on previous battles, it will be possible to say that it was not a war of race against race or of class against class, but of democracy against

1117
totalitarianism. I am sure that there will be brave British Muslims who will want to take part in that war on the right side.
5.53 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee and its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), for its pamphlet telling us how the intelligence services work and for its last report. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the compliment that he paid to the Select Committee of which I am a member—the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is no longer in his place, wondered why such matters are not dealt with in considering Bills. I can assure him that our Committee examines every Bill with any human rights aspect and publishes a full report. We do not take at face value what is written on the front of a Bill by any Secretary of State.
I read the Committee's report with great interest and I welcome the opportunity to debate it. I am one of those who believes that a large proportion of the work that is carried out by the intelligence and security agencies should not be secret at all, but should be wholly open to debate, and that the services should be held publicly accountable. That was our policy in opposition. We might be moving towards greater transparency, but the pace of change is so slight as to be imperceptible to the public at large.
Having been associated with affairs in Northern Ireland for some years, I have some knowledge of the intelligence agencies and their fight against terrorism and its impact on the political process, which we have not really considered today. The Committee's report states that the Security Service
"devoted 33 per cent. of its efforts to Irish Counter Terrorism".
Immediately, I am faced with problems—33 per cent. of its budget, of its agents, of its policy deliberation, of its time? Was the proportion of "effort" adjusted after successful negotiation of the Belfast agreement? What further adjustments were made to resources available for combating specifically Irish terrorism in the light of changing priorities following 11 September?
The intelligence services claimed credit for the successful conviction of three IRA terrorists for arms-trafficking charges. We all welcome that, and it is to the credit of the agencies. I know that an agency is able to claim credit for an operation only after the case has been successfully taken through the courts, so we do not really know how many operations have been thwarted—though I imagine a great number. However, many tricks of the trade must remain secret if they are to be successfully deployed on other occasions.
The upside of that secrecy is that terrorists might be led to believe that the intelligence agencies are all-seeing and all-powerful. They do not know where the subterfuge begins and ends, how deeply agent penetration goes or what are the agencies' objectives at any time. The downside of the policy is that we do not know either. We do not know to what extent, if at all, the agencies are overrunning the ethical boundaries.
There is a plethora of agencies in the field, each running agents, collecting information and conducting operations. The terrorist might be confused over who is
1118
who, but so are we, especially when something goes wrong and we want to find out who is responsible. So I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary answered the following fundamental questions—in writing if he does not know the answer now. Which agency has the lead role in intelligence gathering in Northern Ireland, and what is its relationship with the reformed Police Service of Northern Ireland and other agencies there?
At times, the responsibility has been given to the Security Service—MI5—but the Royal Ulster Constabulary ran its own secret undercover unit in addition to special branch, which itself is described as a force within a force. The Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—ran operations at certain times, and an agent known as "the mountain climber" is widely acknowledged to have performed a most valuable role as a channel of communication between the Government and the IRA. More particularly, in relation to the Ministry of Defence, which agency is to be held responsible for the work of the former force research unit, which has been rebranded with a new name that is still an official secret? There was of course no mention of that unit in the report.
On 1 May 2001, Ulster Television broadcast an interview with a former RUC detective in the CID, Detective Sergeant Johnson—"Jonty"—Brown. In that interview, a number of allegations were made that the RUC special branch routinely blocked investigations and destroyed evidence in order to protect informers. That affected, among other things, the ongoing investigation into the death of the solicitor Patrick Finucane.
Jonty Brown insists that those actions were not random or opportunist, but were set out and codified in a set of instructions governing the relationship between the RUC special branch and CID. The instructions were in a memorandum issued from RUC headquarters on 23 February 1981. They, in turn, were based on a report commissioned by the Chief Constable in January 1980. That report was known as the Walker report. Its author, Patrick Walker, was at the time—I believe—second in command of MI5 in Northern Ireland. I understand that in 1989 he was appointed overall director of the Security Service. That memorandum was quite specific. It stated:
"All proposals to effect planned arrests must be cleared with Regional Special Branch to ensure that no agents of either the RUC or Army are involved."
The Intelligence and Security Committee pamphlet states, on page 3 that the requirements of the European convention on human rights led the Government to put the agencies on a statutory footing. But what is the relationship between MI5, special branch and the rule of law, when they appear to be breaking the rule of law?
It is alleged that young joyriders have been recruited as agents or informers in return for a promise of non-prosecution. Will the Minister guarantee—later, in writing, if necessary—that the intelligence agencies are prevented from running child agents or recruiting child informers? I cannot believe that such activities would be compatible with our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. That allegation has been widely circulated in Northern Ireland, however.
I turn to another issue involving the rights of the child. In the late 1980s, the then Member for Brent, East brought a number of allegations to the Floor of the House concerning the Kincora boys' home in Belfast. The central allegation was that Kincora was run by vicious

1119
paedophiles who regularly subjected the children in their care to violent sexual abuse, and that attempts by the RUC to investigate the scandal were blocked by M15 to protect the director of the boys' home, who was providing valuable information about fringe loyalist paramilitaries at the time. If that is true, could such action by the intelligence services conceivably be justified? I ask that—in relation to the question of thwarting the role of the police—because a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Pat Finucane now looks virtually inevitable. In that inquiry, an attempt will be made to hold the security services to account, and, by all accounts, the security services—in one guise or another—are in it up to their necks.
We have a British undercover agent, Brian Nelson, who worked his way up to be head of intelligence for a loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association. He is accused of selecting their targets, and he provided Finucane's personal file. We also have the special branch informer, William Stobie. He was the UDA quartermaster who provided the weapons to carry out the hit on Finucane and collected them afterwards. He warned his special branch handler that the attack was coming. Then we have the alleged hitman himself, Ken Barrett. He confessed to carrying out the murder, but special branch decided that it would be better to drop the prosecution and to run him as an agent instead.
The credibility of those allegations may rest in part on the necessary limitation of the intelligence services remaining secret. But the Stevens inquiry will be coming out shortly, and there are enormous policy implications for the work of the agencies, following the incidents that I have described, that would also have enormous long-term political implications, not only for Northern Ireland but for here, if they were to spread to the rest of these islands. Those of us who were in the House at the time will remember, during the early part of Harold Wilson's second Ministry, the rumours about what was happening in the special intelligence agencies. It was eventually established that they were true. That could happen again, and we need to be certain that it is not going to.
The Irish Government have established a judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Dublin and Monaghan car bombings in 1974 that resulted in 33 deaths—a higher death toll even than the Omagh bombing. The British Government have agreed to assist the inquiry in answering persistent allegations that the operation was conceived and engineered by undercover agents working inside loyalist paramilitary groups. It is also alleged that Irish police intelligence on the identity of the perpetrators that was passed on to the RUC was not acted on. This version of events is endorsed by several former policemen and security service personnel. I trust that, in helping the Dublin inquiry, there will be no withholding of information by our own specialist intelligence services.
On another matter, the Ministry of Defence is currently fighting a legal battle to enforce its injunction against the Sunday People newspaper to prevent it from printing further information concerning the operational role of an undercover agent, "Stakeknife", alleged to be a leading figure inside the IRA. The newspaper has claimed that the agent participated in up to 40 murders in order to maintain
1120
his cover and protect his identity. That is an amazing statement, if it is correct, and we ought to be very concerned about it.
I have made grave criticisms, and I hope that one day we shall be given some answers. Before I finish, however, I want to pay tribute to the many men and women in the security forces and intelligence agencies who have not behaved in the way I have described, but have acted with great bravery and dedication. They put their lives on the line because they believed that their work would allow others to live in safety. I pay tribute to them: the nation owes them a great deal.
It is ironic that just as the Belfast agreement offers us a chance to move on, the culture of secrecy threatens to engulf some former agents who say they are being left high and dry with no acknowledgment of their work and no pension. Those people feel that they have no one to turn to. I understand that they intend to release a video to publicise their grievances. It is possible that the nature of their employment prevents them from going to the tribunal that has been established. If that is so, I urge the Committee to consider inviting them to give evidence so that these matters can be established. It cannot be for the good of the country that a group of people who have put their lives at risk should have such an enormous sense of grievance about the way in which they have been treated that they are prepared to release a video explaining their actions.
I think it is a matter of urgency for the Committee to consider a new approach in Northern Ireland, given the recent history of the intelligence agencies there; for it to urge the agencies to co-operate fully with public inquiries relating to the Patrick Finucane murder and the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, and any other cases that may appear; and for it to begin to develop a new mode of operation that will bring all its activities within the rule of law, and make them comply with the human-rights obligations into which this country has entered.
6.7 pm
Adam Price: This has been a fascinating debate. I am pleased to be able to speak briefly; I am conscious of the time constraint.
One theme that has run through the debate is the fact that intelligence can never be 100 per cent. accurate. It is often said that the only certainty in the world of intelligence is its inherent uncertainty. Echoing that in a recent article in The Guardian, the outgoing head of M15, Sir Stephen Lander, denied that 11 September was due to a failure of intelligence but conceded that it was due to a failure of security. He said that those who expected 100 per cent. success from intelligence were living in cloud cuckoo land.
We should bear in mind, however, the fact that there have been some fairly spectacular failures on the part of British intelligence in the past. Time prevents me from going into detail, but I think it can be said that, in general, intelligence failures occur not during the gathering of information but during assessment. As the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) pointed out, that problem is becoming more critical in an age of information overload in which intelligence-assessment pressures are greater than ever before.
Indeed, we live—more generally—in a world of far greater ambiguity and uncertainty in terms of geopolitical realities. In that context, it is difficult to assess the

1121
objectives of adversaries. There are no objective criteria; everything is based on finely balanced judgments. In that context, certain preconceptions and prejudices can creep into intelligence assessments. Intelligence agencies rely on mental maps, filters and assumptive words which allow them to make connections and assess the wealth of information at their disposal. It is therefore vital that we have the widest possible engagement with the a priori assumptions that lie at the base of the operations of our security services.
I accept that, by their very nature, the day-to-day operations of the security services have to remain confidential, but given the mental maps that lie at the base of intelligence service activities, it is vital that we have a full debate. In that sense, security is too important to be left to the security services.
Several hon. Members have referred to the culture of the security services. It is something that we can perceive only through a glass darkly. Certainly I have no direct experience, but historically there have been suggestions of institutional sclerosis within the intelligence agencies and a degree of retroactivity. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred to the possibility that they were recruiting from too narrow a base in cultural and social terms, a fact which, since the end of the binary certainties of the cold war, may have inhibited the ability of the security services to think outside the box—to use lateral thinking.
As we know from management thinking, large, centralised, vertically integrated, hierarchical organisations are not the best environments for sparking creative thinking. Perhaps we need a discussion about the culture and the wider institutional setting that will allow the intelligence agencies to engage more effectively with a world that is characterised by more chaotic phenomena than in the past. There is a role for public debate, certainly in terms of the assumptions that underlie the work of the intelligence agencies.
Internal co-ordination also fits into this context. Clearly, it is useful to be able to draw on a wide variety of different sources and views within Government in terms of setting priorities, and there may be a debate as to whether our more collegiate, community-based intelligence system serves us best in terms of facilitating that internal co-operation.
There is also a need for external co-ordination in terms of intelligence sharing. It is one of the contradictions of intelligence that, while it needs to be kept confidential, it has to be shared if it is to be acted on internationally. As the Secretary of State for Defence said recently, we need to create a new community of interest as a basis for trust in which intelligence sharing can be facilitated within NATO and, increasingly, in other forums within the European Union and more widely through the UN Security Council.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) eloquently drew attention to the changing nature of security threats. The meta-narrative of security threats and the sources of global insecurity raise issues that stray into foreign policy and international development is at the heart of the debate. That point was made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and by Mikhail Gorbachev in his visit to Parliament yesterday, who also picked out the issue of water shortage as a key long-term threat to global security.
1122
That is an important element in considering the sources of the next wave of insecurity. As has been said, our focus has shifted from the cold war to international terrorism, primarily in the context of Islamic fundamentalism. However, what will be the next source of global insecurity in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, and how does that relate to the wider issues?
Greater transparency and accountability improve the security services' efficiency and effectiveness. Importantly, certain intelligence failures during perhaps weaker periods in the British intelligence services' history occurred not because of a surfeit of parliamentary scrutiny, but because of an absence of it. In keeping with the point made by the right hon. Member for Newport, East, the greater professionalism of—and perhaps the change in the cultural ethos of—the security services may in part be attributable to this House's increased openness and transparency in its dealings with security matters. The creation of the Committee is a very important step forward, but it still operates within a ring of secrecy. I hope that the process will be evolutionary, and that we will see greater transparency. It is legitimate to ask Juvenal's question: who watches the watchers? It is vitally important that we maintain scrutiny.
Although we are very grateful for the report, it reads slightly curiously. Paragraph 21 states:
"For example, analysis of *** *** and the Service has worked to develop *** ***."
That does not exactly illuminate the Committee's deliberations. Will the Minister say whether such asterisks could be removed, at least in relation to the security services' priorities? The order of priority of the different sources of security threat is a legitimate area for parliamentary scrutiny
6.17 pm
Patrick Mercer: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), and I was also very interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The latter worried me slightly, until he started to discuss those brave men and women who died in action against loyalist and republican thugs in an often very dirty war in Ulster. I am delighted that he paid tribute to them, and I join him by paying my own.
I was especially impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who expressed in practical terms and with particular clarity the threat that we face. He made it clear that the United States of America is taking this threat seriously. I have no doubt that the tempo of al-Qaeda terrorist operations—its attacks on embassies in east Africa and on the USS Cole, and its attacks of 11 September—is being repeated. I very much hope that the intelligence agencies' successes can be translated into successes on the part of those agencies that can do something about this threat. It is all very well being warned and having good intelligence agencies, but we have to do something about the threat. On 4 July, the American nation took the threat very seriously. I wonder if this nation takes it seriously, and I wonder about the level of complacency that we sometimes see—certainly on the surface.
I wish now to bore down—perhaps "bore" is the wrong word—into the relationship between the Security Service and special branch. The Security Service was reorganized

1123
in 1989 so that the 53 special branches came under the leadership of the Security Service for operational purposes. However, one or two things have gone wrong with that relationship. For example, the Security Service is excellent at gathering intelligence. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) mentioned gaps inside our security agencies, and the fact that the Security Service gathers the intelligence but has great difficulty with its executive arm—in the shape of the special branch—is one of those gaps
Ann Taylor: The gaps that I was talking about were not of that nature. We were concerned that the concentration on post-11 September issues might mean gaps in intelligence cover in other parts of the world and that future problems might develop. I just wish to put the record straight on that point.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She might like to add my gap to her list for a future occasion. It is difficult for the Security Service to act on the intelligence that it produces so long as special branch exists in the way that it does. For instance, the chief constables of the various regions are called upon to provide the officers from their special branches for operations dictated by the Security Service. At the moment, there is no cohesion of effort from the Security Service down.
All the Security Service can do is to disrupt operations. What does disrupt mean? As far as I can understand it, disruption means the Security Service going to those who are intent on badness and saying to them, "We know what you intend. Pack it in—stop it." The service might also instruct its surveillance agents to make themselves obvious. That may have worked in the cold war era. Russian agents may have been deterred by such operations, but these days, disruption—against a terrorist enemy—is not well defined. Indeed, it is not sanctioned by legislation and it may clash with the Human Rights Act 1998. That is why there is a need for special branch to be able to carry out the work of the Security Service on a clearer basis.
If we look in more detail at how chief constables organise their special branches, we see that it has been suggested that one of the northern constabularies has reduced its special branch establishment from 23 officers to eight. Of course, chief constables have to provide the funding for special branch operations that are not necessarily their own. Indeed, the Metropolitan police's special branch may require chief constables to provide officers to help them when operating in the regions. One can empathise with the chief constables reducing the numbers if they are told to achieve results in fighting what the Royal Ulster Constabulary used to call ordinary, decent crime. Special branch officers are expensive and a drag on chief constables' budgets.
The three operational areas with which special branch deals—Irish terrorism, domestic terrorism and international terrorism—have completely different operational procedures. Strangely, special branch has no remit at present for dealing with loyalist terrorism. The Security Service clearly supervises it in that role.
On domestic terrorism, which includes animal rights, environmentalist and extreme left-wing and right-wing terrorism, special branches fall under a completely
1124
different organisation—the national public order intelligence unit, not the Security Service. For some unaccountable reason, the National Criminal Intelligence Service deals with sporting public order, such as football hooliganism—as opposed to non-sporting hooliganism, whatever that is.
Finally, special branches also have to deal with international terrorism not via the Security Service, but via an organisation called the police international counter-terrorist unit. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that that is a move in the right direction, but may I enter a plea to the effect that PICTU is far too small? It is about six people strong, and it needs extra resources if it is to prove effective.
My point is that special branch never really knows who its boss is in any of these circumstances. Under the current, rather muddled system, the Metropolitan police special branch can quite frequently be called on to deploy its anti-terrorist branch for operations anywhere inside the United Kingdom. That means that budgets from the Metropolitan police are used to counter terrorism elsewhere inside the British isles. Officers from the constabularies can be conscripted to work under the anti-terrorist branch, but there is no cohesion or chain of command. There is nothing that special branch understands in terms of anti-terrorist operations on a day-to-day basis.
There are other points which, regrettably, time prevents me from making. However, I should like to quote a senior special branch officer who says:
"In short, and in my view…the whole British structure is an inefficient mess, and speaking as a practitioner, it is not clear to me which agency is ultimately responsible to the British public for protecting them from terrorism (below the level of Home Secretary, that is). It could be the Security Service, the Chief Constable of the area concerned or the National Coordinator".
In other words, the Metropolitan policeman could be called on in these circumstances.
I do not wish to carp and complain. I believe that two distinct things could make special branch more efficient and make it work with the Security Service more efficiently. The first is regional special branches, an idea that I believe is being considered. More efficient, perhaps, would be a national special branch which, understanding the limitations of budgets, could provide a solution to the problem.
I very much hope that we are not recalled again this summer, either for a drama, emergency or disaster abroad or, more particularly, for a disaster in this country. If we are, it will not be because of a failing of the security services but because of complacency on our part.
6.28 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: May I begin by presenting the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for being unable to contribute to the debate? He has, of course, written personally to the Foreign Secretary.
We have witnessed a responsible and enlightened debate, albeit a slightly surreal one. We have witnessed a display of openness conducted in a strange penumbra of secrecy. There is a risk with the format that has emerged in the House that people either know too much and must choose not to say it or know too little yet have to choose something to say. None the less, this has been a valuable exercise.

1125
The House has chosen to place its trust in those of our number who sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee to act out in their work the difficult balance that it has been decided to strike between democratic accountability and the serious exercise of covert intelligence, both domestic and foreign. It is a balance that I think we have got right. We have a model that many might study and that we may yet export to other democracies across the globe.
I congratulate the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee on their report and on all their work. They fulfil a vital, if necessarily mysterious role in ensuring the proper and responsible oversight of our intelligence and security agencies.
Following the terrorist outrages of 11 September, we are all only too aware of the uncertain and dangerous world in which we must now work. The attacks on the United States were, arguably, not the turning point. That had perhaps come much earlier, with the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war. Those events ushered in a new era. Gone were the old certainties of the two superpower blocs and their allies facing and counterbalancing each other, and in had come a new fluidity not seen for decades.
That fluidity has given rise to new challenges that we must face: international terrorism, which can strike anywhere, without warning and without scruple; weapons of mass destruction in the hands of unscrupulous regimes or rogue states; and instability engendered by famine, insurgency or civil war, with the failed states that can result.
We should not forget that, domestically, we must be aware of the need to guard our homeland against internal as well as external threats. Intelligence has always been at the centre of the war against terrorism in all its forms. Good intelligence can make all the difference between a threat materialising or being tackled before it can cause damage. In this world of asymmetric threats to our country and to our citizens, where tanks and missiles are no defence against the perilously placed chemical jam jar, good intelligence and forewarning can be a far more potent weapon in our armoury
In taking on the challenges posed by moving away from the bloc mentality to greater fluidity, and perhaps also from containment to pre-emption, accurate knowledge and intelligence are vital for us to determine the appropriate level of response or pre-emptive action. Intelligence, human and technical, becomes an ever more important resource for us and our allies.
There has perhaps been too little mention of our allies in this debate. There has been very little mention of the United States. In a climate of growing anti-Americanism, which I absolutely deplore, we should never underestimate the value of our close and friendly links with the United States on the very topic that we are discussing.
It is invidious to single out one of the 15 speeches that we have heard today, but the whole House will applaud the work of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) in her chairmanship of the Committee. She spoke of counter-terrorist successes. It is good to know that there have been some, but it is unhappy to know that we were at risk. It is better that such threats were pre-empted than if we had had to witness the carnage that would have followed. She was impressed by the new
1126
co-operation among the various agencies, which is heartening to know about. She referred to the reduction in spending in the 1990s, which led to the shortfalls mentioned in the report and by the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth).
The only tiny failure that I can spot is that, as Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Lady interviewed the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury in ignorance of the fact that he was about to be moved.
I want to place on record my respect and praise for the work undertaken, often at great personal risk, by the men and women of our intelligence and security services in protecting each and every one of us, often from threats that we do not even know exist.
I am encouraged that the report, and indeed the Government's response, shows a refocusing of money and priorities on meeting the challenges posed by 11 September. In these circumstances, it is essential to adapt, and it is encouraging to see that that is what we are doing.
I strongly agree with the Committee's comments on the appointment of John Scarlett as chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and as intelligence co-ordinator, in line with an earlier ISC report suggesting that those posts should be filled by someone from within the intelligence community. We welcome the appointment of such an able person.
As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the report recommended that the ministerial committee on the intelligence services—the CSI—meet annually to review intelligence requirements and priorities. We believe that the services need policy guidance if they are continue to do what is expected of them. That point was made in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for North—East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot).
Although the report is generally positive and the work of members of the services is rightly praised, it is concerning that, at an administration level, the report notes some weakness in the United Kingdom's secure communications equipment and in the languages that the services are able to cover. Those points were mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and in paragraphs W and S of the recommendations. I trust that the Government are addressing those issues as a priority. I invite the Foreign Secretary to comment when he winds up the debate.
Domestically, the Security Service should remain seized of the need to engage constructively with mainstream Muslim sentiment in the United Kingdom. Those participating in the debate have touched on a point of the utmost importance. Much of the perceived threat comes from people from Muslim countries who are furious, or rendered furious, by differences in their own countries or by other global issues that inflame their thinking and their actions. I cannot praise too highly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who pointed out the importance of drawing into the culture of our security and intelligence services people in our country who are not the conventional Oxbridge types whom we assume step into these jobs. We should also engage people from Muslim communities and of a Muslim background who are, as my hon. Friend said, as much patriots as any of us in the House. That is crucial to the future efficacy of those services.

1127
The right hon. Member for Newport, East also made a thoughtful contribution. He said that we should understand what generates terrorism, and why people act as they do. It is not just an understanding of our own country that is sometimes lacking, but an understanding of other countries, which is crucial to our understanding of the broader interest and motivation that causes many of the problems that we face. We must understand opinion everywhere if we are to understand the problems with which we are all trying to wrestle.
I am pleased that the Government accept the need to address problems with the management and accounting processes at GCHQ, and that they are monitoring these matters. I hope that they will move swiftly to resolve any remaining problems over meeting the required accounting standard, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North—East Hampshire said, may bedevil us for a third year—we hope that it will be only two.
I think that everyone in the Chamber agrees that the form of oversight that has emerged in the past few years works well. The Committee's reports are useful in ensuring that channels of accountability and parliamentary oversight remain effective. The nature of the work of the intelligence and security services obviously causes constraints to be placed on the degree of openness and oversight that is possible, but the requirements of the European convention on human rights, among other things, have necessitated a more defined statutory footing for the services. The Security and Intelligence Committee, the commissioners and the tribunal all serve to provide oversight and accountability, as do debates such as this one today, and the persons of the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State.
It is always difficult to strike a balance between openness and accountability and the need for secrecy to protect agents and work being undertaken, but I believe that we have been pretty successful. I hope that that balance will be carefully preserved in the future, and that the Committee will continue its good work.
6.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): When I became a Member of the House 23 years ago, the very existence of the security and secret intelligence services was not publicly admitted, still less was there any semblance of parliamentary scrutiny of their work. It is a great tribute to the maturity of our democracy that in the intervening period there has been a considerable increase in the depth and breadth of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the agencies. Far from that undermining public confidence in the work of the agencies and the esteem in which the individuals working for them are held, the reverse has been the case.
As someone who for five years had responsibility for the Security Service and, for the past 13 months, for the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, I pay my tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee for the way in which, by holding us to account, its members enable us better to fulfil our statutory responsibilities in respect of those services. I know that I also speak for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I begin, therefore, by paying a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and to all her fellow members of the Intelligence and Security
1128
Committee in both this and the other place for their work. The fact that Ministers from five Departments provided evidence to the Committee this year shows the value that the Government as a whole attach to its work.
By way of a further preliminary, I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in respect of the retirements of Sir Stephen Lander, as director general of the Security Service, and of Mr. John Warne, as director general of the organised and international crime directorate—although as he is usually the first to point out, he is director general against organised and international crime and not for its propagation.
I was loyally and proficiently served by Stephen Lander and wish him well. I was also extremely well served by John Warne. who had the task, within the Home Office, of co-ordinating its arrangements for holding the Security Service to account, for liaising with special branch in London and elsewhere, and generally in developing the work of the Home Office with other agencies, including the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, against organised and international crime. I warmly wish him well for the future.
We have moved from a period when there was almost no scrutiny of any of the agencies, which were all non-statutory, and there was no statutory provision for intercepts of any kind to the present situation where the oversight of our intelligence and security agencies is as comprehensive as any in the world. I shall deal in a moment with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) as to whether that might be further developed with a Select Committee.
When we consider the arrangements in other European Union countries, we can see how far ahead we are; no European country has comparable arrangements. In endorsing the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to our relationship with the United States agencies and to those agencies themselves, I note that the only country with the same depth of accountability is the United States.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the Foreign Secretary leaves the United States, is he minded, before the recess, to accede to the request made to him by the Lockerbie relatives that there should be a public inquiry into the international aspects of Lockerbie?
Mr. Straw: I explained to the Lockerbie relatives that I did not see a case for a public inquiry into what had happened, but that I was going to look into whether other arrangements for scrutiny could be established. I realise that my hon. Friend put a number of detailed questions while I was away from the Chamber and I shall write to him in response to them.
I welcome the recognition given in the Committee's report to the work of the agencies in protecting national security and economic well-being and in tackling the threat of organised crime. I also pay tribute to all the individuals who work for the agencies for their esprit de corps and courage. I have met many of them during the past five years, and they are very dedicated people who are not able to seek public or even semi-private social endorsement for the work that they do.
Hon. Members have mentioned the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee, under John Scarlett, and I greatly endorse their comments. I would say to those who have

1129
asked questions about the co-ordination of intelligence work in this country that co-ordination is always difficult because there will be different intelligence sources, and there would be even if there were a single intelligence and police operation for domestic and overseas operations—not something that I would propose—but we work more effectively at co-ordinating intelligence sources than most other countries in the world. That has a great deal to do with the JIC.
Several right hon. and hon. Members—including the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—have raised the issue of the appointment of Sir David Omand as the security and intelligence co-ordinator and permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office.
As the House knows, Sir David Omand has huge experience in relation to intelligence and security. He was my permanent secretary at the Home Office, until he had to step down from that position when he got lymphatic cancer at Christmas 2000. It is a tribute to his tenacity, as well as to the treatment that he received in the national health service, that he has made a full recovery and has been appointed to his new post. He will bring singular qualities to his position. He will act as the accounting officer for the single intelligence account. He will be the chairman of the permanent secretaries committee on the intelligence services and of the official committee on security, both of which meet regularly. He is also chairman of the Civil Contingencies Committee and has oversight of the civil contingencies secretariat.
One of Sir David's many experiences was of being responsible for civil contingencies when we were at the Home Office. That included dealing with the hijacked Afghan aeroplane that landed in February 2000, and the fuel dispute, both of which he and I will remember in almost every particular.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am worried because I agree with absolutely everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far, particularly his tribute to Sir David Omand. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that scrutiny of the intelligence and security services would be strengthened even more if the ministerial committee were to meet? Will he prevail on the Prime Minister to cause that to happen?
Mr. Straw: I wanted to deal with that issue later, as several right hon. and hon. Members have raised it—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—but let me do so now. Formal meetings of such committees is a matter for the Prime Minister, but I want no hon. Member to get the idea that the Ministers concerned do not meet regularly, particularly my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, myself and the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister. At one stage, post 11 September, such meetings took place two or three times a week, so there is a lot of co-ordination at ministerial and official levels.
I shall deal with some of the other points that have been made during the debate.
Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall deal with those points, and I promise that I shall then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
1130
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether the current split between the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service should continue, and other hon. Members asked whether the split between Customs and Excise and the immigration service should continue. I simply say that the exact organisation of our security and law enforcement agencies nationally is kept under review. My instinct is that the first test should always be, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and a huge amount of time and cost can be wasted in reorganisation, but if a case can be made for it, it should be considered. I certainly recognised—although it is now much more a matter for the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there was a strong case for better co-ordination and for joint operations between, for example, customs and the immigration service.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked me about secure communications. We are taking active steps, about which I am happy to brief him and other hon. Members outside the House, to improve the availability and usefulness of secure communications.
Interwoven in several contributions have been comments about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and amendments made two years later by the Home Secretary. There was an interesting exposition by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, which led to him suggest—himself in the end, with a bit of prompting from others—that he was a tortured liberal.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: All liberals should be tortured.
Simon Hughes: Some of us are fine.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who is as good a socialist as ever I have met, and who also happens to be my Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore has no need to protest his liberality, says that all liberals should be tortured. However, there is a serious point here.
Of course we have to secure a balance between law enforcement and civil liberties; that is what this place is for. However, listening, as I have done in the past 13 months, to some comments about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Home Secretary's subsequent provisions, I have sometimes thought that I was in a different world from everyone else, because it is worth placing on the record the fact that RIPA and the subsequent measures were introduced not to strengthen the hands of law enforcement agencies but rather to regulate them more effectively.
I take for example one area of regulation—that of the availability and usefulness of call data. By that I mean not the contents of telephone calls but data showing who has called who and when. That information is very important for law enforcement agencies. I first became aware that that had not been the subject of statutory regulation during a debate on the 1996 Police Bill, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) intervened on the remarks that I was making from the Opposition Front Bench to ask whether that was a gap in the law. I had not been aware of that before. I said that yes, it was,

1131
and made a note of it. When I got to the Home Office I followed it up, and that was the main reason why, subsequently, we ensured that that area was properly regulated. To suggest that what the Home Secretary is doing, and what I did, was to introduce new powers against liberties is a perversion and the reverse of the truth. Instead, we have been better securing the regulation of those powers.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling raised the issue of whether there should be a Select Committee in place of the present statutory Committee. I have always said—I made it clear to the Committee previously—that I am open-minded on the matter. If there were a Select Committee, it would have to report in a similar way to the present Committee—it is a great tribute to the Committee that it operates, as it were, as a Select Committee—but I understand the importance of Parliament's having Select Committees to do this work and I consider that we need to keep the matter under particular review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked who had the lead responsibility in respect of security in Northern Ireland. The answer is that because of the special situation in Northern Ireland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has that lead, although obviously it works in close collaboration with the other security and intelligence agencies.
Mr. Beith: I wanted to intervene earlier because I was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman had fully conceded or recognised how dependent this new arrangement between the Cabinet Secretary and Sir David Omand is on the quality of Sir David. If he had not been available for the position, it is very questionable whether it would have been right to transfer responsibility for the intelligence agencies from the Cabinet Secretary, who plays such a vital role. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that, some time in the future, when new personalities become involved, we might have to look at the matter again.
Mr. Straw: Without going into all the details, which would be quite inappropriate, of course, the Prime Minister made the appointment bearing in mind the high qualities of Sir David Omand. There are many other people around in Whitehall who have similar high qualities, but it goes without saying that the Prime Minister would not have made the appointment unless he was absolutely satisfied about the quality of the candidate that he chose.
I want to deal with one of the central elements of the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee: the question of whether the agencies were in any way negligent in failing to predict the terrorist attacks in New York on 11 September. I want to put on record that, during 2000 and 2001, right up to 11 September, there was a high level of awareness among the agencies of the threats posed by Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network to United States and United Kingdom interests. The ISC has noted that both the United Kingdom and United States agencies achieved some notable successes against al-Qaeda targets in the three-year period running up to 11 September. Although, for obvious reasons, details of those successes cannot be made public, I can
1132
say that plots to carry out attacks in the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere in Europe and the middle east were thwarted.
The ISC notes that the UK was active in focusing international attention on Afghanistan and the Taliban before 11 September. The intelligence reports and assessments provided by the UK intelligence community in the period up to 11 September left no room for complacency about the likelihood and imminence of major terrorist attacks. I therefore fully endorse the Committee's conclusions that the agencies did not overlook any intelligence that would have forewarned of the attacks on 11 September. There was intelligence, but it was not complete, and it was not known where or when the attacks were to take place, nor who would carry them out. A re-examination of material across the intelligence community has not found any evidence that, even with the benefit of hindsight, that intelligence could have been used to deter or to give advance warning of the attacks.
Of course, what the agencies have done, as we have done, is to seek to learn the intense lessons of 11 September. Throughout the period since 11 September we have been guided by the principle that the causes—to pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth)—as well as the symptoms of the problems must be treated. Our goal remains as set out in our paper on "Campaign Objectives", a copy of which was deposited in the House last October.
Our most visible action has been in Afghanistan, where the military operations succeeded in severely disrupting the al-Qaeda operations. With our assistance, the Interim Administration have destroyed what is probably up to 25 per cent.—we are not entirely sure of the proportion—of this year's poppy harvest, a crop that has funded terrorism and put heroin on our streets. Meanwhile, a huge international humanitarian, diplomatic and political effort has underpinned political and democratic change in Afghanistan, without which there can be no permanent solution to Afghanistan being a seedbed and school for terrorism elsewhere in the world.
We have promoted counter-terrorism measures in the European Union, in the G8 and in NATO. and we have been working with the international community to disrupt sources of finance for terrorists. In that context, I hope very much that the official Opposition and the Liberals will give full support to the Proceeds of Crime Bill as it passes through Parliament. Of course, everybody has signed up to the principle of fighting terrorism, including the funding of terrorism, in which crime plays such an appalling part, but what we must do is ensure that the law enforcement agencies and the courts have effective powers to do that.
As I said, our international strategy in the war against terrorism recognises causes as well as symptoms. Although no political cause can justify terrorism, our approach has been informed by the need to resolve conflicts that breed violence and resentment.
The role of the intelligence agencies in protecting our national interests has never been under greater scrutiny. Commentators in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States have sought to portray the events of 11 September as an intelligence failure. That is not the case. Those critics fail to recognise a fundamental point about intelligence work: by its very nature, when it works—which is usually the case—the public rarely get

1133
to hear about it. The criticisms neglect to take account of a depressing but fundamental fact about the intelligence business: the agencies have to be right all the time; terrorists only need to get lucky once. In that—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

  A11
  7 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I wish to present a petition signed by 1,271 readers of the Bury Free Press, residents of Tuddenham in my constituency and other towns and villages, to express their concern about the dangerous crossing of the C624 and the A11, which has claimed lives. The petitioners ask that the Secretary of State for Transport take urgent action to prevent further accidents.
  The petition states:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to take immediate action to improve the A11 at Tuddenham.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Firework Safety
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: This petition is signed by more than 500 constituents of mine, who are extremely concerned about firework nuisance. Over the past few winters, there has been a big increase in firework abuse, with injury to pets and farm animals. I wrote to every veterinary surgery and many local action groups—hence the 500 signatures.
  The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Government to conduct an urgent review of our fireworks legislation and to legislate, among other things,

  To restrict the times of the year fireworks can be bought;

  To restrict the times of the day fireworks can be set off; and

  To license all vendors of fireworks to meet strict safety criteria and to give trading standards the power to revoke the licence of any vendor caught selling fireworks to under-age children.

  To lie upon the Table

Graffiti
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jhon Ryan.]
7.2 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful to have secured the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to an issue that is a constant, nagging headache for my constituents. Although it never features in nationwide opinion polls, it is the matter about which I receive most letters and about which people stop me most in the streets of my constituency.
We have debated graffiti on a number of recent occasions in the House, and I have received countless surgery visits, letters, telephone calls and e-mails from people whose homes, streets and local surroundings are persistently blighted by the mindless handiwork of the graffiti vandals. Not only does it visibly drag a community down when there are graffiti on fences, shop fronts, stairwells, bus stops and post boxes, or the windows of local buses have been scratched with glass-cutters or drawn on with permanent marker pens, but it tangibly affects the fear of crime in a community. In the end, it affects the community deeply.
I grew up in the constituency that I now represent, and in recent years I have seen a marked increase in graffiti in Mitcham, Morden and Colliers Wood. It often seems that as fast as the graffiti are cleared away, they reappear—often in a much worse form. People, particularly the elderly, are scared to go out if their neighbourhood is targeted by graffiti vandals. If we are serious about doing more to tackle crime and the fear of crime, we must do more to tackle graffiti. My constituents are deeply aggravated by graffiti vandalism. They want effective action on it, as do most hon. Members, I am sure.
Graffiti vandalism is commonly thought of as the random, thoughtless activity of an isolated few. That is only partly true. It is a far more organised criminal activity than many people realise, and like paedophilia and drug crime, it includes a great deal of underground activity on the internet. Because the activity has reached such an organised scale, businesses and private individuals spend millions of pounds each year trying to prevent and remove graffiti, and local authorities in London are spending millions to deal with the problem, too. Graffiti vandalism is a very costly crime indeed.
In the London borough of Merton, half of which covers my constituency, dealing with incidents of graffiti has become increasingly challenging for the council over the past two years. The volume of graffiti has increased and local residents feel that the action that has been taken to remove graffiti and to identify the culprits has not been enough to address the scale of the problem. One has only to walk down roads near Mitcham common, in Ravensbury or at Tooting junction, or even down my own road, to see what they mean.
Along with robbery, burglary and race crime, quality of life crimes such as graffiti are now one of Merton's big policing priorities. In common with other London boroughs, Merton council has its own graffiti strategy focused on three key aims: first, a reduction in the incidence of graffiti; secondly, improved responsiveness in graffiti removal; and thirdly, integrated communications, including campaigns, publicity and information.

1135
Because of that approach, some progress has begun to be made, largely due to the council responding to the concerns of residents. The key during the past six months has been the funding made available from the Home Office, which was secured by Merton Metropolitan police, supported by Merton council. That created the innovative FLAG project, which covers fly tipping, abandoned cars and graffiti.
The result has been better partnership between the council and the police, and significant progress in intelligence gathering and information exchange, enforcement, graffiti removal, public engagement—awareness raising, reassurance and participation in graffiti removal squads—and the engagement of other key stakeholders, including the London fire brigade, the utilities and transport providers and, on graffiti, to a more limited extent, the business community. I understand that Merton will round off the FLAG initiative with a clean-up day in hotspots in the borough in late September, in which I hope to take part.
Merton is now building on the experience gained through FLAG by integrating many of the initiatives into its crime strategy and continuing the monitoring and working relationship by embedding it into its own partnership against crime implementation group. The council hopes that some projects that it has initiated on a voluntary basis can be backed up by legislative change and funding made available to take the work into integrated baseline services.
But all Merton's work and all the targeted policing in the borough does not stop graffiti. Anyone who stands in virtually any street in my constituency can see that the battle is not yet being won. Stopping graffiti completely is virtually impossible, but it is possible to limit, contain and police it while tackling the root social causes. That is where Government and business can and must play a stronger part.
We need concerted action from Government. A borough-by-borough approach can displace criminal damage activity simply as a result of different standards being applied. Equally, when one borough gets tough on environmental crime, vandals may go further afield to commit their crimes and obtain the necessary tools. Interviews with young people arrested for graffiti show that the spray paint was often obtained outside the borough. Have spray can, will travel; do not have spray can, will travel. As likely as not they will scratch and graffiti the public transport that they use in doing so, so strong central direction is needed from Government.
I realise that the Minister will have difficulty in commenting on a matter of business, but I for one would like to see more support coming from businesses, first in the form of voluntary restrictions on the sale of the tools of graffiti. A recent, small-scale, voluntary scheme in Colliers Wood high street has been successful in that 26 of the 27 businesses approached signed up to restricting their sales once the full seriousness of the problem that they were inadvertently adding to was explained to them. But small shopkeepers need to be helped in the fight against graffiti by larger companies, especially the companies that make the very paints, pens and cutters that they sell.
1136
Corporate social responsibility is a hot issue. On its website, the Corporate Responsibility Group, which is just one of the many bodies that big businesses of all kinds are signing up to, states:
"A key part of any corporate social responsibility programme will be a focus on involvement with the local community—either directly or via partnerships within the community or voluntary sector organisations…community involvement can take the form of charitable donations, gifts in kind, employee volunteering initiatives and staff secondments. Yet many companies are also now developing sustainable and mutually beneficial partnerships with community and voluntary organisations working in a variety of fields—including education, regeneration, employment and homelessness."
I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a case for the companies that make and distribute the tools of graffiti—the spray paint manufacturers, glass-cutter makers, DIY shops, craft shops and garage and car maintenance shops—to do more to combat the environmental crime and local misery that their products are causing. A proportion of their profits should be used to clean up the areas in which they supply products or trade. I want to encourage the makers and sellers of the tools of graffiti to do more to ensure that their products do not fall into the wrong hands. I also want the Government to do more to achieve the same ends by introducing legislation to ban the sale of spray paints to people under 18.
The Minister will know that I have urged the Government in the past to take legislative measures to deal with graffiti. Last year, I exchanged letters with the Home Office to press for an amendment to the then Criminal Justice and Police Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paints and marker pens in the same way in which the sale of fireworks is prohibited. This was the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth):
"Such a measure, although initially attractive, may penalise those who do have a legitimate reason for purchasing these products. It is also unlikely to deter the determined graffiti artists from obtaining them and continuing their criminal activity and it is hoped that retailers would as a matter of course give consideration to those to whom they sell such products. With regard to the sale of glass-cutters, Section 6 of the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 prohibits the sale of knives and certain articles with a blade or point to persons under the age of 16."
Of course, there may be young people with a legitimate reason for purchasing such items, but I still do not see why, if they have such a reason, they could not ask parents or responsible adults to obtain them on their behalf. That is the situation with fireworks—and it works and is wholly sensible.
Nobody would seriously suggest that we can entirely stop the determined graffiti vandal—I will not use the word "artist" because graffiti is a crime of vandalism and vandalism is not art—but the point is that such a measure would be a significant step towards weakening the resolve of the casual and less determined. Incidentally, with regard to glass cutters, I do not agree that retailers of such items regard them in the same way as knives and other bladed items.
I also wrote to the Home Office about extending police stop-and-search powers to cover spray paints, marker pens and glass cutters. This was the reply:
"There are no plans for this…the police already have the power to arrest anyone whom they reasonably suspect has committed or is about to commit the offence of criminal damage. Where vandals are

1137
found in possession of these items with the intention of damaging property or already having done so, the criminal law can be brought to bear."
Will the Minister indicate whether the Home Office position is open to change on that point? I ask that question because the discussions that I have had with serving police officers suggest that, although they have powers of arrest, they do not feel that they have what they would consider more appropriate powers to stop and search.
In chapter 2 of "Police Powers", it is made clear that the tools of graffiti are not
"prohibited articles for the purposes of the power of stop and search under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."
To paraphrase section 1 of that Act slightly,
"A constable…may search…any person or vehicle"
or
"anything which is in or on a vehicle, for stolen or prohibited articles".
A later provision explains that prohibited articles are intended to mean articles likely to be used in burglary, theft, vehicle theft or obtaining property by deception.
It appears to me—perhaps the Minister can clarify this point for me—that there is still a grey area that needs to be dealt with in terms of police stop-and-search powers for the tools of graffiti. Certainly, it is the belief of serving officers that they do not have the powers that they need to deal with graffiti vandals. To check on that issue in the light of the difference of opinion between my local police force and the Home Office, I have today spoken with our area commander and a number of police sergeants. They are all adamant that they do not have those powers.
I fully appreciate that stop-and-search issues, especially in London, are difficult and have been so for years. I believe, however, that the problems of street crime are now so great that many people would be happy for those powers to be extended, especially if they are used sensitively and if some upper or lower age limit were applied to those changes in the rules.
No one would seriously suggest that central or local government is to blame for the eyesore of graffiti on our streets. Nor would anyone suggest that manufacturers and retailers are to blame. The vandals are to blame and it is up to the Government and business to join the local authorities and police in seeking ways to limit and discourage their criminal activities. It is a matter of social responsibility and I implore the Government, as they did with abandoned cars, to take firm legislative action on graffiti.
715 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate. In a very constructive and purposeful speech, she clearly explained why the problem of graffiti is a serious issue—not only in her constituency, although she graphically described the situation there, but in many other parts of the country. She is right to say that we need a concerted effort that must involve the Government, police and local authorities, but also the corporate sector, in tackling the problem. I shall try to respond to a number of the points that she raised.
1138
Just to confirm the impact of graffiti, a Home Office study published in 2000 estimated the cost of criminal damage, which includes graffiti, to be £4.1 billion in the year 1999 to 2000. Of course, that is not all down to graffiti, but it is a significant issue. As my hon. Friend said, it has a social cost and can have a negative impact in terms of making an area feel run down and contributing to the fear of crime. It can also be a factor in deterring small or large businesses from investing in an area that looks neglected.
The British crime survey shows that public concern about graffiti and vandalism is increasing. I cannot anticipate the British crime survey that we will publish tomorrow, but it would be in line with previous trends if public concern was rising. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot allow criminal damage, which is a crime, to be described as or claimed to be art. That needs to be said very clearly.
The Government want to take the graffiti problem seriously. If we are able to tackle graffiti successfully, we will contribute to more attractive public spaces for everyone to use, and one of our objectives in the next few years, especially in many of our urban areas, must be to reclaim public spaces for ordinary, decent, law-abiding people and their families to enjoy free of the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour.
Given the title of the debate, I want to make a few points about business. There will be potential in future for making use of the business improvement districts described in the local government White Paper that was published last year. Business improvement districts will allow local authorities and local businesses to work together to put in place local projects to improve their area. Projects can cover a wide variety of objectives, including improvements to the quality of the local environment, the street environment or parks and open spaces.
There would effectively be a contract between local authorities and local business for additional services or improvements, funded by a levy raised through an additional rate. Businesses would know in advance how much would be raised and what it was being raised for. All businesses in the area would have a say in whether the scheme went ahead. If a majority were in favour, all ratepayers would contribute to the costs of the scheme; if a majority were against, it would not go ahead. We will need legislation to implement the business improvement district scheme. It is a way, among a number of important environmental initiatives, of building on existing collaboration between local businesses and local councils to tackle graffiti. In London, Great Yarmouth and Coventry, the circle initiative has set up business improvement district-type schemes, which are running successfully.
My hon. Friend mentioned restricting the sale of graffiti materials. Many people say that that makes sense to business people and local residents who are trying to eradicate graffiti from their area. We are aware of several local authorities that have been in the process of developing voluntary codes for vendors, of which my hon. Friend gave an example. Those are schemes whereby shops agree not to sell graffiti materials to people who are under the age of 16 unless they are accompanied by an adult. Shops taking part in the scheme display notices in their windows, and often the local authority trading standards department tests how effectively the code is

1139
working. A recent report by the London Assembly's graffiti investigative committee cited such voluntary initiatives, saying that although they work well, they need to be part of a range of measures to be most effective in preventing graffiti.
Clearly, as my hon. Friend said, retailers need to be supported in their efforts by integrated schemes to tackle graffiti at local level. Crime reduction partnerships have an important role in examining issues in their areas and developing the right local solutions. I congratulate my hon. Friend's council on explicitly mentioning graffiti as one of the top priorities in its partnership, reflecting the importance given to antisocial behaviour in its strategy.
The London Local Authorities Bill includes measures that would make it an offence in the course of business to supply aerosol paint or indelible marker pens to any person apparently under the age of 18. It would require retailers to restrict physical access to those materials, and that would apply to the area covered by London borough councils. The Bill has now had its Second Reading in the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend rightly said that we have resisted calls for national legislation banning the sale of spray paints and marker pens to those aged 18 or under. There has always been an argument about the balance to be struck between denying access to materials that can be used to cause criminal damage and allowing others who have legitimate uses to purchase them. My hon. Friend made her case rather persuasively. The measures in the London Local Authorities Bill, if enacted, could provide a useful pilot for determining the effectiveness of such an approach and whether we should be seeking to extend it further.
My hon. Friend raised what is probably a fresh issue: the extent to which manufacturers of materials that are used for graffiti should in some way be invited, encouraged and possibly even, as she suggested, compelled to contribute to the costs of the clean-up. I am not sure whether that issue has been examined in any detail, but I am certainly more than happy to refer her comments to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry who have primary responsibility for the matter. I cannot make a commitment on the outcome, but the issue is certainly worth drawing to their attention.
There is another area of corporate responsibility for the clean-up. Clearly, the quicker graffiti can be cleaned up, the longer areas are likely to stay clean. Not all but a lot of the graffiti is so-called tagging, the aim of which is to leave a personal mark on a property. Some of the incentive to do that would be destroyed if graffiti were removed pretty quickly after it had appeared.
It is right to say to businesses that they need to play their part—especially companies that own street furniture such as telephone boxes, bus shelters and cable company utility boxes. They need to take responsibility for removing graffiti promptly from those structures. Local authorities are not able to require private companies to remove graffiti from their property. There needs to be a common, responsible approach towards graffiti among all service providers.
In most cases, the siting of cable boxes on the highway will have been exempt from planning control. That calls for companies to think carefully about where boxes are
1140
placed and to have agreed ways of keeping them in good order. Those producing street furniture need to think about how it can be made less attractive as a target to those intent on causing damage. As my hon. Friend said, I am aware that in Merton utility companies and transport operators are being approached regarding partnership working in order to achieve effective and timely removal of graffiti from their equipment and property in conjunction with council-led initiatives. I hope that that is successful; it is certainly the type of corporate responsibility that we want to encourage.
Others have not taken responsibility for removing graffiti from their property, and local authorities have found that they cannot do so because they would be liable for any damage caused. It is interesting that the London borough of Southwark secures a written disclaimer from companies before removing graffiti. Other local authorities are adopting that way of working, and we would like to encourage that.
Various town and country planning legislation enables local authorities to secure the removal of advertisements, but not graffiti. The legislation also allows local authorities to take action against occupiers and owners of land whose condition adversely affects the amenity area.
In view of the lack of time, I will not go through a list of local authority initiatives, such as hotlines for the reporting of graffiti and priority for the removal of racist, sexist and other offensive graffiti. Fortunately, such initiatives are developing in many places up and down the country. One of the responsibilities of my Department, under our overall commitment to reducing antisocial behaviour, is to bring together these examples of good practice and to make them widely available to crime and disorder reduction partnerships, so that people can build on that good practice.
There are a number of circumstances in which offending behaviour and cleaning up graffiti can be brought together, not least in relation to the role of the national probation service, which often requires groups of offenders to clean off graffiti as part of their community punishment order, enabling them to carry out work that is of benefit to the community and that can help them to see the effects of the damage on local communities and businesses.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the ability to stop and search to establish whether a person was carrying materials that had been, or might be, used for creating graffiti. She highlighted the lack of clarity in this area that had been described to her by serving police officers in her borough. The law allows police officers to stop and search in relation to any arrestable offence. There is, however, a question about whether creating graffiti qualifies under that definition; it would depend on the extent of the damage. She is right, however, to put her finger on an operational problem for the police, whatever the law might say.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that, for a whole range of reasons, stop and search is a sensitive issue, and we would need to take steps in that area only after proper consideration. We just happen to be carrying out a fairly extensive review of the guidance relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to which my hon. Friend referred. As she has raised this issue, I will ensure that that review—which is being undertaken jointly by the Home Office and the Cabinet Office—takes the

1141
opportunity to examine the passages that she has quoted from the underlying legislation, to see whether it might be appropriate to make any change. I cannot make any commitment on the outcome of that tonight, but, as that review is taking place, let us take the opportunity to see whether we can help with this issue.
My hon. Friend referred to public transport, including its use to go to another borough to get hold of spray paint. She is right to say that the damaging of public transport by glasscutters, and the spraying of graffiti on to vehicles, trains and their surroundings on the underground, in bus stations and at bus stops is a persistent problem. As a result, we face the costs of repair and replacement, the dangers that this behaviour can cause to the travelling public and to staff, and the delays to services through people being injured while producing graffiti. We must also take into account people's fear for their personal safety and the fear of crime, both of which are engendered by graffiti, which can make travelling unpleasant and may, in some cases, deter the public from travelling at all. We certainly see it as an important role of local crime and disorder reduction partnerships to examine graffiti issues on and around the transport system, and to work with private transport companies to tackle graffiti quickly and effectively.
1142
Another area in which the corporate sector has a role to play, particularly in innovation, is in good design, whether of street furniture or of the materials used in construction, so as to make them less prone to attack by graffiti criminals, and to make clean-up quicker, cheaper and more effective where it does take place. We would like to encourage work on that.
I should like to highlight the initiatives that the Government are taking to increase the number of people available to patrol the streets of our towns and cities, involving a huge expansion in the number of neighbourhood and street wardens. Also, the measures in the Police Reform Bill—which received its Third Reading last night—to introduce community support officers and accredited community support officers will provide an enormously valuable complement to the work of the police in my hon. Friend's constituency and many others. One way of deterring graffiti is to have a sense of public order in our streets and communities, and the larger number of people—along with the police and the specials—who will be able to patrol those communities will help to tackle many types of antisocial behaviour, not least of which will be graffiti.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock

Preamble
[SIR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

NHS (Private Sector)
[Relevant documents: The role of the private sector in the NHS—First Report from the Health Committee, Session 2001–02, HC308, and the Government's response thereto, CM 5567.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, I should inform the Committee that there is a minor misprint on the order of business. The report should be numbered HC308, not HC318.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Health Committee's report on the role of the private sector in the national health service. I begin my expressing my appreciation to the Government for providing us yesterday with a response to the report in advance of today's debate. I was heavily committed in Yorkshire yesterday and had a royal visit to my constituency this morning, so I have not had the opportunity to study the response in as much detail as I would normally do. I apologise for that.
The inquiry was announced in July 2001 and the Committee published its report on 15 May 2002. The background to the inquiry was "The NHS Plan", in which the Government spelt out their intention to place greater emphasis on the role of the independent sector. It stated:
"The time has now come for the NHS to engage more constructively with the private sector, and at the same time make more of its expertise available to employers throughout the country."
The plan went on to explain that four essential tests would be applied to any proposed partnership with the private sector. They are: the interests of patients, consistency with local and national strategies for the health service, value for money, and consistency with public sector values, including the issue of equity.
Our inquiry sought to examine in detail the new relationship. We held eight evidence sessions with a wide range of witnesses, including NHS trusts, primary care trusts, unions, academics, private sector companies and providers of private health care. We also visited two of the first wave of completed private finance initiative hospitals, including the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). We are grateful to them for arranging very interesting visits for the Committee. I want to express our thanks to all who helped with the inquiry, those who gave oral and written evidence and those who gave up their time to meet us. I also thank our advisers, who provided valuable technical expertise, and particularly our excellent, first-class Committee staff who, as usual, provided marvellous support.
310WH
It is important to say that this is the first inquiry undertaken by the Committee since it was radically reconstituted after the general election. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Committee for their work over a lengthy period and the good-humoured debates that enabled us to come to our conclusions. The result is an important and well balanced critique of the current and future direction of the national health service.
The report consists of four main areas. The first covers the concordat, consultants' contracts and treatment overseas of United Kingdom citizens. The second covers the private finance initiative. The third covers local improvement finance trusts, the mechanism the Government are using to improve the primary care estate. The fourth covers public private partnerships, and we examined particularly the provision of pathology services.
I want to highlight the main conclusions of the report and particularly those that I believe to be of greatest importance. My colleagues on the Committee may select specific areas which they want to develop.
The concordat set out the parameters for the involvement of the private sector in NHS health provision. Its opening statement is:
"There should be no organisational or ideological barriers to the delivery of high quality healthcare free at the point of delivery to those who need it, when they need it".
That indicated a clear step change in the relationship and a fundamental shift in Government policy.
It is fair to say that my opposition to private medicine is well known. It is based on a belief that private medicine has consistently undermined the basic equity principle of the NHS since it began in 1948. Throughout the period of the concordat, I have expressed unease at the direction that the Government have chosen. That is an important point I should make at this stage. I have particular concerns about the relationship with the private sector.
Initially the concordat was going to focus on elective, critical and intermediate care with the aim of driving down winter pressures and waiting lists. The plan stressed that the concordat was not a short-term measure, but the beginning of a longer-term relationship. We examined the concordat to establish the extent of its use, the impact on waiting lists, its relationship with mainstream public provision and the long-term implications of its use. When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Committee, he suggested that a shortage in capacity was the principal factor in deciding to use the private sector. We all understand the need to reduce waiting lists. I understand the argument for using spare capacity in the private sector in the short term to achieve that aim, even if I am personally unsympathetic to it.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I have read the excellent report with considerable care. Does he think that it is strange that the Government have decided to use only elective care in the private sector in some respects? They have made no effort as far as I can establish to make any use of the approximately 50,000 complementary practitioners who work largely in the private sector. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that they have

311WH
gobbled up all the private sector beds without considering the acupuncturists, the herbal therapists or the homeopaths, many of whom are regulated by statute? Would he care to comment on that?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistency and commitment to an issue in which he believes strongly. I am not so sure. There are obviously wider debates about the appropriateness of the sort of provision to which he refers. He makes a fair point: perhaps we do have too narrow a view of what is treatment in a wider context. I would accept that, and if my late, very good friend Audrey Wise were here, she would he passionately saying that we should spend more time considering the alternatives that the hon. Gentleman has suggested on many occasions.
To return to the issue of capacity, it is worth making the point that, although NHS bed occupancy is running at roughly 90 per cent., private sector occupancy levels are between 55 and 60 per cent. Obviously, direct comparisons between the capacity levels of the two sectors can be misleading. Our report notes that bed management is easier in the private sector due to an absence of emergency patients. Furthermore, we have to recognise that lower bed occupancy rates are integral to the running of private hospitals, so that they can offer the flexibility of operation times, which is the main incentive for going private. However, the most important difference is that acute hospitals in the private sector do not employ consultants.
Consultants buy theatre time from the hospitals, and the vast majority of those consultants also work for the NHS. Obviously, they cannot work in two places at once. Therefore, exploiting the excess capacity of private hospitals could have a detrimental effect on NHS capacity. The Medical Practitioners Union told us:
"It would be absurd if the Concordat resulted in fewer NHS operations and more waiting lists cancellations because staff were at the local private hospital 'helping the NHS to cope'."
I asked the Secretary of State about a case I had come across where an elderly lady was waiting for many months for an elective operation and was referred under the concordat to a local private hospital. She then saw the same consultant at that private hospital that she had been waiting all those months to see in the NHS. That is inappropriate and illustrates the point that caused us concern on the Committee.
Although we saw no objection to using the private sector in the short term, our report concluded that in the long term, increased use of capacity in the private sector may cause a direct threat to NHS resources. Therefore, we have made a number of recommendations to clarify that activity. We would like to see the Government assess the impact of concordat activity on staff availability in the NHS. I regret the fact that, from my understanding of the response, at which I have briefly looked, the Government have rejected the idea of a separate assessment of the impact on staffing. We felt that that was a key area to be examined, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that point later.
312WH
We argue that the Government should develop sufficient acute capacity in the NHS for it not to be reliant on the private sector. The Government response points to the likely impact on capacity of the new consultant contract. Perhaps the Minister will expand that point, because the new consultant contract was being drawn up and agreed before we concluded our inquiry. The Secretary of State gave some evidence on that when he came to talk to us about the NHS plan, but the contract had not been seen as evidence to the Committee while the inquiry was under way.
We also suggested that the Government undertake a cost-benefit analysis of reclaiming private beds in NHS hospitals instead of buying in operations from private hospitals. I welcome the Government's agreement that trusts should look at that point.
On equity of access, when we studied the concordat we were disturbed to find that take-up rates across the country differed markedly between areas that had available private sector capacity and those that did not. For example, whereas the concordat has commissioned 3,294 operations in the south-east, it has commissioned only 444 in the north-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was particularly concerned about the way in which his area was not benefiting from the concordat arrangements.
The basic tenet behind the NHS is that there should be equal access for those with equal need. The uneven distribution of concordat activity appears to undermine that tenet. We therefore recommended against earmarking further money specifically for concordat activity. I welcome the Government's response, which gives a commitment to try
"to reduce to a minimum … earmarking".
That is a positive response from our point of view.
We recommended that any additional money available should be used in the local circumstances for which it is best suited. In some cases, that could be the development of local NHS capacity. In that way, each trust or region could identify and tackle its most pressing needs in the way that it felt worked best for it. Such a recommendation is entirely consistent with the trend towards greater devolution of powers to trusts. It was put to me by consultants at Pinderfields hospital in my area that they would have made far better use of the concordat resources had they not been forced to use them in relation to the local private sector. They felt that there were other ways, better suited to their circumstances, for benefiting patients in my area.
We also looked at how the concordat was assessed for value for money. Even in areas where concordat money was seen to make a difference, we could not find out whether that money was, in fact, well spent. If public funds are to be used in the private sector, value for money needs to be demonstrated. Comparisons can be made with NHS reference costs, such as the cost to the NHS of an operation, but our evidence showed that those are subject to very wide variation, which undermines their use in judging value for money. We have, therefore, called on the Audit Commission urgently to review a representative sample of concordat activity to assess its value for money. We also recommended that the Department take immediate steps to improve the methodology underlying NHS reference costs so that they can eventually act as a

313WH
meaningful benchmark. I would welcome it if the Minister could clarify the Government's position on that recommendation.
Our report considered the impact on waiting lists of NHS consultants who work part-time for the NHS and part-time in the private sector. According to the Department's figures, if those consultants worked exclusively for the NHS, that would yield an increase in capacity equivalent to 1,500 whole-time consultants. That would be a significant increase, but our report acknowledged the difficulties in enforcing a ban on consultants working in both sectors.
When the Secretary of State gave evidence to us on the delivery of the NHS plan, he explained, in answer to a question that I put, how the new consultant contract would yield 14 per cent. additional consultant time for NHS work. That represents progress, but still falls short of the original proposal that the contract should include a seven-year moratorium on private sector work, given that consultants will still be able to work for the private sector once they have completed their statutory working week for the NHS.
Under the concordat patients may now be treated in the private sector as NHS patients by NHS consultants. Consultants currently manage both their private and NHS waiting lists, and the way in which those lists are managed creates confusion and potential conflicts of interest. It is important to point out that in the last Parliament we looked at consultants' contracts and were given evidence of possible manipulation of waiting lists in the interests of the private practice of certain consultants.
In this inquiry we received evidence from one manager who said that there was resistance from consultants in her area to the use of the concordat for NHS patients because of the potential impact on their private practice. There is clearly concern about that area. We felt that structural reform was needed to ensure a greater degree of probity. As part of that reform we recommended that trust boards should publish the details of payments for NHS activity made to consultants working in the private sector. I regret the fact that the Government do not accept that because some members of the Committee have continuing concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that some members of the Committee welcome the Government's commitment?
Mr. Hinchliffe: That says something about the Government's commitment. I have strong feelings on the issue, having had cases referred to me in which there has been manipulation of waiting lists. The vast majority of consultants work very hard for the NHS and we ought to address the matter in a way which is open and above board. It is wrong for there to be suspicions against consultants where such suspicions are completely misplaced, which is why the Committee felt that it was better to have the matter in the open. I shall be interested in the Minister's response on why the Government did not feel able to go along with the recommendation.
The report highlights our concerns about the training of medical staff. The NHS funds doctors' training, but after a number of years those skills can be transferred to
314WH
the private sector. The private sector, therefore, gains medical expertise without incurring training costs, which is unacceptable. The Department and the independent sector need to agree to share that burden. We, therefore, recommend that the Government consider imposing a levy on the independent sector towards the costs of training health professionals that includes first qualification. On reading the Government reply to our report I was surprised that they had not been persuaded on that point. Again, I should be interested in the Minister's explanation of that particular response.
On the issue of job plans for consultants, two years ago the Committee expressed its astonishment that every consultant did not have a job plan because that was Government policy. At the time they acknowledged that job planning was a "clear and compulsory activity" for consultants. We were, therefore, most unimpressed to find that the situation remains almost unchanged. I welcome the mandatory enforcement of job planning proposed under the new consultant contract, which is mentioned in their reply to our report.
We also touched on NHS treatment abroad. Although that may be a way to reduce pressure on waiting lists, our understanding is that it is likely to prove a fairly marginal activity. The report notes that initial patient reaction seemed to be encouraging and a recent British Medical Association survey found that patients were not against travelling further afield if that meant that they would be treated sooner. We gave that development a cautious welcome, but our report sought assurances from the Government that there were robust mechanisms to ensure that patient follow-up can take place successfully and that the Department was confident of its legal position in the event of adverse clinical incidents.
We spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the contentious issue of the private finance initiative. In its past two election manifestos the Labour party committed itself to continuing with PFI to pursue its health objectives. The result has been an unprecedented level of new hospital construction. At the time of our report, 64 major new hospitals had been approved and of those, eight are now complete and operational and a further 15 are under construction. However, we had to satisfy ourselves that PFI was the best route to take to deliver value for money and that it would not have an adverse effect on the local health economy. Central to the Government's use of PFI is whether it represents value for money. If it does, it will be used; if it does not, in theory, conventional funding will be provided, although a sizeable body of opinion disputed the availability of Treasury funds.
Value for money is assessed by comparing the costs of PFI and traditional funding. The only way to prove it with certainty is to build two identical hospitals, one with Treasury funding and one using PFI. As that is not possible, the PFI is tested against a hypothetical model, the public sector comparator. The model represents the full life cost of public provision of a hospital. An assessment is carried out of the value of the risks retained by the public sector in both cases. It became clear that demonstrating value for money is a particularly complex task. Our report notes that the transfer of risk is an art, not a science.

315WH
On the surface, it appears sensible to transfer all the risk to the private sector under such a deal. However, that is counter-productive, as the premium charged for such risks may be too high. Furthermore, the private sector may not be able to manage the risks. Therefore, the risks of the project must be allocated on the basis of who is better equipped to manage them, whether the public or the private sector partner.
Sandra Gidley: At present, the system seems to allow PFI partners to cherry-pick which risks they will take. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I will deal with that point in a moment. There is a feeling that the whole process is skewed in the interests of the private, not the public, sector. We felt that the risks should be allocated on the basis of who is better equipped to manage them. It is essential that optimal risk transfers take place with the private sector taking only the risks that it is equipped to manage. For that to happen, much greater transparency is needed.
The accountancy rules for PFI, which are imposed by the Treasury, use a net discount rate of 6 per cent. We received evidence that that figure gives an average value for money margin of only 1.7 per cent. in favour of PFI. Revising the figure downwards by 0.5 or 1 per cent. would tilt value for money in favour of traditionally procured projects. A Treasury official told us that although the Treasury was reviewing its accountancy rules and that the net discount rate might possibly be reduced, the balance between the two would not necessarily change. We felt it necessary to take a more cautious position. If the discount rate were revised downwards while still producing value for money in favour of PFI, we would want the National Audit Office to assess the process to ensure that the complex calculations were not being manipulated to the benefit of the PFI route. There seems to be a danger that a calculation that does not produce the right result is changed, rather than the policy.
It was interesting that the one thing that united all our witnesses during a fierce debate on the pros and cons of PFI was the need to address the Public Sector Comparator. The majority view was that its artificial nature undermined its credibility. We concluded that while comparing a PFI project using a PSC may prove that the PFI is value for money against an artificial comparison, it did not necessarily prove that it was value for money in absolute terms. Therefore, we recommended that the Department should refine the way in which the PSC was constructed. We also recommended that the National Audit Office should assess the PSC as a means to identify value for money and report swiftly to the Health Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
After we published our report, Jeremy Coleman, the deputy comptroller of the National Audit Office, in an interview in the Financial Times questioned the PSC in its current form far more strongly than the Committee did in its report. He argued that some PSCs are "pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo" while others were "complete rubbish." In the light of Mr. Coleman's words, I believe
316WH
that our recommendations are more pressing and that any NAO report on the PSC would make for interesting reading.
Much of the evidence that we received about PFI included complaints about the lack of access to information on projects and the lack of transparency during their development. One depressing element was the references to the lack of transparency in the whole process. PFI documentation is lengthy and impenetrable, which does little to inspire confidence in the process. The report cites two examples of that: the north Durham full business case occupies 145 pages and boasts accompanying documentation three and half inches thick; the full business case for Coventry Walsgrave hospital runs to some 17,000 pages. That is obviously an obstacle to objective scrutiny, particularly when many of those who want to scrutinise the documents may not be familiar with their format.
We acknowledge that there is an inherent tension between commercial confidentiality and openness, but in our view greater transparency is vital to publicly procured projects. We have, therefore, made a series of recommendations that should improve openness, one of which was that all PFI proposals should be required to include a financial summary in a stand-up format for all stages of the process and that PFI documentation should be made more accessible. The balance should be tilted in favour of openness. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the need for succinct executive summaries, but I am concerned about the lack of an explicit reference to the financial side. Will the Minister refer to that?
One of the main issues associated with PFI relates to the treatment of public sector workers directly affected by a PFI project. As part of such a project, members of ancillary staff are transferred from the public sector to the private company; they retain their NHS employment rights, but they cease to be public sector employees. Obviously, many employees are unhappy about that.
There are also concerns that staff transfers result in the creation of a multi-tier work force operating under varying pay and conditions. When I was in Carlisle, I was particularly interested in the comments of a ward sister who said that she is regularly sent on expensive team-building courses by her trust, but she has no team to lead because the key elements of the team have been split. The fact that her team had been broken up had a bearing on the ward sister's ability to do her job and manage her ward. One method of solving such a problem is to use the Department's retention of employment model, by which workers are managed by the private sector but remain in the public sector. That could be a way forward, so it is unfortunate that several witnesses said that pilot schemes for that model had stalled. I should be grateful to receive the Minister's assurance that pilot schemes are progressing and that their results will be published shortly.
We were impressed by the patient focus care model that we saw in Durham. It was a model of staff transfer that brought together NHS staff and contract staff on the wards under the management and leadership of the ward sister, who had the authority to organise all the contract staff as if they were NHS staff. Along with the retention of employment model, that offers obvious potential for an integrated work force.

317WH
As I said earlier, we considered the longer-term implications of PFI deals. PFI will tie the NHS and trusts into long-term collaboration with the private sector, and the lengths of the contracts will normally run for around 30 years in the first instance. Several of our witnesses questioned the ramifications of locking trusts into lengthy contracts, considering the speed of advances in health provision. Although the implications of PFI on the health economy cannot yet be assessed, we sounded a note of caution. We concluded that PFI had the potential to inhibit long-term flexibility in the light of new technologies and changing patterns of care and that the Government needed to ensure that PFI contracts were sufficiently flexible to respond to changes in demand without major penalties to the NHS. As there is no evidence that analysis has taken place, we have asked the Department to assess the future structure of and requirements for health assets and to ensure that all future contracts—whether PFI or conventionally funded—are examined in that light. I am not sure that that has been fully understood from looking at the Government's response. The Committee's concern related to the pace of change in health and the impact on any form of future capital provision.
Mr. Tredinnick: Did the Committee have a chance to examine the issue of ward cleanliness in relation to PFI? There is obviously a serious problem of infection in wards because of the way in which they are cleaned at the moment.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am well aware of that and have certainly seen some hospitals in which the PFI project was not a factor. However, the contracting out of services has had a major impact on standards. My hon. Friends may wish to comment on it, but I had no problem with cleanliness in the two hospitals that we visited.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that my local hospital, the Luton and Dunstable NHS trust hospital, has brought cleaning services back in-house. It could not get the hospital cleaned privately.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am interested to hear that; it has happened in other hospitals.
I have spoken for nearly half an hour, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion to allow others to speak. The Committee devoted a small part of its report to PFI and the surrounding debate. We noted that even a cursory examination of the evidence showed that the debate had become polarised and that the climate was not always conducive to rational analysis. We all know that PFI is an emotive issue, which makes it even more important that we have a rational and objective debate. We concluded that the onus was on the Department to take the lead. If benefits are likely to arise from PFI, they must be clearly explained; and if not, that too must be acknowledged.
It is sad that the Committee should have became a victim of that polarised debate when five paragraphs out of 155 became the main items of interest in the national press. It is clear from the report that I moved the deletion of paragraphs 65 to 69. I did so for specific reasons. First, as Chairman, I do not have a vote unless
318WH
a vote is tied, and I could not otherwise indicate my views on those paragraphs. Secondly, I profoundly disagreed with their content. The evidence of Professor Pollock in particular has been dissected and examined in the sort of detail that I have never seen happen with any other academic witness.
I am particularly concerned that those paragraphs are factually inaccurate, as well as being grossly unfair to the professor and her union. I would add that the origin of those paragraphs has been subject to considerable press speculation. Indeed, many journalists have suggested that they were tabled on behalf of the Government. I place it on the record that I strongly refute such suggestions. Although I disagree with the Member responsible, in every other way I have the greatest respect for someone who is a hard-working member of the Committee and who would not act in the way suggested.
Ms Julia Drown: My hon. Friend says that we have looked in more detail at that than at other evidence. Does he not agree that when we see things that seem wrong we should consider them in detail, and that if we see things that we believe cannot be justified, we should say so? He says that those paragraphs are inaccurate. Will he say what is inaccurate?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I went through those paragraphs in detail in Committee and I specifically addressed each of the paragraphs to which the amendments did not reflect an appropriate evaluation of the evidence. I do not believe that those paragraphs stand up to objective examination. I do not profess to be objective, because I feel strongly that the witness put forward credible evidence. I stand by what I said a moment ago—I have never seen an academic's evidence examined and dissected in such detail as was Professor Pollock's. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and I agree on many things, but we differ on that subject. I could go into great detail on those paragraphs, but I have already spoken for half an hour and others may wish to speak.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been press speculation that those paragraphs had been supplied by the Government. He said, "I refute that." I should be interested to hear what evidence he has to refute it. Has he spoken to Ministers? Has he spoken to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown)? Has he investigated other ways of refuting it?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have made it clear that it was put to me by numerous journalists that the paragraphs were moved on behalf of the Government. My response to each of those journalists was to say that I know the Committee member responsible well and I do not believe that she would take such a course of action. She feels strongly about the issue, as do I, but I have no doubt that she would not take such a step. I have a great deal of respect for her and her work as a member of the Committee.
Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend referred to the fevered nature of the debate around PFI. Does he accept that some of the work of the unit that we are

319WH
referring to has contributed to that debate? When we went to Carlisle, local people did not share the outrage that we had been led to believe they felt about the development of their new hospital. Was it not important to bring that out in the report?
Mr. Hinchliffe: Yes. It is a matter of record that my views of PFI have been affected by the process of the inquiry. I was impressed by the two buildings that we saw constructed through the PFI scheme. However, questions need to be asked about the PFI route—in particular about the impact on longer-term revenue costs in a given area, and on the wider health economy, especially if a scheme is to lock a local health economy in to a particular form of provision that will last for a long time, when that form of provision might well become grossly outdated. Those are the areas that should concern us.
In the whole debate, only one unit seems to be questioning the merits of PFI. That is an important role for it to play. In a democracy there should be people who question the direction that the Government are taking. It is wrong when people attempt to discredit the academics concerned—I am talking, not about my hon. Friend, but about others.
Ms Drown rose—
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have spoken for well over half an hour. My hon. Friends will have a chance to express their opinions. I shall refer to some other points in the report, then my colleagues can make their contributions.
I have not yet mentioned the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—schemes that we looked at. We accept that the current stock of GP premises needs to be reviewed. In certain areas it is in disrepair. Our witnesses from the NHS Alliance described the investment by GPs as "poor" and the BMA said that investment was "sorely needed". The Secretary of State has acknowledged that primary care in many parts of the country, particularly the poorest parts, is appalling.
To address those problems, the Government are introducing LIFT schemes. They are a form of public-private partnership in which investment, along with Department of Health money, will be used to build and maintain primary care facilities. The Department expects to attract up to £1 billion of investment by using LIFT schemes. They will be targeted at a substantial refurbishment or replacement of the premises of up to 3,000 family doctors by 2004 and the creation of some 500 one-stop primary care centres. The intention is that LIFT schemes will be targeted at the areas of greatest need, and the first six schemes reflect that aim.
While our report welcomed the aim of LIFT schemes, they remain untested. None of the first six schemes has been completed. For that reason, we took a cautious position. We should have preferred to see those six schemes assessed for value for money and service provision before LIFT was rolled out nationally, and we recommended that the Government undertake a rapid assessment of the first schemes. In the light of the many structural changes taking place across the health service,
320WH
we recommended that LIFT schemes be considered in the context of integrated strategic planning of health care assets.
I apologise for the length of my contribution. I have tried to give a brief summary, albeit a subjective one, of a lengthy and complex report. Colleagues can put their own spin—[Interruption.]—or views when they are called.
To conclude, our report urges some caution and a proper evaluation of the relationship with the private sector and its impact on the NHS. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their support during our work. I hope that our report leads to steps forward on the issues about which we have expressed concern.
3.9 pm
Mr. David Amess: This is an extraordinary debate. No one could have imagined a debate about the role of the private sector in our national health service taking place after May 1997. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was Secretary of State at that time, and hon. Members well know that his views on the role of the private sector were somewhat different from those of the present occupant of that high office.
The Health Committee has 11 Members and we are quite different personalities. Indeed, in certain respects, we are an unholy alliance. We bring to our horseshoe table different areas of expertise and different opinions on health care. I pay tribute to our Chairman, who has never shied away from the fact that he hates the private sector. Indeed, he absolutely loathes and despises every aspect of private health care in this country. It is a brave hon. Gentleman who holds such views and then chairs a Committee that produces a report such as ours, to which I am proud to sign up. We cannot reveal the details of the discussions that took place as we concluded our report, but we had some interesting deliberations and you, Mr. Diner, will have enjoyed hearing parts of them during the contributions of the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown). That will have given you a flavour of our different opinions on the issues.
I genuinely believe that the Government do not have a well worked-up health policy and that they react to crisis—I call it crisis management. I am sure that the Minister will condemn the remarks that I am about to make, but our report—however one reads it—says thank goodness we have received support from the private sector. That is in stark contradiction to the way in which Labour Ministers used to speak. There have been several crises in the past five years. The crisis over waiting lists and, dare I say it, waiting times had a huge impact on our constituents. We all recall the Prime Minister going across to St. Thomas's hospital to make several announcements on health care at a press conference.
Our report recognises the fact that the Labour party has undergone a huge shift on private health care. Labour Members and Labour activists say that the Conservative party totally opposes the national health service and that it would privatise it if it were in government again. I will not waste time talking about the language that Labour Members use on the subject; I think that the Government are privatising our national

321WH
health service by stealth. There is no time in our short debate for me to expand on that. I will do so at another point.
At one time, this Government sent people abroad for operations. If a Conservative Government had done such a thing, there would have been an outcry from those influenced by the Labour party, yet nothing has been said about it. I am proud to be a signatory to the wonderful report on the role of the private sector in the NHS.
Ms Drown: May I give the hon. Gentleman a little insight into the matter? The British public might trust the Labour Government with the NHS and believe that Labour is trying to make an NHS of which everyone can be proud and on which everyone can rely. However, they might not trust the Conservatives, whose action on the NHS served to undermine some of its principles. One probably would give one's credit card to one's best friend to look after, but one would not go up to a stranger in the street and ask them to look after it.
Mr. Amess: When I end my contribution, I shall remark on the trust of the British people in the Labour party on the health service. All that trust has gone.
I am delighted to serve on a Select Committee. Parliament has undoubtedly been ignored on many issues, but the work of our Select Committees is to be cherished and acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government. Recently, the Committee had an away day and there was some debate among its members as to how we judged the success of our work. We are all busy people and it is nonsense to think that we traipse along every Wednesday or Thursday, listen to hearings, hold private sittings, publish reports and that that is the end of the matter. The work of the House is at its best when we produce reports.
We do not expect the Government to sign up to every aspect of the report. I realise that the summer recess starts on 24 July and we do not come back until October, but on this issue I hope that we will soon find out not necessarily what the Government have accepted, but how they have reacted to the report in detail. The Minister knows that our recommendations are on pages 45 to 50, and I want to touch on some of them quickly.
Our recommendation (a) is that
"the Department should commission an independent assessment of the impact of the purchasing by the NHS of activity from independent providers on staff availability within the NHS".
All members of the Committee, whether they are pro or anti the private sector, thought that that was sensible, but that fact is hopeless unless we find out whether the Government agree.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am most reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but does he know that we published a response to the Committee's report?
Mr. Amess: I do.
Mr. Hutton: In it, we spell out the answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Mr. Amess: Well, I am not entirely convinced that we saw the details. I hope that the Minister will allow me to expand a little further on the subject.
322WH
When a Minister gave us evidence—I think that it was a Secretary of State—I became exercised about the way in which we produce reports and are given a response by the Government. I am delighted that the Government's response is one of the quickest that we have ever had to any report. I congratulate the Government on listening to our criticisms on that point.
I am interested in what happens after the Government's response. If the Minister has time, will he tell us whether there will be debates on the matter on the Floor of the House? Now that the Government embrace the private sector, we need to know how we can monitor whether that policy is successful. That is why I draw the Minister's attention to recommendation (a).
Recommendation (b) states:
"We recommend that the Department, together with trusts, should look at ways of providing further incentives to staff to work for the NHS".
I cannot see much detail on that point in the Government's response. Given that the trusts are bedding in and will do so much work in delivering better health care for the country, will the Minister tell us how Parliament might monitor the progress of the project in the four remaining years?
The recommendations go on to say that
"now would be an appropriate time for the Department of Health to ensure trusts have undertaken a recent cost-benefit analysis of the reclaiming for the NHS of capacity utilized to provide private pay beds in NHS hospitals."
Again, although the Government have replied, the scene is one that changes quickly. Will the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give the Committee feedback?
What most exercised me was the matter of consultants' contracts. I think that we were all present when we received representations from consultants on the issue. The rhetoric and original position have changed extraordinarily. Organisations that are in a better position to judge the matter than is any hon. Member are using the words "climb down". We can all talk tough in the hope that the general public remember tough talk, but I remember not only the tough talk but the outcomes. If interest groups are saying that the original position has changed, I should like to know how the system works in practice, although the Minister may not have time to give those details in the debate.
Our recommendations make it clear that some hon. Members were concerned about the issue of consultants' contracts. We all understand that issue of consultants' contracts, and no one better than the hon. Member for Wakefield, who wants the best possible health service for people. However, we are dealing with human beings and all their failings. If an army of people is saying that because of the changes there will be a reluctance to enter the profession or to work in this country, who will do the work in future? The Committee was entirely right to reflect on the position of consultants.
I was present at most of our deliberations on the private finance initiative. Some members of the Committee clearly understood every aspect of PFI, but I am not convinced that every Member of Parliament has a complete command of those issues. I am not even convinced that all of those giving presentations had a complete command of the issues involved in PFI. The subject is delicate, difficult and challenging.

323WH
I am not being gutless, but I do not want to get involved in the differences between the hon. Members for Wakefield and for South Swindon. I, was uncomfortable with some of the evidence, inasmuch as there did not seem to be the sort of balance that I would have hoped for.
I am always grateful for faxes and was pleased to receive a briefing from the Royal College of Nursing. I am privileged to be shadowing a nurse at Southend hospital tomorrow, as the nurses come on at the end of the night shift at 7 am. I shall probably be discussing the PFI initiative as we go round. The College has reflected on our deliberations and wants us to consider four points. It believes that there should be
"closer input into the design of PFI projects by trust staff … retention of employment models and patient-focused care … greater transparency in the PFI documents and simpler, more accessible documentation"
and
"valuation of 'risk', assessment of public sector comparator, more conventionally procured schemes."
All of that is worth reflecting on and the Minister and his brilliant officials will no doubt have time in future to do so. Finally, the college believes that
"waiting times should be maintained on a basis that ensures equity of access to health care",
which was one of the main recommendations of our report.
I do not know whether the Independent Healthcare Association wrote to all hon. Members, but it saw an opportunity in this debate. It is a wonderful organisation that understands the political and ideological differences on this matter. Its health cash plans are inexpensive forms of health insurance, paying out benefits for a wide variety of treatments and making grants to members for stays in hospital or on the birth of child. Most hon. Members have many constituents who belong to it. The organisation simply wants to say to Ministers that, as the debate continues, it hopes that the Government will bear in mind the valuable role that its member organisations play in caring for the nation's health.
I end, as people breathe a sigh of relief, with the issue that prompted the hon. Member for South Swindon to stand up. She tried, I suppose, to smooth the way by taking on the great challenge of explaining how the Labour party used to view private health care and its position now. We all welcome sinners, and those who repent are welcomed with open arms. The people who I represent are not bothered—they have no hang-up whatsoever—about who provides their health care. They resent the fact that they have to pay for it, and if they are told that they have to wait for two years to get treatment on the national health service. They say, "David—we have worked hard and we don't have much money, but we are now having to fork out and use our savings to have an operation brought to a conclusion sooner than it would be on the NHS." They are not bothered whether the Government use the private sector.
324WH
For goodness' sake, let us draw a line under the great divisions that there have been among the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats—I cannot speak for the Independent party, but its leader is with us this afternoon. That would be wonderful. We could be united, because whether or not we want to use the private sector to help the NHS, all of us want the best possible health service for the people whom we represent.
If the Government act on some of the recommendations contained in the Select Committee report, it will undoubtedly result in a better health service for each and everyone of our constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I advise hon. Members that although I see no sinners here, I want to give the Minister and the main speakers from the two Opposition parties at least 50 minutes to wind up—not 50 minutes each, but 50 minutes between them. I know that a number of Back Benchers wish to speak, so I ask them to be positive in their contributions.
3.30 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am a bit jealous of not being a member of the Select Committee. It was obviously an interesting Committee, and I always enjoy debating with the Chairman, as he is one of the few Labour Members who makes me look like a Blairite.
I am here today because the first PFI hospital was built in my constituency, and I had the bouquets for that as well as bearing the scars. That hospital had been cancelled five times by the previous Conservative Administration because of lack of money. I remind the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) that the Tories did not get one PFI hospital off the drawing board; they were a total failure in that respect.
In 1997, I asked the then Secretary of State for Health whether we could have a new hospital, and I was told that we could, but that no public sector money was available and it would have to be a PFI project. If other hon. Members had been faced with that choice, what would they have done? I accepted the PFI. It was built on time and on budget, and it was opened by the Prime Minister in June 2000.
The new hospital was needed because staff were operating on a split site. The consultants were working on one side and the maternity unit on another, and it was said that babies were dying as a result; the temporary buildings that were used for elderly people were built during the first world war. We had major problems. That is the background; that was why we wanted a new hospital, and that is why it was one of the hospitals built in the first phase of PFI.
I thank the Committee for coming to Carlisle and seeing the hospital. I know that many hon. Members were impressed by it. I hope that their journey on the west coast main line was as good as the visit to the hospital—but I doubt it. The new hospital has 442 beds. It was originally designed for 474 beds, but the number was reduced. It was said that that happened because day surgery was becoming more common and because of an agreement between the consultants and the trust

325WH
management, but I believe that it was the result of financial pressure. The report says that people thought that it was because of PFI, but I do not believe that. The same financial pressures that had caused the hospital to be cancelled five times before were the cause: there was not enough money in the system.
Many operations are still being cancelled. In the Cumberland infirmary, 47 operations were cancelled in January and 27 in June, but only eight were cancelled in March. The idea that winter pressure caused the cancellations is not correct. We had a very mild winter, and the figures on bed blocking show that whereas in December 2001 36 beds were blocked every week, in July 2002 only 14 beds are being blocked. Although we are making great progress, with social services and the health authority working together, in reducing the number of beds blocked by people who should be somewhere else, there are still many cancellations. In Carlisle the real problem is a shortage not of acute beds but of sub-acute and intermediate care beds.
I worry that we shall not be able to tackle that problem. The new PFI hospitals show that the Government have accepted the need for more beds; they have said, I think, that 5,000 more beds are needed throughout the country. Unfortunately, as happens with the first of anything, the scheme brings mistakes as well as progress. Work must be done to put that right.
The primary care trust and the North Cumbria NHS trust in my constituency seem to be in a state of denial. I had a meeting recently with them, which was very polite, at which they said, "We don't need any more beds. If we do get any more, we'll fill them up." I could not see the logic of that argument. I think that some of the people now involved in that subject in my area were the same people who decided that we needed only 442 beds in the first instance. I really worry because the bed model says that we will need 75 more beds in five years' time, and a statistician who was employed said that we will need 79 beds in five years' time. The consultants say that they have the staff and the operating capacity, but cannot do the operations.
One solution that the trust has come up with is to put a modular ward as a temporary measure at the back of what I remind hon. Members is a brand new hospital. It is suggesting, in fact, that we add a portakabin, containing between 12 and 15 beds, to the first PFI hospital built in this country, which is still new. That has nothing to do with a shortage of acute beds; it is about waiting lists and getting numbers down, after which the ward will be taken away. I do not believe that if the project goes ahead, that ward will ever be taken away. As I said at the start of my speech, the temporary wards that were built at the Cumberland infirmary during the first world war were not knocked down until 2000.
I would like the PCT and the trust to come to me, admit that they have a shortage of beds and insufficient finance and ask me to go to discuss the matter with Ministers. We have no cottage hospital in Carlisle, although a premises called Durranhill house has come up for discussion. The trust was at one time considering taking it on as a cottage hospital, but has now decided not to do so.
Another opportunity is provided by the extension built to the Cumberland infirmary in the 1970s, which we call the tower block. I understand that it has about
326WH
140 beds, operating theatres and intensive care facilities. The trust has applied for nearly £1 million to knock that building down—yet for £9 million we could renovate it. It could give us the sub-acute beds that we need and, in line with Government thinking, we could have a diagnostic and treatment centre, where routine operations could be carried out away from the problems associated with accident and emergency provision.
If someone had asked me whether I wanted that to be funded by PFI or traditionally, I would have said that I was not bothered. All I thought about was the fact that we needed that new unit. We have an excellent hospital, and I would not like to leave Members attending the debate today with the impression that we have a bad hospital. The new hospital is a credit to us, and the staff enjoy it. We give better quality care to our patients. However, it is the lack of beds that frustrates everyone. We will not get the full use out of that hospital, and the Government will not get the credit for it, until we tackle the shortage of beds in Carlisle.
With regard to PFI, I think that we are saying that the jury is out—and I am sure that the Chairman of the Select Committee would say that the jury is more than out. In the example in my area, PFI has worked with regard to the hospital, but we still have a chronic bed shortage that needs to be put right.
3.40 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: May I first say how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place to respond to the debate, and also thank the Chairman of the Health Committee for welcoming me, as a complete tyro, to the functions of a Select Committee? Naturally, our Chairman has covered much of the ground, so I shall restrict myself to the part of the report that concentrates on the private finance initiative. I have to declare a paradoxical interest here, because were it not for the PFI, I do not think that I would have achieved this unique way of supplementing my pension—but although I am grateful to the PFI for that. I admit that I still oppose it.
First, I draw the Minister's attention to conclusion (q), which calls for a "rational and objective debate". I welcome the Government's reply, which rather to my surprise welcomes the call for this debate. That is rather in contrast to what the Secretary of State is quoted as saying in paragraph 96 of our report:
"I think in the end we can have a huge load of arguments about the Private Finance Initiative and whether it is good, bad or indifferent, whether it is good value for money, bad value for money, and all these different things, but in the end its compelling attraction as far as the National Health Service is concerned is that we can get more hospitals built more quickly."
That to me rather implies blind acceptance of PFI as the only way of meeting a short-term political imperative, rather than a willingness to hold an open debate. I must refer briefly to beds because that issue is an absolute minefield, as I have discovered many times. The Government response agrees that there has been a lack or transparency about bed numbers. One of the difficulties is that there are so many definitions of bed numbers. I sometimes think that civil servants and health managers get confused about those definitions. Is a bed in a community hospital an acute bed or not? Is a bed in a five-day orthopaedic ward included in the list of general and acute beds? I welcome the national beds

327WH
inquiry, and the Department of Health's promise to achieve transparency within the framework of that inquiry. I make a personal plea to the Minister: will he persuade the Department of Health to clarify bed definitions and have one set of definitions that it will always stick to?
Our Chairman drew attention to the risk transfer and the less than optimal ways of calculating that. He also drew attention to the public sector comparator. I would add another quote from the deputy comptroller of the National Audit Office. On top of what our Chairman told us, the deputy comptroller implied that the end result of negotiations and consideration of a PFI was always pretty clear:
"If the answer comes out wrong you don't get your project. So the answer does not come out wrong very often."
Page 21 of the Government's response addresses our suggestion that there should be a realistic comparator, because the public sector comparator is sometimes unrealistic. We recommended that a comparison should sometimes be drawn with a do-nothing option, and I have to say that the writer of the response to that section confused the public sector comparator with the do-nothing option.
I should like the Minister to comment briefly on three paragraphs that were not highlighted. In paragraph 92, the Business Services Association representative asked us to recommend that the public sector comparator should become a real comparator. Another worry was expressed in paragraph 102:
"Once a preferred bidder has been announced competition ceases and any increase in the tender price will not be subject to further competition."
Paragraph 110 refers to the fact that the annual charge is the first call on a trust's revenue before all other payments, which implies that cuts will have to be made elsewhere if a trust cannot meet those charges. I am not sure that the Government's response to conclusion (z) covers that point if all PFI facilities are not needed as the years go by.
I should like to turn as briefly as I can to the vexed paragraphs 65 to 69, to which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has already referred. Like him, I am not imputing motives to members of the Committee, because during the time that I have been a member of it I have learned to respect all the Committee's members. However, I feel that those paragraphs constitute an attack on the evidence of one academic unit. They are not borne out by other evidence, for which I know we have been asked, and I shall try to address that matter.
Paragraph 65 claims that University College London's Health Policy and Health Services Research unit has
"confused criticism of capital charges … with criticism of the PFI".
It is well known that the unit, in particular Professor Pollock, objects to both capital charges and the PFI. To my mind that is not confusion, because she objects to both policies. Many of us in the NHS in the early 1990s objected passionately to the imposition of capital charges, which took money from the patient care budget and only appeared to put the NHS on a level playing field with the private sector. Many people objected to
328WH
capital charges at that stage. Professor Pollock clearly objects to both capital charges and PFI. Question 393 of the evidence asked whether the problem was capital charges or PFI, to which Professor Pollock replied:
"I think there are two problems."
It could not be clearer that she thinks that there are two separate problems.
Ms Drown: Three questions later the Committee asked the unit whether it accepted the point that sometimes in the NHS it is good to spend more on capital and less on medical staff because the NHS gets a better service, which could be a reason for a PFI project being better value for money than an NHS scheme. The unit accepted that point provided that the money did not come from the revenue budget. How could one do anything other than that in the NHS? Is that not a confusion with capital charges?
If one looks at the piece of evidence that the unit sent in—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. May I advise the hon. Lady that she is on my list of speakers?
Ms Drown: Yes, Mr. Olner, I am quite happy with that. As this is a debate, I might as well make the point—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): No, it is not a debate. The hon. Lady is making an intervention.
Dr. Taylor: I am coming to those points, if I get the chance.
The first of three points arising from paragraph 66 is that
"claims that there had been no checks against any of the value for money tests were untrue, since the National Audit Office had completed at least one such study."
I cannot find a reference to that in the transcript, and the parts that are presumably about the unit refer to checks of value for money after project completion rather than no checks at all.
My second point about paragraph 66 is the reference to
"Professor Pollock's assertion that 'There is a new pact with big business which is not operating currently in favour of the population'",
which she certainly made. She said that in answer to a loaded question, and in her answer to the person's question she said that in her opinion there was a huge new industry for accountants, lawyers and management consultants. I do not believe that someone should be condemned for one sentence taken out of context, or for holding an opinion that is contrary to one's own, especially if one is backed by parliamentary privilege. One may disagree but one may not condemn.
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that when I recently spoke to a lawyer who worked on rail privatisation, she told me that the Government gave out millions of pounds and poured money for rail privatisation into a black hole. Accountants and lawyers made vast sums from it, and they will make vast sums from PFI.
Dr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful comment.

329WH
The third point from paragraph 66 is that the
"claim that PFI involved writing an 'open-ended cheque …' was not backed up by the evidence".
In fact, evidence to back it up was provided in appendix 27. The Committee can say that the evidence was not sufficient, but it cannot say that there was none.
Ms Drown: Would not the cheque be more open-ended with a publicly financed scheme, as the public sector would have to pay for anything that goes wrong? A privately financed scheme limits the risk, because risk has been transferred. In that sense, the cheque is more closed in a privately financed scheme than in a publicly financed scheme. That is what the Committee found.
Dr. Taylor: We have already covered the art as opposed to the science of risk transfer, and I do not wish to return to it.
I do not understand how paragraph 67 can be based on questions 395 and 396. In my opinion, all that Professor Pollock said was that if new investment generates extra capital costs in a hospital's annual operating budget, it should be properly funded. MRI scanners were a red herring. I do not believe that the inquiry was given any evidence about staff savings from MRI scanners. In the past, many advances have been expected to result in savings, but many have failed.
Paragraph 68 is simply an assertion that there is a lack of sound analysis. That is an opinion of the Committee that is not based on evidence. The Committee has condemned the unit for an antagonistic attitude. Is disagreement always antagonism? Is one condemned for disagreeing with government policy? That is what has led to the accusations of political influence.
I wish to give some evidence from my personal experience rather than from the inquiry. The unit prepared a report, free of charge, on the Worcester private finance initiative, which was followed not with constructive debate but with denials of its accuracy and attempts to denigrate its authors' work. Spin and confusion over bed numbers were prominent, and after a debate between Professor Pollock and health authority officials in the presence of the local medical committee, the committee wrote:
"Members were most unhappy that at the end of the open meeting far too many unanswered questions remained. There was a distinct lack of clarity in the replies from the health authority. We feel that serious questions raised by Professor Pollock have not been answered."
I feel strongly that the criticisms of the University College London unit are not based on evidence taken by the Committee. Whatever the motives of the supporters of those paragraphs, they fit nicely with the Department of Health's aim of silencing critics—but I am not impugning the members of the Committee, whom, as I have said, I thoroughly respect.
The paragraphs try to silence further criticism and punish severely—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman look towards winding up his comments now?
Dr. Taylor: Certainly, Mr. Olner.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): If the hon. Gentleman does so, his time will be extended a little.
Dr. Naysmith: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of how any criticism has been silenced in any way whatever by anything that has happened?
Dr. Taylor: I do not have the details, although I can provide them after the debate. Two people's criticisms were reported anonymously because they would not give their names.
An academic who is too critical becomes labelled as a campaigner and is then accused of losing scientific objectivity. The paragraphs in question should be withdrawn, because I believe they damage both the Committee and the unit. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to make my feelings clear. I have today received some comments about a PFI-built magistrates court in my constituency, and they strengthen my worries about the PFI in future. It is only a matter of time—perhaps it will happen even within the lifetime of this Government—before Professor Pollock and her unit will be shown to have been right, and I would hate the Committee on which I serve to have backed the wrong horse.
3.57 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I share the view of most of those who have spoken that it is amazing how much agreement there is in the report, given the potentially controversial area we considered and the different starting points of many members of the Committee. We all accepted that, in the short term at least, using the private sector could make an impact on achieving what we all want—an improved NHS with emphasis on reducing waiting lists— and we all shared a disappointment that in the private sector there are few examples of good practice. Given the huge subject we examined, there are many positive aspects in the report.
I should like the Government to examine further a few points concerning the concordat. In paragraph 31, we stated that money should not be allocated for private sector providers only. That is clear and just. It cannot be justified to give money to areas with private sector facilities. Money should be given on the basis of need. This is not an area in which money could not be spent by other places without private sector hospitals. If any part of the NHS was asked whether it wanted money to help to reduce waiting lists or to improve another sector of its health care, it would say yes and that it could use the money well. The Government's response to that is encouraging, but not encouraging enough. It states that the Government are trying to focus as much money on primary care trusts as possible, allowing them to decide how to spend it, but want to retain the ability to put more money into private sector units only. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will not happen.
Paragraph 46 of the report refers to the training levy. There is still a strong case for considering such a levy on private sector providers. I know that that is an old chestnut that the Committee keeps pursuing, but it is right to do so.

331WH
Paragraph 39 mentions the use of reference costs to look for value for money. The Government response states:
"Best prices are unlikely to be obtained by spot purchasing".
It also suggests that larger volumes, more evenly spread across years, might produce better results. I hope that the Government retain—I think the response hinted that they might—the idea that spot purchasing does provide better value for money, and that it varies from area to area. When one considers that private sector hospitals were already functioning very well before the NHS arrived and gave them more work, there is a strong case for saying that the money that the NHS pays for procedures should not be much more than marginal. The more that that idea is pushed from the centre, the more we can strengthen the bargaining hand of those negotiating locally.
On concordat activity within PFI, the report stresses the costs of not proceeding. There is a cost not only to the individual as regards having to wait for better quality treatment, but to families, the wider society, business, social services and other government budgets, such as those for benefits. We need joined-up government so that when we examine the costs and benefits of measures taken in the health economy, we consider the impact on the whole of government. Perhaps if more building schemes were established, and action on waiting lists was taken more quickly—be it in the private or public sector—the cost to the Government could be reduced.
I want to concentrate on the more controversial areas because they offer more interesting debate. I hope that all hon. Members agree that there is nothing magic about the private sector. Sometimes the Government hint that private sector management can perform magic, or can do what public sector management cannot. That is not the case, and I was pleased recently when the Government emphasised more strongly the quality of public sector managers and their ability to deliver for the NHS and all public services. It is important to hang on to them because we rely on them to work throughout the country to deliver better services.
On the NHS, I hope that we have all gone beyond the "public good, private bad" idea, which has fuelled debate. I understand those people who are cautious of PFI because my initial reaction was to be incredibly suspicious, particularly in Tory times when I would not trust the Conservatives with the NHS or a PFI. However, even under the Tories, I accepted the argument that giving a private sector builder a cheque to build a hospital, with which he could then run away, is different from asking a private sector partner to build a hospital, cheques for which will be given in 30 instalments only if the hospital delivers. That changes the psychology of the transaction and can mean that a private sector company will build a hospital differently. I have seen that happen in Swindon: an engagement with our local trust means that more thought is going into the materials being used for the hospital—the builders are considering whether to use easy-to-clean materials and double insulation in the roof so that the hospital can save £250,000 over the lifetime of the
332WH
contract. Those ideas are different and worthy of piloting. That did not happen during the Tory years, as we hinted at in the report.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Why does not my hon. Friend suggest that the advantages that she outlines could also be contained in a public sector scheme?
Ms Drown: Simply because a public sector scheme in which a building is paid for up front with one cheque offers no financial incentive to deliver over 30 years. An agreement with a company that states that it will get payment only if the hospital is delivered and properly maintained might ensure delivery. Dividing the finances over years might provide an incentive. We do not know whether that is the case, which is why, for lessons to be learned, PFI should be examined in the context of a pilot scheme.
As PFI is so new, the Government should be more wary of its schemes. We will clearly learn lessons from PFI schemes; we have already learned some. We learn lessons from public schemes all the time. So, the case for PFI is not proven, but nor has it been dismissed. It will become harder for each PFI to prove value for money because the cost of new work, such as that in Swindon where we are adding extra roof insulation, must be spread across the NHS, through publicly financed projects and PFI projects.
That calculation needs to be fed in each time because there will be diminishing gains for the private sector. Nevertheless, we should see whether this different way of using the private sector delivers more for patients and staff. The ultimate test is whether we are delivering something better for the population. By closing our minds to the idea, we might be saying no to something that could improve the NHS.
I turn now to the controversial paragraphs of the report, which we rightly examined in detail. If we hear warning bells that some of the analysis does not add up, and if we are to include in our report lots of quotes from a particular unit, giving that unit some authority, we need to say where the warning bells are ringing. Other hon. Members have already referred to the question whether the unit confuses capital charges and PFI—it does. When the unit was asked whether those were two distinct matters, it said that they were, but subsequently confused them again. In its evidence to the Committee, which is supposed to make the two issues clear, it says that there are two problems. Table 3 on page 358 of the appendices shows the cost of capital as a percentage of income, pre and post-PFI. The figures for the Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust, which I know best, are as follows: capital as a percentage of income, pre-PFI is 3.3 per cent.; capital as a percentage of projected income, post-PFI, is 14.3 per cent. Where is the column giving the cost due to capital charges from a new hospital? Where is the column showing the cost of capital charges if we do nothing? It is not there. All the difference between capital as a percentage of income pre-PFI and post-PFI is put down to PFI. That is simply not a good analysis because there would be an increase in capital as a percentage of all income if any building development went ahead. If we built exactly the same hospital as part of a publicly financed project, on the current estimate, it would cost a little bit more, so the percentage would be greater. If we did nothing, the cost would be somewhere in between.

333WH
It is absolutely right that we should say when we see that things are wrong. We must get better reports from University College, London and from others. I am not denying that there are real issues to be considered in respect of PFI, but the evidence must be accurate and must stand up. At the moment, some of the analysis is lost because it does not stand up and the Government can rightly dismiss it. We need to deal with the relevant concerns about PFI, not spurious ones. My concern is that PFI raises fear in the population. As it is new, people are understandably wary of it.
Mr. Hopkins: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that an opinion poll suggests that 83 per cent. of the population are opposed to private companies being used in the health service. Is my hon. Friend saying that the public support it?
Ms Drown: I am saying that people's initial reaction is to be wary of it. We all have a real love of the NHS and want everything to be done publicly, but that is not how the NHS is run. Virtually every supplier to the NHS is a profit-making business.
Jim Dowd: If that is true, where on earth do people think that the drugs and pharmaceuticals used in the health service would come from? Or would that 83 per cent. of the population prefer people to go untreated?
Ms Drown: That is precisely the point. Almost every supplier to the NHS has a profit motive. There might be a problem of public understanding that we need to work on. There has always been a partnership. However, the worry might be partly fuelled by analysis that suggests that any PFI hospital will have to be paid for by staff savings. That is not what happens. New public sector schemes cost more. Perhaps one lesson to be learned from PFI is that while the NHS has always tried to scrimp and save and to build smaller hospitals, lots of PFI hospitals are big. This is about getting it right the first time round—we shall not know whether we have done so for another 25 years, but we need to consider the matter.
Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that if her constituents were given the choice between having their operations next week in a private hospital, but paid for by the NHS free at the point of delivery, and waiting for nine months for the health service to do it, the vast majority would opt for the former?
Ms Drown: That is right. Some people in Swindon have used private hospitals and I have heard good reports of them. It should not always have to happen, but we need to be flexible. What matters to me is to deliver the best possible health care for my constituents, and if that means some of them going to the Ridgeway hospital, that is a good thing. We must not confuse the issues.
I mentioned the belief that a PFI scheme has to be paid for by staff savings and the fact that, for its new scheme, Swindon had to spend 14 per cent. of its income on capital charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will know that work by the unit on the Wakefield scheme has shown that the public
334WH
sector option there will cost 13 per cent. That is higher than four of the PFI projects in the table. Where is the balance? We have to make sure that the right arguments are advanced.
The Committee was right to say that it is not inevitable that a PFI project will lead to a bed reduction. When I was working on this, I had a student attached to me—a Hansard scholar—who surveyed all chief executives and asked them to tell him their concerns about PFI, the benefits and the disadvantages. He received a good response and I thank the chief executives for that. Not one responded with a worry about beds, which had been a matter of concern to the Committee. One mentioned a real frustration about the huge confusion over PFI and the fact that people thought that it would lead to a reduction in beds. We have moved on a long way with the beds inquiry and I am pleased to see the Government's undertaking to be clear about bed n umbers in future. We need to make sure that the debate is clear—the message from the survey of chief executives was that bed numbers should be agreed before we go on to the next stage.
I should like to pick up the point about the MRI scanners and staff savings. The issue was not put before the Committee as evidence of things that happen. It was simply used to illustrate that it is important for the NHS to accept that sometimes spending more on capital items and less on staff can deliver a better service. Unless that point is understood, we shall not be able to explain why sometimes building a bigger structure or having a private finance scheme that is bigger than a conventionally procured scheme might be better. It might be, for example, that in Swindon we get the right departments next to each other, whereas if we just stayed on site we would have 10 years of disruption and all the departments in the wrong places. That could be a gain. It could mean that we can deliver services with fewer staff. Having fewer staff might sound like a bad thing, but it could be a good thing if it meant better services for patients. That is why it is crucial to the debate.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, University College, London is not the only unit providing analysis. Our report quoted the office of health economics. We want to get good analysis both from UCL and from elsewhere.
Finally, with regard to who wrote the report, it was leaked that I wrote the paragraphs and we have heard double-conspiracy theories. I am happy to say that I wrote them. The paragraphs concerned criticism of the Government. Would the Government really produce criticisms of themselves and put them into a report? Let us have more balance and look for a way forward that addresses the real concerns that surround PFI—the things that we have to watch. We should not let arguments that do not stand up stay with us. We were right as a Committee to address them and to say that they are wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. I remind the four Members who are standing that, as I indicated earlier, I shall be asking the Opposition spokesmen to start summing up just before a quarter to 5. I leave the hon. Gentlemen to do the arithmetic: you have half an hour between you.
4.15 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: It is a great pleasure to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on his excellent presentation, and I strongly agree with him, although I might have gone rather further. Perhaps his moderate tone reflects the fact that he is taking a consensual approach and speaking on behalf of the Committee. He is a fine and strong defender of the NHS and he is concerned about its long-term future, as I am.
Before saying anything specific, I should note that I am associated with two health service trade unions—the GMB and Unison—but I am speaking on behalf of my constituents and myself.
In a previous debate on this issue I said that PFI was irrational nonsense, and nothing that I have heard or read since has changed my view. Indeed, I would go further and say it is dangerous, and I shall return to that. A Unison pamphlet published when the Conservatives introduced PFI—let us not forget that it was a Conservative idea—suggested that it was the beginning of the creeping privatisation of the NHS, and that huge sums would be taken out of the health service to satisfy the whims of private capital. I can see no argument against that view. Indeed, the financial press suggests that £30 billion in profit is to be made from the public services when privatisation really gets going. That money will have to come from somewhere, and it will come from the public purse.
We can see from the example of the USA the direction in which we are going. Health provision there is essentially private, and it consumes about twice the proportion of GDP that the British health service does. Yet it does not provide for all its citizens, and millions of Americans have no health care. The USA has a bloated, inefficient privatised health sector, and we are in danger of going in that direction.
Mr. Burns: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman developing his argument, but is he seriously suggesting that the Government are moving towards privatising the health service?
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Before I call Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, I should remind him that any interventions will take up some of his seven and a half minutes.
Mr. Hopkins: Indeed, Mr. Olner. I am trying both to be as generous as possible and to ensure that points are covered.
The answer to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is that I am suggesting that we shall move towards privatisation of the health service if the Government full-bloodedly pursue PFI, but I hope that they will not. In their defence, I should say that the Chancellor made the strong and principled point that at the point of need, health care will be paid for out of the public purse. That is an absolute principle. We are talking about privatising not the payment for health services but their provision; that is what I am deeply concerned about. Privatised provision will cost a lot more because the private sector will require a large return on its services. The more it provides, the more profit we will have to fund and the more it will cost the
336WH
public purse. I suggest that the private sector is looking to public services as a milch cow, to replace manufacturing, in which profit returns are not as great as they were. Public services are the future, and privatisation is seen as the way forward.
Let me give an example. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) may want to intervene on me here, but I gather from press reports that the hospital in Swindon cost £98 million to build and will require payments of £12 million a year for 30 years. At the same time, £74 million of Government money has had to be lobbed in to boost the project. Vast sums are therefore already being spent on hospitals.
A PFI hospital unit is being built in my constituency. The choice was either no extra unit or PFI, so the authorities took PFI. I am sure that it will be a fine building, but it will undoubtedly cost more. It has also taken a vast amount of management resources and trust capacity to get it built, and it costs much more than it would in the public sector.
Ms Drown: Despite the figures that are floated, some of the extra money that my hon. Friend said had been lobbed in was for equipment. It was decided that the new equipment would be better funded by the public sector; I would have thought that he would support that.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but I suggest that what I have described will happen in time. Hospitals cannot be allowed to fail, so the Government and the public sector always bear the risk, and it cannot be transferred. Hospitals will say that they need extra money for more equipment and so on. Indeed, I suspect that as time goes by, hospitals will demand more and more money from the public sector—from the trusts and other bodies.
The real problem—I have cut a large portion of my speech to make this point, Mr. Olner—is that the Treasury does not want more public borrowing. It does not want the public sector borrowing requirement to rise. It wants to keep the PSBR low, and to achieve that it has to find the money elsewhere—from the private sector. However, public borrowing is extremely cheap. It has never been cheaper. Long-term interest rates are very low; they have fallen below those on the continent of Europe for the first time in ages. The Government have the scope to borrow on the long-term markets at an almost zero rate of interest.
Jim Dowd: Where would the Government get the money? Does anyone in the private sector make money out of Government borrowing?
Mr. Hopkins: I have many friends in the City, and they tell me that the City is gagging to lend money to the Government. They want more gilt-edged investments.
Jim Dowd: So they are making money?
Mr. Hopkins: The private sector is making money, but it wants to lend to the Government because Governments do not become bankrupt. Governments are a low-risk investment, and a long-term, genuine and

337WH
guaranteed return can be made. The City has a shortage of Government borrowing. The problem is that the Treasury is trying to keep the PSBR down for other political reasons, but I shall not speculate on those.
If the Government wished to, they could borrow the money and build in the traditional way in the public sector more cheaply, which would save the public purse vast amounts of money. That extra money could be used to build more hospitals and provide more facilities, and we could then solve the real problem of British health. which is that we do not spend enough money on it. In Britain we spend 2 or 3 per cent. less on health than is spent in France, 4 or 5 per cent. less than is spent in Germany and probably 6 or 7 per cent. less than is spent by the bloated American private sector.
Our problem is one of resources. If we spent more on health, many of the problems would disappear—especially those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I am completely and wholly unconvinced by the PFI scheme. It is about global mega-politics, and it has nothing to do with the real interests of the people of Britain—either their health or their pockets.
4.23 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), whose passion on this topic I respect. However, I support continuing partnerships between the independent sector in its widest form and the national health service.
I shall highlight one example of positive collaboration between those two sectors that is presently under threat. I welcome the continued scrutiny of public partnerships; the Select Committee has done an excellent job. I want to focus on the Committees first recommendation—independent assessment of the impact on the NHS of the activities of independent providers. I hope that if the Select Committee returns to the subject, it will take account of the impact of clinical research carried out in the independent sector.
I would be delighted if it were to take a look at the Mount Vernon hospital, which serves my constituency. Independent sector research organisations such as the Cancer Research Campaign's Gray cancer institute, the Paul Strickland scanner centre, the Marie Curie research wing, the Linda Jackson Macmillan centre and Sir Michael Sobell house have an extremely positive relationship with the excellent NHS cancer centre on the Mount Vernon site.
Sadly, that joint working across independent sector organisations and the NHS is threatened by the last, dying recommendation made by the NHS eastern region before it was abolished in April. It suggested that the cancer centre at Mount Vernon hospital should be moved off the site at some point. The key reason cited for shifting that excellent centre, and throwing into doubt all its important cancer services and research, was that Mount Vernon lacked a district general hospital. That is a key criterion that is suggested in the 1995 Calman-Hine report as necessary to improve the quality of cancer services.
Why does Mount Vernon not have a district general hospital on site? The key part of such a hospital—full-blown accident and emergency services—was shut in
338WH
1996. That was an appalling decision by the then Government. Many of us knew at the time that it would come back to haunt us and affect the specialist services and the excellent independent sector research on the site.
The Gray laboratory—the key Cancer Research Campaign research site—opened in 1957, and quickly became renowned for its radiobiological research. The Paul Strickland scanner centre opened in 1985, and is another non-profit-making organisation in the independent sector. It facilitates research and provides a range of important services to NHS patients. Also on the site is Sir Michael Sobell house, an independent sector hospice that offers palliative care and helps with specialist support to the NHS cancer centre. The Cancer Research Campaign's tumour biology and radiation therapy group is also based in the cancer centre's research wing. It provides important advice and support to NHS services on the site.
The Gray laboratory has campaigned hard against the proposal made by the NHS eastern region. It highlighted to local people the fact that the region's report made no in-depth analysis of the cost to the Cancer Research Campaign of shifting its facility should the cancer centre move. The laboratory had been involved in a series of clinical initiatives at Mount Vernon with important implications for the NHS and the development of the treatment of cancer, which may be hugely important to us all.
The Mount Vernon cancer network will become a research network next year. In keeping with other such networks, it will receive special funding to support increased involvement in clinical trials. Clearly, its effectiveness would be under threat if the proposal from the NHS eastern region were accepted and implemented.
Concern has been expressed in my constituency since the proposal was made public, and people think that the future of the whole hospital is under threat. I am sure that all hon. Members will understand that. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that there are no plans to close the hospital in its entirety, and that there will now be genuine consultation on the future of the cancer centre on that site, not least in view of its important research links with organisations in the independent sector such as the Cancer Research Campaign.
4.29 pm
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I can assure you, Mr. Olner, that I have thrown away three pages of my speech, and I shall take no more than five minutes.
I shall comment on the suggestion made in some quarters that our report pulls its punches or has in some way been watered down. A couple of inferences of that sort have been made this afternoon, but I do not believe it to be the case. The view seems to have arisen because of the furore surrounding Professor Pollock's evidence, which we have already discussed, and the famous paragraphs 65 to 69. That has led to calls for the withdrawal of parts of the report, accusations of infringement of academic freedom, and much else.
I believe that the true explanation of the fuss lies elsewhere, however—with the Committee's failure to find any robust evidence for the theory that hospitals

339WH
built under private finance initiatives inevitably end up with fewer beds than they should have. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the shortage of beds at his local hospital. In fact, the evidence that we gathered suggested that when hospitals of that generation were being planned, and the theory was at its height, other forces were at work to reduce bed numbers. Those forces have since been reversed, thank goodness. Many people accepted the theory, however, and used it as a strong plank against PFI schemes. To discover that it may not be true causes them difficulties, and bashing the report may be one way in which they can obscure those difficulties.
We heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) about the political debt that he owes personally to some criticisms of PFI. I wonder how much of that debt arises from criticisms about bed numbers in some of the hospitals with which he was involved being affected by PFI. There is little evidence for that theory.
Our investigation was serious and asked searching and important questions about the current and potential role of private sector organisations, finance and medicine in the national health service. Let us consider how different news organisations chose to emphasise different aspects of the report on its publication. The BBC "Today" programme focused on the dual role of consultants in the NHS and the private sector. BBC television and the Financial Times highlighted the fact that paying for patients to have private care to cut waiting lists might not represent value for money. The Bath Chronicle emphasised our call for more openness about NHS-private links, especially the need for information about contract prices. The Evening Standard emphasised our worry about the long-term effects of the concordat on the NHS. The Independent and the Daily Mail said that MPs were warning against seeking a quick cure, emphasising that short-term help involving the private sector must not prevent the NHS from developing more capacity in the long term. The Morning Star said, "Health watchdog airs doubts about value of PFI", while The Times and the Bristol Evening Post focused on our conclusion that PFI did not reduce bed numbers.
Lots of topics, and the two chapters on LIFT and pathology services, were hardly mentioned. Only The Guardian, and later The Daily Telegraph, concentrated on the strange tale of how the Chair of our Committee
"was blocked in his attempts to criticise the Government for using the private sector to build and run NHS services."
It is a great pity that the press focused on that story, as it suppressed many of the good things in the report.
The report contains several criticisms of the Government's involvement with the private sector, almost all of them signed up to by the Committee without votes needing to be taken. The Committee made 32 recommendations, of which the Government fully accept 14 and reject three outright. Of the remaining 15, they say that they partially accept our view, or are already doing, or plan to do, something similar to our recommendation. Although monitoring must be carried out to ensure that some of the partially or conditionally accepted recommendations become
340WH
reality, I do not consider that a bad score. I hope that our Committee will play a part in ensuring that those actions are taken, and I shall listen for further assurances from the Minister.
4.34 pm
Jim Dowd: I have a few more moments than I was expecting, but I promise not to misuse them. First, I am delighted to speak on the report that the Committee of which I am privileged and pleased to be a member has presented today. The report is unanimous, although it is obvious, to paraphrase George Orwell, that some parts are more unanimous than others.
We took on an ambitious remit. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is sadly not here at the moment, said that we investigated private health care, but we did not. The report's title is deliberately specific—it refers to the role of the private sector in the national health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), who was admirably succinct, summed up the generality of the report. The issues surrounding PFI and a couple of paragraphs in that commentary have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention, which has detracted to some degree, although I hope not lastingly, from the body of work that we have put before the House.
The role of the private sector in the NHS, despite what others may say, is, as the report sets out, as old as the service itself. I felt that my colleagues on the Committee and I were taking part in a serious analysis of certain private sector activities relating to health care provision. We did not examine, for example, the private sector's role in running the acute sector and the provision of services, drugs or pharmaceuticals, or the other support services that it provides to one of our premier national public services. The report is not definitive in terms of the private sector's entire role, but we considered those areas in which private sector involvement has grown and changed in recent times.
I am forgetting my manners. I must congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), on the almost universal good humour with which he managed sessions that were sometimes very tendentious and contentious. 1 also pay tribute to the assiduous work of the Committee staff who supported us.
The PFI has attracted the most concern, although what the Committee suggests is what everybody really knows in their bones—PFI is not an entity, but a process that can be well or badly managed. One of our recommendations relates to the need to maintain a consistent corpus of management skill and to ensure its availability to all those who are embarking on PFI processes in the health service and elsewhere. PFI is not simply restricted to health service capital provision.
One of the reasons that I brought such enthusiasm to the inquiry is that, during my years on Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority and something called Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority (teaching), I saw a lot of public money being simply thrown down the drain because of how traditional capital projects were managed in the NHS. I will not bore the Chamber with stories of Guy's

341WH
phase 3, as I am sure the Minister is well aware of it. That scheme is 300 per cent. over budget and still unfinished many years after it was supposed to be.
There are other stories from our part of south London, including that of the Jubilee line extension, which was £1.5 billion over budget and two years late. I am fairly sure that had it not been for the imperative of the dome—good or ill, however one judges it—the project would probably not he finished yet. Billions more of public money would simply have been wasted.
I am happy to argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) about comparative marginal interest rates on borrowing, but I am not prepared to borrow money at 6 per cent. and just pour it down the drain. I want to ensure that that public money is spent to best public effect. All public services are fundamentally an alliance between three parties: the producers, the users—patients in the health service example—and the taxpayers. In our examination, we took evidence equally and representatively from all three, but it is often more difficult to estimate where the interests of that last group, the taxpayers who pay for the service, best lie.
I would like a different public procurement system that protects the interests of taxpayers in a way that has not happened previously and which is not so prone to incompetence and waste. Of the many PFI matters that the report assesses, the most difficult to calculate is the value of intangibles such as risk transfer, value for money and long-term facilities management. Nearly all those who have spoken in the debate, and others like them, have said, in effect, "There is a PFI hospital in my constituency. I don't like or want it, but if it weren't for that, we wouldn't have a new hospital at all." There is a calculation to bear in mind: what price does one put on giving treatment to people on the one hand, and denying it to them on the other? [Interruption.] I see you signalling to me, Mr. Olner.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): One last go.
Mr. Dowd: I shall move on to my semi-last point.
Our recommendation on pay beds, which is extremely mild, clearly so confused the Department that it managed to respond out of order in the document, putting (d) before (c). There is more that we can do on that. If we have private health care provision on NHS premises and buy in private health care on the ground that there is spare capacity in other parts of the health care community, we really should consider how to rationalise those things.
One of the issues that complicates PFI is the unfolding policies of NHS Estates. I draw attention to a recent decision that all new schemes must include 50 per cent. individual rooms. I say to the Minister that that will cause havoc in the next waves of PFI and the broader capital programme as well as in recalculating the number of beds that are affordable in the short term and, more particularly, in the long term. There will be questions of primary care trust affordability in the long run. Will he respond on that?
There is plenty more that I could say, Mr. Olner, but you will be pleased to know that I shall not say it.
4.42 pm
Sandra Gidley: As a new member of the Select Committee, this is the first inquiry in which I have been involved. The process has been an eye-opener. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Committee. He had a difficult job, because it was clear from the outset that there is a wide range of opinions on the issue.
Some of us started with a very negative view of PFI, but my opinion has shifted. Although I am still sceptical, I no longer think it the spawn of all evil. Others seemed keen to ignore any negative comments on PFI, so it was a surprise and a delight that the Committee managed to produce a broadly consensual report, even though the process involved a healthy debate on almost every paragraph. Although we have a document that balances those opinions cleverly, sadly it ultimately adds little to the debate in many respects. I shall return to that point.
In effect, the jury is still out on PFI. I cannot talk about the Government response until I have dealt with the thorny matter of the infamous paragraphs 65 to 69, which cover the evidence given by University College, London. I am a new member of the Select Committee, so perhaps I misunderstood what we were supposed to do. I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) that the main function of a Select Committee is to scrutinise, but I am not convinced that we scrutinised properly in this case. I feel strongly that if we do not like the answers given, our job is to probe those answers.
By extension, if the evidence given by that unit was so dreadful, why did we not probe it and challenge it more at the time instead of making a late recommendation in the report? I had problems with that. Although I agree to a certain extent that some evidence given by that unit was not as good as it could have been, other evidence given by other bodies could fall into that category. It is up to us to highlight all the organisations, and not pick on one. We should have made more strenuous efforts to obtain answers at the time.
I do not want to dwell on the point, but the UCL evidence is particularly important because that unit's research underpins many reports and examples in which PFI is shown in a negative light. We are also dealing with perceptions—appearing too critical of the unit and trying to expose weaknesses in the evidence of others.
Ms Drown: Does the hon. Lady accept that we also made pains to criticise the private sector where we did not have enough evidence from it? We examined the Government's arguments and said where they did not add up. I reiterate the point that I made to other hon. Members: if we see something wrong, do we not have to say so, particularly when it has such a big influence on the debate? We must make the right criticisms of Government policy, not the wrong ones, and make them clearly.
Sandra Gidley: I have said that I agree with the hon. Lady's basic premise, and it was incumbent on the Committee to challenge that evidence more robustly and vigorously at the time so our recommendations would not come as a complete surprise when they were published. I would like to move on, because the debate on paragraphs 65 to 69 has overshadowed this wide-ranging and important report, which has been much ignored.

343WH
First, the concordat. In the short term, of course it is expedient to use any spare capacity to reduce waiting lists. After all, that is what the public want. They do not care where they get their operations; they just want to have them. We must be careful, because that is a double-edged sword. We have a resources problem regarding doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The situation is improving, but there is still a problem. Increased use of the private sector inevitably means increased demand for nurses, many of whom currently work on an agency basis in the private sector. Nurses can do only so much, and the private sector is in a much better position to offer incentives to attract nurses from the NHS. The Government must ensure that there is no steady drift of staff from the NHS to the private sector.
Every pound directed to that sector has the potential to weaken the resource pool of the NHS, and I do not think that we have the complete answer to that yet. The signs are that there is a move towards bigger contracts under the concordat, which represents even greater potential for erosion of the NHS. I must ask whether that is what we really want.
The Committee also highlighted concerns about pay beds in NHS hospitals. Some hospitals generate a revenue stream from their pay beds, and they can prove that quite easily. However, that does not seem to be the case for other hospitals. The Government's response indicates that NHS trusts should examine the cost-effectiveness of such beds. We all agree with that. It also says that the first priority is treatment of NHS patients. That could be interpreted as meaning that private patients should wait longer, but it is widely acknowledged that convenience and speed of treatment are key reasons for people choosing private health care. Will the Minister say how that would be monitored? Would there be a report back to the House in due course? Those are all important pointers if we are to obtain an accurate view as to how the private sector truly impacts on the NHS.
I must also raise concerns about the new consultant contract, which does not appear to be as widely loved as the Secretary of State might have led us to believe when he gave evidence to the Committee. I could have this wrong, but I understand that consultants put in the first 48 hours for the NHS and are then free to pursue private sector work while the rest of the world must work to the working time directive. People such as air traffic controllers and lorry drivers have carefully controlled working hours, but we seem to be encouraging consultants to flaunt those good principles in the worst possible way.
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Lady will be interested in yesterday's report that long hours and lack of sleep are major causes of heart attacks, which is especially significant for the health service.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and there are probably statistics that show that consultant is a fairly stressful occupation. Have the Government considered monitoring the hours that consultants work, because there are implications for patient safety?
344WH
Accounting is a complex area and I do not claim to have "Mastermind" knowledge of all the finer points of public sector comparators, value for money and the intricacies of discount rates. I would be surprised if any member of the Committee appeared on "Mastermind" to answer questions on those subjects. It was obvious that witnesses also had serious problems understanding the intricacies of the subject. Despite the professed openness, there is still far too much scope for manipulation of the figures to present a business case. I am an old-fashioned girl and my parents always warned me against buying anything on hire purchase, which, like PFI, provides a quick fix. The problem is 18 years of underfunding. Of course people are delighted to have their new hospitals, but in the long term one will pay more.
One problem with some PFI projects is staffing. Problems are at a minimum where strenuous attempts have been made to retain staff in the NHS and to incorporate them into teams. In Carlisle, more maintenance and cleaning staff were contracted out, which caused a number of problems that have already been alluded to. Existing staff contracted out under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 had different contractual arrangements from new staff, which clearly gave rise to a two-tier system.
The differences are most striking when one considers staff overtime. It was much cheaper for the PFI contractor to use the newer staff, who were on a lower overtime rate, and the net effect was a drop in take-home pay for existing workers. If that situation is allowed to continue, the unions could bring a discrimination case. I hope that the Minister considers that matter closely to allow all those who are effectively working for the NHS to do so on an equitable basis.
Mr Bill Olner (in the Chair): I would be grateful if the hon. Lady concluded in the next minute.
Sandra Gidley: Okay. I was going to talk about training levies, on which I was disappointed by the Government's response, but I shall not do so. I regret that this is the first inquiry that we undertook. Although it was a hot political issue at the time and we made our choice, there was too little evidence for us to produce a hard-hitting, positive report. In hindsight, it would have been useful for the Committee to wait until more evidence was available and firmer conclusions could have been reached. We would have been able to produce a report that, instead of asking for further work to give insight to the answers, would probably have provided more clear-cut conclusions and recommendations.
4.53 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I begin by offering my congratulations and thanks to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on how he conducted and guided us through the inquiry. As a member of a minority—some might say a persecuted minority—I am indebted to the Chairman for the fairness and decency with which he conducts our business to ensure that my minority party gets a fair share of time, in proportion to its representation on the Committee.

345WH
It has been a fascinating experience, listening to the debate and seeing the continuing battles between old and new Labour. If the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had remained as Secretary of State instead of embarking on his ill-fated campaign to become mayor of London, we would probably not have had to conduct the inquiry because the concordat would not have been drawn up in such a way. It has also been fascinating to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). At one point, I was worried that there would be a punch-up between him and his so-called hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd).
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Not under my chairmanship.
Mr. Burns: I apologise, Mr. Olner.
On the other hand, we have new Labour—the new broom that sweeps clean—in the Secretary of State, who has negotiated and developed the concordat with a zeal that I suspect has come as a tremendous surprise to the hon. Member for Wakefield and many other dinosaurs, as I suspect his Whips Office would call them, on the Labour Back Benches. The report states:
"The opening sentence of the Concordat marked a significant shift in Government policy: 'There should be no organisational or ideological barriers to the delivery of high quality healthcare free al the point of delivery to those who need it, when they need it'."
This may come as a surprise, but I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments.
As several hon. Members have said, their constituents, like mine, really do not mind who provides their treatment, as long as it is of the highest quality, as quick as possible and free at the point of use. Whether treatment is given in the private sector or at the local NHS hospital is, to all intents and purposes, and despite the opinion poll of the hon. Member for Luton, North, which I suspect was conducted at the last Unison conference, irrelevant to our constituents, because they have a different priority.
The concordat goes far beyond what anyone on 1 May 1997, let alone during the election campaign leading up to that date, thought that a Labour Government would contemplate doing. One must ask why Labour, having crucified the Conservative Government, who were deeply committed to the principles of the NHS and for ever being accused by the then Opposition of wanting to privatise the health service when they had no intention of doing so, has decided to do what the Conservatives never would have contemplated in a month of Sundays.
In a significant contribution, the hon. Member for Luton, North accused his own Government of potential privatisation of the NHS. It may surprise the Minister, but even I do not accept such a Machiavellian thought process. The hon. Member for Luton, North completely misses the point of the concordat—this is where the Minister and I may start to diverge—which has been created by the Government's near obsession with targets and their desire to meet their 1997 election promise to bring down waiting times. Finding, after 18 months or so in power, that they were having significant problems meeting their political targets, they went for what is, basically, a sensible option: using spare capacity in the private sector for NHS patients to be treated free at the point of use.
346WH
The Government are right to do that. If there is a capacity problem in the NHS, rather than let our constituents suffer by waiting longer, why not use spare capacity through negotiated deals with the private sector, providing that treatment is free at the point of use? That, I understand, is what the Government have done through the concordat.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman, in his attempts to understand the concerns that some of us have about the direction that the Government are taking, reflect on what the Conservative Government did in privatising care of the elderly at a cost, according not to me, but to Mr. William Laing of Laing and Buisson, of at least £10 billion in social security subsidies? As the hon. Gentleman well knows, homes are being closed on profit and loss considerations rather than the interests of old people. That is why one or two of us have slight reservations over private sector involvement.
Mr. Burns: I am genuinely sorry that, due to Health Committee commitments on Monday night, the hon. Gentleman did not have the good fortune to be in the Chamber for the care homes debate. If he had been there to listen to the speeches with great care—I recommend that he read them—he would understand that his analysis is, sadly, off the mark.
I do not think that anyone who cares about the vulnerable, and has an ounce of decency in them, would disagree with the principle adhered to by the Government in the 1980s, which I suspect is also the principle of this Government. Instead of keeping the elderly in long-stay hospitals with a minimal quality of life and dignity, those hospitals should be closed to enable the patients to have an enhanced quality of care, whether in a residential home or in their own home with a domiciliary care package, where relevant.
Just as this Government, because of the shortage in NHS capacity, have had to seek out the private sector and use its spare capacity, at that time, the private sector—in most cases, although not all, as there was some NHS and local authority provision—helped to make up the shortage of capacity and to meet demand. I make no apology for that. It was the only alternative to the grim and in some ways almost Dickensian hospital wards, where sad, frail and vulnerable people had a miserable existence, not even a proper life.
I am grateful that the Government have produced a response in time for this debate. As time is short, I shall allude only briefly to one or two matters. Paragraph 21 of our recommendations says that the Department
"should look at ways of providing further incentives to staff to work for the NHS."
I think that that is crucial, and so do the Government. In their response, they agree with the Committee that
"it is very important that skilled individuals are incentivised to work for the NHS."
That is right and admirable. In elaborating on that response, the Government rightly discuss GP contracts, consultant contracts and important matters such as conditions and terms of employment for health care and other jobs.
I am concerned and surprised, however, that the response does not refer specifically to nurses. I have a concern that I would like the Minister to re-examine. As

347WH
we found out at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, accommodation costs in London and the south-east are causing grave problems for the recruitment and retention of crucial staff in the NHS and other fields. As one measure to try to alleviate that problem, the Government have introduced cost-of?living supplements for nurses. Most home counties have been receiving those from the last financial year, although Essex has received them only from this financial year, which is odd as we adjoin London and have high housing costs. However, I welcome the fact that the Government have rectified that.
Even so, I remain concerned that only nurses of grade C and above are eligible for those supplements. That is a mistake. Many junior nurses who have spent many years working in the health service and who are skilled and highly trained up to their level find it difficult to cope with the cost of living in the south-east. Even so, that rule bars them from receiving the cost-of-living supplement. I hope that the Minister reconsiders and tries to persuade the Treasury to relax the rules.
As time is short, I shall raise two other matters briefly. The first concerns consultants. I wholeheartedly agree with the Government's rejection of the report's recommendation that details of payments for NHS activities made to consultants working in private settings should be published by trust boards. I do not believe that that would take us one iota further in the argument or serve any useful purpose. I am pleased that the Government agree with my assessment and have rejected that proposal.
Secondly, our Chairman is sharp and he does not often have the wool pulled over his eyes, but when the Secretary of State gave evidence during the concluding part of our inquiry he did a marvellous job—I hesitate to say that he used spin—in convincing the Chairman that there is no Government climbdown over the seven-year contract rule. In fact, we now know from the small print that the Government have caved in. Although they may have got what they claim to be concessions to enhance the NHS in other ways, on the central argument that is so close to the Chairman's heart, they gave in, although that was realistic and sensible.
Much has been said about PFI, so I shall be brief. It has been said that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, and I am glad that the Conservative Government have been flattered to the nth degree by this Government, who have embraced, enhanced, expedited and expanded the concept of PFI. It is a pity that I do not have more time to go through lexis nexus, but I would dearly love to know what the hon. Members for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), and perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, said in public statements on PFI before the 1997 general election. I suspect that they thought it an horrendous Conservative party conspiracy.
Ms Drown rose—
Jim Dowd rose—
Mr. Simon Burns: No, no. I suspect that they thought it a conspiracy, in the words of the hon. Member for Luton, North, to privatise the health service.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman is about to conclude.
Mr. Burns: Yes, I am concluding, Mr. Olner.
I reject that accusation, because we were not proposing privatisation. If badly needed hospital facilities can be provided for our constituents more quickly than by going through the labyrinthine and neanderthal rules of the Treasury, that must be examined and, provided that we safeguard taxpayers' interests, embraced.
5.7 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am delighted to respond to what has generally been a good-tempered debate. It is clear to all of us who have listened to the exchanges that these matters have raised substantial and deep divisions of opinion throughout the House over the relationship between the private sector and the national health service.
I agree with everything that has been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has done an exceptionally good job in chairing the Select Committee and continues to do so. He has produced a report that makes a useful contribution to the debate and has taken it a significant step forward.
I shall respond briefly to some of the many points raised by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, confining the closing section of my comments to the report and the Government's response to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield spoke eloquently and articulately about the relationship between the private sector and the NHS, making points about the PFI process and how he feels that it is skewed in favour of PFI rather than the public sector.
All members of the Select Committee are aware that that is not the view of the National Audit Office, which has examined many PFI schemes, including at least one in the NHS, and has reported that the risk figures have not been manipulated. It would be a huge mistake, and it is certainly not the Government's intention, to torture the PFI data until it confesses. That would not take the debate any further.
We must have an open and transparent debate. In our response, we set out a number of ways to improve that transparency, and it is important to the NHS and to the House that we have a rational debate on PFI. At least one of my hon. Friends convinced me that we have not yet made sufficient progress in that respect.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. He will recall that I referred specifically to comments made subsequent to our taking evidence from Mr. Coleman, which were reported in the Financial Times. Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to study those comments? They were quite strong on the public sector comparator.
Mr. Hutton: It came as a surprise when my hon. Friend cited those remarks. That is not the view of the NAO, which reported on PFI and, especially, on the public sector comparator, which was the basis of my hon. Friend's observations. The NAO has produced a number reports on the public sector comparator and the

349WH
value for money aspects of PFI, and it confirms that PH produces value for money. I am sure that there is an explanation, and I would be interested to hear Mr. Coleman's.
Ms Drown: The point is not that PFI always gives value for money, which is what my right hon. Friend is hinting at. Each case must be assessed on its own merits. The Committee recommends that more public sector capital is needed, so that we can genuinely compare one with the other rather than worry that people are trying to fix the statistics. That is crucial. I would be grateful if he responded to that point. I understand that the NAO report on the Dartford and Gravesham hospital says that the scheme was skewed—it was rather overestimated—but that it nevertheless provided value for money.
Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in relation to Dartford and Gravesham. The NAO report shows that it would produce savings of about £5 million for the taxpayer.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) is not with us. He is concerned that PFI does not produce savings for the taxpayer and therefore for the NHS, and he favours an exclusive reliance on public sector capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) comprehensively debunked that argument, and I do not want to re-enter that territory. When it is clearly shown that PFI provides value for money, as in that case, I would expect all members of the Committee to sign up to greater objectivity in the PFI debate.
I am a little disappointed that the critics here today did not refer to the NAO report on the PFI. Our objective work on value for money has produced the result that PFI gives value for money. That result also means, as they say on the terraces, "It's all gone quiet over there." That is not a hallmark of a rational or transparent debate.
Mr. Burns: Is the Minister disappointed? Did he think it disappointing when the hon. Member for Luton, North suggested that if the Government continue with PFI, it will have the effect of the Government privatising the health service?
Mr. Hutton: I cannot say that I was surprised.
Mr. Burns: Disappointed?
Mr. Hutton: I was certainly disappointed. My hon. Friend has a substantial record of opposition to PFI, as do other of my hon. Friends. I have no problem with that difference of view. Fine; let us have the argument and let us hear the issues. It is certainly a gross caricature to present PFI as the privatisation of the NHS. I do not and would not subscribe to my hon. Friend's views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) told us how people reacted to the Committee's report. No one could say, having read it, that it does not pose hard and difficult questions on Government policy. That is the Committee's job, and we would be surprised if it had done anything less.
350WH
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and the members of the Committee, as the report is a significant step forward.
The hon. Member for Basildon—
Jim Dowd: Southend.
Mr. Hutton: Of course, he has moved to Southend. I apologise to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). That was genuinely not a deliberate slight; I have Basildon in my notes. Whenever we see him, we think of Basildon, and that will take some time to change, although not as long as it took him to move from Basildon. However, we do not want to go into that.
The hon. Gentleman likes to live in the past on the issues. He spent most of his time talking about what happened between 1997 and 1999. Fair dos. He is at liberty to approach the subject in that way, and I understand why he would prefer to live in the past. In those days, the Tories said that they would get elected and win general elections, but those days are over. My hon. Friends made pertinent comments in response to his speech. He and his colleagues must ask themselves why such an electoral calamity befell the Conservative party. In no small part, it was due to the Conservatives' record on NHS management. With respect—I do respect him—I have never heard him allude to that in his speeches on the NHS since 1997, which is a conspicuous omission.
The hon. Gentleman referred, as did many of my hon. Friends, to the new consultants' contract that we have successfully negotiated with the British Medical Association. Most Labour Members got the strong sense that he and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) would have liked the negotiations to fail, so that there would be a row. They would have much preferred that outcome.
Mr. Burns: For the benefit of the debate, the Minister should not try to put words that we have never uttered into our mouths.
Mr. Hutton: Oh dear, there is some sensitivity there, and that is a strange observation to make. The hon. Gentleman talked about the new contract deterring new consultants from joining the NHS, but that is certainly not the view of the BMA, which warmly and strongly endorses it. It is a good deal for the NHS and for patients. Many hon. Members referred to the fact that there was give and take in the negotiations. Of course there was; they were negotiations. The contract will ensure that we have the opportunity to make the maximum use of the skills and talents of new consultants who join the NHS.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred to the working time directive. She needs to have a look at it, because she does not understand how it works in relation to the 48-hour maximum week. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to her.
The hon. Member for Southend, West referred to Southend hospital. I am delighted that he is doing a shift—
Mr. Amess: At 6.50 am.
Mr. Hutton: Indeed. It is fantastic that the hon. Gentleman is shadowing nurses. Southend has a great hospital. My mother and two of my sisters worked for long periods there.

351WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke about the problems in his constituency, which he, I and everyone else know about. I will be happy if he wants to discuss the issue of capacity with me in more detail, and to bring a delegation down from Carlisle. I am grateful for the support that he has shown for the staff of the hospital in Carlisle. He is an eloquent champion of his constituency.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) mentioned bed definitions. In this place one has to be accountable for all sorts of weird and wonderful subjects, and I am happy to enter into correspondence on that if he would find it helpful. We always try to be consistent, so that we are all clear about what is and is not counted. That is important in the evidence that we provide to members of the Select Committee. If the Committee itself has any concerns on the subject, we stand ready to help it.
I agreed with virtually everything that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said. Perhaps that is no surprise to her, but she made a good speech. I was especially impressed by her approach to PFI. She described herself as a critic of and cynic about the benefits of PFI, and has considered the arguments with an open mind, which is important.
I do not want to say much about my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North because he is not here to respond to my remarks, and he would not like them. On the basis of his remarks, I do not think that he understands the PFI process. He made one comment about PFI partners being able simply to hike up the instalments. That is completely untrue. They are fixed at the beginning and cannot be changed other than by agreement. He completely misunderstands the process, as do other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Romsey and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. They turn a blind eye when it suits them to inconvenient evidence about value for money and PFI, and that does not advance the debate.
I welcomed the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and his support for our partnership work with the private sector in improving health services. He asked me specifically about the future of Mount Vernon. There are no plans to close Mount Vernon hospital and I hope that that is of comfort to him. He will be aware that Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority is reviewing the provision of acute services in that area, including the cancer services provided at Mount Vernon. The strategic health authority is to prepare a short list of options in a discussion paper to be published in the autumn, and more formal public consultation will take place early next year. The strategic health authority is committed to engaging the public in that consultation process, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to take part in it
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West made a number of telling points. I agree with his overall view of the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was right to emphasise the importance of good management in the PFI process. As we tried to make clear in our response to the Select Committee's report, we are taking action within the Department and
352WH
across the NHS to strengthen the management of PFI. There is always a risk in such projects—they are major capital projects. It might be transferred to the private sector through this process, but the NHS still has a critical role to play in ensuring that PFI delivers what we want—new hospitals, on time, providing the right environment in which to treat patients. He was right, and so was the Select Committee, to identify that we have a problem with project management expertise in the NHS. With every PFI project we reinvent the wheel. That is not good. Several such schemes are now in place, and we are beginning to put together a considerable amount of expertise in managing PFI. We must not squander it.
On pay beds, my hon. Friend and many other hon Members have referred to recommendation (c) in the Select Committee report. I hope that he and others are satisfied with the Government's response. He also mentioned the ratio of single beds in new hospital schemes. The figure that he quoted—50 per cent.—is for guidance; it is not compulsory. It is important to increase the number of single beds because that is a practical and tangible way of enhancing privacy and dignity. We have had a lot of debate about the relationship of the NHS with the private sector. I would like more NHS hospitals to resemble in quality and standard the private hospitals that we are using for the benefit of the NHS. That is our ambition.
Jim Dowd: I accept that we should aspire to those standards. However, the fear is that we shall merely see beds being replaced with new beds, rather than with the perfect model of what should go there. In Lewisham, for example, the scheme might founder on this, yet it would mean that we could get rid of old Nightingale wards dating back to the 19th century and mixed sex wards. The balance needs to be made in the round.
Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of common sense. We should all like to build utopia tomorrow in the NHS, but that is not possible. We need to approach the task of re-equipping the NHS with new hospitals for the current century in a sensible way. We should like to do all sorts of things and we must continue to push for them—increasing the ratio of single beds in new hospitals is an important long-term project.
The hon. Member for Romsey said that the jury was still out on PFI. I know that that is the view of many here, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, and I have every respect for that view. I genuinely look forward to the time when I get letters from Liberal Democrat Members urging me not to proceed with PFI hospitals in their constituencies because they think that the jury is still out. I have a fairly strong suspicion that I shall not receive such letters soon.
The hon. Lady also expressed concern about staff drifting away from the national health service. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that assertion. In fact, the NHS now has more doctors, nurses, therapists, cooks, cleaners and porters than it has ever had. In particular, there are now 31,500 more nurses working in the NHS than in 1997. I agree that there are still pressures in the system. For example, historically, in London and the south-east, there has been high use of agency staff, which we need to reduce, but that is the aim

353WH
of the NHS professionals scheme. To hold out the spectre of staff drifting away is not a sensible contribution to the debate because it simply is not happening.
In talking about nurses, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford mentioned the need to create incentives for good performance, and he was anxious that nurses should not be left out of the process of pay modernisation. We are reviewing the contracts of GPs and modernising consultants' contracts. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the agenda for change negotiations, which started with non-pay review body staff, but also with nurses back in 1999, have now moved on to detailed negotiations about all these issues. The hon. Member for Romsey asked about equal pay for work of equal value. That will be a fundamental building platform for the agenda for change negotiations. We do not want to leave nurses out of the programme of pay modernisation.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful for that answer, but what about cost-of-living supplements and grade C nurses?
Mr. Hutton: I apologise. I did make a note of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but in my hurry to move on to what is now clearly not a deliverable speech, I overlooked that question.
We introduced cost-of-living supplements two years ago specifically to deal with growing labour market issues and high cost-of-living problems predominantly in London and the south-east. Cost-of-living and premium pay issues must be dealt with as part of the new agenda for change negotiations and discussions with NHS trade unions. I imagine that cost-of-living supplements will form part of the negotiations on the new pay structure for the NHS. It will be some time before the new system is introduced, and we will want to keep a close eye on cost-of-living supplements between now and then to examine the case for extending them to a wider group of staff. However, such decisions must focus on difficulties relating to recruitment and retention. If the hon. Member for West Chelmsford wants to raise with me his concerns about grade C nurses in his constituency, I shall be happy to discuss the matter with him.
354WH
I do not want to repeat arguments that have already been made about the future of our relationship with the private sector, but I shall deal with some more specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was concerned about whether reference costs provide a sufficient measure of value for money in the NHS. We accept that they do not, and we have tried to set out in our report several ways in which we can strengthen reference cost data. However, as we tried to emphasise in our response, they provide helpful management information. We have set out at least three ways in which we can make improvements. The NHS costings manual has been revised. Reference costs have been considered in relation to the district audit process, and there is now a new verification process.
My hon. Friend also referred to the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the Committee. He set out four essential tests that we apply to each prospective partnership in the NHS and private sector. Is it in the interests of patients? Is it consistent with the local and national strategies of the NHS? Is it value for money? Is it consistent with public sector values, including that treatment is determined by clinical need and staff are treated fairly? Those are the yardsticks by which we will judge and develop our relationship with the private sector. Provided that those tests are satisfied, we should use the private and voluntary sector where it has a track record of achievement or where it can offer clear potential gains. In its report, the Committee has done something very important, in making it clear—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West—that the question is not whether the NHS should have a relationship with the independent sector but on what terms that relationship should be conducted and what the benefits are for NHS patients in terms of fast, high-quality treatment and value for money. Those are issues of joint concern for the Committee and the Government.
Of course the public sector has a well-established ability to provide many services to high standards. That has never been at issue, but it does not have sole expertise—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for wind farms have been granted since 1997. [66376]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not maintain a register of all approved wind farm projects, and approval is usually a matter for local determination. From the information available to us, which may not be complete, we are aware of 67 locally-granted approvals for wind farms since 1997. In addition, approvals for two wind farms over 50MW declared net capacity have been given centrally in accordance with section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for wind farms have been granted in(a) Workington and (b) the United Kingdom. [66377]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department does not maintain a register of all approved wind farm projects, and approval is usually a matter for local determination. From the information available to us, which may not be complete, we are aware of four approvals for wind farms in or near Workington, and 129 for wind farms in the United Kingdom. The UK figure includes two approvals given by central Government, in accordance with section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, for wind farms over 50MW declared net capacity.

  Aerospace
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to assist the aerospace industry. [66378]

  Alan Johnson
  This Government have a track record of providing significant support to this important sector. For example, we have committed nearly £1 billion in launch investment support over the past five years for major new airframe and aero-engine programmes.

  In addition, support for civil aircraft research and technology currently runs at about £20 million a year. And, as large investors in R&D, aerospace companies will benefit from the recently announced tax credit scheme for larger firms.

  We are working closely with other Government Departments on how best to address a wide range of problems faced by the UK aerospace industry. For the longer-term, this embraces a wide range of complex, cross-cutting policy issues—for example, support for research and technology, launch investment, export financing arrangements and defence procurement matters. For the nearer term, we are looking at how to make the
  1082W
  most of our generic supports for productivity and competitiveness and the way they are deployed in the regions.

  To help with this process, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced on 16 May the formation of the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team, lead by Sir Richard Evans. This will enable key stakeholders to work together to produce a shared vision and strategy for the future success of the industry. I expect Sir Richard and his team to report by the end of March 2003. This will enable an informed debate to take place followed by an agreed action plan to take the industry forward.

  Shopworkers
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on employment protection for shopworkers. [66379]

  Alan Johnson
  In general, protection applies to shopworkers as it does to workers in other sectors of the labour market. For example, if any employer tries to change an employee's terms and conditions of contract without their consent, or dismisses the employee for no good reason, the employee may be able to make a claim. For historical reasons, there is specific additional protection for shopworkers in England and Wales who do not wish to work on Sundays.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications there have been for her Department's PV grants. [66380]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Up to the end of June there have been 23 applications under the small-scale individual stream. 17 of these have been approved, including that of the hon Member for Blaby. The first system was installed on a house in Dover in June.

  For medium and large-scale installations, the first of our quarterly calls for proposals closed at the end of June. This attracted 15 proposals for grants of around £2 million, representing some 450kW of new capacity. These proposals are currently being assessed and we expect to announce the outcome around the end of July.

  Postal Services
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have closed since 1997; and what representations she has received regarding the future of the sub-post office network. [66381]

  Ms Hewitt
  Post Office Limited has advised me that the number of net closure of post offices since end March 1997 is 1,667. I receive representations on the future of the post office network from numerous sources. The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of rural postal services. [66388]

  Ms Hewitt
  Rural postal services are safeguarded by the universal postal service obligation which the government laid down in primary legislation in the Postal
  1083W
  Services Act 2000. The legislation says that the obligation consists of a service provided at an affordable price determined by a public tariff uniform throughout the UK and includes the delivery each working day to the home or premises of every individual in the UK and a collection each working day from access points. Under the Act it is the Postal Services Commission's (known as Postcomm) primary duty to ensure the provision of a universal postal service and it currently requires Consignia, in the licence, to provide the universal postal service.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which post offices in the Portsmouth, South constituency Consignia is planning to close; and if she will make a statement. [67554]

  Ms Hewitt
  The programme to restructure the urban post office network has not yet started and I am advised by Post Office Limited that, until it does, there are no specific plans for post office closures in the Portsmouth South constituency. When the programme starts it will be taken forward in consultation with individual subpostmasters, the community, local stakeholders and Postwatch. Under the Code of Practice, Post Office Limited is required to consult Postwatch on individual changes and is briefing it on the process envisaged for reaching decisions.

  The objective of the urban network restructuring programme is to provide modernised and improved facilities which meet customers' needs and expectations and are in the right location for the local community.

  Unincorporated Businesses (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of her Department's policies on unincorporated businesses in Hertfordshire. [66382]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service provides, through the business Link network, advice, support and regulatory guidance to all types of small businesses.

  Business Link Hertfordshire offer a broad range of provision to meet a very broad range of business needs. Last year the Business Link dealt with over 7,000 different businesses.

  The SBS is working to: minimise the burdens imposed on small businesses by red tape: and make sure that the interests of small firms are properly considered, by encouraging every part of Government to 'Think Small First' when introducing new regulations.

  Technology Transfer
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage technology transfer from academic institutions to industry. [66383]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's two White Papers, "Excellence and Opportunity", published in July 2000, and "Opportunity for All", published in February 2001, set out our science and innovation policy for the 21st century, and include a comprehensive range of measures to help promote technology and knowledge transfer between academia and industry. We are making excellent progress in this area.
  1084W
  We are considering, as part of the Government's spending review, how to further develop these initiatives to build on universities' potential as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy.

  Small Business Seminar
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the Small Business Seminar. [66385]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service was set up in April 2000.

  Latest figures show that Business Links assisted 244,685 businesses during 2001–02.

  In addition, Business Links have helped 18,163, new businesses to start-up.

  In 2001–02 SBS spent over £154 million in BL programme expenditure—money spent in direct support of SMEs—not running costs—and over £164 million in 2002–03.

  The SBS Annual Report 2002 will he published later this month, before the summer recess.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to monitor progress on the payment of coal health claims. [66386]

  Mr. Wilson
  I chair the Coal Health Ministerial Monitoring Group which monitors progress, on a national and regional basis. All parties involved in the process attend these meetings.

  In addition, there are regional monitoring groups in Scotland, Wales and England, which all report to the national group. In England I have recently established five regional sub-groups which are North East, Midlands/ Lancashire, South/South East, Notts/Derby and Yorkshire.

  A report on progress is issued monthly and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Updates are also available on the Coal Health website.

  Community Development Financial Institutions
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make a feasibility of community development financial institutions. [66387]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Small Business Service is currently supporting 41 community development finance institutions through its Phoenix Fund. These CDFIs are receiving almost £20 million of support over the next 2 years.

  A number of the CDFIs supported are researching new and innovative ways of providing last resort finance to disadvantaged communities.

  The Phoenix Fund has also been instrumental in supporting the formation of a trade association for CDFIs, the Community Development Finance Association. This organisation will help to disseminate best practice throughout the sector.
  1085W
  A community investment tax credit that will encourage the private sector to invest money into the community finance sector was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year's budget.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to assist manufacturing industry. [66390]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's Strategy for Manufacturing, published on 16 May this year, sets a strategic framework for working in partnership with key stakeholders to help manufacturing companies fulfil their potential in the UK by moving up the value chain to high-skilled, knowledge intensive operations. The strategy identifies seven pillars with objectives and actions for Government and industry to develop:

  Macro-economic stability

  Investment

  Innovation

  Best practice

  Raising skills and education levels

  Modern infrastructure

  The right market framework.

  It has been warmly received by manufacturers and trade unions.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role her Department plays in cases where companies with manufacturing plant in several EU countries, when rationalising their capacity, choose to close their plant in the United Kingdom. [66395]

  Alan Johnson
  It is always a cause of great regret when there are closures by any company operating in the UK. Where appropriate, the Department and its partners establish contact with the companies and see if there are ways of retaining the investment. This may include ministerial involvement.

  However, when a company does announce plans to close, the Department's appropriate sector directorate will work closely with local and other partners, notably the Employment Service and relevant RDA, to manage the effects of the disinvestments and to look at employment opportunities for existing staff, and at re-training packages.

  The network will also look at alternative uses for the site/plant or for a buyer. Invest-UK will ensure that Overseas Posts are aware of the situation to enable them to market the site/plant to overseas companies.

  Small Business
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to increase investment in basic skills in small firms. [66392]
  1086W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government are committed to raising the level of adult literacy and numeracy in the workforce and has identified this as a priority area. This will help small businesses. The Government's 'Skills for Life' strategy will:provide free, high quality, training and advice on basic skills for all small employers
  train workplace basic skills brokers who will put businesses in touch with local basic skills training providers. 447 brokers have so far been trained.
  recruit employer champions, all with a proven basic skills track record in their sector, to help fellow businesses.

  The Government are also helping small firms with:
  the Union Learning Fund, which has enabled Union Learning Representatives to promote basic skills training within the workplace.
  Learndirect, the online learning and information service, which offers free courses to learners on the foundations of reading, writing and numbers.
  the six Employer Training Pilots announced in the budget, which will test out a range of approaches to increasing training levels and enable employees to attain basic and level 2 skills.

  27. Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on encouraging employment in the small business sector. [66399]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) today.

  Broadband
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage take-up of broadband. [66394]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that broadband services have an important role to play in increasing the competitiveness of the UK economy. Ministers have therefore taken several opportunities to promote the benefits of broadband, including by supporting the Demand: Broadband campaign run by the Communications Workers Union.

  The UK Online Annual Report 2001 sets out the Government's broadband strategy. "To stimulate demand for current broadband content and applications the Government will:

  "—work with the broadband supply industry to facilitate an industry-wide collaborative campaign to promote the benefits of broadband and give impartial advice on the different technological options available.

  "—provide more encouragement to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to adopt e-commerce solutions. The DTI are now expanding the £66 million UK online for business programme to:

  "—provide more effective advice to businesses on the introduction and setting up of e-business solutions, with particular emphasis on the benefits of broadband; and

  "—introduce a web-based guide to broadband availability for SMEs and a network of demonstrators of practical applications".
  1087W
  We have also established a £30 million fund to help the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and devolved administrations develop innovative schemes to extend broadband networks. Using this fund, some of the RDAs and devolved administrations are carrying forward work which demonstrates the benefits of broadband.

  Since the beginning of 2002, ADSL prices have fallen by 22 per cent. Take-up is now over 600,000 and rising by 20,000 new subscribers per week. Around 66 per cent. of the population are able to access affordable broadband technologies, and increased take-up strengthens the case for further roll-out.

  Nuclear Industry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public expenditure on matters relating to the nuclear industry there has been since 1 May 1997; and what estimate she has made of future identified public liabilities in respect of existing activities. [66396]

  Mr. Wilson
  Public expenditure on matters related to the nuclear industry in this period related primarily to the activities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and BNFL. Regulation of the industry and the activities of UK Government Departments and the devolved Administrations with policy or other responsibilities relevant to the industry also necessarily involve public expenditure. However, precise information on the total expenditure involved in each of the years in question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For UKAEA, funding was provided in the form of grant and grant in aid to support fusion research and to discharge nuclear liabilities arising from past programmes. The sums provided in each year were as follows:

  £ million

  Grant, and grant in aid

  1997–98

  199.1

  1998–99

  302.6

  1999–2000

  212.1

  2000–01

  241.2

  2001–02

  311.9

  BNFL is classified as a public corporation by the Office of National Statistics. Its expenditure and income is recorded in the public sector in the national accounts and so it contributes to the statistics that monitor the Chancellor's fiscal rules. BNFL's total gross expenditure in the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 as reported in "Public Bodies" was as follows:

  £ million

  Total gross expenditure

  1997–98

  1,733

  1998–99

  2,056

  1999–2000

  2,968

  2000–01

  2,694

  The equivalent information for 2001/02 is not yet available.

  At 31 March 2002 the total undiscounted cost of dealing with the nuclear liabilities of BNFL and UKAEA was estimated to be £47.9 billion. The White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy for Action" published on 4 July set out the Government's proposals for establishing—a new Liabilities Management Authority
  1088W
  with a specific remit to ensure that these liabilities are dealt with safely, securely, cost-effectively and in ways which protect the environment.

  Sustainable Development
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote the sustainable development of the UK's poorest trading partners. [66398]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's key objectives for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August include: poverty eradication through sustainable development; promoting the integration of environmental issues into nationally owned poverty reduction strategies; working for sustainable prosperity by using resources more efficiently; and enhancing access to sustainable energy.

  In addition, we will use WSSD to reaffirm the EU's commitment to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) so as to add momentum to the negotiations in the WTO. These include negotiations to provide substantial improvements in market access for developing countries; to reduce, with a view to phasing out, all forms of agricultural export subsidies; and to make substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic agricultural support.

  Massey Ferguson (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance she has provided to keep the Massey Ferguson tractor plant in Coventry open. [66400]

  Alan Johnson
  Over a number of years Massey Ferguson has been aware of the Government programmes, such as Regional Selective Assistance, for which it has been eligible to apply. Its last application for Regional Selective Assistance was in 1988 and the final payment of the £750,000 grant was made in January 1994.

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the conclusions reached by Andersen in their commissioned role as joint reporting accountants and assessors of BNFL's finances; when the reports were first delivered to her Department; and if she will make a statement. [67641]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: No. Andersen's findings were delivered to the Department and BNFL in a number of presentations and reports during the time they carried out the work from August 2000 to September 2001. The work is commercially confidential.

  Arms Exports
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for International Development regarding arms export licence grants to(a) India and (b) Pakistan since December 2001. [65444]
  1089W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Internal discussion on export licence issues are exempt from disclosure under Part II, Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  GATS
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the GATS consultation process will include publication of the text of the requests made(a) by and (b) of the EU. [67595]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. We do intend to publish a consultative document this autumn that seeks views on the requests that have been made of the EC and member states, to the extent that these affect the United Kingdom. And a summary of the EC's requests to other WTO members has already been put on the DTI and European Commission websites http://www.dti.gov.uk/worldtrade/service.htm and http:// europa.eu.int/comm/trade/services/gats_sum.htm. But we will not be publishing the texts of the requests.

  It is important for coherence that the European Commission and member states operate on the same basis. Commissioner Lamy has indicated in a recent reply to an open letter from a number of civil society organisations, "It is my aim to be as transparent as possible with all stakeholders, but an appropriate balance must be struck between transparency and our ability to negotiate in an atmosphere conducive to frank and open discussions. I believe that an appropriate balance has been struck and that there are ample opportunities for all interested parties to provide meaningful input if they so desire." (The full text of this letter can be found at http:// europa.eu.int/comm/trade/services/plreply.htm.)

  We must also respect the confidentiality that other WTO members require of us in relation to their own requests of the EC and member states.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in the GATS negotiations, a country may reverse the commitment at any stage after committing a service sector to be liberalised under GATS; and if she will make a statement. [67594]

  Ms Hewitt
  Any WTO member may modify or withdraw any liberalisation commitment it has listed in its GATS schedule of commitments, in accordance with the time limits and other provisions of Articles XXI and X of the Agreement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the GATS consultation process will include consideration of its impact on development; and if she will make a statement. [67592]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's consultation on the GATS negotiations will primarily concern the requests which the European Community will receive from other trading partners and the potential economic and legislative impact on the United Kingdom from meeting such requests. However, we have frequently said that we fully recognise the importance of the development dimension to these negotiations and will certainly cover this in our consultation.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what negotiating requests the EU is making of other countries and trading blocs in the GATS 1090W
  negotiations; if the development effects are considered before requests are made; and if the record of that consideration is publicly available. [67599]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on 8 July 2002,Official Report, columns 671–72W.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she plans to meet the Local Government Association to discuss GATE; and if she will make a statement. [67593]

  Ms Hewitt
  My officials are already in contact with the Local Government Association over a meeting to discuss the GATS negotiations and are currently awaiting their confirmation of a mutually convenient date. However, on 8 May the Local Government Information Bureau did attend a meeting of the Trade Policy Consultative Forum chaired by my right hon. noble Friend, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, the focus of which was the GATS negotiations. The LGA were invited to that meeting also, but were unable to attend.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed by her Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60922]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Public Companies
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on securing independent non-executive directors for quoted public companies; and if she will make a statement. [68248]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, together with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has asked Derek Higgs to conduct an independent review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors, including the issue of independence.

  Derek Higgs issued a consultation document in early June and he is expected to produce his report around the turn of the year.

  Accounting Standards
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on accounting standards and compliance where a multi-national holding company is registered in a low compliance country and its shares are quoted on the London Stock Exchange; and if she will make a statement. [68251]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  Accountancy standards requirements for foreign-registered companies whose shares are listed on the London Stock Exchange's main market are governed by the Listings Rules administered by the UK Listings Authority.

  These rules require compliance with UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice), US GAAP or the accountancy standards of the state where the company

  1091W
  is incorporated. However, the UKLA can require International Accounting Standards to be applied if it is not content that the home state accountancy standards in place are sufficient to protect investors' interests.

  Slightly different rules apply to non-listed securities.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for UK accounting standards when international harmonisation occurs. [65608]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: On 7 June 2002 The Council of Ministers gave final approval to a Regulation that will require all UK companies listed on a regulated market in the EU to prepare their consolidated accounts, from 2005, on the basis of the accounting standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The Regulation will apply directly to companies and does not need to be implemented by national legislation.

  The Department will be publishing a consultation document in the next few months.

  Export Credits (Iran)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to pre-revolutionary debt owed by Iran to the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department,(a) what the total sum owed was, (b) how much has been paid back by Iran and (c) how much has been written off as a consequence of the accord signed with Iran this year broken down by (i) sector and (ii) public sector; and if she will make a statement. [67309]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are not able to disclose precise details of debt settlements such as this one. To do so could prejudice ongoing negotiations ECGD is currently having or intends to have in the future with similarly indebted countries.

  World Trade
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 687W, on world trade, if she will make it her policy to make a specific assessment of the annual cost of TRIPS to developing countries. [67770]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have no plans to make such an assessment.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of her Department set out in the document 'Public Services for the Future 1998' have been met; and if she will make a statement. [68708]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: Of the Public Service Agreement targets referred to in the 1998 Public Services for the Future document, the majority (75 per cent.) have been met or are on course to be met. Detailed information on all the targets can be found in Chapter One of the Department's Expenditure Plans Report for 2002–03 to 2003–04 (Cm 5416), copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Small Firms (Basic Skills)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to increase investment in basic skills among small firms. [66375]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government are committed to raising the level of adult literacy and numeracy in the work force and has identified this as a priority area. This will help small businesses. The Government's 'Skills for Life' strategy will:provide free, high quality, training and advice on basic skills for all small employers;
  train workplace basic skills brokers who will put businesses in touch with local basic skills training providers. 447 brokers have so far been trained;
  recruit employer champions, all with a proven basic skills track record in their sector, to help fellow businesses.

  The Government are also helping small firms with:
  the Union Learning Fund, which has enabled union learning representatives to promote basic skills training within the workplace;
  Learndirect, the online learning and information service, which offers free courses to learners on the foundations of reading, writing and numbers;
  the six employer training pilots announced in the budget, which will test out a range of approaches to increasing training levels and enable employees to attain basic and level 2 skills.

  Carlton House Terrace
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding is given to organisations to meet the cost of property in Carlton House Terrace. [63486]

  Ms Hewitt
  The only organisation occupying premises in Carlton House Terrace that is funded by this Department is the Royal Society. The Royal Society's grant in aid for 2002–03 is £29 million, and includes a contribution towards administration and premises.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66190]

  Ms Hewitt
  The use of 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to my Department is determined by the individual business requirements. Currently my Department makes minimal use of such numbers.

  The chief executives of the Department's agencies will reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Textile Exports
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what figures she collates on support to textile exporters offered by other EU countries on(a) a per capita basis and (b) based on the volume of textile exports from each country. [60771]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Fitted Furniture
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about the Kitchen Specialists Association, the Furniture Industry Research Association and the self-regulatory fitted kitchen organisation Qualitas; if her Department has oversight of the operations of these organisations; and if she will make a statement. [66833]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce legislation to provide further statutory protection for consumers purchasing fitted kitchens and other fitted furniture. [66834]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Consumers already have the right to seek damages where a service has not been carried out with reasonable skill and care. Further remedies, including repair and replacement, will be available when the regulations covering the Sale of Consumer Goods Directive (1999/44/EC) are transposed.

  The Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001 also give effective powers to consumer protection bodies to clamp down firmly on traders who do not comply with a wide range of legislation, including regulations on the sale and supply of consumer goods. The regulations empower the Director General of Fair Trading, trading standards departments and certain other bodies to apply to the courts for a Stop Now Order to stop a trader from breaching specified legislation where those breaches put consumers generally at risk of actual or potential harm. Failure to comply with a Stop Now Order would be treated as contempt of court punishable by fines or even imprisonment.

  Oxford to Cambridge Technology Arc
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage innovation along the Oxford to Cambridge Technology Arc. [66370]

  Ms Hewitt
  This Government are actively pursuing a policy for sustainable economic growth and increased productivity that is driven by innovation. We have charged the regional development agencies with taking this forward. The east of England and south-east England RDAs and local economic partnerships commissioned an economic study of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc that reported in October 2001. These bodies are represented on a steering group that is developing strategies as recommended by the study and addressing themes such as: branding, skills, and land and property issues.

  I am confident that the actions of the Steering Group will encourage innovation along the Oxford to Cambridge Technology Arc.

  World Trade Organisation (Doha)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people attended the WTO meeting in Doha in November 2001 from(a) her Department and (b) other UK Government Departments; and what the total cost of the visit was. [662161
  1094W
  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade and I attended the fourth WTO Doha Ministerial Conference in November 2001 for the Department of Trade and Industry. We were supported by 10 DTI officials.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was present on behalf of the Department for International Development supported by three MID officials.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment represented the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with three officials from that Department.

  In addition, five Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were present, and one each from HM Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions. In total, four Ministers and 22 officials attended.

  Three NGO representatives (from the CBI, TUC and OXFAM—on behalf of the Trade Network) also attended as part of the official UK delegation.

  The total cost of the visit was £156,500.

  Trade Rule
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what volume of correspondence her Department has received since October 2001 regarding international trade rules and their effect on developing countries. [64602]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has received 601 such letters and approximately 24,000 postcards since October 2001 concerning international trade rules and their effect on developing countries.

  Imported Energy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of UK energy is imported; and what proposals she has to reduce dependence on imported energy. [68186]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK was a net exporter of energy in 2001. The UK exported 1151/2 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) of oil and imported 77 mtoe. At the same time, gas exports were 12 mtoe while imports were 21/2 more. The UK was a net importer of coal of 23 mtoe (exporting 1/2 mtoe and importing 231/2 mtoe) and a small net importer of electricity in 2001.

  Overall, our gross exports were 128 mtoe and gross imports were 104 mtoe. These gross imports equated to 42 per cent. of the UK's total energy consumption.

  There are no plans to limit the import of fuels. The consultation leading to the White Paper is considering all aspects of energy policy including the impact of the UK becoming a greater importer of fuels.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if she will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60461]
  1095W
  Ms Hewitt
  Information on the Department's targets and priorities—including those in its Public Service and Service Delivery Agreements (both available on the Department's website)—and on how the Department is working towards them is contained in its annual Expenditure Plans Report, the next edition of which is to be published later this month covering 2002 to 2003–04. The targets are monitored as appropriate by the Department's Executive Board and Group Management Boards.

  The performance of the Department's Executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are set out in the individual NDPB's annual reports, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House (the first annual reports by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council and the Consumer Council for Postal Services will be available in the Libraries of the House in the summer). Key performance targets are agreed by the Department and achievement against them is monitored by the relevant sponsor directorate within the Department. Ministers are currently considering with the nine regional development agencies a range of new targets for their single budget which will be finalised with the agencies later this year.

  I have asked the chief executives of the Department's agencies to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Tony Wright, dated 11 July 2002:

  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 24 May to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking for the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004. You also asked, for each target, (a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an executive agency of the DTI.

  My Agency is currently required to meet the following targets:

  (i) To bring 75% of single Employment Tribunal cases to a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt.

  (ii) Each office to achieve a minimum of 65% in relation to the above target.

  (iii) To issue 85% of Employment Tribunal decisions within 4 weeks of the final hearing.

  (iv) To achieve 85% of Employment Tribunal users being satisfied with the service offered by the ETS.

  (v) To have 90% of appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal registered for a preliminary hearing ready for listing within six weeks.

  All of the above targets are approved by DTI Ministers following consideration at a meeting of the ETS Steering Board.

  Performance against all of the above targets is monitored by the ETS Management Board, by the Internal Auditors of the Department of Trade and Industry, by the ETS Audit Committee, by the Steering Board, by the National Audit Office and by Ministers.

  After agreement with Ministers, the targets are set out in the ETS Annual Report and Accounts. This report is laid before Parliament before the summer recess, prior to publication by the Stationery Office and electronically on the ETS website www.ets.gov.uk.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Tony Wright, dated 11 July 2002:

  I am replying to this Parliamentary Question, tabled on 24 May 2002, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, about the performance targets of the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from
  1096W
  those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004. You also asked for details about who sets the targets and who monitors the performance against them.

  The Patent Office is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the national framework of intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trade marks and copyright).

  The agency targets are set by the Minister, Melanie Johnson and are published in the Patent Office Corporate Plan, and Annual Report and Accounts. The agency targets for 2002–03 were announced by the Secretary of State in Parliament on Wednesday 20 March 2002 (Hansard reference column: 365W). The performance against these targets are checked by internal audit and I am accountable to the Minister for the performance of the Patent Office.

  Customer Service Standards have been set by the Patent Office and are published in the Annual Report and on our website. The performance against these standards are monitored monthly and reported to our Steering Board.

  The Patent Office provides secretariat support for the new Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (IPAC). The role of this committee is to give the Minister and officials advice on identifying strategic issues within the intellectual property arena. Their first Annual Report is due to be published in the Autumn.

  Letter from Mike Goddard to Mr. Tony Wright, dated 11 July 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your Question concerning performance targets for my Agency, excluding those set out in Public Service Agreements.

  The Agency has a series of annual published quality of service targets, covering our licensing and enforcement activities, and correspondence. The targets are prepared as part of the Agency's Corporate plan, are endorsed by our Steering Board, and are approved by Ministers. They are announced formally by PQ, and those for the current financial year were announced on 26 March 2002 and recorded in columns 809–10W of the House of Commons Official Report.

  Performance is monitored by the Department and our Steering Board. It is reported in our Annual Report and Accounts, which are audited by the National Audit Office, and in the Expenditure Plans Report produced by the Department.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Tony Wright, dated I I July 2002:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question about Departmental performance targets on behalf of Companies House, which is Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  The targets for Companies House are agreed and set by Ministers. announced in Parliament by means of a Parliamentary Question, and published in the Companies House Business Plan. As Chief Executive, I am accountable to the Minister responsible for Companies House (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets, Melanie Johnson, M.P.). Companies House's performance against the targets is monitored by the DTI and published in our Annual Report and Accounts.

  The current targets are listed in the attached Annex and I hope that this will provide you with the information you require.

  Companies House Executive Agency—Targets 2002–03

  Operational Targets

  To process 99% of statutory documents within 5 days of receipt at Companies House.

  To achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95%.

  To ensure that 96% of all forms submitted to Companies House are captured error free.

  To ensure that 98% of all images placed on the Companies House image system are error free.

  1097W
  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive

  The Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.

  Customer Service and Complaints Handling

  To ensure that products and services on Companies House Direct are available for 98% of the time between the supported hours of 7am and 8pm, Monday to Friday.

  To ensure that products and services on the Companies House website are available for 98% of the time between the supported hours of 7am and 8pm, Monday to Friday.

  To achieve a score of more than 80% in each quarterly Companies House Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  To clear up 90% of complaints within five days.

  Financial Targets

  To maintain a unit cost reduction of 3% in real terms on documentation registration.

  To achieve, taking one year with another, a 6% average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets.

  To pay all bills due within 30 days, or other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice whichever is later.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Tony Wright, dated 11 July 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the performance targets that the Agency is required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and to specify for each target (a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it.

  Each year DTI Ministers approve a corporate plan submitted by the Chief Executive of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. The plan includes a basket of performance targets that cover operational. financial and efficiency issues. Ministers publicise their approval by means of an arranged Parliamentary Question. The Agency is required to report performance against the targets in the Annual Report and Accounts presented each year to Parliament. In year monitoring is the responsibility of the Agency and the Finance and Resource Management Directorate of DTI.

  The performance targets for 2001–02 were subject to a PQ on 18 July 2001 and performance against those targets will be published in the 2001–02 Annual Report and Accounts in the next couple of months. A list of targets is attached at Annex A.

  The corporate plan and performance targets for 2002–03 are currently being considered by DTI Ministers.

  Summary of Ministerial Targets—2001–02

  To report a break-even situation in the Income and Expenditure Account for 2001–02.

  To meet the Agency's net vote target in 2001–02.

  To contribute to continuous efficiency improvement by ensuring that total overhead costs are less than 55% of total costs.

  To satisfy all its customers as demonstrated by at least 95% of them rating NWML's provision of services as satisfactory or better.

  To meet the expectations of its customers by completing at least 90% of European type approvals within 10 weeks.

  1098W

  To complete European type approvals within an average of 6 weeks.

  To complete calibration jobs within the time requested by customers, with at least 95% of all jobs (including preparation of certificates) completed within 18 working days of acceptance of the work and an average completion time of less than 14 days.

  To complete the National Measurement System (NMS) legal metrology programme, and achieve 72% of the milestones in the programme by their due dates.

  To achieve continuous growth in its non-DTI income, with an increase of 7.5% in 2001–02.

  Chief Executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Civil Service
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister what plans she has to encourage more flexible working in the civil service to enable more women to reach the top grades. [66404]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department is working with the Cabinet Office to increase the availability of flexible working at senior levels, including tackling the design of senior posts.

  The civil service continues to make progress on increasing the numbers of women at senior levels. In the top 600 posts, the proportion of women has increased from 12.7 per cent. in 1998 to 21.2 per cent. in October 2001. In the senior civil service as a whole, the proportion has increased from 17.6 per cent. to 25.3 per cent. over the same period.

  Flexible Working
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Minister what analysis she has undertaken of the business benefits of flexible working. [66405]

  David Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Women what analysis she has undertaken of the business benefits of flexible working. [66402]

  Ms Hewitt
  Surveys carried out when drawing up the Green Paper on work and parents (published December 2000) showed that most employers identified benefits from flexible working. We have since continued to compile extensive case study evidence which demonstrate that employers can see real business benefits by implementing flexible working patterns. Our campaign is based on what shrewd employers are already doing, because of their own business needs.

  Management Training
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister what guidance she gives to public authorities on training women for managerial positions. [66407]

  Ms Hewitt
  While it is not my role to offer such guidance to public authorities, I do of course continue to work with others to ensure that women are encouraged to train for managerial positions and progress to senior and managerial positions in our public authorities. The Centre
  1099W
  for Management and Policy Studies, which is at the heart of Government, offers a number of courses which specifically targets the personal development of women.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on progress in reducing the gender pay gap in the financial services sector. [66408]

  Ms Hewitt
  The pay gap between men and women currently stands at 18 per cent, down from 20 per cent. in 1997. In the financial services sector, the gap has reduced from 30 per cent. to 29 per cent. over the same time period. The Government are taking a number of steps to reduce the pay gap further. As well as the introduction of the National Minimum Wage and the provisions in the Employment Bill, the Fair Pay Champions and Castle Awards, are helping to spread good practice on equal pay. All Government Departments are committed to carrying out a pay review by March 2003.

  Affordable Child Care
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister what action she is taking to improve access to affordable child care for working women. [66409]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is committed through its National Childcare Strategy to ensuring that accessible, affordable and quality childcare is available in every neighbourhood. There has been a substantial expansion in childcare nationwide and with a wide range of providers, ensuring real choice for parents. 497,000 new childcare places have been created since 1997, benefiting over 906,000 children and on track to meeting the Government's target of creating new places for 1.6 million children by 2004.

  Regional Assembly Elections
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Minister what representations she is making to ensure the involvement of women in proposed elected regional assemblies. [66410]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 allows political parties to use positive measures, in certain circumstances, when selecting candidates to stand for existing UK elections.

  We are keen for political parties to make full use of this legislation, and I will continue to press for them to do so. We stated in the regional government white paper, 'Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions', that we propose to apply the provisions of the Act to elections for regional assemblies.

PRIME MINISTER

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff have been employed at No. 10 Downing Street in each year from 1979–80 to 2002–03, broken down by Department; what the total annual staff cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [66295]
  1100W
  The Prime Minister
  The total staff costs for No. 10 Downing Street from 1997 are as follows:

  1997–98: £4.1 million

  1998–99: £4.9 million

  1999–2000: £5.9 million

  2000–01: £6.9 million.

  At 1 April 1998, there were 121 members of staff and at 1 April 2002 there were 190 staff on the No. 10 payroll.

  Staff numbers and costs before these dates are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell to accept the invitation of Sir Nigel Wicks to appear before his committee to give evidence. [68852]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's position on these invitations is as set out in a letter of 5 July 2002 from the Secretary of the Cabinet to the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Timber Procurement
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the outcome of his investigations into the concerns raised by Greenpeace on timber procurement in respect of the 22 Whitehall project. [69780]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am today placing a copy of the Cabinet Office's report on the issue of timber procurement for the 22 Whitehall project in the Libraries of the House.

  The report shows that timber for the 22 Whitehall project was not procured in line with the Government's policy of seeking to procure timber from legal and sustainable sources. This has led to the procurement of sapele timber, for which there is no independent certification of sustainability available, from forests in Central Africa.

  The report also sets out a number of actions that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of Government Commerce will be taking to improve the Government's adherence to the policy on timber procurement. The Cabinet Office is also taking a number of steps to improve its own domestic position on timber procurement.

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for her interest in the issue of timber procurement. The specific case of the 22 Whitehall project has highlighted a significant level of confusion associated with the terminology used in connection with the specification of timber in contracts. This clearly has implications across Government Departments as employers of contractors, and among contractors themselves. The actions set out in the report published today reflect the importance the Government attaches to improving its position on the issue of timber procurement. The Government

  1101W
  will also carefully consider any recommendations emerging from the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry on the Government's role in promoting the use of timber from sustainable sources.

  Departmental Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of waste produced in his Department was(a) recycled, (b) composted and (c) re-used, broken down into (i) paper, (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans and (iv) other in each year since 1997; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65702]

  Mr. Alexander
  Figures for the proportion of waste recycled for the period September/October 2000 to 31 March 2001 is published in the Third Greening Government Annual Report. Data prior to that period are not available. Figures for 2001–02 will be shown in the first Sustainable Development in Government Questionnaire 2002 (previously Greening Government Annual Report) which is due to be published later this year.

  Figures are not available for the proportion of waste produced that was composted or re-used.

  The Cabinet Office is actively working with both our newly appointed facility management provider as well as with our Agencies to maximise the amount of waste sent for recycling.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in his Department and associated agencies
  1102W
  was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65947]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 3 July 2002, Official Report, columns 384–87W. Figures prior to 1997–98 are not available.

  Since 1 October 2001 over 75 per cent. of the power used across the Cabinet Office's central London estate is being generated from renewable energy sources which are exempt from the climate change levy.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many oral questions he has transferred to other Departments in each of the last 18 months. [65514]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department always makes sure that every question tabled receives an accurate answer by those best placed to provide it. Oral PQs are therefore transferred if it is more appropriate for other Departments to answer and they have agreed. Since June 2001 the figures are:

  July 2001: 1

  October 2001: 7

  November 2001: 8

  January 2002: 4

  February 2002: 7

  March 2002: 7

  April 2002: 0

  May 2002: 7

  July 2002: 1.

TREASURY

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the expected revenues from the North Sea are likely to be for 2002–03 based on an oil price of(a) $10, (b) $15, (c) $25,(d) $30 and(e) $35 a barrel at current US/UK exchange rates; [59398]

  (2) what the expected revenues from the North Sea are likely to be for 2003–04 based on an oil price of (a) $10, (b) $15, (c) $25,(d) $30 and (e) $35 a barrel at exchange rates of £1/$ I.40; [59392]

  (3) what the expected revenues from the North Sea are likely to be for 2002–03 based on an oil price of (a) $10, (b) $15, (c) $25, (d) $30 and (e) %35 a barrel at exchange rates of £1/$1.50; [59400]

  (4) what the expected revenues from the North Sea are likely to be for 2002–03 based on an oil price of (a) $10, (b) $15, (c) $25, (d) $30 and (e) $35 a barrel at exchange rates of £1/$1.40; [59399]

  (5) what the expected revenues from the North Sea are likely to be for 2003–04 based on an oil price of (a) $10, (b) $15, (c) $25, (d) $30 and (e) $35 a barrel at current US/UK exchange rates; [59391]

  (6) what the expected revenues from the North Sea are likely to be for 2003–04 based on an oil price of (a) $10, (b) $15, (c) $25, (d) $30 and (e) $35 a barrel at exchange rates of £1/$1.50. [59393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Revenue is dependent on the price of oil, the exchange rate and the levels of production and expenditure. Decisions on levels of production and expenditure will be taken by companies on the basis of actual and expected prices. A significant and sustained change in oil prices would lead to different levels of production and expenditure. The yield will also be affected by differential movements in gas prices relative to oil. By way of an estimate, at current levels of planned production and expenditure, at an exchange rate of £1/$1.40, a movement in the oil price of $5 could he expected to affect revenue by about £2.2 billion in a full year. At an exchange rate of £1/$1.50, a similar movement would affect revenue by about £2.0 billion in a full year. These estimates assume that gas prices would move broadly in line with the price of oil.

  Gamebirds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) assessment he has made and (b) representations he has received in relation to the valuation rating of gamebird (i) rearing and (ii) premises. [69026]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is the executive agency of the Inland Revenue that is responsible for preparing and maintaining rating lists. It has received representations from a number of bodies including Wales Opponents of Pheasant Shooting and Animal Aid requesting confirmation that specified game farms are assessed for non-domestic rates (NNDR).
  1104W
  The VOA has also been requested by the Game Farmers Association to ensure that their membership and others in the industry are all treated fairly in relation to non domestic rates.

  Game farms have been assessed for NNDR in the 1990. 1995 and 2000 rating lists.

  The Valuation Office Agency has undertaken various initiatives over recent years to identify this class of property and to enter them in the non-domestic rating lists. Where the valuation officer is aware of a property operating as a game farm and it is not assessed for non-domestic rates, then the circumstances are investigated.

  Hearing Aids
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt deaf employees from paying tax on their hearing aids; and if he will make a statement. [68847]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are continuing to remove barriers to work and ensure that disabled people do not face discrimination in the work place. Regulations came into force on 9 July 2002, to ensure that benefits for disabled employees which may be used both in and out of the work place. such as a hearing aid, will not be liable to a tax charge.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the manufacturing sector regarding the climate change levy. [66384]

  John Healey
  1 refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 398.

  Taxation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the number of households facing marginal deduction rates of over 70 per cent. in each year since 1997. [69090]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Historical estimates of the number of households facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 70 per cent. for 1997–98 through to 1999–2000 are contained in the Social Security Departmental Report—The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000–01 to 2001–02. Forward-looking estimates, which include the impact of the tax and benefit changes made in Budgets since 1997, are contained in the Budget 2002 report. Tax and benefit changes made since 1997 have reduced the number of households facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 70 per cent. by around half a million.

  VAT
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent(a) assessment he has made and (b) representations he has received regarding the imposition of VAT on game birds reared for country sports; [69027]
  1105W
  (2) how much VAT has been raised by the sale of shooting rights to operators for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [69028]

  John Healey
  Sales of game birds reared for country sport are zero-rated for VAT. There have been no representations on this subject since the hon. Gentleman tabled a question which was answered on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 851W.

  Estimates of VAT raised from the sale of shooting rights for the last 10 years are not available.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of small businesses that have benefited from the simplification of VAT. [66397]

  Measure

  Estimate

  Registration threshold increased to £55,000.

  Keeps another 4,000 small businesses out of the VAT net.

  Optional flat rate scheme introduced on 25 April 2002.

  Allows approximately 500.000 small firms to cut their compliance costs. 1,400 applications by the end of May and will be extended to a further 200,000 more small firms with turnovers up to £150,000 next April.

  Changes to the annual accounting scheme allowing businesses with a turnover up to £100,000 to join the scheme as soon as they register for VAT.

  About 10,000 businesses are already using the scheme and the changes extend eligibility to another 100,000 businesses.

  The take-up figures for the flat rate and annual accounting schemes are expected to increase later in the year as the changes bed in and the benefits are given wider publicity.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has met its performance target of reducing the yield differential between(a) British and (b) German long-term Government debt; and if he will make a statement. [69089]

  Mr. Boateng
  The differential between yields on UK and German 10-year Government bonds at the start of May 1997 was 1.7 per cent. The Treasury Departmental Report 2002, published in June, reported that this differential had averaged 0.14 per cent. over the year to publication. The differential is currently 0.16 per cent. (8 July 2002).

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether comprehensive departmental resource accounts were fully in place in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [69091]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of the implementation of resource accounting and budgeting, Government Departments prepared resource and pension scheme accounts in parallel with the related appropriation accounts for 1999–2000. These accounts were laid before the House by the Treasury and published by Departments. All were subject to audit and examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Thirty nine of those accounts were laid before the House under the terms of the Exchequer and Audit Departments
  1106W
  John Healey
  It is not possible to give a meaningful estimate for the number of small businesses that have benefited from the many VAT simplification initiatives that have taken place over the years. The table gives estimates for the small businesses VAT simplification measures that were announced in the last Budget.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his definition of(a) domestic and (b) personal care in relation to VAT on home care services. [66148]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 2 July 20021: There is no definition of 'domestic' or 'personal' care in VAT law. In the absence of a definition in law, these terms are given their ordinary everyday meaning. Examples of personal care include bathing, feeding and toileting. Examples of domestic care include cleaning, cooking and shopping.

  Act 1921 by the statutory deadline of 31 January 2001 and the remaining 10, with the agreement of the Treasury and the National Audit Office, were laid by 4 April 2001. Therefore these represent a comprehensive set of accounts for that period.

  Housing Market
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has commissioned into sudden falls in the housing market in parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [68330]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  PISA 2000 Survey
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of I July 2002,Official Report, column 117W, if he will make a statement on the timing of the test in relation to GCSE exams. [67863]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I have been asked to reply.

  In England, the OECD PISA survey was conducted between 1 March 2000 and 14 April 2000, on a date chosen by each participating school. GCSE examinations were held in May and June 2000.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer since the international coalition began freezing ZANU-PF members' assets, what activity has occurred within each of the accounts. [67134]
  1107W
  Ruth Kelly
  European Council Regulation 310/2002 does not allow for the disclosure of details regarding individual accounts and amounts frozen, beyond the information already made available to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on 15 April 2002.

  Actions taken by other Governments in respect of individuals in Zimbabwe are a matter for those Governments. Within the European Union, it is for each member state to ensure that the terms of the regulation are implemented.

  Receptions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) date, (b) purpose and (c) cost of each reception held at No 11 Downing Street since 7 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [66279]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: A list of all receptions held at 11 Downing Street since 7 June 2001 has been placed in the Library.

  The total cost to the Treasury for all official receptions held in the relevant period is £8,453 in 2001 and £6,505 in 2002. There is no cost to the Treasury or public funds for any private reception.

  Contraband
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the value of contraband brought into the UK through(a) canalised, (b) non-canalised ports of entry and (c) in total (i) in sterling and (ii) as a percentage of the total through each of (a)-(c) in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [69018]

  John Healey
  I regret that this information is not available in the format requested but I am able to refer the hon. Member to some sources of information on the subject that he may find of interest.

  The latest information about excise smuggling can be found in the documents "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud and Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" (HM Customs and Excise, November 2001). Details and results of Customs activities to counter other types of contraband smuggling are published in the Customs and Excise Annual Report 2000–01 (March 2002). Copies of all of these documents have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Charities
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a VAT refund scheme for charities; and if he will make a statement. [68877]

  John Healey
  Charities already benefit from a range of special VAT reliefs, but the Government recognise that irrecoverable VAT still represents a problem for some charities.

  While we remain alive to opportunities to modernise and update the VAT system for charities wherever possible, this remains a difficult issue. The 1999 Review of Charity Taxation gave careful consideration to a scheme to refund charities' irrecoverable VAT, but concluded that for reasons of principle and cost this should not he pursued.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which currencies sterling has maintained greatest exchange rate stability since 1997; and how that is measured. [69020]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is no unique measure of exchange rate stability. One possible measure is the co-efficient of variation. Since the start of 1997, of the currencies comprising sterling ERI, the Swiss franc-sterling exchange rate has had the lowest co-efficient of variation.

  Euro
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the five economic tests will include an assessment of the short-term and long-term consequences for public spending and fiscal policy of joining the euro. [69065]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. All relevant economic issues will he dealt with as part of the assessment.

  Poor Nations (Imports)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken, and what progress he has made, towards securing the support of EU Governments for the lifting of barriers to imports from the poorest nations. [69019]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are working closely with our EU partners for a successful resolution of the new WTO 'development' trade round, including the commitments in the Doha Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001 on market access for agricultural and non-agricultural products. And we are strongly encouraging other industrialised countries to follow the EU lead by granting duty and quota-free access to the least developed countries for all exports except arms, and by financing capacity building in developing countries so they can participate fully and effectively in the forthcoming negotiations.

  Cars
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations the Inland Revenue has received about the valuation of cars in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [69457]

  John Healey
  For the purposes of calculating the tax charge on the benefit of a company car, the "price" of the car is based on the UK list price. Information about the number of representations received on this issue is not available.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of unemployment is in each Government office region. [68900]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  1109W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. lain Coleman, dated 11 July 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the unemployment rate in each government office region. I am replying in his absence. (68900)

  The latest available estimates, for the three month period ending April 2002, are given in the attached table. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey and are seasonally adjusted.

  ILO unemployment rate1 by Government office region; February to April 2002, seasonally adjusted

  Per cent.

  Rate

  North-east

  6.9

  North-west

  5.8

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  5.2

  East Midlands

  4.7

  West Midlands

  5.6

  East

  3.6

  London

  6.8

  South-east

  3.7

  South-west

  3.3

  Wales

  5.8

  Scotland

  6.8

  Northern Ireland

  5.7

  United Kingdom

  5.2

  1ILO unemployed people aged 16+ as a percentage of the economically active.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Employment Relations Act 1989 will be reviewed; and if she will make a statement. [68342]

  Ms Hewitt
  The review begins today. Its terms of reference are the following:The Government has reformed the labour market to build a durable and fair basis for constructive employment relations. By a range of measures, the UK labour market is achieving high levels of employment and combining fairness and flexibility.
  In line with commitments made in the 1998 Fairness at Work White Paper, the Government will review the operation of the statutory union recognition and derecognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act 1999. The review will also look at the operation of the other provisions of the Act.
  The review will be carried out by the DTI through full public consultation. The DTI will complete this task to a timetable enabling any legislative recommendations which the review may make to be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament.

  I am placing in the Libraries of the House a Schedule describing the subjects covered in the Act.

TRANSPORT

  A1 Upgrade (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment has been made of the environmental impacts of the forthcoming A1 upgrade in North Yorkshire; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [66318]
  1110W
  (2) what assessment or research has been conducted on the safety benefits of the forthcoming A1 upgrade in North Yorkshire; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [66320]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the impact on businesses and economic development in the (a) northeast and (b) Yorkshire and Humber regions of the forthcoming A1 upgrade in North Yorkshire; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [66317]

  (4) what assessment has been made of the impact on (a) traffic growth, (b) freight volume, (c) car journey numbers, (d) delays and (e) congestion of the forthcoming A1 upgrade in North Yorkshire; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [66316]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Den Foster, dated 11 July 2002:

  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the forthcoming A1 upgrade in North Yorkshire.

  The safety benefits of this scheme were assessed in the A1 Bramham to Barton Road Based Safety Study.

  That Study, and the Scheme Appraisal Report, assessed traffic growth, Light and Heavy Goods Vehicle flows and traffic congestion, together with the environmental impact of the proposal.

  During the study we consulted a wide range of organisations affected by, and having an interest in. the A1 in the North East and Yorkshire and Humber. These included The Regional Development Agencies for the North East and Yorkshire and Humber as well as local councils, freight associations and other transport bodies. The results are reported in the A1 Bramham to Barton Safety Study Problems and Issues Statement.

  I have arranged for copies of all these documents to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  If you require any further information, Alec Briggs in our Leeds Office will be happy to assist you. He can be contacted on 0113 283 6303.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the letter of agreement of 27 June relating to the Government's undertaking to make sufficient funds available to ensure that the amount receivable by Railtrack group by way of consideration in respect of the disposal of the shares in Railtrack Plc on an after tax basis is equal to £500 million. [66545]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002.]The details of this letter, and the contingent liability contained within, are set out in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the non-statutory contingent liability Minute laid before the House of Commons on 27 June.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the credit rating is of the SRA. [66598]
  1111W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: In line with other non-departmental public bodies, the SRA would receive a high credit rating consistent with its statutory role.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications for membership of the board of the SRA were received in response to the most recent advertisements; and when resulting appointments to the board will be announced. [69164]

  Mr. Jamieson
  603 applications have been received for membership of the Board of the Strategic Rail Authority. Appointments will be announced in due course.

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the special purpose vehicles being developed for enhancement works on the railways. [66603]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 9 July 2002, Official Report, column 807W.

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on Network Rail's proposal from(a) the ORR and (b) the SRA. [66544]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed the matter with the ORR and SRA.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) statutory and (b) other powers of the SRA with regard to the control of Network Rail. [68391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The SRA's statutory powers are set out in the Railways Act 1993 and the Transport Act 2000. The SRA will be represented as a member of Network Rail and would have certain special rights as a member (e.g. the right to appoint an SRA non-executive director to the board).

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Technical Adaptation Committee on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents 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. [67756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We do not know of any committee with this name and function.

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he plans to make to his policy on road user charging for inter-urban motorway and trunk roads in response to the prospective opening of the M6 toll road in 2004. [68080]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to introduce inter-urban road user charging, but we shall want to see what lessons can be learned from practical experience 1112W
  with charging schemes, including the national scheme for lorries announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his most recent Budget.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evaluations have been conducted on the efficacy and value-for-money provided by the Driving Standards Agency's schools liaison programme; [68365]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of guidelines and regulations given to the Driving Standards Agency with regard to their schools liaison programme; [68368]

  (3) what Driving Standards Agency expenditure was on their schools liaison programme in each of the past five years; and what financial provision is being made for future development of such programmes; [68362]

  (4) how much was spent (a) per school and (b) per school that actively took part by the Driving Standards Agency on their schools liaison programme in each of the past five years; [683631

  (5) what funding requests his Department is planning for the Driving Standards Agency's schools liaison programme; [683641

  (6) if he will make a statement on the selection procedure for schools to take part in the Driving Standards Agency's schools liaison programme; [68367]

  (7) if he will list the schools that took part in the Driving Standards Agency's schools liaison programme. [68366]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In our road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" we gave the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) an expanded remit to contribute to improvements in road safety for young and novice drivers by establishing, developing and disseminating high standards and best practice in driving and riding on the road. We committed DSA to boosting road safety education in schools by expanding its programme of presentations to schools and colleges. Copies of the "Strategy" are available in House Libraries, and I am arranging for copies of the "Arrive Alive" material to be placed there too.

  The schools programme was recently renamed "Arrive Alive" to reflect the wider target audience that has developed since the scheme was launched in 1996. Driving examiners now visit and make presentations to a wide range of organisations including schools and colleges, the armed forces, agricultural colleges, youth football teams, probation services and young offender units. There is no rigid procedure for DSA selecting schools, colleges or other institutions in which to carry out the presentations. In some cases a local Road Safety Officer will ask DSA to take part in a road safety presentation. In other cases, interest might be generated by a visit to the "Arrive Alive" website.

  Independent research carried out in 1997 by the British Institute of Traffic Education and Research (BITER) concluded that the schools programme had proved effective in promoting key safety messages and in moulding attitudes among potential drivers.
  1113W
  The Department has funded the programme since 2000. Prior to that, DSA obtained funding from private business and from surpluses generated by DSA's non-statutory commercial activity—mostly the sale of books. DSA spent £65,000 in 1997–98, £94,000 in 1998–99 and £25,000 in 1999–2000. In 2000–01 funding by the Department amounted to £250,000 and in 2001–02 to £500,000. We plan to increase funding so that as many young learners and novice drivers as possible can benefit from the important road safety messages that the programme conveys—£750,000 for 2002–03 and £1 million for 2003–04.

  Presentations are delivered to schools, colleges and the other institutions free of charge. Each presentation costs the Agency an average of £74 for the presenter's travel and subsistence.

  In 2001–02, DSA delivered some 2,800 presentations to a number of organisations: A list has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Trams
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tram schemes(a) in operation, giving (i) the Government body responsible for oversight and (ii) the start date of the operation, (b) under appraisal and (c) under construction; and if he will make a statement. [684721

  Mr. Jamieson
  For parts(a) and (b), I refer the hon. Member to my previous replies of 2 July 2002, Official Report, columns 217–18W. There is only one tram scheme currently under construction—the Nottingham Express Transit (NET), which is due to open in November 2003. In addition, there are a further three schemes which are presently being procured: South Hampshire Rapid Transit System (SHRTS); Leeds Supertram; and the three extensions to Manchester Metrolink.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to the status of the Thameslink 2000 project. [68361]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A public inquiry into the project was held between June 2000 and May 2001. The report of the inquiry inspector is under consideration in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend is responsible for deciding Railtrack's consent applications.

  Railways (London)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the London orbital rail routes that(a) have been completed in the last two years, (b) are under construction, giving the expected opening date, and (c) are being considered; and if he will make a statement. 168359]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No new railway lines have been constructed in London in the last two years. Work has already commenced on the extension of the East London line to connect it into the National Rail Network. The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan gives a target completion date of 2006. The SRA is seeking to enhance levels of orbital rail services over existing infrastructure. The Mayor of London's Transport Strategy details a1114W
  number of aspirations for improved orbital rail services, and these are being examined in conjunction with the SRA.

  Rail Services (Overcrowding)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of overcrowding in trains in each year since 1992. [68232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Overcrowding is primarily a problem in London in the morning peak. Overall overcrowding levels fell from 1992 to 1996, rose in 1997, fell in 1998, rose in 1999 and 2000 and are unchanged in 2001.

  In 2001, nearly half a million people travelled by train into London each morning. This is the highest figure since the late 1980s. Despite this growth in use at peak times, overcrowding has decreased on eight out of the 10 London franchises since spring 2001, and the number of operators that have overcrowding levels exceeding the SRA's threshold has fallen from five to four. These four operators all have plans in place to reduce overcrowding.

  Mersey Passenger Transport Authority
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of rail expertise in the Mersey Passenger Transport Authority. [69121]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All Passenger Transport Executives have a range of expertise to enable them to formulate and implement local transport plans and to oversee related transport contracts. They also play a significant role in specifying and monitoring rail performance in their areas.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce numbers of untaxed cars on the road. [69174]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detection of unlicensed vehicles on the public road is carried out by police and traffic wardens, who pass offence reports to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for enforcement action. Last year 800,000 offenders were brought to book, bringing in £110 million in fines, penalties and relicensing revenue.

  This day to day enforcement activity is being supplemented by a number of other measures. Since 1997 a nationwide scheme has been operating to wheel clamp and impound unlicensed vehicles seen on the public road. Over 90,000 vehicles have been clamped since the scheme started. The scheme has been a success and we are investigating the possibility of expansion.

  In addition, we significantly increased the number of joint DVLA/police campaigns against VED evaders last year and these are running at a record level. We also introduced mobile digital camera technology to detect unlicensed moving vehicles. This complements other activities which concentrate more on stationary vehicles.

  DVLA is also working closely with other enforcement agencies in a pilot scheme to target both unlicensed and abandoned vehicles. Operation Cubit is a joint operation between DVLA, the police, fire service and local authorities which removes offending vehicles from the

  1115W
  road immediately. It is proving to be very popular with members of the public with each vehicle being dealt with by the legislation which is appropriate to its condition.

  Another pilot scheme recently proved the feasibility of local authorities using DVLA's powers to wheel clamp and impound unlicensed vehicles. This is now being rolled out to any local authorities that wish to join the scheme.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require the DVLA to introduce(a) on-line and (b) telephone notification of untaxed cars. [69176]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA currently accepts on-line notification of untaxed vehicles. Plans are also in hand to enhance the agency's website to make it even easier for customers to report untaxed vehicles on-line.

  DVLA has also set up a trial telephone hotline notification scheme of untaxed vehicles in Hertfordshire. This started on 26 February 2002. The trial is being carefully monitored and if it proves a success, will be rolled out on a nationwide basis and will he given wide publicity.

  Car Use
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 4 July 2002,Official Report, column 466W, on car use, what the (a) location of and (b) amount spent on each bursary was in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [68759]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In February 2001 we awarded 111 bursaries to 84 local authorities at a cost of £9 million over three years, to employ co-ordinators to support the development of travel plans for schools and places of work. The location and amount claimed by each local authority has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 4 July 2002,Official Report, column 466W, on car use, what assessment he has made of the travel plans presented by the local authorities; and which plans were identified by his Department as examples of best practice. [68758]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although we have carried out research to establish the number of plans being implemented by local authorities, we have not undertaken an evaluation of the individual plans themselves. However, we intend to publish shortly a guide on "Making Travel Plans Work: Lessons from UK Case Studies" together with the research report and the 20 case study summaries on which the guide is based. Two of these case studies are of plans prepared by local authorities, Buckinghamshire county council and Wycombe district. We are about to commission an evaluation of the bursary scheme for local authority travel plan co-ordinators and an evaluation of the programme of free site-specific advice on travel plans.

  London Underground
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistics he collates on the number of people on the London Underground network who(a) manage to get on the first train that arrives from when they step onto the platform, (b) have to let one train go by due to
  1116W
  overcrowding, (c) have to let two trains go by due to overcrowding and (d) have to let three or more trains go by due to overcrowding. [69177]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground. However, I am informed that they do not collect information in the form requested.

  Bus Lanes
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to consult on regulations enabling camera enforcement of bus lanes by local authorities outside London. [69925]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have today published draft regulations for consultation. Copies of the consultation letter and draft regulations will be placed in the Library. The draft regulations place the liability for payment of the penalty charge where a vehicle is driven illegally in a bus lane on the registered keeper, except that where a vehicle is subject to a hire agreement, liability falls upon the person who has hired the vehicle, and where a vehicle is being kept by a motor trader who is not the vehicle's registered keeper, liability falls upon the motor trader.

  During the passage of the Transport Act 2000 we indicated that it was intended, at least initially, that regulations for bus lane enforcement outside London would be made on the basis of driver liability. In preparing the draft regulations, advice was taken from a working party of local authority representatives, and from the independent adjudication services dealing with parking appeals and, in London, bus lane appeals, flowing from local authority enforcement. They made representations that pursuing the driver is not a practical option for civil enforcement of bus lane contraventions. Merit is also seen in having a civil enforcement regime for bus lane contraventions that parallels the well established owner liability regime of decriminalised parking enforcement. Therefore, we decided that the draft regulations would place liability for payment of a penalty charge on the registered keeper, subject to the aforementioned exceptions.

  Signage
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to replace miles with kilometres on traffic signs used to indicate speed limits and distances. [69926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although many drivers are familiar with metric units, it would not be appropriate to fix a date for converting speed limit and distance signs while there is still likely to be a significant proportion of drivers for whom the change could be potentially confusing.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission has taken to promote energy conservation and efficiency within the parliamentary estate since 1997. [65723)
  1117W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  One hundred and ten staff of the House have been given special responsibility for energy conservation and efficiency. They receive monthly data on the energy consumption in their respective parts of the estate and manage housekeeping economy measures—for example. by reporting damaged windows and faulty lamps, and ensuring lights and water heaters are switched off when not in use.

  Some £30,000 has been invested each year in energy saving schemes. Recent examples include lighting occupancy sensors and thermal insulation. A contract has recently been let to replace the main Palace boilers and chillers with modern high efficiency plant over this summer recess and the summer recess of 2003. A combined heat and power plant provides electricity and domestic hot water to the Norman Shaw buildings.

  Portcullis House was specifically designed to be energy efficient. Cooling for the air conditioning is obtained by drawing cold water from a deep aquifer. Heat exchangers recover energy from discharging warm to cool air. The thermal mass of walls, floors and ceilings balances out daily temperature changes. External light shelves reduce the need for daytime artificial lighting.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what the estimated level of energy use on the Parliamentary Estate was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy used is generated from renewable sources; and what plans there are to increase this proportion. [65724]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The energy used on the parliamentary estate in each financial year since 1997 is given in the table. Because the size of the estate has changed in this period the figures are calculated per square metre.

  Kilo Watt hours per sq.m.

  1997–98

  342

  1998–99

  353

  1999–2000

  353

  2000–01

  334

  2000–01

  315

  None of the energy used is generated from renewable sources; this issue was last considered by the Accommodation and Works Committee in November 2000, when it resolved that the situation should continue to be monitored. I have drawn my hon. Friend's question to the attention of the Chairman of that committee.

  Select Committee Specialists
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to review salary rates for Select Committee specialists; and if he will make a statement. [65348]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Salaries are kept under constant review, and a general review of pay for all staff throughout the House up to the grade above that of committee specialists is now under way.
  1118W
  To the best of my knowledge, committees have been able to secure suitably qualified staff to act as committee specialists, and have been content with the quality of their work, though I cannot of course tell whether other good candidates have been deterred from applying for such posts by salaries given in press advertisements.

  The House recently approved the establishment of a review of committee support staff when it debated the Modernisation Committee's report on Select Committees on 14 May. That review is now beginning: I am sure that the review team will consider carefully the issue the hon. Gentleman has raised today.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  DEFRA Stand (Agricultural Shows)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who designed her Department's stand for this year's Countryside and Agricultural Show; and what the cost was of(a) the design work, (b) the production of the stand and (c) the stand excluding staff costs, at the shows. [63195]

  Mr. Morley
  The DEFRA stands being used at this year's agricultural shows were designed and built by two companies. Sabre International Exhibitions and Sasex. In both cases the stands are not new, each having been used at events during 2001. The contracts for this work were awarded following an established process of competitive tendering. While the costs involved are a matter of commercial confidentiality they are in line with commercial rates that Government Departments would expect to pay for stands of this sort.

  EU Management Committee
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for sugar 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. [64890]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Sugar Management Committee normally meets weekly on Thursdays. UK representation depends on the agenda items under discussion. Officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations attend as necessary in accordance with their interests.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committee on application of the Directive on the standardisation and rationalisation of reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment 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. [64885]

  Mr. Meacher
  I regret that I am not yet able to provide this information. I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans she has developed relating to the six and 12-mile inshore fisheries limits in the event that a new derogation is not in place by 31 December. [64380]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]: I welcome the Commission's proposal to renew without any time limitation the current access arrangements for the six and 12-mile limits and their statement that these provisions have reduced fishing pressure in the most biologically-sensitive areas of the sea and provided economic stability for small-scale fishing activity. The proposal would apply from 1 January 2003 and a decision is due to be taken by the Fisheries Council during the course of this year's review of the common fisheries policy. There remains a consensus among member states in favour of renewing the limits.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making in obtaining an EU wide ban on the fishing of bass while they are spawning. [64382]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]: The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas' Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management has recently reported to the European Commission on the status of sea bass in European waters. The Commission will need to consider its response to this report. I will support any effective controls to ensure the sustainability of bass stocks.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards reducing effort by 20 per cent. in those sectors of the UK fishing fleet with the most over-capacity; and if she will make a statement. [69158]

  Mr. Morley
  It has been a departmental target to reduce fishing effort, by 20 per cent. between 1997 and the end of December 2001, in those segments of the UK fishing fleet with the most overcapacity. This target was met by the due date.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 951, on fisheries, which member states regard relative stability as being in the best interests of all EU members. [67316]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Following statements made by Ministers in the Fisheries Council and by officials in Council Working Groups, the following member states have declared that fishing opportunities should continue to be allocated according to the principle of relative stability: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

  Radioactive Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which bodies she(a) has consulted recently and (b) plans to consult in relation to radioactive waste management; and if she will make a statement. [65631]
  1120W
  Mr. Meacher
  We and the devolved Administrations consulted over 1,000 people and organisations, including local authorities, green groups and others during the recent consultation on "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely". I shall write to the hon. Member with further details.

  We will continue to involve these people and organisations as our radioactive waste management programme continues.

  Flood Defence
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which local authorities in England were asked to complete a policy statement to determine whether the authority would be able to meet Government aims and objectives in relation to flood defence; and which of these authorities are considered to be within official flood risk areas. [66687]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: All local authorities in England have been asked to complete a policy statement in line with Government flood defence aims and objectives. With the exception of Brighton and Hove unitary authority1, London borough of Camden and London borough of Islington, all local authorities have some part of their boundary within the area shown on the Environment Agency's 2001 indicative floodplain maps.
  1The area within Brighton and Hove UA boundaries has no main river, therefore, no fluvial floodplain. In addition, the land rises very steeply from the shoreline and is therefore deemed to be a coastal protection (more at risk of erosion and landslides) rather than a flood defence area.

  Sustainable Development
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to raise public awareness about the World summit on Sustainable Development over the next three months. [67078]

  Mr. Meacher
  In DEFRA we are continuing to work with other Government Departments and outside organisations to raise awareness of the World summit on Sustainable Development among both the media and the general public.

  We are currently finalising proposals which not only build on the progress already made, but which also identify areas where we need to focus our resources, not only in the period running up to the event, but also during and immediately after the summit. These proposals include: producing a brochure about the summit which also highlights UK activity on sustainable development, focusing on locally based activities and making further improvements to the Government sustainable development website to enhance the information and networking opportunities it provides. The website can be found at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk

  Johannesburg Summit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what budget has been allocated by her Department to raise awareness on environmental issues linked to the Johannesburg summit. [67077]
  1121W
  Mr. Meacher
  The World summit on Sustainable Development takes place in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September. Many environmental issues relate to the agenda so it is not possible to isolate a specific budget. However, through the Environmental Action Fund we are helping voluntary organisations in England to promote sustainable development. For 2002–03 we have allocated £1.4 million to 25 projects promoting 'biodiversity' and £3.1 million to 58 projects promoting the 'understanding and awareness of sustainable development'. In 2001–02 the Environmental Action Fund supported 115 projects promoting 'sustainable living' to the tune of £4.2 million. In addition, DEFRA supports Environmental Campaigns Ltd and the Energy Saving Trust's Energy Efficiency Campaign, and last financial year provided over £8.2 million (it is not possible to disaggregate a small element of Scottish Executive support for the Energy Saving Trust from this figure) for both. We expect to provide a similar level of support for this financial year.

  One of the aims of the DEFRA Sustainable Development Strategy, 'Foundations for our Future', launched last month, is to raise awareness of sustainable development within staff in DEFRA. £120,000 has been earmarked over this coming year for this.

  Agricultural Forms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce the complexity of forms that have to be filled in by farmers. [67556]

  Mr. Morley
  Many of the forms farmers are required to complete relate to CAP support schemes. These forms are reviewed each year for need and content.

  The Bovine Scheme Literature Project is currently reviewing the three major bovine schemes, Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS), Slaughter Premium Scheme (SPS) and Beef Special Premium Scheme (BSPS), with a view to producing a single form and set of scheme literature, thus reducing the time farmers spend on form filling.

  Wherever possible, forms are pre-printed with information we already hold.

  The Department is currently considering its overall approach to reviewing forms.

  Angling
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a system of bag limits for sports anglers fishing around the UK coast. 167306]

  Mr. Morley
  As I explained to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 60W, limits on the amount of crabs and lobsters that hobby fishermen can take from the sea are being considered as part of the proposed shellfish licensing scheme. The Department is also looking at the possibility of bag limits for other species and I would hope to be able to reach firm conclusions this autumn. Any proposals to introduce bag limits will be the subject of consultation with both commercial and recreational interests.
  1122W
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to introduce a licensing system for the sale of fish and lobsters from inshore waters so as to make it illegal to purchase fish or lobsters from anyone not holding a DEFRA licence; [67304]

  (2) what plans she has to prevent sports fishermen and women selling their catches to the retail and restaurant trade; [67307]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact of sale of fish caught by sports fishermen and women to the retail and restaurant sectors on the viability of the inshore fishing industry in the UK. [67305]

  Mr. Morley
  Under existing fisheries legislation it is only permissible to sell (for profit) fish caught from and landed by vessels which have been licensed by one of the Fisheries Departments in the UK. Sales of fish caught by unlicensed vessels can depress prices for legitimate landings and adversely affect the earnings of licensed fishermen. Steps to prevent unauthorised sales are kept under review and any proposals for additional measures will be the subject of consultation with interested parties.

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what control her Department will have over the chairman of the Parrett Catchment project. [67585]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not have control over the chairman of the Parrett Catchment project.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks will be carried out to assess the success of the Parrett Catchment project. [67586]

  Mr. Morley
  The Parrett Catchment project is a local partnership and as such will not be subject to Government checks. We have welcomed the initiative and continue to encourage the project to analyse proposed options further and to integrate with existing Government sponsored mechanisms such as the Catchment Flood Management Plan.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the exemption for combined heat and power from the climate change levy, as announced by the Chancellor in his Budget, will become operational; and whether the value of the exemption will be realised by the qualifying combined heat and power generator. [67602]

  Mr. Meacher
  The introduction of the full exemption of CHP from the climate change levy is subject to EC State Aid approval. We hope to have this approval by the end of November. Whether the qualifying CHP generator supplements its price by the full value of the levy exemption or the licensed supplier reduces the price he pays by sharing some of it, is a commercial matter. Either way, the effect should be to make the onward sale of good quality CHP electricity more attractive.

  Curry Report
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding the funding and implementation of the Curry report on the future of food and farming; and if she will make a statement. [67088]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: The Government's discussion document 'Sustainable Food and Farming: Working Together' invited views on how to take forward issues identified in the Policy Commission's report on the future of food and farming. Approximately 250 responses have been submitted, supplementing representations made during the extensive process of stakeholder engagement conducted recently. These responses are being analysed and will help inform the construction of a Strategy for Food and Farming in England, to be published this autumn.

  Timber Procurement
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the United Kingdom Government are taking to encourage other EU Governments to adopt timber procurement policies similar to those in place in the United Kingdom in respect of timber sourced legally and sustainably; and if she will make a statement. [68032]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have promoted their timber procurement policy to EU member states and other countries on a number of occasions. The Minister for the Environment gave a speech on implementation of the UK procurement policy, experiences gained and lessons learned on 23 May to an international audience including some EU member states, G8 countries and China. He encouraged them to adopt similar policies. The European Commission was sent a consultation paper on implementation of the policy in the UK to help the Commission prepare for the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade workshop held in Brussels over 22–24 April. The Government's consultation exercise itself was widely publicised and the discussion held on 25 March was attended by stakeholders from across Europe. The policy has been notified to the OECD Steering Group on Green Public Purchasing and in April a Government official gave a presentation on the policy at an international conference on illegal logging held in the USA.

  It is the Government's intention to continue to work closely with other EU member states and the Commission both to further promote the UK timber policy and to share experience gained and lessons learned through implementation. When the next UK consultation exercise is complete and the report we have commissioned from ERM consultants finished we will ensure that the recommendations and actions that follow are widely publicised.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects the European Commission to provide modulation payments to the United Kingdom for the foot and mouth outbreak; [67620]
  1124W
  (2) how much money she expects the European Commission to pay the United Kingdom as a modulation payment for the foot and mouth outbreak. [676211

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Modulation is a mechanism which enables member states of the European Union to redirect a proportion of their CAP direct payments to rural development measures, should they choose to do so. It is not a mechanism through which EU funding is directed for FMD purposes.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Lessons Learned inquiry will publish its report; and if she will make a statement. [700791

  Margaret Beckett
  I understand that the report of Dr. Iain Anderson's foot and mouth disease Lessons Learned inquiry is now expected to be published on Monday 22 July.

  Committee Mandates
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committee for the fisheries and aquaculture sector 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. [68606]

  Mr. Morley
  The Committee usually meets at monthly intervals. The next meeting is scheduled for 23 July. The composition of the UK delegation is decided according to the agenda. Representatives of the Scottish Executive attend whenever the business of the Committee requires it.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committee for Fisheries Products 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. [68570]

  Mr. Morley
  The next meeting of the Committee is provisionally scheduled for 4 October. Outside the summer period it usually meets at monthly intervals. The composition of the UK delegation is decided according to the agenda. Representatives of the Scottish Executive attend whenever the business of the Committee requires it.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector 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. [68571]

  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture was set up to enable the Commission to consult representatives of the EU fishery products and aquaculture industry, and of related interests such as consumers and environmentalists, and to take their views on the drafting and implementation of relevant EU measures. It is not attended by officials.

  Farming Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the statistics that are collected by her Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if she will make a statement. [67096]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: DEFRA produces statistics from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census by parliamentary constituency in England for the following data sets:

  Land use and crops

  Livestock numbers

  Labour force

  Breakdown by total area size bands

  Breakdown by farm type.

  These statistics have been produced for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Copies of the 1999 and 2000 data sets are available in the Library. Statistics for 2001 are available on request and will shortly be deposited in the Library.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what exports of sheepmeat there were to each EU country in each of the last five years. [682701

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The table shows the volume of sheepmeat exported to the EU in each of the last five years.

  UK exports of sheepmeat to the EU 1997–20011

  Tonnes

  country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  France

  76,843

  77,532

  78,085

  70,355

  23,832

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  8,091

  8,193

  8,288

  8,397

  1,681

  Germany

  8,241

  7,522

  6,812

  6,940

  1,241

  Italy

  2,102

  3,866

  4,865

  4,264

  1,153

  Portugal

  3,943

  3,727

  2,965

  2,070

  543

  Spain

  2,238

  2,044

  2,841

  1,378

  232

  Greece

  1,676

  767

  1,277

  978

  1

  Netherlands

  922

  882

  1,006

  1,068

  324

  Irish Republic

  467

  1,302

  597

  566

  883

  Austria

  1,217

  1,078

  755

  659

  27

  Sweden

  68

  165

  350

  236

  38

  Denmark

  131

  255

  278

  93

  40

  Finland

  41

  45

  59

  70

  14

  Total

  105,978

  107,376

  108,178

  97,074

  30,009

  1Product weight. Excludes exports of live sheep.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much sheepmeat has been exported to(a) North America, (b) Europe outside the EU and (c) other areas of the world in each of the last five years. [68087]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The table shows the volume of sheepmeat exported to North America, Europe outside the EU and other areas of the world.
  1126W

  UK exports of sheepmeat 1997–20011

  Tonnes

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North America

  —

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Europe outside the EU

  1,427

  1,176

  969

  1,170

  241

  European Union

  105,978

  107,376

  108,178

  97,074

  30,009

  Other Countries

  109

  74

  82

  91

  122

  Total exports

  107,514

  108,627

  109,230

  98,336

  30,374

  1Product weight. Excludes exports of live sheep.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much sheepmeat was imported into the United Kingdom from(a)countries in Europe outside of the European Union,(b)Australia, (c) New Zealand and (d) other parts of the world in each of the last five years. [68094]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The following table provides imports of sheepmeat into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  UK imports of sheepmeat 1997–20011

  Tonnes

  Region/country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Europe outside the EU

  150

  57

  25

  166

  281

  European Union

  15,182

  12,398

  11,882

  11,061

  13,426

  New Zealand

  106,357

  99,197

  97,958

  96,012

  83,245

  Australia

  12,779

  12,386

  13,959

  13,039

  10,282

  Other countries

  2,427

  3,746

  1,496

  1,500

  1,082

  Total imports

  136,895

  127,784

  125,320

  121,777

  108,316

  1Product weight. Excludes exports of live sheep.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to help farmers to develop a better relationship with supermarkets. [675751

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The majority of farmers do not deal directly with supermarkets. However, those that do may benefit from the supermarkets Code of Practice which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 18 December 2001. Although the Code is currently binding only on the four largest supermarkets, we have been encouraging smaller supermarkets and larger processors to sign up to its principles and practices.

  The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food stressed the potential of collaborative ventures for all farmers, large and small, and pointed out that collaboration can put farmers in a better negotiating position when dealing with large customers. We support this view and are looking at ways in which we might encourage greater collaboration between producers. We have already proposed that one of the priorities of the new Agricultural Development Scheme will be projects promoting co-operation and collaboration benefiting primary producers. We have also been considering with others the Policy Commission's Recommendation for the establishment of an English Collaborative Board that would encourage and support collaboration and co-operation among farmers.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of her Department set out in the document Public Services for the Future 1998 have been met; and if she will make a statement. [68713]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: Information relating to DEFRA's Public Service Agreement targets can be found in the DEFRA's departmental report 2002.

  Recycling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage recycling of(a) paper, (b) glass, (c) aluminium and (d) inkjet cartridges. [67804]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: This Government are committed to increasing reuse and recycling of all materials. Waste Strategy 2000 set a national target of recycling or composting at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, 30 per cent. by 2010 and 33 per cent. by 2015. To underpin these targets, last year we set statutory performance standards for recycling for all local authorities in England. Authorities are required, on average, to double recycling by 2003–04 and triple it by 2005–06.

  These recycling standards are not material specific. It is up to the individual authority to decide which materials to collect for recycling, depending on local circumstances. Many authorities have introduced kerbside collection of recyclables and these often include paper, glass and aluminium.

  We are taking various steps to help local authorities increase recycling. For example, the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Programme provides £140 million for local authority activities, and grants for the first year of funding have just been allocated. Around 58 of the schemes to be funded this year involve kerbside collection and a great number of these target the paper, glass and aluminium waste streams. In addition, schemes to increase bring site recycling and schemes that should raise awareness and consequently recycling rates, have also been approved.

  We have also set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to tackle the market barriers to recycling. WRAP have made good progress so far, and have awarded a grant which will result in additional paper reprocessing capacity for 320,000 tonnes of waste paper per year.

  The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which the Government support, makes producers of electrical and electronic goods responsible for their recovery, treatment and environmentally sound disposal and covers inkjet cartridges if they are discarded with the printer.

  Two of the amendments to the Directive proposed by the European Parliament are relevant to inkjet cartridges—amendment 7, which would give re-use of WEEE, its components, sub-assemblies and consumables priority over recycling, and amendment 22, which would prevent the production of equipment which has been manufactured in such a way as to prevent reuse. The
  1128W
  Government fully support amendment 7 and support amendment 22 in principle. A final text is expected to be adopted by the end of this year.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage of respondents to the recent consultation on nitrate vulnerable zones preferred the option of designating 100 per cent. of England as a nitrate vulnerable zone; and if she will make a statement. [68100]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: Overall 56 per cent. of respondents to the recent consultation "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?" preferred application of Action Programme measures to the whole of England. Thirty six per cent. preferred the alternative designation of discrete areas as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. The remainder failed to state a preference. We published an independent analysis of all the responses on 27 June 2002, which is available on the DEFRA web site at "www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ water/quality/nitrate".

  However, these responses were on the basis that 80 per cent. England would be designated under the discrete area option. Subsequent refinement of the mapping work has established that only 55 per cent. of England has to be designated. We took this into account in deciding how to proceed in the light of consultation.

  Widdrington Carcase Disposal Site
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the figure of £165,000 compensation paid to UK Coal in respect of the Widdrington carcases disposal site was arrived at. [66888]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: MAFF/DEFRA negotiated a six year lease for the Widdrington mass burial site, commencing 31 March 2001. In addition to a basic rent for the occupation of the site, since the area is zoned for future coal extraction, a further premium of £300,000 was paid for sterilised coal deposits.

  This sum was determined by the local Mineral Valuer of the Valuation Office Agency in negotiation with UK Coal and was based on the area of land-take used exclusively by MAFF/DEFRA for carcase disposal and a calculation of the likely tonnage of coal that could have expected to be mined from the area.

  The £165,000 referred to in the NAO Report relates to the purchase of Tow Law mass burial site. When MAFF/DEFRA acquired the site, it paid the negotiated purchase price. However, there was in the deeds a restrictive covenant which limited use of the site to open cast mining or agriculture. If any other use was made of the land, the former owners, in this case the Coal Authority, would have to be paid a clawback of 50 per cent. of the increase in the value of the site. The increase was calculated by taking the difference between the indexed sale price achieved by the Authority and deducting this from the price paid by DEFRA, and dividing the result by 2, giving £165k.
  1129W
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many businesses in the Widdrington area of Northumberland have received compensation or disturbance payments in respect of the carcase burial site there. [66889]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: No compensation or disturbance payments have been made to businesses in the Widdrington area of Northumberland in respect of the carcase burial site there.

  Frozen Chicken Imports
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment of the risk to animal health has been made by her Department with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts; 168842]

  (2) whether she informed the inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 of her Department's risk assessment with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts; [68837]

  (3) what evidence her Department presented to the National Audit Office report on the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease concerning the risk assessment with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts; [68839]

  (4) when she informed the Scientific Review into foot and mouth by the Royal Society of her Department's risk assessment with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts. [68841]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1 August 2001, it has been illegal to feed any processed animal proteins—including avian proteins—to animals which are kept, fattened or bred for the production of food. These legislative requirements, designed to avoid any possibility of the BSE agent getting into feedingstuffs for farmed livestock, are backed up by robust surveillance arrangements to monitor compliance. The specially developed tests which are used to help enforce the feed controls include one specifically aimed at detection of avian proteins. Given the robust controls in place, no added value would be achieved from a separate risk assessment on the animal health implications of bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts. Consequently, no risk assessment has been produced or sent to either the inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001, or the National Audit Office Value for Money Examination into the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, or the Royal Society Study into Infectious Diseases in Livestock.

  BSE
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the incidence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [69092]

  Mr. Morley
  Confirmed cases of BSE in UK since 1997 are as follows.
  1130W

  Passive surveillance1

  Active surveillance2

  1997

  4,335

  0

  1998

  3,198

  0

  1999

  2,263

  18

  2000

  1,331

  99

  2001

  812

  372

  20023

  4253

  5305

  1Animals reported as showing clinical sign suspicious of having BSE.

  2Animals tested on presentation for slaughter, without showing clinical signs suspicious of having BSE.

  3To 28 June.

  470 results pending at 28 June 2002.

  522 results pending at 28 June 2002.

  Weekly statistics showing the progress of the BSE epidemic in Great Britain are available on the DEFRA website at: http://defraweb/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/ level-3-incidence.html.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much land was covered by the major agri-environment schemes in(a) 1990,> (b) 1995, (c) 1997,(d) 1998,(e) 1999, (f)2000 and (g) 2001; and if she will make a statement.[69157]

  Mr. Morley
  Details for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Countryside Stewardship and the Organic Farming Schemes are set out in the table in hectares. The area of land under these schemes continues to increase. The Government are firmly committed to agrienvironment schemes, and a significant increase of funding was announced in 2000 at the beginning of the England Rural Development Programme.

  ESA

  CSS

  OFS

  1990

  111,550

  —

  —

  1995

  424,567

  190,900

  2,118

  1997

  469,121

  118,300

  6,130

  1998

  501,255

  139,900

  10,683

  1999

  523,545

  192,100

  16,095

  2000

  531,900

  263,300

  2115,387

  2001

  579,204

  2333,300

  2112,832

  1Total for 1991–95 when the scheme was operated by the then Countryside Commission. The former MAFF assumed responsibility for the scheme in 1996.

  2Provisional estimates.

  Note:

  Organic Aid Scheme operated until 1999 when it became the

  Organic Farming Scheme.

  EU Directive 1999/74/EC
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 383W, on EU Directive 1999/74/EC, if she will place the (a) full and (b) partial regulatory impact assessments in the Library. [68834]

  Mr. Morley
  The full regulatory impact assessment concerning implementation of EC Directive 1999/74/EC has been placed in the Library.

  A partial regulatory impact assessment is being produced for the proposal to ban enriched cages from 2012 and this will soon be placed in the Library together with the consultation letter.
  1131W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 383W, for what reasons she will not carry out a full regulatory impact assessment ahead of her Department's consultation. [68760]

  Mr. Morley
  A partial regulatory impact assessment is included with all public consultations. Subsequently, a full regulatory impact assessment will be produced, including the results of the consultation and will be submitted to Ministers.

  Extraction
  Mr. Edwardsx
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Usk valley has been identified as an area for sand and gravel extraction. [67479]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will undertake a study of sand deposits and extraction in Ceredigion. [67027]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government.

DEFENCE

  Body Armour
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether units of the British armed forces are equipped with full body armour based on ceramic plates; and what distribution of body protection(a) has been made and (b) is planned. [52125]

  Mr. Ingram
  Units of the United Kingdom armed forces, in operational theatres, are issued with the general service combat body armour (CBA), which is a vest designed to provide protection to the chest and much of the abdomen. There is also an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) suit that provides head-to-toe protection for EOD units. Both are manufactured from textile ballistic fabric. Two ceramic plates can be added to the CBA vest, for extra front and back protection, if required. The current EOD suit does not have ceramic plates but a new lightweight EOD suit, which like the CBA would have ceramic plates to the front and back, has recently been trialled.

  Aircraft Shortages
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) training courses and (b) exercises have been cancelled owing to unavailability of aircraft in the last 12 months. [64848]

  Mr. Ingram
  From 1 June 2001 to 31 May 2002, twenty training courses were cancelled as a result of aircraft unavailability.

  The Defence exercise programme is responsive to Operational tempo and decisions on which exercises to support with Tactical Air Transport (Tac AT) are taken
  1132W
  on a case-by-case basis in the light of this, and their priority within the programme. From 1 June 2001 to 31 May 2002, four of the 13 exercises not offered Tac AT support were cancelled.

  No exercises were cancelled as a result of aircraft unserviceability.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the Territorial Army is. [66717]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 May 2002, the strength of the Territorial Army stood at 39,125 personnel, which includes those currently mobilised in support of operations.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the restructuring of the Territorial Army was completed; and if he will make a statement. [69103]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Strategic Defence Review required the re-organised Territorial Army to be operationally effective by 31 March 2000. All units formed as required, although some units were retained beyond this date until such time as regular units could assume their role as planned. The process of converting to new roles is continuing, and shortfalls in manpower in some areas (in particular the Army Medical Service(TA)) are also being addressed.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Territorial Army intelligence specialists called out into service last February are to be replaced; and if he will make a statement. [69781]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a result of the significant increase in intelligence work following the events of 11 September, the need to augment the Defence Intelligence Staffs and other headquarters organisations by some 55 reservists continues. It is therefore necessary to call out compulsorily a second tranche of intelligence specialists to relieve the majority of those called out last February who now wish to resume their civilian employment. The individuals involved in the second tranche will primarily come from the Territorial Army, but a small number will also come from the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. They will commence their appointments in mid-August. We recognise the essential contribution made by these reservists to the operations against global terrorism and are grateful to them, their families and their employers for their support.

  Browndown Site
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will cut back the higher trees and gorse on the Browndown site between Portsmouth Road and the sea at Lee-on-Solent. [67194]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to cut back trees and gorse at Browndown site. As this is a site of specific scientific interest, we would have to consult with English Nature before undertaking such work, and in any event, work would not start before the growing season ended in the autumn.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the types of circumstances in which he has judged it would be legal for the United Kingdom to use nuclear weapons; and whether it is United Kingdom policy never to be the first to use nuclear weapons. [68612]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the Government have made clear on many occasions, we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law.

  A policy of no first use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and NATO's doctrine of deterrence, nor would it further nuclear disarmament objectives. We have made clear, as have our NATO allies, that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote. Our overall strategy is to ensure uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the exact nature of our response, and thus to maintain effective deterrence.

  Inglis Barracks, Mill Hill
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the recent survey of the Inglis Barracks site, Mill Hill, of low level radiation. [68668]

  Dr. Moonie
  An environmental survey was started on 4 July 2002 at Mill Hill to check for radioactive contamination on land that previously belonged to the Ministry of Defence. The first stage was a walk-over survey with meters to check for any radiological activity. Only two small areas meriting further investigation were found. These were on the Barnet council depot/MOD boundary and in open space in the vicinity of Notting Hill Housing Group flats. The risk to the general public is considered very low and no immediate action or special precautions are necessary.

  Starting on Monday 15 July, trial pits will be dug and bore holes drilled for taking soil samples. The results from analysis of the samples will be used to decided what remedial action may be necessary.

  The survey is a precautionary measure following a previous Land Quality Assessment of the military site at Mill Hill that identified low levels of radioactivity in a small area in the centre of the site. This activity arises from the residues of luminous paint buried in the ground. Radium based luminous paint was commonly applied to items such as vehicle dials during the second world war as well as on a wider commercial basis for watches and clock faces up to the late 1960s. The MOD intends to remove the contaminated material from Mill Hill, as it has successfully done from other sites, such as the former Admiralty Compass Observatory at Ditton Park, Slough, now sold and re-developed.

  The survey is being undertaken jointly by Barnet borough council and the MOD, working with Annington Homes, Notting Hill Housing Group and the Environment Agency. Residents are being kept informed through mail drops and a telephone help line. An on-site information office was open during the walk-over survey. The results of the survey work will be shared with residents.

  Phoenix
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the original estimated in-service life of the Phoenix UAV system that entered into service in 1999 was; and if he will make a statement; [68671]

  (2) what the estimated in-service life of Watchkeeper is; and if he will make a statement; [68672]

  (3) if the Phoenix UAV system will be upgraded; and if he will make a statement. [68673]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Phoenix UAV system entered service in December 1998 with a projected in-service life of 15 years. The Watchkeeper programme, which will subsume the capability offered by Phoenix, defines the capability required of UAV systems to contribute to overall Intelligence Surveillance Target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) requirements for the next 30 years.

  Individual components that make up the capability, such as air vehicles, will change to reflect developments in technology and will not be expected to achieve in-service lives of 30 years. The question of further investment in the Phoenix system and its out of service date is being considered during the current Watchkeeper assessment phase.

  Agency Performance Targets
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Communication Services Agency for financial year 2002–03. [69782]

  Mr. Ingram
  Key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Communication Services Agency (DCSA) for financial year 2002–03. The targets build on progress already made and are as follows:

  Key Target 1 Service Assurance

  To meet an average of 98 per cent. for measured services against the performance targets agreed in the Agency's CSAs.

  Key Target 2 Service Fulfilment

  To commission an average 95 per cent. of new service requests on, or before, the dates agreed by customers with the DCSA.

  Key Target 3 Service Restoration

  To restore an average 97 per cent. of interrupted services classed as Operationally Urgent within four hours of the fault being reported to the DCSA, or within other specific periods agreed with customers and to restore Business Critical services in accordance with agreed periods in the CSAs.

  Key Target 4 Service Support

  To achieve an average 88 per cent. success rate against agreed standards in response to demands on all DCSA Operator Assistance centres and helpdesk facilities.

  Key Target 5 Customer Satisfaction

  To achieve an average 75 per cent. of customers/users who express moderate or high satisfaction with the way they have been treated by the Agency and the subsequent services and support provided by the DCSA.
  1135W
  Key Target 6 Efficiency Measurement

  To achieve an improvement in efficiency by reducing the average unit cost of outputs by 3 per cent. per annum.

  Key Target 7 Introduction of New Projects and Services on Time

  The average cumulative slippage of in-service dates for new major projects is not to exceed 10 per cent.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for financial year 2002–03. [69928]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 2002–03:

  Key Target 1

  To deliver RN personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations) within 5 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  Key Target 2

  To deliver RM recruits to Commandant General Royal Marines within 3 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  Key Target 3

  To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in Career Training and 97 per cent. in examined pre-joining training.

  Key Target 4

  To reduce the variance between RNR Trained Strength and Total Requirement to 28 per cent.

  Key Target 5

  To achieve, by 31 March 2003, a methodology for the implementation of an output cost based efficiency target.

  Key Target 6

  To achieve net benefits of £14 million in financial year 2002–03 from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Limited.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Veterans Agency for financial year 2002–03. [69929]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Key Targets that have been set for the chief executive of the new Veterans Agency for 2002–03 are as follows:

  Service

  Key Target 1:

  To reduce the average time it takes to issue decisions on claims to war pensions to no more than 82 working days. This is an improvement of eight working days on the Agency's 2001–02 target; and it represents a cumulative improvement of 18 per cent. against its 2000–01 baseline level of 100 working days.

  Key Target 2:

  To reduce the average time it takes to issue decisions on war widow(er)s claims to no more than 34 working days. This is an improvement of two working days on the
  1136W
  Agency's 2001–02 target; and it represents a cumulative improvement of 5 per cent. against its 2000–01 baseline level of 36 working days.

  Key Target 3:

  To achieve an externally validated claims accuracy rate of at least 95 per cent.

  Personnel

  Key Target 4:

  To carry out an externally validated programme of internal IiP assessments during 2002–03 to determine whether the Agency continues to meet the requirements of the liP standards.

  Working in Partnership

  Key Target 5:

  To work with the Lord Chancellor's Department's Court Service to reduce the average time it takes an appeal to pass through the war pensions appeals process. By 31 March 2003 the average time should reduce to no more than 310 working days. This is an improvement of 198 working days on the Agency's 2001–02 target; and it represents a cumulative improvement of 45 per cent. against its 2000–01 baseline level of 565 working days.

  Efficiency

  Key Target 6:

  To develop a methodology for costing agency outputs to provide the baseline to measure any future years' business efficiencies.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for ABRO as a trading fund for financial year 2002–03. [69930]

  Mr. Ingram
  The chief executive of ABRO, Michael Hayle, has been set the following Key Targets for the first year of operation:

  Key Target 1:

  Financial performance—Return on Capital Employed (ROCE). The measurement of ABRO's ROCE: to achieve at least a 6 per cent. average ROCE over the first three years of trading.

  Key Target 2a:

  Delivery performance. The measurement of Land (District) service delivery: to complete 95 per cent. of Land (District) Load tasks within the priorities agreed with the customer (Tech 3c).

  Key Target 2b:

  Delivery performance. The measurement of Programme service delivery: to complete 95 per cent. of critical Programme Load tasks within the times agreed with the customers (ES Land IPTs).

  Key Target 3:

  Efficiency—reduction in output price. The measurement of the reduction in price of ABRO output: to reduce the average equipment repair price, across the whole programme by 3 per cent. in the first year and by 12 per cent. over three years against the 2002–03 baseline.
  1137W
  Key Target 4:

  Winning work. The measurement of ABRO winning work: to deliver more than £4 million of competed work in each of the next three years, but with the intention to change an "order book" measure from year two onwards.

  Light Support Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the(a) Minimi LSW and (b) SA80 LSW; and if he will make a statement. [69156]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Minimi Light Machine Gun (LMG) and the SA80A2 Light Support Weapon (LSW) are both deployed in support of the infantry with complementary but different roles. The Minimi LMG is capable of providing sustained suppressive firepower through belt fed ammunition at ranges of 300–400 m. The SA80A2 LSW can engage targets accurately at extended ranges (up to 600 m) at a lower rate of fire.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which light support weapons were issued to UK troops as part of(a) Taskforce Jacana and (b) Operation Fingal; and if he will make a statement. [69154]

  Mr. Ingram
  Minimis and light support weapons were issued to troops on both operations. We always issue weapons to our forces which are appropriate for the tasks that we expect them to undertake.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Minimi light support weapons have been issued to UK troops in Afghanistan and at what cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [69155]

  Mr. Ingram
  149 Minimis were issued to United Kingdom troops involved in Operations Jacana and Fingal in Afghanistan. I am withholding details of the cost in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Joint Helicopter Command
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Joint Helicopter Command was established; and if he will make a statement. [69096]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Helicopter Command was established on 5 October 1999, as a result of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Chief of Defence Logistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the first Chief of Defence Logistics was appointed; and if he will make a statement. [69098]

  Mr. Ingram
  General Sir Sam Cowan was appointed, initially as Chief of Defence Logistics (Designate), in the lead in to the DLO's former launch on 1 September 1998 for a four-year period. The appointment of Air Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger was announced on 21 March 2002 in the normal way, and he will take up his appointment in the rank of Air Chief Marshal, on 2 September 2002.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department completed(a) the formation
  1138W
  of 1 Joint Force Logistic Component HQ and (b) the establishment of a regular ambulance regiment; and if he will make a statement. [69099]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Force Logistic Component Headquarters is a capability that is formed as required. It is based on the core capability of a Logistic Brigade Headquarters enhanced by a Logistics Brigade Signal Squadron, other signals assets and augmentation from the other two Services. The first Joint Force Logistic Component HQ was able to be formed from April 2000, and we will have the capability to form a second such HQ from April 2003.

  The capability which would have been provided by a regular Ambulance Regiment has been created within the Strategic Defence Review endorsed Medical Regiment Concept. This has been achieved by the creation of evacuation squadrons in each of the four medical regiments formed. These evacuation squadrons were fully formed by March 2001. Embedding the evacuation capability within each regiment, rather than creating a discrete capability, has enhanced our ability to deliver the ambulance and evacuation function.

  Frigate and Destroyer Fleet
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the present size is of the United Kingdom frigate and destroyer fleet; and if he will make a statement. [69101]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 June 2002,Official Report, columns 36–37W, to the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson).

  Forces Relocation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first Army unit was permanently relocated from Germany after 1997; and if he will make a statement. [69102]

  Mr. Ingram
  The most recent troop reduction in Germany occurred as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. One Royal Tank Regiment was the first unit under this initiative to relocate back to the UK, in April 1999.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the complete withdrawal of the RAF from Germany was completed; and if he will make a statement. [69100]

  Mr. Ingram
  The closure of RAF Bruggen, the RAF's last Main Operating Base in Germany, and its handover to the British Army was completed on 4 February 2002. The withdrawal of the RAF rear party from the station was undertaken on 28 February 2002. A number of RAF detachments remain in Germany.

  Army Homes (Colchester)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many dwellings in Colchester were sold to Annington Homes; when the sale took place; how many dwellings are available for married soldiers; how many have been demolished; and how many have been sold; [68854]

  (2) how many houses in the private sector are rented in Colchester to accommodate (a) soldiers and (b) married families; [68856]
  1139W
  (3) what the average price per dwelling in Colchester sold by the Ministry of Defence to Annington Homes was; and what total sum was received for the dwellings in Colchester; [68855]

  (4) if the Ministry of Defence will receive a share of the proceeds of former army houses at Colchester sold by Annington Homes. [68853]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1996 most service families' accommodation in England and Wales was sold to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) under a sale and leaseback agreement. The sale raised £1.6 billion for the Exchequer, of which just under £35 million (about £25,000 per dwelling) related to some 1,400 family quarters in the Colchester area.

  During 1996 and subsequently, a total of 182 houses in the Colchester area have been released to AHL for disposal. The rest (about 1,200) are still available for the Ministry of Defence to house service families. Of those released to AHL for disposal, some have been sold by the company, none have been demolished, but about 100 (of non-traditional construction) are awaiting development.

  As part of the Sale of Agreement, a profit share scheme is in place under which the Exchequer receives a part of any profit AHL make from the properties released to them.

  In the Colchester area, and separately from the arrangement with AHL, MOD rents 107 properties from the private sector, of which 106 accommodate single service personnel and one houses a service family.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place current guidelines issued to the war pensions appeals tribunal in the Library. [68191]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The president of the pensions appeal tribunals issues practice directions which are distributed to all tribunal members. I have arranged for copies of the practice directions to be placed in the Library.

  The Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules 1980 (as amended) detail the practice and procedure to be followed by the tribunals.

  Sheik Hamad bin Jassim Jaber al-Thani
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department was informed of payments made by(a) BAE Systems and (b) British Aerospace to His Excellency Sheik Hamad bin Jassim Jaber al-Thani; and if he will make a statement. [61106]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The first reference we have been able to trace in our records is a report in 1998 which stated that Shaik Hamad bin Jassim Jaber al-Thani had received commissions in connection with a defence equipment package signed in 1996 (for which BAe were the lead contractor).

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  CDC Capital Partners
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations have been made to her by UK non-Governmental organisations regarding the change in investment policy at CDC Capital Partners; [67410]

  (2) what representations have been made to her Department since 1997 by non-commonwealth non-Governmental organisations regarding the change in CDC Capital Partners' investment policy; [67406]

  (3) what representations have been made to her Department since 1997 by non-United Kingdom Commonwealth non-governmental organisations regarding the change in CDC Capital Partners investment policy; [67411]

  (4) what representations her Department has received from (a) the Commonwealth and (b) other nations regarding CDC Capital Partners' investment policy since 1997. [67351]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reserved rights she would retain after the sale of the majority holding in CDC Capital Partners. [67396]

  Clare Short
  I hold a number of reserved rights under the special share, which is referred to in Section 18 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999. These are set out in Article 11 of the Articles of Association of CDC Group plc. They were designed to continue beyond sale of a majority holding in CDC to private sector investors. A copy of the Articles of Association has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' investment partners by(a) sector, (b) country and (c) size since 1997; [67344]

  (2) what proportion of CDC Capital Partners' (a) retail and (b) health care investments are in (i) low-income and (ii) least-developed nations; [67392]

  (3) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' investment directors' investments by (a) country, (b) sector and (c) size since 1997; [67340]

  (4) if she will list CDC Capital Partners executives' proportional (a) salary and (b) remuneration increases since 1997; [67356]

  (5) what discussions she has had with CDC Capital Group board members regarding annual performance-related bonuses to CDC Capital Group executives; [67372]

  (6) if she will list (a) those to whom CDC Capital Partners sold its enterprise investments in the last three years and (b) the enterprise investments sold to them; [67390]

  (7) how many non-Commonwealth nationals have been employed by CDC Capital Partners in each year since 1997: [67412]
  1141W
  (8) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' investments by (a) sector, (b) size and (c) country since 1997; [67348]

  (9) if she will list the funds containing private capital (a) managed and (b) joint-managed by CDC Capital Partners; and how much capital has been in each fund since 1997; [67364]

  (10) if she will list, by country, the publicly guaranteed debt owed to CDC Capital Partners; [67386]

  (11) if she will list the investments visited by CDC Capital Partners for monitoring purposes; and how many times each has been visited since 1997; [67362]

  (12) if she will list by (a) country and (b) sector the environmental impact studies (i) performed and (ii) contracted by CDC Capital Partners since 1997; [67378]

  (13) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' disposals of investments by (a) sector, (b) size and (c) country since 1997; [67342]

  (14) if she will list the (a) nationality and (b) age of each CDC Capital Partners' office director; [67374]

  (15) if she will make a statement on the (a) current and (b) proposed pension schemes for (i) office directors, (ii) other mid-level executives and (iii) professional staff employed by CDC Capital Partners; [67382]

  (16) if she will list the unsuccessful formal investment and sale tenders in which CDC Capital Partners has participated, by sector, since 1997; [67398]

  (17) what percentage of CDC Capital Partners' employees were non-United Kingdom Commonwealth nationals in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002; [67414]

  (18) if she will list the countries where CDC Capital Partners (a) has received and (b) receives tax breaks on its investments; [67369]

  (19) what the total cost of severance packages paid to CDC Capital Partners' redundant staff has been since 1997; [67409]

  (20) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' agricultural investments in sub-Saharan Africa by country since 1997, describing the commercial activity in each case; [67361]

  (21) if she will list the countries where CDC Capital Partners (a) has received and (b) receives exemptions on environmental regulations on its investments; [67377]

  (22) what the proportional growth of CDC Capital Partners' (a) retail and (b) healthcare investments has been since 1997: [67393]

  (23) if she will list the unsuccessful formal investment and sale tenders in which CDC Capital Partners has participated, by country, since 1997; [67341]

  (24) what (c) current and (b) proposed (i) annual performance-related bonus programmes and (ii) long-term incentive plans exist for CDC Capital Partners' mid-level executives; [67373]

  (25) how many Commonwealth nationals employed by CDC Capital Partners have been made redundant since 1997; [67413]
  1142W
  (26) if she will list the sub-Saharan agri-businesses advertised for sale in 2001 by CDC Capital Partners; and what proportion those businesses represented in 2001 in CDC Capital Partners' sub-Saharan agribusinesses; [67381]

  (27) what criteria are used in determining annual performance-related bonuses to CDC Capital Group executives; [67371]

  (28) if she will list the debts owed to the Treasury by CDC Capital Partners; [67388]

  (29) if she will list, by office, the salaries and remuneration received by CDC Capital Partners' (a) office directors, (b) other mid-level executives and (c) professional staff since 1997; [67403]

  (30) if she will break down by (a) region and (b) sector the representations her Department has received regarding the environmental impact of CDC Capital Partners' investments since 1997. [67367]

  Clare Short
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly, when the information is available without disproportionate cost.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list, by office, CDC Capital Partners' travel expenses for(a) each executive director, (b) each non-executive director, (c) each office director, (d) other mid-level executives and (e) professional staff employed since 1997; [67384]

  (2) if she will list the number of applicants since 1997 to CDC Capital Partners' by (a) office and (b) position; and if she will list the percentage of this figure that is represented by (i) women and (ii) ethnic minorities; [67400]

  (3) how many CDC Capital Partners' employees with (a) PhDs, (b) masters' degrees, and (c) bachelors' degrees have been made redundant since 1997; [67408]

  (4) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' expenditures related to website construction and maintenance; [67360]

  (5) if she will list CDC Capital Partners-funded air flights of CDC Capital Partners' (a) Chairman and (b) Chief Executive, and of each member of the (i) Board of Directors and (ii) Management Committee since 1997; [67376]

  (6) if she will list the years of CDC Capital Partners service for each CDC Capital Partners office director; [67404]

  (7) if she will list the CDC Capital Partners' (a) vocational training, (b) medical, (c) educational and (d) housing facilities closed by (i) sector and (ii) country, since 1997; [67380]

  (8) if she will list CDC Capital Partners-funded air flights of each CDC Capital Partners office director since 1997; [67370]

  (9) if she will list the average years of employees' service for each CDC Capital Partners office; [67402]

  (10) if she will list, by office, the vehicles owned by CDC Capital Partners; [67358]

  (11) how many visits there have been to the CDC Capital Partners' website; [67353]
  1143W
  (12) if she will list the positions of employment at CDC Capital Partners' by office; and if she will give the positions (a) filled and (b) unfilled; [67401]

  (13) if she will list payments to, and remuneration received by, financial advisers retained by CDC Capital Partners since 1997; [67357]

  (14) if she will list the qualification requirements for each employment position at CDC Capital Group; [67397]

  (15) if she will list the CDC Capital Partners expenditures related to (a) team-building and (b) staff-development exercises since 1997; [67365]

  (16) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' expenditure on (a) vocational training, (b) medical, (c) educational and (d) housing facilities, by (i) sector and (ii) country, since 1997; [67379]

  (17) how many and what percentage of CDC Capital Partners' employees, broken down by office, hold (a) PhDs, (b) masters degrees and (c) bachelor degrees; and how many and what percentage of such employees are (i) women and (ii) ethnic minorities; [67395]

  (18) if she will list, by office, CDC Capital Partners' expenditures related to (a) vehicle purchasing and (b) vehicle maintenance since 1997; [67359]

  (19) if she will list CDC Capital Partners' yearly expenditure, broken down by office, on corporate entertainment since 1997; [67375]

  (20) if she will list the monthly operating expenses of each CDC Capital Partners office in each year since 1997; [67391]

  (21) if she will list, by office, CDC Capital Partners' expenditure on office equipment since 1997; [67383]

  (22) if she will list each CDC Capital Partners' employment grade; and if she will list the (a) total number of persons employed at each CDC Capital Partners' office and (b) percentage of this figure that is represented by (i) women and (ii) ethnic minorities. [67399]

  Clare Short
  This information is not held by the Government. CDC will write to the hon. Member with as much information as CDC can provide without disproportionate cost. Copies of the reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the second annual report of the president of appeal tribunals on the standards of decision-making coming before tribunals. [70046]

  Maria Eagle
  The second report by the president of appeal tribunals is published today and has been placed in the Library. Of those cases where the appeal tribunal overturned or amended the decision the main reasons given were because new evidence was produced at the hearing, the presence of the appellant at the hearing shed new light on the existing evidence or they took a different view of the same evidence.
  1144W
  The president has highlighted some areas where improvements have been made following his first annual report. Some examples of these are; more obvious use of the reconsideration process before cases reach the tribunal, improved standards of decision-making and the use of the medical evidence in disability living allowance cases and a reduction in the number of medical reports under-estimating the severity of disability.

  The president has suggested that the agencies should concentrate on engaging appellants fully during the dispute period and encourage them to provide additional evidence earlier. This could lead to problems being resolved without the need to go to an appeal tribunal. I welcome the president's report, which provides an independent view of the standard of Secretary of State decision-making in cases coming to the appeal tribunal.

  Industrial Accidents (Compensation)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he has in place to ensure that those who suffer from industrial accidents are fully compensated for their injuries. [55334]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: With certain prescribed exceptions, the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (ELCI) requires all employers carrying on business in the United Kingdom to insure their liability to their employees for bodily injury or disease sustained in the course of their employment in Great Britain. There is currently a penalty of up to £2,500 for failure to insure on any day.

  Employers are required to display copies of certificates of employers' liability compulsory insurance while the underlying policy is in force. There is currently a penalty of up to £1,000 for failure to display a certificate. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing ELCI.

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit is payable on a no fault basis to employed earners who have sustained an industrial accident or prescribed disease. It is paid according to the degree of disablement and takes no account of factors other than the physical or mental condition of the injured person. It can be paid whether or not the person continues to work and is not taxable.

  In each case, advice on the assessment of disablement and its likely duration is given by doctors specially trained in industrial injuries disablement matters. Benefit is normally paid only in respect of disablement of 14 per cent. or more.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60936]

  Mr. McCartney
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and are already a matter of public record.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was created in April 2001. The information given for 1997 relates to the Department of Social Security. From May 1997 there was one Cabinet Minister (Commons), one Minister of State

  1145W
  (Commons), two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State (Commons) and one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords).

  From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister (Commons), two Ministers of State (Commons), two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State (Commons) and one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords).

  Jobseekers (Interview Costs)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the financial support available to jobseekers for the cost of travelling to interviews. [64269]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise that it can sometimes be difficult for unemployed people to meet the cost of travelling to job interviews. The travel to interview scheme, which is available from the first day of unemployment, encourages people to widen their job search by helping with travelling costs to attend interviews outside their usual travel to work area. From June this year we have widened the scope of the scheme to give personal advisers the discretion to make payments for travel to local interviews where the costs exceed £4.

  Additional help can also be provided through the Adviser Discretion Fund which gives New Deal personal advisers the opportunity to make available up to £300 for anything that will help a jobseeker obtain a job, or if offered a job, to accept that job. This can include help with the costs of travel to interviews.

  Employment Zones are also helping long-term unemployed people in the most deprived areas get and keep work. Employment Zones are about meeting the needs of individuals. They help rebuild the confidence of participants and overcome the barriers to work such as debt, transport and housing problems. Help can be provided through Employment Zones with the cost of travelling to interviews.

  Our Action Teams for Jobs, which focus on small areas with particular problems of labour market disadvantage, offer tailored help to enable people overcome barriers to employment. This can include financial assistance to help them secure and retain employment, such as help with the cost of attending job interviews. In addition, we introduced the Transport Projects Fund in April which provides an additional £5 million for Action Teams to address the particular transport difficulties faced by some unemployed people seeking to enter the labour market.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus to be fully implemented; and when this will be implemented in Northamptonshire. [614861

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our current plans are to extend the integrated Jobcentre Plus offices progressively to cover the whole of Great Britain over the next four years, starting with a further 225 offices in 2002–03. A firm date for rolling out the new service in Northamptonshire as part of this programme has yet to he determined.

  Better Government for Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been employed in Better Government for Older People over the last five years. [64526]

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many older people are involved in Better Government for Older People, broken down by nation and region; [64840]

  (2) what the procedure is for electing people to the Regional Committees of Better Government for Older People; [64841]

  (3) how many people took part in the most recent election to the Regional Committees of Better Government for Older People; [64842]

  (4) what the relationship is between Better Government for Older People and (a) Scotland's Older People Advisory Group and (b) the National Pensioners' Convention. [64844]

  Mr. McCartney
  These are matters for Better Government for Older People (BGOP) which is a non-Government organisation.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 157W, on carers, what information is collected on the removal of invalid care allowance from carers when the adult for whom they care has their disability living allowance or attendance allowance removed as a consequence of hospitalisation; [66585]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 157W, on disability living allowance, what data his Department hold on the number of disabled adults who have been affected by (a) the rules under which DLA is withdrawn after a person has been in hospital for four weeks and (b) the cumulative effect of short periods of hospitalisation in each of the last three years; [66589]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 157W, on pensioners (hospital care), what data his Department hold on the number of pensioners who have been affected by (a) the rules under which attendance allowance is withdrawn after a person has been in hospital for four weeks and (b) the cumulative effect of short hospital stays in each of the last three years. [66593]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not collected(a) on the number of cases where payments of invalid care allowance to carers cease because the recipient of attendance allowance or disability living allowance for whom they provide care is in hospital, or (b) on the annual number of cases where payments of attendance allowance or disability living allowance are suspended because the recipient is in hospital. Information is collected quarterly on the number of people whose attendance allowance or disability living allowance payments are suspended because they are in hospital. The information as at 30 November in each of the last three years is in the table.
  1147W

  Numbers of attendance allowance and disability living allowance cases in payment at 30 November of each year in the period 1999 to 2001, and numbers of cases in which payments are recorded as suspended because the recipient is in hospital

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Attendance allowance

  Cases in payment

  1,256,800

  1,291,300

  1,295,400

  Cases with payment suspended because recipient in hospital

  12,100

  13,500

  15,600

  Disability living allowance

  Cases in payment

  2,098,300

  2,197,700

  2,298,000

  Cases with payment suspended because recipient in hospital

  9,700

  10,200

  11,500

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Figures for suspensions refer only to cases where the reason is known.

  3. All AA recipients are aged 65 or over.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division Information Centre: 5 per cent. data

  Pensioners
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the value of the assets, including pension funds, which(a) a man aged 65 and (b) a woman aged 60 years would need in order to receive a higher income than if they had no such assets. [67226]

  Mr. McCartney
  The value of assets needed for the individuals described will depend upon the level of entitlement to state pension benefits that have been built up over the individuals working lives.

  For illustrative purposes, the following estimates can be made for a man aged 65 who has built up rights to a full single basic state pension but has no other sources of income. At current market rates assets of about £14,000 or more are currently needed to purchase an annuity that generates a higher income level than if he had no such assets. The equivalent figure for a woman aged 60 is approximately £17,000. In practice, it is common for someone with full basic state pension entitlement to also have additional income from SERPS but this has been excluded in the above illustration.

  From October 2003, the introduction of the pension credit will mean that these levels will fall to zero. Any individual with a full basic state pension who has saved for their retirement will have a higher income from doing so, regardless of the amount of this saving.

  These estimates use current 2002–03 single rates for the basic state pension and minimum income guarantee, and the most favourable annuity rates quoted by The Annuity Bureau as at 4 July 2002 for an index-linked annuity with spouses benefits. It is assumed that the full pension pot is annuitised and no tax-free lump sum is taken.

  Disabled People (Employment Opportunities)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a further statement on progress with the job preparation and retention pilots for disabled people. [67108]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: We will make an announcement in due course.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Throckmorton Asylum Centre
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if the planning inspector leading the inquiry into the application to build an asylum seekers centre at Throckmorton may reach his conclusion only on planning issues; [68756]

  (2) if it is his policy that the planning inspector's decision will be decisive in determining whether permission will be granted for the asylum seekers centre at Throckmorton in Worcestershire. [68755]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Home Office has not yet served a Notice of Proposed Development on Wychavon district council. If it does, and the council objects, the dispute will be referred to the Deputy Prime Minister, who may decide to hold a non-statutory public inquiry. The planning inspector holding any such inquiry would treat it as if it were into an appeal against refusal of planning permission. Every relevant planning issue, whether of local or national importance, which is a material consideration in assessing the proposal, would be taken into account. The inspector would weigh all the arguments and evidence presented by the parties before reaching his conclusions and recommendations, including the likely effect of the proposed development on the surrounding area, and taking into account the views of the local planning authority and local residents.

  The inspector would he making a report to the Deputy Prime Minister, not making the determination himself. It would be for the Deputy Prime Minister to determine the dispute between the developing Department and the local planning authority taking into account the inspector's report and all other material considerations.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61818]

  Mr. Leslie
  Ministers and officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have access to published reference sources, as well as the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Social Housing Allocation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the incentives there are in the system of allocation for social housing for young people to have children at an early age; and if he will make a statement. [62399]

  Mr. McNulty
  S167 of the Housing Act 1996 provides that local housing authorities must give reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing to families with dependent children, and to households consisting of or including someone who is expecting a child. Under S16 of the Homelessness Act 2002, which will come
  1149W
  into effect early next year, the "reasonable preference categories" are revised to reflect housing need more clearly in their formulation.

  The Government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy aims to have the under 18 conception rate by 2010 and increase the participation of teenage parents in education and employment. Early signs of the strategy's impact are encouraging with figures for 2000 showing a 6.2 per cent. reduction from 1998 in both under-18 and under-16 conception rates. The percentage of teenage parents in education or employment has increased from 17 per cent. in 1996 to 29 per cent. in 2001.

  Our strategy also sets the aim that all lone parents under 18, who cannot live with their parents or partner, should be provided with suitable accommodation with support by 2003. To date the Housing Corporation has approved funding for over 1,500 new units of supported accommodation for young parents. Supported housing offers young parents adult and peer support to help prepare them for independent living and facilitate their return to education or employment.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to take account of the costs of council tax collection within the review of the local government finance system; [678281

  (2) what plans he has to take account of the costs associated with homelessness within the review of the local government finance system; [678121

  (3) what plans he has to take account of the costs associated with visitors in the allocation of formula grant to each local authority; [678241

  (4) what estimate he has made of the financial effects of the removal of the density indicator within the environmental, protective and cultural services formula grant, broken down by local authority; [678261

  (5) what plans he has to take account of the costs associated with services to non-residents in the allocation of formula grant to each local authority; [678271

  (6) if he will make a statement on the impact of his proposed changes to the environmental, protective and cultural services block within the local authority formula grant on London. [677171

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government launched a consultation on options for the reform of the local government finance system. This included authority-by-authority detailed exemplification of options for the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block, to which all these questions relate. No decisions have yet been taken and we welcome representations from all interested parties.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he plans to ensure that in(a) the financial year 2003–04 and (b) future years the Housing Corporation investment programme for London reflects housing need. [674961
  1150W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Corporation's National Investment Strategy sets out the national objectives for the Approved Development Programme and the national targets. The Corporation also produces a London Investment Strategy which contains priorities for investment in that region. In addition, the Government office for London and the Housing Corporation's London office produce a London Housing Statement working closely with local and regional stakeholders including local authorities and housing associations. The statement highlights key housing issues and pressures and helps to identify regional priorities.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the criteria by which the recent additional grant to the Housing Corporation Draft Programme in London will be allocated; and what steps he will take to ensure that those areas with the most acute levels of housing need and homelessness derive the maximum amount of additional assistance. [67495]

  Mr. McNulty
  The regional cash limit for London for 2002–03 was increased in line with priorities set out in the Housing Corporation's Regional Investment Strategy. Of the programme: 60 per cent. is targeted on schemes to increase the supply of affordable housing; 20 per cent. is going to the London Housing Partnership supply initiative which is specifically focused on homeless families; 15 per cent. to support regeneration programmes which have a significant housing element; and 5 per cent. to projects that demonstrate innovation, address pan-London issues or sub-regional supported housing schemes.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that in financial year 2003–04 the London boroughs are consulted about the Housing Corporation investment programme. [67497]

  Mr. McNulty
  When drawing up the Regional Housing Statement and the Regional Investment Strategy, the Housing Corporation's London office consults all the London boroughs through an Officers' Working Group. The Housing Corporation also consults the association of London Housing Directors, and meets a representative group of Association of London Members as a matter of routine.

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to ensure that(a) the development of affordable housing on major regeneration sites in London is economically sustainable and (b) households will choose to move to such developments; [67500]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that local authorities in London are consulted in relation to proposals for the development of affordable housing on major regeneration sites. [67499]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government see the provision of new affordable housing to meet the needs of homeless households and key workers in London as a key priority for the capital. For this reason we have increased the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme for 2002–03 to enable more affordable homes for rent and low-cost home ownership to be built. We are also keen to ensure that new affordable housing is developed cost-effectively so as to maximise the contribution that funding can make. At the same time we
  1151W
  remain aware of the need to take into account local housing needs and priorities to meet the demand at local level and create sustainable communities in places where people will want to live.

  Investment in affordable housing on major regeneration sites in London is an issue being addressed as part of the on-going work on the preparation of the 2002 edition of the London Housing Statement which is due for publication in a few weeks time. The Government office for London is continuing to work closely with the Housing Corporation and representatives of the London boroughs to ensure that all parties are adequately consulted before final investment decisions are made.

  Planning
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to implement the proposals on planning tariffs set out in the Planning Green Paper; and if he will make a statement. [67443]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's consultation paper "Reforming Planning Obligations: delivering a fundamental change", published in December 2001, proposed the introduction of a tariff-based approach to planning obligations. We received over 500 responses, the majority of which welcomed our proposals. Ministers are considering policy options and there will be a policy statement in due course.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from groups interested in housing development and conservation; what the conclusions from those meetings were; and if he will make a statement. [68540]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received representations from a number of local and national groups interested in housing development and conservation. These groups include the RSPB, CPRE, FoE, WWF and Green Alliance. The representations have principally concerned our proposals to reform the planning system but have underlined the importance of planning to meet housing needs in the most sustainable way practicable. This is entirely consistent with our planning policies for housing.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Government's special adviser on urban policy; and if he will make a statement. [67449]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have no special adviser specifically for urban policy. However, I assume the hon. Member is referring to Lord Rogers of Riverside, who chaired the Urban Task Force which reported in June 1999. The Deputy Prime Minister is due to meet Lord Rogers this week to discuss urban policy issues and how the Government can help deliver a lasting urban renaissance.

  Young Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to increase the supply of independent housing available to young disabled people. [67109]
  1152W
  Mr. McNulty
  Local housing authorities have a responsibility to produce a housing strategy which sets out plans to address the range of housing needs in their area. This includes all groups with special needs where the strategy must link into the provision of associated support services. Decisions on how these should be addressed are taken locally on the basis of the assessment of the nature and scale of the different housing needs.

  The Housing Corporation through the Approved Development Programme (ADP) and Supported Housing Management Grant (SHMG) provide specially adapted housing and support for the disabled. The Housing Corporation through its National Investment Strategy sets out the priorities against which registered social landlords should bid for resources for both ADP and SHMG. Included in these priorities are supported housing for people with physical disabilities. The ADP is set to rise to £1.2 billion in 2003–04, almost double the planned expenditure for 2000–01.

  Local housing authorities have a statutory duty to offer Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) to eligible applicants who require adaptations to help them live independently in their own homes. The grant is available to home owners and tenants in both the private and social rented sector. It is subject to a means test. The Government meet 60 per cent. of the total local authority expenditure incurred on DFGs through the payment of specified capital grant. The budget for this grant for English authorities in 2002–03 is £88 million compared with £56 million in 1997–98, an increase of nearly 60 per cent.

  Evictions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) council tenants and (b) RSL tenants were evicted for (i) rent arrears, (ii) anti-social behaviour and (iii) other reasons in each year from 1992–93 to 2001–02. [67683]

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

  However, ongoing discussions between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Court Service are looking at ways of getting a more detailed breakdown of the data on possession order cases by social landlords.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families with children have been evicted in each of the last 10 years. [67857]

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

  Planning Green Paper
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of the respondents to the planning Green Paper. [67651]

  Mr. McNulty
  A copy was placed in the Library on 27 May.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to reform local government terminology to make clear the difference between
  1153W
  administrative boundaries and the historic boundaries of the traditional counties of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [67727]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plans to introduce legislation for changes in terminology. The legislative agenda is already substantial and there are many other and pressing priorities in the Government's programme.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much public expenditure went to each of the excluded neighbourhoods defined by the Social Exclusion Unit in the last 12 months; and what the average sum was. 167611]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is not currently possible to break down all public expenditure to a small area level such as the excluded neighbourhoods defined by the SEU. We recognise the importance of gathering this information on a national basis. We are designing mechanisms to do this and aim to take this forward through the Neighbourhood Statistics Initiative.

  For the Neighbourhood Renewal programmes that are targeted on the 88 most deprived areas, the provisional outturn figure for expenditure in 2001–02 is £305.7 million. All of the £200 million provision of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund has been issued as per Special Grant Report 78 made under Section 88a of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. On this basis the average sum spent by these programmes in each of the 88 deprived areas in 2001–02 was £3.47 million.

  European Congress of Twinned Towns
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the 8th European Congress of Twinned Towns; what the nature of the United Kingdom representation was; what funding share fell to the United Kingdom; and if it is his policy to divest these meetings of a party political slant. [68337]

  Mr. Leslie
  UK representation at the 8th European Congress of Twinned Towns, held in Antwerp on 22–24 May 2002, included a cross party delegation from the Local Government Association's Local Government International Bureau, which has responsibility for arranging town twinning, and representatives of several local authorities. The Congress was co-funded by the European Commission, the City of Antwerp and by private sponsorship. In the UK, town twinning is a politically neutral activity and is supported on a cross party basis.

  Disability Access
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to improve disability access; and if he will make a statement. [68531]

  Mr. McNulty
  My officials, with the assistance of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, have been preparing proposals for amendments to Part M of the Building Regulations relating to access for disabled people. I expect to make an announcement before the summer recess about publication of the proposals for public consultation.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of domestic properties in England left empty for(a) six to 12 months and (b) more than a year since 1997. [68329]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Data for local authority (LA), Registered Social Landlord (RSL) and 'other' private sector tenures is available and shown in the tables. Length of time 'other' public sector dwellings are vacant is not collected centrally.

  Table 1: Number of LA vacant dwellings in England at 1 April

  All vacants

  Vacant more than 6 months and less than 12 months

  Vacant more than 12 months

  2001

  80,300

  11,100

  20,400

  2000

  87,200

  11,700

  21,500

  1999

  83,900

  10,600

  18,100

  1998

  81,700

  10,600

  16,000

  1997

  81,200

  9,400

  13,000

  Table 2: Number of RSL vacant dwellings in England at 1 April

  All vacants

  Vacant more than 6 months and less than 12 months

  Vacant more than 12 months

  2001

  41,300

  5,100

  9,800

  2000

  37,500

  5,100

  7,200

  1999

  32,600

  3,800

  3,500

  1998

  29,300

  4,100

  4,800

  1997

  26,800

  1—

  1—

  1 Not applicable

  Data for 'other' private sector vacant dwellings are not collected in exactly the same format as for LA and RSL dwellings. Only data on dwellings vacant for more than six to 12 months are collected (as opposed to data on those dwellings vacant for more than six, but less than 12 months).

  Table 3: Number of 'other' private sector vacant dwellings in England at 1 April

  All vacants

  Vacant more than 6 months

  Vacant more than 12 months

  2001

  622,600

  310,200

  —1

  2000

  623,200

  278,900

  201,900

  1999

  63,700

  —1

  212,900

  1998

  623,300

  —1

  220,100

  1997

  640,200

  —1

  233,300

  1 Not available

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. There will always be a certain level of empty homes for operational reasons, including those waiting to be demolished or those vacant for very short periods between tenants.

  Sources:

  ODPM's annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns (Tables 1 and 3) and the Housing Corporation's annual HAR 10 and Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR) (Table 2)

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the numbers of homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. [68660]

  Mr. McNulty
  The latest figures indicate that there are nearly 12,000 households in bed-and-breakfast hotels (B&B) of which a estimated 6,500 are families with children.

  In March this year, a £35 million programme was launched to help local authorities ensure that by March 2004 no homeless family with children are in B&B other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks. On 17 June £25 million was allocated to the 42 local authorities with the highest number of families with children in B&B hotels to help them meet the March 2004 commitment. We will now be working with the next 40 highest using authorities to see how we can help them reduce B&B hotel numbers.

  Thousands

  Government office region

  Financial year

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  1997–98

  7.6

  19.2

  15.5

  14.6

  13.4

  21.3

  13.6

  25.4

  19.0

  149.6

  1998–99

  6.7

  19.0

  13.1

  14.7

  14.0

  19.9

  12.9

  23.3

  15.9

  138.6

  1999–2000

  7.4

  18.9

  13.4

  16.4

  15.3

  18.7

  12.5

  23.2

  15.9

  141.8

  2000–01

  6.8

  19.7

  13.4

  13.6

  13.9

  16.2

  14.2

  22.0

  15.0

  134.7

  2001–021

  6.3

  16.7

  13.1

  13.9

  13.3

  15.5

  13.8

  21.8

  15.4

  129.9

  1Provisional

  Social Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each English housing authority the level of(a) investment in new council housing and (b) public financial support through the Housing Corporation for the last five years. [68617]

  Mr. McNulty
  The table provides figures for total expenditure on new council housing and funding provided through the Housing Corporation in England. I am arranging for a table setting out the figures for individual local authorities to be placed in the Library.

  Support from Housing Corporation through:

  Local authority new, build1

  Approved Development Programme

  Local authority Social Housing Grant

  1997–98

  45.1

  683.4

  363.1

  1998–99

  44.2

  606.4

  334.6

  1999–2000

  48.4

  638.1

  327.7

  2000–01

  21.5

  717.5

  399.9

  2001–02

  2—

  774.5

  410.4

  1 Figures for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 include acquisitions of dwellings

  2Not available

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) council and (b) RSL dwellings there were at the latest available date in each constituency. [68614]
  1156W
  Authorities have also been sent a 10-point check list of good practice outlining the key 'building blocks' in reducing B&B use. Regional seminars have been held and examples of good practice have been shared through a newsletter and via the ODPM website at: www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/bbu/ news/pdf/news0302.pdf.

  In addition, all local authorities will benefit from recent changes to housing benefit subsidy levels, worth an estimated £10 million, which provide an incentive to lease private sector homes as a better quality alternative to B&Bs.

  New Homes
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes have been newly built in each of the last five years, broken down by region. [68539]

  Mr. McNulty
  The numbers of homes newly built in each of the last five years, broken down by region, are shown in the table.

  Mr. McNulty
  Latest available information as reported by local authorities in England on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns, is presented in the table. Figures relate to stock within each local authority's geographical administrative area.

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  Adur

  SE

  2,965

  687

  Allerdale

  NW

  4

  9,110

  Alnwick

  NE

  2,139

  617

  Amber Valley

  EM

  6,076

  1,333

  Arun

  SE

  3,715

  1,983

  Ashfield

  EM

  8,395

  1,157

  Ashford

  SE

  5,979

  1,122

  Aylesbury Vale

  SE

  8,198

  977

  Babergh

  E

  3,870

  968

  Barking and Dagenham

  L

  22,902

  1,936

  Barnet

  L

  12,029

  5,332

  Barnsley

  YH

  24,701

  1,815

  Barrow-in-Furness

  NW

  3,462

  608

  Basildon

  E

  12,507

  4,653

  Basingstoke and Deane

  SE

  0

  11,004

  Bassetlaw

  EM

  8,360

  771

  Bath and North East Somerset

  SM

  0

  11,283

  Bedford

  E

  0

  10,117

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  NW

  2,351

  229

  Bexley

  L

  0

  13,249

  Birmingham

  WM

  85,516

  33,618

  Blaby

  EM

  2,431

  577

  Blackburn with Darwen

  NW

  252

  3,050

  Blackpool

  NW

  6,172

  1,278

  Blyth Valley

  NE

  7,846

  1,873

  1157W

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  Bolsover

  EM

  6,241

  850

  Bolton

  NW

  21,749

  6,170

  Boston

  Em

  3

  5,143

  Bournemouth

  SW

  5,421

  2,366

  Bracknell Forest

  SE

  6,257

  1,610

  Bradford

  YH

  26,197

  9,259

  Braintree

  E

  9,127

  1,304

  Breckland

  E

  2

  8,095

  Brent

  L

  10,801

  11,563

  Brentwood

  E

  3,050

  534

  Bridgnorth

  WM

  2,610

  430

  Brighton and Hove

  SE

  13,179

  4,674

  Bristol

  SW

  32,242

  8,109

  Broadland

  E

  0

  4,262

  Bromley

  L

  0

  17,377

  Bromsgrove

  WM

  3,417

  503

  Broxbourne

  E

  3,675

  869

  Broxtowe

  EM

  5,124

  922

  Burnley

  NW

  0

  6,653

  Bury

  NW

  9,327

  3,992

  Calderdale

  YH

  0

  15,583

  Cambridge

  E

  8,237

  3,035

  Camden

  L

  26,797

  8,153

  Cannock Chase

  WM

  6,675

  1,158

  Canterbury

  SE

  5,592

  1,498

  Caradon

  SW

  3,827

  570

  Carlisle

  NW

  8,010

  2,673

  Carrick

  SW

  4,012

  894

  Castle Morpeth

  NE

  2,874

  334

  Castle point

  E

  1,686

  383

  Charnwood

  EM

  6,476

  1,741

  Chelmsford

  E

  7,054

  1,882

  Cheltenham

  SW

  5,349

  1,550

  Cherwell

  SE

  4,072

  2,527

  Chester

  NW

  0

  8,000

  Chesterfield

  EM

  11,246

  1,260

  Chester-le-Street

  NE

  5,529

  353

  Chichester

  SE

  249

  6,859

  Chiltern

  SE

  0

  4,585

  Chorley

  NW

  3,393

  2,931

  Christchurch

  SW

  0

  2,280

  City of London

  L

  475

  231

  Colchester

  E

  6,976

  2,546

  Congleton

  NW

  0

  4,181

  Corby

  EM

  6,577

  655

  Cotswold

  SW

  0

  5,044

  Coventry

  WM

  0

  25,450

  Craven

  TH

  1,647

  593

  Crawley

  SE

  9,027

  1,372

  Crewe and Nantwich

  NW

  6,317

  981

  Croydon

  L

  15,233

  8,106

  Dacorum

  E

  11,417

  1,942

  Darlington

  NE

  6,500

  1,708

  Dartford

  SE

  4,780

  935

  Daventry

  EM

  3,469

  1,090

  Derby

  EM

  15,528

  6,479

  Derbyshire Dales

  EM

  3,287

  346

  Derwentside

  NE

  9,075

  1,037

  Doncaster

  YH

  26,845

  2,154

  Dover

  SE

  5,182

  1,841

  Dudley

  WM

  27,279

  3,283

  Durham

  NE

  7,550

  1,333

  Ealing

  L

  14,660

  8,018

  Easington

  NE

  12,297

  1,701

  East Cambridgeshire

  E

  0

  4,394

  East Devon

  SW

  4,506

  1,193

  East Dorset

  SW

  0

  2,900

  East Hampshire

  SE

  0

  4,863

  East Hertfordshire

  E

  6,029

  1,212

  East Lindsey

  EM

  0

  6,116

  East Northamptonshire

  EM

  0

  4,836

  1158W

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  YH

  12,474

  1,896

  East Staffordshire

  WM

  0

  6,659

  Eastbourne

  SE

  4,166

  2,015

  Eastleigh

  SE

  0

  5,697

  Eden

  NW

  0

  768

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  NW

  6,906

  646

  Elmbridge

  SE

  0

  5,354

  Enfield

  L

  13,183

  5,074

  Epping Forest

  E

  7,088

  1,134

  Epsom and Ewell

  SE

  0

  2,145

  Erewash

  EM

  6,066

  827

  Exeter

  SW

  5,598

  2,827

  Fareham

  SE

  2,646

  764

  Fenland

  E

  4,180

  804

  Forest Heath

  E

  2,933

  546

  Forest of Dean

  SW

  3,874

  841

  Fylde

  NW

  0

  2,299

  Gateshead

  NE

  26,165

  4,222

  Gedling

  EM

  3,839

  1,346

  Gloucester

  SW

  5,038

  1,544

  Gosport

  SE

  3,939

  1,855

  Gravesham

  SE

  6,579

  667

  Great Yarmouth

  E

  6,846

  1,024

  Greenwich

  L

  27,595

  9,308

  Guildford

  SE

  5,858

  1,367

  Hackney

  L

  28,364

  18,449

  Halton

  NW

  7,379

  8,374

  Hambleton

  YH

  0

  4,549

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  L

  14,421

  10,941

  Harborough

  EM

  2,413

  459

  Haringey

  L

  18,908

  8,892

  Harlow

  E

  11,014

  1,075

  Harrogate

  YH

  4,316

  1,681

  Harrow

  L

  5,929

  2,257

  Hart

  SE

  1

  2,591

  Hartlepool

  NE

  8,338

  2,751

  Hastings

  SE

  7

  6,006

  Havant

  SE

  0

  4,550

  Havering

  L

  12,004

  1,613

  Herefordshire

  WM

  5,974

  4,959

  Hertsmere

  E

  0

  6,401

  High Peak

  EM

  4,641

  861

  Hillingdon

  L

  11,574

  3,944

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  EM

  3,602

  1,065

  Horsham

  SE

  41

  6,077

  Hounslow

  L

  15,069

  5,188

  Huntingdonshire

  E

  0

  8,627

  Hyndburn

  NW

  3,774

  1,376

  Ipswich

  E

  9,117

  2,982

  Isle of Wight

  SE

  0

  6,112

  Isle of Scilly

  SW

  130

  32

  Islington

  L

  31,401

  10,635

  Kennet

  SW

  0

  5,810

  Kensington and Chelsea

  L

  7,167

  11,910

  Kerrier

  SW

  0

  4,797

  Kettering

  EM

  4,342

  926

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  E

  7,846

  1,639

  Kingston upon Hull

  YH

  35,153

  6,280

  Kingston upon Thames

  L

  5,138

  1,629

  Kirklees

  YH

  28,269

  4,420

  Knowsley

  NW

  18,283

  4,535

  Lambeth

  L

  35,687

  16,424

  Lancaster

  NW

  4,285

  1,906

  Leeds

  YH

  69,925

  13,740

  Leicester

  EM

  25,837

  8,801

  Lewes

  SE

  3,533

  1,124

  Lewisham

  L

  31,378

  8,686

  Lichfield

  WM

  0

  5,381

  Lincoln

  EM

  8,803

  1,005

  Liverpool

  NW

  35,859

  32,259

  Luton

  E

  9,310

  2,784

  Macclesfield

  NW

  5,925

  1,916

  1159W

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  Maidstone

  SE

  6,731

  1,042

  Maldon

  E

  0

  2,864

  Malvern Hills

  WM

  0

  4,280

  Manchester

  NW

  53,054

  25,059

  Mansfield

  EM

  8,228

  1,952

  Melton

  EM

  2,040

  359

  Mendip

  SW

  0

  5,589

  Merton

  L

  7,046

  3,875

  Mid Bedfordshire

  E

  3,184

  4,155

  Mid Devon

  SW

  3,452

  748

  Mid Suffolk

  E

  3,762

  721

  Mid Sussex

  SE

  0

  5,502

  Middlesbrough

  NE

  13,904

  4,412

  Milton Keynes

  SE

  13,396

  5,626

  Mole Valley

  SE

  3,726

  646

  New Forest

  SE

  5,293

  2,184

  Newark and Sherwood

  EM

  6,125

  1,642

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  NE

  35,280

  6,709

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  WM

  0

  10,811

  Newham

  L

  23,143

  9,134

  North Cornwall

  SW

  3,632

  975

  North Devon

  SW

  0

  4,207

  North Dorset

  SW

  0

  3,546

  North East Derbyshire

  EM

  9,344

  477

  North East Lincolnshire

  YH

  9,264

  1,854

  North Hertfordshire

  E

  8,656

  1,767

  North Kesteven

  EM

  4,208

  516

  North Lincolnshire

  YH

  11,123

  1,087

  North Norfolk

  E

  5,146

  1,007

  North Shropshire

  WM

  2,622

  547

  North Somerset

  SW

  6,675

  1,579

  North Tyneside

  NE

  20,151

  4,653

  North Warwickshire

  WM

  3,406

  686

  North West Leicestershire

  EM

  5,084

  1,274

  North Wiltshire

  SW

  0

  6,607

  Northampton

  EM

  14,205

  2,146

  Norwich

  E

  18,206

  2,972

  Nottingham City

  EM

  34,792

  8,778

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  WM

  7,128

  1,230

  Oadby and Wigston

  EM

  1,391

  386

  Oldham

  NW

  18,818

  5,007

  Oswestry

  WM

  2,166

  411

  Oxford

  SE

  8,211

  2,931

  Pendle

  NW

  4,024

  1,178

  Penwith

  SW

  0

  4,026

  Peterborough

  E

  11,300

  4,008

  Plymouth

  SW

  17,506

  5,972

  Poole

  SW

  4,860

  1,886

  Portsmouth

  SE

  11,285

  3,854

  Preston

  NW

  7,678

  5,258

  Purbeck

  SW

  1,660

  665

  Reading

  SE

  7,609

  2,922

  Redbridge

  L

  5,344

  3,014

  Redcar and Cleveland

  NE

  12,109

  2,087

  Redditch

  WM

  7,132

  1,131

  Reigate and Banstead

  SE

  4,859

  1,271

  Restormel

  SW

  0

  4,167

  Ribble Valley

  NW

  1,343

  454

  Richmond upon Thames

  L

  0

  9,249

  Richmondshire

  YH

  1,925

  248

  Rochdale

  NW

  16,831

  5,268

  Rochford

  E

  1,906

  871

  Rossendale

  NW

  4,650

  856

  Rother

  SE

  0

  3,943

  Rotherham

  YH

  27,489

  3,188

  Rugby

  WM

  4,342

  1,548

  Runnymede

  SE

  3,268

  637

  Rushcliffe

  EM

  3,622

  551

  Rushmoor

  SE

  0

  5,372

  Rutland

  EM

  1,340

  234

  Ryedale

  YH

  2

  2,752

  Salford

  NW

  30,119

  6,070

  1160W

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  Salisbury

  SW

  5,703

  1,497

  Sandwell

  WM

  37,623

  4,854

  Scarborough

  YH

  5,221

  1,590

  Sedgefield

  NE

  10,597

  1,339

  Sedgemoor

  SW

  4,558

  1,634

  Sefton

  NW

  13,546

  6,866

  Selby

  YH

  3,673

  861

  Sevenoaks

  SE

  0

  6,310

  Sheffield

  YH

  63,173

  8,398

  Shepway

  SE

  3,793

  1,422

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  WM

  5,593

  745

  Slough

  SE

  7,758

  2,314

  Solihull

  WM

  12,153

  1,574

  South Bedfordshire

  E

  5,710

  1,307

  South Buckinghamshire

  SE

  15

  3,264

  South Cambridgeshire

  E

  6,067

  1,083

  South Derbyshire

  EM

  3,712

  496

  South Gloucestershire

  SW

  8,473

  2,252

  South Hams

  SW

  16

  3,934

  South Holland

  EM

  4,242

  442

  South Kesteven

  EM

  7,182

  793

  South Lakeland

  NW

  3,706

  858

  South Norfolk

  E

  4,556

  1,105

  South Northamptonshire

  EM

  3,076

  469

  South Oxfordshire

  SE

  0

  6,010

  South Ribble

  NW

  0

  5,029

  South Shropshire

  WM

  16

  2,124

  South Somerset

  SW

  0

  9,694

  South Staffordshire

  WM

  0

  6,173

  South Tyneside

  NE

  22,731

  4,000

  Southampton

  SE

  18,486

  4,588

  Southend-on-Sea

  E

  6,579

  2,592

  Southwark

  L

  48,999

  11,797

  Spelthorne

  SE

  0

  4,862

  St. Albans

  E

  5,664

  1,299

  St. Edmundsbury

  E

  6,278

  1,182

  St. Helens

  NW

  15,087

  3,849

  Stafford

  WM

  6,361

  1,268

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  WM

  0

  3,727

  Stevenage

  E

  9,533

  1,222

  Stockport

  NW

  13,305

  4,425

  Stockton-on-Tees

  NE

  14,049

  3,080

  Stoke-on-Trent

  WM

  22,329

  5,908

  Stratford-on-Avon

  WM

  0

  6,377

  Stroud

  SW

  5,579

  972

  Suffolk Coastal

  E

  32

  5,986

  Sunderland

  NE

  0

  39,663

  Surrey Heath

  SE

  0

  3,000

  Sutton

  L

  8,934

  3,023

  Swale

  SE

  0

  7,577

  Swindon

  SW

  11,488

  2,916

  Tameside

  NW

  0

  20,574

  Tamworth

  WM

  5,522

  1,213

  Tandridge

  SE

  2,885

  487

  Taunton Deane

  SW

  6,672

  1,293

  Teesdale

  NE

  1,026

  546

  Teignbridge

  SW

  3,771

  944

  Telford and Wrekin

  WM

  0

  14,886

  Tendring

  E

  3,547

  1,943

  Test Valley

  SE

  25

  6,239

  Tewkesbury

  SW

  0

  3,919

  Thanet

  SE

  3,539

  4,028

  The Medway Towns

  SE

  3,364

  3,270

  Three Rivers

  E

  4,180

  875

  Thurrock

  E

  11,046

  1,191

  Tonbridge and Malling

  SE

  0

  6,988

  Torbay

  SW

  0

  4,498

  Torridge

  SW

  1,810

  555

  Tower Hamlets

  L

  27,045

  13,527

  Trafford

  NW

  10,699

  6,328

  Tunbridge Wells

  SE

  43

  6,888

  Tynedale

  NE

  0

  3,808

  1161W

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  Uttlesford

  E

  3,066

  703

  Vale of White Horse

  SE

  11

  5,627

  Vale Royal

  NW

  7,165

  1,160

  Wakefield

  YH

  36,559

  3,199

  Walsall

  WM

  26,952

  5,548

  Waltham Forest

  L

  13,439

  7,450

  Wandsworth

  L

  18,496

  9,186

  Wansbeck

  NE

  6,883

  532

  Warrington

  NW

  10,738

  4,667

  Warwick

  WM

  6,111

  2,166

  Watford

  E

  4,593

  846

  Waveney

  E

  5,284

  2,194

  Waverley

  SE

  5,333

  1,050

  Wealden

  SE

  3,405

  1,269

  Wear Valley

  NE

  5,847

  1,335

  Wellingborough

  EM

  5,259

  808

  Welwyn Hatfield

  E

  9,953

  1,760

  West Berkshire

  SE

  58

  8,143

  West Devon

  SW

  0

  1,802

  West Dorset

  SW

  0

  5,932

  West Lancashire

  NW

  8,067

  732

  West Lindsey

  EM

  0

  4,320

  West Oxfordshire

  SE

  0

  4,717

  West Somerset

  SW

  0

  2,220

  West Wiltshire

  SW

  22

  6,205

  Westminster

  L

  13,578

  11,923

  Weymouth and Portland

  SW

  0

  3,771

  Wigan

  NW

  26,590

  2,763

  Winchester

  SE

  5,597

  1,612

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  SE

  0

  7,265

  Wirral

  NW

  16,237

  8,150

  Woking

  SE

  3,659

  1,070

  Wokingham

  SE

  2,941

  1,113

  Wolverhampton

  WM

  29,427

  4,970

  Worcester

  WM

  5,059

  1,438

  Worthing

  SE

  11

  4,139

  A. Local education authorities unaffected by local government reorganisation ranked in order by the increase in the average class size1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  As at January each year

  Maintained Primary

  Maintained Secondary

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  Lambeth

  25.2

  26.3

  1.1

  North Somerset

  20.4

  22.3

  1.9

  Barnet

  26.2

  27.0

  0.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  20.2

  21.8

  1.6

  Haringey

  26.9

  27.7

  0.8

  Sutton

  20.7

  22.1

  1.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  25.3

  26.1

  0.8

  Bristol, City of

  21.1

  22.4

  1.3

  Lewisham

  26.1

  26.8

  0.8

  Wakefield

  22.2

  23.4

  1.2

  Dudley

  26.5

  27.1

  0.6

  Lincolnshire

  20.2

  21.4

  1.2

  Brent

  26.5

  27.1

  0.6

  Hackney

  22.3

  23.4

  1.2

  Sheffield

  26.9

  27.3

  0.4

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  21.0

  22.2

  1.2

  Hackney

  26.1

  26.5

  0.4

  Lewisham

  20.7

  21.9

  1.1

  Tower Hamlets

  26.2

  26.4

  0.2

  Croydon

  22.2

  23.3

  1.1

  Westminster

  24.2

  24.3

  0.2

  Wandsworth

  22.0

  23.0

  1.1

  Surrey

  26.2

  26.4

  0.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  20.8

  21.9

  1.1

  Newham

  27.9

  28.0

  0.1

  Solihull

  21.9

  22.9

  1.0

  Hounslow

  26.8

  26.9

  0.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20.2

  21.2

  1.0

  Islington

  26.6

  26.6

  0.1

  Brent

  20.5

  21.5

  1.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25.3

  25.3

  0.0

  Bromley

  20.4

  21.3

  1.0

  Wandsworth

  25.8

  25.7

  -0.1

  Barnet

  19.8

  20.7

  0.9

  Hertfordshire

  27.1

  26.9

  -0.1

  Harrow

  22.9

  23.7

  0.9

  Redbridge

  28.4

  28.3

  -0.2

  Northamptonshire

  21.0

  21.8

  0.9

  Waltham Forest

  26.6

  26.4

  -0.2

  Enfield

  20.7

  21.5

  0.8

  Camden

  27.1

  26.9

  -0,2

  Bexley

  21.8

  22.6

  0.7

  North Somerset

  27.8

  27.5

  -0.3

  Haringey

  21.6

  22.3

  0.7

  Greenwich

  26.0

  25.7

  -0.3

  Hertfordshire

  20.3

  20.9

  0.6

  Hillingdon

  27.2

  26.8

  -0.3

  Wigan

  21.5

  22.1

  0.6

  Southwark

  26.4

  26.1

  -0.4

  Gateshead

  20.4

  21.0

  0.6

  Wolverhampton

  26.9

  26.5

  -0.4

  Barnsley

  23.2

  23.7

  0.5

  1162W

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities and registered social landlords in England: 2001

  Local/unitary authority

  Region

  LA1

  RSL2

  Wychavon

  WM

  0

  7,186

  Wycombe

  SE

  6,946

  1,826

  Wyre

  NW

  0

  3,496

  Wyre Forest

  WM

  0

  6,717

  York

  YH

  8,775

  3,389

  1 At 1 April 2001

  2 At 31 March 2001

  Note:

  Local authority stock is that owned by the authority and within its geographical boundary

  Source:

  LA stock: ODPM Housing Investment Programme annual returns RSL stock: Housing Corporation annual Regulatory and Statistical returns

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the local education authorities in which(a) primary and (b) secondary school class sizes have risen since 1 May 1997, ranking these from largest to smallest increase in class sizes; and if she will make a statement. [66275]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The available information is shown in the table. The change in average class size is not readily available for those local education authorities that underwent local Government reorganisation in 1997 and 1998. The table is therefore shown in two parts: the list for local education authorities which are unaffected by local Government reorganisation; and the second for those that are.
  1163W

  A. Local education authorities unaffected by local government reorganisation ranked in order by the increase in the average class size1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  As at January each year

  Maintained Primary

  Maintained secondary

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  Suffolk

  25.0

  24.6

  -0.4

  Sheffield

  22.7

  23.2

  0.5

  Ealing

  27.1

  26.6

  -0.5

  Norfolk

  20.2

  20.7

  0.5

  Barking and Dagenham

  27.0

  26.4

  -0.6

  Trafford

  21.7

  22.1

  0.5

  Birmingham

  27.7

  27.1

  -0.7

  Kirklees

  22.5

  22.9

  0.4

  North Lincolnshire

  27.7

  27.0

  -0.7

  Leeds

  20.7

  21.1

  0.4

  West Sussex

  26.8

  26.1

  -0.7

  Rochdale

  22.8

  23.2

  0.4

  Havering

  27.9

  27.2

  -0.7

  Westminster

  21.5

  21.9

  0.4

  Harrow

  27.5

  26.8

  -0.8

  St. Helens

  19.9

  20.3

  0.4

  Bristol, City of

  27.2

  26.5

  -0.8

  Ealing

  22.4

  22.8

  0.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  27.2

  26.4

  -0.8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  20.7

  21.1

  0.4

  Bromley

  28.5

  27.7

  -0.8

  West Sussex

  21.6

  22.0

  0.4

  Lincolnshire

  26.9

  26.0

  -0.8

  Surrey

  21.7

  22.0

  0.4

  Norfolk

  25.9

  25.1

  -0.8

  North Lincolnshire

  22.5

  22.8

  0.4

  Enfield

  29.1

  28.2

  -0.8

  Gloucestershire

  21.5

  21.9

  0.3

  Croydon

  28.3

  27.4

  -0.9

  Cornwall

  22.0

  22.4

  0.3

  Sutton

  28.1

  27.2

  -0.9

  Bury

  23.1

  23.4

  0.3

  Cornwall

  27.3

  26.3

  -1.0

  Somerset

  23.2

  23.5

  0.3

  Bath and North East Somerset

  27.0

  26.0

  -1.0

  Suffolk

  21.1

  21.3

  0.2

  Bexley

  28.8

  27.6

  -1.1

  Calderdale

  20.9

  21.1

  0.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27.6

  26.5

  -1.1

  Hillingdon

  21.1

  21.2

  0.1

  Manchester

  27.2

  26.1

  -1.2

  Manchester

  22.4

  22.5

  0.1

  Gateshead

  25.8

  24.6

  -1.2

  Sunderland

  21.3

  21.4

  0.1

  Doncaster

  28.1

  26.9

  -1.2

  Knowsley

  22.1

  22.2

  0.1

  Liverpool

  26.8

  25.6

  -1.2

  Stockport

  23.1

  23.2

  0.1

  Bury

  28.3

  27.1

  -1.2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  22.2

  22.3

  0.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  29.4

  28.1

  -1.3

  Walsall

  20.7

  20.8

  0.1

  Wakefield

  28.2

  26.9

  -1.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  23.2

  23.3

  0.1

  South Gloucestershire

  28.5

  27.2

  -1.3

  Northumberland

  22.6

  22.6

  0.0

  Rotherham

  27.7

  26.4

  -1.3

  Havering

  21.8

  21.8

  0.0

  Salford

  27.3

  25.9

  -1.3

  Hounslow

  21.1

  21.1

  0.0

  Walsall

  26.2

  24.8

  -1.4

  Sandwell

  21.7

  21.7

  0.0

  Barnsley

  28.9

  27.4

  -1.5

  Doncaster

  21.5

  21.5

  0.0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  26.8

  25.3

  -1.5

  North Yorkshire

  20.6

  20.6

  0.0

  Wirral

  26.3

  24.8

  -1.5

  Wirral

  20.5

  20.5

  0.0

  Sefton

  27.6

  26.1

  -1.5

  Greenwich

  22.5

  22.4

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  27.1

  25.6

  -1.5

  Wolverhampton

  21.0

  20.9

  0.0

  Oldham

  29.3

  27.8

  -1.5

  Merton

  22.7

  22.7

  -0.1

  Northamptonshire

  27.0

  25.5

  -1.5

  Bolton

  22.1

  22.0

  -0.1

  Sunderland

  26.0

  24.4

  -1.5

  Salford

  22.1

  22.1

  -0.1

  Somerset

  27.6

  26.0

  -1.6

  Hartlepool

  22.0

  21.9

  -0.1

  North Yorkshire

  26.3

  24.6

  -1.7

  Tameside

  23.0

  22.9

  -0.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  28.3

  26.6

  -1.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  22.6

  22.5

  -0.1

  Isle of Wight

  25.9

  24.1

  -1.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  24.0

  23.9

  -0.1

  Middlesbrough

  26.5

  24.7

  -1.7

  Oxfordshire

  22.2

  22.1

  -0.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  27.4

  25.6

  -1.7

  Dudley

  23.1

  23.0

  -0.1

  St. Helens

  27.8

  26.0

  -1.7

  Redcar and Cleveland

  22.2

  22.0

  -0.1

  Stockport

  27.8

  26.0

  -1.8

  Warwickshire

  22.2

  22.0

  -0.2

  Solihull

  27.9

  26.1

  -1.8

  South Gloucestershire

  21.5

  21.3

  -0.2

  Calderdale

  28.0

  26.2

  -1.8

  Sefton

  21.1

  20.9

  -0.2

  Cumbria

  26.3

  24.5

  -1.8

  Rotherham

  21.7

  21.4

  -0.2

  Merton

  27.3

  25.4

  -1.8

  Liverpool

  21.1

  20.9

  -0.3

  South Tyneside

  27.0

  25.2

  -1.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  21.5

  21.2

  -0.3

  Coventry

  27.6

  25.7

  -1.9

  Coventry

  22.6

  22.3

  -0.4

  North East Lincolnshire

  28.1

  26.3

  -1.9

  Redbridge

  21.0

  20.6

  -0.4

  Leeds

  28.3

  26.4

  -1.9

  Oldham

  22.2

  21.8

  -0.4

  Bradford

  28.3

  26.3

  -2.0

  Birmingham

  21.8

  21.4

  -0.4

  Wigan

  28.5

  26.5

  -2.0

  Tower Hamlets

  24.0

  23.5

  -0.5

  York

  27.6

  25.6

  -2.0

  Newham

  24.5

  24.0

  -0.5

  Trafford

  28.9

  26.9

  -2.0

  North Tyneside

  21.9

  21.4

  -0.5

  Kirklees

  29.0

  27.0

  -2.0

  Isle of Wight

  22.3

  21.8

  -0.5

  Oxfordshire

  27.2

  25.1

  -2.1

  Camden

  20.3

  19.8

  -0.5

  Gloucestershire

  27.4

  25.4

  -2.1

  Southwark

  24.4

  23.8

  -0.5

  Hartlepool

  28.0

  25.8

  -2.2

  Cumbria

  21.2

  20.7

  -0.5

  Knowsley

  27.7

  25.5

  -2.2

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  24.3

  23.7

  -0.6

  Sandwell

  28.9

  26.8

  -2.2

  Islington

  24.0

  23.3

  -0.7

  Warwickshire

  28.5

  26.4

  -2.2

  South Tyneside

  22.7

  22.0

  -0.8

  Bolton

  28.9

  26.7

  -2.2

  York

  21.6

  20.8

  -0.8

  Kingston Upon Hull. City of

  28.8

  26.6

  -2.2

  Lambeth

  21.9

  20.9

  -1.0

  1164W 1165W

  A. Local education authorities unaffected by local government reorganisation ranked in order by the increase in the average class size1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  As at January each year

  Maintained Primary

  Maintained secondary

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  Northumberland

  27.0

  24.5

  -2.4

  Waltham Forest

  23.6

  22.6

  -1.0

  Rochdale

  29.6

  27.0

  -2.7

  Middlesbrough

  22.0

  21.0

  -1.0

  Tameside

  29.3

  26.5

  -2.8

  Bradford

  23.2

  21.8

  -1.4

  City of London

  26.0

  3—

  —

  City of London

  0.0

  3—

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  17.3

  3—

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  21.0

  3—

  —

  1Classes taught by 1 teacher.

  2Provisional

  3At the time of publication, submissions from these local education authorities had not been validated.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  B. Average class sizes1 for local education authorities affected by local Government reorganisation in maintained primary and secondary. School in England

  As at January each year

  Maintained Primary

  Maintained Secondary

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  Bedfordshire2

  27.4

  —

  —

  22.5

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire3

  —

  24.6

  —

  —

  22.2

  —

  Luton3

  —

  26.0

  —

  —

  23.3

  —

  Berkshire2

  27.5

  —

  —

  20.7

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest3

  —

  26.6

  —

  —

  20.6

  —

  Reading3

  —

  25.7

  —

  —

  19.0

  —

  Slough3

  —

  25.6

  —

  —

  20.6

  —

  West Berkshire3

  —

  24.8

  —

  —

  20.3

  —

  Windsor and Maidenhead3

  —

  24.9

  —

  —

  21.0

  —

  Wokingham3

  —

  25.7

  —

  —

  20.8

  —

  Buckinghamshire2

  27.9

  —

  —

  21.3

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire3

  —

  25.4

  —

  —

  22.1

  —

  Milton Keynes3

  —

  25.9

  —

  —

  22.1

  —

  Cambridgeshire2

  28.2

  —

  —

  22.1

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire3

  —

  27.1

  —

  —

  23.0

  —

  Peterborough3

  —

  27.1

  —

  —

  21.0

  —

  Cheshire2

  27.5

  —

  —

  21.3

  —

  —

  Cheshire3

  —

  25.6

  —

  —

  21.2

  —

  Halton3

  —

  24.6

  —

  —

  21.5

  —

  Warrington3

  —

  26.3

  —

  —

  22.3

  —

  Derbyshire2

  29.3

  —

  —

  22.2

  —

  —

  Derbyshire3

  —

  27.0

  —

  —

  22.3

  —

  Derby3

  —

  27.1

  —

  —

  22.4

  —

  Dorset2

  28.2

  —

  —

  21.8

  —

  —

  Dorset3

  —

  25.4

  —

  —

  22.7

  —

  Bournemouth3

  —

  27.2

  —

  —

  22.2

  —

  Poole3

  —

  27.0

  —

  —

  20.2

  —

  Devon2

  27.4

  —

  —

  21.4

  —

  —

  Devon3

  —

  25.4

  —

  —

  22.2

  —

  Plymouth3

  —

  27.1

  —

  —

  21.3

  —

  Torbay3

  —

  27.9

  —

  —

  20.8

  —

  Durham2

  28.5

  —

  —

  22.5

  —

  —

  Durham3

  —

  25.3

  —

  —

  21.9

  —

  Darlington3

  —

  28.0

  —

  —

  23.6

  —

  East Sussex2

  28.2

  —

  —

  21.4

  —

  —

  East Sussex3

  —

  27.6

  —

  —

  21.9

  —

  Brighton and Hove3

  —

  26.8

  —

  —

  22.5

  —

  Essex2

  27.3

  —

  —

  21.7

  —

  —

  Essex3

  —

  26.5

  —

  —

  21.9

  —

  Southend-on-Sea3

  —

  28.0

  —

  —

  21.0

  —

  Thurrock3

  —

  25.5

  —

  —

  23.5

  —

  Hampshire2

  27.9

  —

  —

  22.2

  —

  —

  Hampshire3

  —

  27.1

  —

  —

  22.9

  —

  Portsmouth3

  —

  26.4

  —

  —

  23.8

  —

  Southampton3

  —

  27.3

  —

  —

  22.2

  —

  Hereford and Worcester2

  26.0

  —

  —

  22.0

  —

  —

  Herefordshire3

  —

  24.7

  —

  —

  21.7

  —

  1166W 1167W

  B. Average class sizes1 for local education authorities affected by local Government reorganisation in maintained primary and secondary School in England

  As at January each year

  Maintained Primary

  Maintained Secondary

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  1997

  20022

  Difference between 1997 and 2002

  Worcestershire3

  —

  25.8

  —

  —

  22.4

  —

  Kent2

  28.0

  —

  —

  20.3

  —

  —

  Kent3

  —

  27.2

  —

  —

  21.0

  —

  Medway3

  —

  26.7

  —

  —

  20.8

  —

  Lancashire2

  28.8

  —

  —

  22.5

  —

  —

  Lancashire3

  —

  26.7

  —

  —

  22.4

  —

  Blackburn with Darwen3

  —

  27.2

  —

  —

  23.0

  —

  Blackpool3

  —

  27.9

  —

  —

  24.2

  —

  Leicestershire2

  26.7

  —

  —

  22.3

  —

  —

  Leicestershire3

  —

  25.9

  —

  —

  22.7

  —

  Leicester3

  —

  25.8

  —

  —

  24.1

  —

  Rutland3

  —

  25.2

  —

  —

  23.3

  —

  Nottinghamshire2

  28.7

  —

  —

  21.7

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire3

  —

  26.8

  —

  —

  21.5

  —

  Nottingham3

  —

  26.0

  —

  —

  21.9

  —

  Shropshire2

  27.4

  —

  —

  21.9

  —

  —

  Shropshire3

  —

  25.6

  —

  —

  22.3

  —

  Telford and Wrekin3

  —

  27.1

  —

  —

  21.8

  —

  Staffordshire2

  27.5

  —

  —

  22.3

  —

  —

  Staffordshire3

  —

  25.2

  —

  —

  22.0

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent3

  —

  25.4

  —

  —

  22.7

  —

  Wiltshire2

  27.2

  —

  —

  21.7

  —

  —

  Wiltshire3

  —

  26.1

  —

  —

  21.9

  —

  Swindon3

  —

  27.5

  —

  —

  23.3

  —

  1 Classes taught by 1 teacher

  2 Before local Government re-organisation

  3 After local Government re-organisation

  Temporary Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many part- and full-time employees under contract from temping agencies work within her Department; and how much was spent on temporary staff(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total staffing budget for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [66744]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]:From January 2002 to May 2002 the Department has employed 850 agency staff at a cost of £1,072,019.32 which was 1.49 per cent. of the staffing budget. The following table provides details for the past five years.

  Year

  Number of agency staff

  Financial year

  Agency spend for the financial year (£)

  Percentage of staffing budget

  1997

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998

  1—

  1997–98

  133,670.63

  0.09

  1999

  468

  1998–99

  238,525.40

  0.15

  2000

  932

  1999–2000

  930,625.49

  0.6

  2001

  1619

  2000–01

  1,828,956.64

  1.15

  1 Figures not available

  Teacher:Pupil Ratio
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average teacher to pupil ratio in infant classes in South Tyneside was in each year since 1997. [67045]
  1168W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Information for Primary schools is shown in the following table:

  Pupil:teacher ratio in maintained primary schools in South Tyneside local education authority

  Position in January each year

  Pupil:teacher ratio1

  1997

  23.4

  1998

  23.1

  1999

  22.5

  2000

  22.2

  2001

  21.3

  20022

  21.2

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

  2Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average pupil to teacher ratio was in Derbyshire in each year between 1996 and 2001 in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [67430]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1169W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: pupil:teacher ratios by type of school primary, secondary schools: time series 1996 to 2001

  Position in January each year

  Pupil:teacher ratio

  Derbyshire local education authority

  Primary schools1

  Secondary schools1

  1996

  25.3

  17.0

  1997

  25.9

  17.4

  1998

  26.2

  17.7

  1999

  25.1

  17.8

  2000

  25.2

  17.8

  2001

  24.2

  17.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 15W, on the pupil:teacher ratio, what the overall average pupil:teacher ratio in Suffolk was in each year since 1997. [67469]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: pupil:teacher ratios by type of school primary, secondary schools: time series 1997 to 20022

  Position in January each year

  Pupil:teacher ratio

  Suffolk local education authority

  Primary Schools1

  Secondary Schools1

  1997

  22.3

  16.6

  1998

  22.2

  16.5

  1999

  22.0

  16.6

  2000

  22.1

  16.9

  2001

  22.0

  17.1

  20022

  21.6

  16.9

  1Includes middle schools as deemed

  2Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Infant Class Sizes (South Tyneside)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average infant class size in South Tyneside was in each year since 1997: what the average sizes were in England in those years; and how many infants there were in classes in South Tyneside in each of these years. [67046]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Key Stage I classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools1—position in January each year: Time series 1997 to 2002 (provisional)—England and South Tyneside local education authority

  South Tyneside

  England

  Number of pupils

  Average class size

  Number of pupils

  Average class size

  1997

  5.669

  26.6

  1,646,660

  26.9

  1998

  5.583

  27.0

  1,654,287

  27.1

  1999

  5.441

  25.0

  1,629,716

  26.5

  2000

  5.333

  24.6

  1,614,641

  25.8

  2001

  5.031

  24.0

  1,575,160

  25.2

  20022

  4.660

  24.3

  1,550,373

  25.2

  1170W
  1Classes as taught during the one selected period in each school on the day of the census in January

  2Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the availability of transition plans to young people over 14 with a statement of special educational needs with particular reference to the obligations and compliance of local education authorities. [67110]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 make provision for all young people over 14 with statements of special educational needs to have a transition plan. Head teachers are responsible for drawing up a transition plan following the year 9 annual review of a young person's statement where he or she is in school and submitting this to the local education authority. Where the young person attends either a non-maintained special school or an independent school or does not attend school the local education authority is responsible for preparing the transition plan.

  Figures on the numbers of young people with statements in year 9 onwards who have transition plans are not held centrally. The Department is aware of the importance of securing successful transitions for this group of young people and has commissioned a longitudinal study of Post-16 Transitions of Pupils with Special Educational Needs'. Its findings will inform policy development.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if it is her policy that parents of children with severe learning difficulties may choose whether to send their children to special schools or be integrated in mainstream schools; [69204]

  (2) if it is her policy to allow parents of children with complex and severe special needs to choose whether to send their children to special schools or be integrated in mainstream schools. [69205]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Children with special educational needs must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the child's parents, or the provision of efficient education of other children. Where a child has a statement, and the parents do not wish the child to be educated in a mainstream school, then the local education authority may educate the child in a special school. The local education authority must name the parents' preferred choice of school on the statement unless the school is unsuitable, or the child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children or the efficient use of resources.

  Both mainstream and special schools have a role to play in the education of pupils with special educational needs, including those with severe and complex learning difficulties.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she issues to local education authorities regarding(a) the optimum size of special

  1171W
  schools and (b) whether children with severe learning difficulties should be taught within such schools or in mainstream schools. [69201]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Secretary of State does not issue specific guidance to local education authorities on the optimum size of special schools. Children with special educational needs must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the child's parents, or the provision of efficient education of other children. Where a child has a statement, and the parents do not wish the child to be educated in a mainstream school, then the local education authority may educate the child in a special school. The local education authority must name the parents' preferred choice of school on the statement unless the school is unsuitable, or the child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children or the efficient use of resources.

  Percentage of pupils of ethnic minority heritage in grammar schools and all maintained secondary schools

  January 2001

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Buckinghamshire

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Torbay

  Wiltshire

  Grammar schools

  Number of schools

  4

  8

  13

  33

  4

  3

  2

  Percentage of pupils classified as:

  'White' minority ethnic origin1

  89.2

  56.1

  77.7

  97.1

  93.1

  98.8

  98.4

  'Other' minority ethnic origin1.2

  10.8

  43.9

  22.3

  2.9

  6.9

  1.2

  1.6

  All maintained secondary schools

  Number of schools

  16

  77

  34

  105

  89

  8

  34

  Percentage of pupils classified as:

  'White' minority ethnic origin1

  89.4

  56.4

  79.7

  96.5

  93.3

  98.6

  98.4

  'Other' minority ethnic origin1.2

  10.6

  43.6

  20.3

  3.5

  6.7

  1.4

  1.6

  1Expressed as a percentage of total pupils for which an ethnic origin has been reported.

  2Includes pupils of Black Heritage, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese ethnic groups and any other minority ethnic group.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  School Playing Fields
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's policy is on the sale of school playing fields. [67227]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has a presumption against the need to change the current pattern of playing field provision at schools. We are committed to funding schools and local education authorities so they are no longer forced to sell school playing fields to pay for school repairs. We have provided over £7 billion over the last five years for capital investment in schools and are making £6.5 billion available over the next two years for investment in school buildings.

  Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. To protect school playing fields from such indiscriminate disposal, we introduced legislation on 1 October 1998 that requires local authorities to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before they can dispose, or change the use, of any school playing field or any part of a school playing field that has been used by schools in the last ten years.

  Applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields are assessed against the following criteria:

  a. Schools' needs: that playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school making the disposal, and at other schools in the local area, will be met;

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collates on the proportion of pupils of ethnic minority heritage selected to attend grammar schools in(a) Kent, (b) Buckinghamshire, (c) Bexley, (d) Wiltshire, (e) Torbay, (f) Lancashire and (g) Birmingham, compared with the proportions of those groups in the appropriate age cohort. [67188]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: The available information is collected through the Annual Schools' Census and records the ethnic background of pupils of compulsory school age and above in schools in England in January each year. The ethnic background of pupils in all maintained secondary schools is provided in the table as a proxy for the proportions in the general population.

  b. Community needs: that community use of a school's playing fields is taken into account, with alternative facilities made available if necessary;
  c. Finance: that any sale proceeds are re-invested to provide new or improved sports facilities at schools, or are used to help to raise standards by providing better educational facilities.

  Only those applications that meet the criteria are approved. All applications made since July 2001 have been scrutinised by the independent School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they conform to the published criteria. The panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the education organisation Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  School Sponsorship
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the rules governing school sponsorship were last reviewed. [67338]

  Mr. Miliband
  The rules governing specialist school sponsorship were last reviewed in May this year. As a result, we made one significant change to the criteria by reducing the amount of sponsorship required by small mainstream schools (defined as those with under 500 pupils on roll) to £100 per pupil, subject to a minimum of £20.000, rising to £50,000 for a school with 500 pupils.

  Specialist Schools
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason schools cannot count funds raised by the school in their bids for specialist school status. [67477]

  Mr. Miliband
  The guiding principles governing the eligibility of specialist school sponsorship are that it must be raised for the purpose of the application and be from a private sector source. Sponsorship from privately sourced school foundations and from parent teacher associations is acceptable. Where the school raises money by use of a public asset, such as the school's own premises, the funds are not eligible.

  School Safety Surfaces
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the advice on impact absorbing surfaces contained in Building Bulletin 85 on school premises; if she will make a statement on the extent to which reprocessed scrap tyres have been used for safety surfaces in schools; and what plans she has to increase such use. [67681]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills does not have the statistics required to make an assessment of reprocessed scrap tyre usage in schools. It is for the individual local authorities and school governors to apply the guidance on good practice in the way they consider most appropriate. The DIES has no plans to recommend an increase in the use of reprocessed scrap tyres in the future.

  School Building Repairs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that the additional funds provided to local education authorities secure a significant reduction in the backlog on school building repairs identified in the 2001 Asset Management Plan: [678071

  (2) when she will set a timetable for the elimination of the backlog on repairs to the school building stock; [67808]

  (3) what steps she has taken to monitor annual progress towards the delivery of (a) new schools and (b) the refurbishment of schools as promised in the 2000 comprehensive spending review; [67809]

  (4) what steps she is taking to ensure that the public funds allocated under the current comprehensive spending review are spent on (a) new schools and (b) refurbishment of schools. [67810]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The great bulk of capital funding for schools is now allocated by formula to schools and local education authorities for them to address the investment priorities of their school buildings. These priorities are decided locally in the context of each authority's Asset Management Plan. The Department appraises each plan to ensure that prioritisation is done in an open, rigorous and consultative process, based on a full survey of the building needs of all the schools in the authority, and reflecting Government priorities. This process increases the amount and quality of local decision making and reduces the bureaucratic burden of bid based and hypothecated funding.
  1174W
  While we wish to see the backlog of repairs eliminated, and provided £1.3 billion of New Deal for Schools capital grant funded from the windfall tax from 1998 until 2001 directly to address the most urgent needs, we also wish to move away from the patch and mend approach of the past to a strategic modernisation of our schools. Subsequent capital funding, such as the £6.5 billion being made available over the two years to 2003–04, is intended both to address repair needs and to take forward the modernisation of schools for the teaching and learning needs of the 21st century. Progress on each of these objectives will depend on the balance of local priorities in each local authority between repairs and modernisation needs.

  To reduce the bureaucratic burden, the Department does not require detailed information on how formulaic capital funding is invested. We do, however, have more detailed information on how capital funding is used from bid based programmes, including the New Deal for Schools from the windfall tax, the Private Finance Initiative and the Targeted Capital Fund, as well as investment in schools in the voluntary aided sector. Asset Management Plan returns provide periodic information on needs and, from this year, also on major capital projects in each authority. We have recently conducted a sample survey of the use of major formulaic programmes, and are considering how this information could be extended with minimum bureaucracy to provide evidence from which a national picture can be extrapolated.

  Teacher Retirement
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the policy is on setting a fixed age of retirement for teachers in adult education. [68114]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Adult education tutors are employed by the local authority, college or provider for whom they work. Their age of retirement is therefore a matter agreed between themselves and the employer. This means that the local authority, college or provider is able to retain tutors beyond the customary retirement age if there is a particular need or a shortage of expertise in a given area.

  We have no plans to restrict this and fully support colleges and providers in being able to plan and manage flexibly to meet the needs of learners.

  Adult Education Courses
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on funding adult education courses which do not lead to a recognised qualification. [68115]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In setting the remit for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), the Government stressed that qualifications are very important and accreditation will continue to be appropriate for many courses. But we also want to see the LSC provide a wide range of opportunities including learning not leading to awards. The Government are increasing funding for adult education secured through local education authorities and now funded through the LSC. Nationally the budget is £167 million in 2002–03, an increase of 9 per cent. on the previous year.

  Ring-fenced Grants
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what ring fenced grants were made available to local authorities in financial year 2001–02. [68290]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the Department's ring-fenced grants made available to local education authorities in 2001–02. These are specific grants ring-fenced for specific purpose or activities or special grants paid under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988

  £000

  Standards Fund

  1,583,000

  SA-tool Standards Grant

  631,307

  Education Budget Support Grant

  52,394

  Teachers Pay Grants

  479,275

  Nursery Education Grant

  184,000

  Education Maintenance Allowance

  98,000

  Childcare Grant

  148,750

  GM Transitional Grants

  10,335

  Education Action Zone Grant

  62,615

  Capital Grants

  704,000

  Note:

  Figures are in cash terms.

  The Government have simplified the operation of the Standards Fund, by far the largest specific grant for education. Since April 2001, schools have had more freedom to move funds between the different Standards Fund activities; separate auditing of the Standards Fund is no longer required; and the spending period for the Standards Fund was extended from 12 months to 17 months to give schools even more flexibility in planning expenditure. The School Standards Grant offers further freedom to schools.

  Home Economics
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to ensure that all schoolchildren at Key Stages I. II and III are taught(a) basic cooking skills and (b) good diet and nutrition; and if she will make a statement. [68344]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All primary pupils have a statutory entitlement to food technology within the national curriculum. They learn practical food handling skills, including food hygiene and are encouraged to develop positive attitudes to food. At Key Stage 3, the Government strongly encourage secondary schools to offer pupils the opportunity to study food technology, and 90 per cent. do so. Food, nutrition and healthy eating are also taught within science and personal, social and health education.

  Schools (Financial Reserves
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's estimate is of the total financial reserves held by schools in the(a) last year for which figures are available and (b)preceding five years. [68516]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: The following table sets out the information requested, in respect of schools maintained by local education authorities in England.
  1176W

  Financial year

  Aggregate balances at end of year(£ million)

  2000–01

  11,041

  1999–2000

  723

  1998–99

  556

  1997–98

  507

  1996–97

  524

  1995–96

  581

  1Provisional

  The figures contained in the table have been derived from the outturn statements prepared by local education authorities under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and corresponding previous legislation), and represent surpluses net of deficits. The figures for 2000–01 and 1999–2000 include the balances held by former grant-maintained schools, which amounted in total to approximately £108 million and £92 million respectively. I am investigating the practicability of providing information on grant-maintained schools' aggregate balances for 1998–99 and previous years, and I will write to my right hon. Friend to advise him of the outcome.

  Teacher Work Load
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to decrease the work load of teachers. [68518]

  Mr. Miliband
  The School Teachers' Review Body recently published its report on teacher work load. A consultation on the principles contained in the report concluded on 3 July. The Government will issue a formal response to the report later this year. This is an important part of our more general drive to enable teachers to focus on the core professional elements of their job.

  Teacher Retention
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to improve teacher retention rates. [68519]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills set out our plans to transform the school work force in her speech of last November to the Social Market Foundation. These plans directly address the key issues that we know teachers are most concerned about-work load, bureaucracy, professional development and status. 30 Pathfinder schools are testing different approaches for making improvements, and we will use the lessons learned to help the whole school work force nationwide. The number of teachers in our schools has already increased by more than 20,000 since 1997, and the number of support staff by more than 70,000.

  Classroom Support Staff
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many classroom support staff are employed; and what plans there are to increase the number. [68520]

  Mr. Miliband
  The provisional figure for full-time equivalent number of support staff in maintined schools in England in January 2002 is 213,012. This includes 103,624 teaching assistants, 49,050 administrative staff,
  1177W
  16,528 technicians and some 43,809 other staff. Plans for increasing this number will depend upon the spending review and decisions taken locally by schools.

  Teacher Morale
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to improve morale among teachers. [68521]

  Mr. Miliband
  Freeing teachers to concentrate on the core of their job and improving the status of the teaching profession more generally are central to our school work force reform agenda. The package of recommendations on work load made in a recent report by the School Teachers' Review Body reflects many of the issues raised by teachers themselves. A consultation on the principles contained in the report concluded on 3 July. The Government will issue a formal response to the report later this year.

  New Teachers' Contract
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultations she will have on the proposed new contract for teachers. [68522]

  Mr. Miliband
  Consultation on the recommendations in the School Teachers' Review Body's report on teacher work loads came to an end on 3 July. The Department's consultation letter of 8 May said that my right. hon. Friend would consult again on practical measures as appropriate in the light of this initial consultation. For the time being the Department is evaluating the initial consultation responses. Further consultation is likely to take place in the early autumn.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the educational maintenance allowance scheme applies in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [69083]

  LEA number

  Estab. number

  School name

  Lambeth

  208

  5950

  Turney Primary and Secondary Special School

  Lambeth

  208

  5952

  Thurlow Park Special School

  Lambeth

  208

  5951

  Willowfield School

  Bromley

  305

  5950

  Glebe School

  Hillingdon

  312

  5950

  Chantry School

  Kingston upon Thames

  314

  5950

  Bedelsford School

  Redbridge

  317

  5950

  Little Heath School

  Waltham Forest

  320

  5950

  Whitefield Schools and Centre

  Bedfordshire

  820

  5950

  St. Margaret's Residential School

  Bedfordshire

  820

  5951

  St. John's School

  Dorset

  835

  5950

  Beaucroft Foundation School

  Poole

  836

  5951

  Montacute School

  Dorset

  835

  5953

  Westfield Technology College

  Bournemouth

  837

  5952

  The Bicknell School

  Southend-on-Sea

  882

  5950

  The St. Christopher School

  Essex

  881

  5951

  The Endeavour School

  Leicester

  856

  5950

  Emily Fortey School

  Nottinghamshire

  891

  5950

  Fox wood Foundation School

  All of the above schools were, previously grant maintained and all became foundation schools since grant maintained status was abolished.
  1178W
  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Graduate Teacher Programme
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many training places have been allocated in each county in England under the Graduate Teacher Programme in (a) this school year and (b) next school year. [68931]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows total numbers of Graduate Teacher Programme places awarded in 2001-02 by Government office region and the numbers of places for 2002-03 that have been awarded to date. Figures for 2002-03 do not therefore include approximately 600 places that have still to be allocated.

  Number of places

  Government office region

  2001–02

  2002–03

  London

  552

  551

  South East

  555

  531

  South West

  174

  212

  North West

  314

  236

  North East

  99

  65

  Eastern

  745

  549

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  161

  131

  West Midlands

  327

  267

  East Midlands

  289

  245

  Total

  3,216

  2,787

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency

  Special Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list special schools with foundation school status which(a) were previously grant maintained and (b) have become foundation schools since grant maintained status was abolished. [69203]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  From the data available, the list of special schools with foundation school status is as follows:

  Entry to Employment
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about progress in introducing Entry to Employment provision. [69293]
  1179W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In making its recommendations to encourage greater take up of Modern Apprenticeships, Sir John Cassels' Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee proposed the establishment of pre-employment provision for those young people not immediately able to enter a Modern Apprenticeship or other employment. The Learning and Skills Council and the Department have been working together over recent months with other relevant interests to develop a more effective set of arrangements in work-based learning that will enable more young people to progress to higher learning opportunities. To this end a pathfinder Entry to Employment programme will be introduced in the following areas from this August:

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  Bristol

  Central Birmingham and North Solihull

  Derbyshire

  Greater Manchester(Rochdale)

  Oxfordshire

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Portsmouth and the South East Hampshire area

  Tyne and Wear (Newcastle and Gateshead).

  Current work-based learning provision beneath National Vocational Qualification at Level 2 will be subsumed within the new programme in which there will be a better focus on meeting individual aspiration and need. The Learning and Skills Council plan to evaluate the effectiveness of these pathfinders with a view to wider introduction of a new Entry to Employment programme by August 2003.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU Advisory Committee on veterinary training is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66454]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training (ACVT) was held on 16 June 2000 and it was abolished later that year.

  Representatives of the Scottish Executive have never been members of this committee. Representation was at UK level.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the embassy in the United Arab Emirates to contact lawyers on the embassy list on behalf of Mr. Clark since 20 February; and with what results. [64364]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: At the meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Amos on 20 February 2002, your constituent, Jason Clark, told us
  1180W
  that his father was unable to find a lawyer to represent him. He understood that his father had tried, without success, all the lawyers on our embassy list.

  Following the meeting, embassy staff spoke with a local law firm on our list on 5 March 2002. Firstly, they advised us that any local lawyer would require a substantial fee in advance, and secondly, if Mr. Michael Clark were to recommence legal action, his appeal for clemency might not be considered by the Abu Dhabi authorities while proceedings were on-going. They also had no record of Michael Clark getting in touch with them previously.

  We advised Michael Clark accordingly. We also reminded him that our staff are not, able to appoint a lawyer on behalf of a British national. However, if he wished to pursue a legal case, our offer to assist putting him in touch with a local lawyer remained. We also said that it would be helpful to us if he could list the local lawyers he had already tried.

  This issue had been discussed previously with Michael Clark himself during a meeting at the embassy on 20 January. However, at that time, he did not want to pursue any legal action.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in his Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65951]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs, at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 July 2002, Official Report, columns 384–86W.

  UN Racism Summit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people attended the UN Racism summit in Durban in September 2001, from(a) his Department and (b) other UK Government Departments; and what the total cost of the visit was. [66215]

  Mr. MacShane
  In addition to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Baroness Amos and Home Office Minister Angela Eagle, 19 officials from UK Government Departments attended the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in September 2001 at an average cost of approximately £3,100.

  10 of these officials were from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, seven were from the Home Office, one was from the Department for Education and Skills and one was from the Scottish Executive.

  The Government publish on an annual basis details of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published in a similar form to previous years as soon as possible. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the buildings owned by his Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66944]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 3 July 2002, Official Report, column 339W.

  The FCO Section of the Register can be found at: http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/218.pdf

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66920]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 622W.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66926]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's general policy on insurance, set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30, notes that Government only needs to purchase insurance to protect the viability of its business, where the 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.

  The FCO follows this policy.

  Peacekeeping Forces
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the impact on British peacekeeping forces(a) in Bosnia, (b) in other regions in the world and (c) not yet deployed of the refusal by the US to extend its Bosnia mission by six months; and if he will make a statement. [66820]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 30 June the US vetoed the UNSC resolution renewing the UNMIBH/SFOR mandate for Bosnia. An extension was agreed until 3 July to allow more time to seek a solution. It did not prove possible by this deadline to find a solution acceptable to Security Council Members. The Council therefore decided to extend the mandate until 15 July, to allow for further efforts to resolve the issue.

  The practical effect of this is that the UN police operation in Bosnia may continue for the time being. The basic operational capability of the SFOR peacekeeping mission is not affected. The legal base for this operation
  1182W
  is also the Dayton peace agreement and the consent of the Bosnian parties. The US have made clear that they intend to maintain their contribution to SFOR.

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will break down the £30 million package for the Nepalese Government according to(a) development aid and (b) military assistance. [67038]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has a substantial bilateral development programme in Nepal through DFID. The programme for this financial year amounts to £22 million. Of this, approximately £4 million will be spent on support for rural livelihoods, £5 million on enhancing rural infrastructure, £5 million on health programmes and £8 million on Government reform.

  We have also approved a further package of measures totalling approximately £6.5 million to be run jointly by FCO, DFID and MOD. These projects will assist in the development and implementation of aid projects in Nepal and reinforcing their military and police capacity.

  In particular, this package will fund the creation of a Civil Society Joint Forum, support for a rural development programme, a programme to promote and monitor human rights, peace support and separate human rights training to the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) and the provision of low-level logistical communications and transport equipment. The package will also cover the costs of infrastructure support to the UN Peacekeeping Centre in Panchkal.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to assist the enforcement of the Southern African Development Communities Programme for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe; if he will hold discussions on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [67122]

  Mr. MacShane
  There is no Southern African Development Community Programme for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. However, the SADC parliamentary forum has published electoral norms and standards. These formed the basis by which the EU judged the presidential election in Zimbabwe on 9–11 March.

  Our policy towards Zimbabwe is to work with concerned members of the international community, including SADC, to promote democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on an unconditional asset freeze and travel ban on ZANU-PF members, unqualified by international treaty obligations. [67120]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary had discussions with EU colleagues resulting in a travel ban and asset freeze on key ZANU-PF leaders, but has not held subsequent discussions on an unconditional asset freeze and travel ban on ZANU-PF members unqualified by international treaty obligations.
  1183W
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary continues to discuss with EU partners how to ensure maximum coercive pressure is placed on Mr. Mugabe and his allies.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 29 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Keith Marks. [67865]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 8 July.

  Secondments
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the Civil Service Commissioners Recruitment Code in order to allow self-employed people to be considered for secondment positions at his office. [67735]

  Mr. MacShane
  Review of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code is the sole responsibility of the Civil Service Commissioners.

  I shall raise this matter with them and write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Weapons (Outer Space)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on recent proposals by China and Russia to the conference on disarmament for the control of weapons in outer space. [68188]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK recognises the importance China and Russia attach to international consideration of proposals for further controls on weapons in space. We have signed and ratified the outer space treaty and other treaties that place important limits on military activity in space, including a prohibition on the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Space-based assets play a prominent role in security and military operations. While we do not wish to see a general ban on the military use of outer space, we would be ready to engage in further discussions of issues relating to the prevention of an arms race in outer space at the conference on disarmament.

  Future of Europe
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost to date has been of the national debate on the future of Europe broken down by type of expenditure. [68339]

  Peter Hain
  The debate on the future of Europe is just one part of the Government's wider commitment to making the European Union better understood by the British public. The budget for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's EU public diplomacy programme in 2002–03 is £260,000.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what end date has been set with Spain for the conclusion of talks on the future status of Gibraltar. [R] [68454]
  1184W
  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in Westminster Hall on 18 June 2002, Official Report, column 38WH.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received in respect of abuses of human rights against the Banyamulenge population in the towns of Uvira and Bukauu in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [68447]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Greece
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role police forces from the United Kingdom are playing in the hunt for members of the November 17 terrorist group in Greece; and if he will make a statement. [68207]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A team of Metropolitan police officers travelled to Athens at the invitation of the Greek Government on 8 June 2000, the day the British Defence Attache, Stephen Saunders, was murdered by N17. British police officers have remained in Athens since that date, working closely with the Greek police on their investigation into Brigadier Saunders' assassination and providing advice and training for their Greek counterparts.

  Following an explosion in Piraeus on 29 June and the subsequent detention of an N17 suspect, an additional team of Metropolitan police officers flew to Athens on 30 June and have remained there to assist the Greeks with their investigation.

  The Government remain committed to bringing Brigadier Saunders' murderers to justice, and more widely to helping Greece fight the terrorism menace of N17. The Metropolitan police team will remain in Athens as long as its presence there is useful.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's involvement in Afghanistan. [68541]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK is working alongside the Afghan Transitional Administration and international partners to support the Bonn political process. The UK is committed to achieving its campaign objectives of defeating international terrorism and breaking the link between Afghanistan and terrorism (the details of which were placed in the Library of the House on 16 October 2001).

  The UK was the first western nation to reopen a diplomatic mission in Kabul on 19 November 2001.

  The UK has given £60 million since 11 September to UN agencies, the Red Cross and other organisations towards the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. The UK has pledged a further £200 million from the UK over the next five years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. The UK was the first donor to contribute to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund with £100 million. Development assistance focuses on five key areas: economic management; security sector reform (funded from the joint DFID/FCO/MOD Global

  1185W
  Conflict Prevention Pool); humanitarian assistance; the development of sustainable livelihoods; and support to the political process.

  The UK leads in co-ordinating international efforts and developing a strategy to assist the Afghan Government to tackle drugs.

  The UK has developed close links with the new Transitional Administration and it's predecessor, the Interim Administration, through a number of high level visits including by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues to Afghanistan, and President Karzai to the UK. The UK is contributing towards the future development of Afghan leaders through an expanded Chevening scholarship scheme.

  After successfully leading ISAF in Afghanistan for the past six months, the UK handed over this role to Turkey on 20 June. The UK will continue to play a role in ISAF, with around 400 military personnel still committed. We remain committed to coalition activities in Afghanistan.

  China (Human Rights)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed at the Human Rights Dialogue held between the United Kingdom and China in May. [69927]

  Mr. MacShane
  The eighth round of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue took place in Beijing on 15 May.

  The theme of this round was the management of ethnic minority affairs. In this context, the talks in Beijing were preceded by a four-day field trip to Gansu Province where the UK delegation visited both Tibetan and Muslim minority groups. The UK delegation included a senior British expert on race relations.

  At the main session of talks in Beijing, the UK delegation raised a wide range of human rights concerns including: Tibet and Xinjiang; freedom of expression, religion and association; Falun Gong; criminal justice issues, including the death penalty; North Korean refugees; co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms, including visits by special rapporteurs; the ratification of the ICECSR and ILO Conventions; and the blocking of the BBC World Service website and Mandarin Service. The UK delegation also discussed the programmes of practical co-operation between the UK and China to promote human rights and the rule of law.

  They raised over 50 individual cases of concern.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Bahrain authorities regarding the case of Richard Mechan, a constituent. [68761]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our embassy staff have not had any discussions with the Bahrain authorities regarding the case of Richard Mechan.

  East Timor
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2002, Official Report, column 634W on 1186W
  East Timor, whether the unverified reports of Indonesian involvement in East Timor ahead of the invasion of 1975 were obtained from (a) press reports, (b) British diplomats in Indonesia and (c) the Australian embassy in Jakarta. [69031]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As will be seen when the files are made available shortly, reports such as these the FCO received about Indonesian involvement in East Timor ahead of the invasion of 7 December 1975 came from all three sources referred to by the hon. Member.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2002, Official Report, column 633W, on East Timor, whether the regular contacts between UK and Australian officials concerning the UN investigation of the deaths of British and other newsmen in East Timor have included discussion of the documentation published by Australia by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in September 2000 on those deaths. [69033]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 634W, if he will raise with the Indonesian Government the problems that have been experienced by the UN investigation on obtaining access to possible witnesses in Indonesia concerning the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and others in East Timor. [69032]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Further to my answer of 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 634W, the Government have raised this case with the Indonesian authorities at every appropriate opportunity and will continue to do so.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the former special representative of the UN Secretary-General in East Timor, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, concerning the status of the UN investigation into the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and others; and if he will make a statement. [68933]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Before he left Dili in May, Sergio Vieira de Mello confirmed that responsibility for the Balibo investigation remains with the Serious Crimes Unit in East Timor. I have since written to his successor Kamalesh Sharma to ask him to ensure that our ambassador in Dili is informed of any further developments with the UN investigation.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2002, Official Report, column 634W, on East Timor, if the documents on non-intelligence aspects of Balibo case that he plans to release will include the full text of(a) the report to his department of mid-1975 by the Chancery Department of the British Embassy in Jakarta on East Timor's prospects and (b) the covering letter attached thereto sent by the then British Ambassador to Indonesia. [69030]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes. The full text of these documents will be released when the files are made available shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Mental Health
  Mr. PeterDuncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the training of mental health professionals in Scotland. [65243]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The standards to which NHS mental health professionals are trained are set by UK regulatory bodies. However, the training routes by which mental health professionals meet these standards are devolved and are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Government Liabilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of Scottish(a) teachers and (b) NHS pension schemes in the last five years due to (i) wage inflation, (ii) longevity, (iii) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (iv) other factors; and if she will make a statement. [67026]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The regulation and administration of the teachers and NHS pension schemes in Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received from organisations in Scotland relating to reform of procedures relating to time orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [67146]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Citizens Advice Scotland have sent the Scotland Office their briefing on this matter.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on possible reform of procedures relating to Time Orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [67147]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Department of Trade and Industry is currently reviewing the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Scotland Office is working closely with the DTI in this area and the Government will consider whether it is necessary to make any changes to the provisions on Time Orders as part of the review.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on reform of procedures relating to time orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [67145]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government will consider whether it is necessary to make any changes to the provisions on Time Orders as part of our review of the Consumer Credit Act. We will fully consult the Scottish Executive on this matter.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) inspections and (b) thematic reviews have
  1188W
  been undertaken in each CPS area since the inception of the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate; and how long each took on average. [59348]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: Between May 2000 and May 2002 the Inspectorate inspected 37 of the 42 CPS areas. Gloucestershire was also the subject of a short follow-up inspection. Reports have been published on all these 38 inspections. West Midlands was also the subject of a follow-up inspection confined to a small aspect of its work, namely discharged committals. The inspection was extended to include scrutiny of police performance as well. The Inspectorate was assisted in the follow-sup by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate. A report on this joint inspection is expected to be published in July 2002.

  First inspections of the remaining five CPS areas are in progress and reports on all of them should be published by the end of September 2002.

  The Inspectorate has carried out nine thematic reviews between January 1998 and May 2002. Each review involved visits to CPS branches or areas, varying in number between six and 16. Since April 1999 each of the 42 areas has featured in a thematic review on at least one occasion and several of them twice.

  The length of an inspection of a CPS area will vary with the size of the area. The core inspection phases take 10 weeks for a smaller area and 20 weeks for a larger area, longer in the case of CPS London, the largest CPS area. Consultation with the area, agreeing the draft report and publishing the final version takes a further seven weeks or more after the completion of the field work.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action has been taken to reduce the number of(a) judge-ordered and (b) judge-directed acquittals since 1999. [60203]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: In 1999, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) introduced an adverse outcome analysis system. This provides CPS areas with a consistent means to identify reasons for adverse outcomes and also to allocate responsibility of any failure. This information is collated centrally.

  For the last seven years, many areas of the CPS have had in place, with the police, a system of joint performance management that involves an appraisal of Crown Court acquittals, including those ordered and directed by the judge. This process provides areas with information showing particular trends and a means by which improvements can be made.

  The Crown Prosecution Service produces quarterly summaries of unsuccessful case outcomes from information drawn from its various case tracking systems. This year the CPS and the police have begun to develop a joint case outcome analysis which builds on these two processes and will focus on avoidable case failure. Under this system, the reasons for judge ordered and judge directed acquittals in individual cases will be jointly assessed for individual training needs and other joint strategies for performance improvement.
  1189W
  The process will be supported by more sophisticated management information following the introduction of the CPS' Compass Case Management System due to roll out between April and December 2003.

  The figures in the table show a fall in judge directed acquittals from 1,777 in 1999 to 1,471 last year, a reduction of 17.2 per cent. Over the same period judge ordered acquittals rose from 9,616 to 11,825, an increase of 23 per cent. Much of this increase can be attributed to recent changes in procedures. Since January 2001, the prosecution, unlike before, have been able to discontinue cases in the Crown Court. Although this is a prosecution decision, the current system records these as judge ordered acquittals.

  Judge ordered and judge directed acquittals, 1999–2002

  Judge ordered acquittals

  Judge directed acquittals

  1999–2000

  Number of acquittals

  9,616

  1,777

  Percentage of completed cases

  11.1

  2.0

  2000–01

  Number of acquittals

  10,145

  1,755

  Percentage of completed cases

  12.3

  2.1

  2001–02

  Number of acquittals

  11,825

  1,471

  Percentage of completed cases

  14.0

  1.7

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television (Subtitling)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is her policy that the forthcoming communications legislation will have the power to ensure that video on demand and other forms of developing television are covered by the requirement to carry subtitles and other ancillary services. [66251]

  Dr. Howells
  No. The draft Communications Bill extends obligations for the provision of subtitling, sign language and audio-description services from terrestrial broadcasters to all licensed broadcasters. It is not proposed to extend them to other media unless such media were brought into the licensing regime by order, having met the criteria set out in the Bill for licensable television services. Under the Bill as drafted, true video on demand would not be licensable and, therefore, would not have legal obligations for subtitling any more than on-demand services provided over the Internet. It would be for those who provide such services to decide whether to offer ancillary services for viewers with disabilities.

  Football and Hockey
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many coaches Sport England funds for(a) football, (b) hockey, (c) men's football, (d) women's football, (e) men's hockey and(f) women's hockey. [66769]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Sport England funds the Football Foundation who provide funding for grassroots football.
  1190W
  Sport England does not directly fund any individuals except through the World Class programmes. Sport England put Exchequer funding into the coach education programme of hockey.

  The figures for hockey are as follows:

  11 full-time coaches or core consultant coaches;

  9 national age group coaches;

  43 sessional coaches.

  No further breakdown can be provided.

  Arts Council
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide a list of consultants and change managers employed by the Arts Council of England to assist the change process over the last 15 months; and if she will make a statement. [68346]

  Dr. Howells
  The following consultants and change managers were employed by the Arts Council of England to assist the change process over the last 15 months: Richard Pulford; Graham Devlin; Jeremy Brown; Carol Beckford Associates; People Initiatives; Thorpeworks Ltd; Lesley Payne; PwC; Anite Consulting; Network Marketing Group; Bacon Woodrow; Baker Tilley; Gregory Consulting Ltd; SGS Consulting; The Management Centre; Marketlink Research; Leonard Hull; The Change Partnership; Office for Public Management.

  Historic Buildings (Public Access)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 314, if there is an automatic access requirement when historic buildings are grant-aided by the Heritage Lottery Fund. [68301]

  Dr. Howells
  As part of the condition of grant, the Heritage Lottery Fund requires that grantees ensure that the general public has appropriate access to properties and that no one is unreasonably denied access.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the removal of tobacco sponsorship on the sport of darts; and if she will make a statement. [68469]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am aware of the extent to which the British Darts Organisation is reliant on tobacco sponsorship and of the difficulties it faces in finding replacement sponsorship. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have looked very carefully at how best to achieve an end to the advertising and promotion of tobacco at sports events in a way that will minimise any damage to the sports concerned.

  My Department has maintained a constant dialogue with the British Darts Organisation, partly through the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force, and I fully understand its concern about the impact of a ban on British darts. As it remains the Government's intention, subject to consultation, to end tobacco sponsorship for non-global sports by the end of July 2003, it is vital that the British Darts Organisation continue its efforts to find replacement sponsorship.
  1191W
  I will, of course, continue my own efforts in helping the British Darts Organisation and all other sports that would be affected by the ban, to ensure that they do not suffer unduly during the transition away from tobacco sponsorship.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force. [68468]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Sponsorship Tobacco Task Force last met in October 1999. Following that meeting it was agreed that the task force had completed its initial work of identifying the needs of sports affected by the ban on tobacco sponsorship. At that time these sports believed that it was too soon to be looking to replace existing contracts, and that the situation should be reviewed before the expiry of current contracts.

  Following the introduction of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, and the proposed consultation on draft regulations, I wrote to the seven sports represented on the Tobacco Task Force on 14 April to ask for their thoughts on whether this might be an appropriate time for it to resume its work. So far, I have only received a response from the British Darts Organisation. Should the other six members respond favourably, the Government would be happy to reconvene the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force.

  Tourism
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance has been given to(a) the tourist industry and (b) coastal towns since the foot and mouth epidemic. [68239]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave an additional £14.2 million to the British Tourist Authority in 2001–02. This funding was one element in the Government's package of recovery assistance that included rural business recovery funding, hardship business rate relief and interest-free deferral of tax payments. This year, the British Tourist Authority has launched a £40 million 'Million Visitor Campaign' aimed at promoting Britain in seven key international markets through a unique partnership between Government and the tourism industry.

  Assistance for tourism in Scotland and Wales, outside the programmes of the British Tourist Authority, is a matter for the devolved Administrations. Coastal towns have continued to benefit from a range of Government programmes.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on tourism in the UK in 2002; and what assessment she has made of the prospects for tourism. [68238]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority has forecast that inbound tourism trips to the UK in 2002 will be up by 5 per cent. to 7 per cent., and inbound tourism expenditure up by 8 per cent. to 10 per cent., on 2001.

  The English Tourism Council (ETC) has said that it expects tourism to return to pre-foot and mouth levels during 2002. A recent survey by the ETC has suggested that 59 per cent. of tourism businesses have already returned to normal business levels.
  1192W
  Domestic tourism forecasts in Scotland and Wales are matters for the devolved Administrations.

  Music Industry
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in establishing an office in the USA to assist and promote the British music industry. [66389]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government share the UK music industry's assessment of the importance of the US market, and are working closely with the industry on ways of improving our export performance in it. We welcome the industry's innovative approach, and are considering very carefully the proposal, set out in its report of 28 May, to establish a music office in the US.

  Hockey
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the role hockey will play in the plans to invest in school sports recently announced by the Prime Minister. [68111]

  Mr. Caborn
  Hockey, together with other sports played in schools and clubs, will benefit from initiatives to improve access to, and the quality of, PE, school sport and club links for five to 16-year-olds. These initiatives include: expanding the specialist sport college network and school sport co-ordinator programme; "Step into Sport", a leadership and volunteering programme and investment in school sport facilities with an element of community use. Sports clubs will be helped to develop stronger links with local schools and to attract more children and young people as members and volunteers.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many new astroturf hockey pitches have been opened in each of the last five years; [68113]

  (2) how many (a) water based astroturf hockey pitches and (b) sand based astroturf hockey pitches there are in England. [68112]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have contacted Sport England to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  District Policing Partnerships
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the timetable is for the establishment of district policing partnerships in each of the district command units in Northern Ireland. [66696]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is the Policing Board's intention to establish Direct Policing Partnerships (DPPs) as soon as practicable. Recruitment consultants have been appointed to facilitate the process leading to the appointment of independent members, and the Government will shortly issue a code of practice providing guidance as to how that process is to he managed. The final decision as to when positions are advertised rests with the Policing Board.

  Paramilitary Symbols
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of the Terrorism Act 2000 in addressing the problems of(a) paramilitary flags, (b) paramilitary murals and (c) kerbstone painting; and if he will make a statement. [67223]

  Jane Kennedy
  Section 13 of the Terrorism Act makes it an offence to wear clothing or to wear, carry or display an article which arouses reasonable suspicion that the individual concerned is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The Act makes no specific provision about flags, murals or kerbstone painting. Many of the flags, murals or kerbstone paintings in Northern Ireland are in any event of sectarian rather than paramilitary nature.

  Police Service for Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made in improving ethnic minority representation in the Police Service for Northern Ireland. [67330]

  Jane Kennedy
  At 1 November 2001 there were 17 police officers in Northern Ireland from an ethnic minority background (0.16 per cent. of the total). Since recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) began on 4 November 2001, there has been one new recruit from an ethnic minority community background, bringing the total number within the PSNI to 18 (0.18 per cent.)

  While the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland (the Patten Report) noted that ethnic minorities comprise less than 1 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population (para. 14.6), particular account is being taken of the need to increase ethnic minority representation in the new policing service. This is reflected through both the design and publication of recruitment advertisements, and the organisation of familiarisation days for members of the Chinese community.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made in improving the gender balance in the Police Service for Northern Ireland. [673361

  Jane Kennedy
  At 1 November 2001 there were 931 (12.9 per cent.) female officers in the Northern Ireland police service. Since recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) began on 4 November 2001, this figure has risen to 1,012 (14.9 per cent.) female police officers (as at 1 June 2002).

  Particular effort is being made to increase female representation in the PSNI, through targeted recruitment advertising and the organisation of familiarisation days for women. In addition, section 48 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 requires the Policing Board to make an action plan for monitoring the number of women in the service and for increasing their numbers if they are under-represented.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in reviewing PSA targets. [67331]

  Jane Kennedy
  Discussions are ongoing between the Department and the Treasury to finalise the details of NIO's revised PSA, covering the three-year period of the 2002 Spending Review, commencing 2003–04 and ending 2005–06. This will appear in a Treasury White Paper, to be published within the next few weeks.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Northern Ireland Office has made in meeting objectives and targets in its PSA. [67332]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of progress made in meeting objectives and targets in the NIO's PSA as at 31 March 2002 are contained in the Northern Ireland Office 2002 departmental report, "Expenditure Plans and Priorities" (Cm 5432), published in June 2002 (Table 4. 1 ).

  Small Business Security Grant Scheme
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the Northern Ireland Office with the Small Business Security Grant Scheme. [67333]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Small Business Security Grant Scheme is administered by the Northern Ireland Crime Prevention Panel (NICPP), a registered charity which aims to promote initiatives that help reduce crime locally. The NIO has provided funding amounting to £650,000 for the scheme. The panel established a scoring system based against which to assess applications. After a slow start, 1,800 applications were received by the closing date of 31 January 2002 exceeding expectations and the funding available. £560,000 has already been distributed to 631 successful applicants. The NICPP's Awards Panel has recently met to approve a further tranche of grants and to finalise the arrangements finalising the scheme at the end of November 2002 by which time all applicants to the scheme will have been informed as to the outcome of their application.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Accommodation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the. Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will offer undertakings to(a) West Mercia police authority police and (b) Hereford and Worcester fire authority about their protection from legal liability for the consequences of disturbances at the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton. [59799]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are considering the insurance provisions necessary for accommodation centres.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct an inquiry into NASS's supervision of contracts related to landmark properties in Liverpool.
  1195W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Arrangements already exist to monitor the performance of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Like any other directorate within Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND), NASS and its management is subject to investigation by the Home Office Internal Audit and the National Audit Office on financial issues. However I have asked the director of NASS to arrange for an inquiry into issues arising from NASS's dealings with the Landmark company to be carried out. The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows:
  To carry out an investigation into and to establish the facts surrounding the transfer of NASS supported asylum seekers from the Landmark building and The Inn on the Park in May/June 2002;
  To review the actions of Landmark. its directors and employees during the period up to and including the removal of asylum seekers from these two properties with particular reference to the terms of NASS's contract with Landmark and to make a report on any contract compliance issues that arise;
  To review and report on NASS's dealings with Landmark and the asylum seekers resident in these two buildings throughout the transfer period;
  To review and report on the extent to which the rights and reasonable expectations of the NASS supported asylum seekers were met during this transfer period;
  To review more generally NASS's handling of its contracts with Landmark; and
  To make recommendations for any immediate actions to be taken in relation to the transfer and to make recommendations in relation to NASS's management of such contracts and similar situations in the future.

  Asylum Seekers (Afghanistan)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards unsuccessful asylum seekers from Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [69923]

  Beverley Hughes
  Our long standing approach to Afghan asylum applications has been that we would not, other than in exceptional circumstances, normally seek to return to Afghanistan asylum seekers whose applications have been found not to meet the criteria set down in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. In those circumstances we would normally grant the unsuccessful asylum applicant four years exceptional leave to remain (ELR) in the United Kingdom. We modified that policy in April this year so as to grant only 12 months ELR to reflect the improving situation in Afghanistan.

  Large numbers of Afghans have come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum in recent years. We have provided them with asylum when they have needed it or granted ELR. But the situation in Afghanistan has now changed.

  We believe there has been a real and sustained improvement in the country situation. The recent establishment of the Transitional Government serves to underline the improvements which continue to be made. The improvement in the country situation no longer justifies a blanket policy of granting exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom to all asylum seekers from Afghanistan who do not meet the criteria in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. We will of course
  1196W
  continue to honour our international obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights.

  Asylum caseworkers will continue to consider—on a case by case basis—whether in the individual circumstances of a particular case it is appropriate to grant exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom to an unsuccessful asylum applicant and taking into full account the country situation. If the circumstances of an individual case justify it, exceptional leave to remain will be granted but, for the reasons stated above, I have decided that a blanket policy of granting exceptional leave to remain in all such cases is no longer justified. In cases where asylum has been refused, and exceptional leave has not been granted, we will take the appropriate enforcement action.

  Further, in order to facilitate voluntary returns to Afghanistan I am considering whether for a limited period of time, incentive payments could be made to returnees. The payments would help returnees to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan. The payments would be closely administered and time limited: it is essential that they not act as a pull-factor to the United Kingdom, nor their provision abused. We will also be looking into what other support may be needed in order to ensure the sustainability of returns.

  This would be the start of a number of packages we intend to develop to encourage return to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Other packages will involve, for example, different forms of re-integration programmes and explore and prepare visits. This demonstrates our long-term commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission are reviewing; how cases are classified; what percentage of all cases concern sexual abuse and of those, how many cases are(a) related to historic sexual abuse in care homes and (b) within a domestic context: and what period of time has elapsed between the sex crime being committed, the case being brought to court and the CCRC considering the case in each case. [64267]

  Hilary Benn
  At 30 April 2002 there were 402 cases under review and 309 waiting for allocation distributed as follows:

  Stage

  Cases

  Waiting for Stage 1 review

  3

  Under Stage 1 review

  35

  Waiting for Stage 2 Screen review

  120

  Under State 2 Screen review

  171

  Waiting for Stage 2 review

  186

  Under Stage 2 review

  187

  Under Stage 3 review

  9

  The Commission includes abuse in care homes cases in the category of "Sexual Offences". Sexual offences cases constitute a very significant percentage of all the applications received.
  1197W
  Of the 834 applications received in the 12 months to 31 March 2002 the sexual offences were as shown:

  Sexual offences

  Number of offences

  Percentage of all offences

  Number of counts

  Percentage of all counts

  Indecent assault

  129

  12.1

  328

  18.9

  Rape

  124

  11.8

  195

  11.2

  Other

  67

  6.3

  165

  9.5

  Total

  320

  30.2

  688

  39.6

  The Commission has set up a working group to analyse and refine its approach to child sex abuse cases and this group will gather more detailed data on the type and circumstances of the offences and convictions. This will include information on the institutional/domestic environment of the offence and the elapsed time from the crime to the conviction.

  The average time between conviction and application to the Commission for all applications is 3.5 years.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Hendon, refs 25180 and 25186. [31629]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I replied to question 25180 on 15 January 2002 and to question 25186 on 23 January 2002. Unfortunately, there was an error in the printing of the Official Report, and the answers appeared with the wrong questions. This error has been rectified for the Bound Volume of Hansard. In the meantime, I have resubmitted the correct versions of these questions and answers to my hon. Friend.

  New Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will pay insurance for future new prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [66620]

  Financial Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Home Office

  Court cases opened

  1,730

  1,768

  1,954

  2,474

  2,436

  Billable casework

  3,062,229.64

  3,299,971.95

  3,476,051.50

  5,180,641.93

  4,176,102.76

  Prison Service

  Court cases opened

  743

  911

  1,314

  1,173

  1,047

  Billable casework

  4,169,656.24

  4,129,371.72

  3,788,272.50

  5.688,196.36

  4,214,200.61

  Home Office

  Tribunal cases opened

  22

  22

  33

  35

  44

  Billable casework

  74,502.46

  108,813.04

  113,300.15

  242,767.23

  296,473.51

  Prison Service

  Tribunal cases opened

  80

  83

  118

  178

  134

  Billable casework

  359,250.63

  273,758.80

  464,692.55

  794,655.63

  1,023,295.85

  Notes:

  1. Figures given for the Home Office include its agencies apart from the Prison Service.

  2. The figures are supplied by the Treasury Solicitor's Department. which is responsible for litigation on behalf of the Home Office and its agencies.

  3. Court cases include judicial review and personal injury litigation. There is a small amount of commercial litigation not reflected in these figures.

  4. These figures do not include the proportion of cases concluded in favour of the department or the amount of damages paid. These items could not be obtained without disproportionate effort.

  5. The figures for billable casework include amounts charged by the Treasury Solicitor in respect of both time and disbursements.
  1198W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]:I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 3 July 2002, Official Report, column 439W.

  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 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61012]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Annual departmental expenditure limit (DEL)(£ million)

  10,731

  10,230

  Spend to 31 May (£ million)

  1,823

  2,140

  Spend to 31 May as proportion of annual DEL(per cent.)

  17.0

  20.9

  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 spend to 31 May 2001 constitutes 19.9 per cent. of that year's DEL.

  Case Numbers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; what proportion were concluded in their favour; and what the costs of cases fought were, including damages paid. [38033]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The information is given in the table. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
  1199W
  These figures show the arising amount and cost of litigation over the last five years. Around 2,500 cases were opened in the financial year 1997–8; over 3.500 have been opened to date in this financial year. The cost has arisen from roughly £7.5 million to £9.7 million. Prison Service litigation represents about a third of the total number of cases; while immigration judicial review covers about 90 per cent. of the judicial review cases which themselves form about two thirds of all the litigation.

  While the rise in the number and cost of judicial review and personal injury cases has been about 50 per cent. over the past five years, in the employment field the cases have doubled and the costs have all but trebled. This matter is under active consideration by the Prison Service.

  Paul Wright
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report of the independent investigation into the circumstances of Paul Wright's death at Leeds Prison on 7 November 1996, ordered by Mr. Justice Jackson on 27 June 2001. [69924]

  Hilary Benn
  I welcome this report, which is today being placed in the Library together with our response to the five findings and 20 recommendations made in the report. The Prison Service has previously accepted partial liability for the death of Paul Wright because failure to provide proper medical treatment was a contributory factor to his death, and in October 2000 apologised to the family, followed by an out-of-court settlement in December 2000. This independent investigation provides a very thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the death of Paul Wright and associated issues. Two of the findings reflect conflicts of evidence that are unlikely ever to be resolved.

  This was a unique investigation in circumstances unlikely to be repeated, largely because of changes made since 1996, including: provision of health care services in prison has been changed through a partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS at local, regional and national level; procedures for recruitment and supervision of prison medical officers have been improved, with training and qualification requirements tightened; and all self-inflicted deaths in prisons are now routinely investigated and investigation reports disclosed to families. In addition, a clinical review of the treatment provided to a prisoner dying in custody from natural causes routinely now takes place. Procedures for investigating all deaths in prison custody are currently under review. In parallel, a wider Home Office and Government review of investigations and inquiries is taking place against a background of emerging jurisprudence from both the domestic and European Courts. This investigation has provided some valuable insights which will help inform this debate, specifically in relation to the introduction of independence in future investigations.

  I hope that the changes which have been made show that we are trying to learn from what's happened as a result of our failure to look after Paul Wright in the way that we should have done.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Contact Orders
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many schedule 1 offenders have been granted unsupervised contact orders in each year since 1999. [68208]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department keeps routine statistics on the numbers of applications for contact and orders made but does not keep information about the party in whose favour an order was made. When considering making a contact order the court has the child's welfare as its paramount consideration. This includes taking into account any harm a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on how contact arrangements will be made safe for children before new measures are introduced; and how she will enforce contact orders. [682121

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  When considering applications for contact the court is obliged to make the welfare of the child its paramount concern. This includes considering any harm a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. The court can attach conditions to contact and make orders for the protection of children and their parents in any family proceedings. In addition to case law and the Guidelines prepared by the Children Act Sub Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law (CASC), the Department is considering possible amendments to court rules to ensure consistency in the treatment of applications for contact where there are allegations of violence. The Department is also facilitating the Child Contact Centre Working Group. The group is prioritising measures to ensure the safety of those using such services. The Government are considering the recommendations of CASC's report 'Making Contact Work' on the facilitation and enforcement of contact and will be making an initial response shortly. Ensuring contact is safe is a key consideration.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contact orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 were(a) refused and (b) granted in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [68213]

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contact orders were(a) granted and (b)s refused under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in (i) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [68319]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The figures sought are published annually in Judicial Statistics.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Granted

  41,862

  46,070

  55,030

  Refused

  1,752

  1,276

  713

  Contact orders include ones made for indirect contact or supervised contact. Although no breakdown is currently available, we will be undertaking a sampling exercise later this year to obtain information on this area.
  1201W
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if courts are required to ensure contact arrangements are safe for children. [68209]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  When considering applications for contact the court is obliged to make the welfare of the child its paramount concern. This includes determining whether a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering harm and taking steps to protect the child and any other party to proceedings. The court can attach conditions to contact and make orders for the protection of children and their parents in any family proceedings if the court believes this is necessary, regardless of whether or not such

  Title

  Month

  Length of consultation (weeks)

  Report of the Review Group on the Royal Peculiars

  July 2001

  11

  Administrative Court—Proposed Changes To Primary Legislation Following Sir Jeffrey

  July 2001

  12

  Bowman's Review of the Crown Office List

  Towards Effective Enforcement—a single piece of bailiff law and a regulatory structure

  July 2001

  12

  Payments into Court in Satisfaction of a claim

  August 2001

  13

  Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt

  August 2001

  15

  General Preaction Protocol

  October 2001

  16

  Damages for Future Loss: Giving the Courts the Power to Order Periodical Payments for Future

  March 2002

  12

  Loss and Care Costs in Personal Injury Cases

  Payments to Witnesses

  March 2002

  12

  Freezing Injunctions and Search Orders in Civil Proceedings

  March 2002

  12

  Promoting Inter-Agency Working in the Family Justice System

  March 2002

  14

  Making Decisions: Helping People Who Have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves

  April 2002

  13

  Selection Procedures for the Circuit Bench and Recordership

  April 2002

  113

  1Subject to request for extension until 22 July 2002

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68678]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department employed six officials within the central finance function to work on the Spending Review on a near full-time basis in recent months. In addition, two senior civil servants devoted a substantial proportion of their time to the review. A large number of officials from discrete business areas also contributed.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals in relation to rejected asylum applications were(a) received, (b) withdrawn and (c) heard in the periods (i) April 2000 to March 2001 and (ii) April 2001 to February 2002. [42897]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for the delay in responding.

  (a) The IAA received 37,573 asylum appeals during the period April 2000 to March 2001 and 46,578 cases during the period April 2001 to February 2002.

  (b) Reliable data on withdrawals and hearings was not held prior to October 2000.

  1202W
  conditions or orders have been requested. The Department is considering possible amendments to court rules to ensure consistency in the treatment of applications for contact where there are allegations of violence.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the length was of each public consultation undertaken by his Department since 8 June 2001. [68744]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The length of each public written consultation undertaken by the Department since 8 June 2001 is as follows.

  (b) During the periods:

  October 2000 to March 2001:

  1,181 applications for appeal were withdrawn; 1,124 at the adjudicator level, two at leave to appeal to tribunal level and 55 at tribunal level.

  April 2001 to February 2002:

  3,047 applications for appeal were withdrawn; 2,932 at the adjudicator level, nine at leave to appeal to tribunal level and 106 at tribunal level.

  (c) During the periods:

  October 2000 to March 2001:

  The IAA heard 26,603 appeal applications; 25,528 at the adjudicator level and 1,075 at the tribunal level.

  April 2001 to February 2002:

  The IAA heard 57,718 appeal applications; 54,828 at the adjudicator level and 2,890 at the tribunal level.

HEALTH

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on homeless people's ability to gain access(a) to health services in (i) primary and (ii) secondary care and (b) to social services. [56155]

  Mr. Lammy
  Primary care trusts are responsible for developing in partnership with social services departments, other agencies and local communities, a local health improvement and modernisation plan (HIMP) that outlines the health and social care services available for their local population, including homeless people. In
  1203W
  conjunction with local authorities' homeless strategies, the HIMP should assess local need and address any gaps in services.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b)s 2001–02. [60935]

  Mr. Lammy
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. The figures below exclude the salaries House of Commons Ministers receive as Members of Parliament.

  From May 1997 to July 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; one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at an annual salary of £23,623; and one Minister of State (House of Lords) at an annual salary of £51,838.

  From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister at an annual salary of £68,157; two Ministers of State at an annual salary of £35,356; two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at an annual salary of £26,835; and one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (House of Lords) at an annual salary of £60,961.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters Ministers in his Department have received in the last three months from(a) hon. Members, (b) medical students and their representatives and (c) others regarding problems faced by medical students. [61442]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department cannot provide the information in the format requested.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many strategic health authorities have nurses on their boards. [61446]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the number of nurses on the boards of the new health authorities (to be known as strategic health authorities) is as follows:midlands and east of England: four of the eight health authorities (HAs) have members on the board with nursing qualifications;
  north: seven of the eight HAs have nurses/people with nursing qualifications on their boards;
  London: at present there are no nurses on the boards of the five HAs in London. However, nurse views are represented on the North West London health authority board by the chief executive, who is a qualified nurse. In addition to this, two HAs in the London area are currently in the process of recruiting Directors of Nursing;
  south: four of the seven HAs have nurses/people with nursing qualifications on their boards.

  Of those HAs in the country who do not have nurses/ people with nursing qualifications on their boards, they propose to have such people on their top management teams or are ensuring that they have direct access to senior nursing advice.

  Coronary Care
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether guidance has been provided to primary care trusts on the provision of drug eluting stents for use in percutaneous coronary intervention. [61629]

  Ms Blears
  No guidance has been given to primary care trusts on the provision of drug eluting stents for use in percutaneous coronary intervention. The Department referred drug eluting stents to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 20 May this year for appraisal. NICE will produce technology appraisal guidance for the national health service on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug eluting stents and on the appropriate use of this new technology.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) start date and (b) completion date is for the private finance initiative at the Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; whether the initiative is on schedule for completion; and if he will make a statement. [61670]

  Ms Blears
  The Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth re-issued its Official Journal of the European Community in August 2001, and is expected to reach financial close by the end of February 2003. Start on site will commence shortly after and completion is anticipated in 2007.

  Consultant Neurologists
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects both positions for consultant neurologists at Colchester General Hospital will be filled; when the posts were advertised; and if he will make a statement. [63469]

  Ms Blears
  The local primary care trusts have been seeking to expand the neurology service at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust from a one-consultant to a two-consultant service.

  The trust held interviews on 25 June to appoint a consultant neurologist. Once the first consultant neurologist is in post, the trust will recruit to the second post.

  Affordable Housing
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken by his Department with regard to the provision of affordable housing for NHS staff. [65729]

  Mr. Hutton
  We fully recognise the importance to recruitment and retention of good quality, affordable accommodation being available for nurses and other health workers, and this is why we set out a target of providing 2,000 additional units by July 2003 in the NHS Plan.

  We have established the national health service housing initiative and, since the launch of the NHS Plan, 1,273 additional units of accommodation have been sourced through negotiation with registered social landlords and other providers. In addition, contracts have been agreed on a further 243 units of accommodation and 725 units are agreed subject to contract. The housing initiative has

  1205W
  been extended to include the south-east and other hotspots, including a new staff hotel at the John Radcliffe in Oxford. We have also established an accommodation bureau and website so that available accommodation is used more efficiently.

  We also recognise the importance of home ownership in the retention of staff and by 2004, around 5.000 NHS staff should have benefited from the £250 million allocated under the starter home initiative. Assistance is in the form of equity loans, interest free loans and shared ownership.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of waste produced in his Department was(a)recycled, (b) composted and (c) re-used, broken down into (i) paper, (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans and (iv) other in each year since 1997; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65680]

  Mr. Lammy
  Figures are only available from 2001–02. These show that of the total waste collected in the main buildings occupied by the Department, 84.1 per cent. has been recycled. There is no breakdown to show what proportions have been composted or re-used.

  Of the amount recycled, 80.5 per cent. was paper, 0.7 per cent. cans and 18.8 per cent. all other waste.

  The levels of waste and recycled materials are continually monitored and opportunities and initiatives to increase the levels of waste material recycled or re-used are under constant consideration.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) paper and (b) other goods purchased by his 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 he will make a statement. [65774]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is only possible to answer in the detail required for the last year 2001–02.

  The Department has a central stationery contract through which its normal supply of paper is purchased. For 2001–02, the amount of recycled paper purchased constituted 73.8 per cent. of the total paper purchased by the Department. The cost of this purchase was £138,864.

  The Department continues to monitor usage of paper and seeks, where possible, to reduce use of paper in favour of electronic communications. Where paper products are necessary, the Department encourages the use of recycled paper. This is an on-going initiative.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made about NHS Direct in each region in each month since its launch; and if he will make a statement. [65585]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is not possible to provide a comprehensive breakdown of complaints made about NHS Direct in each region. In the financial year 2000–01, 148 written complaints were received about NHS Direct 1206W
  in England. These figures are collected annually and not monthly. This equates to one complaint in over 20,000 calls made to NHS Direct.

  Details of all written complaints can be found on the Department's website: www.doh.gov.uk/nhscomplaints

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66195]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department decides on the appropriate tariff for national lines on a case by case basis, taking account of the purpose of the line, its intended audience and the ability of the target audience to pay.

  Clinical Nurse Specialists
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many clinical nurse specialists there are in the field of skin cancer; [66658]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of clinical nurse specialists in skin cancer. [66659]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not collect information on nurse sub-specialities.

  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out the Government's commitment to investment in cancer services, including the nursing work force. We expect to see an increase in specialist cancer nurses in line with needs identified in local cancer service delivery plans.

  Infliximab
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding has been made available to primary care trusts and acute hospitals to help fund the cost of patients using infliximab. [66814]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have not allocated earmarked funding for National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended treatments such as infliximab. However, national health service bodies have a statutory obligation to fund such treatments. General allocations to health authorities take account of the pressures on pay, prices and the cost of implementing NICE recommendations which they all face. Allocations have increased by at least 6 per cent. in real terms in 2002–03.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Bavarian Nordic were approached directly and invited to bid during the negotiations to award the smallpox vaccine contract. [67549]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes, Bavarian Nordic were approached directly regarding the supply of smallpox vaccine, but made it clear that Powderject were their nominated supplier for smallpox vaccine in the UK.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether other bidders for the smallpox vaccine awarded to Powderject committed themselves to supply a vaccine that was free of BSE agents. [67543]
  1207W
  Mr. Hutton
  Yes, other bidders for the smallpox vaccine awarded to Powderject committed themselves to supply a vaccine that was free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agents. European legislation demands that an application for marketing authorisation of a medicinal product in the European Union must include satisfactory demonstration of compliance with the European note for guidance on minimising the risk of transmitting animal spongiform encephalopathy agents via human and veterinary medicinal products.

  If a manufacturer wishes to produce smallpox vaccine using virus culture in bovine cells, the appropriate regulatory guidance on cell characterisation and storage would have to be followed.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether IDT were approached directly during the negotiations to award the smallpox vaccine contract and invited to make a bid. (67540]

  Mr. Hutton
  Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornav Gmbh (IDT) were not approached during the negotiations to award the smallpox vaccine contract and were not invited to make a bid. It was known from the outset that IDT were a sub-contracting partner of Bavarian Nordic, with whom Powderject had an exclusive agreement to act as their suppliers. An official from the Department accompanied officials from the Ministry of Defence on a visit to Bavarian Nordic and IDT at the end of January (31) on a fact-finding visit to discuss vaccine developments and manufacturing techniques and capacity for both types of smallpox vaccine being made by the company.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the relevance of the nationality of the supplier to national security was considered during the tendering process for the smallpox vaccine contract. [67545]

  Mr. Hutton
  The key selection criteria upon which the contract for the supply of smallpox vaccine was awarded were the company's ability to provide vaccine of the chosen strain and its ability to complete supply within the preferred timescale. The security of supply in the event of an emergency was a factor that was considered, but not the nationality of the supplier.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been implemented to reduce racial harassment of NHS staff; how many incidents of racial(a) abuse and (b) attacks have been recorded in the last year in each health authority; and if he will make a statement. [67420]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government is fully committed to diversity and equality of opportunity for all health service staff and patients and we are taking vigorous action to achieve this. There is no place for discrimination or harassment in the National Health Service on grounds of race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or age.

  The Improving Working Lives (IWL) Standard establishes targets and measures for promoting real improvements in the working lives of NHS staff. It makes it clear that every member of staff is entitled to work in
  1208W
  an organisation which can prove that it is investing in, and improving, diversity and tackling discrimination and harassment.

  Activity to achieve this aim is occurring on a number of fronts. We have launched an equalities framework (`The Vital Connection') which incorporates clear requirements for the NHS in promoting equality and introduces a package of indicators, standards and monitoring arrangements to support progress and manage performance as part of human resources performance management. It includes specific measures on race and harassment.

  In addition, the 'Positively Diverse' programme is developing the knowledge and capacity of NHS organisations to build and manage a diverse workforce. It provides the process for achieving the equalities related aspects of IWL and the targets set by the equalities framework and supports NHS organisations in meeting the workforce challenges set by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. In addition, new guidance and publicity posters, aligned with the NHS zero tolerance zone campaign, on dealing with harassment from service users has been developed and will be launched in September.

  Information on incidents of racial abuse or attacks is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by NHS employers. The findings of the 2000–2001 survey of reported violent or abusive incidents, accidents involving staff and sickness absence in NHS trusts and health authorities, in England, were published on 13 June. A copy of the report setting out the main findings of the survey has been placed in the Library.

  Junior Doctors' Time-sheets
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reliability of junior doctors' time-sheets. [67701]

  Mr. Hutton
  The monitoring of the hours worked by junior doctors is the responsibility of local employers. They and the juniors themselves are accountable for the accuracy of the figures, and the returns are required to be certified by the doctors in post.

  Devon and Cornwall Health Authorities
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the Devon and Cornwall Strategic Health Authority is overspent; and by how much this will reduce health spending from central Government allocations in the year 2002–03. [69186]

  Ms Blears
  The new health authority (HA) for the south-west peninsula is currently within budget. The HA running costs of £4 million were top sliced from the overall allocation to the local health community.

  Waiting Times (Mid-Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) were waiting for in-patient treatment, (b) had been waiting for over 12 months for in-patient treatment and (c) had been waiting over 15 months for in-patient treatment, in the Mid-Essex hospital trust area in the last two months for which figures are available. [69029]
  1209W
  Mr. Lammy
  The latest available information on patients waiting for inpatient treatment at the Mid-Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust are shown in the table.

  End of April 2002

  End of May 2002

  For inpatient treatment

  4,149

  4,199

  Waiting over 12 months

  192

  162

  Waiting over 15 months

  0

  0

  Source:

  DHSC monthly fast track figures

  Delayed Discharges
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the latest delayed discharge percentages by local authority within the star rating system. [68394]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no direct numerical relationship between the local authority star ratings and the figures for delayed discharge. The evidence upon which the ratings are based includes a wide range of information from inspections, joint reviews and monitoring, as well as the performance indicator data. Judgments that lead to the ratings are made against a set of standards, taking all this information into account. Information from Quarter 4 of 2001–02 on the numbers and percentage of delayed discharges at national and regional level, together with the reasons for delay, has been placed in the Library.

  Social Services Grants
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on schemes submitted by local authorities for the personal social services performance grant for 2002–03. [683951

  Jacqui Smith
  Councils have until 25 July 2002 to provide final details of their performance fund schemes to the Department. There is therefore as yet no information on the final schemes.

  Doctors (Suspensions)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 846W, on doctors (suspensions), whether the definition of suspension includes absence on special leave, gardening leave and other paid absence; what the total costs to the NHS are of the suspensions for (a) the latest quarter for which figures are available and (b) the equivalent quarter for each of the previous six years; and if he will make a statement on the other information that is available from the Department's data collection exercise. [68657]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the purposes of the central quarterly data collection exercise into the long-term suspension of hospital medical and community dental staff, the definition of suspension does not include special leave, gardening leave or any other paid absence.

  Based on national health service trust returns to the Department, the total cumulative costs of current suspensions lasting over six months for the first quarter of 2002 (1 January to 31 March) is £5,095,742.
  1210W
  Figures for the first quarter for the last three years is as follows:

  1 January 2000 to 31 March 2000: £3,956,225

  1 January 2001 to 31 March 2001: £4,245,789

  1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002: £5,095,742.

  Comparable and reliable data for the previous four years are not available.

  The Department collects details which identify the individual doctor concerned in order to validate information relating to the suspension. This is not published in order to protect the confidentiality of the individual.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were suspended for(a) less and (b) more than six months (i) at the latest date for which figures are available and (ii) for the equivalent quarter for each of the last six years. [68656]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts routinely report suspensions lasting six months or longer to the Department. Figures are not available for suspensions lasting less than six months.

  As at quarter ended 31 March 2002 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were 29 doctors suspended for more than six months.

  The figures for the last three years is as follows:

  1 January 2000 to 31 March 2000: 32

  1 January 2001 to 31 March 2001: 31

  1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002: 29.

  Comparable and reliable data for the previous four years is not available.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is an(a) named person, (b) named organisation and (c) multi-agency group responsible for mental health promotion in County Durham and Darlington. [68141]

  Jacqui Smith
  A health promotion lead has been identified for County Durham and Darlington. Easington Primary Care Trust (PCT) is the lead organisation for mental health promotion, on behalf of all PCTs in County Durham and Darlington. The multi-agency group responsible for mental health is the County Durham and Darlington mental health promotion steering group. There are 34 members of the group which includes all PCTs, County Durham and Darlington Priority Services National Health Service Trust and representatives from general practitioner practices, users and carers, prisons, health promotion services, the police and social services.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has started to collect data on(a) the number of NHS nurses who work in mental health, (b) how many leave the service each year and (c) how many NHS nurses are recruited to mental health each year. [68155]

  Mr. Hutton
  The non-medical work force census currently includes community psychiatry, other psychiatry, community learning disabilities and other learning disabilities among other detailed areas.
  1211W
  An exercise to re-define occupation codes and collect work force data by care groups is under way and will provide a more accurate picture of number of nurses working in mental health.

  In a separate exercise we are also modelling nurse labour market by branch, including mental health. This work will include consideration of mental health nurses joining and leaving the national health service each year.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 926W, on mental health, if he will list the data for 2001–02 in the same form; [682941

  (2) what the highest level of occupancy of beds on a single day in an acute mental health ward in London has been in 2002. [68168]

  Jacqui Smith
  Occupancy levels are not collected on a daily basis for acute mental health wards. The average bed occupancy rate for each National Health Service trust, including London, in the financial year 2000–01 is available from http://www/doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/

  Data for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the evaluation of the Working Minds programme includes an assessment of how many people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness have found employment as a result of the programme; and if he will make a statement. [68123]

  Jacqui Smith
  The evaluation of the mind out for mental health campaign, including the Working Minds programme, does not include an assessment of how many people have found employment as a result of the programme. However, as I indicated to the hon. Member in my reply on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 648W, the Working Minds programme works in partnership with employers to create positive shifts in workplace attitudes and behaviour surrounding mental health. Its objectives are far greater than helping people with mental health problems to find employment; the programme seeks to bring about a fundamental, long-term change in employers' policy and practice so that people with mental health problems are able to participate fully in the workplace. We are currently considering the findings of the evaluation.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the draft strategy on mental health services for people from black and ethnic minorities. [68149]

  Jacqui Smith
  The draft strategy is still being developed. We are aiming to publish a consultation document in the autumn.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care mental health workers are in(a) employment and (b) training. [68140]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 13 February 2002 at column 469W, when I said that funds to support the appointment of 1,000 new graduate primary care mental health workers would be allocated in 2003–04. This year, £2.5 million has been made available to establish new training programmes to 1212W
  support them when they are employed. This initiative is being led by South Trent workforce development confederation.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on the National Institute for Mental Health; and what its budget is for 2002–03. [68165]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Mental Health—England has a budget of £6,818,000 in 2002–03.

  The budget will fund eight development centres across the country which will act as a main point of contact for frontline staff to, network, find solutions and put them into practice. It will also fund a mental health research network and eight other national programmes, to deliver change at a national level, help staff implement national plan commitments, and broaden capacity in the development centres to support the frontline.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many "Working Minds Employers' Toolkit" have been produced in the current financial year. [68125]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 783W.

  An additional 2,000 copies of the "Working Minds Employers' Toolkit" were printed in March 2002. Copies of the toolkit are still available and there are no plans at present to produce additional copies in this financial year.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the 10 community mental health teams with the highest caseload per care staff member; [68129]

  (2) what the total caseload is of early intervention teams for mental health; [68137]

  (3) how many early intervention teams for mental health (a) are in place and (b) offer a comprehensive service as described in the model. [68135]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers and configuration of community mental health teams are being monitored by the mental health mapping project. Data from autumn 2001 have recently become available. Copies of a mental health mapping atlas, which contains this information, have been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money is allocated for the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign in 2002–03; and how much was spent in 2001–02; [68166]

  (2) what the communications expenditure of the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign was in 2000–01 and 2001–02; and what the communications budget is for 2002–03. [68167]

  Jacqui Smith
  Expenditure on the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign was as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  573,000

  2001–02

  1,300,000

  Decisions have not yet been made on communications expenditure for 2002–03.
  1213W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for variations in the use made of guardianship under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [68143]

  Jacqui Smith
  The purpose of guardianship, under the Mental Health Act 1983, is to enable patients to receive community care where it cannot be provided without the use of compulsory powers. Local social services authorities have the responsibility for applying guardianship orders and we know that there is variation in their use. We believe that the reasons for this may include a lack of awareness and understanding of the provisions, and a lack of powers to compel compliance with a guardianship order.

  The draft Mental Health Bill which was published on 25 June 2002 addresses these problems by introducing a legal framework that will enable patients on orders, under the Mental Health Act, to be based in the community. These will supersede guardianship orders and will provide a clearer statutory basis for protecting patients in the community.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of local implementation teams for mental health services have emergency beds available for a crisis. [68138]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local implementation teams (LIT) have a planning function and also report back on progress with implementation of the mental health national framework service and NHS Plan. The teams do not themselves have available any service resources. However the trusts and social services departments supply information on the availability of services in their areas to the appropriate LIT.

  All trusts will have beds available for the needs of people in an emergency and many now have 'crisis beds' available at special crisis houses supported by trusts, social services and/or voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the contribution made by(a) the electronic media and (b) the written media in changing attitudes and behaviour surrounding mental health as part of the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign. [68124]

  Jacqui Smith
  An evaluation of the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign, including the media strand, has been undertaken by an independent research company. We are currently considering the findings of this evaluation which covered all the main aspects of the campaign, including the campaign website.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which services within mental health are collecting the mental health minimum data set. [68106]

  Jacqui Smith
  The mental health minimum data set has been designed to provide person-based information about adult and elderly people in contact with specialist mental health care services in England. The data set is being implemented on a phased basis with all adult and elderly services due to assemble it from their operational systems from April 2003.
  1214W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the mental health of children in local authority care. [68110]

  Jacqui Smith
  A number of initiatives are under way to improve the mental health of children in local authority care. These include several targeted projects funded through the child and adolescent mental health services innovation grant, new guidance on promoting the health of looked after children and the development of a national healthy care standard which will support care providers in developing a healthy care environment.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by his Department in developing reporting lines which differentiate between(a) mental health crisis admissions out of areas which are not clinically indicated and (b) those which are so indicated; and if he will make a statement. [68153]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is looking at the best way of capturing information on admissions that are appropriately referred and dealt with by out of area services and those that are not.

  This is a complicated area, and the Department needs to develop a way of assessing the use of out of area treatments that does not overburden the service with additional data collection, instead trying to use the systems already in place like the hospital episode statistics. This will take time, and in the meantime we are focusing attention on the development of crisis resolution services that will help avoid unnecessary out of area treatments.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing posts there are in(a) London and (b) England which have been vacant for three months or more. [68157]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  England

  London region

  Three month vacancy rate

  Qualified staff (per cent.)

  3.1

  6.1

  Three month vacancy numbers (wte)

  Qualified staff

  8,390

  2,750

  Staff in post (wte)

  Qualified staff

  255,760

  41,980

  Staff in Post (head count)

  Qualified staff

  299.950

  46,470

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2002 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which have lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalent)

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from this survey.

  3. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  5. Due to rounding calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual.

  6. Staff in data is from the non-medical work force census September 2001.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancy Survey 2002

  Department of Health non medical work force census September 2001

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the NHS was per head of population in 2001–02. [68147]

  Mr. Hutton
  Public expenditure on the National Health Service in England is estimated to be £980 per head of population in 2001–02.

  NHS Staff (Qualifications)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made by the NHS in England in staff undertaking NVQ levels two and three in care. [68158]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2001–02, the investment identified in the NHS Plan enabled over 9,000 staff to undertake National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) training and/or assessment. The investment is designed to help those National Health Service staff without a professional qualification to access either NVQ training to levels 2 or 3 or a NHS learning account.

  Overseas Recruitment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which directorate within his Department is responsible for overseas recruitment of staff. [68109]

  Mr. Hutton
  The human resources directorate is responsible for the international recruitment of staff.

  Non-EU Nurse Training
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 122W, whether the figures for the year to 31 March 2001 are available; and if he will make a statement. [68295]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures for the year ending 31 March 2001 are provided in the table.

  Admissions to the register 2000–01

  Country

  Number

  Percentage

  Australia

  1,046

  12.42

  Canada

  89

  1.06

  New Zealand

  393

  4.67

  Nigeria

  347

  4.12

  Philippines

  3,396

  40.33

  South Africa

  1,086

  12.90

  USA

  147

  1.75

  West Indies

  172

  2.04

  Zimbabwe

  382

  4.54

  India

  289

  3.43

  Other

  1,073

  12.74

  Total

  8.420

  100.00

  Central Council for Physical Recreation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Central Council for Physical Recreation report "Saving Lives, Saving Money"; and if he will make a statement. [68152]
  1216W
  Ms Blears
  Increasing participation in physical recreation has an important role to play in raising the rates of physical activity and improving public health. The national service framework for coronary heart disease requires the National Health Service to develop local programmes of effective policies on increasing physical activity. We welcome the findings of the Central Council of Physical Recreation report which documents the progress being made by primary care trusts towards this milestone. We are currently developing a primary care handbook which will provide guidance on delivering the national service frameworks, including advice on developing local prevention strategies and effective approaches to increasing physical activity.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the guidelines on the management of eating disorders to be produced by NICE. [68151]

  Mr. Lammy
  Full information about the guideline on the management of eating disorders to be produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) may be found on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk

  The guideline is expected in September 2003.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a list of the primary care trusts which have been established. [68145]

  Mr. Hutton
  A full list of all 303 primary care trusts in operation at 1 April 2002 will be placed in the Library.

  Student Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the help available to student(a) nurses and (b) midwives in financial hardship. [68154]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government is confident that the National Health Service bursary scheme continues to provide satisfactory support for the great majority of students. At the same time we recognise that there are undoubtedly individual cases of hardship, and work is continuing to ensure we address any specific weaknesses in the support arrangements.

  The Government is increasing the financial support provided for all health professional students through the NHS bursary scheme (including trainee nurses and midwives), both in terms of the basic bursary and other elements of the package. This will help ensure that as few a students as possible experience financial difficulties during their training.

  The overall level of additional support available to those studying at degree level, through higher education (HE) access and hardship funds (funded by the Department for Education and Skills) in 2001–02 is £93 million, over four times that provided in 1997–98.

  Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2002,Official Report,

  1217W
  column 13 I 2W, if NHS Professionals' administration has been contracted to private nurses agencies; and if he will make a statement. [66848]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: NHS Professionals is the NHS-led approach to temporary staffing for the NHS. The administration has not been contracted out to private nurses' agencies.

  Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how widespread the use of cognitive behaviour therapy is; and in which parts of England it is not available. [68139]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has made no recent assessment of the use of cognitive behaviour therapy. However, cognitive behaviour therapy is recognised as an effective treatment for a range of mental health problems and information relating to this treatment can be found in the national service framework for mental health (www.doh.gov.uk/mentalhealth). The Department has also published a guideline 'Treatment Choice in Psychological Therapies and Counselling' and a booklet for service users that contain information about cognitive behaviour therapy and the common mental disorders for which its use is indicated.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to put in place a system for measuring the performance of the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [69088]

  Ms Blears
  As a non-ministerial Government Department the system for measuring the performance of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the same as for other Government Departments. The FSA independently prepares its own submissions as part of Her Majesty's Treasury's (HMT) Spending Review although these are submitted to the HMT through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. HMT approve the funding of the FSA on the basis of their submission and also agree a service delivery agreement setting out the main aims and targets to be achieved over the Spending Review period. A Departmental Report is prepared annually setting out the achievements of the FSA including an assessment of progress against each of the targets.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of problem drug misusers, including prisoners, were in drug treatment programmes in each year since 1997–98: and if he will make a statement. [69106]

  Ms Blears
  The estimated number of problem drug users in the United Kingdom is between 260,000 and 340,000.

  It is estimated that there were around 118,500 drug misusers in treatment in England, in 2000–01 (from 'Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000/01'); comparable information is not available for earlier years. The number of users presenting to drug misuse agencies
  1218W
  (including both general practitioners and other agencies) in England in each of the six month periods ending 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001 is given in the table.

  Number of users presenting for treatment to drug misuse agencies in England during the six month periods ending 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001

  Six month period ending

  Number of users

  March 1997

  25,925

  September 1997

  21,996

  March 1998

  23,916

  September 1998

  28,599

  March 1999

  28,499

  September 1999

  30,545

  March 2000

  31,815

  September 2000

  33,093

  March 2001

  33,234

  Source:

  Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases, Department of Health

  The figures above exclude treatment in prisons. The Prison Service does not hold this information. Figures on the number of prisoners entering drug treatment programmes is available but only for the period 2000 to 2002. They are:

  2000–01, there were 3,100 entrants

  2001/02 there were 4,691 entrants.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence his Department presented to the National Audit Office report on the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease concerning the risk assessment with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts; [68838]

  (2) whether he informed the Scientific Review into Foot and Mouth by the Royal Society of his Department's risk assessment with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts; [68840]

  (3) whether he informed the Inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 of his Department's risk assessment with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts. [68836]

  Ms Blears
  As this is not an issue which comes under the remit of either the inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001, or the National Audit Office value for money examination into the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, or the Royal Society study into infectious diseases in livestock, neither the Food Standards Agency (FSA) nor the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has raised it with them.

  The FSA's survey investigating composition and labelling of frozen chicken breasts sold in the United Kingdom catering sector, published in December 2001, found pork DNA in two samples, but no bovine DNA was detected in any of the samples. However, a recent Irish survey published by the Food Safety Authority (Ireland) this May, found samples showing the presence of either pork DNA or beef DNA or both.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the letter submitted by Mrs. Taylor of Stroud in November 2001, which was subsequently passed to the NHS Information Authority. [58340]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: A letter answering the queries raised was sent by the chief executive of the National Health Service information authority to my hon. Friend on 24 June 2002.

  NHS-PPP Estates Bid
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the winning consortia of the NHS-PPP Estates bid; and if he will make a statement. [65595]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: The winning consortia will be announced following the approval of the business case, which is planned for the autumn 2002.

  Medicinal Products
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the progress to the changes proposed to the definition of a medicinal product and the Government's position on these changes; [66854]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress that has been made to secure Her Majesty's Government's policy for no change to the scope of the centralised procedure with regards to the EU proposed amendments to the authorisation of human and veterinary medicines; [66850]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the proposals to extend the use of the centralised system for the authorisation of human medicines; [66853]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact the reduction in the amount of mutual recognition work concerning medicinal products will have on the relevant UK regulatory bodies. [66857]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answers 4 July 2002]: The European Commission published proposals for wide-ranging amendments to the regulatory regime for human and veterinary medicines in December 2001. Among the proposed changes were the mandatory use of the centralised system for the authorisation of human medicines containing a New Active Substance (NAS) and a new definition of a medicinal product.

  The UK, together with a number of other member states, has strongly opposed the mandatory use of the Centralised Procedure in negotiations. We do not see any scientific justification for this proposal, as it is the regulatory bodies in the member states who possess the expertise to carry out the scientific work. Nor do we believe that the proposal will improve the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry, as it reduces business flexibility.

  The UK has promoted this view in the Council of Ministers and in the European Parliament and we have the support of a number of other member states. Final decisions have not been taken in either institution and the UK will continue to argue its case strongly in the meantime.
  1220W
  The Government agrees that there is a need to ensure that definition of a medicine is drafted in such a way that will allow new therapies to be appropriately regulated. However, the UK view is that the extension of the scope of the medicines legislation, particularly when linked to the new definition, is unwarranted and unacceptable, as it would capture many products already covered by other sectoral legislation. The Government sees no justification for this proposal and will continue to resist it. This position is shared by most other member states.

  Outpatients, Lister Hospital
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for an outpatient appointment in the Maxilla/Facial Orthodontic and Restorative Department at the Lister hospital, Stevenage. [66765]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Figures are not available for the average waiting time for an outpatient appointment in the Maxilla/Facial Orthodontic and Restorative Department at the Lister hospital.

  The table provides latest waiting time information for orthodontics and plastic surgery at East and North Hertfordshire NHS trust on how long the number of general practitioner referrals seen in quarter 4 2001–02 waited before they received their appointment.

  0 to 3 weeks

  4 to 12 weeks

  13 to 25 weeks

  26 plus weeks

  East and North Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Orthodontics

  9

  20

  13

  106

  Plastic surgery

  134

  225

  161

  417

  England

  Orthodontics

  3,484

  8,980

  5,597

  3,115

  Plastic surgery

  7,781

  10,237

  7,367

  7,093

  Source:

  QM08

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) extra beds and (b) extra staff he estimates will be required at the Ashford & St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust to enable the new chief executive to achieve the franchise plan that he has approved. [67462]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 3 July 2002, Official Report, column 456W. The franchise plan for Ashford & St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust does not make any commitment to extra staff and beds. The Trust is assessing its capacity requirements in the longer term but plans have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra midwives are required by the Ashford & St. Peter's Hsospitals NHS Trust to achieve full establishment. [67461]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: I am advised by Ashford & St. Peter's Hospitals National Health Service Trust that the current funded establishment of midwives is 103 whole-time equivalents (WTE). There are currently 75 WTE staff in permanent positions. Therefore an additional 28 WTE staff are required to achieve full establishment.
  1221W
  However, in addition to the current permanent WTE staff of 75, the Trust has informed me that it also has a dedicated team of midwives temporarily employed to cover the shortfall, under the new NHS Professionals initiative. This results in an overall vacancy rate of 14 per cent. at the current time.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the required reduction in expenditure arising from the merger of the Ashford Hospital NHS Trust and the St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust was(a) in sthe year the merger took place and (b) in each subsequent year: [67464]

  (2) what reduction in expenditure by Ashford & St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust was required by West Surrey Health Authority's Sustainable NHS plan. [67463]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: In 1998–99, the year the hospitals merged, West Surrey Health Authority required strategic change savings of £300,000. As a result of the merger, the Ashford & St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust actually saved £1.4 million in management costs (£1.2 million in 1998–99 and £0.2 million in 1999–2000) and £0.6 million in support service costs. The benefits of the savings have been ongoing in subsequent years. The savings made met the strategic change target and helped fund cost pressures at the Trust.

  The Trust was required to contribute the sums shown in the table to the West Surrey sustainable National Health Service project on a recurring basis:

  £000

  1999–2000

  1,072

  2000–01

  1,665

  2001–02

  324

  Total

  3,061

  In 2000–01, the Trust received non-recurrent support of £1.24 million against the contribution of £1.665 million.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have been blocked in Surrey hospitals in each month in 2002. [67467]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: Information on delayed discharges is collected at health authority level and has been placed in the Library. The most recent figures available are for quarter 4 of 2001–02.

  National Health Service Act
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to use powers under section 97(6) of the National Health Service Act 1977 to ring-fence funds for the implementation of NICE guidance; and if he will make a statement as to his policy on the use of section 97(6). [67966]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: We have no plans to ring fence funds for the implementation of guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). National health service organisations are expected to meet the cost of implementing NICE guidance from their general allocations.

  Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to restrict the use of typical anti-psychotic drugs to a named patient basis. [67967]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: There are no plans to restrict the use of the traditional or typical anti-psychotic drugs to a named patient basis. The recently published guidance from the national institute for clinical excellence stated that oral atypical anti-psychotic drugs should be considered in the choice of first-line treatments for individuals with newly diagnosed schizophrenia and where there are unacceptable side effects with the typical anti-psychotics in people with a more long-established schizophrenic illness.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the implementation of the NICE guidance on atypical anti-psychotic drugs. [67965]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Secretary of State has not received representations concerning the implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's guidance on atypical anti-psychotic drugs. The national health service has, since 1 January 2002, been required to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments within three months of the publication of technology appraisal guidance.

  Child Welfare
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent national health service(a) consultant child and adolescent psychiatrists,(b) clinical psychologists working with children and (c) psychotherapists working with children there are. [67970]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Department's non-medical work force census does not break down the area of work for clinical psychologists and psychotherapists. The information shown in the table for these two professions covers all staff, regardless of whether they work with children.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): consultants working in the child and adolescent psychiatry specialty and qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed within the clinical psychology and psychotherapy areas of work as at 30 September 2001

  Whole time equivalents

  Child and adolescent psychiatry consultants

  420

  Clinical psychologists

  4,400

  Psychotherapists

  470

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Work Force Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Work Force Census

  Health Professions Council
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made as regards grandparent rights for non state-registered chiropodists; and if he
  1223W
  will make a statement on progress in the negotiations taking place under the auspices of the Health Professions Council. [67978]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 July 20021 There is a continuing dialogue, facilitated by the Department, between the health professions council (HPC), those bodies representing the currently unregulated chiropody sector and those representing the regulated sector. The arrangements for grandparenting (the assimilation of unregulated practitioners to regulated status) will not be finalised until after the HPC have completed and analysed the results of their public consultation. This is likely to be April 2003.

  Stalybridge and Hyde
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact his Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54335]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Detailed information on the impact of the Department's policies nationally is set out in the Department's annual reports. A copy of the most recent report 'Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02' is available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport

  The impact of policies are not examined by constituency.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Sustainable Production and Consumption
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
How their commitment given at European Union level in May "promoting a 10-year work programme on sustainable production and consumption with the aim of reversing the trends in the loss of natural resources and promoting the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation" will be drawn to the attention of consumers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government and the European Union are seeking agreement at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to a 10-year work programme on sustainable production and consumption. Clearly, informing consumers about the outcomes of the world summit will form part of the EU's communication strategy. Raising consumer awareness of the environmental pressures remains integral to our promotion of environmental policies, programmes and campaigns.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, the Government have made very little effort to inform consumers of what exactly their goals are and how consumers could translate that in terms of exercising a good choice on the high street. Does the Minister agree that not many Members of your Lordships' House have heard of last year's DEFRA campaign, "Pick the daisy", which was about choosing products with an EU eco-label? Does he agree that that is not fair to manufacturers, who are trying to up their game and produce products that use fewer natural resources, or to consumers, who are unable to implement any buying power in order to make a better environmental choice?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is unfair to say that the Government have not taken initiatives in this area. We have, in conjunction with industry, greatly improved the commitments involving the provision of environmental information to consumers. There are examples in the area of domestic appliances. Eco-labelling is only one aspect of that information. We have not developed a nationwide eco-labelling scheme partly because the European eco-label, with a daisy, is being developed at that level. It is important in an internationally traded sector to have a Europe-wide
816
system. Wider promotion of information on energy consumption and material consumption is also part of the system, and not a simple label.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to decoupling of economic growth and environmental degradation. The Government are to be congratulated on reducing the energy coefficient of growth, which is the relationship between GDP and the growth of energy consumption—growth is now slower. However, does the Minister agree that we have not so far succeeded in reducing the waste coefficient of growth? Do we know why that is and why the price mechanism is not reducing packaging and other coefficients of growth? If the tax and price mechanism is not somehow giving the right signals, do we face the dilemma that the alternative is regulation, which in other respects is not now a popular policy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend correct to say that we have reduced the energy coefficient. I believe that 30 or 40 years ago it was more than 1; in other words, we used more energy for every 1 per cent of growth in GDP. The figure is now substantially lower in the UK and worldwide. We have also reduced the total resource coefficient. Over the past 30 years, UK consumption of resources grew by about 12 per cent, whereas GDP and income grew by nearly 90 per cent. We had least success in the waste area. We must address information and consumer behaviour in that area and, ultimately, regulation and price. A combination of those instruments is needed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as someone who has in the past sold daisies to Japan, I will concentrate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, on the second half of the Question. Exactly how do the Government propose to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation other than waste?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already indicated that we have had some success in terms of reduction and the relationship between total use of resources and growth in GDP. That reduction must continue. We have had substantial success in relation to energy. In conjunction with industry, we are looking at various market transformations, particularly in the area of domestic appliances, to allow consumers to make choices that minimise energy use and waste content. Our main approach is to raise awareness and work with market solutions, but it is clear that better labelling and a degree of regulation also play a part.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the Government were to give active support to a vibrant bio-fuel industry, that would resolve an enormous amount of their commitments?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as noble Lords know, we are committed to the development of renewable energies of many sorts. On the issue of bio-fuels, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, knows, the department is

817
seriously considering the possibilities of various forms of renewable energy through crops, in respect of biomass and liquid bio-fuels.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that consumers learn about sustainability issues but that they tend to do so rather slowly? Introducing one sector after another is quite a wise policy. People have already learnt to look for recycled paper and glass products and, when people buy something that is made of wood, they look to see whether it has come from sustainable forests. Does the Minister agree that to attack the question sector by sector is a wise approach? What area of manufacturing do the Government plan to look at next?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in one sense, that is a sensible approach, in that we must establish in people's consciousness the information for which they must look. We have had substantial success in relation to the energy consumption of domestic appliances. The scale of A to G has now been reduced because people buy only the top three, most energy efficient appliances. Both the Government and industry are focusing on providing better consumer information, based on energy consumption, in that area.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government have been a little slow in considering some of these issues? As a result, we are experiencing tremendous problems with mountains of fridges. Soon, that will also be the case in respect of televisions. Many European directives are giving us enormous problems of which the general public are not aware.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the European directives are geared to reducing waste and the damaging effects of waste, particularly in relation to fridges. We are tackling that problem. Long discussions have been held in various places about the effectiveness of the directive concerning fridges. There is a difficult, short-term problem relating to the dumping of fridges, but we are tackling that problem and overcoming it.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. Will the Minister remind or announce to consumers in the House that the state forestry service in Britain is the first in the world to be accredited as sustainable? Can he give assurances to all our consumers in Britain that by-products from the state forestry service will, indeed, be from sustainable forests?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept both the declaration of interest and the serious commitment of the Forestry Commission to sustainable timber. My department has given very clear advice to consumers on the choice of timber-based materials. Purchases of wood are an important contribution to that end.

Learning Disability
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rixasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to implement the commitment made in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086, paragraph 7.16) to promote supported living for people with a learning disability living with older parents aged 70 and over.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are committed to the implementation of the White Paper. They have issued Section 7 guidance and promoting supported living for people with a learning disability living with older carers is one of the priorities for both the revenue and capital elements of the £42 million learning disability development fund.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm that the Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will issue joint guidance to local housing authorities and social services to ensure that they increase their efforts to provide such services and such housing for people with a learning disability who live at home with parents or a parent aged 70 or over? Will the Minister comment on how he feels that the joint guidance will be accepted? I should like to point out to your Lordships that, in view of the debate in another place yesterday, I use the word "joint" in its meaning of "togetherness".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this Government are always together. The Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hope to issue guidance very shortly. I believe that local authorities will find it helpful and supportive. The guidance will give a great deal of good advice on how they should develop their strategies. In doing so, we are particularly anxious that local authorities pick up the pressing need of older carers who have devoted their lives to their children with learning disabilities and worry about the future. We intend to monitor how local authorities take forward those plans and proposals.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, people with an appalling disability should be a priority group but they have been neglected. Is it not likely that the Government's guidance will also be neglected? Can my noble friend say whether Section 7 guidance is mandatory?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, so far as concerns Section 7 guidance, the courts have held that local authorities are required to follow the path charted by the Secretary of State's guidance. They have liberty to deviate from it where they judge, on admissible grounds, that there is a good reason to do so but they do not have the freedom to take a

819
substantially different course. I believe that that makes the position absolutely clear. As my noble friend suggests, I acknowledge that the record of local authorities in this area has been very patchy. That is why local partnership boards will be required to produce housing strategies in the winter of 2002–03. Those will he informed by the local assessments of needs, which are being reviewed at present, and by the guidance that I have already mentioned.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that village communities are the cheapest and happiest places for people with learning difficulties to live in? Anything that the Government can do to stimulate the creation of further village communities will do most to solve this problem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's deep concern about the value of village communities and his wish to ensure that such provision is available. He will know that the White Paper specified that village communities are one option which local partnership boards, comprising local authorities and other statutory agencies at local level, will take into account. I recognise that, for some people, village communities offer a genuine option. Equally, we expect the local partnership boards to consider other options as well, including supported living and other approaches that have been shown to work well.
Lord Addington: My Lords, what guidance do the Government intend to give to people in their fifties, for example, whose children with learning disabilities live with them? Can the Minister say something about future planning? Thankfully, the life expectancy of those with learning disabilities is being raised all the time. However, that means that over time the problem to which I refer will increase.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that point was made in the recent report by Mencap, which criticises local authorities for dealing only with the problem of older carers when perhaps one carer has died or a crisis point is reached. Clearly, the more we plan in advance the better. The local partnership boards are now undertaking an assessment of those kinds of needs in order to be able to plan for the future.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government will now be urgently reviewing the availability of local authority funded housing support places for this priority group, since at the present rate of progress— 227 places a year—it will take 30 years to meet the needs of people with a learning disability now living with parents aged 70 and above?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the precise point of the Section 7 guidance is to ensure that local authorities within the partnership boards develop a local housing strategy. It is our expectation that in the light of their assessment of local needs of people with
820
learning disabilities and their carers, local authorities will develop a housing strategy this winter, which we shall carefully review.
We are keen to emphasise to local authorities that while they need to look at special provisions, much of the availability of social housing could well prove to be attractive to people with learning disabilities. It is important that all options are considered.

Zimbabwe
3.22 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their current policies towards Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, there is a strong international consensus opposed to the actions of the Zimbabwe regime. We shall work to strengthen that consensus, while supporting credible regional efforts—in particular the joint initiative of South Africa and Nigeria— to restore democratic legitimacy to Zimbabwe.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that at their June meeting, the European Union foreign ministers decided not to intensify the sanctions against Mr Mugabe and his cronies? Can she also confirm that at the recent G8 conference in Canada the documents issued by the conference contained no reference to Zimbabwe, nor did the Statement on the G8 conference given by the Prime Minister last week in another place?
Is the disappearance of Zimbabwe from the Government's radar screen the result of the fact that in the new treaty for the African union great importance is attached to human rights and good governance and not least to peer pressure to remedy any backsliding? Is the Government's policy now to leave any effort towards remedying the situation in Zimbabwe, which is causing ruin in most of Southern Africa, to African countries alone?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Zimbabwe has not disappeared from the Government's radar screen. We have discussed Zimbabwe on many occasions in this House and sought to make clear the UK position. Clearly, I have not been successful in that. Perhaps my communication skills are at fault.
I shall repeat the Government's position. We deplore the violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe. We deeply regret the economic mismanagement 'which has led to a food crisis. That means that nearly 50 per cent of the population could need supplementary feeding by the end of the year. We have worked consistently to ensure international consensus on the issue. At the Commonwealth "troika" meeting, Zimbabwe was suspended from the Council of the Commonwealth. We have pressed the importance of human rights and good governance through the G8

821
process. The G8 Africa action plan contains several strong statements about the importance of good governance and the rule of law. I hope that noble Lords will read that.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Government's policy on Zimbabwe is broadly right. However, a solution to the problem will have to come from the African countries. Is my noble friend aware that our efforts should therefore be concentrated on trying to influence the African countries which can put pressure on Mr Mugabe to change his policies? I refer in particular to the South African Government. They persuaded Mr Smith to change his policies. Perhaps they will have the same effect on Mr Mugabe.
My noble friend spoke of starvation in Southern Africa. Which policies are the Government in a position to implement in relation to the starving people in Zimbabwe? How will we get the food to them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The leadership shown from within the African continent is essential in helping to resolve the issue. I have spoken on many occasions about the importance of peer pressure from the countries around Zimbabwe, particularly as they suffer from the economic mismanagement in Zimbabwe. In that context, the Southern African Development Community, including South Africa, is important.
As regards the food crisis in southern Africa, and in particular Zimbabwe, it is important that a different kind of economic management and a sustainable and transparent land reform process are put in place. Clearly, distribution of food will be a problem. However, we remain committed to working with our international partners, including the World Food Programme, on that issue.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Minister note the action of the southern African churches on the UN international day in support of victims of torture, at which numerous testimonies were given of rape, violence and torture? Did she note also the suggestion made in South Africa that sooner or later there will have to be a truth commission to deal with those events? Will the Government support an international initiative to collect and validate witness statements so that in due course such a truth commission would be armed with the fullest possible facts?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware that not only the South African churches but other NGOs are concerned with the situation in Zimbabwe and, in particular, victims of torture. At present, our focus is not only on creating a political consensus but on dealing with the immediate humanitarian crisis. I am aware that discussions are ongoing, particularly in the NGO community, about the possibility of a truth commission. Those are not discussions in which we as a government are currently engaged. However, once we get through the current crisis, we shall seriously consider the matter.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am not sure that she was when we pressed her on sanctions earlier in the week—that the Foreign Secretary undertook to review the whole operation of travel sanctions at a meeting to be held on 22nd July, which is the week after next? Is she also aware that he stated there is a strong case for an extension of the measures? We agree with that. I urge the Minister to urge her colleagues, as vigorously as possible, to get on with an extension of the sanctions, which have not worked well. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with personnel led by Mr Mugabe, who are heading for the destitution of Zimbabwe, the undermining of the entire region's prosperity and the starvation of millions of people.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is referring to the GAC meeting on 22nd July. The sanctions are EU sanctions. There will be discussion at that GAC meeting. It is for that meeting to reach a decision on whether or not it wants to extend those sanctions.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that the sanctions have not worked well. I have been pressed in this House on the attendance of Robert Mugabe, for example, at the World Food Summit meeting in Rome. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that there is an exemption for attendance at international UN meetings. That applies across the board. It does not apply only to Robert Mugabe, but to other world leaders who face travel bans for other situations.

Parliamentary Questions
3.30 p.m.
Lord Greavesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to submit evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the answering of parliamentary Questions.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government have already submitted evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life as part of their inquiry into defining the boundaries within the executive. They have no plans to submit any further written evidence.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of revelations this week that email conversations between civil servants working on Answers to parliamentary Questions from various honourable friends of mine in another place, included gems such as,
"Matthew Taylor is a tricky customer and he's not asking this just to help the government"—
a perceptive comment, if I may say so—and,
"I have got form on Willis",
can the Minister say whether the departmental guidelines in relation to parliamentary Questions are the same in the two Houses?

823
Will he give us a guarantee that, particularly in this House, identical answers will be given to the same Questions for Written Answer, regardless of which noble Lords ask them?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my understanding, which I shall check, is that the Answers would be the same in both Houses and that they would be constructed under the same disciplines. Where there has been any attempt to frustrate, or to be disobliging to your Lordships or to any MP in another place, of course we shall insist that proprieties are observed. The Department for Education and Skills has reminded its staff of their responsibilities and of the need for impartiality.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is thanks to the Labour Government's Data Protection Act 1998 that individuals have a much greater right to know what personal data are held about them by government departments? That is a welcome development, the benefits of which should be offset against the opportunities for a bit of point scoring.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend in principle. However, it inevitably makes for uncomfortable moments. One must remember that we are dealing with an organisation of almost half a million civil servants. So there will occasionally be mistakes and errors of judgment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are there any plans to submit evidence on not answering parliamentary Questions, or on giving evasive replies—although, of course, I do not have in mind any Member of this House on the Government Front Bench?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, departments will remind staff of their responsibilities. It is a matter that is taken seriously by the Government. As I said earlier, the Department for Education and Skills has already taken steps to remind its staff.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, are civil servants encouraged or discouraged to keep the type of personal information on Members of Parliament that we have been hearing about?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, from my experience at ministerial level they are neither discouraged nor encouraged. As I said earlier, there are proprieties which are long-standing that should be observed by the departments. As my noble friend has said, the public, Members of Parliament and others have far more access to data than was ever possible in the past.
Lord McNally: My Lords, if it has been the practice of departments in preparing for ministerial Questions
824
to pen portraits of Liberal Democrats, I wonder whether he could put the one on my noble friend Lord Russell in the Library of the House
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as an admirer of the noble Earl I would do that with great enthusiasm. The noble Lord touches on a point which came up recently. I was looking at a submission which had rather personalised—I thought—profiles attached, which talked about an eccentric from that great cradle of eccentricity, and named a certain school. I protested about that, but was told that it came off the Internet and was pulled off one of the commercial suppliers. So I do not think that we can blame the Civil Service for information that is readily available on most of your Lordships' shelves.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, from the answers that my noble friend has given is he on the point of delivering a reply to a Question I tabled to him on 19th of last month—an Answer to which was due yesterday—which concerned the safety of the wave screen at Brixham harbour?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I shall return to the department with some urgency and report back.

Pensions
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Work and Pensions. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement on the Pickering report that was published this morning.
"The report is the culmination of nine months of hard work by Alan Pickering and his team. I would like to thank him and also everyone who took the time and effort to submit their views—some of whom are here today.
"In his report Alan Pickering acknowledges the encouragement he received not only from my right honourable friends for Edinburgh Central and Makerfield, but also from the right honourable and honourable members opposite for Hitchin and Harpenden, Havant and Northavon.
"I believe pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision. We need to deal with the complexities built up over the years by successive governments.
"Alan's report makes 52 recommendations. Among the key ones are: a new pensions Act to consolidate all existing private pensions legislation; a new, more proactive, regulator; a better, more targeted approach for communicating with pension scheme members; more flexibility to modify schemes; allowing employers to make membership

825
of their occupational pension scheme a condition of employment; and the ending of compulsory indexation for defined benefit pensions and compulsory survivors' benefits.
"The report, together with Ron Sandler's proposals—announced by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary on Tuesday—represents the first stage of a comprehensive review of occupational and personal pension provision in the country.
"The Government will take a radical look at the issues, together with the results of the Inland Revenue review of tax simplification, when that is completed. In the autumn we will come forward with our proposals in a Green Paper.
"This will initiate a wide-ranging consultation. It will look at private pensions policy in the round, including the opportunities open to people around retirement, and will set out the Government's proposals to enable people to build up more pension savings.
"Alan Pickering's report covers some complex issues and includes some tough choices—the inevitable dilemmas faced by all simplifiers.
"The report presents challenges to us all—to employees and their unions, to employers and commercial pension providers, to government and opposition.
"I believe we need to be guided by the following principles and objectives, grounded in a long-term approach; fairness, security in retirement, informed choice for consumers, simple and proportionate regulation, ensuring incentives are effective and well understood, promoting employment among older workers and flexibility to give individuals more choice over the pace at which they retire from the labour market. I hope that we can secure all-party agreement to these.
"The Government believe that pension provision should be based on partnership, which can secure lasting buy-in from all key players.
"We must strike the right balances between sometimes competing goals. We want the simplicity that enables people to make informed choices, without stifling product innovation and competition. We want a proportionate regulatory framework that provides sufficient security for savers while making it worthwhile for employers and commercial providers to make available good pension products. We need to ensure that we remove unnecessary barriers to employer provision and employer contributions. We need to make it easier for people to save and easier to sell savings products, as Ron Sandler's report proposed on Tuesday. We need to achieve all of that and more against the remorseless arithmetic that tells us that because we are living longer and want to maintain a good standard of living in retirement, we need to save more, work longer, or achieve a combination of both.
826
"We wanted Alan Pickering to present a strong challenge to the degree of regulation of private pensions. He has done that; he has made some valuable proposals for simplifying pensions legislation and reducing administrative burdens on both schemes and employers—cutting costs and simplifying choices for individuals. His recommendations also present some tough choices.
"Let us consider, for example, his recommendation that employers should have the choice to make joining a company pension a condition of employment. Some 16 per cent of people who could benefit from a company pension scheme presently choose not to do so. Compelling people to join would restrict those people's choice. But we must balance against that the beneficial effects for schemes and the overall effect of extending pension coverage.
"Alan has also made a number of specific recommendations for easements of legislation, especially to repeal Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995. Again, that throws up a tough choice. That recommendation would mean that if employers faced funding constraints with their scheme, they could have an option to reduce future funding costs rather than to close the scheme. That would remove an absolute guarantee against the consequences of change but might well secure a better outcome for members and the future of the scheme, when set against the alternative of its closure. Alan also recommends an end to compulsory indexation of pensions and the removal of compulsory survivors' benefits as a condition of contracting out.
"On first reading, those proposals are not attractive. They go against the drive for the past 30 years to price-protect pensions and enhance survivors' benefits. But, in the light of Alan Pickering's report, we will need to consider all the consequences.
"As well as the big themes and recommendations to which I have referred, a number of more modest issues are addressed to my department and to others: for example, improving how contracting out is administered, streamlining procedures and reducing general administrative burdens; considering ways to provide better advice through the workplace; and improving information given to pension scheme members. Those recommendations have considerable merit and, subject to the response that we receive to the report, I intend to implement them.
"In conclusion, Alan Pickering's report offers clear options for simplification and makes a valuable contribution to the debate that we must have about the next stage of pension reform. We must face up to the tough choices that he sets out. In seeking to simplify in future, we must also face up to what is in many ways the harder challenge of simplifying the past, in the sense that we need to simplify the different regulations that have built up over the years. Otherwise, we will end up adding yet another layer to the existing layer cake of regulation and complexity.

827
"Alan Pickering's proposals are radical, ambitious and pragmatic. I urge the House, the public, employers, trade unions and pension providers——all those whose partnership is essential for effective pension reform—to give them full and constructive consideration. The Government will certainly do so. The acid tests for the Green Paper must be what will increase the level of savings for retirement and make a secure occupational pension accessible to as many people as possible."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place and declare an interest as the chairman of an occupational pension scheme. We certainly welcome the report and congratulate Mr Pickering—as I prefer to refer to him, rather than in the informal manner used by the Minister. Of course, Mr Pickering and his team benefited from widespread consultation, including that with my honourable friend Mr Willetts in another place.
Having said that, the terms of reference of the report were restrictive. For that reason, it does not convey the present sense of crisis in pension provision. Neither does it analyse the causes of that crisis, other than in a passing reference to the problems of FRS 17, which have, I hope, been at least deferred, and the minimum funding requirement.
About five years go, the Government rightly paid tribute to the tremendous contribution made by company schemes, calling them the jewel in the crown, and so on. But, since then, they have suffered one blow after another—most notoriously, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attack on them in his first Budget. How much worse off does the Minister think that pension schemes now are as a result of that? Does that not now amount to more than £35 billion?
Nor does the report refer to other specific examples, such as the deterrent effect that the minimum income guarantee related to earnings may have on people who may otherwise contribute to pensions. That is especially true of defined contribution schemes. The noble Baronesses shakes her head. What size of pension fund would he necessary to lift people above the level of benefit provided by the minimum income guarantee?
As the report makes clear, it must be considered against the Sandler report, which we discussed last Tuesday. Sandler was enthusiastic about stakeholder products, which we must consider against the background of the stakeholder pension. That has been disappointing in terms of reaching its target audience of about 5 million people. As a result of how it has operated, only a small proportion of those whom the Government hoped to help—some estimates are as low as 2 per cent—may have benefited.
In that context, I am concerned by the expression used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when she referred to such products as "a safe haven". Would the noble Baroness refer to the stakeholder pension as
828
a safe haven? In my view, such a statement is akin to mis-selling. If someone invested, say, £1,000 in a stakeholder pension, is that likely to be worth more or less now?
I warmly welcome some parts of the report. In a paragraph to which the Statement did not refer, but which is none the less important, it considers whether trustees should have more flexibility in giving advice to their beneficiaries. That is a real problem. Pickering envisages that most in the context of whether they could recommend a particular pension. But trustees are also inhibited by the current legislation from expressing a view on, for example, what someone who has had an additional voluntary contribution policy with Equitable Life for the past couple of years or so should do about that. Trustees may well know more about that than the independent financial advisers to whom they otherwise necessarily must refer their beneficiaries.
That brings us to the question of compulsory membership. It is estimated that about 16 per cent of employees do not join company schemes. That is a question of communication, but it is extraordinary that not everyone who is entitled to join even the best scheme does so. That is a cause for concern, although whether compulsion is the right answer is debatable.
The report also rightly draws especial attention to the problems of regulation. Basically, it distinguishes between the administrative burden placed on company schemes—which is great and has steadily increased in recent years—and what Pickering refers to as prescription on design, that is to say, on what should be the terms of the pension scheme. He draws particular attention to the effect on defined benefit schemes and questions whether they should be required to be indexed and to include survivor benefits. Those are difficult areas and will require careful consideration.
There is a slight counsel of despair in Pickering's observation that such provisions may have to be abandoned because of the difficulties that companies are facing in the present climate. The report refers also to the reduction in the different types of pension, where a balance must be struck. There are advantages in simplification but if the number of schemes is reduced too much, consumer choice will be limited.
In recent months we have seen something almost approaching panic, with companies closing defined benefit schemes and moving towards defined contribution schemes—the effect of the factors that I have mentioned and of a decline in the stock market. If that trend continues unabated, there may be little left of the company pension scheme that has been admired for such a long time.
I urge the Government to react quickly to the report. The Statement promises a Green Paper in the autumn, but one was published shortly after the Government came to office. It aimed at reversing the proportion of private to public schemes to 60 per cent and 40 per cent. Since then, the proportion has moved steadily in the wrong direction. It is important that the Government's response should not be unduly delayed.

829
The consultation with Mr. Pickering has been extremely helpful, but if the present situation is not to deteriorate further, it will be necessary to set a tight timetable for assessing the proposals made in the report—which I say again is extremely helpful.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating the Statement and welcome this extremely interesting and thought-provoking report.
It is easy to view the report in a particular way against the current crisis, when many of its proposals are for the longer term. It is incumbent upon the House to look at the design and intention behind some of Mr. Pickering's proposals.
There is much in the report for careful and thorough consideration, such as the proposals for survivor benefits. The report describes the changing nature of relationships and employment. From earlier debates on pension policy, it is clear that a crisis exists in relation to pensions for women. For the foreseeable future, women will earn much less than their male counterparts—so their pension purchasing power will inevitably be lower. What efforts will be made in the consultations to focus on women's pension problems?
The report's second most important proposal concerns indexation. Mr. Pickering observes that a pension is a pension is a pension. However, in many cases a pension scheme promise is not worth the paper that it is written on. The settlement as between private and state pension provision is falling apart. It is difficult to see how some of the indexation proposals can be taken on board to achieve the report's stated objective of increasing confidence in occupational pensions and savings.
Some aspects that are not part of the report, such as an analysis of the healthcare costs of retirement, must be part of the Green Paper. I hope that that paper will not make the mistake of confusing mortality with morbidity. The prospect of a large number of older people living much longer at considerably higher healthcare costs must be taken into consideration when devising a long-term pensions policy.
My one strong criticism of the report is that it greatly overestimates the power of employees individually or collectively to challenge pensions provision decisions made by their employers. In recent months, we have seen what it takes for even informed bodies of workers to mount a legal challenge. The report's proposals rest on extremely well-equipped and powerful employees. I am not sure that that situation will exist in future.
The report offers the potential for a wholly new contract for occupational pensions. Equally, because the proposals are tentative, there is the potential for a complete disaster or dog's dinner. What will the consultation document contain about the timing of implementation—on which many of the proposals and transitional arrangements rest?
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too find it difficult to talk about Alan. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their constructive approach. If we are to find ways through difficult situations with staying power, there must be consent. Informed criticism is a different aspect. I much welcome the consensual tone evident so far and hope that it will be perpetuated.
The noble Lord asked about the cost of ACT to pension schemes. About £5 billion a year came back to the Exchequer as a result of no longer having the tax defamation that was ACT—of which about £3·5 billion fell directly on pension schemes. British companies, unlike American companies, were paying as a result of a tax distortion too much in dividends while not making enough of the investment on which long-term jobs and the pensions of future generations depend. We are delighted to see that, since that change in the tax structure, investment in companies has increased, which means that it is having the effect that we hoped for.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked about pension credit. He asked what size of fund would be needed to raise somebody above MIG. In fact, it will not work like that. Pension credit has addressed that issue, and the noble Lord's question is a pre-pension credit question. For example, for someone who has a full state retirement pension and an occupational pension of £100 a week, that occupational pension would not raise them above M1G. We can work out what the pension pot would have to be for that £100. Under pension credit, that pensioner would keep £60 of the £100, and the figure would go up to something like £113 a week, as opposed to the current figure of £100 a week. Therefore, the question will not be relevant once the pension credit system is in place next year.
The third point that the noble Lord raised was about stakeholders. I simply disagree with him about the success or otherwise of stakeholders. So far, something like 815,000 people have joined a stakeholder scheme. The vast majority of those people are the people of working age whom we hoped to help. Because those products are low-cost, transparent trackers of the index, they are safer, cheaper and more readily available than the products on the market hitherto.
The noble Lord also raised a query about the Government's response to the move from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. As I said, they are safer, they are low-cost, and they are transparent trackers. The safest product of all is one that does not relate to any volatility on the market and is simply guaranteed by the taxpayer—the retirement pension and similar savings vehicles. Among funded occupational schemes, the stakeholder product, given its low cost, its transparency and the fact that it tracks the index, is likely to be safer and more reliable than others currently available to people of modest income.
The noble Lord's last major point was about the DB-to-DC schemes. He will know that, with the move from DB to DC schemes, there is a transfer of risk. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said that a pension

831
promise was not a pension promise when it was not delivered. For many years, employers have enjoyed a pension contributions holiday and have not had to meet the pension promise behind the defined benefit scheme. Even last year, half of all companies had either suspended or reduced pension contributions. The moment that employers are required to pay the full sum implied in the pension promise, some of them, encouraged by financial directors, vote with their feet and move into defined contribution schemes and use that as an opportunity to reduce their pension commitment from an average of 12 to 15 per cent to 5 to 7 per cent.
The key thing is whether not only employees but employers pay at the levels that we need to establish decent retirement incomes in old age. We will consider whether. Pickering has the right solution. But there is no dispute about the fact that what matters is that, over time, if the same level of contribution is kept up and if we make the same assumptions about the stock market, a DC scheme and a DB scheme should not produce strikingly different outcomes. The trouble is that employers are using the opportunity to cut contributions, which means that outcomes will be very different.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pressed me on two major points, the first of which was timing. We will have a consultation document, and it will probably—it is a matter for others, not for me lead to legislation. Were that to be the case and should there be consensus, we would be talking about the year after for consultation with the industry, and we would have to give two years' notice and so on. The noble Baroness is right about that. Changing pensions structures takes time because people invest in them for 40 years or so. It is right that we should get a consensus for change and, as far as possible, consider all the aspects properly, rather than going for a hasty solution.
The noble Baroness also asked about survivors' benefits and whether we were considering the situation properly. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that the Secretary of State gave earlier today. The consultative document will consider all implications for the gender balance properly and thoroughly. Obviously, Pickering considers the three balances: that between employers and employees; that between pension providers and consumers; and that between employees with a pension and those without. However, the Government must take two other balances into consideration. One is the gender balance and the other is the intergenerational contract between current pensioners, who may be open to Section 67 changes, and those who are deferred pensioners or current employees. That is part of the wider context, wider than the issues that Pickering addressed.
The noble Baroness will know that, according to the Association of British Insurers statistics, something like 80 per cent of those buying a money purchase pot go for flat-rate single life products because they prefer to have the money up front. That is a consideration because, if one is not careful, one simply pushes the problem of poverty further into old age. That is particularly the case for women. That is why we must
832
consider whether we can encourage women not only to come into the labour market, as we do, but to build up a proper, independent pension provision, including pension sharing on divorce for those whose relationship ends, something of whichLady Seear, was a prominent advocate. There is also the question of the roles of the state second pension and the stakeholder scheme.
The Government have produced ways to help women to compensate for the fact that they have lower earnings and earn for a shorter time, although they live longer. That produces a complex of pension issues that are sharper than those experienced by men.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, teased us about the previous Green Paper on pension reform, published, I think, in December 1998. He asked what we had done. In the foreword, the Prime Minister said that we needed an assurance of a decent income through the new minimum income guarantee and that that income should rise in line with earnings. We have done that; it will become the pension credit. The Prime Minister also called for dramatically better pension provision for those on low incomes and those unable to work because they are carers or are disabled. We have delivered that; it is called the state second pension. The third thing that he called for was a better deal for middle and higher income earners through low-cost and flexible personal stakeholder pensions. We have delivered that; it is called the stakeholder system.
The previous Green Paper led to three pieces of legislation. I hope that the consultative document, which may lead to legislation, will not lead to quite so much.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making the Statement. I welcome the Pickering report. It is interesting, and it floats many ideas that need serious consideration. I declare my interest. For many years, I was a member of the Occupational Pensions Board, the precursor to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. I am a current member of the council of OPAS, the Pensions Advisory Service.
The report, I am glad to say, refers to member-nominated trustees. Trustees play an important role in representing members' interests in schemes. It is important that trustees should have proper training and support to carry out those functions. I was also interested by—and I support—the report's recommendation that it should be possible for firms to make it a condition of employment that people belong to the occupational scheme. On previous occasions on which we discussed pensions, I put down amendments to that effect but never managed to get them carried. It is an important matter. A situation in which employees are bound by contract to contribute to a scheme gives us further reason for having a good regulatory mechanism to ensure that the schemes in which they invest their earnings and in which the employer also invests should be safe.

833
One of the problems is that recent scandals have caused the public to lose faith, to some extent, in pension provision. That is a great pity. Occupational pensions are one of the great successes of the past century. Because of occupational pension provision, many pensioners now retire on higher incomes than they would have had had pension provision not existed.
I disagree with Alan Pickering on the issue of indexation. In my experience, schemes index, if at all, to a maximum of five per cent per annum anyway. It is a fairly moderate system of indexation, which does not take account of the possibility of a higher rate of inflation. If people are to have faith in their pension provision, they need to have faith in the fact that it will keep pace with rising costs in the future.
Another interesting recommendation made by Pickering is that there should be multi-employer schemes. It is worth considering the case for small employers to group together, perhaps on a geographical basis, to provide schemes for employees in their areas. It is important that we have an opportunity for full discussion of those issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised two very important issues; namely, provision for women and interaction with the state scheme. I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be a Green Paper and an opportunity for full consultation and further discussion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend dissented on two propositions—that affecting survivors' benefits and that eradicating RPI from occupational pensions. I remind my noble friend that, under Pickering, those would be optional proposals that could be part of an employer's scheme. It is Pickering's belief that what encourages employers to leave DB schemes and transfer to DC schemes is the fact that the better the scheme, the more regulated and onerous it may appear. Therefore, if one strips it down to a bare bones scheme and makes it cheaper, there will be a greater willingness by employers to both support and access it. The problem is that that concept is counterfactual; one does not know whether or not it is true. That is precisely why we need the consultation for which my noble friend has called.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the fact that the amount of pension paid depends on the size of the pension fund, will the Minister say whether the recent tax changes relating to dividends to pension funds have assisted or damaged the funds?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought I had answered that question fairly fully when I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The noble Lord may disagree with my answer, but I certainly addressed the issue. I said that the reason for abolishing ACT was that, as it stood, it deformed the pattern of investment in companies through tax privileges, compared with the United States; and your Lordships can see evidence of that.
834
My second point—pressure of time did not permit me to make it initially—is that the Myners report, as the noble Lord will know, said that what mattered was not the tax protection of ACT, but the asset allocation decision by good fund managers, which he reckoned was 10 times more important.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, as Director of the Personal Investment Authority, I spent more years than I care to remember mired in the muck trying to sort out the pension mis-selling scandal. I therefore welcome the fact that, particularly for occupational pensions, some simplification is at last being advocated in this report.
Will the Minister agree that so long as pension providers are allowed to sell on the back of a lie, the lie being that in real terms investments can grow at six or eight per cent per annum, whereas four or even two per cent would be nearer the realistic mark, we shall have intermittent crises and problems in the field of pensions and will tempt people to under-provide for their pensions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that we should all take more seriously, as I am sure we will, the health warning that investments can go down as well as up. All the evidence that I have looked at from 1955—the same is true of all European OECD countries—is that over time, provided dividends and such like have been reinvested, equities have performed much better than either cash or government bonds. However, there is some volatility, but if one starts a pension fund at a sufficiently young age, as one should, that volatility should even itself out over 40 years.
My noble friend is right. No one can expect to revert to the years of six or eight per cent real return. We need to have much more realistic expectations, not only about what the Stock Market will return but, given longevity, about how much we need to save for the time we hope to spend in retirement. It is no longer the case that two people can expect to spend 30 to 40 years in retirement on the basis of one person working for 35 years.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I welcome this report on pensions, as I would any report that tends to provide some answers to the increasing problems in the field of pensions.
One of the issues of great importance concerns people who have an opportunity to join occupational pensions but do not do so. It is estimated that 16 per cent do not, which means that 84 per cent, the vast majority, do. However, recognising that 84 per cent represents millions of people, 16 per cent represents hundreds of thousands of people. If one considers the beneficiaries of an occupational pension, such as husbands, wives and children, one runs into a large number of people.
When I was a trade union officer, I received all kinds of answers from people who were informed that the joining of a pension scheme was a condition of their employment. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, they gave answers, such as, "I shall not live that long"

835
or "I want my money now, I do not want it in the future" —very short-term approaches, which they could not exercise because it was a condition of their employment. I do not envisage any difficulty in reintroducing that kind of provision. I hope the Government will embrace the recommendation that an employer should be able to insist on an occupational pension scheme as a condition of employment. In that way, the fund will grow.
The Minister referred to pension holidays. Pension holidays have taken place. However, as I recall—I was involved in pensions in my own trade union—in those days many employers were driven to introduce pension holidays after securing major improvements to their funds because otherwise there was a threat of taxation, which the previous administration introduced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend has expressed views on the choice of employers to insist that an employee should join their company schemes. I recognise and respect that view, which is shared by many of our colleagues. That is exactly the kind of issue on which we shall need to seek consensus when we publish the consultation document.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, it is difficult to consider pensions in the round without referring to the very extensive pensions in the public service—the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the health service, teachers, local government, the police and other groups, which make up a very significant proportion of our country's employed people.
Public service pension schemes have tended mainly to be index-linked and to have had survivor benefits. I imagine that at least some of those who are looking forward to receiving public service pensions may be worried by press reports of this report, indicating that there are now questions marks over whether index-linking and survivor benefits will be continued. In those circumstances, will the Minister give some indication of the Government's view of the size of that matter? Such pension schemes, of which there is a wide variety in the public service, are often not funded. It is therefore necessary to take them fully into account, as I hope the proposed Green Paper will.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to respond by making one or two brief points. First, this is an independent report to the Government; it is not the Government's report. A whole range of proposals have been put forward—some 52 in all. We agree with some of them because they are self-evidently virtuous while others are more provocative and we shall want to seek consent for them. The noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, will understand therefore that we are not in a position to endorse every proposal.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out, we have to look at this in the context of the sound recommendations of Myners and the forthcoming autumn review. We need to contextualise this matter.
836
I turn now to the points raised with regard to public service pensions. I should like to say first that no existing pensioner could be affected by anything in Pickering. The report proposes an option for employers to make available to their employees. Thus it would be for the trustees, employers and employees of public sector firms to decide whether that is the way they wish to go and to trade, if you like, value asset in terms of the benefits of the scheme with cost of access and entry. Thus different schemes may reach different decisions. For example, I understand that the terms and conditions of the Civil Service scheme may be very different from those pertaining in my former university scheme. That is a decision made by the participants.
However, given the suggestions made in the Pickering report, it is not expected that the Government would require firms to strip advantages such as index linking and survivors' benefits out of their schemes against their current will. That has not been suggested in the report and nothing said today by my right honourable friend would suggest that either.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, perhaps I may invite the Minister briefly to decontextualise for a moment and to respond to one question. Rightly she has deplored the dangerous trend whereby companies have been cutting the employers' contribution at the same time as they are moving away from defined benefit contribution schemes. What, if anything, will the Government do about this?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot answer the question because it falls into the same extremely difficult category as that of making pensions compulsory. If one followed the noble Lord's thinking, one would need, first, to make all pensions compulsory on employers and, secondly, to force all employees to join such compulsory schemes. Thirdly, the schemes would require a minimum contribution from employees and, fourthly, they would require a substantial minimum contribution from employers. Finally, agreement would have to be reached on difficult issues such as index-linking, survivors' benefits and so forth.
If the noble Lord is seeking to press me on what we are going to do about all five issues, then I cannot tell him. Those are not government decisions. What must be done is to build a consensus with regard to what people are willing to trade for what. Are they willing to pay for higher benefits? Are they willing to work longer for higher benefits? Are they willing to seek a second income in the household to buy those benefits? Finally, what securities and compulsions would they wish to see underpinning such schemes? As a result, now is not the right time for me to ad lib in regard to some of the most difficult questions on which no government have been able effectively to reach a consensus over the past quarter of a century.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for repeating the Statement. The

837
question of pensions is turning into a nightmare. I should declare an interest as chairman of Caparo Group Ltd, which recently has generated a certain amount of news in the press.
I welcome the Pickering report, although I have not yet had a chance to look at it in detail. It is time to clarify matters so that everyone understands the outcomes of their pension schemes rather than having different results. Indeed, it is now becoming more difficult to run a company's pension scheme than it is to run the business itself. I ask the Government to look at what they can do to simplify the system as soon as possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, clarity and simplicity were precisely the terms of reference governing the Pickering report. My right honourable friend has already made it clear that the Government are extremely supportive of all moves towards greater simplicity.
Lord Prior: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government's arguments in favour of taxation of dividends on pension funds are now running a little thin? They must have been thought up by a wizard in the Treasury who knew very little about how management works. Is there any hard evidence to suggest that investment, in particular in manufacturing industry, has increased as a result of the Government's actions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot talk specifically about the manufacturing sector because the noble Lord will know as well as I do that different sectors grow or do not grow at different rates, thus influencing issues surrounding the European currency and so forth. Thus I am not able to give him any detailed information with regard to the manufacturing industry.
However, I can tell him that I have received assurances that, as a result of the changes that we have introduced, investment in industry has increased. Perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier. Obviously pensioners would like extra money through tax privileges. However, from our point of view it is equally important that the bedrock of pensions, reflected by the health of the companies that fund them, is protected. That is best secured by ensuring that companies continue to reinvest.
I should like to make a further point. The tone of noble Lords opposite would suggest that there is no government support for private sector pensions. At present I believe that we are spending something in the order of £45 billion on the range of state sector pensions; we are supplying £11 billion in NICs contracted-out rebates that help to fund occupational pensions. In addition, a sum in the order of £14 billion of taxpayers' money goes into tax reliefs, rebates and the like, sustaining and supporting the occupational pension industry.
838
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, should regard the occupational pension industry as under-supported by the current fiscal regime, particularly given that in this country we now have one of the lowest corporation tax levels on record.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, before going on to make one or two remarks, perhaps I may ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to reconsider the response she made just now in relation to public service pensions. If I recall correctly, she said that there was nothing in the Pickering report that could affect current members of company pension schemes. I hope that my noble friend Lord Paul is not listening to this, but it seems that this report may give a number of employers many ideas. We may well see some acceleration of changes in those pension schemes currently in payment.
I turn now to the brief points that I wish to put to my noble friend. First, the Statement refers to striking a balance between "innovation, competition and simplicity". As every Chancellor of the Exchequer proves with every Budget, innovation and competition add to greater complexity. We must ensure that, so far as we are able, we move forward with simple and worthwhile schemes.
Perhaps I may presume to offer a little advice. I should imagine that all noble Lords who have spoken in our debate are concerned about the problems with regard to survivors' benefits and indexing. Were I to give any advice at all, it would be to say quickly that the Government should not be minded to accept those recommendations. The Government will receive a far more positive response in that regard, certainly from the trades unions and the TUC, if they know that those recommendations have been put out of the way.
Lastly, it is my opinion that pension provision will be one of the big issues of the next general election. There is a pensions crisis. Unusually, it is not related solely to the vast bulk of working people. I should declare an interest here, but those looking forward to an "equitable life" are finding that it will be less so. There is a real problem here. Certainly we are going to see long-term problems with regard to the concept of the stakeholder pension. To that end, would my noble friend on the Front Bench consider approaching the Trades Union Congress? Good examples can be cited from the past, in particular in Israel with Histradut; that is, to have a scheme that is effectively endorsed and run by the trade union movement as a whole, with a view to providing the kind of pension systems which are badly needed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I look forward to reading my noble friend's contribution to the consultative document. No doubt the trade union movement will be active in promoting its views through that medium.
My noble friend knows well that I shall not give any undertakings with regard to the Government's response to one or two of the proposals. However, I listened with care to his points with regard to pension schemes and pensioners. I said earlier that the

839
Pickering report made it clear that it was not referring to existing pensioners. However, that is not to say that Pickering does not believe that Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 may need to be amended to allow for alterations to schemes for the benefit of schemes as a whole. That is one of the proposals being put to us. We will consider it and see whether the problem is the size that Pickering believes it to be.
My noble friend Lord Christopher said there was a pensions crisis. There is a problem of longevity. Every decade people live two years longer. There is the medium-term problem of the stock market. I suspect that if it were trading at 6,000 to 6,500 there would not be some of today's concerns. There is a more immediate problem of lack of confidence in the pension industry built up through years of mis-selling, together with what happened at Equitable Life and the like. We are hoping that that combination of simplification and regulation will allow us, with Myners, in co-operation with the industry to develop a range of products that people will see as safe and secure vehicles for protection against poverty in their old age. The state is a partner; employers are a partner; and the industry is a partner.
I hope that many of your Lordships who have spoken in this interesting debate will contribute to the consultative process. I do not doubt that we shall return to the issues.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
4.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 19 [Provision of information by defendant]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 12, line 13, at end insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4) does not affect any power of the court to deal with the defendant in respect of a failure to comply with an order under this section."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. The amendments return us to an issue discussed briefly in Committee and on Report. I indicated on Report that we would table them.
As your Lordships will be aware, if the defendant fails to comply with the court's order to provide information, the court has the power under Clause 19(4) to draw adverse inferences from the failure. The effect of the amendments is straightforward. They make it clear that the power to draw inferences does not affect any other powers the court has to deal with the defendant in that situation; notably, the power to punish the defendant by way of contempt for failing to comply with its order.
The power to draw adverse inferences will provide sufficient inducement to the defendant to respond in many situations, but it will not be fully effective where the defendant is ordered to provide general
840
information and says nothing. The amendments will help to ensure that the defendant always responds to the court's order. By making it clear that the order to provide information attracts contempt for noncompliance, we will enhance its effectiveness. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Exceptional legal aid]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 49, line 35, at end insert—
"() For the purposes of this Part, a body corporate may have a criminal lifestyle."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6. The amendments raise a short issue that should have been raised at an earlier stage. I regret that the question did not occur to me until Report stage, when I realised that there was a problem with the definition of what constitutes a criminal lifestyle.
The question is: can a company have a criminal lifestyle? I raised this matter briefly in debate, but the Attorney-General gave an off-the-cuff response and did not have time to give a considered response. I have therefore tabled the amendments to ensure we receive a proper expression of the Government's views.
The idea of a corporation having a lifestyle is odd. "Lifestyle" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as,
"a way or style of living".
A corporation is a person in law, but it cannot be said in any real sense to live. Only a living person can have a lifestyle. In deciding for the purposes of Clause 76 whether a defendant has a criminal lifestyle, "defendant" must mean a living defendant. A company cannot have a lifestyle. If that is so, there is a big hole in the Bill.
Many offences under Schedule 2—quite apart from many that are not included but could be made the basis of a criminal lifestyle—can be committed by a body corporate. In such cases, the body corporate is usually the person who makes a profit and against whom a confiscation order needs to be made if it is to be effective.
It is clear that the Government intend the Bill to cover corporations that commit crimes and not just individuals. But it is far from clear that the Bill has that effect. On Report, the Attorney-General relied on the principle that the word "person" in a statute includes a body corporate under the Interpretation Act 1978. But that is subject to a context showing a contrary intention. The reference to "lifestyle" could be read by a court as showing such a contrary intention, particularly in view of the principle that a statute that imposes penalties must be read strictly in favour of the person against whom the penalties are claimed.
The definition of criminal lifestyle does not use the word "person". It refers to the defendant who has a criminal lifestyle, not the person who has a crirninal lifestyle. Therefore, in interpreting Clause 76 a court would have to proceed without relying on the definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act.

841
I am aware that this is a technical and legalistic argument. But unless the Government accept the amendments, a prosecution will face this argument sooner or later and could lose it. We have always made it clear that we wish to strengthen the Bill where it needs strengthening. We believe that in this case it needs clarification to strengthen it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have considered carefully the issues put persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but we believe there is nothing in the point. As the noble Lord knows, for the purposes of the Bill, "criminal lifestyle" is defined not in the Oxford English Dictionary but in the Bill itself, in particular in Clauses 76 and 226, which states:
"A defendant has a criminal lifestyle if (and only if) the following condition is satisfied",
which is that it is an offence of a particular type, or a number of offences committed over a period of time. There is no difficulty in understanding that, and there would be no difficulty in a court interpreting the definition in that way.
The noble Lord rightly refers to Clause 6, which states that the court must decide whether the defendant has a criminal lifestyle. However, Clause 89(3) defines a defendant as,
"a person against whom proceedings for an offence have been started".
Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 states that,
"'Person' includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate".
It follows, there being nothing in the context that suggests to the contrary, that references to the defendant in Clause 6 and elsewhere in the Bill already include bodies corporate.
I believe that the noble Lord and the Government are seeking the same end. We believe that the amendments would serve no useful purpose. Indeed, they would be damaging, because they would cast doubt on every instance in other legislation where a person is referred to. If we state explicitly that a person includes a corporation in the Bill, we will invite other statutes that use the term to be construed as referring only to a natural person.
I am afraid that for those reasons, while we share the aim, we are unable to support the amendments. I hope that having heard my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not believe for one moment that the amendment would cast any doubt on the general interpretation of the word "person". What is unusual here—and the reason the amendments were tabled—is the specific use of the word "lifestyle". That is where the difficulty arises.
However, I welcome the fact that the Government have made it clear that in their view there is no ambiguity. That statement may be relied on if, in a future case, it is argued before a court that there is an ambiguity. To that extent my purpose in bringing forward the amendments has been satisfied. In those
842
circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by my taking the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 [Provision of information by accused]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 66, line 8, at end insert—
"(3A) Subsection (3) does not affect any power of the court to deal with the accused in respect of a failure to comply with an order under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 171 [Provision of information by defendant:]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 106, line 26, at end insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4) does not affect any power of the court to deal with the defendant in respect of a failure to comply with an order under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 226 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 246 [Proceedings for recovery orders in England and Wales or Northern Ireland]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwickmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 150, line 32, at beginning insert "Subject to section 246A,"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the substantive amendment is Amendment No. 8, the next amendment on the Marshalled List.
The purpose of the amendment is to improve the Bill in two respects. First, it seeks to remove the risk of a serious injustice. It enables a man who has been accused of crime to defend himself in the normal way before a judge and jury. Secondly, it seeks to make Part 5 of the Bill less vulnerable to attack under the Human Rights Act. It is a waste of everyone's time to enact legislation which one can see will fall at the very first hurdle. It is surely wrong to wash one's hands of all responsibility for that result, as the Liberal Democrats, if I may respectfully say so, seemed inclined to do at Report stage by saying that it was better to leave the Government to stew in their own juice. That is not my phrase but that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Surely we can do better than that and seek to remove now the most obvious objections which will be raised under the Human Rights Act.
In returning to the first point, I shall not of course repeat the argument that I put forward on Report. That would be tedious and unnecessary. In a few moments I shall deal with the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General by way of reply, but, first, it may be helpful to stand back a little from the Bill and take an overall view of what Part 5 seeks to achieve.

843
The Bill itself deals with the proceeds of crime—and I emphasise that word at the outset. It is true that Part 5 refers to "unlawful conduct"—a somewhat woolly expression—but, fortunately, unlawful conduct is defined in Clause 244 as conduct which would be unlawful under our criminal law. So we can safely forget about unlawful conduct and talk simply about crime.
Under Clause 246, proceedings can be brought against anyone who holds what is called "recoverable property". Recoverable property means property obtained by a person through crime, whether his own crime or someone else's crime. That is the combined effect of Clauses 245 and 308. So unless a crime has been committed, and unless that crime has been proved, the judge simply has no power to make a recovery order. So far, all is clear and must be common ground.
Next, it may be helpful to follow the likely course of these so-called civil proceedings. I shall assume that they are being brought against the kind of person that the Government seem to have most in mind—that is, the major criminals who are at the centre of a criminal network but who are said to be untouchable by the criminal law. We are told that there are 400 such people known to the police. That number was often referred to in earlier stages of the Bill, both in this House and in the other place.
Let us assume that these proceedings are being brought against such a person and a claim form is duly served. What happens next? The first thing the defendant will do is to ask this simple question: "Through whose crime do you say these proceeds were obtained—my crime or someone else's crime—and what is the nature of the crime which you allege?" Unless the defendant gets an answer to those questions the civil proceedings will simply be struck out. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial in civil proceedings, just as he is entitled to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. No High Court judge of whom I have knowledge would allow civil proceedings to continue unless the crimes alleged are particularised. Again, that must be common ground.
Let us suppose that the allegation is that the proceeds were obtained through the defendant's own unlawful conduct—for example, by his dealing in drugs. Let us suppose next that the defendant denies the allegation, as he surely would. He might say, "You have got the wrong man". I have no idea what his defence may be, but, surely, if he denies that serious offence, he must as a matter of elementary justice be entitled to have that question decided on a criminal standard of proof by a judge and jury.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that that would be a most unfortunate state of affairs. It would mean that a lot of criminals would escape. "We know who they are", he said. "It is plain from our intelligence". I am paraphrasing from the speech that the noble and learned Lord made on 25th June, col. 1270 of Hansard: "It is plain from their lifestyle, their luxury homes, their yachts and fast motor cars, which do not appear to have been acquired
844
by any lawful activity on their part". He continued at col. 1271, "It is true that there is not enough evidence to convict them of specific crimes, but it is as plain as a pikestaff that their money has been acquired as the proceeds of crime".
I find that a most remarkable statement to have fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord. Those 400 people may indeed be the subject of grave suspicion on the part of the police, but happily we do not live in a police state. We shall not know those people to be criminals until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. Anyone familiar with the criminal courts will be able to tell noble Lords from their own experience about cases that seem as plain as a pikestaff to the police but that fell apart when they came to court. Then there are those unhappy cases that should have fallen apart but did not and instead have resulted in grave miscarriages of justice.
That is why we rightly insist on the higher standard of proof where the liberty of the subject is concerned—proof beyond reasonable doubt. Once we allow the civil burden of proof to intrude we shall conduct a grave disservice to the cause of justice.
The noble and learned Lord then says that none of that really matters because the proceedings are not aimed at an individual but aimed at his property. That is col. 1271. He is not being accused of anything; the proceedings will not result in a conviction; and in any event he cannot be sent to gaol. But I protest. He is being accused of something. He is being accused of drug dealing. Unless it is found "as a fact"—not my phrase but that of the noble and learned Lord—by the judge that he is guilty of drug dealing, the judge has no power to make a recovery order. The noble and learned Lord says that there is a distinction between being found guilty by the judge and being convicted. I venture to suggest that that is a distinction that would not be readily apparent to the defendant. It is certainly a distinction that is lost on me and appears to be lost to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Lastly, it is said that this amendment, if accepted, would be unfair. The noble and learned Lord said that the "little man" would be subjected to the full force of Part 5, but that the big wheel, suspected of far worse crimes—crimes that cannot be proved—would go scot-free. If the crimes cannot be proved, is there anything so surprising about the defendant going scot-free?
I shall summarise the first point—the second point is much shorter. A person who is accused of very serious crimes as part of the so-called civil proceedings is surely entitled to have the matter of his guilt decided by a judge and jury on the criminal standard. If he is acquitted, that should surely be the end of it. That is the purpose of the first five paragraphs of my amendment.
The second point is quite brief and is a Human Rights Act point. No doubt, when the legislation is in force it will he attacked under the Human Rights Act on numerous grounds. One ground stands out a mile. In a case where the alleged offender is before the court and is found guilty by the judge of a crime committed,

845
let us say, 12 years ago, Part 5 allows the state to recover the proceeds of that crime from that day to this in a way that was not possible when the crime was committed. That is retrospective legislation of the most obnoxious kind and it is directly prohibited by Article 7 of the Human Rights Act. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time that the criminal offence was committed.
It is said by the noble and learned Lord that a recovery order is not a penalty imposed for an offence, but that it is compensation claimed by the state for loss suffered by the state as a consequence of that offence. That is the plainest nonsense. The state has suffered no loss as a consequence of the offence and is not entitled to compensation. It is the victim, if anyone, who has suffered a loss and not the state.
That horse will not run. As it happens the horse ran in the case of Welch v. United Kingdom. It ran and it fell. That was the very point that was decided against the United Kingdom in Welch. It is true, as the noble and learned Lord will point out, that that was after a conviction. I hope that by now I have persuaded your Lordships that there is no distinction to be drawn between a conviction and a finding of guilt. That is certainly not a distinction that would find any favour at Strasbourg.
The purpose of the last paragraph of the amendment is simply to confine the retrospective effect of Part 5 to those cases where it has at least a chance of being upheld; that is to say, where the offender has not been before the court because he is overseas or because he is dead or in some other way unavailable. By confining the retrospective effect of Part 5, I suggest that this House will make a significant improvement to the Bill. In that spirit, I put forward this amendment as a compromise. It falls far short of what I would have wanted, but I put it forward as a form of compromise which I hope may still be accepted, although I have no strong expectation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I earnestly hope that the Government and your Lordships will support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We have to remember that he has moved it in the light of his great experience as a Law Lord. I shall be brief. There is not much need to repeat the arguments that the noble and learned Lord has used, but I want to emphasise one point. The trouble is that Clause 246 ignores the difference in the burden of proof in several criminal cases.
I remind your Lordships that in civil actions the burden of proof is based on the balance of probabilities, but in criminal cases there is a stronger burden of proof—a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Although Clause 246 deals with civil cases and criminal cases, that difference is ignored. Amendment No. 7 would put the matter right.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, on Report my noble friend Lord Goodhart indicated that the Government should stew in their own juice, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, pointed out. But he also gave strong support to these amendments. From these Benches, I do not propose to repeat the arguments so eloquently made by the noble and learned Lord, but the Government's response on Report was a familiar one: we all know what is going on. We know that such people are guilty; we have intelligence to that effect. It is the same kind of sentiment as was expressed recently by the Chief Constable in North Wales. He remarked that it was tragic that 63 per cent of people who appeared on trial before the Crown Court in North Wales were acquitted. We were not sure whether he was blaming the juries, the defence lawyers or his own force for failing to bring forward adequate evidence.
That is the point. Adequate and proper evidence needs to be brought forward before these draconian remedies are brought into effect. Ordinary standards of the criminal law ought not to be set aside. Suspicion of crime is not enough. We on these Benches will again strongly support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble and learned Lord has made an extremely eloquent case. First, perhaps I may ask him a technical question. The "unlawful conduct" can, we see, be conduct committed outside the United Kingdom. How is an English criminal court to try an offence which was committed outside its jurisdiction—in a foreign jurisdiction—which it has no jurisdiction to try as a criminal offence? That is my technical question.
Perhaps I may now become bolder and suggest a possible fallacy in the noble and learned Lord's argument. He said that unlawful conduct is defined as the commission of a crime. He then used the word "crime" instead of "unlawful conduct". But surely there is a difference between being certain that a person has accumulated his wealth by criminal activity and being able to prove a specific crime by which he acquired it. You may not be able to prove that he smuggled in X quantity of drugs on a certain day and sold them on the street the next day. But you may be able to prove—and perhaps you ought to have to prove beyond reasonable doubt—that he could not possibly have accumulated the enormous wealth that he has without ever going to work, without ever going to a casino, and without ever going to the horse races—and how on earth did he get his wealth, especially if he absolutely declines to prove it and if you can prove that in the past two years he has flown 14 times to and from Colombia and cannot explain what those journeys were for?
Surely there will be many cases in which it could be proved, even beyond reasonable doubt, that a person's wealth had been accumulated by unlawful conduct,

847
but you could not prove any specific time with the full particulars necessary to enable you to obtain a conviction.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has the right of reply and as we are at Third Reading, it may be better if he answers the question at that time.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the intellectual quality and persuasiveness of the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, ought by now to have convinced the Government to accept his amendment.
The Government's objective under Part 5 of the Bill is in principle a laudable one. It is to deprive drug traffickers and other criminals of their ill-gotten gains. The trouble is that, in doing so, they have succeeded in expropriating the right of the British citizen to trial by jury.
Our initial instinct on these Benches was to adopt the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; that is to say that we disapproved of the approach taken by Part 5 but thought that it ought to be left to the courts to settle the matter. Our view changed, in the course of the Bill proceedings, for three reasons. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as he rightly said, convinced us that this was a negative approach. We want, if possible, to make Part 5 work. That is precisely what the noble and learned Lord has done.
The second thing he did was to persuade us that, if someone is entitled to a right to trial by jury in circumstances where the evidence is strong enough to convict that person, he or she ought to be entitled to that same right in circumstances where the evidence is not strong enough to convict them. The right to trial by jury is a fundamental building block of our constitutional freedom. It is wholly undermined by Part 5 of the Bill. There is no real distinction between a confiscation order under Part 2 and a recovery order under Part 5; yet Part 2 provides the guarantee of trial by jury and Part 5 does not.
There is a final reason why I am convinced that your Lordships should accept the amendment. It is one that I gleaned, in the course of the past few days, from the Committee stage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. In Clause 4 of that Bill, the Government seek to deprive individuals, born in the United Kingdom, of their citizenship if their conduct seriously prejudices the vital interests of the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary determines the existence of that situation on his own subjective judgment.
I regard that as a step further down the undesirable road sign-posted by Part 5 of this Bill. I applaud the objectives of the Government under Part 5, just as I applaud the objectives of the Government under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. But the Government are seeking to achieve the results that they want by wholly undermining the criminal law of this country built up over many centuries. Surely the
848
right way to get the result under Part 5, as indeed under Clause 4, is to define the offences more clearly and more precisely in criminal law so that the proper criminal procedures in the criminal courts can be used.
The noble and learned Lord the AttorneyGeneral—who is looking at me with a bewildered expression—himself referred to 400 criminals in the country who could not be prosecuted by the prosecuting authorities. Surely in those circumstances it is up to the Government to define the offences more precisely, so that these criminals can be dealt with through the criminal courts.
For all those reasons, I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and trust that the Government will accept it.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has throughout made plain his opposition to the new civil recovery scheme in Part 5 of the Bill. He is entirely consistent in continuing to oppose it. That is not something that can be said of the approach of the Front Bench opposite and—.I think, although I am not entirely clear—from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I remind the House, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, of what was said at Second Reading, when the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made it very clear that this:
"will signal a will and a wish to assist the Government in producing a workable and effective piece of legislation".
She said specifically in relation to Part 5:
"…we do not want to obstruct the key objectives of the Bill, that is a real concern. We want to see those who have committed criminal offences deprived of their ill-gotten pins. [Official Report, 25/3/02; cols. 19–23.]
I shall not mince my words. The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, which we debated fully on Report although we did not divide, will not improve the Bill. It will not be workable in the way that he proposes. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, not only for giving way but also for promoting me in the Peerage. I believe he referred to me as "the noble Earl".
The noble and learned Lord may not have been listening to my opening remarks. I hope that he will accept that I said at the outset that our instinct was to leave the matter to the courts. It was as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House and the skilful ingenuity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that our position moved. However, our view remains as the Government said their position remained: that people should be deprived of their ill-gotten gains as a result of their criminal activities—so we may prosecute them for their criminal activities.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if I attributed such peerage to the noble Lord, I am not sure whether to apologise to him or to those who have that dignity. But I do not apologise to him for saying what I have said and will continue to say on the amendment. It the

849
amendment were passed, it would not improve the Bill. It would prevent Part 5 from being effective. With your Lordships' leave, I shall explain why.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with one point. Throughout there has been reference to the European Convention on Human Rights and whether or not the process involved would be held to be a civil or criminal process. That is a technical question. I shall not weary your Lordships with the arguments about it now. The simple approach taken by the Government is this. We are not seeking compensation for the state. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggested that I had said that we were seeking compensation for the state. I do not recall ever saying that. What I have said repeatedly is that this is about saying to people who are holding property which they have no right to hold because it is the proceeds of drug trafficking, bank robbery or other serious crime, "You have no right to this property and therefore this property is to be taken away".
By his amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, accepts that in relation to all people except those who are said themselves to have committed the unlawful conduct.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Yes, but surely in the case of the bank robbery the property belongs to the bank not to the state.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as is clear from the Bill, if the bank can demonstrate that that it is its property it will be able to recover it.
One of the difficulties—with respect, the noble and learned Lord did not deal with this point, although the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made it well and clearly—is the fact that there are people in relation to whom it is not possible to say, "You committed this particular crime". But it may be possible to say that what they plainly possess in terms of property is the proceeds of crime. Precisely which crime—a bank robbery on this day, a drug trafficking offence on that day, proof of which is required by the criminal law cannot be demonstrated.
The noble and learned Lord rightly puts the High Court judge before us as an object of admiration and fairness. If a High Court judge is persuaded—otherwise no order is made—that property held by someone is the proceeds of unlawful conduct, the question is whether or not that property should be taken from that person who has no right to keep it.
What is the burden of proof in such circumstances? I have dealt with this matter at every stage—Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. No one has ever gainsaid what I said. It is this. Although the civil standard applies—that of the balance of probabilities—the decisions of the courts make very clear indeed that where the issue is serious misconduct, although that is still determined on the balance of
850
probabilities, because of the inherent unlikelihood that serious criminal conduct has been committed the courts require more cogent proof.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General contending seriously that under the Bill as it now stands it would be possible for a court, without any evidence that any particular unlawful conduct has occurred, to come to the conclusion that the assets of the respondent must have been acquired by some unspecified unlawful conduct? That is not how I read the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, a High Court judge will have the duty to consider whether or not a particular property which is identified is the product of some unlawful conduct. What evidence the court will be persuaded by will be a matter for the court. I do not disagree with the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, of someone who plainly has very substantial means, has never done a day's work in his life and cannot explain—that is a part of it—where any of it came from when questions are put. It is the easiest thing for someone to say, "You say that these are the proceeds of crime. I can tell you that I acquired this in this or that way". But he puts forward no credible explanation for that; and there is other evidence which suggests that he has been mixing in criminal circles: he has been taking aeroplane flights to Colombia, or whatever it may be. The judge will have to decide.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Under Clause 244, the matter the court has to decide on the balance of probabilities is whether it is proved that any matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct have occurred. That makes clear that a matter which constitutes unlawful conduct must have occurred.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, there will be certain cases where no doubt specific unlawful conduct is identified. The point I make is that there will be cases where, for example, it will be apparent that the property someone is holding may be the proceeds of a bank robbery or of drug trafficking. One cannot tell which it is but one can be satisfied—not the police; it is not a police state; not me; not the director—but the court is satisfied that those are the proceeds of unlawful conduct. In those circumstances, the court will be able to make the order.
I remind noble Lords of what I said about the standard of proof. It is important for two reasons. Because it is so important, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me while I read again these words that,
"When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury …built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation".

851
The court would have to be satisfied—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Would he bear in mind that Clause 244(1) refers to,
"conduct occurring in any part of the United Kingdom is unlawful conduct if it is unlawful under the criminal law of that part"?
As criminal law is brought into operation there, surely the principle of the burden of proof, which, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, has for centuries been beyond reasonable doubt, should apply.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as I explained on Report—it has not been contradicted by the noble and learned Lord—time and again in the civil courts an allegation of a criminal act is made in the context of a civil proceeding. In those circumstances, what the court does is precisely what I have just read from the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. It decides that question on the civil standard, but applying the preponderance of that probability taking account of the need for more cogent evidence.
I have previously given examples. That happens in any libel actions and it happened in re. H itself. The allegation underlying a care proceeding was that the father was guilty of raping the daughter. The whole question in the case was whether that allegation had to be determined on the criminal standard or in relation to something less. Obviously, the finding even in civil process would be very damaging to the father. Your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity held that on the balance of probabilities, but that more cogent evidence was required.
As it happens, the noble and learned Lord, Lloyd of Berwick, was on the panel. I have with me what he said. On that occasion, interestingly, he had no difficulty with the proposition that a civil court might find somebody guilty of a criminal offence in the sense that it found that he had committed that criminal offence. In fact, the noble and learned Lord was in a minority in suggesting that one should not have that heightened standard. His view was that the standard of proof should merely be a simple balance of probabilities. One understands why the noble and learned Lord said that. There is a critical difference between a criminal process and a civil process. In a criminal process, someone is convicted and goes to gaol or is at risk of going to gaol. That is not the case when someone is found in a civil process to have committed some disreputable act. At Report stage I gave the example of a case, which the noble and learned Lord tried when he was a puisne judge and I was a junior member of the Bar, involving forgery, deceit and lying. There was no suggestion at any stage that, despite the importance of those allegations, they could be dealt with only before a criminal court.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is not the case under the Bill that mere possession of property, which is thought to
852
have been obtained dishonestly in some way or other, is sufficient for the provisions to come into effect? Clause 244 states:
"Conduct occurring in any part of the United Kingdom is unlawful conduct if it is unlawful under the criminal law of that part".
It continues:
"The court or sheriff must decide on a balance of probabilities whether it is proved …that any matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct have occurred".
It is not for the person to explain where his property came from; it is for those seeking to recover that property to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that unlawful conduct—that is, unlawful conduct under the criminal law—has actually occurred. The response of the noble and learned Lord has given an entirely different impression.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have been absolutely consistent throughout. Clause 308 is where one needs to start in this regard. It states:
"Property obtained through unlawful conduct is recoverable property".
That is what the court is considering: whether the property is obtained through unlawful conduct. I stand by what I said. The court might be satisfied to that heightened standard that the property was the proceeds of unlawful conduct, but it could not be said whether it involved the proceeds of the bank robbery on 14th June 1963 or on 16th June 1980. It might: even be satisfied that the person had committed both. But which are the proceeds of crime? What has the person done with the proceeds in the mean time? On the question whether one can trace that back to the Midland Bank as opposed to Barclays Bank: no, the court would not have to do that.
On the European Convention, I respect the fact that the noble and learned Lord takes a different view from that of the Government. I have throughout said that we recognise that we are to some extent in uncharted territory. The Government's view— the better view—is that this matter will be held to be civil, not criminal. That is under the Strasbourg jurisprudence. I draw support from the fact that there are decisions from your Lordships' House, the Privy Council and Strasbourg supporting that result. The Government have said throughout that we accept that this is likely to be challenged. The sort of people who we are talking about, if we are right about them, will have pots of money, which they will not want to give up without a fight and they will challenge the decision. The Government should—this line was previously and rightly taken by the Opposition—be able to propose the legislation, have it tested in the courts and establish whether we are right, as we believe we are, not on a wing and a chance but because we have looked at the matter very carefully and concluded that we are right and will be held to be right. If there is something wrong with that, let us have the judgment of the court so that we can amend it in a way that makes sense and which reflects what the problem is; it should not be dealt with in some other way.

853
In order to emphasise what is so extraordinary about the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, I want to contrast two different people. The first is someone who is not said to be the person who has committed the unlawful conduct but who is holding the property, such as a wife or an associate. The amendment would accept that that person can be proceeded with under Part 5, with all the rigours of that part. One could go back 12 years and the case will be decided on the balance of probabilities, the standard of proof that I have identified. Part 5 will operate. If the person is said to be the culprit or is likely to be the culprit—not the person who is less culpable—under the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, that person cannot be proceeded against at all.
I shall explain why I say, "not at all". As I have made clear throughout the Bill's passage—it is very clear that this will be the position—there will be a hierarchy of proceedings. If it is possible to pursue criminal proceedings, they will be pursued. A decision will be made by the prosecutors about whether to proceed without regard to the fact that there is a civil process as well. Only if the prosecutors form the view that it is not possible to proceed will the civil process come in. After that, there are the taxation provisions.
What would happen under the amendment of the noble and learned Lord? The amendment says that if the person who is proceeded against is someone who is said to be guilty of unlawful conduct, that person is entitled to insist on going to the Crown Court. But for what would they go to the Crown Court? For a trial? But the prosecutor has already decided that it is inappropriate to proceed by way of trial. That cannot happen. But what if the prosecutor proceeds? What if the reason why it is not possible to proceed against the person is because he has sufficiently distanced himself from the actual criminal acts? The court may be absolutely convinced that he is holding the proceeds of a bank robbery but it may not know whether he is a bank robber, a conspirator or simply a fence—someone who is holding the property. He cannot be convicted on any of those grounds because one cannot convict him when one does not know which of those applies. He is entitled to keep all of that money although a court is satisfied that he was guilty.
What about the situation raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe? What if the clearest possible evidence is that the person was guilty of committing a fraud outside the United Kingdom which we cannot prosecute? That is a very common problem these days because, as noble Lords well know, crime is global. If there is drug trafficking or human trafficking in a foreign country, we cannot bring the relevant person to the Kingston Crown Court or the Old Bailey. That person is entitled to say, "You cannot try me in the Crown Court, therefore I can keep all of this property". Those are considerable loopholes.
The extraordinarily absurd result is that one can proceed against the wife, someone who is not really culpable, but not against someone who is culpable. That is a manifest nonsense. Why is that said to be justified? On the basis that there is a right to trial by
854
jury? There is a right to trial by jury for criminal offences, but this is not a criminal conviction. One does not go to gaol, the matter does not go on one's rehabilitation of offenders record and one has an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is a civil process like any other civil process.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I say that it is impossible to describe this amendment as improving the Bill. If it is agreed to, it will mean that it will not be possible to proceed against a person who is holding the proceeds of crime even though a court can be satisfied of that by convincing evidence, unless one can convict that person of a specific crime.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, considers that to be right because he does not believe that Part 5 should stand part of the Bill. As I said, I respect that. The Government happen to take a different view about it. But for the Opposition to say that the amendment would make the Bill more workable when they are driving a huge hole through it is simply false; it simply is not possible to maintain that point of view.
I turn to the final point—the Article 7 point—of the noble and learned Lord's amendment concerning retrospectivity. We debated this matter on Report at considerable length. Again, I invite noble Lords opposite to consider the consequence of this part of the amendment. It would mean that it would not be possible to proceed against a person who was currently holding the proceeds of a crime committed in the past. Therefore, if the amendment were agreed to, the provision would operate only in relation to crimes committed in the future. We are talking about a grossly denatured remedy because the provision would apply only far off in the future and the effect of the act would be gravely reduced.
The Government take the view that the provision is not contrary to Article 7 of the European convention. I explained on Report—I do not want to weary your Lordships now—why that is so. The noble and learned Lord referred to the case of Welch. As I said on that occasion, there are five distinguishing features. While one could argue about one or two of them, one could not do so in relation to the others. The most important of them is that in Welch there was a penalty because the individual had already been convicted of five counts of conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Welch was sentenced to 22 years in prison and, on top of that, the court said, "What's more, there will be a confiscation order". The Court in Strasbourg said, "That's a penalty". That is not the process that is taking place here.
Again, I recognise that there is a difference between us concerning what the Court in Strasbourg will say—if we get that far. But, having considered the matter extremely carefully, the Government's view, contrary to, and respecting fully, that of a former Law Lord, is that the Government will prevail in the courts. It is right that the Government should be allowed to proceed. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' House are of the view that it is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, that we

855
should he able to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crime; otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said at Second Reading, leaving criminals with the working capital of crime would have a corrosive effect on society. If noble Lords agree that depriving criminals of the proceeds of their crime is the objective that we seek to achieve, they will reject the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thank noble Lords on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches for their support. As to the noble Viscount's first question concerning offences committed abroad, it seems to me that that illustrates very well the type of difficulties which will occur over and over again when Part 5 of the Bill is put into practice. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General pointed out, that is one reason that I have been opposed to Part 5 from the start.
As to the second question, the noble Viscount meets me half way in urging the criminal standard of proof. I am very glad of that. But I still do not savour the concept of a person being accused of criminal activity in general, even a particular kind of criminal activity in general. In that respect, I must beg leave to differ from the noble Viscount.
As to the noble and learned Lord's response, I have now listened to him on three occasions. I am grateful for the trouble that he has taken each time. I have not been persuaded; indeed, if anything, and if it is not offensive to say so, I feel even less persuaded now than I was at the start. In those circumstances, I feel obliged to test the opinion of the House.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ackner, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Addington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alderdice, L.

Chadlington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chalfont, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Chilver, L.

Astor, V.

Chorley, L.

AstorofHever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Attlee.E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Barker, B.

Colwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Bhatia, L.

Cox, B.

Biffen, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blaker, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch,B.

Cumberlege,B.

Boardman, L.

Denham, L.

Bowncss, L.

Dholakia,L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eames, L.

Burnham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Buscombe, B.

Elton, L.

Byford, B.

Erroll, E.

Caithness, E.

Feldman, L.

856

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Northesk, E.

Fowler, L.

Northover, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Freeman, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Geddes, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goschen, V.

Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pym,L.

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Hambro, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hanham, B.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roper, L.

Hooper, B.

Russell, E.

Howe, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hylton, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Seccombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Selsdon, L

Kimball, L.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Kingsland, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Laingof Dunphail, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L. [Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinfen, L.

Luke, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gresford. L.

MacGregorof Pulham Market,L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Tope, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Vivian, L.

Masham of llton, B.

Waddington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wakeham. L.

Montrose, D.

Walker of Worcester. L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Naseby, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Newby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Wilcox, B.

Noakes, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ahmed, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Alli,L.

Carter, L.

Amos,B.

Chandos, V.

Andrews, B.

Christopher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bach, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Croham,L.

Blackstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Blease,L.

Davies of Coity. L.

Bledisloe,V.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Desai,L.

Bragg, L.

Dixon, L.

Brennan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dubs, L.

Brookman, L.

Elder, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

857

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Filkin, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Golding, B.

Nicol, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Pendry, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goudie, B.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grenfell,L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Puttnam, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harrison, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel,L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Rooker, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hoyle, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Simon, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Iswyn, L

Temple-Morris, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Thornton B

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tumberg, L.

Jones, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jordan, L.

Uddin, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Warner, L.

Kirkhill,L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Layard, L.

Weatherill,L.

LeaofCrondall, L.

Whitaker,B.

Lipsey, L.

Whitty, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Mcintosh of Hudnall, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwickmoved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 246, insert the following new clause—
"246A PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER SECTION 246: DEFENCE OF RESPONDENT

(1) Where proceedings are brought against a person under section 246, and that person (the respondent) is the person through whose unlawful conduct the property is said to have been obtained, the following provisions of this section shall apply.

(2) If the respondent denies that he is guilty of the alleged unlawful conduct, he shall be entitled to have the question whether he is so guilty determined in a separate trial by the Crown Court, and the proceedings in the High Court shall be adjourned.

(3) If he is acquitted by the Crown Court. the proceedings in the High Court shall be dismissed.

(4) If he is convicted by the Crown Court, the Court must proceed under Part 2 of this Act, and the proceedings in the High Court shall stand adjourned until the proceedings in the Crown Court have been conducted whereupon the proceedings in the High Court shall he dismissed.

858

(5) If the respondent elects not to exercise his rights under subsection (2), the question whether he is guilty of the alleged unlawful conduct shall be determined by the High Court on the criminal burden and standard of proof, and all other questions shall be determined on the civil standard of proof.

(6) If the respondent is found guilty of unlawful conduct under subsection (5), and the court is satisfied that he is in possession of recoverable property, the court shall make a recovery order in accordance with this Part of this Act, save that the recovery order shall not include property obtained by the respondent through unlawful conduct committed by him before the coming into force of this Part, and section 320(3) shall to that extent not apply."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 286 [Compensation]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 171, line 31, after "is" insert "withdrawn or"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on Report the Government brought forward an amendment to make clear that the three-month period during which an application for compensation must be made does not begin until any appeal proceedings are finally concluded. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, argued that this did not take account of the case where an application for leave to appeal was withdrawn or where an appeal was abandoned. I said then that I would consider the matter. We have considered it and we have brought forward Amendment No. 9 to put the issue beyond any doubt that might arise in the case of a withdrawn application. We do not think that any further provision is necessary where an appeal is abandoned as the abandonment of the proceedings would mean that they would be finally concluded within the meaning of Clause 286(3).
The noble Baroness also argued that we should be referring to permission to appeal rather than leave to appeal. While we agree that "permission" is the more modern expression in relation to England and Wales, it is not correct usage in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. As Part 5 applies throughout the United Kingdom we need to retain references to "leave" so that it can work in Scotland and Northern Ireland and, as there can be no possible doubt about what "leave" means, it is unnecessary to depart from the simple solution of using a single word.
Amendment No. 10 corrects a minor drafting error. It replaces the word "sum" with the word "currency" in Clause 303. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for responding to our concerns expressed in Committee and on Report regarding Clause 286. I entirely accept his point with regard to use of the word "permission" versus "leave". It is rather refreshing to hear that for once the Government are refraining from the need to modernise. Thank you very much for that report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 307 ["The minimum amount"):
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 183, line 31, leave out "sum" and insert "currency"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 312 [General exceptions]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 199, line 24, at end insert "or an employee of his"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 313(3) of the Bill gives the Government a right to claw back from a plaintiff damages paid to him or her out of recoverable property which has been obtained when the damages have been paid under a judgment of the court.
We believe that that is grossly unfair because it is punishing the innocent plaintiff, not the person against whom the recovery order is made. It also creates plain anomalies. If the claim, for example, is a claim for damages for negligence, the plaintiff can keep the money awarded to him or her under the judgment if the damage is caused by a negligent act which is also a criminal offence, for example, careless driving. But the plaintiff cannot keep the money if the damage is caused by a non-criminal form of negligence. If damages are paid by an insurance company, the plaintiff can keep the money because it is not paid for out of recoverable property. At least, that is the view of the Government. I am not certain that that is the case if the insurance premium was paid out of recoverable property. If, on the other hand, the damages are paid personally by an uninsured defendant, there may be a right to claw them back.
There will be plain inconsistencies between situations which have nothing to do with the plaintiff. When a similar amendment to this was moved by us on Report, the Government raised what seemed to me a fair point; that is, that a payment made out of recoverable property to, for example, a former spouse in the course of matrimonial proceedings, should remain recoverable. We have therefore tabled a revised amendment which prevents a claw back only in the case of claims for payment of a debt or for damages, and would not prevent the claw-back in the case of an order for payment of a settlement of matrimonial property.
That seems to me to be an amendment which is plainly just and fair. It will prevent what could be a serious injustice to a successful plaintiff. I also find it extraordinary, and, indeed, unprecedented, to be able to recover damages which have been not only ordered but paid under an order of the court in cases other than ones where there has been fraud or some other serious default on the part of the plaintiff. To that extent, it establishes thoroughly bad precedent. Therefore, I hope, though I fear I do not expect, that the Government will see the justice of the case and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall explain the context in which the amendment arises. Clause 309 enables the proceeds of unlawful conduct to be traced. That principle is not assailed. Giving away dispositions, for example, or other dispositions, does not prevent the property from continuing to be recoverable and therefore recovered. But there must be exceptions.
Perhaps the most important exception is in Clause 31 2(1). Where someone acquires the property in good faith for value and without notice, lie can keep
860
it. That concept is well known to lawyers. It is often called "equity's darling". There are three elements to that. If a person has acquired in good faith, for value and without notice, the property is tainted in that way.
However, another exception which the Government thought important is contained at present in Clause 312(3). That is in circumstances where the very nature of the proceedings is on the basis of the respondent's unlawful conduct. In those circumstances, it is likely that the claimant 'will realise that the property is recoverable because he is saying either, "The property has been taken from me by fraud", or if not that very property. "That is the sort of person who takes property dishonestly from other people". That is why the exception, as presently drafted, is necessary. Therefore, if I am defrauded. I sue for fraud and I receive back my money. The fact that I knew that the property which is coming to me was the proceeds of crime does not and should not prevent the recovery order from operating.
It would be wrong in those circumstances that the director should recover; the victim would take priority. However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wants to extend that to the proceeds of any judgment for debt or damages, subject only to the proviso that it is made in good faith, and therefore would not apply the two other elements in Clause 312 without notice that it is recoverable property or that it is for value. That would put the judgment creditor in a favourable position. Indeed, subject to other parts of the Bill, the person who had obtained a judgment for a debt would be in a better position than the person who had simply had the debt paid on this analysis without the need to go to court.
I emphasise that that does not undermine the judgment. The judgment will remain. If someone has a judgment, there is nothing wrong with him saying, "The respondent has chosen to meet that judgment by using my money or other property to which he is not entitled". The true owner—in this case the state, because that is the philosophy behind Part 5—is entitled to say, "That is property which should he mine. This judgment has to be settled with some other property". There is nothing absurd or wrong about the principle.
My fundamental proposition is that Clause 312(1) adequately meets the cases which should be met. I understand that the noble Lord accepts that if a judgment is met there is a disposal, so that part is satisfied. He presumably sees no difficulty in the concept of good faith because that is the concept he wants to apply. Presumably, he has no difficulty with the concept that it was without notice that it is recoverable property. He continues to question whether or not a person who has obtained a judgment may be giving value. That is where he and I differ.
I invite the noble Lord first to consider a case in which a person has supplied goods, has a claim for a debt and that debt is paid before court proceedings. There can be no doubt that value has been given because value was given at the time that the money was lent, the goods were sold or whatever gives rise to the

861
debt. There is no less value given when the money is paid following a judgment. Equally, if there is a claim for damages, the person who has that claim as a result of an injury sustained possesses something which is a chose in action in legal terms. It is a right of action which is given up at the time that the judgment is satisfied. One cannot obviously keep both the right of action and the proceeds of the judgment.
Therefore, I do not have difficulty in seeing that in the right case the concept of Clause 312 can apply to proceeds after a judgment. It will be for the court to be satisfied that value has been given. That would always be the case. Researches have identified the Chancery Division case of Taylor v. Blakelock. That was a breach of trust. When the property was then passed from another trust to the person who had the claim in relation to the trust, it was held to be a disposition for value. One is not surprised by that because the real distinction is between a volunteer and someone who has given value. Someone who has a claim for damages, which is satisfied by the court, is not an innocent volunteer. That would be for the court to decide, but I suggest that there is not the problem that the noble Lord suggests.
The amendment is not necessary in order to meet the category of case with which he is concerned. However, there is a further problem, which goes beyond the considerations set out under Clause 312; that is, equitable considerations. That does not include the requirement of absence of notice or the requirement of value in some other sense. If the noble Lord accepts my argument, we have dealt with that point. It does not deal with the "without notice" issue. If someone has a judgment—even if a bona fide judgment—and knows that it is being satisfied from the proceeds of a robbery, why should he be able to keep the property? He will say, "No, you must pay me out of money which is clean".
I refer to a second problem. In Part 5 we have been attempting to have a civil process, which follows the same kind of rules as a civil process. A concept such as bona fide purchaser for value without notice and in good faith is entirely what one would expect in a civil process. The courts would be used to dealing with that. To introduce a novel concept which simply depends upon good faith would be to introduce an unusual approach. That could give rise to serious difficulties as to how this is supposed to apply.
I hope that the noble Lord feels that that explanation—although we have covered some of this ground before—is of some reassurance. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
6 P.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am inclined to accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General so far as it applies to actions in debt. To that extent, I agree that the wording of my amendment, which refers to debt, is probably superfluous. However, there remain serious problems as regards actions for damages.
862
Let us assume that there is an action for damages for personal injury. A plaintiff who is injured by the negligence of the respondent is not interested in the question of whether or not any claim for damages is likely to be satisfied out of recoverable property.
It is not like a contract where one knows that one is dealing with a particular person. One may or may not know that that person is involved in crime. If one does, it is reasonable that the property acquired from him should be treated as being recoverable. I turn back to the case of someone injured by the negligence of the respondent. Let us assume that at the time of the injury the injured person does not know anything about the respondent whatsoever, except that his conduct has injured him. The noble and learned Lord tried to argue that one could get around that issue by saying that when the plaintiff is injured he acquires a chose in action—a right in action. When he gets the payment of damages he disposes of his right of action for value and in good faith. I regard that as an extremely narrow and technical argument.
On Report the noble and learned Lord raised against me the argument that the cause of action is extinguished by the judgment. On this occasion I would raise that against him because by the time one gets one's damages judgment has already been given, obviously. So one no longer has a cause of action—when one gets the damages one has nothing of which one can dispose. I do not wish to rely on that exceedingly technical argument.
If the noble and learned Lord is right—when one gets judgment in an action for damages, and when that judgment is satisfied one provides value to the person who paid the damages—the whole of subsection (3) would be unnecessary. If the claimant's claim is based on the defendant's unlawful conduct, there must be a right of action for the unlawful conduct which is being given up, in exactly the same way as would be the case if it is simply an action for damages for negligence.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way to me. In that circumstance the claimant will have noticed that it is recoverable property. That is why Clause 312(1) would not work in that situation. That is why the existing clause is necessary.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the point about the notice is a bad one. I return to the case of someone injured by negligence. At the time of the injury, he has no idea that the respondent is involved in crime. By the time the judgment is satisfied he has found out quite a good deal more about the respondent. If that is the case, on the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of Clause 312(1), the conditions cannot be satisfied because by the time the judgment is satisfied the plaintiff has notice that the property might be recoverable. Surely, it should make no difference whatever if an entirely innocent plaintiff, with a good cause of action in damages against a respondent is defeated simply because at some stage before the judgment is satisfied he comes across the otherwise irrelevant information that the respondent, is a no-good type against whom a recovery order might be

863
made. It is unjustified to say that that is a deciding factor in whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to keep the damages which he has been paid. This is a wholly unjustifiable objection.
I am unhappy with the Government's response. Nevertheless, I have the feeling that we are arguing in terms of some fairly narrow technicalities. I should be reluctant in the circumstances—although I remain convinced that my point is good—to press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 334 [Failure to disclose: regulated sector]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 199, line 24, at end insert "or an employee of his"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12,I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. The amendments are based on the belief that the most effective way to ensure that the regulated sector observes high standards in relation to money-laundering is to make its employers liable to prosecution for misconduct or negligence of their employees, whether or not the directors of an employer company have been guilty of it.
If employers face a hefty fine for a breach of money-laundering by their staff, that ensures that their staff are not only properly trained but are selected as people who have the capacity to do the job, are properly monitored and are not grossly overworked.
Amendment No. 12 substantially strengthens the Bill. In addition, it eliminates the need to make employees personally liable for a negligent failure to spot a suspicious transaction. It is unfair to make a junior employee liable for failure to spot a suspicious transaction if he did not realise that it was suspicious.
There is a specific defence provided in the Bill for employees who have not had proper training, but it is not a defence if they fail to notice that a transaction is suspicious because they are exhausted by overwork or because they are simply not up to the job. That potential unfairness to employees who may find themselves with a criminal conviction for negligent conduct was a matter of great concern to members of all parties in Committee in another place. An offence of careless driving is a criminal offence of negligence, but does not normally attract the kind of stigma that would be attracted by a conviction for money laundering, which may be a crime of serious dishonesty.
The amendments would strengthen the Bill by giving employers a real incentive to ensure the maintenance of high standards in watching for money laundering and would remove a potential injustice to their staff. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will recall, in Committee we tabled amendments of a slightly different nature to the clause. Our approach was to reduce the penalty for the negligence offence to one below the custodial threshold. That did not find favour with the noble and
864
learned Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, took the message and has come up with a different approach.
The Government's approach is both ethically wrong and operationally futile. It is ethically wrong for the reasons explained by the noble Lord. A criminal penalty of that nature should not be the consequence of negligent conduct in which an officer in an institution does not do what he ought to do, according to the required standard. Equally, the existence of the penalty will make no difference to the conduct of those who are, to use the modern expression that I do not much like myself, but which seems the most evocative, at the workstation.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter. I do not say that our solution is necessarily the best; nor that that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is the best; but the Government should think again about the issue. So something needs to be done. The Government have got the balance wrong and they should take the opportunity, while the Bill is still alive, to come up with a better solution.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we share a considerable number of goals with noble Lords on both Front Benches on the matter, but I earnestly ask both of them to consider what they are proposing under the amendment.
For example, let us suppose that a one-man solicitors firm has trained all of its staff and has systems in place, as required under the money laundering directive that is to be introduced. That one-man firm will be caught by the directive and by the clause. He has trained; he has the system; he is careful. As the result of the negligence of one of his employees, there is a breach of the provision. Under the amendment, the employee will get off but the solicitor, who is completely blameless in that respect and has done everything required of him, will end up being liable for a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
Having put the ethical case, I cannot believe that noble Lords intended that, but that is the amendment's consequence once the second money laundering directive is introduced and solicitors are caught by it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, and I shall be telegraphic. I agree with much of what he said, but the Government are equally at fault in their position. That is why I asked them to come up with a different approach. The Government have criticised both of our approaches, but they have not done anything to improve their draft.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that draft involves blameworthy conduct in the sense of negligence before a crime is committed, whereas the draft proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which the noble Lord supports, involves conviction for an offence without any blameworthy conduct.

865
We all agree that our goal is high standards for reporting coupled with appropriate penalties for wrong-doing. We cannot possibly support what would in effect be strict liability for professionals who were completely blameless. From what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, I detect that he does not support that conclusion either. We think that we have the best solution.
The Money Laundering Regulations 1993 require all businesses within the regulated sector to have systems in place to provide for the training of employees, the identification of customers and the keeping of records for five years. The penalty on conviction for failing to comply with the regulations is a period of imprisonment of up to two years or an unlimited fine. Most companies are diligent in that respect and comply fully with the regulations' requirements, but a company director can already be brought to book for failing to take the regulations seriously. That is important because of the high standards that we seek.
In effect, the amendments would mean that even if an employer has done everything in his power to ensure that his employees have been correctly trained to be alert to money laundering, where an employee fails to make a disclosure because he did not know or suspect that money laundering was going on, the employer would have to take full responsibility for the negligent behaviour of his employees. It does not end there. In the circumstances that I have described, by virtue of Clause 338, the employer could find himself subject to a period of imprisonment of up to five years.
For the reasons that I have given, that cannot be right. The employer will have done nothing wrong at all; on the contrary, he will have done all that he can to protect his company from money laundering activity and yet, through wilfulness or sheer laziness on the part of his employee, he may still face a longish term of imprisonment.
Separately from the ethical point, how would the amendment work in practice? Where the employee knew or suspected money laundering, the prosecutor would seem to have a choice whether to prosecute the employer or the employee. It is not right to have the option of prosecuting the employer in cases where the employee deliberately fails to report money laundering. In cases in which there was no knowledge or suspicion, the employee would have a defence to the offence, so the prosecutor could pursue only the employer.
However, in practice it may not be clear at the outset whether there was actual knowledge or suspicion or simply reasonable grounds for it. In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution would need to put both the employee and the employer in the dock and see whether the employee successfully made the defence. That could lead to the employer being prosecuted in the most inappropriate cases.
The simple fact is that, under the amendments, the prosecutor would be reluctant to bring a prosecution against a company except in the most blatant cases of
866
a company's disregard of proper procedures. In most such cases, the company would be liable to prosecution under the money laundering regulations in any event. We should be no further forward in trying to bring about a higher degree of diligence within the regulated sector.
So we would end up with unfairness and would not produce the high standards that we seek. In those circumstances, I firmly ask the noble Lord to reconsider and to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I found the noble and learned Lord's response far from convincing. He raised the argument of the one-person solicitors firm and said that the threat of a five-year term imprisonment for the breach of the money laundering rules by an employee of the solicitor would be inappropriate. Of course that is so but there would be no chance in those circumstances of any term of imprisonment being imposed. A five-year term would be almost equally inappropriate for a new young employee who, despite being properly trained, failed to notice something that an experienced employee would have noticed and became liable for negligence.
Equally, where the employees of a large firm or an incorporated business commit a series of breaches, plainly there is something wrong with the way that the employer runs the business and a fine—possibly substantial—would be entirely appropriate. Strict liability is a way of ensuring high standards in the commercial sector, so there are several fields in which employers are subject to strict criminal liability for breaches of law by their employees.
I would have been minded to press the amendment to a Division except that it would impose a considerable potential liability on any organisation that falls within the regulated sector now or may do in future. It would be inappropriate to press the amendment to a vote without more thorough consultation with the business sector potentially affected than we have been able to undertake. In those circumstance, while I remain convinced that the amendment is a much better way of proceeding, it is not appropriate to press it now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 380 [Evidence overseas]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 226, line 1, at end insert—
"(11) Rules of court may make provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in connection with proceedings relating to the issue of letters of request by a judge under this section."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before I refer to Amendment No. 17, I want to add something that I should have said in response to Amendment No. 12. The Government believe that strong anti-money laundering measures, including the new negligence test, are fully justified against the background of several money laundering cases in the

867
City that were not reported to law enforcement. For the City's financial reputation and standing, here and overseas, it is of utmost importance that the United Kingdom should be seen to demand the highest standards of diligence. I was recently able to reassure representatives of the Law Society concerning the operation of the provisions in Part 7. One of their concerns was that a problem might arise if NCIS is unable to consent to a transaction quickly and a client brings an action for negligence—for example, where there is urgency in completing a conveyancing transaction.
Although it would ultimately be for the court to decide, in our view it is highly unlikely that a company that is in dialogue with NCIS would be found negligent in those circumstances. Where a report is sent to NCIS and the matter is urgent, I am looking into establishing a follow-up hotline within NCIS to operate during daylight hours, so that the discloser is not left in the difficult position of neither being able to effect a transaction nor inform the client that a report has been made to NCIS. The Bill's time limits will be helpful but there will inevitably be cases where consent to a transaction needs to be given before seven calendar days, as provided in the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making that point. The original Law Society proposal for a two-day time limit presented obvious difficulties and might have led to NCIS refusing permission without the opportunity to consider the matter properly because the two-day limit was approaching. The formula devised by the noble and learned Lord and the Law Society is the right way to proceed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am obliged.
I alerted your Lordships to the need for Amendment No. 17 on Report. Its effect is to provide a power to make rules of court for proceedings under Clause 380, which makes provision for the Director of ARA to apply to a judge for a letter requesting evidence from overseas relating to confiscation investigations. The person under investigation will also be able to request such evidence for use in their defence. The amendment is required because applications under this clause will be made to a judge, not to a court, and therefore specific rule-making provision within the Bill to make rules of court will be required.
Amendment No. 18 is a purely drafting amendment. Part 5 of the Bill refers to "interim receiving orders" for England and Wales and to "interim administration orders" for Scotland—reflecting the different terminology in the two jurisdictions. The same terminology is used in Part 8. Amendment 18 simply adds a reference to "interim administration orders" to the interpretation provision for Part 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 420 [Other interpretative provisions]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 246, line 10, leave out "and "interim receiving order"" and insert ", "interim receiving order" and "interim administration order""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 423 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 247, line 42, after "339" insert ", 340"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the two sets of minor amendments that follow are technical. They are largely a matter of integration, in that they extend to the whole of the United Kingdom provisions that the Bill already applies to one or more of the three jurisdictions. The amendments to Clauses 429 and 433 are mainly designed to simplify for Northern Ireland the interrelationship between tainted gifts under the confiscation legislation and under-value transactions under the insolvency legislation. The amendments simply replicate for Northern Ireland amendments that your Lordships approved for England and Wales and Scotland on Report, when I mentioned that we would bringing them forward.
The second set of amendments affects Clause 423 and, to a lesser extent, Clauses 429, 431 and 433 and is concerned with preferences—a term used in insolvency legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 20 to 22:
Page 248, line 1, after "339" insert ", 340"
Page 248, line 10, after "339" insert 340"
Page 248, line 10, after "27" insert ", 44"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 429 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 23 to 29:
Page 251, line 31, after "312" insert ", 313"
Page 251, leave out lines 33 to 36.
Page 251, line 38, at end insert ", or
(ca) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 51, 53, 130(3), 201 or 203."
Page 251, line 39, after "312" insert ", 313"
Page 251, line 39, leave out from "after" to "must" in line 40 and insert "an order mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (ea) is discharged"
Page 251, line 43, leave out subsection (4).
Page 252, line 3, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 431 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 30 to 36:
Page 254, line 4, after "238" insert ", 239"
Page 254, line 5, after "242" insert "or 243"
Page 254, line 6, after "alienations" insert 'land unfair preferences"

869
Page 254, line 12, after "238" insert ",239"
Page 254, line 13, after "242" insert "or 243"
Page 254, line 21, after "substitution" insert "—
(a) for references to section 239 of the 1986 Act of references to section 615 of the Companies Act 1985;
(b)"
Page 254, line 22, at end insert ";
(c) for references to section 243 of the 1986 Act of references to section 615B of the Companies Act 1985."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 433 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 37 to 43:
Page 255, line 38, after "202" insert ", 203"
Page 255, leave out lines 40 to 43.
Page 255, line 45, at end insert ", or
(ca) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 51, 53, 130(3), 201 or 203."
Page 256, line 1, after "202" insert ", 203"
Page 256, line 1, leave out from "after" to "must" in line 2 and insert "an order mentioned in subsection (3)(c) or (ca) is discharged"
Page 256, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
Page 256, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 463 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 271, line 15, at end insert—
"() an order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to amend Part 1 of that Schedule;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the very last gasp we plead for the third time for the Government to adopt the simple proposal to subject the extension of criminal offences to new groups of people to full parliamentary scrutiny by the mechanism of the affirmatory procedure—which was the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Clause 463 imposes a considerable burden on businesses that are designated in Part 1 of Schedule 9 as the regulated sector. Criminal responsibility is placed upon any person involved in that sector who has information that may be apposite to money laundering. The Government's response on Report was twofold. First, they said that it was necessary to implement the second European money laundering directive—which would extend the scope of the schedule to accountants, auditors, tax advisers, lawyers, estate agents, casinos and dealers in high-value goods. One only has to consider that last group to wonder what sort of businesses are included in dealers and high-value goods. How are they to be defined? The extensions should be fully debated and accepted affirmatively.
Secondly, the Government said that minor technical changes to the money-laundering regulations have already been made from time to time and that technical changes do not require the expenditure of a considerable amount of parliamentary time. If that is so, we are not concerned with minor technical changes but with the extension to new groups of people of a
870
whole raft of new criminal offences. That matter should be fully considered by the House and another place. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are still not minded to accept the noble Lord's amendment or the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in this respect.
As the noble Lord said, we intend to implement the Second European Money Laundering Directive by a revision of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, which will include an extension of the regulations to cover the areas of business specified in the directive. Changes to the regulations will be subject to a full three-month period of consultation. On Report, I said that the regulations—and hence the criminal law—would be amended simply in order to fulfil our international obligations, as set out in the directive, which has, of course, been considered and cleared by scrutiny Committees in both Houses.
At that stage, the noble Lord stated that he was not satisfied with that argument, because the directive did not lay down a requirement as to the length of sentence for failing to report suspected money laundering. I must point out that the European directives and other international documents represent a minimum standard. In order to maintain the strong reputation of our financial sector, the UK must be seen as a leader in the field, with strong, effective anti-money laundering provisions in place.
As set out in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Home Office's memorandum, the Treasury can, at present, change the definition of business in the regulated sector set out in the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 by order subject to the negative resolution procedure under the European Communities Act 1972. That covers issues such as the requirement to establish systems for suspicious transaction reports, keeping records, undertaking training and appointing designated money laundering reporting officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point that the European Communities Act could not be used to create offences for which the penalties were more than two years and that we should, therefore, not argue that the Schedule 9 power should have the same procedure as the Money Laundering Regulations, which are made under the European Communities Act and contain only penalties of two years. I still disagree with that line of argument. It is clear that we are not trying to say that the provisions in the Bill are the same as the Money Laundering Regulations. Neither are we creating offences by way of secondary legislation. We would be making changes to what constitutes the regulated sector for the purpose of the Act and changes to the list of supervisory authorities. It has already been accepted that the regulated sector will be extended to additional types of

871
business, such as accountants and tax advisers, and that they will, consequently, be subject to the failure to disclose offence and the penalties that that offence attracts.
The important point is that we must ensure that the two definitions of the regulated sector are kept the same for practical purposes. It would not be sensible to have one definition of the regulated sector for the purpose of the Money Laundering Regulations but another definition for the requirement in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to make suspicious transaction reports when there were reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in money laundering.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that must be the weakest argument ever. After all, the House is used to making identical sets of regulations for, say, England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other. The regulations may be identical, but they will be in different instruments. It is perfectly possible to do exactly the same here.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be perfectly possible to do it, but it is equally possible that it would not be done. It is for the House to judge the strength of the argument. If we make one order subject to affirmative resolution, there would be the potential for the definitions to get out of step, while we wait for the affirmative order to be approved. The amendments would also create the rather odd and undesirable position in which amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 9—the definition of the regulated sector— would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, while amendments to Part 2 of the schedule—the list of supervisory authorities—would be subject to the negative procedure.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I must take up that final point. I emphasised that the thrust of the amendment was that we should deal with the extension of criminal offences to new groups of people. The Minister says that that does not create new criminal offences, but there are dealers in high value goods who today do not commit an offence by failing to report matters that come to their attention but who tomorrow, when the regulations are passed, will commit: a criminal offence if they fail to disclose information. That is creating new criminal offences.
We are wholly unsatisfied with the explanation given. However, for the moment—indeed, for the end of the Bill in this House—we will not press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
6.35 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 46 [Functions Chief Inspector]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No.1:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
"() the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to the amendment, I shall take a moment of the House's time to thank the Minister and all his team for their care and patience in handling our amendments from day one. We have had many meetings outside the Chamber as well as long and interesting debates in it. I feel—perhaps slightly conceitedly—that the Bill has been given a serious and thorough examination. That examination has been treated courteously, carefully and diligently by the Government.
I return to the amendment. The arguments for the proposed change have been made two or three times. The amendment refers to the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice and to the areas that he should inspect. There is, as I shall hear shortly from the Minister, common ground between us. We agree that the list is not complete. It is also common ground that there are powers for the Secretary of State to add to the list. However, I must make the point a last time. There are organisations in Northern Ireland that are, clearly, part and parcel of the judicial system. Unlike certain noble Lords, I shall not pick on one. Noble Lords will know that people feel more strongly about some of those organisations than they do about others. I sincerely hope that the logic will bear fruit in due course and that we will see a comprehensive list of organisations that will be inspected by the chief inspector of criminal justice. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I support the amendment, but, before I proceed with the debate, I join the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in expressing gratitude to the Minister and to his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, who, I understand, has to be in Brussels today. Both have been exceedingly courteous.
I hope that, in the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report, we have managed to exchange ideas and concerns to the extent that the Bill will benefit society in Northern Ireland. I listened carefully as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal assured us again and again that the Bill would not be implemented or the relevant matters devolved until the situation was right and that nothing would be done that would jeopardise that tender plant, the devolved arrangement in Northern Ireland.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am concerned that there are 19 organisations invited to come under the scrutiny of the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice, which, despite having been asked as long ago as February to consult and consider that particular matter, have been unable four months later to respond positively. I cannot believe that all 19

873
organisations under consideration have been as reluctant. I therefore cannot understand why responses have not been put forward. It appears to me that the Police Ombudsman, whose task is to ensure transparency and openness in terms of policing in Northern Ireland, would not wish to be seen as reluctant to be open and transparent in the way in which her duties and those of her office are carried out.
Will the Minister therefore indicate the reason for four months of wavering and indifference on the part of those organisations, or some of them? Will he at least give your Lordships an assurance that, subsequent to today's proceedings, there will be no opportunity for any of those 19 organisations to opt out of their responsibilities to participate in the scrutiny procedure to which this clause of the Bill relates? It would be a matter of particular concern should any of the organisations be able to say, "We are not prepared to participate in the scrutiny for which this Bill makes provision".
The noble and learned Lord knows that I still have considerable concerns with regard to the remainder of the Bill. However, he has endeavoured to reassure me on many matters. I appreciate the correspondence that I have received from him. I hope that he is able further to reassure me today.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am conscious that we are revisiting unfinished business in more ways than one. In that context, I must apologise to your Lordships' House that in my final speech on this matter at Report stage a week ago I appear by some Fawkesian slip to have said "5th November" when I meant to say "5th February", which will have made my speech extremely difficult to follow.
To make sense of what I had made a nonsense, the true chronology was that Mr Browne in Committee in the Commons on 5th February had said that he might complete the consultation that underlies this amendment by Report stage in the Commons. The latter occurred on 4th March, and the noble and learned Lord the Minister revealed on Report here on 1st July that Mr Browne had written to the consultees on 28th February, four days earlier. As we now know, that consultation has still not been completed, four months later. I acknowledge that the bodies already on the face of the Bill had two years of consultation. By comparison, therefore, four months is a bagatelle. Equally, however, Mr Browne's original estimate of four days was perhaps a little optimistic.
As the Bill has moved towards the slipway leading to enactment, another drama has been played in parallel. At this elegiac moment in the Bill's progress, I hope I shall be allowed the indulgence of saying that, however sorry I may be that the Government's consultation in this instance has taken four months and may take up to two years altogether, I am delighted that they have taken longer than the period of less than two weeks taken by Queen's University, Belfast to consult on its decision to end the teaching of
874
Greek, Latin and classical studies. If any of your Lordships wonder at the relevance of that, some of us who had small parts to play in the 30 years of the Troubles have been aware of their classical resonance. The great Seamus Heaney, who won a Nobel Prize for Literature, even before John Hume and David Trimble won theirs for Peace, adapted a Sophoclean episode from the 20 Homeric years of the Trojan Wars into a contemporary play.
In the 17th century, another era of internecine conflict, Dryden translated the epigrammatic Latin of one of his contemporaries to read,
"For those whom God to ruin has designed,
He fits for fate, and first destroys their mind".
I regret the decision to end classical studies at Queen's University, Belfast, which was a most distinguished department. Of course, I do not lay that at the Government's door, but I hope that their consultation has a happier outcome than the one I have just described.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord made it clear at Report stage that a consultation period is still taking place. However, it is strange that the Police Ombudsman, who, above many others, must be seen to be connected with criminal justice, has still been unable to reply. It is equally extremely difficult to believe that, when she does answer, she could answer other than by saying that she would be prepared to submit herself to the inspector's remit. I make a last plea to the Government to consider putting the Police Ombudsman on the list, on the assumption that, no person thinking properly about her duty to criminal justice could very well do otherwise than say that she will submit herself.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am very grateful for the courteous remarks introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and echoed by other noble Lords. I shall respond, because it has never been a requirement for any of us to be relevant when speaking to any amendment on the face of this Bill.
We are reaching the end of a difficult journey. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who I am pleased to see in her place, expressed serious, reasoned concerns about the Grand Committee procedure. I am happy to pay tribute to all who participated. It was a model of its kind; the House authorities were excellent in providing us with proper accommodation after the first two days; and I believe that in the scrutiny of this Bill we have done our duty properly to the people of Northern Ireland.
I have reminded myself of the areas in which improvements have been made: the judiciary; the lay members of the commission to declare in writing their commitment to non-violence, exclusively peaceful and democratic means; that the pool of candidates is to be reflective of the community; that appointment can be made only on merit; the roll-out in an orderly way of the new Public Prosecution Service; the designation of the DPP under Sections 75 and 76 of the Act; that we

875
listened particularly carefully to the concerns expressed on community safety partnerships, about which we have tabled amendments; and, not least, that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, achieved his requirement that the Secretary of State should be obliged to publish reports. Without being unduly self-congratulatory, we have done good work.
Perhaps I may say also that I am pleased to see the noble and redoubtable Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, back with us after her recent indisposition. Furthermore, I welcome in particular the generous and good-hearted words of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. He does not agree with me on all occasions; indeed, he has not agreed on any occasion, but throughout we have had a civilised discourse and debate.
I turn now to Amendment No. 1. I can confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that there is no question of any organisation being able to opt out or to have a veto. We are continuing with our consultations. They are lengthy, but we have approached the matter on the basis that it is better to have a willing rather than an unwilling co-operator. That is the key to what we are doing. Some organisations have proved to be reluctant. Some claim to have sent letters to my honourable friend Mr Browne. I had better not mention one which claims that its letter has been lost. I shall leave noble Lords to draw their own ignoble conclusions as regards whose letter might have been lost in the post.
Noble Lords are entitled to something more definite than I have said in the past. What I am undertaking is this: the Secretary of State does intend to use this power and there is no prospect that the present limited list will remain. I have said privately to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and f repeat for the benefit of all noble Lords the following. In the first week back after the Recess I shall undertake to write an update letter to all noble Lords and to place a copy in the Library of the House. That will set a terminal point at which decisions will have to have been made.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content that he has achieved his substantial purpose.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation which very generously he gave me earlier today in his office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Smith of Cliftonhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
"(k) any other organisations which the Secretary of State may by order specify from time to time.
() No order may he made under paragraph (k) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
876
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to reiterate what has been said by other noble Lords. The deliberations on this Bill have been lengthy—indeed, on occasion they have been too lengthy—but ultimately the legislation has come through well. On Second Reading I said that I felt that we were creating an overly elaborate judicial infrastructure, and I am still not persuaded on that point. However, I wish the Bill well. I think that some parts of it are excellent, in particular the provisions dealing with the treatment of young offenders. They are truly pioneering and I hope that they will be extended throughout the United Kingdom once they are up and running in Northern Ireland.
Overall, we welcome the Bill. Its enactment will properly devolve judicial arrangements to Northern Ireland. I wish to add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. His discussions with all noble Lords have been of the highest order.
I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in these happy and felicitous circumstances, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Mobile Telephones (Reprogramming) Bill [H.L.]
6.54 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In so doing, I should like to express my thanks to all noble Lords, in particular those on the Opposition Benches, for their constructive approach and the proper testing that they have given the Bill in its passage through the House.
Together with other measures being taken forward in co-operation with the industry, the Bill will help to remove the incentive for mobile phone theft and to tackle street crime.
I should also like to express my thanks to the Bill team. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are glad to have assisted in the passage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Employee Share Schemes Bill
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. From the outset I wish to declare my interest as someone who works as an adviser to the Co-operative Group and as a member of the Co-operative Party.
I am honoured to move the Second Reading of the Employee Share Schemes Bill and I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mark Lazarowicz, who piloted the legislation through its stages in the other place with such skill that he succeeded in persuading the Government to join with him in extending the scope of tax advantages in the Bill.
The Bill was originally introduced to remedy an anomaly in the current legislation with regard to the operation of tax advantages available to employee share schemes. Ironically, the very businesses that provide for a high degree of employee ownership and involvement and are totally or partially employee controlled are often unable to distribute shares to the employees on a tax-effective basis because of their employee-based structure. That anomaly acts as a deterrent to the wider extension of employee ownership. This Bill seeks to address that problem.
Perhaps I may describe briefly the purposes of the Bill. It will encourage wider employee ownership in the UK and will do so by extending the tax benefits for employee share schemes for companies that wish to encourage widespread employee ownership.
It will facilitate the transfer of shares to an employee trust by companies that want to make a significant move towards employee ownership and transfer a large part of the company into a trust at the outset. At present, this action may be discouraged because to do so would not offer corporation tax benefits otherwise available when such shares are transferred on a year-by-year basis. Thus, provided that at least 10 per cent of the company's ordinary share capital is held on behalf of the employees by trustees, the Bill provides for corporation tax relief to be granted "up front" in respect of such shares.
In addition, the Bill seeks to make it easier for employee trusts which hold shares to elect employees as trustees of that shareholding, and so give employees a direct voice in the ownership of the businesses in which they work.
Clause 1 states that the Bill will amend Schedule 8 of the Finance Act 2000, covering the introduction and operation of share incentive plans. Clause 1(2) adds a provision to the SIP legislation, which gives a clear pointer to companies setting up an SIP that elected employees may become trustees. Clause 1(3) seeks to support the position of companies and, in particular, business owners who want to make a significant move towards employee ownership. It grants corporation tax relief up front where a significant block of shares—10 per cent or more—is transferred to an employee trust. Clause 1(4) ensures that the availability of the corporation tax deduction should be linked to the
878
distribution of shares in order to maintain the link between productivity and employee benefits. This also ensures that a proportionate part of the deduction will be withdrawn in respect of any shares which may for whatever reason be awarded to a non-Schedule E taxpayer.
Clause 2 proposes changes to the Finance Act 2000 which are consequential on the other changes resulting from the Bill. Clause 3 provides that shares held in an SIP by trustees with the benefit of up-front corporation tax relief will not be subject to income tax on dividends and other distributions or capital gains tax for so long as the trustees hold them, during a period of up to 10 years. This extends the period for relief otherwise available under the SIP legislation, which is usually limited to two years. This measure is designed to ensure that the enacted provisions of the Bill operate in the same way as the provisions for existing legislation governing SIPs.
Clause 4 gives the Bill its title: Employee Share Schemes Act 2002. Clause 5 states that the Bill will become law on 6th April 2003. The Bill represents a milestone in rewarding long-term commitment by employees. There is no better incentive and motivation for employees than for their work to be recognised and for them to share in their firm's success. Research has shown that businesses with widespread employee share ownership outperform their rivals. The combination of employee share ownership and employee participation yields the best results for everyone.
I read with great pleasure the commitment that my honourable friend the Paymaster General gave to the issue in her remarks on Report in the other place. She said,
"The Government attach great importance to employee share ownership and participation. Increasing employee share ownership is at the heart of the Government's productivity agenda
The Share Incentive Plan introduced in the Finance Act 2000 has made it easier for not just some, but all employees to become stakeholders in a company. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's commitment and support for the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Thornton.)
7 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill. As a former Liberal Democrat candidate it has been mother's milk: a say and a share in the place where you work. I do not declare an interest, but I have an interest in the other sense. I was an initial director of Job Ownership Limited, which has been involved with the Bill. It is a further step towards wider share ownership.
The gist of the Bill is that major tax relief is available. That should encourage proprietors and employees. During the time I was involved with Job Ownership, 20 years or so ago, I became interested in the theology of employee-owned organisations. There is quite a span. The major element is whether the

879
employee ownership is collective or individual. I am in favour of letting many flowers grow, but I wonder whether there will be an opportunity to review the arrangements and see that there is a level playing field in terms of the fiscal arrangements of the organisations trying to encourage greater employee ownership; particularly the tax incentives.
In the other place there was discussion about the John Lewis Partnership and some of the possible concerns of that firm in relation to the Bill. There are occasions when we nudge matters, and this is a nudging Bill. There is further help and assistance for employee ownership in the Bill and I rise to encourage that. I hope that the further nudge eventually goes through Perhaps there should he an opportunity in the not-too-distant future to consider further nudges.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am happy to support the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has done us a service in picking it up from the honourable Member for Edinburgh North and Leith.
I am speaking in this House on the Bill because I have been involved in encouraging employee share schemes, both when I was Minister of State for Small Firms in the Government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher and also later when I was in the Treasury. I am a longstanding supporter of small businesses and of employee share schemes. I agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, about many flowers blooming. There are many different ways in which such schemes may be encouraged, which work well in different circumstances. It should not be a function of government to persuade organisations to use one form as opposed to another.
The noble Lord also referred to the important outstanding matter of the John Lewis Partnership and other firms arranged on the same lines. As we all know, John Lewis is an outstanding example of employee share ownership. It is far more longstanding than any of the schemes of either the present or previous Government—of which I was a member—on this matter. It would be astonishing and wrong if John Lewis was to be excluded from the benefits of the Bill because of the arrangement of its partnership.
So far we have had only expressions of sympathy from the Government on that point. With regard to John Lewis and similar companies it is an example of what passes for activity by the Government: every assistance short of actual help. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us either today or in later stages on that aspect.
The Bill is a finance Bill in all but name. It is about tax. It amends the Finance Act 2000 and does nothing else. It was handled in another place by my successor as Her Majesty's Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo, who was also my parliamentary neighbour. It is excellent that we are being allowed to discuss the Bill completely, not only today but in its later stages, and to discuss amendments should noble Lords wish. I look forward to the later stages being conducted in a full and proper manner as befits a Bill, even if it is a finance Bill in all but name.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on bringing the Bill before the House. I am not sure that I share the exulted enthusiasm displayed by the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches, who delighted in the fact that this is a quasi-finance Bill and therefore felt that we should take extra delight in the proceedings. I have rather more respect for finance Bills in the other place not to develop a certain shudder about Bills on which discussion often went on long into the night under the old regime. Let us rest assured that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described, the Bill amends the Finance Act; but it began as a Private Member's Bill in the other place and is being read in that vein here.
As my noble friend said in her opening remarks, employee share ownership is at the heart of the Government's drive for improved productivity and enterprise. In July 2000 we introduced the Share Incentive Plan and enterprise management incentives. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is right that the body of which he has fond associations, Job Ownership Limited, played its part in the Bill's development. So too did the Co-operative Party; I congratulate both organisations on their contribution.
As has been indicated in all parts of the House, the Bill enjoyed support on all sides of the Commons. The Government's proposals on share incentive plans and enterprise management incentives were developed in consultation with industry and both are proving very popular. For example, more than 600 companies have applied for Inland Revenue approval of their share incentive plans. This demonstrates our very real commitment to employee share ownership. But we are not complacent. The need for development will be monitored. Both the share incentive plan and enterprise management incentives will be fully evaluated in 2005–06, although there will be some preliminary findings available before then.
The Government have also made a commitment to look at the corporation tax treatment of share schemes to make it simpler, particularly for small companies—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred and which I know is dear to his heart. This should provide further encouragement to introduce employee share schemes. The Government welcome the aims of the Bill to encourage employee participation and employee ownership. Research shows that companies with widespread employee ownership and participation out-perform their rivals.
The Government accept the idea of providing in the Bill a framework for employee representation on the share incentive plan trust for those companies that wish to use it. Inland Revenue officials are working with my honourable friend Mark Lazarowicz and his team on a trust deed that would provide for this with a view to making it available alongside a model trust deed already offered by the Revenue.
The Government fully support the transfer of shares into employee ownership. The new early corporation tax deduction will complete the measures that the Government have already taken to facilitate the

881
transfer of shares from individuals such as family owners into the share incentive plan. Capital gains tax roll-over relief is already available for individuals on the gain made when they transfer shares to a trust that holds at least 10 per cent of the ordinary share capital of the company. Shares that were held in a qualifying employee share ownership trust on 21st March 2000 can be transferred to a share incentive plan without the immediate corporation tax deduction being lost.
An additional tax advantage is given in the Bill by allowing share incentive plan trustees to be exempt from income tax on dividends and from any capital gains tax that might arise on disposal of the shares throughout the 10-year period they have to award the shares to employees.
The Government share the widespread enthusiasm for the measure which has been shown today. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the John Lewis Partnership. The noble Lord is right, discussions are still on-going in respect of that company, which, because of its structure, raises particular issues in regard to this legislation. Not all the issues have as yet been resolved. But that is not through a want of co-operation by the Government and work is progressing constructively on that front.
I am aware of how much hard work has been put into the Bill by its proponents. They have worked with the Government to settle on a series of provisions that enjoy joint support and I am grateful for that. I affirm the Government's support for the Bill. Once again I congratulate my noble friend on the perceptive way in which she introduced the Bill and the clear way in which she outlined its issues. I am sure that she will ensure that the Bill has a satisfactory passage.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I should mark the fact that I have been allowed out to play without my noble friend Lord Graham. He would have spoken in support of the Bill today but he is on his way to Manchester on Co-operative business. I should also mark the fact that I have had a great deal of support from Job Ownership and the Co-operative Party in preparing myself to deal with the technicalities of the Bill. Tax issues are not my speciality in this House, as noble Lords will know, and I am very grateful for their support.
I shall have to discuss with them the issue of John Lewis. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that the Minister said on 21st June that the Government are taking the issue very seriously indeed and are trying to resolve it. I hope that they will succeed.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, about the legal and tax regime in general for Job Ownership—and, indeed, for Co-operative and other social ownerships—I believe that very soon we shall see some developments from the Government in that area in terms of strategic issues concerning the whole regime. I hope that Job Ownership will take the Government's general statement of intent in this area as an opportunity to push for the kind of reforms we would like to see on a broader front. The Bill is not designed to do that, as noble Lords will know.
With grateful thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Cope, and to my noble friend Lord Davies, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Adoption and Children Bill
  Thursday, 11th July 2002.
  Adoption and Children Bill

    The Committee met at four of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Arnpthill) in the Chair.]
    Clause 48 [Applications for adoption]:
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 71:
    Page 29, line 41, after "a" insert "married"
    The noble Earl said: The amendment brings us to perhaps the most politically contentious issue in the Bill: whether unmarried and same-sex couples should be permitted by law to become adoptive parents.
    There are no two ways about this proposition—you are either for it or against it. That is not the same thing as saying that those who take one view have a closed mind about the other. I hope that noble Lords will not accuse me of that when I have completed my remarks.
    On these Benches, we have reached the conclusion that it is right to restrict the pool of potential adopting couples to those who are married. However, in arriving at that view, we do not in any way belittle the alternative case, which we recognise is advanced out of equally sincere conviction.
    The amendments I have tabled would reverse those carried in another place and would exclude unmarried and same-sex couples as adoptive parents. Why do we believe that these amendments are worthy of approval?
    Clause 44, on the suitability of adopters, does not say very much, but one thing it troubles to spell out is the need for stability and permanence in the relationship of an adopting couple. There is a risk in what I am about to say that I shall be accused of passing judgment on certain types of relationship. I ask the Committee to accept that I am not doing so.
    If we believe that stability and permanence are vital for the well-being of children, the statistics on the durability of unmarried relationships are indisputable. A recent authoritative survey found that the average length of a cohabiting relationship is two years. Of course, people can, and do, live together for much longer than that, but 83 per cent of cohabitations break up within 10 years. Cohabitation is, by definition, a temporary relationship in which neither party is willing to make a permanent commitment. According to the Office for National Statistics, cohabiting couples are six and a half times more likely than married couples to split up after the arrival of their first child.
    The question that needs to be answered by proponents of the Bill in its current form is this. If we are looking to give permanence and stability to an
    CWH 228
    adopted child, why should we take that significant extra risk? There is no manual that tells a social worker or a court that this couple is less or more likely to split up than that one. As we were saying a week ago, you can ask as many questions as you like but, in the end, it comes down to a subjective judgment.
    The key point is that social work, in many of its manifestations, rests on the art of reducing risk. One of the ways in which risk can be reduced in adoption is by not placing an adoptive child in a family where there is already a child of the same age. Statistically speaking, to break that rule of thumb is asking for trouble.
    Similarly, the state should not consciously and deliberately place a child with a family in which there is a markedly higher chance of the parents splitting up. The best indicator of stability in a relationship is where a couple have made a public commitment to each other for life by getting married. If we look at unmarried couples who never marry—and these are Office for National Statistics figures—they show that the number of such couples who split up within five years of the arrival of their first child is 52 per cent. Of couples who cohabit and later marry, the figure is 25 per cent who split up within five years following the birth. Of those who were married at the time the child arrived, only 8 per cent. split up after five years. That is why I speak of a very significant extra risk.
    With gay relationships the risks are even greater. The average length of a so-called "closed" gay relationship is 21 months. That is according to a study funded by the Department of Health. "Closed" in this context means that sexual fidelity had been maintained during the past month. Studies have been done on the levels of educational attainment among children of homosexual couples. Those studies show unequivocally that such children tend to do much worse than those of married parents. Children with lesbian or gay parents experience a much higher incidence of relationship problems with other people because of the knowledge of their parents homosexuality.
    It is an unfortunate fact that children can be very cruel to one another. So if we are looking at the issue from the point of view of children—and not just children, we should remind ourselves, but often very damaged, challenging and difficult children—I ask again why we should consciously expose children to those additional risks. To that the following may be said. If I believe, as I do, that lone individuals should continue to be able to adopt children, why on earth should I deny the partner of such an individual the opportunity to adopt as well? Why should two unmarried people or two homosexual people be debarred from adopting as a couple?
    There is a very powerful argument as to why. The law of property as it relates to marriage is well established. If a married couple decides to get divorced it is for the matrimonial court to decide how the assets of the couple should be divided. In that process the children's welfare is protected to the extent that a court will usually decide on a division of property that ensures that children of the marriage will be housed and supported. Children of unmarried couples do not

    CWH 229
    enjoy the same protection. Other than for the shared house, a cohabitee has no legal right to sue for an order to share the other partner's financial assets. Until such time as we invent a form of legal partnership that mirrors this legal aspect of marriage, children of cohabiting partners will be disadvantaged.
    I agree that there will always be children born out of wedlock and that many unmarried couples are admirable parents. But I ask again, why consciously and deliberately expose adopted children to this additional hazard when there is absolutely no need for us to do so?
    There is no need because there is no shortage of married couples who would like to adopt. For a number of years we have had a system that frustrates the wishes of such couples to become adoptive parents. It frustrates their wishes by erecting hurdles of various kinds that put many couples off before they have properly begun. One of those hurdles is the absence of adoption support. We hope that this Bill will rectify that particular omission. So we should not imagine that a shortage of potential married adopters somehow obliges us to cast the net more widely. There is no such shortage.
    These amendments are about avoiding unnecessary risk for children. Children who are looked after are already the product of broken relationships. If we know, as we do, the risks of breakdown in unmarried and same-sex relationships, we surely cannot look ourselves in the mirror as we read Clause 1 and argue that, by placing a child with an unmarried couple, we are doing our best for that child's welfare throughout his life. We cannot argue that. If we do, we are allowing ourselves to entertain the notion that the needs of children are not paramount after all. I beg to move.
    4.15 p.m.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: It is with regret that I feel that I must stand up and oppose the noble Earl. Lord Howe. I hope that, just as I appreciated the sincerity of his comments, he will understand the sincerity of those who disagree with him, and appreciate that we do have the welfare of the child at heart and can look in the mirror and say of Clause 1, "Yes, we have got it right".
    Many noble Lords present today, although not all, attended out sitting last Thursday. It is perhaps a pity that not everyone attended the whole of that debate, which was a very important and thoughtful discussion on the criteria that should be in place to provide an adoptive child with a loving and caring home. Those criteria should be based not on whether adopters are married, but on their ability to provide stability and permanence for a child. That is what this debate is about for me. It is about the vulnerable child to whom the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred. I hope that we shall concentrate on that.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to cohabiting couples splitting up after two years. He has clearly been reading a slightly different article from the one I read at the weekend, which said that cohabiting
    CWH 230
    couples tend to get married after two years. That puts rather a different emphasis on his point. The question is how best to find stable and permanent homes for the maximum number of children currently in care. The only way is by extending the pool. I will come back to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about that not being necessary.
    If we accept the fundamental premise of the Bill that the welfare of the child is paramount, we have positively to do something for the 14,000 children who have been in care continuously for more than five years. We have to do something for the 5,000 children nationwide who are waiting for a suitable adoptive family. We have to think about the large number of boys aged between five and 10 whom nobody has suggested that they are prepared to adopt. We have to think about the children who come out of care with poor educational qualifications and those who are likely to be homeless for longer than other children. That is why we have to extend the pool. Of course we have to make sure that all suitable adopters, married or unmarried, have to qualify under the most stringent criteria to be applied by the agencies, social workers and courts.
    I agreed with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on Second Reading, and I am sorry that she cannot be with us today. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, reiterated some of the attitudes of social workers and the need to reduce some of the bureaucratic barriers. That is necessary, but it would only marginally extend the pool. There is no evidence that the pool would be substantially increased—and we need a substantial increase.
    We have to look not only at the obstacles that are in place, but also at some of the current anomalies that tell against the interest of the child. As we have previously discussed, a cohabiting or same-sex couple can adopt, but only one of the partners can be the legal parent. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained why he felt it was important to keep the possibility of adoption for single people. I want to look at the situation from the eyes of a child living in a loving and stable environment, but without the added security of having two parents. Research by MORI shows that 41 per cent of unmarried couples would adopt, but only 6 per cent do so because only one of them can be the legal guardian. Surely that is not a good environment to bring a child up where one of the partners is the legal guardian and the other can have no say about the responsibilities for that child.
    The situation is even more anomalous for unmarried foster carers who are jointly assessed and found to be suitable to foster a child with joint responsibility and who then find, if they wish to adopt, that only one parent can do so. A child who has been part of a loving family for a number of years with two parents can suddenly find himself with only one legal parent because they want to make a permanent home for him. That cannot be right for the child or in their interests. It must have destabilising psychological effects. Nor can it be in the interests of the family. One

    CWH 231
    can imagine the conflicts that could occur in a family in those circumstances. That is a farcical situation and it is the child who ultimately loses out.
    I listened with interest to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about matrimonial property. Not everybody owns property, so we are not talking about the entire married population in that respect. Also, many cohabiting couples come to agreements about the property and their resources in case they split up. The noble Earl did not mention that, but merely implied that they just split up, disappear and cause chaos. That is completely untrue.
    The Bill as it stands provides a necessary guarantee of the child's legal right of relationships with both parents and provides the security of two legally recognised parents. Under the current provisions, if the one legal parent dies or becomes incapacitated, does the child who has lived with those people for a long time have to go back into care? Having had a loving, stable relationship with two people whom he loves dearly, the child loses one of them because they have died then has to leave the other one and go back into care, losing his permanent home altogether. What is the effect of that on the child? It goes completely against their interests. I find it very difficult to comprehend how anybody can accept such a devastating trauma on the child and the possible consequences for the rest of its life.
    The Bill provides legal grounds for either parent or both to provide consent for medical care, to make education, healthcare and other important day-to-day decisions on behalf of the child—to make collective decisions as a family should. While there is only one person who has that legal responsibility, those collective decisions are not being made, which is not good for family life.
    A number of points were raised on Second Reading about things such as possible bullying in the school playground and the possible psychological problems that can develop from that. I would like to know where some of the evidence referred to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, came from. I do not know of evidence to support that claim. We know that many cohabiting couples have children at school. Are they bullied in the playground because their parents are cohabiting? Do the children know the parents are not married? I find those sort of arguments difficult to cope with.
    Another argument which has been put to me in the last few days is the question of the child's name—what will the child be called? Many children now do not necessarily bear their parents' name. That is quite normal. I have a nephew who is married with two children. He and his wife decided that one child would take his name and one child would take her name. Many young couples are taking that sort of stance. Therefore, the argument about names is completely irrelevant.
    I could respond to some of the other points that were made on Second Reading about certain effects on children and their future gender behaviour, but perhaps I shall come back to those if they are raised again.
    CWH 232
    The choice for me is simple: is it not better and right that a child should have constancy and security and the opportunity of a real home than to remain in care? The amendments that we have before us will ensure the second option and I am not prepared to accept that.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my heart in some ways lies with it. However, I do not believe that I can go along with it. I do not believe that adoption by an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple is in any way the optimum. However, the alternative to adoption in the case of a child who has been in care is so infinitely worse than adoption into a home which is less than ideal that I believe that the risk is justified even if it results in only a handful of children being adopted who otherwise would remain in care.
    We hear endless conflicting evidence as to the effects on children of adoption by unmarried and homosexual couples and it is very difficult to sort out what is right and what is not. However, as far as a child in care is concerned, even a much less than ideal family is preferable to remaining in care, which, as I have said before, is one of the worst fates that can happen to any child.
    I would like some indication that, where other considerations are equal, a married couple will be preferred to an unmarried or homosexual one.
    The noble Earl has raised the question of how property would pass in the case of an unmarried couple. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, pointed out that a legal arrangement could be made where property is involved. However, I do not know whether a couple who have no legal status as a couple can, as an entity, be parties to a legal process such as adoption. I am not a lawyer. Legal advice needs to be considered over this.
    Finally, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about names. At the age of 16, my eldest daughter changed her name from Ramsay to Fraser because she was going to be the heir to the chiefship of the Frasers. When her son was born, he was called Fraser, not Nicolson, for exactly the same reason. That has never been any problem to anybody.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That is a lovely note to try to follow. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put the situation before us very clearly. I agree with him that one either agrees or disagrees with these amendments. I do not agree with them. The Government have already announced their intention of having a free vote for their supporters on these issues. I suspect that there will be a division of opinion among all the parties and groups. We have to deal with that as best we can.
    I support the Government's approach in the Bill. I also support the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that there is a lack of couples willing to adopt. The noble Baroness brought this out clearly by rehearsing the figures. I will not follow that through. Although the general figures are difficult to analyse, the General Register Office seems to suggest that the

    CWH 233
    number of children adopted fell between 1997 and 1998 and then rose quite slowly and has still not reached the 1997 level.
    That does not suggest that there are many parents desperately trying to adopt difficult children with serious emotional, psychological or physical difficulties—or sometimes all three, because these things seem to go together. We have to remember that those are the kinds of children that we are trying to place in adoption because we know that their chances of turning out to be reasonable citizens are so much better in a family than they are in a home.
    We must be careful before we say that certain sorts of families are not good enough to undertake this work, which is so important to the children and to society as a whole. Of course, all couples will get the same rigorous assessment of their stability and their ability to provide safe and loving care.
    When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke to Amendment No. 7 at a previous sitting, he suggested a reference in the Bill to the rigorous assessment that needs to be carried out on all couples. I know that the Government do not like doing this, but there are occasions when it is valuable to put a point of this sort on the face of the Bill—and well up in the Bill—so that people can see the connection between the interests of the child and the rigorous assessment of the couple. Therefore, I ask the Government to think again on that issue. It could make quite a difference. Indeed, the knowledge that this rigorous assessment will take place would be a reassurance to everyone.
    Much has been said and written about the relative stability of married and unmarried couples. Some of these statistics fall into that famous definition whereby you end up with "Damned Lies and Statistics", or whatever it is. It is terribly difficult if you take, say, two or perhaps three years, because that does not tell us about those couples, both married and unmarried, whose relationships survive for longer. That is what this rigorous assessment will be considering. Those conducting the assessment will not say, "We're placing a five year old", and then ask, "Will the couple still be together when the child is 10?" No. They will say, "We're placing a five year-old"—perhaps a difficult five year-old—"one who has already been rejected from nursery school as being totally uncontrollable, and we are wondering whether this couple will still be together in 15 years?" That is the important factor for the child. It is a different set of statistics.
    I am not sure that we have a statistical base for judging the stability of married and unmarried couples where a child has been adopted. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether such statistics exist, because I want to make the point that adoption is not at all the same as having a child in the normal course of your life. Couples have their own children for a number of different reasons, for example: because they are married and it is the natural thing to do; because they have decided—married or unmarried—that they want to have a child, and now is the time to have it; because
    CWH 234
    one member of a couple has cheated on the other member; or perhaps by way of a mistake. There are all sorts of reasons, but they are all private reasons.
    However, adopting a child is not a private decision. It is a decision taken by two people in public. It is a public commitment that is tested by the system of assessment: you take on someone else's child and love and care for it as though it were your own. To me, that is a very admirable thing to wish to do. If there are couples who do not fall into the traditional definition of a "married couple" who are willing and able to do just that, it seems quite wrong that we should reject them for such a reason. I do not wish to say any more because no doubt other people will put forward more statistically-based and accurate reasons. I just wanted to put it into the human context.
    4.30 p.m.
    Earl Russell: I should like to make three prefacory comments before addressing the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The first, with which I hope all the Committee will agree, is to regret very much the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to wish her all good health from us all.
    Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
    Earl RussellThe second is to offer to Members of the Committee the apologies of my noble friend Lady Barker, who is presently busy in the Chamber dealing with the Statement on pensions, but will be here later. The third is to say that I am in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that this issue should be resolved on the Floor of the House. However, as all parties seem to be stating their positions, it is probably best not to be left out of the debate.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, concentrated exclusively for much of his argument on one point; namely, the rate of splitting up among couples. I speak as the child of divorced parents, as everyone who reads the newspapers probably knows. It was not particularly easy, but the noble Earl is making an enormous assumption that splitting up is the only, or even necessarily the worst, evil that can happen to a child.
    My parents were happily married for many years and gave me a good and loving home from which I believe I benefited. Then came the earthquake. Twelve year-olds are notoriously egocentric, but even as an egocentric 12 year-old I was not so selfish as to wish them to stay together after that earthquake had taken place. It was a cruelty of which even then I was incapable.
    All the statistics comparing the result of stable unions with the result of broken unions are in effect comparisons between happy people and unhappy people, since most couples who remain married are happy, though not all. When we say that happy people tend to produce happier children than unhappy people, we are not saying anything particularly startling. That is because we do not have a proper sample for our research. If we need to consider the

    CWH 235
    effect of splitting up, we need to compare unhappy couples who split up with unhappy couples who do not.
    It is very difficult to get the statistical base for proper academic comparison. Until we do, we should not talk with quite as much confidence as we regularly do about the argument that cohabitation is bad for children because the parents split up. Among my pupils I have encountered a good many psychological problems. Some of the worst have been from couples whose children suffered because the parents remained married when extremely unhappy and fought their battles by proxy through their children—Mummy's boy fighting Daddy's girl. I have seen that do no end of harm in a family. We should therefore approach this with a little more becoming uncertainty.
    I also read with interest a letter published in Community Care on 24th May this year, which said that the sample which argued that cohabiting couples split up more easily was considerably distorted by a small number of people who were very rapid serial cohabiters on what I might describe as the Hollywood model. If those people were taken out of the statistics, the rate of break-up among cohabiting couples was not particularly different from that among the rest of the population.
    I speak here also on behalf of my two sisters-in-law, both of whom chose to cohabit rather than to marry. Having observed their relationships and the relationships of their children fairly closely over a long period, I cannot see the difference between the relationship they have had and the relationship that my wife and I, as a married couple, have had. It is in all respects, as far as I can see, the same thing.
    I was grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for making her point about the change to the name of Fraser. My father made me familiar with that concept when I was a child. Many of his friends had changed their name on marriage or by their parents' wills in order to inherit property. His favourite example was a couple where this had happened many times and they had ended up as Johnson-Thompson-Clatterby-Randall. I shall not forget that very easily.
    When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talks about cruelty to children in the playground because their parents are not married, he is talking of a world that I do not recognise, except in the single case of gay couples, to which I shall return.
    Earl Howe: My remarks were in the context of gay couples, not unmarried couples.
    Earl Russell: In that case, the noble Earl is suffering from the case of John Stuart Mill's maxim of the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork. A great many people—most of them supporters of this amendment—have strongly resisted the idea that gay life should be regarded as in any way equal to heterosexual life. If one puts that view over for long enough it is inevitable that some people will believe it. If they believe it, it is inevitable that in treating their school contemporaries they may react to
    CWH 236
    it and behave accordingly. They ought to think about whether they are bringing about the situation of which they complain and, if they mind the resulting situation, whether the best thing they could do might not be to try and change it.
    There has been a colossal change of culture on this issue. My younger son, to my great pleasure, is about to get married. They have decided they are going to buy the house first. They have just completed the deal and moved in last week. They are blissfully happy about it. They say that now they have moved in and have a house they are going to think about marriage. That is exactly the opposite way round from the way it used to be when I was young. This is a general change in society. If I were to talk to my pupils about it, they would not understand why anybody should insist on an amendment such as this. If the law gets out of line with public opinion, there is a point beyond which it becomes unenforceable.
    We have a question about the protection of property of unmarried couples. There is such a thing as a prenuptial agreement, which California has made famous. There is also a Bill for civil partnerships, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which I believe is still formally before this House during this Session. Most of the answers to that question are in that Bill. If people have any different answers to it I am sure they will be considered. Among reasonable people agreements can be reached.
    Baroness Seccombe: Is the noble Earl aware that the British Social Attitudes survey found that 84 per cent of the public are against homosexual men adopting children?
    Earl Russell: Is that perhaps the result of the amount of propaganda that has been put out to keep Section 28? If so, would it be a good idea to think about the effects that that propaganda is creating? That information can be used in more than one way.
    One should not treat being homosexual as if it were in some way contagious. After all, by definition all homosexual people are the children of heterosexual couples, so it is equally possible that the children of homosexual couples may turn out to be heterosexual. In any event, they deserve the right to choose. For the moment I will leave it at that.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I am aware of the eloquence of the previous speeches. I want to try to avoid repeating points that I might have made which have been made much better by others. However, I want to repeat, from a different angle, some of the arguments about the evidence base of the statistics, because that is crucial to making a decision on evidence rather than on feeling. There is a huge amount of feeling in this debate.
    We do not have any true evidence-based statistics on whether adoptive families are more likely to break down. However, if we had that evidence, it is likely that the figure might be higher, because children in adoptive families can be much more difficult and are placed from very complex family backgrounds. I have

    CWH 237
    spoken with people who are working in this field. A post-adoptive service in the Midlands had a group of married mothers who were initially supported through their adoption with their partners. By the time they were working through to the end of the placement, they were applying as single people because their marriages had broken down—their partners having said that they choose between the children, to whom they had become committed under the placement, and themselves. However, it is not always a choice between one or the other. If one did not allow those people to continue with their adoption, the choice in that situation would be to remove children who had already made permanent relationships with one partner. I believe that there are real complications when looking at statistics, and when considering who is making adoptions.
    I reiterate the points made about the kind of families that we are counting, how we are counting them, and who is taking the evidence forward. I repeat: when this is all over, I hope that we continue to gather evidence. If I were wrong, I should like to take the evidence and base it in the future, so that we make the best placements for children. Placed as I am at the moment, taking evidence, if you like, from my practice and from the experience of others to whom I have spoken, it is my view that children need good, permanent family homes and that those permanent homes are not easy to find.
    Certainly, there are many waiting-lists for babies who do not have disadvantage and who are not disabled. Many families wish to adopt that sort of child. The children with whom I usually deal have often worked through a number of placements. They are highly disruptive, and often have psychological problems that require support. This is why we talk all the time about the need for post-adoption support, because many of these children will tax the families to the nth degree. In this, I bring no blame to those children. They have usually had extraordinarily difficult experiences. I am absolutely clear that, with their experiences, I would have been equally difficult to place in a home. Therefore, we do not have these ideal children for whom there are long waiting-lists.
    Most of all, these children need constancy, love, support and continuity. For that, they need the best families we can find. The problem is that they are often placed in these families, first, as adoptive children. They grow fond of their adoptive parents, some of whom might well be cohabiting families or single-sex families. I have personal experience of a youngster. She knew that people were concerned because she was living with a lesbian couple, but she became extremely fond of those two women. To have removed that child, therefore, would have meant taking away the only constant relationship that she had ever known. It was her wish that she should remain with the two people whom she recognised as her family.
    When one comes to decide on adoption, one may well have an adolescent who has had several placements but who has succeeded in a foster home where the family has decided to make a commitment
    CWH 238
    to that child, even though they are not what you might call a perfect, "married-with-a-licence" family; they are a different sort of family. There is a fantasy that social workers are going out and finding all these families that are not what we would call the "perfect" family. Life does not run like that. One is desperately trying to find that good, solid placement for a child who has had hardly any good, solid consistency in his or her life.
    Finally, I realise that there are other agendas, but I know that there is a sort of belief that, if these provisions go through, they will undermine the institution of marriage. I do not believe that to be true. In my view, despite other statistics, large numbers of people in this country continue to marry and often do so after having lived together for a considerable time. I had intended to raise the same statistic as was mentioned earlier; namely, that people do not necessarily split up after two years, or so. They often get married.
    So there is some confusion in people's minds. This part of the Bill will not
    undermine the institution of marriage. Opposing the provisions for that reason is to lose sight of children. We should listen to children in these situations and hear what they tell us. They do not want to lose the few relationships that they have managed to forge because of some dogma or principle that has nothing to do with their lives, their future and all that we can try to give them.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It seems to me that the Bill is not about propping up the institution of marriage, but about getting these wretched children out of care and into families.
    Baroness Blatch: I support my noble friend. Lord Howe, in his main claim, which was to restrict the pool of those who wish to adopt to married couples. Stability and permanence was the other thread of my noble friend's case. Like him, I believe that those are important issues. As my noble friend said, the statistics show there is a higher chance of break-up among unmarried couples. If people are unwilling to make a legal commitment to each other in marriage, the end result proves to be lack of security and an increasing chance of breakdown.
    I accept that everybody is speaking from a passionately held point of view, which I do not take away from anybody. One thing that unites us all is that there should be a suitable placement for a child who is to be adopted and, as far as possible, that placement should offer stability and security. The sheer evidence of the record that we have so far of both married couples and unmarried couples, whether heterosexual and/or same-sex simply does not argue the case for anything other than the amendment of my noble friend.
    Baroness Howells of St Davids: I have listened to the noble Baroness and suggest that hers is a very ethno-centric view. There are many stable cohabiting relationships in the Caribbean and here because of the

    CWH 239
    legacy of slavery, when black people were not allowed to marry each other. To have an ethno-centric view in a multi-racial society is very damaging.
    Baroness Blatch: I in no may meant to offend the noble Baroness or to make an ethno-centric point. I am not an expert in these matters and I can only use the ONS statistics. The vulnerability of such children who are available for adoption calls on us all to look positively for a placement that knowingly reduces the risk of future insecurity. The statistics provided by my noble friend Lord Howe, from the ONS report, bear that out.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, rightly referred to cohabiting couples who tend to get married after two years. There should not be a problem with adopting children if they eventually make a commitment to marry.
    I am enormously grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for what he said about my noble friend Lady Young. We all wish to be associated with his wishes. I know that she is making some progress, but is still too weak to attend this Committee. Reference was made to my noble friend on the subject of removing
    barriers. One of the good things about the Bill is that it should go a long way to removing barriers to adoption. That will receive universal support around the House. However, my noble friend was referring not only to the bureaucratic barriers mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, but to philosophical and prejudicial barriers and even to politically correct attitudes. The Minister rightly said on Second Reading that there are many married couples who would like to adopt children but the system stands in their way. Some 90 per cent of applicants are put off or rejected after inquiring. The Prime Minister's review found that,
    "As a general rule-of-thumb, 1-in-10 of initial enquiries would result in an approved adopter."
    So, a great many suitable people are lost in the process.
    The Prime Minister's review noted that responses to enquiries were "unfriendly, unsupportive or even insensitive". Vast numbers of married couples are being turned away on frivolous grounds; they are, for example, too rich, too fat, too tidy, too conventional, have too many books or go to church too often. As my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever said:
    "Many married couples would like to adopt. The problem is the delays that occur between each stage of the system. Worse still are the manifestly unjust and irrelevant recommendations on adopters' lifestyles that have been identified by the Government's Performance and Innovation Unit."—[Official Report, 10/06/02; co1.73.]
    This Bill will go a very long way towards resolving some of that.
    Those who support adoption by two parents—whether married, unmarried, heterosexual and/or same-sex couples—raise a number of issues. A married couple will have made a legal commitment to each other as well as to the child or the children that they adopt. Unmarried couples, heterosexual or same sex, will not even have made a legal commitment to each other. As I said earlier in response to the noble
    CWH 240
    Baroness, Lady Gould, if they make a legal commitment, heterosexual couples have no fear; they will be free to adopt. However, why should anyone expect them to have a stable and permanent commitment to the child?
    Earl Russell: Does the noble Baroness understand that some people may refrain from marriage simply because people are attempting to compel them to make a legal commitment?
    Baroness Blatch: Nobody is compelling them to make a legal commitment. However, in the interests of the child, we have a duty to follow the record of statistics—which I shall repeat in a moment—that couples who make a commitment to marriage offer a child greater stability and security. At the end of the day, that has to be our concern.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: The noble Baroness said that if the couple are married, they can adopt; but they cannot adopt just like that. They have to undergo the same rigid criteria as everyone else. We must get away from the idea that anybody can adopt just because they are married.
    Baroness Blatch: I absolutely agree. It does not preempt or say that just because they are married, they are suitable people. There is a rigorous process which I absolutely support. However, because of this amendment, we are talking about whether people seeking to adopt should be married or unmarried and whether we should discount, for the purposes of adoption, same-sex couples.
    In their survey of seven years in the lives of British families, Berthould and Gerhsuny concluded in the British Household Panel Survey that,
    "children born to cohabiting parents are much more likely to see their parents split up and much more likely to experience a period in a one-parent family, than children born within marriage".
    That is yet another survey. It goes on to make the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on the issue of parents going on to marry. If they do, however, it is not a problem as long as they are suitable people to adopt.
    The statistics used by my noble friend Lord Howe should be repeated. After five years following the birth of a child, 52 per cent of couples who were cohabiting but never married had split up; 25 per cent who were cohabiting but later married had split up; but only 8 per cent of couples who married after five years had split up. The statistics speak for themselves.
    I should also refer to the anomaly in Clause 139 where it refers to married couples. The clause provides that the two adult adopters, other than a married couple, must not be related to each other. This gives rise to the following example. A brother and a sister cannot adopt, but the brother living with a gay lover could adopt. Two sisters could not adopt under the Bill, but the sister living with a lesbian lover could adopt. A mother and a daughter who have shared a house for 20 years cannot adopt, but two women living next door who happen to be lesbian lovers could adopt. Is that really what we expect from the Bill?

    CWH 241
    At the end of the day a placement should offer as far as possible long-term stability and security and, given all the evidence that we have from the Office for National Statistics in its survey of married and cohabiting couples with children, we know that a married couple offer the best possible chance of long-term stability and security. I support my noble friend Lord Howe.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Alli: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. I approve of marriage, but I believe that it is destructive in the context of this debate to try to compete between married and unmarried couples and gay couples. Essentially, we have all agreed that this debate is about the welfare of children. What does the noble Baroness say to the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that we have a shortage of people who want to adopt and that living in institutional care can be the most horrific experience for children? Is she saying that she would never give an unmarried couple or a gay couple the opportunity to help a child in institutional care when there was no other couple available? Is that what the noble Baroness is saying?
    Baroness Blatch: One can believe whatever one wants to believe, but I simply do not believe that there is a dearth of married couples who wish to adopt. I simply do not believe that. We have already given a number of examples—I gave them in my speech just now and others have given them, and the record book is littered with them—of good, suitable, married people who wish to adopt but who find that they are thwarted by the system. It is my view, and I support it—
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Every time this point has been raised I have tried to tackle the issue. The Government have looked at the matter and a number of other people have looked at it. There is a huge amount of mythology but very little fact as regards people in a range of situations—fat, thin, smokers, non-smokers—who have been found unsuitable to be adoptive parents. Good assessment involves looking at quite different issues. It is a great pity that social workers are again blamed for making inappropriate assessments. They are sometimes faced with certain pressures within local panels, often in relation to the placement of black children. However, that matter has been tackled recently. I need to make the point yet again that it is erroneous to suggest that all these examples are valid when the evidence that I have shows that they are not.
    Baroness Blatch: I can only speak from experience. I have two very good friends who, after two and a half years of consideration, were deemed to be too old at 45 to adopt a child. Their children had passed through their teenage years and they were considered too old to adopt a child. That child had already been with foster parents, then with this family and then it was shunted on to foster parents yet again. I am sorry but I do not regard that as an acceptable experience for that child.
    CWH 242
    I return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, many of which I agree with. I believe that institutional care is something that we should do what we can to avoid. However, I do not believe that there is a dearth of married couples who wish to adopt. I believe that the Bill will go a long way to remove some of the barriers to suitable adoptive parents being able to adopt. I am simply referring to statistics. If we knowingly place a child in a situation where the risks of family break-up, instability or insecurity are much greater, it is not responsible to go down that road. I believe that it is better, as far as is possible, to place a child where there is the greatest chance of stability and security.
    The Earl of Listowel: I hesitate to come in at this point. We discussed the importance of marriage for children at great length two or three years ago. At that time I looked to see what might be learned from experience abroad. I noted that in one of the Scandinavian countries the incidence of unmarried couples separating was far lower than in our country. That suggests to me that in countries which support families better there is less break-down in families, whether the parents are married or unmarried.
    It seems very clear from the figures that marriage is an important resilience factor. It is not surprising that a couple who are prepared to make a legal commitment to one another will often offer a longer term and more stable relationship. As I say, marriage is an important resilience factor but it is not the only factor; there are other considerations to be borne in mind.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I want to begin by saying that I respect the commitment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with regard to supporting adoption. I would certainly never accuse him of any kind of duplicity in this matter. I know that he has spoken sincerely. However, on this occasion I cannot agree with him.
    I want to bring in a slightly different point which I think is important in the context of this debate. I hope that others will agree. I am not going to quote surveys or statistics. I want to concentrate on what actually happens when an adoption is occurring. It has already been said that no one has a right to adopt, nor should they have. We have talked of the couples involved in adoption, married or unmarried, and we have talked of family. Here I want to say that a family is comprised of more than just the couple involved. I want to share with the Committee—as I did at Second Reading—my and my husband's experiences when our daughter and her husband adopted a child.
    I am pleased to say that we jumped through all the hurdles. Of course, my daughter and her husband were rigorously questioned, as they should be. They wanted to be parents and they wanted to look after a little human being. It is right that questions are asked. However, it is not just the couples themselves who are questioned but also some other members of the family. That included me, my current husband and my ex-husband. My ex-husband and I divorced when my

    CWH 243
    daughter was in her twenties. My ex-husband remarried and now lives in America; he has another family. He was also questioned about the process of adoption, what he felt about it and about our current relationships.
    I do not believe that we have talked about this matter before in this context. However, if we are talking about families and family support, it is important to share that experience with the Committee to show that it is not just the couple themselves who are questioned and have letters written to them by the adoption authorities but rather the family as a whole. I believe that the key to the whole of this issue is the word "family". Children should have the opportunity to grow up as part of a loving family. I refer not just to the adoptive parents but to the wider family. I understand the concerns in this area but I repeat that adoptions are not entered into lightly. Many years passed before my daughter and her husband decided to adopt. As I say, adoption is not entered into lightly. Those who seek to adopt are closely scrutinised by those whose responsibility it is to assess whether or not they are suitable to undertake that. Great care is taken in these matters, as it should be.
    I make these points because I am sure that, just as Married couples or a single person who seek to adopt are rigorously assessed, single-sex couples and their families would also be rigorously assessed. I believe that all children should have a loving family unit. That is why I cannot support the amendment.
    Lord Clement-Jones: Nearly all the points have been made today in a quite remarkable series of speeches. We have a clear division of opinion in the Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made his case in a forensic and balanced way although the temperature rose later in the debate. I characterise his approach as the risk management approach. That is appropriate for matters such as airline safety or financial services regulation but it tars all those in a particular category with the same brush. That is how I see him categorising all those unmarried couples because, statistically, they are eliminated from the potential pool of adoption. The same applies to gay couples. Although the statistics are by no means particularly well grounded, as some Members of the Committee have pointed out, they are, nevertheless, all tarred with the same brush on the grounds of risk management because of the possibility—not probability—that certain relationships will not survive for longer than a certain period of time. That is why they are eliminated from the pool of those couples appropriate to be even considered as suitable adopters.
    The second approach, which I make no bones about, is the balance of benefit approach. We are talking about whether individual children can benefit. We must set this against what I regard as being the rather pseudo-statistical approach that is being used, not only by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. There will be an argument between us as to whether there really is a pool of unmarried couples and gay couples ready to take on the responsibilities of adoptive parents; or
    CWH 244
    whether, as a result of the more enlightened proposals in the current legislation, married couples will come forward in great numbers.
    However, that is not the point: the point is that these older children who are in care desperately need to be brought into adoptive families. Quite frankly, I do not want an experimental period where we have only married couples for a period of years, while we wait and see whether or not the pool comes forward. Quite honestly, I want to give those children the best possible chance from the day that this legislation is passed.
    A number of points have been made during the debate. I shall not trade with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on all the issues that he raised. However, he made an interesting point on the property issue. He said that, except in the case of the house, there is no proper arrangement for resolving property issues for children. However, the house is most people's main asset. Most people do not have stocks and shares, and all sorts of other assets. Therefore, the issue of the house as between unmarried couples—and, indeed, as between gay couples—can he resolved, provided that one of them has, or both of them have, beneficial ownership.
    I fail to see the logic for using the property argument in these circumstances as an argument for saving that it is preferable for children to be adopted by one person, as opposed to an unmarried couple. Again, I fail to see the argument in life, but I certainly fail to see the argument even more when it conies to incapacity or death. Indeed, that point was made most powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the evidence of problems in the playground. I do not know on what basis he put that forward. Similarly, I do not know where the evidence comes from. It seemed to me to be some kind of cultural issue that the noble Earl was positing. To use another term, we have something of the Heisenberg effect here. Obviously, observed behaviour will change over time. If we believe that it is right for unmarried couples and gay couples to be able to adopt, we should try to ensure that society recognises that fact. After all, we do not want young children running around playgrounds talking about nutters, loonies, and so on, in mental health terms, no more than we want people talking about gay people and unmarried couples in derogatory terms. We have a responsibility to make sure that we have the right culture in our playgrounds. We certainly do not use that as an excuse, or an argument, for not allowing adoption by unmarried or gay couples.
    Nowadays, the culture on surnames has entirely changed. In her inimitable way, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made the case in a very aristocratic way. After all, my father had a different surname from my grandfather. My grandfather doubled the barrel of my father's surname. So, there we are, we all have family secrets that we can reveal in Committee between these four walls. I do not believe that my father felt any stigma in probably one of the toughest public schools in the country where Dr Arnold was rife in the 19th century. I do not think that it did him any harm. So that is certainly not an argument either.

    CWH 245
    All this is about suitability. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his humane way, put his finger on the point in the previous debate—it is about suitability. If we have arguments, let them be about suitability. Put "suitability" in either secondary or primary legislation, or in guidance, or in the assessment procedure which the Minister talked about at our previous sitting. Then we can really see what we are talking about. However, we should be utterly frank about this. Mr Andrew Lansley, in the Commons, put it rather well. He said that it is wrong of those who support marriage to use the adoption of children as bait.
    We should not be penalising those who do not wish to marry. If they do not wish to become married, that does not, ipso facto, eliminate them from the pool of those wishing to adopt. At least that is the argument on these Benches. It is highly circular to say that unmarried couples have not made a legal commitment to each other and are therefore unsuitable. That is begging the question of this debate. I very much hope that, on Report, we will make it utterly clear that the wording of the current provision is as we want it.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Adebowale: I hesitate to add to the eloquent contributions to this debate. For me, the argument was made very clear by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
    In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I should say that—having sat and listened to those who supported the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I find the use of statistics truly worrying. Earlier, the risk management approach very ably described. On that basis, and using statistics from the Office for National Statistics, I believe that it is very likely that social workers would not allow poor people to adopt. On the basis of the statistics on marriage and sustained partnerships among poor people, poor people would not be allowed to adopt.
    Let us also take the statistics on certain geographical areas of the country, where marriage fails more often than not because of poverty. Those people also would not be allowed to adopt. Let us consider certain professions. I am the chief executive of a charity. However, I am not sure that chief executives of charities have a brilliant track record on marital relations. So we would not be allowed to adopt either.
    I think that we are on a slippery slope if we take such a general, blanket approach to statistics in arguing a case. In some ways it hides a deeper and—with all due respect to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his supporters—somewhat sinister approach to this debate. We all agree—no one has disagreed—that this Bill is all about providing stable, loving, supportive families for children. That is not a problem. However, those who supported the noble Earl's amendments seem to have rushed over some unintended consequences.
    Two points in this debate have been rushed over. The first was the idea that some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were ethnocentric. Although I accept that they were not intended
    CWH 246
    to be ethno-centric, they were ethno-centric. If the amendment is passed, those remarks will not only remain ethno-centric; they will be enshrined in law. Similarly, I accept that the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, were not intended in any way—as he himself said—to denigrate those who are homosexual or homosexual couples. Unfortunately, there is an unintended consequence. If the amendment is passed, those people will be denigrated.
    As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, aptly said, the amendment connects the issue of homosexual couples and their status as stable relationships with the bullying of children in schools. I was brought up in Wakefield and, as a black pupil in a predominantly white school, was bullied at school. The argument, therefore, could be used against allowing black couples to adopt, as their children may well be the object of bullying.
    The arguments in favour of the amendment are weak. They have not dealt with the issue of unintended consequences. I can understand that some members of the public would like to live in a world where everyone was the same and everyone agreed that there was only one way of living. Although they think that such a world would be wonderfully smooth and acceptable for everyone, that is not the reality. If we do not accept the reality, we shall create a situation for children—I have seen it too often—in which their lives are blighted by the opinions of people whom they have never met. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is outrageous and inhumane.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: Having seen so many young people become involved in crime after having been brought up in care, I feel that such outcomes might not happen if those young people had had the love and support of a home they could call their own. Sometimes the birth parent or parents do not want to place them for adoption. I ask the Committee what we can do about that. It is a very big problem. I am sure that I am right in saying that older and disabled children are the more difficult children to place. Can the Minister tell us the numbers of children currently awaiting adoption?
    I should add that I have two names—it is all very complicated—and that our two adopted children had yet another name. That caused no problem at all—it was just one of those things. But it is terribly important to have a home to call one's own.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): This has been a quite remarkable and high-quality debate. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have spoken. I join other noble Lords in saying how sorry I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not able to join us, and how much we look forward to her resuming her place when we come back to this issue at Report stage.
    We touch on a very sensitive matter on which each noble Lord will reach their own judgment. It is undoubtedly clear that our discussion this afternoon can only help in enabling noble Lords to make that

    CWH 247
    judgment. Although this issue of unmarried couples is important, I should like to place it in its proper context. We are now in our fifth day of Committee. What has united all noble Lords who have spoken in those sittings is the determination to see a much enhanced adoption service put in place. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put that point very well indeed.
    We know that outcomes have not been good for children in care compared with children who have not been looked after by local authorities. Looked-after children have poor chances of leading successful settled lives when they leave the care system, and we know that adoption can provide a new start in life for many children. All too often adoption has been seen as a last resort for those children when it should have been considered as the first resort.
    Too often the adoption system has let children down. I readily acknowledge that council performance is too varied. In some councils, 10 per cent of looked-after children are adopted; in others, the figure is less than 2 per cent. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that, overall, the system, including the courts, can be slow, cumbersome and unfair. The average time taken to adopt a looked after child is two years and nine months—an eternity in a child's eyes. That is why we have to change it and that is why we are all so hopeful that the passage of the Bill will lead to a dramatic change in the lives of so many young people.
    It is therefore important that we place this question of unmarried couples in its appropriate context, considering current practice. At the moment only married couples may adopt children jointly. Single people may adopt as individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. That is the position under the Adoption Act 1976. Adoption by single people was accepted practice under the previous Government as much as under the present one.
    Some of those single people who adopt will be in a long-term, stable relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual. If a person in such a relationship applies to adopt, the couple are currently assessed jointly. However, only one person may adopt the child. The other person may seek a residence order, but while the holder of a residence order may exercise parental responsibility, he or she does not become the child's legal parent.
    An interesting question was asked about how many children are currently adopted by unmarried couples. The simple answer, as with many questions in relation to statistics, is that we do not know because such adoptions are currently recorded as adoptions by single people. The BAAF adoption statistics project, which I am informed is a robust statistic analysis, found that 95 per cent of local authority adoptions in 1998-99 were by married couples. We do now know how many of the remaining 5 per cent of adopters were living on their own or as part of an unmarried couple, but we know that 43 per cent of single adopters who adopted during 1998-99 were already fostering the children, as opposed to only 11 per cent of the couples.
    Noble Lords will be aware that a free vote, at least on the Government side, on a Back-Bench amendment to allow unmarried couples, whether of the same sex or
    CWH 248
    the opposite sex, to apply to adopt children jointly was held on Report in another place on 16th May. Members of Parliament from all sides voted in favour of the change. What were the reasons for that? I suggest that it is based on experience of adoption practice over many years. It is essential that the adoption placement reflects the child's needs and best interests. Let me give an example in which the amendments made to the Bill in another place would surely come into play in the child's best interest. If a child has been cared for by an unmarried couple—for example, in a foster placement—it may be in the best interests of that child to remain with that couple permanently. However, under the current legal framework only one person may adopt the child in such circumstances.
    Our first objective surely is to improve security for the adopted child. I have already stated that if an unmarried couple applies to adopt, they are assessed as a couple, yet only one person may adopt the child. Arguably this denies the child the permanence and security of having two legal parents.
    The Government's second objective is to increase the number of vulnerable children who have the opportunity, through adoption, to grow up as part of a loving, stable and permanent family.
    Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question for clarification. If a consent form needs to be signed, say, for a child to have an operation, is it only the legal adopter who can sign it? If that person is absent, can the operation not take place?
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, except that, if there is a residence order, the person who is party to the residence order also has parental responsibilities. However, residence orders are often time-limited and they certainly do not provide the stability of that person being regarded as a parent, although he or she may have parental responsibilities for a set time.
    A large range of evidence was given in support of the change in Standing Committee in another place. In a letter to all MPs on 12th March, the British Agency for Adoption and Fostering said that the amendment would improve the life chances of more children by widening the pool of potential adoptive parents and by enabling those children who are placed with unmarried couples to enjoy the security of a permanent legal relationship with both parents rather than with only one of them. The letter from BAAF to MPs was signed by many organisations, including the Law Society and the Family Law Bar Association.
    My department has also received correspondence from children expressing views about joint adoption by unmarried couples. One letter was sent by a child living with her natural parent and the natural parent's same-sex partner. This child was concerned that, should anything happen to her natural parent, she did not have the security of a legal relationship with her parent's partner and she might not be able to continue living with her.

    CWH 249
    It is noticeable that the wording of the amendment tabled in another place introduced a tailor-made definition of "couple", which would apply for the purposes of this Bill only. By avoiding terms such as "cohabiting" or "living as husband and wife", the new definition avoided any confusion with the position in existing legislation. This definition does not attempt to define the legal relationship between the two adults and therefore does not encroach on or pre-empt the wider work on civil partnerships being carried out across government. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are quite right to refer to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which has been debated in your Lordships' House. In a sense, part of the answer to the issues on inheritance raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, must rest in this wider work that is currently taking place across government.
    Noble Lords have understandably raised questions about how certain we can be that only those who are suitable to adopt should be allowed to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, particularly focused on suitability. As I said on other important amendments last week, nobody has a right to adopt. That is the position under existing legislation and under the Bill. It is the job of adoption agencies and the courts to decide whether a couple is suitable to adopt.
    We debated last week how such a decision would be made. I do not want to repeat everything I said, but it bears reiterating that for any couple to become adoptive parents they need to prove not only that they can provide a loving a stable family relationship for a child, but that their own relationship is sound and likely to be lasting.
    We have given a clear commitment to make regulations under Clause 44 to require adoption agencies to consider the stability and permanence of the relationship between a couple, whether they are married or unmarried, as part of the adopter assessment process. I said in Committee last Thursday that I would consider sympathetically whether the regulations should be considered under the affirmative procedure. We are undertaking a review to consider the range of criteria used for the assessment of potential adopters and the consistency of their application across the country.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Division Bell has gone. We will adjourn for 10 minutes.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.35 to 5.45 p.m.]
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I was saying, the key is an assessment of the couple applying to adopt. Clearly, the robustness of the adopter assessment process is a critical factor in ensuring that we have a robust system in place. As I explained last week, a home study over several months is part of the current adopter assessment process. A designated social
    CWH 250
    worker visits the prospective adopters at home to establish a detailed view of them, as well as any family members and other people living in their home.
    In addition, adoption agencies ask for confidential personal references about prospective adopters and personal referees are usually asked to comment on all aspects of the relationship between the prospective adopters, including the amount of time they spend together and the leisure and recreational activities they share.
    The feedback we receive from those who have gone through the process is that it is pretty tough and rigorous and sometimes people feel it can be over-intrusive. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke about delays in the system. There are some delays that we need to eradicate. However, it is also a product of the fact that the system is very vigorous, robust and detailed in assessing whether people are suitable for adoption.
    We need to bear that in mind when we come to the issue of the outcomes for children of unmarried parents in comparison with those of married parents. Surely this must be seen in the context of the increase in the number of cohabiting couples in our society. In 1986, they accounted for 5 per cent of families. By 1998, that had risen to 14 per cent. In 2000, around 40 per cent of births were outside marriage, compared with 30 per cent in 1990.
    Some noble Lords have suggested that marriage should be accorded a special status among all the other important and valuable relationships that exist. From that, it is argued that placement with a married couple should, therefore, be the first choice of adoptive placement.
    The Government's position on marriage is quite clear. The Government support the institution of marriage. They recognise that marriage is a sure foundation for raising children, and remains the choice of the majority of people living in our country. However, we also recognise that not all children are born to parents who are married, and that many unmarried couples have stable relationships in which children are brought up exceedingly well.
    The Fostering Network put it right when it wrote to all noble Lords, saying:
    "Family life in Britain has changed dramatically since the last adoption legislation was produced and current legislation will probably be in place for at least another 25 years. More people will live in a relationship which is not confirmed by marriage and yet has all the components of it in terms of commitment to one another and the capacity to provide a home for children in need … The foster care service has provided a model. Unmarried couples and gay and lesbian carers have given children excellent care often for many years, until adulthood. These children have benefited from the love and care provided, and the security of the relationship. Many of the placements have been made of children with special needs who may not otherwise have benefited from family care had there been a need to wait for the perfect married couple to come forward."
    Surely that was the substance of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
    When it comes to making individual judgments about a couple who have applied for adoption, the critical issue is how suitable that couple are to take on

    CWH 251
    parental responsibilities. Our starting point in considering this suggestion is that the adoptive placement of choice should reflect the needs and best interests of the child. In relation to unmarried couples, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether Clause 1 could really be said to apply. I say that it does.
    Established adoption agency practice shows that it can be in the best interests of some children to be placed with single adopters. Indeed, research has shown that girls who have been abused do particularly well when placed with single women. As I mentioned earlier, in some cases it may be in the best interests of the child to be adopted by an unmarried couple; for example, where a child is already being cared for by an unmarried couple, such as unmarried foster parents. Again, perhaps I may quote from the Fostering Network, which says:
    "From our experience of supporting a growing number of same sex couples we have noted a trend that suggests that these couples are more prepared to adopt 'harder to place' children and more open to support to make these placements work. This openness to support results in more successful placements for these children."
    We have discussed married life, and the importance of marriage as an institution. But let us be honest: some marriages may not provide a suitable environment in which to bring up children, just as some unmarried couples can be successful in providing a loving and stable family environment. That is why the adopter assessment process is important in ensuring that only those who are able to provide a secure home for a child are approved as prospective adopters.
    This is not a debate about the reasons why unmarried couples are unable to marry, or chose not to do so; it is a debate about increasing the number of vulnerable children who have the opportunity to grow up as part of a stable, loving and permanent family. It is the adopter assessment process, and, ultimately, the courts that will decide whether a couple are suitable to adopt. That process will provide the necessary safeguards in order to protect the child.
    Throughout my response I have laid a great deal of stress on the robustness of the adoption process. I know from comments that have been made today, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by other noble Lords during the passage of the Bill, that there is concern about current patchy provision of adoption support services. That is why Clause 3 places a new clear duty on local authorities to make arrangements to provide adoption support services.
    In relation to adoption services generally, I have already given a commitment to noble Lords that we will have a comprehensive performance assessment system for social services, which includes both in-year and end-year monitoring, including performance in relation to adoption. We have already agreed that from April 2003 voluntary adoption agencies will be inspected and registered by the National Care Standards Commission. Local authority adoption services will also be inspected by the commission. We can always intervene if a local authority fails to perform its functions adequately.
    CWH 252
    The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also mentioned political correctness. Although allegations have been made about political correctness and blanket bans, the PIU report found no evidence that such blanket bans exist. However, there is a perception in certain areas of the media that they do. Sometimes that is based on a misunderstanding of agency practice. For example, in placing a very young baby agencies would need to consider the age of the adoptive applicants with a view to them being able to cope with a child as it grew up. As I said on Second Reading, the figures for 1999 show that the average age for adoption couples was 37 years and eight months, that the average age for single adopters was 40 years and four months, and the maximum age in the sample was of a person of 59 years and one month. The Cabinet Office PIU report said that there was no evidence of blanket bans, although there is certainly a perception that they exist.
    I shall not deny that there have not been examples of thoroughly bad practice or insensitive approaches. I go back to the adopter assessment issues. I know that sometimes prospective adoptive parents have been concerned about the way they have been questioned, often because it is not explained to them why certain questions, which may be regarded as intrusive, are being asked. I do not deny that we need to do much to improve the performance of those social workers, but I never seek to knock social workers in general. It is all too easy to do.
    When one thinks about the awesome decisions that fairly junior staff in social service departments have to make, who of us would ignore the fact that those decisions are very hard? I would not defend bad practice among social workers, but I recognise that many of them work tremendously hard under great strain and do their very best. Of course we want them to do better. That is why we set up the General Social Care Council to make the profession of social work much better supported. We have extended the training period for social workers. I am confident that, with the development of an adoption service, with the clear standards we are laying down, with inspection by the National Care Standards Commission, with the work that we are doing to improve and boost the status of social workers and their professional qualifications, we will be able to ensure that the adoption assessment process will work effectively, and that, as far as you can ever be certain about a couple when it comes to couples being assessed, as much care as possible will be taken to assess those couples.
    At the end of the day, we will all make our own individual decisions on this matter. I believe that the case is very strong to accept the Bill as it now stands. The fact is that at the moment it is perfectly legal for adoption to be undertaken by single people who none the less are in stable relationships, whether of an opposite-sex nature or a same-sex nature. It is also clear that where such a single person is in smith a relationship the adopter assessment process will assess both people in that relationship, even though only one person can adopt. The logic of that argument is clear. We would provide greater stability for an adopted child in those circumstances by allowing both of the

    CWH 253
    parties to that couple to adopt. I am absolutely convinced that as a consequence we shall enable more young people to be adopted—often young people who in the current circumstances find it very difficult to find suitable adoptive parents. Of course we will debate this matter again on Report.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask a question on that point? What is the score roughly? How many children are in care waiting for adoption? The information was not clear. How many prospective adopters, be they single or joint, are now wanting to adopt children? I am trying to get the size of the problem and I could not pick it up from the debate. I do not seek an answer now.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can answer the first point raised by the noble Lord. The latest figures I have are from March 1999, when almost 3,000 adoptive placements were made. However, at the same time there were nearly 2,500 children waiting to be adopted with no adoptive family having been identified. I do not think that we have the statistics available with regard to the second point, but I will see if we do and will write to the noble Lord.
    I do not think that there is anything more I need to say. Clearly we will make up our own minds. I conclude by paying tribute once again to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in what has been a splendid debate.
    Earl Howe: I begin by echoing the Minister's final words; I agree that this has been an excellent debate. I do not intend to draw out our proceedings today, particularly as he indicated that we cannot bring the matter to a final conclusion today in the nature of the rules of Grand Committee. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not address every single point that has been raised.
    I said earlier, and I repeat now, that I understand and respect the arguments on the other side. The slightly sad part for me is that, with the notable exception of the Minister, I have not heard much from those who have attacked me to demonstrate that the same applies in reverse. I have been called various things today—sinister, ethnocentric and inhumane. I shall, of course, reflect on those words. To the extent that my position is regarded as out of line with mainstream opinion, I would ask the Grand Committee to reflect on the following fact. The majority of European countries allow adoption only by married couples. Some countries, it is true, have legal partnership schemes but these specifically exclude joint adoption. Until recently the Government were of the same opinion as that which I was trying to advance earlier today. So I hope we can avoid too much talk that might suggest to those reading Hansard that I had taken up some kind of freakish position.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am sorry to interrupt but one or two Members of the Committee who spoke, including myself, recognised the noble
    CWH 254
    Earl's sincerity. I believe that he should correct the implication that, somehow or other, we all spoke as he implied.
    Earl Howe: I readily concede that and I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The point I was seeking to make was that I did not hear much in the way of accepting some of the points I was making. In fact, I do not believe that any of the points I made were accepted. I concede that my own sincerity was not in question and for that I am grateful.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, picked me up on what I said about the bureaucratic barriers in the adoption process. She questioned the significance of those barriers and said that reducing them might have only a marginal effect on the number of adoptions. I would point out to her, however, that in the Prime Minister's review there was a finding that,
    "As a general rule of thumb, one in 10 of initial inquiries would result in an approved adopter".
    That statement suggests to me that there are many people who are willing to adopt—though not all of them may be suitable—who are somehow put off during the process.
    In the White Paper on adoption it is noticeable that there were no proposals to change the eligibility grounds for adoption. The White Paper listed the 10 most serious problems with children's services and adoption but a shortage of married couples to adopt was not even on the list. Again, therefore, I question those who say that we need to widen the pool for the reasons that the noble Baroness indicated.
    The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, stated her view that adoption by an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple was not the optimum solution but that,nevertheless, she would be prepared to entertain it as an option. I note that she is not in her place but I make the point that, if the Bill is not amended back to its original state, there will be one obvious consequence: the law will not distinguish between types of union for the purposes of adoption. All types of union will be considered equally valid.
    From that will develop an approach to applicants wishing to become adopters based on those coming forward, rather than on the needs of the child. Supposing 30 couples needed to be assessed and let us suppose that 10 of those are unmarried and 20 are married. As all of those couples are seen to be equally valid, this may lead to the 10 unmarried couples being assessed alongside only 10 married couples, leaving the other 10 married couples to wait. That will lead to a disproportionate number of unmarried couples being assessed.
    Lord Alli: I do not understand the point.
    Earl Howe: The point is that married couples who, as the Minister said, are, generally speaking, in the majority among those who are coming forward to apply for adoption, may, nevertheless, be sidelined because it will be the legal duty of the adoption agency to consider all types of couple as equal for the purposes of assessment. Resources are limited and it may be that

    CWH 225
    they choose, therefore, to treat equally a group of 10 unmarried couples and a group of 10 married couples. That will skew what would otherwise be a bias in favour of married couples. That is my point.
    Lord Alli: I believe that I understand. If the resources available only allowed a certain number and there were 30 couples, 20 of whom were married and 10 of whom were same sex or unmarried couples, the noble Earl is suggesting that that would disadvantage the married couples.
    Earl Bowe: It is a very simple point that concerns me in the context of Clause 1. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, added to the brickbats hurled in my direction when he accused me of having an unanalytical mind. If that is so, I have to live with it. However, what I do not have is a prejudiced mind. Some of my best friends are unmarried couples. I have good friends who are gay and live together. The issue of whether certain lifestyles are intrinsically more or less worthy than others is an issue for another day. It is not the territory that I am on, or feel the need to be on. The issue that should occupy us throughout the debate is what is best for children. We are all agreed on that; we just do not agree on how to get there.
    As I have said, unmarried and gay people can already legally adopt a child. Therefore, those who believe that only married couples and lone individuals should be allowed to adopt a child cannot be accused of wanting to exclude unmarried or gay people from the adoption pool. I certainly do not wish to exclude such people.
    Earl Russell: I accept the logic of what the noble Earl says; namely, that this cannot be intended to exclude unmarried or gay people from the pool. However, is it meant to exclude couples from the pool? That is the obvious logic of what the noble Earl is saying.
    Earl Howe: Of course, but I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I went through earlier. I do not want to take up the Committee's time unnecessarily. That is indeed my position.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but I have reflected on his earlier point about the approach that could be adopted by an adoption agency. The more I think about it, the more extraordinary I find the point. The noble Earl was speculating on the fact that out of 30–20 married couples, and 10 unmarried couples—things would inevitably be balanced out by taking 10 of each. If no difference is made in the status of married or unmarried couples, and gay couples, why not use a chronological first-come, first-served approach? If resources are limited, those who apply to the adoption agency can be taken in the order in which they have applied.
    The noble Earl is erecting some kind of bureaucratic administrative model that is only one of many that could be adopted. It certainly does not prove his case—
    Earl Howe: Perhaps I may put the point more starkly. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones,
    CWH 256
    believe that there should be no discrimination between married couples and unmarried couples when an adoption agency comes to assess? I take it from that exchange that he clearly believes that there should be no discrimination. But I wonder—
    The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Judging by what was said earlier, it is plain to me that it is desirable—
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Could the noble Earl move closer to a microphone?
    The Earl of Listowel: Yes, of course. I thank the Minister for that invitation. As regards the procedures that will be set out in regulations for determining who is to adopt, or not to adopt, a child, would it be possible for such regulations to state that married couples would be preferred and that weight is likely to be given to the fact that a couple are married when reaching a decision? Alternatively, is that possibility completely ruled out by this current debate?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government would certainly rule that: out. It takes us back to the earlier argument about a hierarchy of acceptable relationships. The Government's view is that each couple has to be assessed on their own merits irrespective of whether they are married or unmarried, because there are many married people who would he wholly unsuitable to adopt. That is why they need to go through the same process.
    The other point is the issue of 30 people applying but only a few being able to be processed at any one time. I draw the attention of the Noble Earl, Lord Howe, to Section B of the National Adoption Standards for England which talks about the clear process that needs to be gone through and the clear written time scales for each stage. He raised the point about people having to wait in the context of whether gay or unmarried couples should be treated differently from married couples. The real issue in the prospective adopter process is how to speed up the process while not losing sight of the need for rigour at every stage within it.
    The standard published in the National Adoption Standards is aimed at doing that, so that we can avoid forcing people to have to wait unduly. We want to make information available to whoever applies to adopt about the time scales they can expect to apply to them throughout the adopter assessment process.
    6.15 p.m.
    The Earl of Listowel: Forgive me for being so slow in understanding this. To be quite clear, is it correct that no account will be taken of marriage as an important resilience factor in relationships? It will be one important resilience factor among many, as relationships between married couples are generally more likely to last. I know that we had this debate earlier. I should like to be quite clear that there will be a point in the process when the endurance of a

    CWH 257
    relationship is recognised to relate to the level of commitment demonstrated by married couples. Similarly, health is a factor to consider.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will allow me, I shall respond to that. The general argument seems to be that there will be a more successful outcome if the couple is married, and that there should therefore be a hierarchy whereby married couples come top in every situation. I think that that is the logic of where we are going. However, it cannot be that way. There has to be an individual assessment of each couple. The issue in the assessment is the strength of that relationship, and the assessment as to whether that couple—
    Earl Russell: Is it fair to say that it does not strengthen the relationship to say that it lasts "till death do us part" if death be by murder?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Oh, my Lords!
    If a couple have been happily married, and that is apparent in the assessment process, that will of course be a strong recommendation to the adoption agency undertaking the assessment. It is strong ammunition to suggest that, among other factors, that couple will make jolly good adopter parents. However, one cannot then say that because married couples' outcomes are better overall, married couples should be given priority in every situation as against unmarried couples.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: During this debate the question that has occurred to me is whether the wishes of the birth parent will be taken into consideration. For instance, she might want a certain religion, or she might want the parents to be married. Will that be taken into consideration?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: One must be wary of allowing pre-set conditions. However, in most cases of adoption the birth parents will have given their consent. Where they have not given their consent and the final stage of an adoption order has been reached, the natural parents can ask for the leave of the court to make objections should they so wish. The Bill also describes the circumstances in which parental consent can be over-ridden in the interests of the child. However, we have to be very wary of going down the route of pre-set conditions which say that only one category of adopter parent will be admitted.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Can we get this absolutely plain before we go any further? Marriage is relevant for the purpose of assessment. Once you are assessed, it ceases to have relevance as part of a system of gradation. Is that the situation?
    Earl Howe: I thought that the Minister had very helpfully clarified the position in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The simple fear I expressed was that the Bill as currently drafted will lead to a disproportionate number of unmarried couples being assessed. I am ready to be shot down on that, but I
    CWH 258
    have not actually heard a knock-down argument that does so. Perhaps between now and Report noble Lords will provide those arguments.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that splitting up was not the ultimate evil. As a product of divorced parents myself, I am prepared to agree with him. However, he will surely concede that splitting up, though not the ultimate evil, is equally not an end devoutly to be wished. The question not answered by the noble Earl is why, with our eyes open, we should expose children to the additional risk of splitting up to which I referred earlier. My approach is the risk management approach. I make no apology for that. I do not apologise because of Clause 1. We should not be in the business of countenancing serious and significant additional risk when Clause 1 of the Bill takes us through a catalogue of considerations.
    Earl Russell: I shall, if I may, answer the question posed by the noble Earl. Why expose them to risk? If one is not prepared to be exposed to risk, ones does not marry at all.
    Earl Howe: If the noble Earl's argument were accepted, we would scrap Clause 1 and just accept any couple who came along. Of course, there are risks that are more important and significant than others. I was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, about poor people. He suggested that if my argument were followed, then poor people should not be allowed to adopt. I am sure that even he would agree that, in the assessment process, the ability of a couple to support and bring up a child is important, actually. That does not mean that poor people should not be allowed to adopt, but it is a consideration in whether the child would be properly looked after.
    My position, therefore, can be easily rubbished in terms that amuse everybody. However, I have not heard anyone seriously attack me or repudiate my earlier arguments about risk. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I am certainly not saying that certain sorts of family are unsuitable for adoption. I am saying that there are clear and proven risks. Why take them? Although we can talk all we like about "rigorous assessment" and the stability of a relationship, "rigorous assessment" makes the process sound like a science.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I should like to press the noble Earl further. Taking his risk management approach to its logical conclusion, we could decide that the divorce rate in a particular town—Berkhamstead, for example—was so high that the risk of placing people for adoption there with married couples was too great, so we had better exclude all adoption in Berkhamstead. Is that not the ultimate conclusion of the risk management approach?
    Earl Howe: Not at all. The noble Lord is falling into the trap I was indicating earlier. His argument has nothing to do with real people.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Is that not the point of the argument here? The noble Earl's argument is that, because of the general statistics that show that married couples tend to stick together more than cohabiting couples, no unmarried couples should be able to be adopters. If Clause 1 is right and the paramount consideration is the child's welfare, we must consider each child and each potential couple on their own merits.
    Earl Howe: Yes, indeed we must, but there is no magic formula to enable anybody, however professional and however experienced, to assess whether this couple or that couple is more or less likely to split up. It cannot be done. It is a subjective judgment. Noble Lords may airily dismiss the statistics—and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones may refer to them as pseudo-statistics—but they are published by the ONS.
    The study published in 1999 concluded:
    "In general, across most European nations children are less likely to see their parents split up if they are born to married parents than to cohabiting parents".
    An analysis of the subsequent British Household Panel Survey said:
    "Cohabitees who have children are more likely to split up than those who do not. The evidence therefore points to the likelihood that placing an adoptive child with an unmarried couple will increase the likelihood of their relationship breaking down".
    That is more or less the only point I was making. It is very simple and noble Lords have not fully answered me, though they have tried to.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I shall try one final stab at the noble Earl. The point is surely that that does not deal with real people. The noble Earl is dealing with statistics, probabilities and risk management. He is not dealing with individual couples who put themselves forward as adoptive parents.
    Earl Howe: But I am. I am dealing with real people with real children. That is what the statistics are based on. It is not where they live or what their name begins with, which are irrelevant considerations. It is real people with real children who split up. Statistically, married people split up less often. I do not believe that the noble Lord has got to the heart of my argument.
    As I said at the beginning, we are not going to decide this matter today. I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 48 agreed to.
    Clause 49 [Adoption by couple]:
    [Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
    Clause 49 agreed to.
    Clause 50 [Adoption by one person]:
    [Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
    Clause 50 agreed to.
    Clause 51 [Parental etc. consent]:
    6.30 p.m.
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 76:
    Page 31, line 8, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
    "(b) adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding the parent's wishes."
    The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
    We all welcome the provision in Clause 1, which introduces the welfare principle into all decisions by adoption agencies and courts relating to the adoption of a child. This will ensure that, whatever the competing interests in the adoption process, the welfare of the child is ultimately at the top of the agenda.
    However, Clause 51 brings with it a related concern. We see in subsection (1)(b) what apparently amounts to a simple welfare test for dispensing with parental consent. This has caused considerable disquiet among experienced professionals in adoption, including the BAAF and the Law Society. Adoption is different from any other plan for the vulnerable child because it involves lifelong consequences. An adoption order triggers an irrevocable severance of the relationship between the child and his or her parents and wider family. It therefore constitutes the most fundamental interference with the right to family life from the point of view of the child's birth family.
    For these reasons, it is important to ensure that, when it comes to overriding parental wishes in adoption cases, the manner in which welfare is interpreted is subject to particular scrutiny, to show that adoption will bring significant advantages that cannot be achieved by any other plan. If those significant advantages cannot be demonstrated, the child's welfare may be better served by securing his placement by another legal route, which does not involve such irreversible finality for all parties.
    The Adoption Act 1976 contained provisions to ensure that adoption cannot be imposed by the state on non-consenting parents without there being grounds to dispense with such consent. However, the wording of Clause 51(9)(b) removes any consideration of the parents' consent to adoption, because dispensation will be based entirely on judicial interpretation of what will, on balance, best promote the child's welfare. While that closely mirrors the grounds for orders made under the Children Act, it does not distinguish between adoption and, for example, a residence order or special guardianship order, even though the consequences of each differ substantially.
    I ask the Minister to seek advice on European case law, which has established that there must be exceptional circumstances to justify permanently severing the parent-child relationship. The Bill does not give appropriate weight to the irrevocability of adoption in contrast to other orders. In step-parent adoptions, where the court is being asked to dispense with parental consent, an adoption order may be

    CWH 261
    granted in cases where there is no finding of parental failure to protect their child as in cases where children are adopted from care and adoption is in the child's interests only on balance.
    The proposal in Amendment No. 76 is that the circumstances should be exceptional enough to justify the state severing the parent-child relationship against the parents' wishes, following which the welfare principle in Clause 1 would be applied by the courts to determine whether adoption is the best course for the child. Without such an amendment, there will be no test for dispensing with parental consent and too little encouragement to the courts to consider alternative proposals when parents are withholding their consent. That was one of the recommendations in the 1992 interdepartmental working group report to Ministers.
    Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 can be covered very briefly. Amendment No. 77 is closely related to the point that I have just made. Consent by birth parents to an adoption order must be fully informed consent. This is not just a matter of making sure that the finality of the adoption order has been impressed on them. It is also a matter of making sure that the alternatives to adoption have been thoroughly explored and explicitly rejected. Special guardianship as a half-way house may be appropriate in some cases. Birth parents have to know about it and consider it.
    Amendment No. 78 relates to Clause 51(5). What do we mean by consent? The clause says,
    '"Consent' means consent given unconditionally and with full understanding of what is involved"
    That is obviously right, but it should also mean consent that is freely given without any suggestion of duress. Nor should consent be obtained on the back of any financial or non-financial inducement. In each case the process has to be open, honest and transparent. I very much hope the Minister will be sympathetic to these arguments. I beg to move.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I interpose very briefly. Amendment No. 76 makes a presumption of preeminence of the parental wish on withholding consent. That is the situation in the case I referred to on Second Reading. I am not being critical of my noble friend, there is a misunderstanding. This is not a simple welfare provision. It is the antithesis of a simple welfare provision. The simple welfare provision was established in the case of In Re W, and this is in total conflict with it. That is why I oppose the amendment. Amendment No. 77 is hardly appropriate.
    Amendment No. 78 makes no sense. It refers to "improper duress or inducement". The parent is there. In In Re W the young girl was there and gave evidence. There was no question of duress. If there was any hint of duress the judge would get on to it very quickly indeed. This is a wholly unnecessary provision. It would not matter if we put it in the Bill because it would not do anything. Amendment No. 76 would alter the whole structure of parental consent and I therefore oppose it.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I shall be brief. I am not going to trade the effect of Amendment No. 76 too greatly
    CWH 262
    with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. That could take far too long. He is right that it would considerably alter the impact of the clause. That is the intention. I shall revert to the usual pattern of this Committee and support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
    The noble Earl set out his stall extremely effectively. It would simply be a matter of underlining the reason for our previous amendments, which were in the nature of how placement orders are made. This is very cognate. It is the finality of adoption which again is so relevant. If placement orders were made in every case through a court process, this would not be necessary. The finality of the adoption order process means that a different test is needed in these circumstances. This formulation would give greater protection and would not mean that the sole welfare ground would allow that parental consent to be dispensed with.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I, too, support the amendment. I recognise that the Government wish to speed up adoption. In many circumstances that is right, bearing in mind the ethos and press that the Bill takes forward.
    I began my career in social work under the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, which developed ideas and projects to prevent the breakdown of family life. It was the era of good social work support and financial intervention, ensuring good community intervention and housing for vulnerable families. In the late 1980s and 1990s, we saw the erosion of the support to local authorities. Many of those principles and programmes were lost.
    Not all birth families are appropriate for the placement of children. I have spent most of my life dealing with child protection and family violence and abuse. Where possible, we should make every effort to ensure that the families have had support. I hope that the amendments put forward by the noble Earl would help that to happen.
    The Department of Health's consultation document about effective adoption support says very little about local support for groups of birth parents. As I have said before, if we are to keep this balance we have to remember that there are many women—certainly single mothers—who have said that if only they had had the support that seems to be available post-adoption under the present regime, they may have been able to provide a home for their child.
    I simply caution the Government in this. We must pay real attention to having checklists that provide for birth parents to be properly investigated. We must give them every opportunity. In the long run, the birth family will be able to give all that the child needs.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: On Amendment No. 76, would the wishes of the natural mother be over-ridden if she wanted her child to go to a specific family of her religion? Whatever the modern life is, some people feel very strongly about their religion. What would the noble Earl's amendment mean in that respect?
    Earl Howe: Nothing in my amendment over-rides Clause 1(5) or the provisions in Clause 1, which we all agree need to be the basis behind any adoption decisions.
    6.45 p.m.
    Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and pleased that he has received such reassuring support on this amendment. I was worried about the injuries he received with the last amendment, because we all know him to be a most splendid fellow.
    This debate will not generate as much passion, although there will be a different sort of passion. There are more technical arguments to be had here.
    I will deal with this in a little detail because it raises important questions. It is at the heart of the Bill. There can be nothing more serious than enabling a child to be removed from the parent and placed with another family.
    I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that we are not concerned with speed here. We are very much concerned that the right decision is made in terms of the rights of the birth parent and the rights of the child. Our intention is to strike a balance. I shall explain why we believe that our clause is right.
    The clause covers the definition of consent and the circumstances in which it may be dispensed with. In the context of adoption, we are talking about changing lifelong legal effects, which is why we need to be so certain. Therefore, we recognise that the appropriate test for dispensation is critical. It is very difficult.
    I pay tribute to the people in the stakeholders groups and in the Committee who have wrestled with these definitions and with the attempt to strengthen what they see as the problem of rights while maintaining the balance. We have wrestled over the past few years to get this right so we do recognise the sincerity of the concerns but we believe that the formulation already in the Bill is more appropriate and preferable.
    The broad principles have been alluded to by the noble Earl already. I refer to the founding principle set out in Clause 1 which commands all-party agreement and which underpins the Bill, as it does the Children Act; namely, that the child's welfare should be the paramount consideration and the deciding factor for courts and adoption agencies in coming to any decision relating to the adoption of a child. That is the great step forward that we are making in the Bill. At the same time we have given appropriate assurances that the views, interests and capabilities of parents and relatives are essential elements of that decision.
    The second principle that has shaped our approach is one of process. It is the need to set out in legislation a clear and broad framework for the courts themselves that indicates the test that needs to be met—in this case that the child's welfare requires parental consent to be dispensed with. The fundamental matter that they must address in coming to any decision to make that dispensation is the welfare checklist that is set out in Clause 1.
    CWH 264
    We do not want to make that framework overly prescriptive. We want to avoid reducing or fettering the court's discretion to consider and weigh up the detailed circumstances of each individual case that comes before it. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on Second Reading.
    Amendment No. 76 seeks to alter the provisions in Clause 51(1). As currently drafted, the clause provides that the court may only dispense with a parent or guardian's consent in two circumstances. The first is relatively simple. It is where the parent or the guardian cannot be found or is incapble of giving consent, perhaps because of a serious mental or physical illness. Perhaps I should say that we would certainly expect the courts to be satisfied in the first instance that reasonable steps appropriate to the situation would have been taken to find the parent or guardian. Last week in Committee we discussed in passing the sadness of babies found abandoned on the steps of Temple Church. In that situation I suspect that it would be difficult to find either the father or the mother, but there will be many situations where the process will be far easier.
    The second circumstance where parental consent may be dispensed with is where the child's welfare expressly requires consent to be dispensed with. I want to stress the term "requires". I have been concerned by what has been said this afternoon. Some concern has been expressed that this test in Clause 51(1) is a trivial one which will be easily met, that it is a simple welfare test and that it might indeed lead to adoptions being made against the parents' wishes in difficult or marginal cases.
    I want to reassure the Committee that we do not believe that that is the case. The court has to judge the child's welfare, which includes its mental, physical and emotional needs—a harsh set of criteria —not just its wishes and feelings. We are requiring the court to dispense with parental consent to adoption. That is not a judgment that can be taken lightly. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, nodding her head in agreement. It is not a decision that is taken lightly. It is not a test that would be met in marginal cases.
    That is the provision that will now apply in contested placement orders or adoption orders. It is linked to Clause 1 which puts the welfare of the child at the heart of the Bill. It is a different test from that currently set out in Section 16 of the 1976 Act and we believe that it is a better lest. Under current legislation the court may dispense with the consent of the parents where it considers that that consent is being withheld unreasonably. The court considers in such cases what a reasonable parent would do in the particular circumstances of that individual case. Case law has established in In Re W—in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was such a distinguished participant—and in subsequent judgments, that in determining what a reasonable parent's attitude would be the welfare of the child was a leading consideration. The parents become the focus of the decision but the welfare of the child is the critical factor. By making the welfare of the child paramount in the Bill we are again moving forward from this position. Ultimately, even in these

    CWH 265
    most difficult of contested cases, the paramountcy principle must hold and must be considered as the central overriding concern.
    Again I would stress that scrutiny is implied in the term "welfare" and in the checklist. This is not a vague notion of a general well-being; we are talking about range and complexity of needs. We have heard this afternoon in a previous debate of challenging, difficult, hard to place children with complex histories of abuse and trauma. Those needs have to be assessed against the test I have mentioned. It is clear that the consideration of the views, wishes, rights and interests of the parents, and their capacity to care for the child, as defined in Clause 1(4)(f)(ii), is a critical factor. We define that capacity as, for example, the relationship the child has with parents or relatives, the prospect of that continuing and the willingness and ability of parents or relatives to develop a secure environment in which the child can flourish.
    It is also worth remembering that the court is not limited to making a placement or an adoption order, it can make a variety of orders; it can make a residence order. I address the point raised about the finality of adoption and the difference between placement and adoption. Indeed, there is a significant difference between a placement order and a final adoption order. However, we are aiming at consistency across the two types of orders.
    When the court comes to judge whether the child is ready for adoption and whether to make an adoption order, there will be other considerations which the court will have to take into account. It is not just a matter of the list; the list is a starting point. There will be many other considerations which will be different from the considerations that are made under a placement order. We believe that that is properly left to the courts. As regards contested placement order or adoption order cases, we have not just provided in the welfare test for the criteria to be weighed up as fully as possible; there is also an extra safeguard.
    I come to another point raised by the noble Earl. He expressed concern about the application of the Human Rights Act. I reassure the Committee that we are entirely clear that the provisions of the Bill are consistent with the Human Rights Act and that the courts will have to apply the provisions of the Bill when it is enacted in the context of ECHR case law and obviously in relation to Article 8 which refers to respect for family and private life. Any interference in those rights must be necessary and proportional. To quote the case law on this, the leading case is Johanson v. Norway [1996] which makes it clear that
    "Deprivation of parental rights and access should only occur in exceptional circumstances and would be justified if motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests".
    Therefore, it is not a case of trivial criteria applying. That consideration will be observed by the court.
    I turn again to the amendment. The structure of the Bill provides an appropriate test for protecting the rights of parents but in a way which is consistent with the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. We do not
    CWH 266
    believe that the amendments we are considering would achieve that. Amendment No. 76 would alter subsection (1)(b) of Clause 51 so that instead of the courts being able to dispense with parental consent to adoption because the child's welfare required it, they could do so only if they concluded that adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding parental wishes.
    The two arguments that emerge from the logic of the provision is that, first, it will ensure that proper weight is given to parents' wishes and their rights in respect of the child, and, secondly, it will provide a clear threshold for dispensing with consent. I have addressed the first argument in the sense that I have identified three different ways in which the parents' rights are protected: first, the requirement argument; secondly, the fact that there is explicit protection of parental interests in Clause 1; and, thirdly, because the courts will have to observe European law and the Human Rights Act. Those safeguards are in place. The latter were recognised by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, when it gave evidence on this issue last March to the Select Committee.
    On the second argument, we come to the form of words which has been specifically chosen. We believe that those words carry the risk of cutting across the principle and the operation of paramountcy of a child's welfare. As I have said, we fully recognise the difficulty that has been addressed and the thought that has gone into finding a better form of words, in the view of the noble Earl. However, simply put. it is very difficult to be clear as to what.
    "so significantly better … to justify overriding the parent's wishes",
    actually means, and how it would work.
    To take what might be seen as a parallel, provision in Section 33 of the Children Act that applies to care orders provides a clear threshold. A care order cannot be made unless the court is satisfied that the child is at risk of "significant harm". Of course, that is the same threshold that applies to placement orders, because one cannot make a placement order unless the child can be seen to be at risk of significant harm, or already has a care order. However, the problem is that "significant harm" is a tangible concept but "significantly better" is not.
    "Significant harm" encompasses a body of evidence that provides parameters and definitions. It is defined in the Children Act as a starting point. The term "so significantly better" implies a relative judgment with the court invited to make a comparison between a hypothetical situation and not one judgment, but three. Is adoption itself better? Is it significantly better? Alternatively, is it so significantly better that it justifies overriding parental consent? We have to ask, better than what? On what basis is this judgment made? Are we talking about material grounds here, and about what can be offered to the child in terms of resources? Are we talking about emotional grounds? Moreover, when does "better" become "significantly better"? What is the scale of significance? What are the break points? What are the bench-marks?

    CWH 267
    I am also unclear about what it would add to the process itself. At the end of the day, the court would need to consider precisely the range of factors set out in the welfare checklist. There is no "better". That is established by the Children Act. It is expanded in the context of adoption, but it is the same tried-and-tested provision. None of that is defined for the court; there are no starting points. The danger is that it would be a subjective test with little guidance for the court. It is difficult to discern whether it could provide the kind of clear test that we want to see. I do not want to be pejorative to lawyers—it is too dangerous in this place — but I cannot imagine that it would do anything but generate a lot of profit and pleasure. It might even have the effect of raising the legal threshold. Indeed, it might actually make it even more difficult to place children for adoption.
    Our deep concern in the context of the Bill is that we believe this could put at risk the paramountcy principle. It would be difficult to hold the notion that the child's welfare is paramount while at the same time directing the court's attention to a potentially additional nebulous test. We have put a lot of thought into this matter. We feel that we have a better solution, which will protect the rights of parents, both explicitly and robustly, in a way that is consistent with what we want to see in this Bill for children. I cannot, therefore, support the proposed change. I am tempering my kind words to the noble Earl by saying that I cannot accept the change that he suggests to the clause.
    I turn to Amendment No. 77. The literal effect of this amendment would be to enable the court to dispense with the parents' consent for adoption; in other words, to make an adoption order even if the parents were opposed, provided that the courts were satisfied that the parents had received written information on the alternatives. That cannot have been the intention. It is possible that it is intended to highlight t he importance of proper counselling, which is something about which we are serious. I have a two-page briefing note in my file that outlines the process of counselling and support for parents. I believe that my noble friend alluded earlier to the fact that that is a very rigorous process.
    In addition, our National Adoption Standards make it clear that adoption agencies and local authorities should make every effort to ensure that birth parents have a full understanding of the process, and of the legal implications involved. Where adoption is considered for a child in care, we would expect the social services department in its work with the birth family to discuss all the implications. Again, we have talked about ways of raising performance and improvement in that area.
    The Schedule 2 report which, under current court rules, the local authority must complete for every adoption order, obliges the local authority to report to the court the results of its investigation into the case, including an account of the alternatives that have been considered. It is envisaged that the reports the adoption agencies will have to provide under Clause 42 and those that local authorities must provide under
    CWH 268
    Clause 43, will also cover this point. So the courts can be secure in the knowledge that the alternatives to adoption have been considered.
    Finally, any consent to placement for adoption and to an adoption order must, of course, be witnessed by the CAFCASS officer, who, as we have discussed at other stages of the Bill in relation to placement, will have an obligation to ensure that the parents understand what they are agreeing to and the seriousness of the step, and must, as stated in Clause 99(1), report that to the court. I reiterate, therefore, that we are committed to ensure that all the alternatives are properly explored and that the parents are counselled and fully aware of the alternatives.
    Amendment No. 78 expands on the definition of "consent", as set out in subsection (5). I take the point robustly put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the amendment suggests that "consent" should be defined as,
    "consent given unconditionally without improper duress or inducement and with full understanding of what is involved".
    I sympathise with the intentions, but I suggest that the Bill already provides a clear definition. My first concern is with the words "improper inducement". I believe that they might even risk giving the impression that there was a concept of "proper inducement". We might think of it as unconditional, but the reference to "duress" risks confusing the picture.
    Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord. In law, duress, alongside mistake and fraud, is already one of the legal grounds on which consent can be vitiated, so it is not necessary to mention it explicitly. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee will understand why we do not believe it is a helpful addition to the Bill.
    It has been a very thoughtful debate. I am grateful that we have had this opportunity. Again, I seek the forgiveness of the Committee for having gone into such detail. But it is important to have that on the record, not least for stakeholders outside this House to know that we have addressed their concerns seriously and have thought hard about how we can deal with the balance of what the Bill attempts to do.
    7 p.m.
    Earl Howe: The noble Baroness need make no apology whatsoever for having given us such a clear and helpful reply. I should point out to her that that is the point of this Committee proceeding. Indeed, if it enables us all to understand what the Bill is saying, as well as the Government's intention, it may obviate the need to bring amendments back on Report. I do not promise anything at this stage because I wish to read the noble Baroness's comments carefully. I thank the Minister for her extremely helpful and illuminating response.
    I also congratulate the Minister on her secret weapon in the form of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose opinions and experience we all respect. I would never seek to belittle the force of existing case law. However, as I am sure my noble

    CWH 269
    friend will understand, my remarks were directed in the context of parallel considerations, particularly in the context of European law. I am delighted that the noble Baroness was able to cover that aspect so comprehensively. She suggested that the phrase "so significantly better" was too vague and too insubstantial to be inserted in the Bill. I shall have to think about that.
    I still believe that the test in relation to dispensing with parental consent, as proposed in the Bill, is somewhat broad. As it reads, it gives too little encouragement to consider alternative options. The point of tabling the amendment was to seek a way of inserting a clearly defined threshold to be crossed before parental consent can be dispensed with. The court needs to ask itself what are the needs of the child, what is the scale of potential advantage to the child of having a new family, and whether it is satisfied that the likely benefit of adoption is so significantly better when compared with other options as to justify the adoption order.
    The Minister suggested that this would give rise to a lawyers' field day. An alternative view might be that judges are there to judge and that that is their job. They do it all the time, they do it very well, and they do it on the strength of the evidence presented to them. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister again. It has been a very helpful debate. I beg leave, for the time being, to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
    Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 78ZA:
    Page 31, line 28, leave out "prescribed form" and insert "form prescribed by rules"
    The noble Baroness said: I shall move this short amendment very briefly. I am happy to move it as it has been beneficial in previous discussions. I think that it will be welcomed.
    The effect of the amendment is to make it clear that the form for withdrawing of consent to placement for adoption under Clause 18, or advanced consent to adoption, under Clause 19, is to be prescribed in court rules. At the moment, it just says "prescribed". It will be important that there is certainty as to when consent of placement or advanced consent to adoption has been withdrawn, because from that point the agency is under an obligation to return the child under Clauses 30 and 31. That is why Clause 51(8) provides that any such withdrawal needs to be given to the agency either using the prescribed form as set out in subsection (8)(a), or otherwise through a written notice as set out in Clause 51(8)(b). "Notice" is defined in Clause 139 as "notice in writing".
    In this amendment, we seek absolute clarity and the removal of any chance of confusion as to who is to prescribe the form for withdrawal of consent. As with the form of consent, the placement and advance consent to adoption, it will be prescribed in court rules by the Lord Chancellor. It will be important that
    CWH 270
    people are very clear about that and understand it. I hope that noble Lords will welcome the amendment on that basis. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 78A:
    Page 31, line 30, leave out subsection (9).
    The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 78A. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 78B. This again is a human rights issue relating to parental consent. The effect of Clause 51(9) and (10) is that the other parent, usually the father, is credited with a far-reaching previous decision to which he has not been a party, and is thereby excluded from opposing the adoption application under Clause 46(4), (5) and (7).
    I seriously question whether this is sustainable under the Human Rights Act. One situation which is not uncommon is for the father of the child to be identified late in care and adoption proceedings, for him to express a wish to be heard on issues relating to his child. His exclusion under these subsections seems to offend against natural justice. I beg to move.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I wish briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B. It is extraordinary that the consent of the other parent is presumed under subsection (10), in particular. It does seem, without putting it to the test, that this is something that could be challenged under human rights legislation. That is the reason for the deletion.
    I should be interested to hear how this provision can be justified. As the Minister has been extremely good so far in justifying a number of provisions in the Bill, I am sure that she is charged up for this particular amendment. The provision does seem to go against natural justice, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made plain.
    Baroness Andrews: The amendment is slightly complicated and my response will reflect that. Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B seek to remove the provisions in clause 51 that cover situations whereby a mother with parental responsibility has consented to a placement for adoption under Clause 18 and another parent subsequently acquires parental responsibility. It can happen in a variety of ways. The obvious way is when the unmarried father later marries the mother, but it can also happen when he obtains responsibility by agreement or through a court order under Section 4 of the Children Act.
    We are doing this essentially to ensure that there is more stability with the placement. To put it bluntly, that is what I understand to be our—genuine—reason for doing this. At the moment, subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 50 provide that in such situations the father will for the purposes of the adoptive placement be deemed to have given his consent under Clause 18, as has the mother. Having acquired parental responsibility, he also is free to withdraw his consent to the placement for adoption at any time until the prospective adopters apply to the court for an adoption order. He will he entitled to receive notice of

    CWH 271
    the final adoption hearing and seek leave to oppose the making of the adoption order. I believe that that will cover the human rights point which has been raised. He can oppose the adoption order, as can the mother.
    The amendment seeks to remove this provision. That is the effect of deleting subsections (9) and (10). The effect would be that, from the point at which the father acquires parental responsibility, legal authority for the placement for adoption will cease because he has not given consent in the first place under Clause 18. That is where the element of instability and discontinuity would occur.
    Such provision would cause severe problems. For example, the adoption agency might not necessarily be aware that the father had acquired parental responsibility; that might have been concealed from it by the mother. This can happen in a variety of circumstances. It might happen after consent to placement was given. The mother may decide not to keep in touch with the agency. A whole set of circumstances may surround children in care which makes it difficult to know what relationships continue between the mother and the father.
    The result would be that the agency could unknowingly proceed with a legally invalid placement. We can only imagine the destructive consequences. The whole arrangement could unravel if that came to light at a much later stage. It could come to light after an adoption order had been made under Clause 46(4), the order having been based on everyone's assumption that the consent to placement was valid.
    When the Committee debated the position of unmarried fathers earlier, I promised that agencies would be under a duty in regulations and guidance to seek out and properly involve unmarried fathers in the process of determining whether a child should be placed for adoption. That again addresses in a positive manner the human rights argument. Where agencies are aware of the unmarried father, they are already under a duty to do that under regulation 7.3 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 so far as is reasonably practicable. That will be extended.
    However, we cannot cater for every case, particularly when the unmarried father is not on the scene at the time of placement but returns later, has a view, and the agency is not made aware of that fact. In those circumstances, the best approach must be that currently taken in the Bill—to preserve the validity of the placement while giving the father full rights to withdraw consent at the stages which I have identified.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I understand the Minister's point that subsections (9) and (10) are there in order not to invalidate the placement. In retrospect it might be that the appropriate consent had not been given. Nevertheless, assuming the other parent has given deemed consent under this section, all the other aspects apply, so that the withdrawal of any presumed consent by that other parent is ineffective if given after an application for an adoption order is made under Clause 51(4). We are also back to the arguments about the court having to give consent if withdrawal of consent applies. We made those arguments when we
    CWH 272
    were talking about the reasons for a placement order. The situation would be cured much more effectively if placement orders were given in every case.
    Because the other parent who did not give consent but is now deemed to be giving consent under subsections (9) and (10) is dealt with in that way, the other two conditions apply in the same way that they apply to the original parent who gave consent. They cannot withdraw it except under those two conditions.
    7.15 p.m.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have a slightly different question. I think the Minister said that Clauses 9 and 10 say that the other parent was deemed to have given consent, and therefore, because of "in the same terms" in subsection (10), if he turned up later he was also able to withdraw his consent under the same terms as the first parent who had given her consent. Is that what that clause means? It is very difficult to work it through, but that is what I understood from her answer.
    Lord Clement-Jones: Just to amplify that, the same terms are hedged about with considerable restrictions under the terms of the legislation.
    Baroness Andrews: There are a number of issues here that collude in notions of change of circumstances and what either parent can do under the circumstances. This is very technical and I would prefer to write a reasoned reply that would take account of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
    Earl Howe: I am very grateful once again to the Minister. I particularly appreciate her offer to write. I think she understands that I am uncomfortable with the implication of these subsections. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the way in which he pinpointed the discomfort that we share. The subsections imply that once in the system a child becomes the property of the system. I know that is not the Government's intention, but in certain circumstances it could be the result.
    I believe the Minister referred to Clause 46(4), which says that it was possible for a parent or guardian to oppose the making of an adoption order. As I understand it, the parent or guardian has no absolute right; he may only seek leave to the court to do that. I am not sure whether that is sufficient protection. I understand her argument that the validity of the placement needs to be preserved, but between now and Report I need to consider whether the Bill provides the best way of approaching that objective. If possible, we need to look at other solutions. This has been a most helpful debate. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 78B not moved.]
    Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 52 agreed to.
    Clause 53 [Disclosing information during adoption process]:
    Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 79:
    Page 32, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "must"
    The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 79, which would make the provision of the necessary information about a child to prospective adopters obligatory rather than discretionary before they accept a match that the agency suggests. The extent of this problem was demonstrated by Local Authority Circular (98)20, which had to point out to local authorities that,
    "It is unacceptable for adoption agencies to withhold information about a child to the extent that the picture of a child provided to prospective adopters is so lacking in substance as to bear little relation to reality".
    If we are to promote stability for adopted children everything must be done to avoid unnecessary moves, including disrupted adoptions. Misinformation, or lack of information, is a factor in disruptions. Amending Clause 53 is an opportunity to strengthen the need for candour on the part of local authorities.
    If a prospective adopter is well informed, he or she can be well prepared. That preparation will make all the difference at a difficult and an emotional time. If prospective adopters are to be sensitive to the needs of a child, they must be given as much information as possible about those needs, be they learning or behavioural difficulties, physical disabilities, challenging psychological experiences from a past home environment, or the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, mentioned earlier.
    Clause 53 leaves "prescribed circumstance" and "prescribed information" to the regulations to define. The new National Adoption Standards state, in Chapter C2, No. 3, that,
    "agencies should give full information about the child in writing … adopters to sign to say they have received this information … [and that the] agency should have written guidelines on the information to be provided".
    However, the guidelines are not available in advance of the Bill. Therefore, we should like to see some safeguard on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
    Baroness Barker: I rise very briefly to make the case that this is not the customary argument held in Parliament between "may" and "must". This is something more than that, because it imposes a duty on adoption agencies to disclose information. The amendment has arisen because of past experience and practice. It is not isolated experience; it is representative of the experience that adoptive parents have had. The issue which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has raised is one that has come increasingly to prominence, particularly over the last 10 years or so. The nature of the children being adopted has changed dramatically and the importance of the history of particular children to adopters has become more important than it ever was previously.
    I hope the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the purpose behind the proposed insertion of this word on the face
    CWH 274
    of the Bill is to set an absolute mark against practice and culture within agencies, which has been mentioned previously as being a particular problem. It is not universally a problem but it may be a problem within particular agencies. The adoption standards, to which the noble Lord referred in his opening remarks, bear out the fact that the Government believe this to be best practice and hope to see it become prevalent practice. This is to make sure that the power exists to eradicate bad practice. That is why I believe this is slightly more than our usual knockabout "may" and "must" argument.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not disagree—subject to reading it in Hansard—with a word that either the noble Lord, Lord Astor, or the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, have said. I am sorry to have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that I am afraid I believe I can show her that it is a "may" or "must" issue and it is the kind of "may" or "must" issue with which I have been dealing in this House for nearly 20 years. For 14 of those years, I used to argue that the "may" should be turned into "shall", and for the past five years I have been arguing that it should not. So the Committee will hear the experience of five years rather than the experience of 14 years.
    I can give the assurance that is sought. The Government are committed to providing adopters with the information they will need in order to decide whether to adopt a child. We shall bring forward these regulations and we shall consult stakeholders in the adoption field, including groups representing adopters. We have not done so because the consultation has not yet taken place or, at any rate, is not complete. The Government tabled these amendments in Commons Committee precisely to ensure that we have the powers to bring forward regulations.
    The regulations will give the powers to ensure that there is full and appropriate information in three stages: first, when a link between a child and prospective adopters is suggested; secondly, when a match is being considered; and, thirdly, in preparation for the placement of the child. Therefore, I assure the Committee that that is not the problem.
    What is the problem about "may" and "shall"? We can bring forward the regulations, but Parliament is sovereign and we cannot be sure that the regulations will be acceptable to either this House or the other place. If the regulations were rejected and if we had the word "must" in, the Secretary of State would be given a duty that he could not fulfil. That is the only issue between "may" and "must", and that is why parliamentary counsel insist that we should say "may" and not "must". However, everything that has been said, with which I very much agree, is still true.
    Lord Astor of Hever: I welcome the Minister to Grand Committee. We look forward to more of his humour. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her support. I certainly agree that there have been many bad experiences of information not being given to prospective parents.

    CWH 275
    I am glad that the Minister agrees that it is vital that that proper information is provided and that the regulations will ensure that it is provided at the three stages he mentioned.
    We wish to consider this matter carefully. We have received strong advice from outside bodies that feel that the provision should be on the face of the Bill, but in the meantime we shall consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CWH 276
    Clause 53 agreed to.
    Clause 54 agreed to.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This is a convenient moment to adjourn our proceedings.
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of .Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 15th July at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past seven o'clock.

  UK-China Human Rights Dialogue
  UK-China Human Rights Dialogue
  Accidents Involving Police Cars
  Accidents Involving Police Cars
  Death of Paul Wright
  Death of Paul Wright
  Sex Industry: Immigration Act Powers
  Sex Industry: Immigration Act Powers
  Boeing 747 Wreckage
  Boeing 747 Wreckage
  Vehicle Registration Plates: EU Flag
  Vehicle Registration Plates: EU Flag
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Livestock Movement: Camelids
  Livestock Movement: Camelids
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Doncaster: Airport Station Proposal
  Doncaster: Airport Station Proposal
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer