Sitting of 16 July 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HSBC INVESTMENT BANKING BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 July.

  BARCLAYS GROUP REORGANISATION BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Wednesday 24 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Consultants' Contract
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed consultants' contract on their productivity; and if he will make a statement. [67264]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): May I say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in his place after the terrible and tragic events of the weekend? I am sure that all our thoughts are with him and all concerned.
    The framework agreement that we have reached with the British Medical Association will increase the time consultants spend on direct clinical care. There will be greater rewards for those consultants who contribute most to the national health service. In crude terms, the more they do, the more they will get, so contributing to increases in NHS productivity.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that, although there are many dedicated NHS consultants, the profession is notorious for its pursuit of self-interest and self-importance? What safeguards are in place to ensure that consultants deliver, and what will stop them pocketing the extra money and moving on seamlessly to their next demand?
    Mr. Milburn: A good start! I listen carefully to my hon. Friend in these and all other matters, but I have a slight difference of view with him on this issue. Most NHS consultants do a very good job of work for the NHS, and I should assure him that the new NHS consultants'
    138
    contract is, in essence, a something-for-something deal. Obviously NHS consultants will get more, and we are prepared to pay them more, providing they are prepared to do more for NHS patients.
    The deal that we have negotiated means, for example, that in future, NHS consultants' pay will be tied to their performance against their job plans. Their job plans are part of their contract of employment and, for the first time in the history of the NHS, that means that the NHS employer will be able to define when the NHS consultant works, and that includes getting an increase in direct clinical care for patients. The more consultants are prepared to do, the more rewards they will get.
    Mr. John Redwood: Is it not the case that the productivity of doctors in the hospital service will decline as shorter hours are introduced? Is it not also the case that costs will rise sharply as pay becomes more realistic? Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of how much of the extra money over the next three years will go in rising costs and lower productivity as shorter hours are introduced for all doctors?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not think that that is the case. In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware from the public service agreement that we published yesterday, we expect a 2 per cent. increase each year in both efficiency and quality in the NHS as we expand it. It is certainly true that there are problems with productivity, particularly if the NHS does not expand. However, it is expanding precisely because of the choices that the Labour Government have made.
    The choice that we have made is to put extra investment into our key public services, including the NHS. It is therefore incredible that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should stand up and argue about productivity, efficiency or investment when they are committed to cutting that investment.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: What other group of workers wield as much power as consultants? Their so-called trade unions, the royal colleges, dictate how many consultants can be trained each year, where they can be trained and which hospitals can carry out what operations. They decide how many hours consultants work for the NHS and they keep waiting lists high so that people fork out money to jump the queue that they have created. Will my right hon. Friend tackle this closed shop, which makes Bob Crow and the RMT look like a set of woolly liberals?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that that is what is known as a friendly question. As far as tackling the issue is concerned, my hon. Friend is aware of the terms of the framework agreement that we have reached with the BMA. Obviously that will now go out to consultation, and I presume that NHS consultants will have an opportunity to have a say on what they think about it. However, it will tackle many of the problems that he has outlined.
    On my hon. Friend's point about closed shops, no one in the NHS has a right to prevent patients from receiving the sort of services that they require. We must ensure that we get more doctors into the NHS and get more use of the doctors who work in the NHS. He is aware that the issue of private practice has been unresolved for many

    139
    years in the NHS, and the new consultants' contract of employment will resolve it once and for all by making it clear that the first call on their time and their first priority has got to be NHS patients.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the merit award system is one of the root causes for consultants developing the characteristics so beautifully described by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? What plans does he have for revising that system?
    Mr. Milburn: The merit, or distinction, award system needs to be reformed, and we are planning to do that, as the hon. Lady well knows. It is the next element of the reform programme and is under discussion. I want the merit awards to be precisely that: rewarding merit, especially those NHS consultants who do most for NHS patients. We trained them to do that and they are skilled experts. We have too few of them, but that will change. In the meantime, we need to ensure that we get more of their valuable time and skills for the benefit of more NHS patients.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If will make a statement on the provision of in-patient beds for mental health patients in urban areas. [67265]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Each mental health service user who is assessed as requiring a period of care away from their home should have timely access to an appropriate hospital bed or an alternative bed or place. In the NHS plan, we set down our commitment to create 500 extra secure beds and 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds. We have met this target.
    Mr. Lloyd: I hope my hon. Friend will tell the House that mental health, always the Cinderella of the health service, will have a fair share of the huge increase in spending on the health service, because that is vital. On a specific problem, the number of patients in Manchester—the figure is typical of urban areas—who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts now accounts for 50 per cent. of the beds occupied compared with only 20 per cent. 10 years ago. The problem is that patients have to queue up for in-patient beds. Unless we provide more beds to get the balance right, people will be given a bed only when they have reached crisis point. Beds need to be available earlier, when it is cheaper and better for the patients.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the priority previously afforded to mental health services. With the publication of the mental health national service framework and the NHS plan, the Government have made mental health one of the top three clinical priorities.
    My hon. Friend also outlines the problem that occurred because of the low priority given to mental health and, of course, the low investment in it, which meant that there was a reduction over many years in the number of acute beds available. The Government are determined to turn around the investment and to give mental health the priority it deserves. The Manchester mental health and social care
    140
    trust has received additional investment of £1.4 million from its commissioners this year, specifically to open 10 additional NHS beds and to strengthen community mental health provision with the implementation of a crisis resolution service in the city, which experience elsewhere suggests can lift pressure on acute beds. I agree that for too long there has been a lack of investment in, and commitment to, our mental health services. We are determined to put that right.
    Mr. Robert Key: A month ago on 18 June I raised with the Secretary of State the crisis in the Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership NHS trust. He said that it was all a matter of money. I wrote to the Minister on 29 April and she told me in a written answer that she would reply as soon as possible. Councillor Christine Reid, the Labour councillor who chairs that trust, has not replied to my correspondence. The matter is urgent. It is not party politics; it is process. In particular, it reflects a breakdown in the mental health system in south Wiltshire. If the Minister cannot answer, will she at least see me to explain why the trust has lost £60,000 for the alcohol and drug advisory service and how the Government expect the new trust to function with an initial deficit of £500,000?
    Jacqui Smith: I apologise if I have failed to respond to the hon. Gentleman's letter. I will ensure that he gets an answer. I have discussed issues to do with that trust with its chair and I am willing to discuss progress in his constituency with him. However, part of that discussion may well concern the difference in our approaches to investment in mental health services. The Government have made it clear that we are investing more in those services and will continue to do so; but the hon. Gentleman, and in particular his Front-Bench colleagues, have opposed that investment. That would have to be part of any conversation that we had about how to improve our mental health services.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to in-service provision for children who present with serious psychiatric problems? All too often, they are inappropriately placed either on general paediatric wards or in adult mental health provision; they need their own specialist services, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the provision of such in-service beds.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Mental health services for children and adolescents were perhaps treated even more poorly than adult services by the previous Government when it came to showing interest and making investment. The £105 million of investment in child and adolescent mental health services has begun to bring those services out of the shadows and enabled us to develop the specialist provision, including in-patient beds, for which my hon. Friend argues.
    My hon. Friend made an important point also about the inappropriate placement of young people in adult services. Sometimes that happens because local services have failed to plan the transition of responsibility from child and adolescent services to adult services. In the children's national service framework we will consider carefully how to take forward the work towards higher standards in child and adolescent mental health services.
    Sandra Gidley: According to recent guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the majority of studies show that the higher cost of purchasing atypical antipsychotics is more than offset by the reduction in in-patient stays. This morning, at a conference attended mainly by psychiatrists, more than two thirds of those present said that funding was a barrier to prescribing atypicals. How will the Minister ensure that adequate funding is provided to increase their prescription?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady rightly points out, as do the NICE guidelines, the potential benefits for the service as a whole and for individuals of being able to prescribe atypical antipsychotics in the appropriate circumstances. It was to secure those benefits that we set up NICE to develop such guidelines and to involve users, which is another important way in which we develop our services. We are investing in our mental health services, and we have earmarked extra investment for service delivery and the development of new services.
    Sandra Gidley indicated dissent.
    Jacqui Smith: For Liberal Democrats the investment is never enough. The difference between sitting on the Opposition Benches and sitting on these Benches is that we make the decisions, we provide the investment and we set the priorities. We said that mental health was a priority; that is making a difference at a local level and I am confident that it will continue to do so.
    Glenda Jackson: Despite the excellent work that has already been done by the rough sleepers initiative, the condition of many mentally ill people in London is exacerbated by the fact that they are of no fixed abode. Given the peripatetic nature of their lives, it is not unusual for homeless people who are mentally ill to reach and pass the point of crisis and to find it impossible to gain any medical treatment. It is bad enough to be without a home, but surely to be denied access to the NHS is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend please consult the Mayor's health commission to examine the additional needs for such services on a much broader than borough-by-borough basis?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the needs of the homeless. As we develop our mental health policies—in particular, the new community teams which, in parts of London, have been able to reach out to people in the community, even people without homes who have previously been unable to access services or have not be able to access those services early enough—I am happy to talk to anyone to make sure that they deliver improvements for the most vulnerable people cited by my hon. Friend.

    NHS Dentists
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement about the number of people registered with NHS dentists in Gloucestershire. [67266]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): One hundred and twenty-one thousand adults and 78,000 children were registered with
    142
    a general dental services dentist in the former Gloucestershire health authority area on 31 May 2002. Thanks to the extra investment that the Government are making available, we are continuing to take measures to improve access to NHS dentistry in Gloucestershire. A new dental access centre in Gloucester, including a satellite clinic in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, has already treated 14,000 patients in the 12 months to May of this year. I am glad that funding has now been made available for a second dental access centre in the county.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his considered response. He will be aware, however, that the number of people treated by NHS dentists in Gloucestershire has fallen in the past six years. I am not seeking to make a political point, as the issue is too serious for pensioners and the many other people who cannot afford dentists to make it political. Does the Minister see the future as one of private provision, or will the Government be able to ensure that there are sufficient NHS dentists for people in Gloucestershire who need that treatment?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman was wise not to try to make a party political point. He will not mind my pointing out that he is in a slightly difficult position, because the Government whom he supported presided over a major contraction in access to NHS dentistry. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends are now opposed to the extra investment that will put that right. He asked specifically whether we see the future as being one of private practice. The answer is clearly no—that is the policy adopted by him and his right hon. Friends.
    Dr. Evan Harris: I do not want to disturb the unity of the Labour and Conservative parties, but the Minister will be aware that the number of people registered with a dentist in Gloucestershire has fallen from 44 per cent. to 36 per cent. under his Government, whereas under the Tories, the national figure did not fall by much more than 3 per cent—from 59 per cent. in 1992 to 54 per cent. in 1997. English coverage is now only 47 per cent. How, without more registrations, can holistic, preventive care be given to people with dental problems, rather than the emergency treatment-only provision which is the Government's one-club strategy?
    Mr. Hutton: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman failed to paint an accurate picture of what is happening. He likes facts and figures, so he will be interested to know that 1 million more courses of NHS-funded dental treatment are provided now than in 1997, and that nearly 2,000 more NHS dentists are providing services to NHS patients. I am not saying for a second that all the problems have been solved—clearly, they have not—but we are getting the investment in and easing the problems that we inherited. To continue doing so, we shall carry on making investment available and I hope that we have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends for doing so.

    NHS Direct
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on the cost to the NHS of an average call to NHS Direct. [67267]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The average cost of a call to NHS Direct in 2001 to 2002 was about £17.92, although that is expected to fall significantly in the future as call volumes rise. The National Audit Office has found that half of callers are directed to forms of care that they would not have chosen, which tends to be care of a lower level and with a lower cost of intervention.
    Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend may have seen press speculation that the cost of calling NHS Direct is higher than the cost of going to an NHS GP. However, the people who are raising those issues are missing the point. Is it not true that NHS Direct is expanding access, improving the service to patients and making sure that they get the right care? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will be looking not only at extending NHS Direct but at using other forms of new technology to make sure that we are always at the cutting edge of innovation around the world? In particular, will he look at the experiments in broadband technology which might assist the NHS in many different ways?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is exactly right. NHS Direct is probably the best example in recent times of the use of information technology in Government. Yes, costs are higher than those of seeing a GP, but one would expect that with a new service. Costs are expected to fall over time. The important thing about NHS Direct is that satisfaction levels are between 90 and 97 per cent. One would have to look hard to find similar levels in private life, so to speak, and in other areas. Certainly, we will continue to look at ways of extending and expanding NHS Direct over the years ahead.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister tell the House the number of house calls that GPs have made, particularly to the elderly infirm, since NHS Direct was introduced? Can he give me an assurance that NHS Direct will never ever become a substitute for house calls to the elderly and to those with particularly serious conditions?
    Mr. Lammy: No, it will not. I will write to the hon. Lady with the details in due course. The important thing is choice, diversity and access. NHS Direct, alongside GPs, increased use of paramedics, and reform in accident and emergency services, will bring about a reformed service. That is what we are working towards.
    Andy Burnham: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a pilot seen by the Select Committee on Health at the West Yorkshire NHS Direct centre, where patients with chronic conditions are supplied with self-testing equipment and transmit data daily to the NHS Direct call centre, where the data are examined so that potential problems can be spotted? That service could have great benefit in an area such as mine, where there are high levels of chronic illness caused by industrial injury. If rolled out nationally, the service could unlock the full potential of NHS Direct.
    Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House. It is excellent practice and is an expansion of NHS Direct. By 2004, hopefully, people will be able to ring up the NHS Direct
    144
    number and make 999 calls from home without complication. We hope to extend the service for people with chronic illnesses to diabetes and asthma. NHS Direct can continue to support the ambulance service and help to reduce waiting times in A and E.
    Tim Loughton: Given the current delays with NHS Direct, there is obviously much work to be done before emergency calls can be routed by it. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on nurse vacancy levels in hospitals caused by the large number of experienced nurses who have transferred to NHS Direct from those hospitals—about 900 out of 1,150? Why, with all the cost—£110 million in the current year—does one in five callers still have to wait for 30 minutes to get a response from NHS Direct, and why is there precious little evidence of success in taking pressure off GPs, who cost half as much?
    Mr. Lammy: The numbers are coming down. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of two important facts. First, NHS Direct employs about 1,500 nurses out of a work force of about 350,000, so he is speaking of a very small number. He should also be aware that many of those nurses are disabled or work injured; many of them work part time; many of them work for NHS Direct and in other parts of the NHS.
    Secondly, when the hon. Gentleman cites figures for call waiting times, he should be aware that the National Audit Office found that people were being called back within 20 minutes, and 82 per cent. of people were receiving calls within 30 minutes. Those numbers are improving all the time.
    Jeff Ennis: As the Minister will be aware, there is no 24-hour carers' helpline, so NHS Direct doubles up as that service. Are we monitoring how many carers are using NHS Direct; if not, does the Minister agree that we should?
    Mr. Lammy: More than 11 million people have used NHS Direct since it came into being, and more than 110,000 will use it this week alone. Two to 3 per cent. of those people become aware of the severity of their complaints through having rung NHS Direct, so it is saving lives. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important, as the service expands, to examine ever more closely the profile of the people who call it, and to ensure that it is better integrated into the NHS as a whole. It represents the best example of the introduction of information technology in the NHS, and compares well with the failed Child Support Agency that Conservative Members introduced when they were in government.

    Cancer Research
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase resources going to cancer research. [67268]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In 2000–01, we invested £190 million in cancer research. By 2003, we will be investing an additional £20 million each year in the cancer research network and an extra £4 million in prostate cancer research. That new funding means that for the first

    145
    time, Government—through the Department of Health, the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils—will match the current investment of the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Bellingham: I welcome the Minister's announcement of that investment. I was recently contacted by a constituent of mine, Robert Blunden, whose wife tragically died of cancer last year after a very long illness. Is the Minister aware that the oncologist who treated Mrs. Blunden, and 27 other cancer specialists, recently wrote to the press deploring the fact that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence had refused to permit the use of two new cancer drugs, despite the fact that there is no oncologist on the appraisal committee? We will never know whether those two drugs could have saved Mrs. Blunden's life or helped to alleviate her pain. However, given the Minister's and the Secretary of State's huge commitment to cancer care, does not she agree that there should be a cancer specialist on the appraisal committee; and why is she trusting her political judgment rather than the expertise of 27 specialists?
    Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman really understood how NICE works he would know that the NICE body includes a range of specialists, but not a representative from every single disease specialty. Members of NICE go out to consult clinicians working on the ground, health professionals and patients groups, exactly as they did in the case of those vital cancer drugs. They consulted all those bodies before they reached their decisions.
    As a result of the Government's introduction of NICE, some 31,000 patients are benefiting from cancer drugs who would not have benefited before. That is a symbol of the Government's investment and of our determination to ensure that there is not a postcode lottery in access to such drugs. It is right that clinicians are involved.
    On the case that the hon. Gentleman highlighted, he has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State giving him full information about all the oncologists and leading clinicians who were involved in the decision, and he knows full well that there was a deep and proper clinical examination.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the key agencies for helping cancer research and caring for cancer patients is the hospice movement? Does she recognise that the hospice movement, including the children's hospice movement, faces a serious problem as regards resources, which are required immediately? Will she do all she can to ensure that those services can continue?
    Ms Blears: I am very aware of the excellent work that is done by the hospice movement and by children's hospices. We have made a commitment that, by 2004, an extra £50 million will be spent on specialist palliative care. We are world leaders in palliative care, mainly because of the excellent work that is done by the hospice movement. I know that concerns have been expressed about that money getting through to the front line, and I am looking forward to attending the all-party group on hospices tomorrow and having a good discussion with hon. Members in that forum. I can tell my hon. Friend
    146
    that we can make the extra investment because we have made this vital area of palliative care a top priority for the Government.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Earlier this year, Professor Gordon McVie, the director of the Cancer Research Campaign, expressed his concern that the £570 million earmarked under the NHS cancer plan was running into the sand. What guarantee can the Minister give that the funds that she has just described will not similarly run into the sand?
    Ms Blears: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have decided to make cancer a top priority. In 2001–02, we put in an extra £280 million; we shall put in an extra £407 million this year, and an extra £570 million next year. Part of those funds was centrally allocated to ensure that they would be directed to specific issues, but a large part of the extra money was put into baselines, so that people at local level could decide—quite properly, under the shift in the balance of power—where they needed to spend the money to make improvements in the cancer plan.
    I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are on track to achieve the shorter waiting times, the investment in equipment, and the appointment of the extra 800 consultants set out in the cancer plan. All those outcomes are being achieved. It is clear that the extra money devoted by the Government to cancer care is delivering real returns for patients who need high-quality care. He needs to be aware that some courageous decisions must be taken about improving investment in the NHS to improve cancer services for patients, and that his party is not prepared to take them.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the Minister's comments on extra funding for palliative care. She may be aware of Derian House, and of St. Catherine's hospice, in Chorley—one a children's hospice, and the other a hospice for adults. They are experiencing severe problems in raising funds from the area and ensuring that the two hospices remain sustainable. I hope that she will give them some secure funding to ensure that both can continue to exist.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right to raise the excellent example of children's hospice care in his constituency. Children's hospices provide a relatively new form of care. Funding under the new opportunities scheme for those services is now open for bids, particularly from children's hospices, and I am sure that his local hospices will be preparing submissions to it. We have also increased carers grants and provision for respite care to provide breaks for families. The significant thing about children's hospice care is that it provides not only terminal care but respite care to enable children and the rest of their families—including their brothers and sisters—to have a break from what can be extremely trying circumstances.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind the hon. Lady of the unsurpassed work of the Gray cancer institute at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency? May I urge her to get the Secretary of State to reply to the letters that he has received from Professor Wardman, the director of the institute, who is, rightly,

    147
    deeply concerned that the hospital's cancer centre might move away from Mount Vernon and thereby prejudice the close co-operation that exists between researchers at the Gray cancer institute and those who work at the cancer centre? Will the Minister address those serious problems, which concern my constituents and the many thousands who are admirably served by the cancer centre at Mount Vernon?
    Ms Blears: I cannot comment on the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I shall certainly look into replying to the correspondence to which he referred. I would say, however, that the Government have set up translational cancer centres, which address exactly the issue that he raised: how we translate scientific research into clinical research that can make a difference to patients. We have now set up eight centres of excellence that are involved in the national translational cancer research network—NTRAC—process. They are bringing the benefits of scientific research to the clinical trials that matter for patients. It is because the Government have set up the cancer research networks that we are now seeing the benefit of the investment in that vital research.

    Primary Care Trusts
    Laura Moffatt: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of newly formed primary care trusts. [67269]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Three hundred and three primary care trusts have been established and are now operational. The trusts will be accountable to the new strategic health authorities, which will assess their performance. In addition, the Commission for Health Improvement will undertake routine assessments in every NHS trust, strategic health authority and primary care trust.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our primary care trusts will be judged on how well they work with other organisations in the community to improve people's health and well-being? Does he welcome plans such as those of Crawley PCT to commission partnership posts jointly with social services and the local borough council, to get the very best out of the jobs and ensure that people understand that there is now a cohesive health system in our communities and that the power has gone back right to where it belongs, with our GPs?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I agree strongly. One of the key jobs of the new primary care trusts will be to bring about the closer integration between health and social care that my hon. Friend described. Most of our constituents see health and social care as one system, and they want them better integrated. We will do all that we can in the Department to encourage that. We have already changed the legislation and we are putting in the investment to ensure that we get that closer integration. I had the good fortune of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency recently and had the chance to discuss this and other developments with the leaders of her primary care trust. They are doing a brilliant job, and so is she.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to pay the same tribute to me.
    148
    I endorse what the hon. Lady said. I had a very good meeting last Friday with the chairman and chief executive of the new Mid Sussex primary care trust. What guidance does the Minister give PCTs for the Olympian decisions that they have to take on funding very worthy organisations that approach them for help in preventive health care, for example, such as Homestart? PCTs do not seem to have the money available, and perhaps the new injection of funds will improve that. What guidance is offered on the help that should go to admirable outside organisations that badly need the funds?
    Mr. Hutton: In his own way, the hon. Gentleman does do a brilliant job. He has a long association with Crawley, too, but let us not dwell on that. I agree with him strongly about the important role that primary care trusts will play—actively, we hope—in supporting voluntary organisations and helping to improve the delivery of front-line services. There may be some disagreement on this point. He and many others may make the argument for devolution to the front line, which is absolutely right, but then ask us to issue guidance on how the functions should be delivered. There is a balance to be struck. There are key responsibilities for primary care trusts on which it is perfectly appropriate for Ministers to issue guidance—commissioning and a range of other important services—but we trust PCTs to make the right decisions. Their resources are growing substantially, with a 10 per cent. cash increase this year alone. That will also benefit him and his constituents. We want to leave the PCTs free to make their own decisions.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Under the previous health authority, my constituency was one of the most underfunded in the entire country. Now that we have the Bolton primary care trust, and following the Chancellor's excellent announcement yesterday, will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that he will look again at the most underfunded areas in the country and bring them up to target faster than hitherto?
    Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing the funding formula and the method of allocating resources across the NHS. I hope that we will be able to make appropriate announcements on that in the near future. Many hon. Members of all parties have raised this important issue with me. We must set ourselves the important objective of improving the health of the poorest members of our community at the fastest possible rate. That is the challenge for this Labour Government. We welcome that, and we will take it on—in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which could not even bring itself to mention health inequalities in the 18 years for which it had the stewardship of the national health service.
    Dr. Liam Fox: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his comments, the sympathy expressed to the family of the road traffic accident victim, and for his support in the past few days. It is a pity that the friendship and courtesy that typifies the way we do business in this place most of the time is not the face that the public see.
    Yesterday, the Chancellor reiterated the Government's target of 48-hour access to general practitioners by 2004. To achieve that, the Government themselves said that they

    149
    had to recruit 4,000 extra GPs between 2000 and 2004, yet the net increase in 2000 across England and Wales was 18, and in 2001 it was also 18. How are PCTs supposed to reach that target by 2004?
    Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the progress that has been made in recruiting new GP registrars, for example, he will see that a substantial number of GPs—nearly 7,000—are in training. From that figure, I think that we can meet our target of recruiting a minimum of 2,000 GPs by 2004. Key to that aim is the investment that we are putting into the national health service. The hon. Gentleman expresses concern about the rate of progress in recruiting GPs, but I should point out in the politest way that I can that we will take him and his colleagues seriously when they are prepared to match the investment that we are putting in.
    Dr. Fox: Doctors should be recruited into general practice because it is a career that they want, not bought from a GP supermarket. In the past two quarters, there has been a huge increase in emergency admissions through accident and emergency, totalling almost 100,000 above trend. To what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute that increase, and what does it say about the current interaction between general practice and the acute sector, and particularly the burden on GPs?
    Mr. Hutton: We are investing significantly in improving our accident and emergency departments, but is it clear that the hon. Gentleman cannot match that investment. I remind him of what I said a moment ago about the number of GPs who are already entering GP training. That is the cohort from which we will meet our target of recruiting additional GPs for the national health service. Across the various areas that he has drawn attention to, we are making progress.
    I am glad that the British Medical Association has been able to announce the result of the ballot of GPs on the new general medical services contract. Some 75 per cent. of GPs consider that a sensible way to reform the GPs' contract. That will provide us with a sensible platform from which to continue to improve primary care services, particularly the relationship between primary care and accident and emergency departments.
    Dr. Fox: Those answers smack more than a little of complacency. PCTs have staff shortages, they have failed to reach their IT targets, they must repay their deficits this year, and thus they say that little or no money will be available for primary care development. They also have to shoulder the inappropriate role of public health, and on top of that, they are concerned about the Government's plans to push ahead with foundation hospitals. How will the relationship between PCTs and foundation hospitals differ from current relationships?
    Mr. Hutton: Basically, the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government's reform agenda for the national health service—our attempts to improve its efficiency, productivity and effectiveness. I repeat that we will take his concerns seriously when he can outline for us his reform agenda. Until he does so, most Government Members will be forced to reach the only rational conclusion: the bogus rhetoric of the Conservatives is a
    150
    smokescreen for what we all know will happen if we ever have the misfortune to experience a Tory Government again. It will be cuts, cuts and cuts again.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the primary care trust that serves Barnsley is the biggest in the country. Unfortunately, it started life in April 3 per cent. short of its funding target. That shortfall, which equates to about £6 million, has been compounded by a further £1.5 million debt, and by the shortage of GPs, which costs us money. Will he look again at Barnsley PCT's funding?
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). I am aware of the issue to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all Ministers in the Department of Health are fully committed to addressing it. However, it is worth pointing out that, despite the problems to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, Barnsley PCT received a very significant increase in its resources this year. Our challenge and responsibility is to keep that investment coming through, and I can confirm that that is what this Government will always do.

    Food Supplements
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future availability of food supplements and traditional herbal medicinal products to consumers. [67270]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Our intention is to ensure continuing availability of a wide range of food supplements and traditional herbal remedies, within the European legislative framework. We aim to achieve that by active participation in the work required to follow up the recent food supplements directive, and through the continuing negotiations on the proposed directives on traditional herbal medicinal products, and on the review of medicines legislation.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reply. The traditional herbal medicinal products directive threatens the availability of 70 per cent. of safe herbal products in the UK. The food supplements directive, to which the Minister referred, would ban 300 safe nutrients and many safe higher potency vitamins. I have considerable regard and affection for the Minister—[Interruption.] Will she listen to Consumers for Health Choice, the National Association of Health Stores and the Health Food Manufacturers Association? They speak positively and accurately for the industry and its many thousands of consumers.
    Ms Blears: I will take the matter more slowly, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to do the same. There are proper and genuine concerns in this regard, which the Government take very seriously. Just last week, Lord Hunt and I met representatives from the industry as a whole. We talked particularly about the traditional herbal medicines directive. Some industry representatives welcome the quality and safety standards being applied to manufacturing, but people from the health food sector are

    151
    worried about some of the products. We have extended the consultation period to the end of July, and are looking for areas of over-regulation or for instances of items that might be excluded.
    We intend to continue the debate. It is important that people have access to the widest range of products, but that must be balanced by measures to protect public health and safety. It is a matter of getting that balance absolutely right.
    Mr. Mark Todd: May I commend the Government's increasingly measured approach on this matter? Some hon. Members were critical of the haste with which the Government supported proposed European regulation in this area. I remind my hon. Friend of the important prize at the end of the process—a single European framework for the consumption of these products. That will be valuable to companies such as Peter Black and Surepharm in my constituency.
    Ms Blears: Yes. I am conscious that the regulations have been welcomed in some respects because, if they provide a more secure regulatory framework, products such as herbal medicines will gain more respect in the market place and consumers will be able to rely on their quality. We must not take our eye off the ball: there is a prize to be won at the end, and that is getting the best deal for manufacturers and consumers, while at the same time protecting public health and safety. We are determined to be very active in the negotiations to achieve that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will recall that, when we debated this matter in European Standing Committee C, I queried the directive's loose wording. The Minister assured the Committee that no legal foodstuff products would be barred as a result of the directive. However, Lord Hunt admitted on 27 June that several products would be excluded. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the statement that she made to the Committee before it divided on the matter?
    Ms Blears: Yes. I told the Committee that certain combination products were unlawful at present, and would remain so after the directive was implemented. The directive itself will not make those products unlawful. Some of those combination products are not covered by regulation, and we are looking at that. The hon. Gentleman is right that some ingredients are not on the permitted list, but that is a separate matter. The Government are pressing to get as many dossiers as possible approved for food supplements and traditional herbal medicines so that the list of permitted ingredients can be extended. I repeat, however, that some combination products are illegal now and will remain so after the implementation of the directive. That will not be a result of the directive, but we must be conscious of the need for a regulatory home for those products.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for her answers so far. As a Member of the European Scrutiny Committee that referred the matter for debate in the Standing Committee, may I point out that some of us still have concerns that it should not be dealt with at European level? Questions of subsidiarity and where we deal with such matters are for debate in the
    152
    Convention on the Future of Europe. I hope that the Government of the United Kingdom will think seriously before allowing Europe to make decisions on matters that should really be between consumers and health authorities in the UK. The prime directive should be to give good advice and then to let the consumer decide what they want to use.
    Ms Blears: Again, that is about finding the correct balance. Matters relating to medicines are regulated at European level because there are pharmaceutical safety issues. We are talking not merely about herbal products but herbal medicines that have a physiological effect and thus fall within a regulatory framework. It is important to get the safety issues absolutely right. The matter is not one of unaccountable European decision making: the directive is subject to co-decision and consideration and has been subjected to scrutiny in the House. However, it is important to recognise that, in the case of medicines, the regulatory framework is extremely important for the safety of consumers.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Minister accept that there is considerable disquiet among users of these products about what is going on? Will she also accept that they can see no justification for interference in the exercise of their decision and their freedom to pick and choose? Will she give serious consideration to abandoning what is going on? Can she justify the Government persisting with something that is both unwanted and unpopular with the people most directly affected by their actions?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman must be careful; it is a matter of finding the right balance. I hope that he is aware of some of the ingredients of traditional medicines, such as aristolochia, which is found in some traditional Chinese medicines and has caused two cases of kidney failure in the UK. There is a question over kava kava which has caused three deaths abroad. There have also been interactions between St. John's wort and contraceptives where that medicine caused considerable harm.
    There are public safety and public health issues. Many manufacturers welcome measures for quality standards, to ensure that the right quality ingredients are used and that the processes are transparent and open to inspection. It is important that we engage actively in the matter; we cannot simply leave it to the market and individual choice.

    Suicides (Women)
    Sue Doughty: What his policy is on reducing the incidence of suicide among women. [67271]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We published the national suicide prevention strategy for England for public consultation on 26 April 2002. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to prevent suicide. The strategy describes key actions already taken, and proposes further actions to be taken, to help meet the target set out in the White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". In addition, the Department

    153
    is producing a strategy for women's mental health that will ensure that reformed mental health services meet the needs of women.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware that suicide is the main and rising cause of death among pregnant and perinatal women and new mothers? Different forms of suicide are occurring; there are many more violent methods and they are gender-specific. What is being done to increase awareness among health professionals of the risk to that particular group of women?
    Jacqui Smith: I think that the hon. Lady refers to information in the confidential inquiry into maternal
    154
    deaths. It is worth putting the deaths from suicide among that group of women into context: the report highlighted 28 deaths due to suicide in more than 2 million maternities. However, she is right—any suicide is serious. The confidential inquiry made several recommendations for the management of women who are at risk of serious mental illness following delivery. In May, the Department produced a supplement insert for the GP magazine PrimaryCare, which included the key issues from the inquiry, to help to raise awareness of the factors that can contribute to maternal deaths. We also produced a separate midwifery summary of the confidential inquiry, and the findings will of course feed into the development of the maternity module of the children's national service framework.

Education Spending
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that education is this Government's No. 1 priority. Since 1997, we have broken the cycle of underfunding in education, but we have done more than that: we have demonstrated that our policies of resources for reform work.
In 1997, we took the tough decision to focus our extra resources and reforms on early years and primary schools, because we knew that we had to get the basics right, and the results are there to see: more nursery places; 500 sure start areas; the biggest ever expansion in child care; and every primary teacher has been retrained in the teaching of literacy and numeracy. The result has been a huge leap in the performance of our 11-year-olds.
We also laid the foundations for raising standards in secondary schools. Again, where we committed resources for reform, we delivered results. The number of specialist schools increased from 181 in 1997, to 982 by September this year, and GCSE results are rising more swiftly in those schools. In our excellence in cities areas, results are increasing faster than elsewhere. Our record is one of investment and reform, and thousands of pupils and parents have benefited from it.
We know that it works, so it is now time to step up the pace of investment, matched by a step up in the pace of reform. In England, education spending will rise by an average of 6 per cent. a year over the next three years—a £12.8 billion increase. Total investment in my Department will be nearly £58 billion a year by 2005–06—more than £1,000 per pupil more in real terms than we inherited in 1997.
In the time available to me today, I cannot possibly do justice to every issue covered by my responsibilities as Secretary of State. I therefore intend to focus on the reform of secondary education, but when we have completed our consultation on our reform document for further education I will make further announcements. I can confirm that, subject to agreement to that reform, core unit funding in FE will increase by 1 per cent. per annum in real terms over each of the next three years.
In the autumn, we will publish a 10-year strategy for our universities, setting out how we will deliver the twin goals of excellence in teaching and research and widening access and participation. However, I can announce today that, as part of the Government's commitment to research excellence, we will substantially increase recurrent funding for research, raising the additional investment by more than £200 million by 2005–06. Alongside the investment in the science budget announced by the Chancellor yesterday, that will enable our research to be truly world class.
To carry on now to raise standards in our secondary schools, we need to make a decisive break with those parts of the existing comprehensive system that still hold us back. In saying that, I want to be clear about one thing: this is not a return to the old, failed two-tier system. The comprehensive principle was right and remains right. Every child is of equal worth. Ability is not determined by the family or background into which people are born,
156
and all children have a right to an education that meets their highest aspirations and helps them to achieve their individual potential. That is as true now as it has ever been.
Again, without doubt, the move to comprehensive education brought progress. It has given more people the qualifications for higher education and more children have gained good GCSEs. It has produced an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum for all children. It has delivered huge progress in the achievement of girls. It has brought more life chances to so many of our young people.
Progress at secondary level has not been fast enough, however, and no one can say that what we have now is as good as we want it to be. Too many pupils are still going backwards between the ages of 11 and 14. Pupil behaviour often deteriorates at secondary level. Half of our 16-year-olds still leave school without five good GCSEs. The UK still has one of the greatest class divides in education. Too many schools are failing or coasting along without being able to stretch all their pupils.
We have not, therefore, achieved all for which we hoped. We need to be bolder and change our secondary system if we are to deliver high standards for all our children. We need radical reform in four key areas: in school structures; in school leadership; in teaching and learning; and in the link between rights and responsibilities both within schools and between schools and the broader community.
First, I shall deal with reform of school structures. In the past, the comprehensive system has been too uniform. There have been insufficient incentives for schools to improve, and excellence has been isolated and has not been used to raise standards across the school system as a whole. We therefore need a secondary system that instead promotes specialism and diversity, in which every school is honest about its strengths and weaknesses and is given clear incentives to improve, and in which our best schools are rewarded for levering up standards in the rest.
The new secondary system must have schools that are, in some respects, the same as each other. High aspirations, a broad and balanced curriculum, good-quality teaching and leadership, fair admissions and clear routes of progression are essential for every school. Every school also needs to be different, however, which is why specialist schools are central to our school reform. Their specialism is in addition to the national curriculum and encourages them to develop their own ethos and mission. Let me be clear: our aim is that, over time, every school that can be and wants to be a specialist school will be able to be one. I can announce today that we will increase the number of specialist schools to 2,000 by 2006. That will mean more than half our secondary schools will be specialist within the next four years.
It is not just a question of specialist schools. We will create at least 33 new city academies by 2006, and new extended schools. Each school will have its own mission and its own strengths, all contributing to raising standards. We also need a ladder of achievement to make sure that every school has clear incentives to improve—a system in which every school knows where it stands, is challenged to raise its level, and is incentivised and supported when it does so. Rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach, we need to acknowledge the

157
truth that different schools are at different stages in school improvement and need different levels of challenge and support, freedoms and responsibilities.
On this ladder of improvement, weak and failing schools will be provided with extra resources, but those will be matched to tough improvement programmes. If schools do not improve, there will be quicker action to close them down, reopen them as academies, replace their leadership or enable them to be taken over by more successful schools. For coasting schools, there will be incentives to develop school improvement plans and work towards specialist status. For good schools, such as our specialist schools, training schools and extended schools, extra resources will be matched to the development of real centres of excellence in each school. For our best schools, there will be new resources and new freedom. but those will be matched to new responsibilities to improve the school system as a whole.
As a result of that ladder of improvement, a vital new principle for our new secondary system will be that, for the first time, we will use our best schools and head teachers to lever up standards in the rest. That is why we will encourage our best schools to expand. That is why we will promote our best schools to take over and run weak and failing schools. That is why we will provide incentives for our best schools to federate and improve standards in our weaker and coasting schools. That is why we will reward our best heads for taking on new roles as chief executives of clusters of schools.
Today, we are announcing that we will designate 300 advanced schools over the next four years. The schools will be charged with helping to lever up standards in our weaker schools and will have the resources to do so.
It is not only school structures, however, that we need to reform. Leadership is essential to the success of any school. We have already established the national college for school leadership as the world's first institution dedicated to identifying and training excellent leaders in our school system. The college will make sure that every new head is properly qualified, and that existing heads are properly supported and trained with access to mentors from outside education. The college will take on new roles in developing a new generation of transformational leaders.
We recognise that it is vital to secure the best possible leadership for the schools that face the toughest challenges. Next year we will introduce a leadership incentive grant to ensure that excellent leadership exists in our most challenged secondary schools. The grant—about £125,000 per school per year—will be paid to about 1,400 secondary schools in excellence in cities areas and excellence clusters, and to schools in challenging circumstances outside such areas. Where schools are well led, the grant will be paid directly with no strings attached; where leadership is weaker, heads and governors will need to agree a development plan with the directors of education in their local authorities. When necessary, and if it is in the best interests of a school and its pupils, the plan will include the replacement of the head teacher.
The third area needing reform is that of teaching and learning. The realisation of every child's potential is what all teachers want for their pupils and what all parents want for their children. Increasingly, the new specialist secondary school system will be able to tailor education to the needs of individual children; but that will require a
158
radical change in the way in which teachers use their expertise and their time, in their professional development and in how they use technology—in fact, in how they do their job.
We have already been discussing with the profession how we can bring about those changes: now we can back up the discussions with resources. The money that schools receive through the standard spending assessment will rise by 3.5 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. On top of that record sum, the Chancellor has announced a substantial increase in the schools standard grants, paid directly to schools. The grant will increase by £325 million in 2003–04, and by £375 million in each of the following two years. That means that from next year direct payments will rise by £50,000 a year to at least £165,000 for a typical secondary school in England. Direct payments to a typical primary school will rise by £10,000 to at least £50,000.
That money, together with the increased general funding, can be used at head teachers' discretion. Let me make it absolutely clear, however, that the extra schools standard grant is conditional on reform of the way in which schools work. It must be matched by a commitment across the schools sector to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school work force: more flexible, more diverse, and focused on raising standards.
We need commitment to new professional roles for teachers. We need commitment to new roles for school para-professionals, enabling them to take on new tasks in schools and to support teachers. We need commitment to an improved pay and performance management regime that rewards excellent teaching and eliminates poor teaching. In the autumn we will set out our more specific proposals, and the process for achieving the necessary agreement.
Finally, we must strengthen dramatically the link between rights and responsibilities. The new system needs to capture not only what schools can do for themselves, but how parents and the wider community can play their part. We must have zero tolerance of indiscipline in schools. Today I can announce a significant expansion of measures taken earlier this year to tackle poor behaviour and crack down on indiscipline. We have already seen the success of learning support units, on-site centres that can better deal with the small minority of pupils who cannot settle and who disrupt others in the classroom. As part of a national behaviour strategy to be launched in the autumn, we will provide learning support units for every school where they are needed. There will be more police on site at our toughest schools, if heads agree to that. Outside schools, truancy sweeps will be extended.
More broadly, however, I want to break down the walls and do more to help schools become a central part of their communities. We will therefore develop new extended schools that will provide a range of services, along with education, on the same site.
Moving to the new comprehensive ideal means higher standards, zero tolerance of bad behaviour and a greater choice of good schools for parents. The Government have made their choice. We have chosen to make education our No.1 priority, and we have backed that choice with sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, matched by reform involving unprecedented ambition. We have a proven model of reform; we have the best teachers ever

159
in our schools; we have the resources and the ambition to achieve the change. A world-class education system is what we aim for, and that is a prize well worth winning.
Mr. Damian Green: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance sight of her statement. I welcome the extension of city academies and learning support units—two Conservative ideas that deserve to flourish under this Government.
The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to help schools, but we already know that she is flexible in her use of language. We read in today's newspapers that she deliberately used different language when she negotiated with the Prime Minister from the language that she used with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before yesterday's statement. I commend her ingenuity but, unfortunately for her, the British people are less easily fooled.
Today, the right hon. Lady has talked the language of believing in the comprehensive principle. Last week, she told the Daily Mail that the comprehensive school was a "worn out vehicle". Could she tell the House which is her real view? Her Back Benchers need to know whether to believe what she says to them in the House or what she says to the Daily Mail. It is this gap between rhetoric and reality that haunts the statement she has just made. She uses words and phrases such as "radical reform", but the reality is that she is travelling ever further down the path of central direction, second-guessing from the centre and nitpicking interference in our schools.
Today's statement will not promote any improvement in what parents worry about. It will not help to solve the crisis in discipline that has seen 130 teachers seriously injured in violent incidents in schools in the past year. The measures that she has announced will not compensate for the Government's consistent undermining of the authority of head teachers—an undermining that some of her announcements today will simply make worse.
The statement will not help teachers to spend more time in the classroom teaching; indeed, it will hinder them. The Secretary of State already sends 4,500 pages of guidance and advice to every school every year. Has she estimated how much extra paperwork will be generated by the changes that she has announced today? This is not the real reform that our schools need.
The Secretary of State talks tough about closing schools that miss their targets. She wants to sack teachers who miss their targets, so let me ask her about her targets. What about truancy? In 1998, the Department set a target to cut truancy, and the target was strengthened in 2000. However, this year, the old target was scrapped and replaced with a new one that aims to achieve a reduction 70 per cent. less than the original target. Does she accept that that is an appalling example of double standards? If teachers miss a target, the teacher gets sacked; if Ministers miss a target, the target gets sacked.
The centrepiece of the statement is the introduction of new types of school. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the fact that schools will seek to jump through these new hoops to get the extra money will inevitably lead to a further increase in red tape? What has she got to say to the head teacher, Janet Smith from Lealands high school in Luton? [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers groan at
160
the mention of head teachers; they do not want to hear things from the real world of education. What has she got to say to—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the shadow spokesman to be heard.
Mr. Green: Labour Members never like to hear from head teachers, who know the truth of what is going on in schools. Janet Smith is quoted today as saying about the Chancellor's spending plans:
"It's always been tied up, attached to this initiative or that scheme. I need to be trusted to decide what my school needs."
Is she not exactly right?
What about the practicalities of the Secretary of State's proposals to lever up the best? Many good heads are good precisely because they concentrate on every detail of what happens in their schools. Her proposals would take the best heads out of the school and make them strategic chief executives of half the schools in the area. What evidence does she have that that is the best way to improve all those schools that she would not touch with a bargepole? People will worry that the proposal is a gimmick that will do more harm than good. It will especially concern parents who have children in the schools with the good heads that she is taking away.
What is the logic behind concentrating on 300 schools out of 25,000 to solve the crisis? Would not it be better to focus directly on the failing schools, addressing their problems, rather than concocting this half-baked mess, which heads will not welcome? After the 300 advanced schools, the next tier is the 1,400 schools that will receive the leadership incentive grant. Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that the distribution of the grant will not be manipulated for party political purposes in exactly the way that the distribution of grant to local education authorities will be?
For a statement that was billed as setting the course for education policy in this Parliament, there are several glaring gaps. There is nothing about reducing exam overload in secondary schools or slimming down the national curriculum. The Secretary of State accepts—indeed, she promotes—further delay in finding a policy for our universities, where morale is even lower than it is in the school sector among both students and teachers. Does she accept that her dithering over student funding, on which we were promised a decision early in the new year, has contributed to the collapse in morale? She said little about further education, where morale is even lower than it is in the universities. What has she done today to simplify the system in which colleges need to cope with 73 different funding streams? She said nothing about vocational education, which has been a key failure for generations of children in this country.
The statement is a sad waste of an opportunity by the Government. Instead of retreating from the path of dictating to our schools, they have chosen to go further down that route than ever before. When will they learn that micro-management from the centre is not the way to create world-class schools? The right hon. Lady talks about diversity, but it is an imposed diversity: "You can do what you want as long as the Secretary of State approves." That is a sham diversity.
I will disappoint Labour Members by saying that we are not in principle opposed to spending more on education. [Laughter.] Let me repeat that in case they did not hear

161
the shadow Chancellor say it yesterday: we are not in principle opposed to spending more on education. But money without real reform will be wasted, as it has been over the past few years. There is an alternative vision for our schools, which the Government have rejected. In that alternative vision, heads control the discipline policy, teachers concentrate on teaching, not form filling, and parents know that the school is concerned with their children's needs, not the latest gimmick from the Government. Sadly, the Government have rejected that vision and chosen the dead hand of central control. This is not reform; it is a recipe for continued crisis in our schools.
Estelle Morris: Quite honestly, one is left wondering: if the Conservatives are not opposed to spending money in principle, where were their principles during 18 years of Tory Governments? They certainly did not turn that principle into the reality of spending.
I listened in vain to hear whether the Tories support the extra money for schools and are in favour of the direct grant that will provide an extra £50,000 for secondaries and an extra £10,000 for primaries. I listened in vain to find out whether they support the leadership grant, without strings attached, to 1,400 secondary schools. I listened in vain to find out whether they approve of a ladder of improvement, whereby every school is incentivised to achieve at high levels. The truth is that not only do they have no policies, but they have stopped believing in investing in education.
The hon. Gentleman is bothered about the number of pages sent to schools, but I can think of five pages that we could not send to schools that appear in "Conservative Education: Breaking the Link", which was published last week. The document seems to have taken five pages to conclude that there is no clear correlation between spending and results. In principle, the party is not opposed to spending money; in practice, it does not actually spend it; and in reality, it does not believe that it brings about improvements in results. That is what we have got from the hon. Gentleman, and that is why after 18 years of performing according to those rules, he and his party are no longer trusted to run this country's education system.
I turn to a few of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He must listen carefully and understand a statement that says that the comprehensive principle is right in practice—the belief that every single child matters, that one's ability is not determined by family income and that every child has the right to the highest aspirations in a school system that is geared to meeting them. The hon. Gentleman repeated the view that comprehensive schools, as structured, do not sufficiently deliver that comprehensive principle, and they are a worn-out vehicle for doing so.
The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe in the principle. We believe that every child matters, that every school should deliver and that every child, not just a few, should have the right to an education that can deliver for them. That is the challenge that we take on and that is the nature of our higher ambitions and our aspirations. It is also why in 1997 we were right to turn our back on a school system that had failed too many people and delivered for a few, at the expense of too many children and their families, in too many communities.
162
We have made significant progress, but we are honest enough to admit that we have not made as much progress as we wanted to. If we are to have a vehicle that can deliver even more reform and higher standards, we must improve it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about money with strings and about head teachers not having flexibility. The 3.5 per cent. extra increase in SSA goes to schools with no strings attached, to spend as they wish to meet their development plan. The leadership grant for those schools that are well led, which will be the vast majority, goes to schools to spend as they wish with no strings attached, as is also the case with the schools standards grants. We are not only putting more money into schools, but devolving it to the front line and ensuring that those schools with good leadership can play the accountability system and spend the money as they see fit.
We will work with those schools that do not have the leadership in place and that are not as strong as they should be to raise standards and to guarantee to every parent that money going to those schools will also bring about reform and high standards. The hon. Gentleman is right—money without reform does not work. In our good schools, we will put in the money and they can handle the reform. In our under-performing schools, we will put in the money and the support, so that together we can deliver reform.
Mr. Phil Willis: We, too, are grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing us sight of the statement half an hour before we came to listen. It was worth coming just to hear the latest Tory U-turn on spending—that makes four this week.
This package has all the hallmarks of a Reader's Digest prize draw: people think that they have won until they examine the small print. Yesterday, we had a proud statement about extra grants to primary and secondary schools; today, we have the small print, which says that the grants are conditional on schools meeting certain criteria. Similarly, leadership grants were announced, but today we have the small print, which sets out criteria.
The Secretary of State must recognise that although she is right to say that simply putting money into schools will not resolve all their problems, managing every school from her office is not the way to improve matters.
To rely on a Government policy of naming, shaming, controlling and sacking hardly unites the profession or makes it want to raise standards.
Why is there nothing in the statement about the two crucial issues affecting schools? Yes, there is a little bit about discipline, but there is nothing about any new policy initiative to tackle the problems facing our schools. Let us talk about the other big issue: the number of teachers going into our schools. Evidence produced this week by the Teacher Training Agency showed that the number of mathematics teachers entering the profession was down by 30 per cent. and that of science teachers by 25 per cent. There was not a single new proposal in the statement to deal with those key issues.
On ideas about specialist schools, I apologise sincerely to the Secretary of State for saying that she was setting up a two-tier system, because today it is a three-tier system, or perhaps even a four-tier system. How will super-specialist schools, as they will now be called, be chosen and funded? How will we guarantee that the

163
children who need extra resources and would benefit from the initiative can get into those schools? Can the Secretary of State tell the House why, at the end of the Labour Government's second term, 40 per cent. of our secondary schools will not come into any of those categories and will receive fewer resources, presumably because they are the bog standard schools that Alastair Campbell has talked about?
Why is there nothing about further education in the statement, apart from a 1 per cent. increase in funding? Fourteen to 19-year-olds have been identified as a key sector, yet FE, we are told, will get a 1 per cent. increase—we have not been told what strings are attached. We welcome the universal expansion of education maintenance allowances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah!"] He pauses. How will those allowances be paid for? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that they will not be paid for by removing the universal access to child benefit, as the Chancellor wanted to do two years ago, or by raising tuition fees and interest on grants? Will she make sure that both those things do not happen?
Finally, the Cassells report recommended a 28 per cent. target for the increase in modern apprenticeships, and we are delighted that the Secretary of State included that in her statement. Will she make it clear to the House that that target will not simply mean a re-badging of other provisions, but will be a genuine target to get 28 per cent. of young people into modern apprenticeships by 2004? There is a great deal in the statement and we welcome the extra resources, but please do not tell everybody how to do their job.
Estelle Morris: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged and welcomed the increase in resources. We have spent many more pennies than his party has promised at successive general elections, and have delivered our pledge.
I shall deal with FE and HE, which were mentioned by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). We are always faced with difficult decisions. My Department has a wide range of responsibilities and deals with education from the cradle to the grave. I decided that the statement should be about secondary education, because I wanted to do it justice and have said all along that it was one of the main priorities of the spending assessment. So that there is no misunderstanding, let me say that the statement was not intended not to value further or higher education. We have decided to make a separate announcement on further education once we have completed consultation on the reform document that we launched some weeks ago, in recognition of the importance of that document.
However, I wanted to send a clear signal to people in further education that extra funding is available as part of the comprehensive spending review, which is why I made an announcement about the 1 per cent. annual increase in real funding now and did not hold it back until the autumn. That was a tough decision—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will do as he wishes, but I hope that the FE sector will not regard it as diminishing its responsibilities. Equally, with higher education, I decided, rightly or wrongly, that I wanted to look at long—term funding for higher education, student finances and ways in which to extend participation and
164
value research and excellence. To split it up would have been bitty. That is the decision that I took. Neither decision is meant to diminish the part that both play in our education system.
I want to go over two key points, but first I shall give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about modern apprenticeships. We were extremely grateful for the Cassells report. What has come out of that is a better modern apprenticeship than we had before. We are keen to promote and extend modern apprenticeships to encourage as many young and not-so-young people as possible to enter them. It is not our intention merely to badge something else to reach that target. In the months ahead, we shall say more about our ambitions for those who follow the vocational route. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I share at least the wish to improve that, and I hope that he will accept from me our commitment to improve modern apprenticeships and to retain the modern apprenticeship as a high-status vocational route.
The hon. Gentleman and I differ in two areas. He may not accept it, but if he looks at the grants that have been made available today, he will see that there are far fewer strings attached than in the Government's first term. I say that partly at my own expense. If he goes through the grants one by one, he will find that in the vast majority of cases, and in some cases at all times for some schools, the grant comes without strings attached.
I shall be clear about why I have made the two provisos. I see no point in putting extra money into a school that does not have a leadership that is geared up to spend it effectively. I shall defend that, otherwise at the end of my time in this post, people will say, "You put in the money, but you did not bring about the change." There is always a tension between giving the money to those who can spend it and letting them do it, and supporting those who cannot and making sure that they spend it effectively. I feel that we have got the balance right.
We might disagree on my decision to hold back some of the increase in the special grant until we get the work force agreement. The grant would not go out until next April anyway. I am hugely heartened by the approach of the trade unions and their representatives in the education service to the talks that we have been holding over the past few months. I have every confidence that we will come to an agreement, but make no mistake: I need to fund that work force reform, and that money has now been announced. I have no intention of letting it go to schools unless I am assured that it will bring about the biggest prize—a remodelled teaching work force.
On the advanced schools incentives for improvement, the hon. Gentleman says that there is no incentive for improvement, only strings, and he does not like advanced schools and specialist schools. He must accept that those are incentives for improvement. We are on a journey. I hope that in 10 years' time, we will have reached the point where every school that is able and wants it is a specialist school.
We must start somewhere, and at every opportunity that we have had as a Government, we have increased the number of specialist schools and we shall continue to do that. That is where the incentive for improvement is in the

165
system. It is not a two-tier system, because it holds out that hope and ambition for every single one of our secondary schools.
David Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on articulating so clearly the links between resources, reforms and results. There will be a warm welcome in North-West Leicestershire secondary schools—I am a governor of two: Ibstock community college and Ashby-de-la-Zouch grammar school—for the 3.5 per cent. increase in SSA funding year on year.
Will my right hon. Friend look closely at the review of the SSA formula? Three of the four options would leave Leicestershire worse off. The grant needs to bridge a gap of 6 or 7 per cent. relative to the average county and 13 per cent. relative to the most generously funded county. Will she make it clear to her colleagues in government that any review of the formula that leaves Leicestershire worse off will run entirely counter to the warmly welcomed statements that we heard yesterday and today?
Estelle Morris: I expect that my hon. Friend will make representations to the effect that the one option by which Leicestershire apparently does well is the one that he prefers. He is entirely within his rights to do that. The matter is out to consultation. If one makes the arguments about the SSA consultation document, one must make them about the formula, not about whether this area or that area is better or worse off. The formula must be fair. That is the key criterion. I understand my hon. Friend, and no doubt I would do the same on behalf of Birmingham, but the debate must be about the formula, as it is that which dictates the outcome. All that I would say is that the leadership grant and the increase in the schools standard grant are not weighted for any of the things for which the SSA formula is weighted. I remind my hon. Friend that, as ever under this Government, we are talking about a larger share of a larger cake. Under the previous Government it was always a larger share of a diminishing cake.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Following the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), can the Secretary of State, as a Birmingham Member, explain why every year in her patch all the children in secondary schools get in excess of £500 more per pupil than those in my patch? Under the proposed SSA formula, that situation will become even more extreme. Why is that?
Estelle Morris: I shall let the hon. Lady into a big secret. People in my patch got more money than people in her patch when the Tories were in power as well. That's life. The difference between the two Governments is that we are trying to do something about it, whereas the Conservative Government did nothing about it. [Interruption.] Let me give a word of warning. There is life beyond the SSA formula. I have been talking about a new structure of secondary education—a lot of new money going into schools, wherever they are and whatever the funding formula. I understand the importance of the SSA formula in areas such as Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Worcestershire. The consultation is
166
out, with four options for people to comment on. In due course, we shall receive their representations and arrive at a decision.
Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly stressed the lack of progress made by many children in the early years of secondary education. Can she assure me that the flexible staffing that she wants to encourage would facilitate the use of expertise from the top end of primary schools in the early years of secondary school? That could be beneficial to many children and make the transition easier.
Will she tell me whether she envisages that schools in the middle of constituencies such as mine will qualify for the leadership grant? They do not qualify under many of the other categories that she mentioned, but they are nevertheless in challenging circumstances—although the authority as a whole might not show up in many of the deprivation indices.
Estelle Morris: I entirely support my hon. Friend in saying to heads that they should consider the option of linking with primary schools and using year 6 teachers for year 7. I say that because when I visit schools that have done that, staff speak highly of the results that have been achieved. It is the schools' decision, but we want to encourage them to work in partnership. Before 1997, the atmosphere was not such that schools would share their resources and good ideas. That is one of the major changes in climate that we have helped to bring about since 1997. I thank schools for their generosity of spirit in increasingly being prepared to share their good work and good ideas with others.
On my hon. Friend's second question, some schools in extremely challenging circumstances are outside local authorities that measure up in terms of free school meals. That is a dilemma, and we want to target that group. Without giving assurances about particular schools in the middle of her constituency, I can say that we have made allowance for some schools outside excellence in cities areas to be included for a leadership grant.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome any extra money going directly without strings to schools in my area, and I welcome the idea of more specialist schools. Maiden Erlegh school in my area is developing as a centre of excellence in arts and St. Crispins school in Wokingham would like more Government support to develop in technology. Does the Secretary of State agree that in a secondary school it is important that a head teacher should have taught all the pupils in the school in at least one year in one subject, so that he or she knows the school better and is aware of the pupils' academic aptitudes?
Estelle Morris: I would not dare to be so prescriptive as to tell head teachers in which years they should teach. I have a genuine difference of opinion with the right hon. Gentleman about that, although I take his point seriously. If a school's governing body had decided what was right for the school in terms of a head teacher's background, of course I would value that opinion. I go to schools where the head teachers know the name of every pupil, and if they have taught in every year, of course that is a strength.

167
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that some governing bodies choose a different model of leadership and that they should have the freedom to follow that route.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we acknowledge the significantly excellent settlement for the science budget? Will the ministerial team also turn their minds, however, to the intractable and growing problem of the dependence on short-term contracts in both universities and scientific establishments? Scientists do not do their best work if they are for ever fussing, understandably, about their personal future in the short and medium terms.
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I know from my visits to universities and from people involved in research that part of the underfunding of recent decades has resulted in short-termism in relation to contracts. Some of the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday will go some way towards addressing that problem. We shall not be able to solve all the problems when the Department makes further announcements on the future of HE, because there is no magic wand to restore the funding that has been cut from universities over the past two decades, but I hope that we shall begin a journey of improvement towards increased sustained investment in our universities.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: According to the House of Commons Library, the increases in expenditure in England between 2002 and 2005–06 will be £12.8 billion—a 28.5 per cent. increase—whereas in Wales and Scotland, the increase will be £1.9 billion, a 21.6 per cent. rise. That is a 7 per cent. discrepancy. Will the right hon. Lady explain and justify that difference?
Estelle Morris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocation to Wales is worked out by means of some historic Barnett formula. That is the nature of the system, and the explanation as to why the amounts of money going to Wales may seem somewhat different from those allocated to England.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: May I say how delighted I am with the huge investment in education? It is great news. I have to say, however, that I am a little sceptical about the principle of so many specialist schools. I want to put to my right hon. Friend two questions that I am asked virtually every time I am in my constituency. Does she agree with the teachers who tell me that the amount of bureaucracy that they have to deal with really affects their work load, and consequently prevents them from raising standards? What do we intend to do about that? The second question relates to university lecturers, as my right hon. Friend would probably expect, as Durham university is in my constituency. When does she intend to ensure that university lecturers receive a substantial pay increase, bearing it in mind that they have dropped back by some 40 per cent. in the past few years?
Estelle Morris: I tend to think that teachers use the term "bureaucracy"—as do I—as shorthand for extra work, extra demand and extra pressures. That does not always involve paperwork, although I accept that there is a lot of paperwork in the system now. I have always
168
accepted that the Department has a responsibility to do better than we do, and constantly to strive to cut it back. Although we have put extra flexibility into the standards fund, we still have fairly complex reporting arrangements. That is why we have decided, only this week, to write to schools shortly to say that they will be required to report on expenditure from the standards fund only once a year. That will result in a sizeable cut in the amount of bureaucracy to which they are currently subjected. So, we must do better, but we do try, and we are doing better.
This is a huge and complex system. We want to invest money in reform and, because we have a responsibility to ensure that the money is spent well, we must have an accountability mechanism in place. I entirely accept, however, that we must do more to make that process leaner.
On university lecturers, we put extra resources into universities last year so that they could begin to reverse the trend of underfunding. For the first time, they saw an increase in their funding after the diminishing resources that they had received year after year. It will be up to the universities, but I hope that university lecturers' pay will benefit from the settlement that we have been able to award this year.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: While I understand where the money announced today will be spent, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Education Bill now going through Parliament contains provision for private companies limited by guarantee to provide educational services. Some of those companies will inevitably fail from time to time. Will she confirm definitively whether the taxpayer will be the ultimate guarantor in such arrangements, whether the companies will be indirectly guaranteed by the local education authority, or whether she will simply allow those companies to go to the wall?
Estelle Morris: There was a lengthy and very constructive debate on school companies during our consideration of the Lords amendments to the Education Bill yesterday. The assurance that the Minister for School Standards gave to the House was that schools wishing to set up such companies must obtain the LEA's permission. That will act as the safeguard. If we want to free up schools and encourage them to innovate, sometimes we have to allow them to have different structures in which to do so. I am on the side of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who on Report welcomed companies as an innovative way of raising standards and devolving responsibility to schools.
Ms Bridget Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend remember hearing the Opposition spokesperson say that we do not particularly like listening to heads? The head teacher whose pupil, Fiona White, is doing work experience with me, tells me that he has already targeted the extra investment going to his school. The head teacher to whom I spoke last week confirmed that she now has a full staff for the coming year. The head teacher to whom I spoke the week before was delighted with the money that has gone into the capital programme. If the Opposition spokesperson does not want the money going to schools in his constituency, there are plenty of head teachers in mine who would be prepared to take it off his hands.

169
While my right hon. Friend is transferring that money to Lewisham, will she explain more about the excellent idea of extended schools and the help that they will give to the poorer communities in constituencies such as mine?
Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking on a year 10 student, I suspect, for work experience. Probably more of us should do that, as it is very important.
I, too, have found that head teachers have very much welcomed the grant. I do not want to sound complacent, because I know that some heads face great challenges in recruiting for September, but the excellent school that I was at in Chelsea this morning had also recruited to full complement. We need to get a balance in our discussions and acknowledge that there is much that is good in our schools and much that has improved. Many heads and teachers truly value the resources that we have put in, and have spent them to good effect.
Extended schools will gain approval from all parties. Schools are sometimes the only place in the community that offers professional advice and support and has the space and equipment to serve people. It is wrong that they should be available only from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm. We plan to make them centres of their communities in urban and rural areas. I have heard ideas ranging from having a health centre on site to having the local post office there. I know that a local police station in the north-east has an outpost at a school. Schools are part of the community. Their core job is teaching pupils, but there is no reason why we cannot have joined-up services that go beyond education, and extended schools will be funded to do that.
Ann Winterton: I welcome the Secretary of State's emphasis on diversity in education. Will she give an undertaking to consider the particular circumstances of Sandbach school in my constituency, which I believe is unique in that it is an independent comprehensive school where all the pupils are paid for by the state? It wants to retain that status. Will she investigate whether we can resolve the problems that face it?
I welcome the extra expenditure on education, but what can the Secretary of State say to Cheshire parents about the share that they will get under the funding formula? Will they be worse off, or will they be considerably better off, and is it not time that the fair funding formula situation was resolved?
Estelle Morris: I am aware of Sandbach school, because it is an anomaly within the system. I think that the former Minister for School Standards visited it only earlier this year to have discussions with the head. Because I am not aware of the technicalities, may I resist answering the question from the Dispatch Box but promise to answer it in the near future?
Irrespective of the funding formula, Cheshire will get its extra share of the schools standard grant, which is not weighted, which is one of its benefits for areas that consider themselves underfunded through the formula. All the hon. Lady's schools will get an increase in revenue and capital, subject to our agreement on the release of the grant. It is well worth her looking at the consultation document, and I know she will, because she is an assiduous representative of her constituents on the matter of education, as I know from the many letters that I
170
receive. I look forward to hearing her representations. Formulae cannot be the answer to everyone's problems, but it is important for us to have a thorough debate and come to the best conclusion we can.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: Will my right hon. Friend explain exactly what she means by one-size-fits-all schools? Perhaps a list of them could be made available in the Library, because I have never come across one. How does she propose to prevent the specialist school system, as she envisages it, from becoming progressively two tier or three tier—or perhaps even four tier—and increasingly selective?
Estelle Morris: On the one-size-fits-all issue, of course, teachers always think that their school is special; they know the ways in which it differs from neighbouring schools. No one is saying that such differences do not exist, but as I have always said, the perception of comprehensive schools is that of sameness and uniformity. The differences that exist are not celebrated; they are not outwardly visible to parents and to those in the wider community. My point has always been that—as I made clear in the statement—schools do indeed have different strengths, but we do not make the most of them. We do not incentivise schools to use those strengths, and we do not reward them for developing them. In terms of the difference of opinion between us, part of squaring the circle is acknowledging that schools do have different strengths, but that the comprehensive system seems to flatten and hide them, rather than raising and cherishing them, and incentivising more schools to celebrate their differences.
On the two-tier system, it is always difficult to get from where we are to where we want to be, but my hon. Friend should bear it in mind that, over time, every school that wants to become, and is capable of becoming, a specialist school will be able to do so. It is in order to get to that point that we have made more resources available every year. If we did not change—if we were not brave enough to take that risk—our school system would not deliver what my hon. Friend and I want. I should also point out that the ability to select by aptitude is available not only to specialist schools but to any secondary school that feels that it has a specialism.
Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the quality of teaching accommodation is important? If that is the case, will she hazard a guess as to how many temporary demountable classrooms will be replaced at the end of four years? After five years of a Labour Government, there are more demountable classrooms in my constituency than there were in 1997. I suggest that she start with the St. Andrews infant and junior school, which has 11 demountable classrooms.
Estelle Morris: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for making representations about schools in his constituency—that is his responsibility and his right. However, I suspect that there are few—if any—Members of this House who cannot point to significant capital investment in schools in their constituencies, regardless of the political party that they represent. The figures show that £700 million was invested in capital in 1997, but by the end of this spending review that will have risen to £4.5 billion. Because we do not run such matters from the

171
centre, it is up to local education authorities to prioritise the schools that need repair. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to look particularly at the school that he mentions, I shall do so, but I suspect that his first port of call should be the local authority. That will explain why that school has not been prioritised in the past four years.
Ms Karen Buck: A few years ago, under a Conservative Government, half of all secondary schools in the Tory flagship council of Westminster were failing in terms of special measures or serious weaknesses; now, none are. That is a tribute to many people, but certainly to the strategy and investment of this Government.
The key factor for the majority of pupils is to be taught in schools with a mixed intake, but inner-London schools rarely have such an intake. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she is doing everything possible to direct the resources necessary towards meeting the needs of inner-London schools? In some cases, there is a 50 per cent. turnover between key stages, two thirds of all pupils receive free school dinners, and two thirds speak a language other than English. Indeed, up to 70 different languages are spoken in the home. Those schools need a mixed intake and additional resources. In welcoming the strategy and the resources outlined by my right hon. Friend, I ask her to guarantee that inner London will receive the attention that it deserves.
Estelle Morris: I take my hon. Friend's point about the difficulties caused by pupil mobility and by the presence of pupils with a range of challenges in one school. She will accept—as hon. Members from Staffordshire, Leicestershire and Worcestershire know already—that local authorities in inner London receive significantly more funding than those elsewhere. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for London schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)—and I have announced the beginning of a discussion on London strategy. We want to work with local authorities and London Members to raise standards.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and I do not disagree about mixed intakes. I do not think that they guarantee good schools. Good-quality leadership and teaching do that, and I do not believe that using Machiavellian tactics to ensure that a school's intake is mixed is a way of guaranteeing high standards. However, some schools' intakes mean that they need significant extra resources and support. We need new ways to solve old problems, and I look forward to talking about that in the next few years.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The shortfall in education funding has had a crippling effect on schools throughout the UK. I welcome the fact that the Government have made education their No. 1 priority. My colleagues and I in the Ulster Unionist party want every child to achieve his or her full potential. I welcome the measures being taken to eradicate poor behaviour and ill discipline in schools. I publicly thank Her Majesty's Government for the extra funding that has been made available to create additional pre-school places and to improve childcare provision, which we have always supported.
172
I am a former vice-principal of a secondary school that produces high achievers every year, and I am at present a trustee of my local grammar school. I have to challenge the Secretary of State's assertion that the comprehensive principle in education is right for the UK in general. I have much for which to thank Her Majesty's Government, since although I was not privileged to get the paper mill scholarship to the local grammar school in 1947, I did go to that school in 1948. I then managed to go to teacher training college between 1953 and 1957. I therefore believe that the system in Northern Ireland has kept doors open and afforded opportunities so that children can progress.
Are not the Government denying children's individual differences, rather than respecting them? Should we not encourage excellence by retaining the system that is in place in Northern Ireland, which provides the best opportunity for all our children?
Estelle Morris: That is clearly a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. My responsibility is to make clear my principles, and the foundation of the Government's policies in respect of their responsibilities in England and elsewhere. However, I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, on what is a tremendous and significant day for the most deprived areas in this country. However, does she agree that the real test is ensuring that specialist schools do not cream off the best teachers and the pupils who are most easiest to teach, with the result that non-specialist schools become the sink schools in our inner-city areas?
Will my right hon. Friend describe the mechanism that will put an end to the massive problem of teacher rotation? That problem—of better teachers moving on when they get the chance—particularly affects schools in inner-city areas. How will today's statement begin to stop that?
Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend about the real test with regard to specialist schools. However, those schools did not bring about a system in which some schools attract children with high prior attainment. That has always happened—there has always been a division between strong schools and weak schools. Some schools have found it easy to attract pupils while others have not. The challenge is to change that, and we see the specialist school as a means to that end. This is about trying to build a system with incentives for every school to improve.
In the city of Birmingham, where my constituency is located, many schools in the inner city have striven for specialist school status. They have a huge number of children on free school meals and who have special educational needs. I know that that is the same in my hon. Friend's constituency. Our measures act as an incentive not just for the schools serving affluent areas but for others as well. Is not the test of specialist schools that they are as open to schools that serve deprived areas as to those that do not? Secondly, it is important that we

173
structure them so that, with their strengths, they lever up performance elsewhere in the school system. On those two aspects, which are fundamental to our reform, I pledge that that is the case.
On my hon. Friend's second question, if we put in more support so that teachers are free to teach and to do their job, I think that that will keep children in school. If teachers have classroom assistants, bursars, administrative assistants, laptop computers and good school leaders, the children may love it. It is the paraphernalia around teaching the kids that gets in the way. I hope that much of what we have announced today will make those schools better places to work and to teach.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Paying direct grants to schools was a very imaginative proposal by the Government, and the fact that it was built on by the Chancellor yesterday is to be welcomed. Would the Secretary of State care to go one stage further in her quest for diversity and reintroduce grant-maintained schools?
Estelle Morris: The main difference is that the previous Conservative Government paid the grants only to some schools, whereas we are paying it to all schools.

Education Spending
  BILLS PRESENTED
    PRIME MINISTER (OFFICE, ROLE AND FUNCTIONS) (No. 2)
    Dr. Julian Lewis presented a Bill to define the office, role and functions of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury; to make arrangements for his appointment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 180].
    CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (PROHIBITION OF SALE) (No. 2)
    Dr. Julian Lewis presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered in criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 181].

Rape (Consent)
4.37 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to consent in the crime of rape so as to provide that consent shall require the free agreement of the parties involved, that the parties take reasonable steps to ensure that consent has been given, and that the giving of consent on one occasion shall lead to no presumption about the giving of consent on any further occasion; and for related purposes.
It is clear to anyone who has studied this subject that every year hundreds of rapists walk free from our courts. The victims are generally women, but a significant proportion of those in reported cases are men, and the conviction rate is only a tiny fraction of all rapes that occur. Only 10 per cent. of rapes are reported and, of those, 7 per cent. result in a conviction. So less than 1 per cent. of all rapists are punished for their crime. This abysmally low level of conviction means that we are failing the victims of rape.
These conviction rates and the low sentences often handed out discourage rape victims from bringing their attacker to court. Rape victims say that they felt that it was they, rather than the accused, who was on trial. Despite the progress made by the Government in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, many rape victims are still humiliated in court, particularly when irrelevant sexual history is paraded before the court. The 1999 Act set out to address these issues. As a result, rape victims can no longer be cross-examined by the accused. Victims can be screened from the accused or give evidence on a video link, thus minimising the potential for intimidation in court by the accused.
The 1999 Act also intended to limit sexual history being brought into cases. However, as women's organisations and I warned at the time, because the defence of an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent was left in law, many rapists have been able to walk free. Where the defence is that the accused believed that the victim consented, if the jury accept that he might, however irrationally and crazily, have believed that there was consent, they have to acquit. That defence of honest but unreasonable belief in consent also leaves a loophole for sexual history to be brought into court, since the safeguards to protect complainants in the 1999 Act do not apply to the defence of honest belief in consent.
It is well known at the criminal Bar that if claims about a woman's previous sexual history are brought up in court, the woman is likely to be humiliated and undermined and the calibre of her evidence is damaged. Canadian research shows that the jury's belief in the guilt of the accused diminishes in proportion to such claims, even if they are made up. We are expecting research to be published here on the sexual history protections that have been provided by sections 41 to 43 of the 1999 Act, but there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that protections have been undermined because the defence of belief in consent is run more often now to make use of the loophole.
The Government are aware that action is needed. Their sex offences review recommended a change in the law on consent in July 2000. It is abundantly clear that that is needed. The current definition of consent lets victims down. It is simply unacceptable in the 21st century that

175
defence counsels can say that a woman or man shouting, "No, no, no", should be disregarded and that, in fact, that person means "Yes." No means no. For that reason, we need to write into law that in cases where the victim is saying no, if the defendant is to use the defence of belief in consent, they have to be able to tell the jury what reasonable steps they took to ensure that there was free agreement to sex.
The Bill follows the model used in Canada—the system that was introduced there a decade ago. It would amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to define consent as involving free agreement between the people involved. Understood in that way, consent places a responsibility on people, where there is any doubt, to take reasonable steps to ensure that there is free agreement. If people having sex have not freely agreed to do so, that is rape, whether it is in the marital bed of 20 years, at a wild Saturday night party, or involves a prostitute being attacked in the street.
The Bill includes a non-exhaustive list of situations where free agreement could not be made. Those include: where a person submits or is unable to resist because of force or fear of force, or because of fear of serious harm to themselves or another person; where a person was asleep, unconscious or too affected by alcohol or drugs to give free agreement; where a person did not understand the nature of the act; or, where agreement is expressed by a third party, not the victim.
Some people have suggested that changing the law will lead to more false claims. There is no evidence for that. At present, the humiliation that so many rape victims have to go through makes it likely that there are fewer false claims in rape cases than in other cases. I am not denying that there might be false claims, but everything indicates that they will be so few that that should not be seen as a separate issue from claims associated with other sorts of criminal case.
We are all brought up with prejudices around sex. To counter those prejudices, the Bill also states that the judge on each and every rape case where it is relevant must direct members of the jury that they cannot assume that the complainant did freely agree just because they did not say anything, because they did not physically resist, because they were not physically injured or because on an earlier occasion they had consented to sex with the accused or another person.
On the latter point, people assume that consensual sex on one occasion can be used to indicate consent to sex on another, but that is the rapist's charter. Whether it is a husband, a gay lover, or someone met once before on a date, the fact that there has been consensual sex once or perhaps countless times before does not mean that there has been consent on the occasion when one partner forces themselves on the other.
No one is suggesting that if a husband is accused of raping his wife the fact that they have been married for 20 years should be concealed from the jury. Beyond that
176
fact, however, except in very rare cases, it is irrelevant how often or what type of sex they had. On the rare occasions when previous sexual history is relevant, the full protections of sections 41 to 43 of the 1999 Act must apply. Circumstances where sexual history might be relevant should be exceptionally rare, however. In general, the court needs to consider only the occasion on which the rape is alleged to have taken place.
It is time that we did more to protect the victims of rape. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Julia Drown, Vera Baird, Julie Morgan, Joyce Quin, Judy Mallaber, Ms Oona King, Harry Cohen, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Tom Cox, Margaret Moran, Ms Debra Shipley and Fiona Mactaggart.

Rape (Consent)
  RAPE (CONSENT)
  Ms Julia Drown accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to consent in the crime of rape so as to provide that consent shall require the free agreement of the parties involved, that the parties take reasonable steps to ensure that consent has been given, and that the giving of consent on one occasion shall lead to no presumption about the giving of consent on any further occasion; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 182].
  RAPE (CONSENT)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Mr. Iain Duncan Smith relating to the Peace Process in Northern Ireland shall, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(ii) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), be entered upon at Seven o'clock or when proceedings on Lords Amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill have been concluded, whichever is the later, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to it.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

    JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st January:

    JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)
      Consideration of Lords Amendments
      1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
      Subsequent stages
      2. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Orders of the Day

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 6 which is to be considered today. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
    Clause 3

      JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 1, at end insert:—
      "(6A) A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, after "he", insert
      "does not have recorded against him in Northern Ireland or elsewhere a criminal conviction for which he has received a sentence of imprisonment whether suspended or otherwise and".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 23.
      Lady Hermon: Amendment (a) relates to the new Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland which will have the hugely important task of appointing all future members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, with the limited exceptions of the Lord Chief Justice and the three lords justices of appeal. As I am sure Members already know, the commission will consist of a chairman and 12 members, five of whom will be lay members.
      According to Lords amendment No. 1:
      "A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
      With the greatest respect to those who proposed the amendment, it does not go far enough. For example, it does not specify the consequences of a breach of the declaration of the commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means.
      I invite the Minister to clarify the position, especially in respect of schedule 2, paragraph 2(4)(d), which provides that if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can agree to act jointly—a matter to which we shall return in due course—they may dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied, for example, that he is unfit to exercise his functions. Will the Minister clarify whether, if a lay member of the commission fails to honour their written declaration, it would render them unfit to remain a member?
      The Minister does not need to intervene now—he can reply to my question later. We are delighted to see him back with us in good form. We hope that he will be as generous as ever and accept some of our amendments, so that our work will not prove redundant.
      178
      The second reason why Lords amendment No. 1 is insufficient is that paragraph 2(4) of schedule 2 states:
      "The First and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied that…
      (d) he has been convicted of criminal offence".
      Of course that is written in the past tense. Under amendment (a), we are endeavouring to render people ineligible for appointment to the Judicial Appointments Commission from the very beginning, without waiting until there has been a criminal conviction. We want to say quite clearly that those with criminal convictions are simply ineligible for appointment to that hugely important body.
      As hon. Members will know, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, we have already excluded from membership of district policing partnerships those with recorded criminal convictions, irrespective of whether those convictions are suspended. Those with criminal convictions are excluded from being independent members of the DPPs, so it seems ludicrous that we may now allow those with criminal convictions to be eligible for the Judicial Appointments Commission. Amendment (a) is simply intended to tidy up those provisions and to take them a little further than they stand at present under Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: I shall briefly enter into this very difficult area—it is a legal minefield—and I do so with great trepidation, as I am probably the only lay person who will contribute to the debate today.
      I find no fault with Lords amendment No. 1, which is acceptable to the Social Democratic and Labour party. However, I wish to address amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1, moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party. Under amendment (a), a criminal record would be an additional debarment from participating in the process.
      I have one question to ask about human rights. If a person is justifiably convicted of a criminal offence, is the sentence of the court the totality of the punishment, or is an extension of that punishment a way to deprive a person of the totality of his or her human and civil rights, having served the sentence? That is not just a legal but a moral problem. I simply pose this question, to which perhaps the hon. Lady will reply: is a criminal conviction, even with a suspended sentence, for ever to be a debarment to a person's right to participate fully in society, having paid for his or her sins?
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: In speaking to this group of amendments and before returning to amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), may I say that, in outline, we welcome the way that things have progressed in the other place and generally accept and welcome the direction which the amendments have taken?
      Following the Grand Committee debate in the other place, the Government proposed Lords amendment No. 1. Indeed, that amendment was tabled in response to a suggestion from my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, so it would certainly be churlish of us to do anything other than thank the Government for proposing it. However, amendment (a) is almost identical to one proposed by my noble Friend and then withdrawn during those proceedings.

      179
      It is worth returning to one or two elements of the debate in the other place. I refer the House to the comments of my noble Friend Lord Mayhew, who made an extremely important point about the confidence that we seek to achieve. He said:
      "One cannot legislate for such confidence but one can legislate for certain criteria that will lead to confidence being enjoyed. Similarly, one can legislate for certain matters if one is misguided, which will ensure that confidence is withheld.
      If we included in Clause 1—perhaps along the lines of the amendment that we discussed at the start of our proceedings—a statement that persons who have criminal convictions, notwithstanding the fact that they may extend to sentences of more than six months' imprisonment, shall none the less be entitled to be members of this commission, that would be a fairly unattractive beginning to the Bill."
      He continued:
      "That is what one would hope the Government and anyone else with sense would have thought."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002: Vol. 636, c. CWH 27.]
      I agree with him.
      Although we welcome the fact that, in bringing forward amendments in the other place, the Government have taken matters further with Lords amendment No. 1, it would be churlish were the Opposition not extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady's amendment, as we had the idea in the first place. What I seek from the Government in relation to Lords amendment No. 1 and amendment (a) is further elucidation of exactly what the consequences will be if people are not prepared to sign up to Lords amendment No. 1.
      My noble Friend Lord Tebbit drew attention in the other place to the fact that, in some instances, words might mean nothing. In the circumstances in Northern Ireland, however, I would venture to disagree slightly with him. Words are important here. We are looking for leadership, particularly from those in the republican movement, in sustaining the peace process. To a large extent, we are looking for them to use the right words, which is why the development that has occurred today will be referred to by my hon. Friend in the debate that will follow on the peace process.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in these circumstances, a little help from the Government would be of much more value than a lot of sympathy?
      Mr. Blunt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In these circumstances, it would be infinitely better were the Government to come forward with proposals rather than the parties in Northern Ireland or the Opposition attempting to convince the Government of the merits of our case. What has happened in the other place, particularly in relation to Lords amendment No. 1, occurred through private discussion between the Government and the Opposition, which has enabled the Government to come forward with measures that are generally welcome to the Opposition. That is as it should be. That has characterised, to a large extent, the Minister's conduct in relation to this Bill, when that has been possible and when we have been able to discuss the matter in the House. Of course, a large chunk of the measures
      180
      have not been discussed in the House, so we will touch on them only briefly today in the light of the Lords amendments. I shall come back to that later.
      On Lords amendment No. 2, I am pleased that the debate that we had about the words "representative" and "reflective" has been reflected in the language that the Government have introduced. Again, Lords amendment No. 2 is a satisfactory solution. In the end, it emphasises that appointment to the judiciary must be on the basis of merit and merit alone, while making clear, in an improved way—compared with the Bill as it left this place the first time—that it is proper for the commission to have available to it candidates who are reflective, as far as is reasonably practicable, of the whole community in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Opposition therefore welcome Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
      Lady Hermon: Is there not now an inconsistency? One clause will state that lay members of the commission must be representative of the community in Northern Ireland, but Lords amendment No. 2, which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has welcomed, states that the commission must, as far as is practicable,
      "secure…a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland".
      How will it help to have the word "representative" in one clause and the word "reflective" in another?
      5 pm
      Mr. Blunt: As the hon. Lady knows, I think that "reflective" would have been better in the clause that she mentions. As she says, that would have been consistent. I seem to recall that the Liberal Democrats first proposed it in Committee, and I give them credit for that. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to accept the proposal.
      There was an interesting debate in the other place about the meaning of the terms "representative" and "reflective", which need not be repeated here. I still think that it would be better for the Bill to be consistent. I take on board the argument advanced in the other place that in a sense there is no real distinction between the two words in terms of meaning, apart from the fact that "representative" suggests a duty for people to represent their part of the community. That, however, is why I felt that "reflective" was a better word. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have the support of the Opposition, as does amendment (a).
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: I apologise for not rising earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am still learning the procedures.
      The Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment No. 1. We feel that to prevent someone from joining the commission because that person has been convicted of an offence is to fail to recognise that people can reform themselves and serve the community again. I was struck by what Lord Fitt said in the other place:
      "I stand here as a convict. In 1969, I took part in a Civil Rights demonstration in Derry and, later on, in Newry. Those Civil Rights

      181
      demonstrations were banned by the Northern Ireland Government. Anyone who took part in them was sentenced to a mandatory six months' imprisonment. I was part of it, so were John Hume"—
      the hon. Member for Foyle—
      "and Seamus Mallon"—
      the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—
      "and all the political figures who took part in the Civil Rights demonstrations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 26.]
      Those people did not go to jail, but that is not the point. The point is that, despite their convictions, they have clearly managed to make a tremendous contribution to their community. Who would deny that they are eminently fit to take part in any activity for which they were qualified?
      Like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I seized on the word "reflective" in Lords amendment No. 2, thinking that we had won a significant concession. I now realise that that is not entirely true. I still think that "reflective" is a better word to use throughout the Bill, but I am happy to accept it in this instance. I parted company with the hon. Gentleman, however, when he said that the amendment would ensure that the selection of a member of the commission would be, as the Bill says,
      "solely on the basis of merit".
      The point about the insertion of the words "reflective of the community" is to ensure that we achieve a better reflection of the community than we would if someone simply decided on the basis of merit. In my experience, the phrase
      "solely on the basis of merit"
      usually means the appointment of a white Anglo-Saxon male and leads to anything but appointments based on merit. We end up with gender and other imbalances. I have no comment to make about Lords amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I followed the Bill's progress in the other place and, as so often, I and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party were reminded of the curate's egg. Lords amendment No. 1 creates a difficulty that people in Northern Ireland have whenever they read about a
      "commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
      It is very much a mum-and-apple-pie reference and it is continually used to differentiate between democrats or those who abide by the law and those who do not.
      In that context, everyone would agree that the lay members appointed to the commission should have
      "a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
      but what does that mean in practice? What will happen if someone committed to such a mum-and-apple-pie concept is subsequently proved to be far from committed to non-violence? Although we ask for something more than such a commitment, we agree to the concept in the amendment.
      The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to Lords amendment No. 2 and to the commission's representativeness. The issue was discussed in Committee in the House, and any commission that is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is desirable. In the Grand Committee a few weeks ago, I alluded to other appointments that the
      182
      Government have made and that they maintained were reflective, when a cursory examination demonstrates that they are not. Again, I agree with the concept that the commission should be reflective of the community of Northern Ireland in so far as that is reasonably practical, but what will that mean when it is appointed?
      What will we do if we find that the commission is not reflective? The claims of the Unionist community are often glossed over or ignored when such posts are filled, so what will we be able to do to rectify any imbalance that may be created? Again, we support the concept, but we want to see how the practical outworking of the Bill will manifest itself when it becomes law.
      The Parliament Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I welcome the support that the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) have expressed for the amendments. Other hon. Members who spoke also inferred that they supported them.
      As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) rightly pointed out, Lords amendment No. 1 states:
      "A person may not be appointed to be a lay member"
      of the Judicial Appointments Commission
      "unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
      In the interests of reflectiveness, the "he" in that sentence also encompasses "she". It appears that hon. Members welcome that provision. The hon. Member for North Down also raised a point specific to schedule 2, which I shall address in a moment.
      Hon. Members will agree that it is right in principle that only those who are committed should have a role in the Judicial Appointments Commission. Making such a declaration also allows those with a past to give a positive affirmation that they are now working for the good of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Reigate said, the amendment was tabled to meet the concerns expressed in the Lords Grand Committee. I welcome his recognition of the Government's efforts to have a constructive dialogue on the legislation, and I hope that that continues today.
      By making the required declaration, lay members of the commission will give a positive affirmation that they are committed to exclusively peaceful means. It is right that the people of Northern Ireland should have that assurance. With respect to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), it is inappropriate to describe such expressions, which are important in the Northern Ireland context, as mum's apple pie. They are far from that. The declarations are important and those who are called on to make them will give them careful consideration.
      The amendment sets out a better approach than that suggested in amendment (a). The idea of excluding people who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment from serving as a lay member on the commission has been discussed extensively in both Houses. The Government have resisted the idea of excluding such people per se. We are confident that those responsible for making appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly—will take considerable care to ensure that only those persons who are well suited to the office will be appointed to serve on the commission. It is inconceivable that they would want to appoint disreputable candidates.

      183
      [The Parliament Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)]
      We also need to bear it in mind that those who have been guilty of a criminal offence may genuinely wish to make a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland. In the debate in the other place, it was not only Lord Fitt who recognised that he had been in prison; Lord Maginnis also suggested that he had been in prison at a particular time in the history of Northern Ireland, although he had to persuade people to prosecute him for, I think, failing to pay his road tax or television licence.
      We do not automatically wish to preclude such people from making a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made a germane point that the Lord Privy Seal dealt with on the first day of proceedings on Report in the other place, and I could not put it better myself. In addressing the suggestion that such an exclusion should be included in the Bill, Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
      "The whole measure is, when one looks at it…quite nonsensical. It would disqualify people of the quality, for instance, of Nelson Mandela. It would nevertheless not necessarily disqualify those with convictions for which they had not received a custodial sentence, although we might rightly abominate them. It would cover every type of criminal offence…Therefore, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have no place here, nor the concept behind it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 60.]
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down is correct. We have a structure in place that recognises that people who have committed offences can be rehabilitated. Were we to accept the amendment, we would deny that concept.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Blunt: In the debate in the other place, Lord Williams did not address the issue of confidence to which I referred. I apologise for trading quotes from the other place, but my noble Friend Lord Mayhew said:
      "We should not lose sight of what everyday people think. We should not lose sight of the distinction between persons, who, notwithstanding their record, are elected to a position in the legislature and those who are appointed on behalf of the Crown to choose the judges."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. CWH27.]
      There is an issue with confidence and what everyday people think.
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. The issue of perception is always important in Northern Ireland and it must be addressed in these circumstances. However, as I said before, I am considering getting a notice for my desk that reads "Facts are more important than perceptions." At the moment, hardly a day goes by in Northern Ireland when people do not remind me that perceptions are more important than facts. There will be a prize for the person who comes into my office some day and says that facts are more important than perceptions. I stress that it must happen in the office—I do not encourage anybody to say it in the House to win the prize.
      The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman may have been addressed by the point made by the hon. Member for North Down that there should be consequences for those who breach the undertaking. As the hon. Lady pointed out, there is no automatic provision in schedule 2 for the
      184
      removal of a lay member in such circumstances. However, it would clearly be open to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in exercising the powers in paragraph 2(4)(d) of that schedule, to remove a member who acted in the way that she described after having given such an undertaking. I have no difficulty with putting that on public record because that is perfectly clear in the Bill, which goes a long way towards striking the right balance between allowing those who have a past to have a future and ensuring that those who give the undertakings now required for serving on the commission stick by them. The Bill ensures that there will be consequences if they do not.
      Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been very generous this afternoon, which is consistent with his pattern of behaviour. Will he clarify a further point? Two years ago, the House passed the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Schedule 3, paragraph (8)(2) states:
      "A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not)."
      What has changed so much in two years that people who have a past are not accepted for DPPs, but are accepted for the Judicial Appointments Commission?
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which she is right to press. However, the functions of DPPs are different from those of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Their composition is different. It would be inappropriate for the Government not to treat these issues on their merits. We seek to build on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and change the way in which judges are appointed. To move towards a new Northern Ireland, with the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, we had to look specifically at the make-up of the commission and the requirements on those serving on it. The Government's view, as expressed in the Lords amendment, is that the requirement that lay members make the necessary declaration is sufficient. Schedule 2 covers the circumstances in which such a declaration would be breached. The Government believe that the reasons set out in the Lords debate, which I have sought to paraphrase, are sufficient in relation to the Judicial Appointments Commission.
      Moving on to amendment No. 2, while I accept the point about reflectiveness which is consistently made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, the amendment relates to the pool of people from whom the candidates for judicial appointment will emerge, rather than to the reflectiveness or representativeness of the Judicial Appointments Commission itself, which is dealt with in the Bill. However, I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: There is an absence of automatic sanctions if someone appointed to the commission is in breach of the written declaration, but the Minister said that there was a power for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take action. However, what is the position if, for whatever reason, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister do not agree? As we have seen with breaches of written declarations and other declarations by Sinn Fein-IRA in other contexts, a clear

      185
      difference of opinion between the First Minister's party and the Deputy First Minister's parties means that they cannot agree, thus causing a problem in the application of any sanctions. How will that be resolved in this context?
      Mr. Browne: The resolution of disagreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is a matter for them acting together. It is not for me—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) finds that risible, but he may not have fully grasped the concept of devolution despite the fact that he has been a Minister in the Executive. I am sure that he would be the first to suggest that Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box should not tell Ministers in devolved Governments how to carry out their functions.
      David Burnside rose—
      Mr. Browne: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, it is for Ministers in Westminster to set out the context in which Ministers in devolved Parliaments will work. We are not planning for the failure of devolution, whether in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom—we are planning for its success. In Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister now have significant success in acting on a joint basis, although there have been difficulties. They recently had outstandingly successful discussions and negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an economic package for Northern Ireland—that example may be less contentious than other things with which I have to deal at the Dispatch Box. While there may be division between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head—there are as many, if not more, examples of them working together, which is what the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland is substantially about.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, North has looked at schedule 2, which gives the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly the power to dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied that
      "he is otherwise unable or unfit to exercise his functions."
      Clearly, that covers circumstances in which someone makes a declaration but fails to live up to it. However, it is not for me to tell the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister how to resolve that together—they are both able politicians and very good Ministers and capable of working it out themselves.
      David Burnside: Does the Minister agree that he is not seeing straight? Devolution is different in the three parts of the United Kingdom. The main difference in Northern Ireland, which contradicts the Minister's point, is that there is no collective Cabinet responsibility in the Northern Ireland Executive, so our institutions are not treated in the same way as Parliaments here and in Scotland, or the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but if we stray too far down that road, the Deputy Speaker might pull me back, and rightly. I merely point out to the hon. Gentleman that the beauty of devolution is that there can be different models for different parts of the United Kingdom. I also remind him—he sometimes needs to be reminded, I think—that the people of Northern Ireland voted for this type of devolution in significant numbers, including some members of his party.
      186
      It may be that at some time in the future, a different form of devolved government may be appropriate for Northern Ireland, but that will be a matter again for the people of Northern Ireland. Just as the people of Wales and of Scotland voted for the devolution package that they have, in the majority the people of Northern Ireland voted for the devolution package that they have. If I remember the figures correctly, a majority of both communities in Northern Ireland voted for it.
      Amendment No. 2 requires the Judicial Appointments Commission, so far as it is practicable, to ensure that a range of candidates reflective of the community are available for consideration for appointment to listed judicial offices. There is, however, strong competition for appointment to the judiciary, and any appointment must be made on merit. The Government have made it clear that it is desirable to have a reflective judiciary, but that is to be achieved without prejudice to each and every appointment being made on merit.
      The new provision focuses on securing a pool of candidates which, so far as is reasonably practicable, is reflective of the community. Membership of the pool in itself gives rise to no expectation of appointment. I repeat: appointment is to be made solely on merit.
      Together with the changes made by the Bill to the eligibility criteria and the commitment to a programme of outreach outlined in the review implementation plan, the amendment demonstrates the Government's commitment to a judiciary appointed solely on merit, while giving every encouragement to those eligible from across the whole of society to apply for judicial appointment.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me on a second occasion. May I ask him to reflect upon something that he brought to the attention of the Standing Committee? He said—it is a wonderful quotation:
      "I get the sense from the Committee, and from my experience in Northern Ireland, that the growing practice of requiring such bodies to be representative is welcomed in all parts of the community. It generates hot debates about whether, when people are appointed, they are representative, but nobody attacks the principle."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 February 2002; c. 275.]
      Nobody attacks the principle that bodies should be representative. Why has the language been changed to read "reflective of the community"? There is an inconsistency in the Bill that will have to be interpreted by the courts, and that will lead to difficulties.
      Mr. Browne: I was about to come to the difference between "representative" and "reflective", but the hon. Lady brings me to it just as quickly. I do not necessarily agree that there will be a growing body of judicial interpretation distinguishing between "representative" and "reflective". My reading of the debates in which it has been considered suggests to me that there is very little between them, and that it is a nuance, rather than a serious distinction.
      Perhaps I can do no better at this stage than to revert to what I did earlier—that is, to go back to Report in the Lords, where Baroness Scotland said:
      "The word 'reflective' best meets the needs of this part of the Bill. If one were to re-write other parts of the legislation"—

      187
      I digress for a moment to recognise that the women who contributed to the debate contributed sense—
      "one would perhaps use 'reflective', as opposed to 'representative', because it is a much more sensitive word and indicates precisely what we mean. We do not mean that those appointed to other bodies will represent specific contingencies on that body; we mean that they will be reflective of the community. We use that word because it has the nuance that is absolutely essential. In relation to the judiciary, that needs to be underlined because of independence and other factors. To be honest, I believe that we probably would have used the word 'reflective' in the past, but language changes and we choose what is best for today."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 701
      I think that the answer to the point raised by the hon. Members for North Down and for Cheadle is contained in that quotation. The dynamic of language moves on in Northern Ireland, partly because of the use of "representative" and, on other occasions, "reflective", and the attention that those words have received. That has allowed us to find a word that is better attuned to this part of the Bill.
      5.30 pm
      Amendment No. 23 is a minor technical amendment. The deleted words are unnecessary, as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will only ever be able to acquire money appropriated through the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They crept into the Bill by error, although of course they do no harm. An amendment to clause 22—amendment No. 5, which we will debate later—was tabled in the Lords Grand Committee to make further provision regarding money being provided by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That provision does not repeat the unnecessary words. The deletion of those words therefore seems right and sensible, so that the two provisions dealing with funding by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are consistent.
      Question negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
      Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 4, 25, 26 and 31.
      Mr. Browne: The amendments are technical and relate to the role and functions of lay magistrates. As a result of a major trawl of Westminster and Northern Ireland legislation, we identified those functions which are to remain with justices of the peace, those which are to transfer to lay magistrates and those which will more appropriately lie with resident magistrates. The policy on assignment of the various functions was developed in line with the recommendations of the review report. I am thinking particularly of recommendations 116 and 117, which are to be found at paragraphs 7.53 and 7.54 of the
      188
      report. The amendments make further technical changes to the Bill to give full effect to the recommendations of the report.
      Lords amendment No. 3 explains the relevant subsections of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, which relate to the powers that are to be transferred to lay magistrates. It also identifies a further power to allow lay magistrates, when sitting as a magistrates court, to remand to the Crown court, on bail or in custody, a person who has been arrested on a warrant issued by the Crown court.
      Lords amendment No. 4 defines the term "function" used in clause 10, which deals with functions transferred from justices of the peace, as a function conferred by legislation passed or made before clause 10 comes into force. The amendment ensures that in future we can confer functions on justices of the peace without those functions automatically transferring to lay magistrates under clause 10.
      Lords amendment No. 25 adds article 45 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and refers to a list of functions that can be exercised by resident magistrates only. Under it, only a resident magistrate sitting as a magistrates court, not a lay magistrate, shall have the power to issue a warrant for further detention in police custody. That is consistent with the recommendations of the review report with regard to the powers exercisable by lay persons in the criminal justice system. In that regard, I point to recommendation 115 at paragraph 7.52 of the report.
      Lords amendment No. 26 is concerned with the Lord Chancellor's power under paragraph 4 of schedule 4. That power allows the Lord Chancellor to make further amendments to legislation dealing with the transfer of functions currently performed by justices of the peace. The amendment provides that this power can be exercised only in relation to existing statutory provisions. The effect is that it will not be possible for the Lord Chancellor, using the power in the Bill, to transfer to other office-holders functions of justices of the peace conferred on them by the new legislation.
      Lords amendment No. 31 is entirely technical, and simply removes reference to the advisory committee on juvenile court lay panel members from part 7 of schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The committee is a non-statutory body whose function is to advise the Lord Chancellor on appointments to the office of lay panellist. The functions of lay panellists are to transfer to lay magistrates under clause 11 of the Bill.
      Post-devolution, lay magistrates will be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. The advisory committee on juvenile lay panel members will, therefore, cease to exist once the new arrangements for the appointment of lay magistrates come into force. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to refer to the committee in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The requirements of that Act will apply to the Judicial Appointments Commission by virtue of schedule 2(20) of this Bill.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

    Clause 22

      ATTORNEY GENERAL
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 14, line 15, at end insert—
      "(2A) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland is to be funded by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly.
      (2B) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint staff, but subject to the approval of the First Minister and deputy First Minister as to—

      (a) numbers,

      (b) salary, and

      (c) other conditions of service."

      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out 'acting jointly'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
      Lady Hermon: I should explain to the House that we had our own Attorney General in Northern Ireland until direct rule in the 1970s, and clause 22 proposes the return of an Attorney General for Northern Ireland after justice functions have been devolved. That is a key commitment. I was unable to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to intervene when the Minister suggested that the people of Northern Ireland had voted for an agreement that contained the provision for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make the appointment acting jointly. They certainly did not vote for that.
      Mr. Blunt: May I invite the hon. Lady to clarify her statement that an Attorney General would return to Northern Ireland following the devolution of justice functions? I am not sure that that is entirely correct. I presume that the Attorney General could be appointed well in advance of many of the functions in the Bill being devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. It could, indeed, be appropriate for the Attorney General to be in place at the very beginning of this process, before many of the functions have been devolved under the powers that the Government are taking. This may be a matter more appropriate for the Minister to respond to, but if the hon. Lady can assist the understanding of the House, it would be helpful.
      Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I am sure that the Minister will dutifully pick it up at the end of this debate, given the clarity with which he has just taken us through the Lords amendments on lay magistrates, which filled us all with such enthusiasm that none of us could comment afterwards. I am sure that he will be delighted to comment on whether the appointment of the Attorney General should take place before or after devolution.
      It had been my understanding that, in accordance with the agreement, the British Government had given an undertaking that, in the context of ongoing implementation of relevant recommendations within the agreement, there would be devolution of responsibility for policing and justice issues, which I took to include the appointment of the Attorney General.
      190
      My difficulty with the Lords amendment will come as no surprise to those who served in Committee on the Bill—the words "acting jointly". The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and I do not always agree, but I am pleased that we agree that the difficulty will become increasingly apparent after the scheduled elections to the Assembly in May 2003, which could return a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister who could find it exceedingly difficult to act jointly or agree on anything.
      I can save those hon. Members who may be rushing out to count the number of times the Bill refers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly some time. I counted 28 references by the time I reached schedule 2. If we have a commitment to policing and justice issues being devolved to the people of Northern Ireland, it is not helpful to keep repeating that. In fact, it makes the prospect of devolving such issues more distant.
      Mr. McGrady: I welcome the further clarification in the Lords amendments of the role of the First and Deputy First Minister in the appointment of the Attorney General. I note that the number of staff and their salaries and conditions of service are also part of their remit. Does the Minister intend to impose any conditions in respect of number, salary and conditions of service or is he content to leave it to the office of the First and Deputy First Minister? Hon. Members will note that I refer to the office—in the singular. There is only one office. The First and Deputy First Minister are elected jointly, and one cannot continue in office on the resignation of the other.
      The Northern Ireland Act 1998 states specifically that there is only one office, so the incumbents must act together willy-nilly in order to have legality in their decision making. They may find it difficult and be politically opposed in many ways, but it is one of the key points of the Good Friday agreement, with our communities and their representatives acting together for the good of all in Northern Ireland. This is but one expression of that very important principle.
      I was surprised to see that the signatories to amendment (a) are David Trimble, Lady Hermon and Roy Beggs, as—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should refer to hon. Members by their constituencies, not their names.
      Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Two of the signatories are strong supporters of the Good Friday agreement, whereas the third is totally opposed to it. There seems to be some political incompatibility. I want to emphasise very strongly that to accept the amendment and say that the First and Deputy First Minister should act singly would send a difficult political message to the people of Northern Ireland.
      I am aware that the office of the First and Deputy First Minister is a difficult one for the incumbents to engage in. However, to date, it has proved significantly successful in respect of many diametrically opposed policies, and social and economic issues. Those who hold the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister have come to an agreement, and have been supported by the Assembly in an entire programme of government. They have reached certain agreements on the annual budgetary allocation of our finances, in order to implement that programme. So it

      191
      is not proven that a great barrier exists to their acting jointly on very difficult matters; in fact, all examples to date prove that it is possible for them to act together, and to be elected together, to serve all the community in the best possible way.
      5.45 pm
      Although I accept Lords amendment No. 5, I am totally opposed to the amendment to—
      Lady Hermon: The Belfast agreement—for which I definitely voted yes, and which I strongly support, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—explicitly states:
      "The First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall be jointly elected into office".
      However, it does not thereafter require them to act jointly. Does not the hon. Gentleman see the incompatibility between proposed new subsection (2A) of Lords amendment No.5, which requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act jointly, and proposed new subsection (2B), which contains no such requirement? I do want devolution to be a success; I simply think that the devolution of justice will be further delayed if we constantly use the phrase "acting jointly".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should point out to the hon. Lady that she must learn more precisely the art of intervention. By making her interventions so long, she is in danger of getting round the rule that hon. Members may speak only once in consideration of Lords amendments.
      Mr. McGrady: I take the points made by the hon. Lady, but would not the very act of deleting the phrase "acting jointly" suggest strongly that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could, and perhaps even should, act separately? That would be greatly detrimental to the process. On the alleged disparity between proposed new subsections (2A) and (2B), as a lay person—if not a legalistic one—I would assume that the latter would be subject to the interpretation of the former, in that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would also act jointly in respect of numbers, salary and other conditions of service. In terms of supporting the Good Friday agreement, the hon. Lady would doubtless agree that for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act differently in a substantive matter such as this would send entirely the wrong signal.
      In conclusion, I welcome Lords amendment No. 5, but I reject the amendment to it.
      Mr. Blunt: I am afraid to say that I part company with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on this issue, but as I also did so in Committee, it will come as no surprise to her. I agree with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in respect of amendment (a), which would leave out the term "acting jointly". The Belfast agreement and the institutions rest on the relationship between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and if that relationship does not work, the entire agreement and the institutions will not work either. We are contemplating
      192
      enacting legislation that will allow the devolution of policing and of justice, so perhaps the most important consideration is our need to rely on that relationship working. If it ceases to work and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are unable to act jointly in the discharge of their functions, the peace agreement and the process—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Strange to relate, this House paid tribute to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when he resigned as Deputy First Minister, but the Conservative party did not then demand that the First Minister resign too. Instead, it supported the proposition that he stay in his post. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) now argues, very adroitly, that everything is all right and the relationship must be maintained. However, that relationship is now under stress because the First Minister says that IRA-Sinn Fein should be removed, while the present Deputy First Minister says otherwise. That is a real and major issue.
      Mr. Blunt: I certainly agree that the relationship is under stress. That stress has caused the institutions to be shaped as they have been. As a purist, I believe that the relationship set out in the legislation is far from ideal, but it stems from the history of the conflict between the two communities in Northern Ireland. I accept that the Democratic Unionist party did not support the Belfast agreement, and that it continues to want to have it renegotiated. It has been consistent in that respect, but supporters of the agreement acknowledge that at the heart of the relationship between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister lies the necessity of co-operation in the practical discharge of administration in Northern Ireland.
      I hope that the necessity that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister discharge those functions together will be part of the process by which the wounds that the two communities have inflicted on each other over the past seven or eight decades—or longer, in the case of the history of the whole island of Ireland—will be bound together. I therefore have much more sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for South Down than with that of the hon. Member for North Down.
      As for the other amendments in this group, I am glad that the Government have had the opportunity to trawl more carefully through the relevant legislation. I am pleased, too, that they have identified those matters of international law that properly will be for the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, and in respect of which he, and not the Attorney General, will be the appropriate Law Officer.
      We welcome those improvements to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he has performed a full and comprehensive search and that there are no matters to which we shall have to return.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I wish to make a few comments about the use of the term "acting jointly". I rarely agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—for instance, she signed an early-day motion congratulating the Republic of Ireland football team on its success in the World cup. whereas I signed one congratulating the England team. That shows how far apart she and I are politically.

      193
      The term "acting jointly" is superfluous. The office of Attorney General for Northern Ireland will be fundamentally important in law. It should be funded by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, with no need for the term "acting jointly" to be used in the Bill—as it is, ad nauseam. The fact that the term appears again and again shows how weak the Government must feel the two Ministers can be at times.
      The words "acting jointly" are unnecessary. One would not have thought that funding the Attorney General for Northern Ireland would require their inclusion in the Bill at all.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Following on from what the previous speaker said, I must tell the House that, on the ground of parity of esteem, I congratulated both the Republic of Ireland football team and the English team on their World cup success. I look forward to teams from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales achieving similar success, and to my having the opportunity to congratulate them as well. I take pride in what these islands achieve, and do not want to hold one island up against the other.
      I do not appreciate the logic of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in respect of the amendment. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has made most of the points that I was going to make, so I shall not delay the House. However, if we say that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, must appoint the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, it follows logically that both will have to agree to fund that position, acting jointly. We should therefore keep the phrase in the Bill.
      Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 5 clarifies two matters in the Bill. In establishing the new Attorney General for Northern Ireland, it is important we should avoid, as far as possible, any potential ambiguities. The Lords amendment has been tabled with that aim in mind.
      First, the Lords amendment clarifies that the funding for the new Attorney General is to be provided by the First and Deputy First Ministers. They, of course, will fund the Attorney General from money appropriated by Act of the Assembly.
      Secondly, the Lords amendment clarifies that the Attorney General may appoint staff, subject to approval by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister as to numbers, salary and other terms of employment. Those members of staff will become civil servants on appointment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) asked whether the Government intended to set out the amounts paid in salaries and any other terms and conditions of employment for such staff. I must tell him that the Government singularly do not intend to do that, as those are matters for the Attorney General, subject to any approval required from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
      Lords amendment No. 5 was tabled in response to the Northern Ireland Executive's view that the new Attorney General will need such provision in order to carry out his functions. Amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), would remove the words "acting jointly". As I said in Standing Committee and on Report, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must act jointly in exercising their functions in relation to the
      194
      local Attorney General's office. Generally, they must do so, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and supported by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said that the Bill's repeated use of the term "acting jointly" was otiose and a sign of weakness. I have taken the Bill through the House and have been asked, for purposes of clarity, to express in the Bill many things that I thought were implied by the Bill or that could reasonably be inferred from its wording. However, the Government consider that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must act jointly, and we believe that it is preferable, therefore, that we make that clear in the Bill. That is why we state as many times as we do in the Bill that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must act jointly.
      Mr. Dodds: The Minister has stressed repeatedly that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must act jointly, but does not that emphasise that Northern Ireland really has joint First Ministers as, in effect, the First and Deputy First Ministers cannot act separately?
      6 pm
      Mr. Browne: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; his point has no merit. The devolution settlement for Northern Ireland clearly provides for a process for electing a First Minister and a process for electing a Deputy First Minister. [Interruption.] It may well be one process, but there is a process for the election of a First Minister and for the election of a Deputy First Minister. In terms of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it may be technically one process. I have not been present when it happens. However, there is a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and they are not joint First Ministers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      A number of specific points were raised with regard to the amendments and their effects, which I shall deal with now. The hon. Member for North Down says that the requirement for the Attorney General and Advocate General to work jointly will delay devolution. It is not the Government's intention to devolve justice functions until the institutions of devolution are ready to receive them. An important aspect of whether the institutions of devolution are ready to receive those functions will be the confidence that the First and Deputy First Ministers will be able effectively to discharge the functions that will be imposed on them. It is a question not of delaying devolution but of a judgment having to be made that the institutions are ready to receive those important functions. Part of that judgment will be the ability of the First and Deputy First Ministers to carry out the statutory duties that are required of them, acting in the way that they are required to do.
      Proposed subsection (2B) of clause 22 in Lords amendment No. 5 does not have the words "acting jointly" because they are clearly unnecessary there. The provision requires that the First and Deputy First Ministers approve the matters referred to. It makes no difference whether we say that they must approve such matters together or separately, because it amounts to the same thing. Obviously, both of them need to approve such matters before that provision can be satisfied.

      195
      In an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down, the hon. Member for Reigate suggested that the local Attorney General could be appointed at any time. I think that he is technically right, but the local Attorney General will be appointed on devolution. The Attorney General is appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister under clause 22(2). There is no provision that precludes the commencement of this clause before devolution, but the working assumption is that it will commence after devolution.
      Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I would appreciate some clarity. Clause 86 states:
      "The preceding provisions of this Act (with the Schedules) shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint."
      It continues:
      "An order may appoint different days for different purposes."
      In the process of the devolution of justice, I should have thought that the big bang theory would not be the right one. It might be better to put the individuals and posts of Advocate General and Attorney General in place before devolving certain functions. A progressive roll-out of different powers under the Bill might be appropriate.
      Mr. Browne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Like many that he has made, it may have some merit and I shall consider it. It does not need to be addressed in this debate because, as he says, the flexibility in the Bill can deal with it. I had anticipated that his point would be somewhat different from a progressive roll-out of devolution, but we shall continue to consider it. The intention is not to have an Attorney General appointed other than in the context of devolution, but it may, in the fullness of time, prove more sanguine to appoint such a person in anticipation of the act of devolution so that offices and staff can be in place.
      Finally, the hon. Gentleman sought assurance about all consent powers being transferred to the Advocate General where appropriate. We have the order-making power to transfer those powers under clause 28(2), and I shall take into account his observations about the exercise of that power.
      Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 are purely technical and add further offences to the list of those in relation to which the Advocate General for Northern Ireland must give consent before a prosecution can be undertaken. After devolution, the new local Attorney General will have no power to consent to prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions will exercise most consent provisions, but a very few—in relation to national security and international relations, for example—will be exercised by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. Schedule 7 lists the offences for which the Advocate General's consent will be required.
      I ask the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendments and invite the hon. Member for North Down not to press her amendment.
      Question negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29

      PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE
      Lords amendment: No. 6.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 and 21.
      Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 6 makes it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be responsible for the funding of the prosecution service prior to the devolution of justice functions. At the time of devolution, this provision will be amended to shift the responsibility for funding to the devolved Administration. Concerns have been expressed in the House that the Bill was not clear enough on the issue, and I hope that the amendment aids understanding of our intentions.
      Lords amendment No. 7 is in keeping with the criminal justice review's recommendation that the public prosecution service should establish local offices from which the bulk of prosecutorial work in the respective areas would be conducted. We had originally thought it unnecessary to provide for this in the Bill. However, given that such a power exists in the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, we thought that we should replicate this in the Bill for the purposes of clarity.
      Lords amendment No. 8 expands the existing definition of "police force" in clause 31(6) to include constables appointed under section 57 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I am advised that there are no such constables in Northern Ireland, but as there is the potential for the appointment, it has to be covered. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to take over proceedings instituted by the police forces defined in the clause.
      Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are technical. The Bill makes some changes to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to add the Director of Public Prosecutions to the list of persons able to refer matters to the police ombudsman. When the Policing Board was established, the 1998 Act was amended so that references to the Police Authority were changed to the Policing Board. Inadvertently, in referring to the 1998 Act the Bill did not reflect those amendments. The amendments that we have tabled would correct that error.
      Lords amendment No. 21 deals with the time scale for the establishment of a new public prosecution service for Northern Ireland. That proposal has been widely welcomed and work is already under way to provide for the expansion of the existing Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are aware of the potential pitfalls and have learned from the difficulties experienced in setting up the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales.
      Our priority is to ensure that standards in the administration of justice are maintained, that there is an orderly roll-out and that the new service is properly resourced. However, the time scale for establishing the new service should not he left open-ended. The Attorney General has agreed that we should include a sunset clause in the Bill, which would set a time limit of five years for this to happen, although we hope that the actual time scale will be shorter.

      197
      The updated implementation plan will, of course, provide further detail on the time scale for the piloting and full roll-out of the new service.
      Mr. Blunt: On Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10, I have nothing to add, other than to thank the Government for proposing them, having tabled them in another place in response to concerns expressed in Committee. They certainly make the position clearer.
      I thoroughly welcome Lords amendment No. 21 and the fact that it contains a sunset clause. Again, I draw the attention of the House to a concern represented to me when I was preparing for the Bill, about the prosecution service taking over police prosecutions in Northern Ireland. It was said that there was a collapse in the confidence and enthusiasm of police inspectors who have been responsible for the conduct of prosecutions. I do not know whether those remarks are fair. I sincerely hope that they are not and that there will be a seamless transition within the next five years to the new service.
      The Minister told the House that the Government are alive to the potential difficulties—difficulties that were experienced far too widely in England when this process was undertaken. It would be regrettable if we had not learned from that experience to ensure that we could avoid such a situation in Northern Ireland.
      I caution the Minister that those concerns have been expressed to me and that it may be necessary to roll out the new prosecution service more quickly than would otherwise be the case, given that it is definitely going to happen. I advise the hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on that and to reassure the House that the new service will be up and running without the difficulties that attended the CPS in England.
      Lady Hermon: First, I am delighted that Lords amendment No. 7 is to be included in the Bill, which makes it clear that the Director has the discretion to set up offices in such places in Northern Ireland as he considers appropriate. Hopefully, he will read the text of this debate. I encourage him to think about offices west of the Bann. As someone who comes from County Tyrone, I would be delighted if services were set up there instead of always being focused on Belfast.
      Secondly, I am disappointed that the opportunity was not taken in Lords amendment No. 8 to clause 31 to amend the proper title of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to what should be the legal title—the Police Service of Northern Ireland incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The title was changed for operational purposes only. I regret that that amendment was not made in another place.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Browne: With the leave of the House, I will deal with some of the issues raised in this short debate.
      The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) rightly draws on his experience in talking to the people in Northern Ireland with whom he meets regularly, which—along with our own discussions with such people—is a valuable source of information to the Government. If concerns have been expressed to him about the confidence of officers who are conducting police prosecutions, he is right to bring them to our attention and I thank him for doing so. However, the police are playing a key role in
      198
      the establishment of the new service and I am not aware of any lack of confidence or ability on their part. They are represented on the project board that has been set up to take forward the implementation of these provisions. There is ongoing and close co-operation between the police and the DPP's office on the practical outworkings of the changeover.
      I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments, which were made constructively, to the attention of the DPP to ensure that they are addressed in the context of the joint work that is under way with the police.
      I welcome the welcome given by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to the Lords amendments. Her argument about the necessity for the offices of the DPP to be spread across Northern Ireland, to reflect the work load and to ensure that the service is provided to communities locally was well made. I know from my conversations with the Director of Public Prosecutions that he is aware of and alert to the need to ensure that that service, which will be a valuable part of the modernisation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland is seen to be serving local communities. Indeed, if the system is to meet the objectives set out in the Bill and in the recommendations of the review report, particularly with regard to victims, people in the communities will need to have a relationship with the DPP's office so that information can be communicated. I know that her arguments, which were well made, are part of the DPP's planning for the eventual roll-out.
      Given the issues that have been raised, it is appropriate quickly to report on some of the progress that has been made on the programme for the DPP's office since the publication of the Bill. As I said, under the sponsorship of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, an implementation board has been set up, with representatives not only of the police, but of the Northern Ireland Office and the DPP's office, as well as two independent representatives.
      An implementation plan for the establishment of the new service has been approved by the board. It is intended to roll out the new service as quickly as possible and recruitment of professional staff and managers has commenced. People who have seen the Northern Ireland press in past weeks, will have seen the advertisements. Those staff will form the basis of the new service. I can assure the hon. Member for Reigate that I and other Ministers who share responsibility for that area will be keeping a close eye on developments to ensure that the speed with which the changes are made is commensurate with the best interests of justice.
      Work is already under way on a revised implementation plan, which the Government hope to publish some time in the autumn. We expect that plan to be a fuller document than the plan that was published in November 2001. A number of respondents to the consultation exercise that followed publication of the original plan said that they would appreciate greater detail, particularly in regard to time scales, which have exercised a number of people, and we will take that on board.
      I think that those comments deal with the issues raised and I urge the House to accept the Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to.

      New Clause
      Lords amendment: No 11, insert the following new clause—Equality and non-discrimination—
      (1) Section 75 (duty on public authorities to have regard to need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups) and section 76 (discrimination by public authorities) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) are amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3) of section 75, after paragraph (cc) insert—"
      (cd) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;".
      (3) After subsection (4) of that section insert—
      "(4A) The references in subsections (1) and (2) and Schedule 9 to the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland do not include any of his functions relating to the prosecution of offences."
      (4) In subsection (7) of section 76, after paragraph (e) insert"—
      (ea) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;".
      (5) After that subsection insert—
      "(8) This section does not apply to a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland not to institute, or to discontinue, criminal proceedings or, where such a decision has been made, to any act done for the purpose of enabling the decision whether to institute or continue the proceedings to be made or for securing that the proceedings are discontinued.
      (9) No injunction may be granted in respect of a contravention of this section by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland unless the court is satisfied that it would not prejudice any decision to institute criminal proceedings or any criminal proceedings.
      (10) Where a party to proceedings for a contravention of this section applies for a stay of those proceedings on the ground of prejudice to a decision to institute criminal proceedings, or of prejudice to particular criminal proceedings, the court must grant the stay unless it is satisfied that continuance of the proceedings for the contravention would not result in the prejudice alleged.""
      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, after "functions of the" leave out "Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "Public Prosecution Service".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment (b), after "decision of the" leave out "Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "Public Prosecution Service".
      Lords amendment No. 30.
      Lady Hermon: I preface my remarks by reminding the Minister that he has only a limited opportunity to show his generosity in accepting our amendments, but I hope that on this occasion he will take them on board.
      Amendments (a) and (b) relate to the new public prosecution service for Northern Ireland. Members will see that clause 29 defines the new service as consisting of
      "the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland…the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, and the members of staff of the service appointed under subsection (3).
      The service thus consists of three elements. What I dislike about the Lords amendment is the fact that the equality and non-discrimination duties under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 extend only to one of
      200
      those elements—the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I am sure that Members are familiar with sections 75 and 76 of the Act, which place a duty on public authorities in Northern Ireland to ensure that they promote equality of opportunity among various communities and good relations between people of different political opinions and religious beliefs.
      Those statutory obligations are important; they are a positive duty, not to stand still but actively to promote equality of opportunity and good relations. They are twin duties and are mutually compatible, and I can see no good reason why they should attach themselves only to the director and not also to the deputy director and to the members of staff appointed to the new prosecution service for Northern Ireland.
      The tenor of amendments (a) and (b), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other members of my party, would make the provision more general so that it included all elements of the prosecution service.
      Mr. McNamara: I was under the impression that a provision that applied to the Director of Public Prosecutions would include the whole of his department. If it does not, I support the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will show in his speech that my conclusion is correct.
      I welcome the Lords amendment, which responds to concerns expressed by Labour Members, by members of the Social Democratic and Labour party and by many non-governmental associations. I welcome the Government's response, although I should have preferred them to table proposals whereby all in one go—in one Act—all the bodies and agencies associated with the criminal justice system were designated for the purposes of sections 75 and 76 of the Northern Ireland Act. That would have been the neatest solution.
      Can the Minister tell us if and when other aspects of the criminal justice system will also be brought under sections 75 and 76? Those sections are extremely powerful; they go to the root of enforcing the spirit and philosophy of the Good Friday agreement.
      I note that subsection (5) of the amendment is a response to fears expressed previously by the hon. Member for North Down when she raised the spectre that perhaps the DPP would have to fulfil a quota for the prosecution of Protestants or, conversely, of Catholics, in order to maintain parity. The provision would exempt him from that.
      Not everyone in Northern Ireland—whether nationalist, republican, loyalist or Unionist—shares the rose-tinted view of some hon. Members that the DPP, judiciary and criminal justice system in Northern Ireland have a blameless past, free from the allegations of discrimination and sectarian practices that plagued the former Royal Ulster Constabulary. On the contrary, many fears exist and they will persist despite the Bill. One element of disquiet, for example, is that some people believe that judges employ differential sentencing policies for Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland convicted of similar offences in similar circumstances.
      That is a serious allegation. How can we determine whether it is true or false? Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure the House and all sections of the community that the system operates fairly? That could be done by careful monitoring.

      201
      Such allegations are not unique to Northern Ireland. Statistics show that the same practice is true for whites and non-whites in Britain. Despite the fact that there is provision for equality, the exercise of discretion by any administrative body must always be carefully examined. Will my hon. Friend ensure that those matters are monitored? It is not only in employment practices that discrimination can occur.
      I give nine tenths of a wholehearted welcome to the amendment. I should have preferred it to cover all the institutions in the criminal justice system, but my hon. Friend has done that in part and he has listened to what we said.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: Like other Members, I welcome the amendment for the most part. However, in Northern Ireland during the past 15 to 20 years, there have been concerns about section 75 and predecessor legislation relating to the commitment to non-discrimination and the need to promote equality of opportunity for various groups. For example, there is deep concern in some local authorities that the flying of the Union flag acts, in effect, as a cold house for some people—that it is being used as a lever to try to engender complaints or action by public bodies under section 75. That is not only to be regretted, but should be resisted.
      However, those public bodies appear not to be concerned that many people in various parts of Northern Ireland—whether in the west, to which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) alluded earlier, or in the southern border areas—feel that section 75 has not protected their interests or their Britishness. They may endeavour to get local authorities to act under section 75, but because of Irish language groups or the maintenance and promotion of Irish republicanism in various areas, they feel that section 75 has not protected their interests in the way that it should.
      6.30 pm
      Lords amendment No. 11 is welcome, but future Governments should be prepared to take a very even-handed approach so that those in Northern Ireland, from any section of our society, who feel that they are actively discriminated against or that they are not afforded the same opportunity as others in Northern Ireland can have recourse either through section 75 or other aspects of the law, so that true equality will be offered not just to a section of Northern Ireland, but to everyone in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Browne: I am sure that hon. Members are aware that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a statutory duty on bodies to
      "have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity"
      between groups in the nine categories of people set out in that Act. It also requires them to
      "have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
      Section 76 makes it unlawful for a body to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
      I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's observations and I am glad that he welcomes Lords amendment No. 11. I was not surprised that his welcome
      202
      was qualified; nor was I surprised that the qualification was that equality was for others than those whom he and his party feel they represent exclusively. Of course, part of the purpose of sections 75 and 76 is to set a statutory framework for just the sort of parity and equality requirements that he seeks for unidentified, generalised groups of people in various parts of Northern Ireland.
      As an elected representative, it is for the hon. Gentleman, as it is for me as a Minister, to articulate the importance of such equality and, indeed, human rights to all people across the whole community in Northern Ireland and to help people to exercise their rights under the equality and human rights provisions.
      If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about the equality requirements in Northern Ireland not being applied evenly to certain categories of people in particular locations, there is the Equality Commission. I am sure that he has brought all the concerns that he has articulated to the attention of the Equality Commission. If he has not, I recommend that he does so because those on the commission are the experts and can advise the individuals involved how to get redress and, where rights are judicable, to seek to enforce them if necessary.
      If just the sort of people whom the hon. Gentleman mentions take advantage of the equality and human rights provisions in the settlement for Northern Ireland, in the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—and in other provisions, we will drive forward the new Northern Ireland. So he should not only identify the problems, but seek the legislative solutions that exist and take advantage of the support offered by the commission, particularly in relation to equality.
      If the hon. Gentleman cannot do so and if he writes to me specifically about his concerns, I will seek to ensure that he and his constituents or others receive the advice that they need about how to take advantage of the statutory structure that we have put in place since coming to power to ensure that people are not treated in the way in which he says that they are being treated. However, I have limited responsibility for equality issues—much of the ministerial responsibility for such matters lies with Ministers in the devolved Administration, not with the Northern Ireland Office. Having been a Minister in the devolved Administration, the hon. Gentleman will know full well how to get the necessary advice from the Executive in Northern Ireland.
      I am sorry that I have had to refer to those issues, but it seemed from the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate that he did not know how to seek redress in relation to them. If he does not, my office is open to give him the advice that he needs, although he may need to approach other Ministers as well.
      I shall now come to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Sections 75 and 76 cover the bodies created under the Bill, by virtue of Lords amendment No. 11. My understanding is that other criminal justice agencies are already covered, but he seemed to suggest that some in Northern Ireland were not covered. I am not sure to which organisations or agencies he was referring, but if he cares to intervene now to tell me, I shall try to give an answer. However, if he wants to write to me, I shall deal with the issue in detail.
      Mr. McNamara: I refer to the judiciary apart from the justice system.
      Mr. Browne: I think that my hon. Friend will find that those in the justiciary in Northern Ireland are more than adequately covered because of the oath that they take. I repudiate his suggestion that the criminal justice system—in particular, the judiciary and the Director of Public Prosecutions—act in a discriminatory fashion in prosecuting those involved in crime in Northern Ireland.
      Indeed, I want to put on record, not in any rosy fashion, my and my fellow Ministers' appreciation of the significant bravery of prosecutors and other lawyers, including judges, in Northern Ireland in the face of significant danger for some 30 years. They have ensured that justice has been done and earned an enviable reputation for Northern Ireland in the face of significant dangers and problems for justice.
      That is not to say that there have not been miscarriages of justice. Indeed, there have been in Scotland and England—and I suppose that there have been in Wales, although I cannot think of one off the top of my head now. There probably have been miscarriages of justice throughout Europe and the civilised world. However, the fact is that, in the United Kingdom, if judges act or are thought to have acted in a discriminatory fashion in the way that my hon. Friend suggests—although non-specifically—there is a review process that allows such issues to be raised on appeal. The same cannot be said for all parts of the world.
      It may have taken too long for some miscarriages of justice to be corrected, but increasingly over the years the House and Parliament have sought to address those issues as they have become apparent. I am not saying that there have been no miscarriages of justice; I am saying that there has not been the discrimination in relation to prosecutions that my hon. Friend suggests has taken place. If he is suggesting that such discrimination is systemic in the judicial system of Northern Ireland, it behoves him not to refer in an airy-fairy way to some studies, but to suggest specifically where the evidence can be found.
      Mr. Blunt: I simply want to thank the Minister for going to the trouble of making such a robust statement, with which I fully associate Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
      Mr. Browne: Finally, on this point—for the sake of completeness—the Northern Ireland court service is covered by section 75, which places an equality duty on all Government agencies. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for such provisions to cover the judiciary, as, of course, those issues are covered by the judicial oath.
      Lords amendment No. 11 makes the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions subject to those duties. We have identified certain limited safeguards that will give the protections necessary to ensure the continuing independence of the DPP. As is clear from the amendment, we have exempted the prosecution process from this duty, for the reasons that I articulated on several occasions in Committee and perhaps even on Report. The exemption can be found at subsections (3) and (5) of the new clause introduced by the amendment. That means that prosecution decisions and policies relating to such decisions are exempted. I explained in Committee the sorts of difficulties that would arise if we attempted blanket coverage of the DPP's office, but we have assured
      204
      ourselves that, with those safeguards in place, we can meet the duties that we have accepted. That explanation refers to some of the other remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
      The obligations under sections 75 and 76 will apply to the DPP, for example, in relation to the recruitment of public prosecutors, despite the exception for which we have provided in Lords amendment No. 11. Of course, they will continue to apply in the same manner once the new public prosecution service is established.
      The purpose of amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), is, as I understand it, to ensure that the DPP's entire organisation—the entire public prosecution service—is covered by these duties and not just the head of the organisation. To aid the House's understanding of the way in which the Act is structured, I should point out that sections 75 and 76 do not bite on individuals but on functions. That is why the functions are transferred, not the service. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured when I say that all of the functions of the prosecution service are, in fact, vested in the DPP. Without going into too much detail, that is done particularly in clauses 31 to 33 of the Bill, in which the functions are transferred, and conferred on the director.
      We agree with hon. Members that the whole organisation should meet those duties. The duties are imposed on the functions, and the functions are conferred on the DPP, although they are carried out in a delegated fashion, in some cases by others. By the process of making the DPP subject to the provisions, the functions of the DPP are bitten on. I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that the Bill already provides for that.
      The equality obligations under sections 75 and 76 will also apply to the criminal justice inspectorate and the Law Commission, which are designated by Lords amendment No. 30 in this group. We examine every new body created by the Government to see whether it should be designated under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for equality purposes. I see no reason why any exception should be made in respect of those bodies. We intend them to operate in an open and transparent fashion.
      Question negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 55

      CUSTODY CARE ORDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 38, line 3, at end insert
      ";but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept."
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Browne: All the amendments in this group relate to part 4 of the Bill—the provisions dealing with youth justice—and all effect minor refinements to those provisions.

      205
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14 amend the provisions dealing with the new form of disposal for children under 14—the custody care order. The relevant provisions are found in clause 55. Within clause 55, new article 44B provides for the legal regime under which a child subject to a custody care order will be detained. It does that by applying certain provisions of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to such children and by excluding the application of all other provisions. Children held under a custody care order will be held in accommodation provided within the care system. We therefore think it right to draw on the provisions contained in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 in shaping the legal regime under which children should be held.
      It was brought to our attention, however, that we had inadvertently excluded the application of certain provisions of the 1995 order that apply to all children, whether looked after by an authority or not. We did that by referring exclusively to certain provisions, and, because reference was not made to other provisions, those would be deemed not to apply. It is a principle of statutory interpretation that if one expresses some provisions and excludes others, one is deemed not to have wanted the others to apply to that situation.
      On any view, those provisions should not have been excluded. That is addressed by Lords amendment No. 13, which has the effect that those provisions of the 1995 order which apply to children being looked after by an authority, and which we consider should be applied to children who will be held under a custody care order, are applied. However, the key difference between Lords amendment No. 13 and the provision in the Bill is that the amendment is predicated on the basis that all the other general provisions of the 1995 order will apply unless specifically disapplied. As a result, important wider protections, such as those contained in article 3 of the order—which provides that when a court determines any question with regard to the upbringing of a child or the administration of his property, the child's welfare will be the paramount consideration—continue to apply.
      I should also draw the attention of hon. Members to two specific points. First, the amended article now applies the provisions of article 45 of the 1995 order. That will mean that the case of a child being held under a custody care order must be reviewed by the authority holding the child, and that the authority must have a procedure for considering representations by or about the child. That will help to strengthen the process of managing a child's period in secure accommodation and thus deserves to be included in the clause.
      Secondly, hon. Members may notice that the recast article—new article 44B—does not contain provision relating to the discharge, at any time, of a child in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State. That provision is currently in new article 44B(4). Hon. Members will be reassured that there has been no change of substance here, merely one of drafting. By virtue of Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 14, the provision has simply been moved to a more logical position, in new article 44A(6) and new article 44F(3)(b), where it is associated with the definition of periods to be spent in secure accommodation. Again, the meaning and purpose of the provision has not changed.
      206
      Let me now deal with the remaining amendments in the group, which address youth conferences. Again, the amendments do not change the substance of what the House has agreed to.
      New article 3B(1) provides that the Secretary of State may make rules governing the procedure of youth conferences. It is expected that the rules will be used to set time limits for the various stages of the conference process, and for the performance of the various functions of the conference co-ordinator. Because of the way in which they are drafted, however, they cannot be used to make provision about youth conference plans—in particular, to set a time limit within which the person monitoring compliance with a plan arising from a diversionary conference must submit his final report to the director.
      As the director may, on the basis of the report on compliance, still instigate proceedings against the child if he believes that the plan has not been complied with to a significant extent, we think it right to set a time limit for this stage of the process. Without it, the child may have the threat of prosecution hanging over him for an indefinite period. Lords amendment No. 15 therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make rules establishing a time limit for submission of the report to the director.
      As we intend to specify a time limit, it is not appropriate for the Bill to require the making of the report
      "as soon as is reasonably practicable",
      as it does currently in new article 10D. Lords amendment No. 16 therefore seeks to delete those words from new article 10D.
      New article 33C(1) provides that a child may be referred to a conference only if he lives in an area where the new system is in place. That will allow us to pilot the new arrangements and also, if necessary, to stagger the subsequent roll-out of the conferencing system.
      The purpose of Lords amendment No. 17 is simply to clarify that this applies equally to both mandatory referrals to a conference, provided for in new article 33A(1), and discretionary referrals, provided for in new articles 33A(3) and 33A(4).
      Mr. Blunt: What a treat is the opportunity to debate youth justice! Of course, we owe the privilege to the passing of amendments in another place, having failed so conspicuously—given the programming—to engage in substantive discussion of any youth justice provisions here.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Disgraceful.
      Mr. Blunt: It was indeed disgraceful. The only good thing to be said as we begin our very brief and, sadly, tangential discussions is that this is an appropriate time at which to welcome the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) to the Government's Northern Ireland team. Unfortunately he is not present to hear this paean of praise, but I would like to tell him—he being a Whip—that things can only get better from our point of view, after the shocking way in which the first part of this process was managed.
      It might not have been necessary to remedy the unintended results of the legislation if we had had a chance to consider here the matters put right by Lords

      207
      amendments Nos. 12 to 14, but I am happy to accept the Government's view. I merely want to draw their attention to my slight anxiety about the timetables that would be introduced by the Secretary of State under the powers that Lords amendment No. 15 would confer on him.
      The arguments in favour of the amendment have focused on the establishment of a set time within which a child who was, as it were, at the wrong end of the provisions would wait for the identification of non-compliance and of the reasons for it. It is just possible that if the Secretary of State lays down a timetable that is too tight, and the bureaucracy that will inevitably surround youth conference orders bogs down the limited number of people who will administer the system—thus preventing them from meeting the timetable—we will inadvertently let off offenders who have not complied.
      In other respects I welcome the proposals. I am concerned only about the ability of the timetable to be consistent with administrative resources.
      Mrs. Calton: I welcome the amendments, which go a long way towards meeting the concerns of, in particular, the Liberal Democrats. We tabled a series of amendments on youth justice. I am especially pleased to note the amending of clause 55 in Lords amendment No. 13(3)(g).
      The introduction of article 45 deals with many of the issues that concerned me. It ensures that there will be an opportunity for review; it requires the views of the child to be taken into account; it provides for a review of the suitability of accommodation; it informs the child of his rights; it ensures that he is kept informed; it ensures that arrangements are monitored; and, most important, it requires the establishment of a complaints and representation procedure to include the child and others with an interest in his welfare. I am also pleased to note that an independent person will take part in the representations and follow up discussions.
      Lords amendment No. 14 responds to some of the worries about children under 14 being given youth custody orders for up to 30 days. In some cases that may take them to the age of 14. I am glad that the amendment will allow the sentence to be varied.
      As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 15 allows the Secretary of State to make procedural rules for youth conferences. I am pleased that the Minister concerned will have an opportunity to ensure that young people's needs are full met. I am also pleased that Lords amendment No. 16 tightens the requirement for a report on compliance with the youth conference plan, and will ensure that there is no drift in procedures.
      I think that we are closer to recognising that although young offenders should be given a chance to reform and make restoration, and while it may occasionally be necessary to protect the public from them, they will often be in need themselves—in need of the protections afforded to children in the care system generally. Their human rights must be protected.
      Mr. Browne: I am glad that the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) welcome the proposals. As the hon. Member for Reigate probably knows, I share his regret that we could not
      208
      debate the provisions relating to this part of the Bill, but I am buoyed by the scrutiny that they received in the other place.
      The hon. Gentleman made a limited but, I think, important point about the timetable, suggesting that if it were too tight it might not be met. He said that that might be detrimental to the young person involved, because if there was not enough time for administration that would be taken to constitute his failure to comply.
      I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be unfair to allow the threat of prosecution to hang over a child for an unspecified period. The establishment of a timetable is more consistent with our intentions in regard to the various stages of the conference process. In setting limits, however, we will bear in mind the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I will specifically ensure that as the programme is introduced progressively, with pilot schemes, we regularly take account of the inevitable tension caused by demands on administration, along with the need to ensure that young people are given enough time to carry out the requirements of an order.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17 agreed to.
      7 pm

    Clause 71

      LOCAL COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS
      Lords amendment: No. 18.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following:
      Lords amendment No. 19
      Lords amendment No. 20, in clause 82, page 67, line 2, at end insert—
      "(za) in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph (g) insert—
      "(h) local community safety partnerships.","
      and amendment (a) thereto, leave out line 3 and insert"—
      (h) community safety.",".'.
      Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 18 will make it absolutely clear that the membership of local community safety partnerships will be drawn from organisations exercising statutory functions. These organisations will be invited to nominate individuals from within their organisations to represent them on the partnerships.
      The amendment is designed to clarify policy and to put our intentions in this regard beyond doubt. We have already taken steps to clarify the policy in discussion and in correspondence, and we have taken the opportunity of the amendment to set out the policy in statute. The amendment will allow the relevant organisations exercising statutory functions, such as district councils and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to be included. Lords amendment No. 19 provides that the Secretary of State must publish or require a local community safety partnership to publish the plans and reports produced by the community safety partnerships.

      209
      Lords amendment No. 20 will add local community safety partnerships to the list of organisations set out in schedule 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This will pave the way for them to be devolved along with other criminal justice functions once a decision has been taken to transfer responsibility for such matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      A similar amendment was made in this House in respect of the other new bodies created under this Bill—the criminal justice inspectorate and the new Northern Ireland Law Commission. It makes sense to treat these partnerships similarly. It is essentially a technical amendment designed to facilitate the devolution of these bodies in due course and, as such, I trust that it will meet with the approval of the House.
      Amendment (a) is in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and it seeks to add the words "community safety", rather than "local community safety partnerships", to schedule 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which sets out the list of reserved functions. The term "community safety" covers a wide range of functions and activities. Many of them are already devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration. For example. the provision of street lighting and traffic-calming measures is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development.
      Social services have a statutory responsibility to divert young people from crime. It would therefore be inconsistent with the devolution of these functions to include a generic term such as "community safety" in the schedule. The local community safety partnerships are being added to the schedule to facilitate their being devolved when the time is right. I do not think that we need to extend the provision more widely, so I ask that amendment (a) be withdrawn.
      Mr. Blunt: Her Majesty's Opposition welcome Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 as significant improvements to the Bill. We shall support them, as we understand that they were the product of informal discussions between the Government and the Opposition. They are a satisfactory way to proceed.
      However, it is appropriate to remind the Government that their approach to community safety receives the support of only a minority of parties in Northern Ireland. We continue to have serious concerns about the continued overlap between district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships. That concern is shared by all parties to the Policing Board—they do not want separate partnerships established—and by the review that took place. I shall not delay the House by reading out paragraph 11.61 of the review, as the Minister will be familiar with its contents. The recommendation there is precisely the opposite of the Government's intended action. Indeed, recommendation 196 of the Government's implementation plan is put down for further consideration.
      I invite the Government to continue to give the matter further consideration. The plethora of bodies in Northern Ireland and the different duties placed on district councils, in particular, and on the bodies to which the councils have to nominate people is a strong argument for the Government to find a way of simplifying the way in which they establish community safety. They should do that within a proper partnership for community safety and by using the institutions of the district policing partnerships.
      210
      We hope that, in due course, the Government will make the position clearer and remove the overlapping responsibilities that currently exist.
      Lady Hermon: The Minister is left with one opportunity—this is it—to be generous to me this evening. I hope that he will respond appropriately.
      Amendment (a) specifically requests that the reserved matter should refer not just to "local community safety partnerships" but more broadly to "community safety". In fact, clause 70 refers to "community safety" and subsection (1) says:
      "The Secretary of State must devise a strategy for enhancing community safety in Northern Ireland."
      Subsections (3) and (4) add:
      "The Secretary of State may from time to time devise a new strategy or make alterations to a strategy…Before devising or making alterations to a strategy the Secretary of State must consult…the First Minister and Deputy First Minister"
      even when they are not acting jointly. With that in mind, we wished the reserved matters to be extended to include community safety per se and not just the narrow matter of local community safety partnerships.
      We are delighted with Lords amendment No. 18. It is a huge improvement on the original provision in the Bill. Clause 70(3) originally left the membership of local community safety partnerships to be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. We are pleased to see him in the Chamber and are in no way questioning his integrity, but the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 goes to great lengths—five pages in all—to set out the composition of district policing partnerships. The Bill, however, contains only one and a half lines on the composition of local community safety partnerships.
      We wanted the Government to cast some light on what the proposal would mean in practice. We were therefore delighted that the Government listened to the representations made in the strongest terms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—I am sure that we all recall that meeting—and accepted Lords amendment No. 18. We now know that a local community safety partnership
      "is to consist of such number of persons nominated by such organisations exercising statutory functions as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
      That will include the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and organisations such as health boards, which we welcome. It closes the door to paramilitary infiltration into local community safety partnerships.
      The one outstanding issue relates to the functions of the local community safety partnerships, and we would welcome further meetings and correspondence with the Minister on that. It arises from a concern that stems from the Patten report, which recommended that the district policing partnership boards, as they were then called, should have the power to buy in additional police facilities and services. However, that recommendation was omitted from the 2000 Act. It remains a live concern to party colleagues and the Unionist community that local community safety partnerships may be the vehicle by which the partnerships have that function.
      The Secretary of State has the power to make grants to local community safety partnerships. Guidance and clarification has to be given on how the safety partnerships will spend that money. We need to know that

      211
      paramilitary organisations will not organise themselves into local security firms that take advantage of the grants. The issues are still relevant and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with the Minister.
      Mr. Browne: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate.
      A number of important issues have been raised. As I said, I am afraid that I cannot be generous and accept amendment (a). I know that that spoils my reputation for generosity, but the phrase that the hon. Lady wants to insert would put functions that are already devolved into the reserved category. I understand and agree with her arguments, but we cannot put the generic phrase "community safety" into the provision and consequently reserve everything to do with community safety because that would reverse the decision to devolve some functions.
      I cited the specific examples of provisions relating to street lighting and traffic calming, which are important for community safety. Those are already the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. I also explained that the work by social services to divert young people from crime is devolved and cannot be put back into the reserved category. My instincts are to be generous to the hon. Lady because I understand her concern, but what she wants cannot be achieved in the way she suggests.
      7.15 pm
      However, discussions about the issues in relation to community safety can continue. The hon. Lady will be aware from the meeting to which she referred that the Northern Ireland Office published a consultation document, "Creating a Safer Northern Ireland Through Partnership", that deals with the membership of community safety partnerships, operational matters relating to community safety partnerships and the functions of community safety partnerships.
      Strictly speaking, that consultation period has concluded, but the door remains open if the hon. Lady's party wants to respond. In addition, if a party does not want to respond but has issues to raise, I will discuss those with it. Indeed, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss aspects to do with safety with any party.
      It is not the Government's intention to create tension between DPPs and community safety partnerships. We want to create a sensible working partnership between DPPs, community safety partnerships and other organisations that exercise statutory functions. One problem in Northern Ireland is that there are 26 local councils to deal with, which is a significant amount for a comparatively small number of people.
      Mr. Blunt: Twenty five oppose the Government.
      Mr. Browne: I know where the hon. Gentleman got that figure from but, as the person who possesses the responses to the consultation document, I know that it is not correct.
      Mr. Eric Forth: It is only 24.
      Mr. Browne: I had the figure checked today and it is only one, but it is not a question of how many people are
      212
      against or in favour of an argument. What matters is the strength of the argument. The Government do not intend to create an administrative structure for community safety partnerships that works against the grain of other structures. We are aware of the recommendation of the criminal justice review that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) mentioned, and I have addressed the idea of creating a single body to undertake the role envisaged for DPPs and community safety.
      The recommendation was considered carefully. At the time, DPPs had not been established, and they still have not been. The Government thought that it would be inappropriate to give the new body additional functions before it was established. There were also more fundamental reasons for not following the recommendation. It is essential that community safety partnerships are composed of those statutory organisations with responsibility for service delivery. The DPPs, however, will be made up of elected representatives and independent members, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The criminal justice review recognised that it is important not to disturb that balance and did not propose changing the membership. It suggested that the proposed body should work in partnership with statutory bodies.
      In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers, I concluded that that arrangement would not be as effective because it excluded the service delivery organisations from the partnership. Experience in England and Wales shows that crime and disorder partnerships are most effective when statutory organisations are engaged in the process. Legislative changes are being made in England and Wales to ensure that that happens, and I am sure that they will have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his party.
      This point will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman: it is essential that the police are involved in community safety. They must be actively involved in community safety partnerships, but they are not members of the DPP. Those are the fundamental, logical and sensible reasons for the conclusion that the DPP, as envisaged under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, is not the appropriate vehicle for the delivery of community safety, although it was considered by the review.
      Mr. Blunt: We can change that.
      Mr. Browne: Of course we can change it. That is why there is a Parliament—so that we can change the law. It can be changed, but not without consideration of the consequences for policing and the structure of the Policing Board and the DPP. It should not be changed to allow community safety to be the driver when there are many other policing considerations that relate to the structure of the Policing Board and the functioning of the DPPs—in fact, the DPPs have not yet been set up. Both of those organisations have a long way to go. No final decisions about functions have been made.
      The Bill, as amended by the other place, contains enabling legislation for community safety partnerships. A structure is in place that allows a significant degree of flexibility, but the Bill, rightly, also includes the safeguards sought by hon. Members. It is not that we want to keep the bodies separate, it is just that the DPP was established for a particular purpose, with a particular membership and has a policing focus. Clearly many of the

      213
      issues that are the responsibility of the DPP and the Policing Board impact on community safety. There are shared functions and responsibilities. To change the function now would require a completely different membership of the DPP.
      We may need to return to those issues later. However, the current framework allows us the flexibility to respond, through the consultation, to the concerns that others share about how the process will work. The Government intend to have a process that will work sensibly and with the grain of other organisations, particularly DPPs. All that takes place in the context of the review of public administration undertaken by the Northern Ireland Executive. Many aspects of the structure of Northern Ireland society that are relevant to community safety are currently changing, and those changes must be taken into consideration. The dialogue continues. We now have provisions in the Bill that allow us the framework, but with the necessary safeguards sought by hon. Members. We can continue the dialogue in that context, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) requested.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 19 to 21 agreed to.

    Clause 89

      STATUTORY RULES
      Lords amendment: No. 22.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 32.
      Mr. Browne: I am delighted that we have come to the last group of amendments in the time allocated for the debate, which, on this Bill, is a significant achievement. and I am pleased that we have been able to debate the amendments to the extent desired by hon. Members.
      The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted that the 16 powers in the Bill to amend it or other legislation were an appropriate delegation. However, it recommended four changes in favour of the affirmative procedure.
      First, the Committee felt that the Assembly's power to omit an office from the list of those subject to the Judicial Appointments Commission under schedule 1 was of such constitutional importance that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Secondly, the Committee felt also that any order removing an office from the list of those for which the oath must be taken or affirmation made merited the affirmative procedure. The third change concerned orders adding or omitting organisations from the list of organisations within the criminal justice inspectorate's remit. Finally, the Committee also recommended that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for any decision to abolish the court service, as Parliament would also want to debate such a change.
      Lords amendment No. 22 effects the changes recommended by the Committee, and Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 32 are consequential.
      Lady Hermon: We are very pleased that the use of the affirmative resolution procedure has been extended. Lords
      214
      amendment No. 22 caught my eye because it refers to clause 45(6)(a), which says that the Secretary of State may by order amend the list of bodies to be inspected by the chief inspector of criminal justice. It is with bitter regret that I find that the comprehensive list, which we understood would be with us before the Bill left the House, has not appeared this evening.
      The Minister wrote to me about the matter on 18 March. I thought that it was more recent, but obviously time flies when I am enjoying myself. In that letter, he said,
      "I am using my best efforts to produce a comprehensive list of organisations to come within the remit of the Chief Inspector. I will aim to maintain this momentum, while providing for proper consultation with the organisations concerned before final decisions are taken."
      I take it that the final decisions are to be taken this evening, and we will not have a comprehensive list.
      I accept that the Minister uses his best endeavours, so I should like him to explain where the foot-dragging has occurred. Was it by the organisations that were consulted? Why has it taken so long to draw up a comprehensive list? Will he tell the House about four specific organisations that have been consulted for months? They are Consignia—that dreadful name will quickly be replaced by "Royal Mail" again, thank goodness—the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Financial Services Authority and the Electoral Office. Specifically, how many meetings took place with those organisations, particularly the police ombudsman? It would have helped to restore confidence in her office if it had been included in the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for giving me an opportunity to explain why I could not meet the target that I set myself in that list. I hope that I can reassure her that the list will be subject to affirmative procedure and must be debated, so we have not lost the opportunity to discuss it in the House.
      I could not meet the target that I set myself despite the fact that I kept in close touch with the process and ensured that my officials kept in touch with our correspondents. The hon. Lady is right in her interpretation—certain organisations did not respond. Unfortunately, I do not have specific information with me, and do not wish to say which organisations did, or did not, respond in time, lest I make an error and wrongly list one as not having responded. Consignia's response, however, was not lost in the post, as was thought—I received it today. In Consignia's favour, my recollection is that it was almost unique in unequivocally welcoming inspection. I know that there has been a response from meetings with the police ombudsman. I cannot speak about the Financial Services Authority or the other organisation that the hon. Lady mentioned, as I do not have specific information to hand, but I will write to her.
      A surprising number of organisations asked for more time to work out the implications of inspection. We granted an extension because if there was to be a consultation, that was the sensible thing to do. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Williams undertook to provide an update letter when Members return after the recess. I give the same undertaking to this House, and that

      215
      letter will be provided to hon. Members too. I shall write to the hon. Lady about all the organisations, giving her precise information about when they were written to, how many meetings have taken place and who has responded. I guarantee that over the recess I will ensure that that process is pursued with vigour.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments 23 to 32 agreed to.

Opposition Day
17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Northern Ireland Peace Process
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That this House regards the Belfast Agreement as representing the best hope for peace and normalisation available or likely to be achievable in Northern Ireland; is deeply concerned, therefore, at the failure by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries to implement essential aspects of it, including decommissioning, which should have been completed two years ago; welcomes recent conciliatory statements by the President of Sinn Fein and the Loyalist Commission; believes that continuing evidence of military activity by Sinn Fein-IRA makes it clear that this organisation has been in breach of its obligations under the ceasefire and the Agreement; regards as quite inconsistent with any declared adherence to democratic methods the failure by the chairman of Sinn Fein to condemn the attempted murder of a Catholic policeman in Ballymena; considers that no peace process can succeed unless rewards only follow performance, and that there is some penalty for breaches; and calls upon all parties to do all they can to contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, forbearance, mutual understanding and respect between the two communities in Northern Ireland, and avoidance of all forms of violence.
  Our intention in tabling the motion and our decision to call this debate appears to have borne fruit already. It is significant and welcome that the IRA issued a statement of apology at 5 pm—presumably the time when it thought the debate would start, not knowing that it would be preceded by a statement in the House. A fundamental premise of the Opposition's policy on Northern Ireland and the peace process, to which I shall have occasion to return in the next few minutes, is that it should include an element of reciprocity or balance. Good behaviour should be rewarded, but bad behaviour should be penalised. People who fulfil their obligations should get their due reward, but people who break them should face sanctions.
  Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: There is almost no other Member to whom I would give way so early in my speech. If the First Minister will allow me to finish the next few sentences, I shall give way to him then.
  The IRA statement is clearly an exceptional event in Northern Ireland—apologies do not come easy to any of us, and are rare in the history of Northern Ireland and, I believe, unprecedented in the peace process and the troubles, which together have lasted for 30 years. It follows that we should be prepared to respond positively to what, after all, are only words, albeit important words. Deeds will and must follow, but it is right for us to take account in our deliberations of the positive aspects of the IRA statement. My recommendations to the Government will be influenced by this evening's event.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that the apology from the IRA tonight may have been prompted by the investigative pieces on which some journalists have been working for the anniversary of bloody Friday in a few

  217
  days' time and questions being asked about the complicity of certain individuals in those murders and bombings? He said that good actions should be rewarded and evil deeds punished. Does he not agree that it is significant that the statement says nothing at all about the recent violence in which the IRA has been involved and nothing about its future conduct? Consequently, it does not release the Prime Minister from the need to make clear what the Government will do in the event of breaches by the republican movement. If the Government use it as an excuse not to fulfil those undertakings, they will create a very dangerous situation indeed.
  Mr. Davies: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly an apology of that kind, as I said, is not a deed or act of decommissioning, or the winding-up of the IRA. We need dramatic deeds from all concerned if we are to make a success of the peace process. Nevertheless, what has been said this evening should not be ignored—it would be irresponsible to do so. People who have lost family members to terrorism in the past 20 to 30 years will not be minded to take seriously any statement from that quarter—I thoroughly understand that. However, we have a responsibility to determine policy for the nation as a whole, and must do so on the basis that I have set out. We must respond positively when there is clearly a will on the other side to take a positive step forward.
  The reason for the IRA's decision to make a statement is a matter of speculation, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has given the House his interpretation. The fact that he and I in our different ways have been putting pressure on the Government to introduce more discipline in the process is probably not irrelevant to this evening's news. As for the timing, it looks as if the debate brought the statement forward. Clearly, however, there has been a careful rethink in the IRA, and we must think carefully about how to respond.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Did my hon. Friend note with regret that the IRA statement fails to make any absolute commitment that there will be no more violence? The absence of that commitment must be treated cautiously.
  Mr. Davies: I thoroughly agree. That must indeed be treated cautiously, as I have suggested. As my hon. Friend said, the statement is far from adequate but, nevertheless, it is a remarkable and striking document. We should therefore proceed on the basis that I have already set out.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall not take any more interventions at the moment, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he wishes to persist.
  The motion was deliberately drafted to avoid any overt criticism of the Government, although it may well be that not only ourselves but others in the House may have occasion to make such criticism in this debate. We have an opportunity this evening to make criticism when we believe that that is both necessary and constructive. The motion has been drafted in the hope that it could form a broad basis for agreement across the House on the peace process.
  218
  I have discussed the motion with the Secretary of State. I understand that the Government do not feel able explicitly to support it, but the right hon. Gentleman and I have agreed that if the Government do not table an amendment to it, I will not press it to a Division, and on that basis it will, I hope, stand uncontested on the Order Paper. That agreement means that if there should nevertheless be votes at the end of the debate, I shall call on my right hon. and hon. Friends not to take part in them.
  There are three reasons for holding the debate today. Each one forms a proper theme for the debate, and I shall deal with each in turn. First, the intention was to give Parliament a badly needed opportunity, which I fear would otherwise have been denied it, to discuss this vital issue. We shall listen open-mindedly to everything that is said from all parts of the House this evening, with particular attention to the views expressed by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I hope that the Government will also listen open-mindedly to the points made by the official Opposition and Back Benchers on both sides.
  Secondly, the purpose is to set out our own reading of events, and our own concerns, which remain considerable. Thirdly, since I fear that I have been, and continue to feel that I must often be, critical of the Government's tactics in handling the matter, although we are entirely united on the objective and on our commitment to the Belfast agreement, I think it right to set out in a little detail this evening our alternative view of the right tactics, and to try to influence the decisions that the Prime Minister this morning recommitted himself to take by the time the House rises for the summer recess.
  On the need for the debate, I do not feel it necessary to apologise for that. One of the criticisms of the Stormont period that is often made in Northern Ireland—very legitimately, in my view, and it applies as much, I fear, to the period of the MacDonald or the Attlee Administrations as it does to times when the Conservative party had a majority in the House—is that we consistently ignored Northern Ireland. I am afraid that that mistake is in danger of being repeated.
  The Government have not given us any opportunity for a debate this Session. They did not offer a statement on the Weston Park decisions last year, which went quite outside the Belfast agreement and considerably changed the agenda of the peace process—in my view, they unbalanced it. Our own attempts over the past two weeks to secure the promise of a debate or even a statement on the Hillsborough meeting and on the decisions that the Government have promised to take before the House rises have failed, although we have tried on many occasions.
  Whether that reluctance to account to Parliament and to discuss the issue in the Chamber is a reflection of the Government's own unease with their policy on Northern Ireland, or whether it is simply a manifestation of their general attitude to Parliament, I do not know. In either case, it is regrettable.
  On the situation in Northern Ireland as we see it, the Government like to repeat that everything is far, far better than it was during the 30 years of the troubles before 1998. That is most certainly correct, and a very welcome change it is. The institutions are undoubtedly working well, and there is far less violence than there was 10 or 20 years ago. However, there are dangers in reciting that

  219
  mantra too often, even if it is followed, as it usually is, by the statement that of course the Government are not complacent.
  The fact that the situation is better does not mean that it is satisfactory. There have been 13 sectarian murders over the past year in Northern Ireland, instead of more than 100 a year, as was typical during the 1970s and 1980s, but that is still a hideous state of affairs. As the latest excellent Select Committee report makes clear, there is a terrorist beating almost every day; and we ought to be concerned with the direction of events, as well as with the present state of affairs. Although things are far better than 10 or 20 years ago, the Government's mantra tends to ignore the fact that things are a good deal worse than we were entitled to believe they would be at the time of the Belfast agreement four years ago. Very little progress has been made with IRA decommissioning, and none at all with loyalist decommissioning, though decommissioning was supposed to be completed two years ago.
  No progress has been made at all in dismantling paramilitary organisations. The recent Select Committee report suggests that many of them have been considerably strengthened. Last month, for the first time in four years, there was shooting in the streets after vicious rioting in east Belfast, and five people were wounded. I dread to think what would have happened had one of them been killed.
  I suppose that one good measure of progress—or perhaps I should say one bad measure of regress—is the walls. They are such an obvious, hideous symptom of the abnormality of life in Belfast and Londonderry. Since 1998, they have been considerably extended. The Government are extending them in east Belfast as this debate proceeds. I hardly think that anyone in the House would regard that as a measure of positive progress.
  The truth is that confidence in the peace process in Northern Ireland, especially but not only in the Unionist community, is at an all-time low since the establishment of the process itself. That has many consequences. One is that the political parties that have invested most in the process—I pay tribute to their political courage in doing so—by accepting the agreement wholeheartedly and by implementing it, the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party, are currently on the defensive.
  Given the recent course of events, there is every reason to suppose that after the Assembly elections next May, the two largest parties will be one that rejects the agreement in principle, and another which, while saying that it accepts the agreement, continues to fail to implement it, does not recognise the police force and continues to maintain a paramilitary organisation on an active footing, and cannot bring itself to condemn terrorist murder—a disgraceful failure by the chairman of Sinn Fein-IRA, to which we refer in our motion.
  As I said earlier, we shall give full credit where credit is due for positive statements or positive moves, but we shall be ruthless in meeting statements and above all moves away from the agreement or breaches of it, of which there have been far too many.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the man responsible for the
  220
  Abercorn bombing was Mr. Gerry Adams? He was in charge of the IRA at that time. Is it not interesting that in the document that has been issued, the IRA offers apology to non-combatant families? Thus the police are viewed as a legitimate target, and those serving in all the forces of the Crown and in the other back-ups are looked upon as legitimate targets. Surely, in the light of that, the letter prompts the people of Northern Ireland to ask, "What will be the pay-off for the letter?"
  Mr. Davies: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I understand why he says it. As I said earlier, I do not believe that the statement is the last statement that needs to be made—far from it. It is not even the first of the deeds that we require to complete the process; it is a beginning and a positive move. We would be foolish, and we would be betraying the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, if we attempted simply to ignore it.
  David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will, but I shall not give way very much this evening, for the simple reason that we do not have long. This is an Opposition day. We had to get the time for the debate this evening. The Government did not want a debate. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated at not having opportunities to express his views on Northern Ireland—his views are always well thought through, and for many years he has played a distinguished role in the matter—he will add his own probably more convincing and persuasive pressure to mine on the Secretary of State to ensure that in future we get debates in Government time.
  David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may have a point, and I am grateful to him for giving way. He said that the chairman of Sinn Fein did not condemn a terrorist murder. He was right to refer to that, and it was wrong of the person concerned not to have condemned it. Where is the difference between the two sides?
  Mr. Davies: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the two sides.
  David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman condemns the chairman of Sinn Fein for not having condemned the terrorist murder. What is the difference between the hon. Gentleman's condemnation and ours?
  Mr. Davies: I hope that there is none. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that there is none, and we can agree on that, I shall be delighted. I have already said that the whole purpose of our motion was to try to establish a basis for common agreement, and the motion includes that condemnation, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
  I mentioned a possible scenario at the elections next May. I suppose that one could devise a scenario in which, irrespective of the outcome in May, the peace process could go forward uninterrupted. However, one would have to be quite optimistic to do so, and positively Panglossian to assume that the peace process will go forward on that outcome of next May's elections. Good policy is never made on the assumption of a best-case

  221
  scenario. That prospect should make us all consider very seriously the actions that we need to take now, rather than delaying the difficult decisions until we approach next May.
  Of course the Government genuinely, and indeed desperately, want the peace process to succeed, as we all do. They are rightly proud of the Belfast agreement. It is not an ideal document, but it was never going to be, and we accept it with its imperfections as the best available basis for peace in Northern Ireland. What a terrible irony it would be if that achievement by the Government—I pay tribute to them for it—were eroded by their own inept actions, failures to act or abdications. But can they really escape responsibility for the failures of implementation thus far and for the decline in confidence to which I referred? After all, it was the prospect of a complete and permanent end to violence that persuaded many people to swallow their objections to measures such as the early release of terrorist prisoners and the inclusion of parties such as Sinn Fein in government before IRA weapons had even begun to be decommissioned.
  All parties to the agreement are supposed to be committed to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. They pledged in the agreement to use their influence to bring about
  "the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"
  by May 2000. We were told by no other a person than the Prime Minister that there would be effective sanctions against those parties that failed to deliver. As he put it in the House,
  "The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good…There must be an absolute giving up of violence, and it cannot be just a tactical ceasefire for a tactical reason."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  Then there was the Prime Minister's speech at the Balmoral showgrounds, in which he set out the factors by which any ceasefire should be judged—a judgment which he said
  "will necessarily become more rigorous over time".
  Then we had the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges. I quote:
  "prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good".
  I quote again:
  "those who use or threaten violence excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland".
  Those were all fine assurances. Yet what happened in reality? Almost the exact opposite: the prisoners were all released, despite the fact that there had been no decommissioning whatever. That was a colossal error—we said so, and voted against it, at the time—and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), whose judgment, sadly, has been vindicated by events.
  Why was it a colossal mistake, and could that have been anticipated at the time? Indeed it could, first because the Government abandoned their major instrument of leverage for nothing at all; and secondly because they deprived any member of the IRA army council who might have been willing to decommission of his major argument. We can all make mistakes, but the extraordinary thing is that, when no decommissioning had taken place and three years had passed, the Government
  222
  made the same mistake again. At Weston Park they offered a whole new raft of concessions—including an amnesty to on-the-run terrorists and former terrorists allowed to sit as independent members of district police partnerships—that were not required by the Belfast agreement. Last December, the Government offered yet another concession: special status in the House for Sinn Fein-IRA Members of Parliament. In other words, they made full payment for no delivery, then, when there was still no delivery, they further rewarded the other party with an unanticipated bonus. Few people in the history of human affairs have found it very profitable to negotiate in that way.
  How did the IRA respond? Two weeks after Weston Park, it showed its contempt by publicly tearing up the agreement on the methodology of decommissioning that it had signed with General de Chastelain. It looked as though decommissioning would never even begin. It certainly did not do so as a result of Weston Park. Then followed, fortuitously, the FARC incident and, tragically, 11 September, and American pressure produced the first act of decommissioning. The electoral imperatives of the Irish elections produced the second act. Now, the vital question is who or what will produce the third act. The IRA may be rethinking its strategy—we shall have to evaluate tonight's statement—but the fact remains, and it must be faced, that in its deeds the IRA has been going in the other direction. The Castlereagh break-in and the evidence of new targeting in March this year were evidence of that.
  We cannot go on like this. The Government must appreciate that the peace process, like any peace process, must be based on two things. First, there must be a sense of balance and fairness. Both sides must be seen to be gaining benefits—all the dividends and bonuses cannot be paid only to one side. Secondly, there must be some proper structure of incentives, so that rewards follow performance and breaches result in penalties.
  Lembit Öpik: To pursue the hon. Gentleman's list of criticisms of Government policy, the actions of the Conservative Administration in negotiating and having secret discussions with terrorists who had not declared a ceasefire were in the same category of strategic decision as the actions that the hon. Gentleman is describing. Why does he think that the previous Government's actions were acceptable, whereas those of the current Government are not?
  Mr. Davies: There is no comparison at all to be made between opening negotiations with someone and actually making concessions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not see the distinction between those two things.
  So much for general analysis and principles, important as they are. In the rest of my remarks I shall be strictly pragmatic and practical, because that is what is called for. I shall answer this precise question: what should the Government do now? I urge them to do five things. First, to restore confidence in the communities, especially those in Belfast and Londonderry affected by the recent violence, the Government need to act to tackle the crisis of morale and numbers in policing. The regular force has already fallen below the levels envisaged by Patten—and Patten assumed an environment in which there had been a complete end to sectarian violence. That is why, in the

  223
  circumstances, it would be madness to get rid of the full-time reserve. Without the full-time reserve, the Police Service of Northern Ireland simply could not cope.
  Thus the Government should give two commitments immediately: first, that they will not allow numbers to fall further; and, secondly, that the full-time reserve will be offered new contracts when they fall due for the foreseeable future, and until a new determination has been made by the Chief Constable that there is a qualitative and sustainable improvement in the security situation.
  The second thing that the Government should do now is act on the vital issue of linkage, reciprocity and a proper structure of incentives to perform. The official Opposition have the greatest sympathy for the First Minister's demand that the Government take powers to exclude from the Executive parties that are in breach of their obligations. It may be a little late now to use those powers in respect of past breaches, but it had been my intention to urge the Government immediately to introduce legislation to take those powers so that it was clear that they could be used immediately and decisively if there were any further breaches. In the light of the IRA's statement this evening, it is perhaps not the right moment to introduce legislation of that kind, but I hope that the Government will take every opportunity to make it absolutely clear, in private or by whichever other means they feel is expedient, that they will not be taken for a ride for a third time—that no more free concessions will be available and that at last some element of reciprocity and discipline will be introduced into the peace process.
  I also urge the Government to concert with our Irish partners and American allies to ensure that there are real financial and other penalties for organisations, be they loyalist or republican, that are specified as being in breach of the agreement. The Secretary of State will know that that is a technical term in relation to the peace agreement, and the present procedure, which he has already used once, is a complete paper tiger, a sword of clay. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I hope that he will take action to remedy it.
  Thirdly, the Government should make it clear that there can be no question of making the Weston Park concession of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists at the present time, or at any time, except as part and parcel of a final settlement involving the winding-up of paramilitary organisations and the end of the armed struggle. That offer has, in any case, never been endorsed, ratified or even considered by Parliament, and any moral obligation on the Government has now surely been obliterated by the successive IRA breaches since it was formulated. Those breaches started with the IRA's involvement with FARC, which we now know was going on while the Weston Park negotiations were taking place.
  Fourthly, the Government should have the courage explicitly to endorse the Taoiseach's demand that decommissioning be completed by next May. I taxed the right hon. Gentleman with this the other day at Question Time, and he again evaded the issue, offering a mealy-mouthed fudge to the effect that
  "the Government have no disagreement with the Taoiseach on the need for urgent decommissioning."
  That was precisely the phrase used by the Prime Minister in his letter of two weeks ago to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and more or less the wording
  224
  used by the Secretary of State to me last week. That formula is simply not adequate. There is a devastating lack of conviction and credibility in a fudge of that kind, and I am surprised that the Government cannot see that.
  The Government should make it clear that, whatever the result of next May's elections, no party can sit on the Executive if it has not fulfilled its undertakings under the agreement or remains tied to a paramilitary organisation that has not done so. The parties should know the score now, and the Northern Ireland electorate should know the score as soon as possible—certainly well in advance of the elections.
  Finally, the Government should look again at the suggestion that I made last October, which they ignored, confident perhaps that their own approach would work. Since then, there have been successive serious IRA breaches. My suggestion was that the Government should attempt the negotiation of a comprehensive solution—what I called a programmed process leading to full decommissioning. I emphasise that that should involve not a renegotiation of the Belfast agreement, but simply a timetable for its implementation, for decommissioning by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries, and for recognition by Sinn Fein of the new police force. I urge the Government to accompany that with an attempt to negotiate an arrangement on other issues, including the Weston Park issues, provided that they are balanced by the disbanding of all paramilitary structures and the definitive ending of the armed struggle.
  The negotiation of a comprehensive, timed or programmed global package such as this may seem ambitious. Of course it is. Perhaps the IRA's statement makes it clear that the time is more fertile for this than it has been up to now. In any event, I am convinced, after many months considering the problem and speaking to all sides in Northern Ireland, that no one there will make real concessions unless it is clear what proportion of the final price to be paid any particular move represents, and precisely what they will receive in return. Unless the package being negotiated is demonstrably final, everyone will hold back to keep something for the next round. On that basis, it will take until kingdom come to get to peace and genuine normalisation in Northern Ireland.
  I know that the Secretary of State has been battling hard, and that he has been particularly active in recent days and weeks in trying to broker some de-escalation of the tension in the flashpoints of east and north Belfast, and in the context of the marching season. I want genuinely to congratulate him on that. He has already had considerable success, and of course he has our full support in continuing those efforts, as I have already told him privately.
  The Secretary of State knows, however, as we all do, that violence such as this is more the symptom than the cause of the problem. The cause is a sense of unfairness, a sense that the other side is getting a much better deal, and a belief that the peace process is a failure or a fraud, or, if it was not a fraud at the outset, that it has now become one, and that people must look to their own sectarian groups or even paramilitary organisations to protect themselves and their interests.
  No one in the House can or should rest content until the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy the same peaceful and normal life under the rule of law as exists elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or, indeed, in the

  225
  Republic of Ireland. I am convinced that the peace process is the only way of getting there. It is in genuine trouble, but the flame is still there and it needs to be fanned back into full and vigorous life. I hope that the signal that we have had from the IRA this afternoon is an indication that this is a good time to do that, and to negotiate the full and final completion of the peace process. That will require not only considerable effort but considerable toughness, but, if it succeeds, it will finally bring about the peace in Northern Ireland that its people have prayed for and dreamed of for so long.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the Secretary of State, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
  8.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I welcome this opportunity for the House to consider the peace process in Northern Ireland. This is a short debate in which to consider a subject that is immense both in its historic magnitude and in its complexity. Because of that complexity, it would be easy for any of us to grasp each or any passing event to justify the no doubt contrary opinions that will be expressed tonight.
  Although there is no inevitability about the success or otherwise of any human endeavour, I have no doubt that some hon. Members who speak tonight will claim scientific—in some cases dogmatic—precision in relation to their predictions and prescriptions for the future. Those of us not blessed with such foresight recognise that, in the midst of any massive social or political transformation, it is often difficult to discern the broad sweep of historical change above the headline of the moment. It is all too easy to concentrate on the minutes, thereby losing some appreciation of the movement of the hours, especially when the minutes show up all the imperfections that we have inherited from an imperfect past.
  Some of those complexities can be seen in the last few weeks' contrasting, contradictory, complex and, at times, seemingly incompatible series of events. For example, we have just seen an almost unprecedentedly peaceful few days over the 12 July period. I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for ascribing to me the efforts that I have made, but efforts have also been made by the people in the communities themselves. We have recently seen the apparent paradox of the Assistant chief constable warning against the potential for mobilisation of republicans into given communities one day, and, within 24 hours, the same officer congratulating not only republicans but leading members of the IRA for having helped to contain the violence.
  David Burnside: The only reason why the police officer to whom the Secretary of State refers changed his mind was that spikes, bottles and weapons of terrorism that were being lined up in Ardoyne to attack a planned Orange parade were revealed by the good intelligence of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and people such as Gerry Kelly and others were put on the back foot because they had been denying that they were
  226
  planning that kind of republican violence. Is the right hon. Gentleman not misrepresenting the facts of what happened over the weekend?
  Dr. Reid: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The assistant chief constable said that he changed his mind because he saw that leading republicans—in his own words—helped to marshal and restrain some of the young people. The point that I was making was about the complex and contradictory nature of events that we have to assess, and the difficulty of distinguishing passing events from the greater movements of historical change.
  As I said, we had an unprecedentedly peaceful 12 July weekend, and I was going on to say that it came at the end of a worrying few weeks in which we had ghastly reminders of just how far we have to go: the home of four young children gunned and petrol bombed in Coleraine; a house petrol bombed in Antrim; a funeral cortege insulted and assaulted in Londonderry; a Catholic church burned out—and so it goes on. Those are all testimony to the bigotry, sectarianism and mindless hatred that still exist with some people and in some areas of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State mentioned a number of incidents. I am sure that he would want to add to that list the murder of my constituent William Morgan, who was buried today. He was a young man with a wife and family—his wife is pregnant—done to death by vicious sectarian thugs. The police have described it as a murder. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to convey his condolences and those of the House to the wife and family.
  Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed, I have no hesitation in doing just that. Tragically, what I was presenting to the House was not a comprehensive list of the ghastly reminders of which I spoke.
  It should not surprise us, then, that a series of surveys—the most recent from the university of Ulster only last week—has illustrated the decline in the optimism generated by the first IRA ceasefire in 1994 and then by the Belfast agreement in 1998. In 1996, for instance, 44 per cent. of Protestants and 47 per cent. of Catholics thought that inter-community relationships were better than five years previously. By last year, the totals had dropped to only 25 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively.
  That drop in confidence has been particularly noted—and sometimes highlighted in the House—on the Protestant side, but that is not the whole story, because between 2000 and 2001 there was a significant increase among both Protestants and Catholics who viewed their own community as the underdog. Both sides see their own community as beleaguered or besieged. As someone remarked to me recently, sometimes the problem in Northern Ireland is the inability of either side to acknowledge the other side's victimhood.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford mentioned balance. It is important to get a balanced appreciation of exactly where we are. If we look at the broader canvas, despite some of the ghastly events that I mentioned, we can see a much more balanced picture. There have been real gains in the everyday life of the Province, and it does not contribute anything to our appreciation of where we are if we dismiss them too

  227
  lightly. Of course, we must not regard them as exclusively optimistic without taking into account the balancing factor of how far we have to go, but there has been real progress.
  We now have a Northern Ireland which in the recent past has achieved the fastest economic growth of any region in the United Kingdom. For the first time in decades, more people are staying in or returning to the Province than are leaving it. Economic investment, tourism and commercial activity have been returning and accelerating. For the most part, young people and families can enjoy a night out. For all the imperfections and blemishes, normality is returning—perhaps more slowly than we would like, but we can still trace its advance.
  Troop levels, at about 13,500, are the lowest since 1970, and routine military patrolling is down by about 50 per cent. over the past four years. Over the same period, employment has grown by almost 5 per cent., with 650,000 in work—more people than ever before. Unemployment is at an historic low, and the standard of living for the vast majority of people has been improving.
  All those factors must be weighed in the balance in any discussion of the peace process. Above all, that terrible index, the total of the tragic loss of life, which has been the dreadful hallmark of three decades of conflict, is at an all-time low. None of that should be dismissed lightly. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the worst year of the troubles, as a direct result of which, in that single year alone, 470 people in Northern Ireland died. Twenty years ago—10 years later—there were still nearly 100 people who lost their lives in a single year. Even 10 years ago, there was almost the same total of people who died directly as a result of the troubles. Last year. 16 people were killed, and this year four people have lost their lives to date. That is four too many, and every single death is one too many, but it does no justice to how much we have achieved to pretend that it is not significantly different from the huge total that we lost even 10 years ago.
  Let me give one figure that I have given before: in the three and a half years before the IRA ceasefire, no fewer than 350 lives were tragically lost in Northern Ireland, while in the three and a half years after the Belfast agreement, 50 lives were lost—a seventh of the earlier total. As I said, there are still huge problems and every death is one too many, but let us not embark on this debate without realising how far we have come.
  This afternoon, to add to the complexity of the course of events in Northern Ireland, we had another statement from the Provisional Irish Republican Army, to which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford referred. That IRA statement is, I believe, a welcome acknowledgment of the grief and loss that that organisation has caused over the years of pointless and tragic conflict, and the deaths for which it was responsible.
  I especially welcome the fact that the statement includes an open apology to the families of many of those who died. Of course, actions speak louder than words, but the words that we have heard today are, I believe, more persuasive than those that the IRA had hitherto brought itself to utter. I strongly hope that it means that at last the IRA has turned its face unequivocally against violence. If it has, Northern Ireland has a bright future, but the real test is whether the transition from violence to democracy continues and gives confidence to the whole process.
  228
  To make a reality of the acknowledgement and the expression of regret, in terms that ordinary people, and especially those who have suffered, can appreciate, they need to be able to have the confidence that the events that caused that tragic misery, pain and loss will never return, that the conflict is in the past, and that the resolution of difficulties in the future will be carried out by democratic means.
  Mr. John Baron: I fully accept that progress has been made, but the Secretary of State will also accept that the situation is far from satisfactory. If the IRA was truly sorry, would not the best way of showing that to the people of Northern Ireland be to agree to disarm totally and unequivocally?
  Dr. Reid: I would not disagree with that sentiment, and that is what we want to see. We want all paramilitaries in Northern Ireland to disband completely, and I shall in due course comment on the other side of the coin, as it were. Here, I am merely trying to give the balance for which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford asked, by saying that we have come a very long way indeed. Yet the risks, challenges and dangers are there for all to see. In a sense, if what has been achieved so far gives succour to those who hope for the best in Northern Ireland, the blemishes and the imperfections that remain are all too often a portent to those who fear the worst in Northern Ireland.
  How is it, then, that we have come as far as we have, and yet still face a future clouded in uncertainty and in threat? One analysis argues that moving any long-standing conflict towards settlement requires at least four elements. First, there has to be leadership that is willing to compromise for peace. Secondly, that leadership has to be sufficiently courageous and strong enough politically to make the compromises, to make them stick and to sell that agreement. Thirdly, the outlines of the settlement have to enjoy wide support across the dispute. Fourthly, there has to be a process that people are willing to enter into—a process that is sufficiently robust and resilient to stand the setbacks. At times, there will be setbacks, violence and other backward steps, because of circumstances, or because there are opponents of the entire process itself.
  That is not a synopsis of my analysis, but one written some time ago by ambassador Richard Haass, President Bush's envoy, who went on to say:
  "I think over time our ability to continue moving forward in Northern Ireland would depend on the political ability of leaders to make the kind of gestures and statements and compromises they are going to have to make. And they are only going to be able to do these things if they have prepared their own people and essentially made the case for compromising, saying yes, we are going to have to start doing this or stop doing that, but here's why, on balance, we are better off. And I think we need to see more of that".
  The truth is that in Northern Ireland we have come as far as we have only because people on all sides have been prepared to give that leadership. Everyone has had to compromise, but there is still too much of a tendency to play down the compromises that others have made. It took guts as well as vision for the Ulster Unionist party to go into government with republicans. That was not easy, and it took courage. The UUP and everyone else knew that Sinn Fein continued to be linked with the IRA, but it accepted that a process of transition was under way, and that it would not be completed unless everyone was prepared to take some degree of risk.

  229
  The republican leadership took considerable risks by entering into and participating in a partitionist Government, moving into the arena of decommissioning, and taking responsibility for making Northern Ireland work, rather than simply destroying, or attempting to destroy, it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party showed great courage and leadership by opening up dialogue with republicans when others were not prepared to do so. I also pay tribute to the previous Prime Minister, John Major, who took tremendous risks and showed tremendous courage in opening discussions with the IRA not at a time when there were some imperfections or local orchestration of violence, but when that organisation was in the process of murdering innocent civilians through terrorist activity. John Major's action was heavily criticised in many quarters at the time, but I pay tribute to him for his courage and his leadership, for withstanding that criticism, and for recognising the historic immensity of the opportunity that had opened up to him and the then Conservative Government.
  However, it was not easy to authorise secret contacts with the IRA in the course of an active terrorist campaign. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made an emollient speech. I hope that, in recognising that we are perhaps taking risks and making judgments, he also recognises that we are at least doing so after a prolonged ceasefire. The courage required by his own former party leader some years ago to take such action in the midst of a terrorist campaign was even greater, but perhaps the criticisms of him would also have been even greater. It was not easy for John Major—and nor was it easy for this Government—to agree to the early release of prisoners, or to try to tackle the problem of the "on the runs".
  None of this has been easy—especially, of course, in Northern Ireland. Leadership there has traditionally been of the exclusive type—speaking for one's own community—rather than the inclusive type that is demanded, almost by definition, by this peace process. However, in a very real sense this process will work only if one person's problem becomes everyone's problem.
  Of course, it is not just Governments and party leaders who have had to show leadership; hundreds of thousands of people throughout Northern Ireland have done so in their own communities. I believe that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was in Londonderry yesterday, speaking about some of the problems, and I welcome his regular visits. The accommodation that the Apprentice Boys and the residents in Londonderry have reached in recent years has required real local leadership and a willingness to accommodate conflicting aspirations.
  I understand the anxieties of those who express concern about a current imbalance in the process and about its underlying moral integrity. There are genuine and legitimate questions that the Government must answer in that regard. We have all faced some tough decisions, and I will continue to do so. On occasion, there is real anguish involved in making such judgments. However, it not good enough for serious politicians who wish to change history to will the ends without having the courage to confront the means of reaching them. Anyone who seriously wishes to change our country and the future in a major way must not merely pay lip service to outlining and supporting some
  230
  beneficial objectives; they must have the guts to face up to the tough means that are sometimes required to achieve those objectives.
  We will not change the course of history simply by wishful thinking or risk aversion; nor will we do so by being fastidious over every step required along the way. General de Gaulle once wrote that achieving the right outcome sometimes necessitates—[Interruption.] I am asked to read the quotation in French. It sometimes necessitates
  "une certaine rudesse dans les procedures".
  C'est très simple pour les ècossais parce qu'en Glasgow on parle dans la gorge.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Secretary of State that if he is going to quote in a foreign language, it is imperative that he give the English translation immediately afterwards.
  Dr. Reid: D'accord, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The rough translation of General de Gaulle's contribution is, "It is worth putting up with some imperfections and rough edges if it's the only way to achieve a worthwhile objective." Roughly translated too, my later comment was that it is very easy for Glaswegians to speak French because they also use the back of the throat when speaking.
  The difficulty—and I freely admit that it is a difficulty—is determining how much it is legitimate to accept by way of imperfection. Let me say clearly that the Government do not believe that there can be peace at any price. I want to clear up some misconceptions. It is simply not true that the Government have been prepared to turn a blind eye to continuing illegality, or to regard any level of violence as somehow acceptable, depending on who carries it out. The police continue to pursue with vigour all those responsible for sectarian violence, on both sides of the community. Any imputation that the police in Northern Ireland would respond to political directives or persuasion and stop doing what they do best reflects badly not on the police, but on those who make it.
  Since 4 May, there have been 30 arrests in connection with violence in north and east Belfast. It is not the case that no one is ever arrested. There has been a thorough investigation—and it is continuing—since the break-in at Castlereagh, and it will follow the truth wherever it leads. irrespective of the outcome. The police will be correct in acting in that way.
  Our efforts against organised crime are overseen by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for security. Those efforts also cover organised crime linked to paramilitary groups, and they have been stepped up considerably over the past 12 months. They have achieved considerable success, and that will continue.
  It is not true either that we apply a double standard to Sinn Fein, or that we will be content if the IRA's transition from violence to democracy for some reason gets stuck part way through. Ultimately, there can be no half-way stopping house or comfortable staging post between violence and democracy where people can rest indefinitely.
  We recognise that there is a process involved, but it goes far beyond ending violence alone. It involves establishing institutions, liberties, rights and opportunities

  231
  in a context in which violence becomes ever more illegitimate, even for those who have used it before and tried to justify it.
  Full rights carry full responsibilities, and participation in the Government of Northern Ireland carries particular responsibilities. I believe that the republican leadership understands that, and that it is committed to the completion of the transition. However, we accept that others—some of them are in this House—have concerns, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated that he will say more on this issue before the House rises.
  I wish to make it clear that neither the enemies of this process, nor our partners in it, should misjudge our motives or our resolve in completing that transition. They should not misjudge our commitment to the process. Some people portray the process as one of appeasement, and suggest that there is something weak-kneed, lily-livered and intrinsically appeasing about engaging in a process of talk, words and jaw-jaw. I remind them that the person who coined the phrase that jaw—jaw is better than war-war was no appeaser. People who have suffered from the conflict know more than anyone else what price has to be paid when politicians fail to solve problems through democratic means. Our security forces and armed forces have suffered more than anyone else, because they are the ones who have been asked to try to solve those problems with their lives.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to set up an Aunt Sally of his own invention and then attack that. No sensible person—certainly no Opposition Member—has ever suggested that entering into a dialogue or a negotiation constitutes appeasement. We have been concerned that the negotiation has not been balanced, and that there have not been clear demands that the other party in the negotiation fulfils its obligations under accepted agreements. It is essential that that balance and discipline be maintained, and that is what we are asking for. Under no circumstances would the Opposition suggest that we should not talk. We should talk to everybody.
  Dr. Reid: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, let me say, in as non-partisan a manner as possible, that it does nothing to promote confidence in the peace process or our sincerity in it to characterise the process, in a misleading way, as a one-way series of concessions to republicans and to talk—inadvertently at times—in the language of the sweetie shop or the headmaster's study. A human rights commission is not a concession to republicans. Human rights are the rights of everyone in the United Kingdom and, indeed, wider.
  Mr. Davies: I have no problem with that.
  Dr. Reid: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. An equality commission and equality of opportunity are not concessions to the republicans or gestures to a ghetto in west Belfast, but things to which every child and family in Northern Ireland should have access. A police service that the whole community can participate in and support is not a concession. [Interruption.] I am going through all the elements about which the hon. Gentleman appears to give the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that he regards
  232
  as concessions to one side. I am glad if he agrees that these are not concessions but elementary rights that should be extended to all the people in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Davies: I do not want this evening's debate to proceed in too controversial an atmosphere. However, we have always supported the Equality Commission and human rights—never have I characterised them as concessions. The right hon. Gentleman knows our concerns about concessions such as amnesties, but I hope that we will not spend our time in this debate criticising each other for something that we have not done.
  Dr. Reid: Okay. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is worth saying that we are dealing in this process largely with rights that should be extended to all the people in Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: Will the Secretary of State please explain why, for the first time since 1920, we have institutionalised sectarian discrimination in employment policy for the police in Northern Ireland? How can he define that as equality by any definition of the term? If he has an example of institutionalised Government discrimination from 1920, perhaps he will tell the House.
  Dr. Reid: I would like to say that once again the hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole community in Northern Ireland, but I do not think that he would receive cross-community support for his assertion that there was previously no institutionalised discrimination in employment or any other field. Indeed, I would go further—we are trying to create a fair and just society in Northern Ireland. I agree with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said earlier. Perhaps if we—by which I mean successive British Governments—had spent a little more time considering Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1972, we would have had a different past and perhaps a brighter future. However, we are now concerned with the establishment of a just and fair society in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hunter: Before the Secretary of State concludes his speech, will he address the specific point of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about the argument for legislation to facilitate expulsion if it is deemed necessary?
  Dr. Reid: I think that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford decided that he would not press the case for that tonight. In any case, there is provision in the existing legislation, should such a course of action be judged proper, in that a resolution can be placed before the Assembly on which it can make a decision. Despite the fact that the issue was not raised tonight—
  Mr. Davies: Abdication.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman says "abdication", but I suspect that we have an entirely different view both formally and in terms of our general attitude towards devolution. I believe that devolution means devolution—that if we create a police board, we do not dictate to it how it should deal with the full-time reserve, as he suggested that I should do tonight. If one creates a local

  233
  authority, one does not dictate to it how it should do things. If one creates an Assembly to bring together the people of Northern Ireland then, for goodness' sake, give it some role in the major decisions. Incidentally, if one goes into an agreement with other parties, it is not as easy or as beneficial as he makes out unilaterally to rip up that agreement and start adding bits to it.
  My argument is that there are already mechanisms to reach the objective that the hon. Gentleman appears to want to reach if it is decided that we have reached such a crisis in the peace process.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: If what the Secretary of State said is the case, why on 10 April 1998 did the Prime Minister say this in a letter to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party:
  "if…these provisions"
  meaning the provisions for exclusion—
  "have been shown to be ineffective,"—
  as they have been on a number of occasions—
  "we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office"?
  Dr. Reid: First, the provisions can hardly have been proved to be ineffective when they have never been tried.
  Mr. Donaldson: They have.
  Dr. Reid: The provision that I mentioned—the Secretary of State putting a resolution before the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein—has not been tried, so the hon. Gentleman cannot assert that it has been found to be ineffective. Unless it has been tried and failed, there is no evidence for that.
  The hon. Gentleman and I know each other well enough—I hope that that does not hinder his career—to get to the point. As he said when he was making a speech the other day, splendidly bedecked—I watched him on television—he wants Sinn Fein excluded. That is his judgment. Therefore, his complaint is not about the mechanism for exclusion; it is that the Government do not want to exclude Sinn Fein, and certainly not at this point in time. That is a genuine political difference and a political judgment. He need not be so modest as to hide that behind a deficiency in the mechanism that exists. It is a difference of agreement. He is absolutely plain that he wants to exclude Sinn Fein from government, on the basis, presumably, that that will help Sinn Fein move towards politics and away from violence. That is his judgment. To me, it is not instantly, entirely and intuitively a logical position, but I understand that it is a political position, and it is a credible one.
  Mr. Davies: I think that the Secretary of State may be missing the point, which is purely practical—that one has no credibility in this life in threatening a sanction that one is not in a position to enforce. The right hon. Gentleman will get no leverage in the negotiations with Sinn Fein by suggesting that one day there might be a majority of Sinn Fein and Social Democratic and Labour Members who might like to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. If he wants to use that mechanism, he will have to take powers in this House. That was my point. However, he quoted me correctly. Due to the fact that the other circumstances
  234
  have been changed by this evening's statement, I have not pressed him as I had intended to introduce that legislation immediately. If things deteriorate and there are further problems, we will do that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. I remind the House once again that this is a very short debate.
  Dr. Reid: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not want to ignore anyone who wanted to intervene. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, however, that is a debate for another day. Whatever the differences here, there is no disguising the fact that we face difficulties in the peace process and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to discuss those tonight. All I ask is that in so doing we try to measure up to the scale of the challenge. The British Government certainly recognise the role that we have to play during the coming days and weeks to try to re-create the trust and confidence that the process requires.
  I hope that the Opposition and other hon. Members will do likewise and that they will clarify the ambiguity, or equivocation, about their support for bipartisanship. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford knows that, despite our differences, we have tried to facilitate matters and to work together when that was merited. I hope that we can continue to do that whatever our tactical differences, because the people of Britain and the people of Northern Ireland want to see us united in our determination to make the process succeed if it is humanly possible to do so. We cannot guarantee success; there is no preordained destination for the journey we are on.
  All of us in these islands would do well to take to heart the words—I am glad that they are in English—of Abraham Lincoln at the end of another long and painful conflict. He said
  "let us strive—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves".
  Whatever differences the debate may reveal over tactics, I hope that I, too, can say, let us stand united in our shared objective of securing a peaceful and just end to an ancient conflict.
  8.46 pm
  Lembit Öpik: First, may I say how pleased I am that the Conservatives have abandoned what was bound to be a short-lived policy of pulling out of the cross-party agreement on Northern Ireland? I understand why they did so, although more than anything else, I suspect that their position was unsustainable.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I do not know how many times I have had to correct the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Conservative party never gave up on the Belfast agreement. It never gave up on the bipartisan approach in so far as the agreement was being followed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will finally get off that tack.
  Lembit Öpik: I apologise to the Conservatives for so profoundly misunderstanding their position in the past. I offer my complete and unequivocal apology. Goodness knows how I got that impression.
  I shall take the hon. Gentleman at his word. It is great to hear the Conservatives reaffirming their commitment to the bipartisan agreement. I need say no more on the

  235
  subject—the record is clear as to what the hon. Gentleman and I have said. That is a matter of celebration because some of us were confused—at the very least—as to the Conservative position.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: If the hon. Gentleman is confused, may I refer him to his remarks last week, as his words are becoming repetitive? He said:
  "I am pleased that his party has abandoned its short-lived withdrawal from the cross-party consensus on Northern Ireland. That always struck me as an unsustainable position, and it is to the Conservative party's credit that it is inside, rather than outside, that process."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 277WH.]
  I hope that clarifies the hon. Gentleman's memory, if nothing else.
  Lembit Öpik: The words are repetitive only because the hon. Gentleman has repeated them. He will of course be aware that they were spoken during an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. The good news needs celebration in an even more public context because I am sure that I was not the only person in the United Kingdom who was unclear about the Conservative position. Let us put the matter to rest; it could not be clearer, from the exchanges of the past few minutes, that the Conservatives are expressly involved in the bipartisan agreement in a positive and strategic way. There can be no one in this place who is not pleased about that.
  However, the Conservatives still paint a fairly gloomy picture of where we stand as regards the Northern Ireland peace process. Surely, no one can deny that things are better than they were 10 years ago, despite the underlying level of violence in the communities—a point that has already been mentioned.
  No one can question the seminal importance of the work of former Prime Minister, John Major, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland rightly pointed out. As I have said in other speeches, there is no doubt that John Major kick-started the current peace process by taking significant risks as Prime Minister and straying beyond what might have been regarded as the safe path in respect of Northern Ireland. No one can question whether the Good Friday agreement, for all the strains on it, exists and was signed by the majority of parties in the Province.
  Those unquestionable facts, which have come to pass in the past decade, have served considerably to reduce the level of conflict in the sense of an organised campaign of terror in Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the United Kingdom mainland. Nevertheless, the Conservatives have raised a number of concerns, as they are entitled to do, and I should like to explore two of them—their criticisms of past political activity by the Government and their predictions for the future.
  As for the former, it strikes me as ironic that a number of activities, such as prisoner release and the apparent non-enforcement of the decommissioning conditions, are so heavily attacked by the official Opposition. It seems to me that the Conservatives have set a great many of the precedents with regard to Northern Ireland political decision making. Their past approach tends to imply that we must allow the flexibility for a Government to make those kinds of tough choices.
  236
  For example, the Conservative party decided to launch the Anglo-Irish agreement. We must remember that that agreement was tremendously controversial at the time, not least in the Province itself, yet if that decision not been taken then, it would have been much less likely that the south of Ireland would have renounced its constitutional claim on the north.
  Hon. Members have already mentioned the secret talks between John Major and the active terrorist organisation, the IRA, at a time when there was no ceasefire at all. I heard what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said in response to my intervention on that, but I take a different view. I feel that there is a great deal of similarity in making that kind of decision at the beginning of the 1990s and some of the decisions that have been taken to try to give the peace process momentum now. Obviously, I respect other hon. Members' right to differ on that issue.
  Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman recall of course that those three great steps forward were taken under Mrs. Thatcher?
  Lembit Öpik: Indeed, some hon. Members may be even more surprised that Mrs. Thatcher, who was no friend of terrorism—no one would suggest that she was—presided over some comparably or perhaps even more controversial decisions in government than those that we have seen subsequently. There is no point in discussing in detail which decisions were more controversial; the crucial point is that successive Governments in the United Kingdom have found themselves operating in a way that one might regard as outside the norm of mainstream political activity in this country, but, at the same time, that seems to have delivered some results.
  Of course another example is the introduction of an amnesty. Again, that concept was inspired by the Conservatives, not by the current Government. I do not say that to condemn the Conservatives in any way. In fact, I praise them for making those difficult decisions, and the only reason to discuss them in this context is that I believe that what we say in the House materially influences public opinion, not just on the United Kingdom mainland, but in Northern Ireland. To that extent, our self-restraint in accepting the risks that the Government are taking and not seeking to make it more difficult for those decisions to be played out in Northern Irish politics is an important aspect of what we can do to influence the process positively.
  A responsible Government take difficult decisions, and a responsible Opposition reflect that. Certainly, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, we try to respect, from our position of opposition, what the Government are attempting to do. We make our concerns known publicly as well as privately, but we do so in the sense that, at heart, we are all trying to achieve the same thing and therefore that these are matters of judgment, rather than of principle, when we try to go in that direction.
  I also heard the Conservatives' concerns about predictions of the future. Perhaps the most worrying predictions involve the 2003 Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
  If I understood correctly what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, he would be implying that an anti-agreement party on the unionist side—a loyalist

  237
  party—and Sinn Fein on the nationalist or republican side could, in their prediction, be the two largest parties in Northern Ireland. That may be possible, but who are we to predict aloud and to think that it will not have a material impact, to some extent, on the fortunes of parties in Northern Ireland? There is an interrelation in that sense.
  Even more crucially, were that analysis correct, there is a contradiction in the argument that we heard. This is the contradiction: if we assume, for the sake of example, that Sinn Fein becomes the largest party on the nationalist or republican side, and if we impose further restrictions that prevent it from being able to function within the Executive, we are basically saying that we would be willing to disfranchise all the people in the community who chose to vote democratically for the voice of Sinn Fein. How could that benefit the process?
  Much of the time we have sought to bring these organisations—the paramilitary background is intimately linked with an organisation such as Sinn Fein—into the peace process. In effect, we have tried to say that there is a better, peaceful, democratic way to achieve outcomes than the paramilitary way that has been tried previously. I do not feel that using the stick of excluding such organisations from the Executive will have any effect other than, first, strengthening support for them in the communities that they represent, and, secondly, providing a degree of pressure within those organisations that makes it even less likely that we will manage to resolve these issues.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: I shall do so in a moment, as I want to say one more thing.
  There must be a limit. We cannot keep writing a blank cheque and retreating, allowing these organisations to do anything they want and to disrespect completely, in this case, the Good Friday agreement. I worry, however, that the threshold is being set rather low by those who feel that we should take the approach of wielding a very large stick and a relatively small carrot.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is getting into the area of difficulty. Will he tell us exactly what threshold he has in mind? Plainly, it is not acceptable—whatever democratic mandate the party may have—for a party that advocates the use of illegal violence to achieve its objective to be part of any Executive under any system. Where does he want the threshold to be drawn?
  Lembit Öpik: Surely this is the problem. When I am the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I will have to make decisions with all the information available to me in 2006. At this point, however, we cannot pretend that there is a table of figures and conditions determining what is and is not acceptable. There are too many variables in the system. The hon. Gentleman knows well that previous Conservative Secretaries of States continually made course corrections to Northern Ireland policy because that was the only way that they could operate. In the same sense, if the solution now were as simple as describing the particular threshold, we would not spend so much time discussing it, and I am absolutely certain that the Conservatives would not have chosen to devote their Opposition day debate today to this matter. The reason it
  238
  was helpful that this subject was chosen is that we must discuss these matters and accept that there are grey areas on which we can disagree but on which, nevertheless, a Government must make decisions.
  Were I to attempt to give a more specific answer to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that I would probably set the threshold rather higher than him. I would therefore guess that if, or when, the Liberal Democrats run Northern Ireland policy we will set the threshold in a slightly more flexible way than the Conservatives will do in 2090—[Interruption.] I shall leave it to the listening public to determine whether that is an optimistic or pessimistic assessment. We may be hit by an asteroid before then anyway.
  Mr. Dodds: The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Ahern, has made it clear—as did all the parties in the Republic during the recent general election—that the presence of Sinn Fein in their Government cannot be contemplated. Why is it so difficult for the hon. Gentleman to set a threshold in terms of part of the United Kingdom?
  Lembit Öpik: I observed Sinn Fein's performance in the south of Ireland election with great interest. It is not for me to tell the Irish Government what to do.
  Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The reason why it is so difficult for me to set a threshold is that we have a peace process which is in part implementation and in part negotiation between the parties in Northern Ireland, and which takes place at the same time as interaction with Dublin and with Westminster. In my judgment—this is a crucial point—the process seems to be working: it seems to be taking us to a place where we have not been for three decades. I mean that in a positive sense. As I have said, the organised campaign of terrorism against the state has been, if not entirely removed, massively reduced. The troubles in the communities themselves—the levels of community violence—remain, but I think that on balance we are making progress.
  I say this to the hon. Gentleman. If a process is to be judged on the basis of outcomes, it seems reasonable—to the Liberal Democrats, anyway—to say that the outcomes delivered justify the approach taken. I accept that others have different views—we have already heard them—but the Government are reasonable at least in making that calculation. Then we enter the grey area of thresholds, which we have now probably covered adequately.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I accept that the only outcomes the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can consider on the basis of knowledge are those that we have experienced already. Surely the problem here is considering future outcomes of which we are not certain.
  Lembit Öpik: If that were not the challenge, and if there were not such difficult questions to answer, we would not have jobs, because there would be no such thing as politics. Essentially we are sharing our predictions of what we think we can achieve, probably agreeing by and large on the desired outcome of peace and normality in Northern Ireland, but differing in our identifications of the best way forward. That is the point made by the hon. Gentleman. This is a debate about process rather than outcomes, and I think the differences between the parties are based on our assessments of what is most likely to work.

  239
  What the Liberal Democrats still think is most likely to work is the Good Friday agreement. It contains the conditions for power-sharing and devolution, for human rights legislation and for many other developments—including, obviously, decommissioning and reform of the police service. In itself it cannot deliver peace, but it provides the preconditions for the achievement of peace. It basically constitutes conflict management, but if the conflict is to be resolved it is necessary to address the underlying institutionalised sectarianism in Northern Ireland.
  We agree, then, with the Good Friday agreement. My suggestions and observations relate partly to it, and partly to other ideas that we would like the Government to take seriously. First, let me point out that the Good Friday agreement itself institutionalises sectarianism. By referring repeatedly to two communities, it implies that the objective is to get those two communities to live in peace. I suggest that the objective is actually to get Northern Ireland to regard itself as one diverse community living in peace. That would be more productive—quite apart from the fact that talk of two communities tends to exclude those who do not see themselves as naturally falling into one camp or the other. There is certainly an opportunity for reform in that context, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will consider seriously how to take sectarianism out of the agreement.
  Secondly, there is a great need for symmetry. The Government have sometimes been shaky on that. For democrats here who take the process seriously, one of the greatest strains is imposed when they feel that there has been a unilateral agreement with one side or the other. I would cite what looks like a unilateral agreement involving "on-the-runs" as a rather badly managed example. As far as I can tell, the Prime Minister probably exceeded his brief in terms of maintaining symmetry, thus creating a poisoned chalice that has been bouncing around in our debates over since word came out from Weston Park that there seemed to be some kind of agreement.
  Symmetry works, but the apparent absence of symmetry does not and that simply makes it more difficult for those who feel hard done by to maintain support within their communities. That is one of the great strains on the Unionist side at the moment.
  Transparency is important. When people say that there is no plan B, no one believes them. There is always a plan B in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dodds: There is always an alternative.
  Lembit Öpik: There is always an alternative. Although we may disagree about the alternatives, it is naive of the Government to say that there is only one route forward, not least because that disfranchises those who, for perfectly respectable reasons, take a different view. The Government are more likely to include all sides if they acknowledge that there is more than one way forward and that we are discussing which is the best. Transparency will come if the Government acknowledge that and are willing to open the door even to those groups and individuals with whom they disagree. That takes place much of the time, but some groups, particularly those who are sceptical about the agreement, have been excluded. That has not helped the process as whole.
  240
  Decommissioning needs to occur, but the issue must be kept in context. It is easy to use decommissioning as a means of barring progress. Let us remember the symbolic importance of decommissioning and recognise that what has already happened is quite significant. To that extent, it is disingenuous for us always to call for full decommissioning as the precondition for progress. Full decommissioning must occur, but it is likely to take place in parallel with progress.
  It is important that there is a greater flexibility in the Government's handling of legislation when everyone but a Minister agrees on something. On more than one occasion, time has been wasted in the House because the Government have not shown flexibility in a debate or taken on ideas that are evidently common sense and shared by a cross-section, from nationalist through to loyalist representatives.
  I am an optimist with regard to Northern Ireland. The Orange Order deserves nothing but the highest praise for its handling of Drumcree this year. That is an example of responsible management in what could have been a very difficult and fractious occasion. By the same token, today's statement by the IRA is strategically important. It does not go all the way to saying that the war is over, but it goes a long way towards having the kind of tone that we need to hear from the IRA if people are to become more confident about its true intent.
  It takes courage, cool judgment, symmetry and time to achieve peace in a region that has been troubled not for 30 but for hundreds of years. All of us want the same peace, but we argue about the process. Although I have criticisms of the Conservatives' position, I do not question the sincerity of their commitment to the peace process as a whole. I am glad that they have chosen to allocate their time to this debate, because all views need to be heard. We leave it to the public to draw conclusions about with whom they agree.
  I pay credit to the many people on both sides of the House who take the peace process seriously. They have invested an enormous amount of time and resources and have taken personal risks. I would like to think that, in a couple of years, we will have a further debate in which we can celebrate the mutual contribution of all and move on to other matters with regard to Northern Ireland.
  9.8 pm
  David Winnick: There are certain things on which we can agree. There remains in Northern Ireland far too much paramilitary violence, including punishment beatings and other acts of violence and hooliganism that are directed at both the majority and minority communities. When the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke about such matters, I intervened to say that the chairman of Sinn Fein should certainly have condemned terrorist violence. I am not aware of any Labour Member—certainly not those on the Front Bench, or any Back Bencher—who would take a very different view. We can also agree that the IRA has not turned itself into a pacifist or semi-pacifist organisation. No less than the hon. Gentleman, I would like Sinn Fein to urge the IRA to disband. Although I welcome the decommissioning, which took place under pressure, further acts of decommissioning would be welcome, and that includes decommissioning by the loyalists. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford

  241
  (Mr. Davies) is right: we should recognise that there has been a lack of decommissioning by paramilitary loyalist groups and terror gangs.
  It is easy to draw attention to what is wrong and what we condemn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who now plays a leading role in Northern Ireland affairs, recognises that what he condemns, we condemn—on that, there is no divide. However, when we consider what has been achieved, we should accept that substantial progress has indeed been made since the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998.
  For the first time since Northern Ireland came into existence as a separate state more than 80 years ago, a devolved Administration represents both communities. All the main political parties serve on the Executive, including the Democratic Unionist party, which has never accepted the Good Friday agreement. Surely it is progress that Northern Ireland is governed by elected representatives of both communities. That differs greatly from what happened there all those years before direct rule was imposed by the Heath Government in 1972.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to draw attention to the fact that far more people would undoubtedly have been murdered had the terrorist violence continued to the same extent. Surely that is progress. He mentioned what happened in 1972. Terrorist outrages, which did not occur only in Northern Ireland, took the lives of many innocent people, including members of the military and the police. They, too, were innocent, like the civilians who were killed. I have never questioned their innocence, and I have condemned IRA violence from the beginning, as hon. Members who have served in previous Parliaments know. There has been no ambiguity in my position, and I am not a lone voice; my party has always taken that position. The fact that lives have been saved from terrorist violence and murders cannot be ignored.
  It has been argued—it is an unfortunate argument and not one that the Tory Front Bench makes—that only one side has won from the Good Friday agreement. We will hear it argued tonight that the nationalists and republicans have won and that the Unionists have lost out. That is a false argument, and it is not only the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party who employ it; too many people in the main Unionist party—including some hon. Members, although not the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, and constituency activists—argue that the Good Friday agreement has sold out the Unionist community. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement, but it is simply not true that only one side is a winner.
  IRA and Sinn Fein had to recognise that terror would not force the United Kingdom to end partition. The IRA's standard argument was that terror upon terror would force a British Government to leave Northern Ireland. I am not aware that that has happened.
  Before the agreement, Sinn Fein strenuously denied that Northern Ireland had any legitimacy. It said that Northern Ireland was a statelet, that it had no right to exist and that its existence as such should end. Now Sinn Fein Members sit, rightly, in an Executive in a devolved Administration. They have accepted the partition that they always refused to recognise. Is that in any way a sell-out of the Unionist community?
  242
  Sinn Fein has had to accept that there can be a change in Northern Ireland's status only with the support and agreement of a majority of the community. That is democracy. That has been the view of Members on both sides of the House and of Governments for over 30 years during the violence. There has been no sell-out on that principle. For years, the constant complaint of Unionist politicians was that it was unacceptable for articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to lay claim to Northern Ireland. Following the Good Friday agreement and a necessary referendum in the Irish Republic, those parts of the constitution have been dropped.
  I do not see how it can be argued with any logic that the Good Friday agreement has been of benefit only to one side of the community. Some Unionist politicians simply cannot accept the whole concept of power sharing in Northern Ireland, the changes in the police force, which were long overdue, or the legislation to outlaw all forms of sectarian discrimination.
  The shadow Secretary of State was absolutely right to say that we neglected Northern Ireland for years on end. He complains that there are not enough debates on the subject, and he may well be right. We should, however, consider the sheer neglect of Northern Ireland. There had been no change since 1920—a Protestant state for a Protestant people. There was a great deal of discrimination, and the minority community was treated in a shabby and brutal manner. That was the position for years, and we all ignored it, including Labour Members and Labour Governments. That has changed, and it is absolutely right that it has done.
  There are those on both sides of the sectarian divide who are totally opposed to the Good Friday agreement. We know from the horrifying tragedy at Omagh that there are those on the republican side who believe that there has been a sell-out by the IRA and Sinn Fein; and, unfortunately, as I have said, there are those on the Unionist side who do not accept the Good Friday agreement.
  It is essential that the agreement is defended in every conceivable way by hon. Members on both sides of the House. When we combated terrorism over the years we had a united House. I understand the Opposition's view that their support for the agreement does not mean that they should not be willing to point out the difficulties, as they have done today, and to recognise that certain things need to be done. However, what needs to be recognised, not only by Unionists but by Conservatives, is that some Opposition Back Benchers have never accepted the agreement.
  I make an appeal, with all the sincerity that I can command, to Conservative Members, and in particular to the shadow Secretary of State: if we believe that the agreement is the best way forward for Northern Ireland and that significant gains have been made, we should stand together in its defence despite all the blemishes that have been identified, many of which have yet to be tackled. We should form a united front against the wreckers, who have but one objective—to destroy the agreement that was signed four years ago.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: May I deal first with the statement from the IRA that has been referred to by a number of speakers? It has been

  243
  welcomed by a number of people, but as someone whose family have lost two members, murdered by the IRA, both police officers serving in Northern Ireland—Samuel Donaldson, who was murdered in Crossmaglen in 1970 and his brother Alexander who was murdered in the mortar attack on Newry police station in 1985—I cannot see anywhere in it an apology for their murder.
  No one should lose sight of the fact that the IRA is still playing a game in which it regards police officers and soldiers as legitimate targets. Gerry Adams, I remind Members, recently said of recruits to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland from the Roman Catholic community:
  "I think that they will be accorded exactly the same treatment the republican movement accorded to the RUC. No more. No less."
  Of course, there was recently an attempted murder of a police service recruit in Ballymena—an attack that Sinn Fein refused to condemn. None of us should fall into the trap of giving legitimacy to a statement that still plays the game of claiming that police officers or soldiers are legitimate targets. My family have not received an apology from the IRA, yet their grief and sense of loss is as deep as anyone's. More than 300 police officers have been murdered over the past 30 years—their families deserve an apology as well.
  But apologies are not enough. We have heard words from the IRA before. Every time we get those statements, they receive the same welcome and the pressure is relaxed. Surely, that is precisely the time to keep the pressure on the paramilitaries. If we are to move towards the real and lasting peace that the people of Northern Ireland want, we cannot allow the paramilitaries to set the agenda. Let us be in no doubt that that is largely what has been happening in the peace process. The Prime Minister, before the referendum on the agreement, set out in detail the criteria by which he would judge whether ceasefires were genuine and whether the commitment of paramilitaries was for real. At Coleraine on 20 May 1998, for example, he said that those who use or threaten violence would be
  "excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland."
  The Prime Minister went on to say:
  "And I say to you that is a reason for supporting this Agreement because in this Agreement we can provide that only those who renounce violence for good, once and for all, can take their place in the government of Northern Ireland or can get the benefit of the other arrangements under the Agreement."
  Is not the reality, however, that the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force have all committed acts of violence and continue to do so and to threaten violence, yet have benefited from the agreement? All their prisoners have been released and Sinn Fein is in the Government of Northern Ireland. Where is the Prime Minister's commitment now?
  At Balmoral showgrounds on 14 May 1998, the Prime Minister went into even more detail, setting out a series of criteria by which he and the Government would judge whether the ceasefires were genuine. He talked about
  "a clear and unequivocal commitment that there is an end to violence for good"
  the words "for good" are underlined—
  "on the part of republicans and loyalists alike".
  244
  He went on to say:
  "as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal"
  and that there is to be
  "an end to bombings, killings and beatings…to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures"
  and
  "full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement."
  Then, crucially, he said:
  "These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time."
  But is it not the case that the judgment has become less rigorous over time, and that while the Secretary of State claims that there is no acceptable level of violence, violence today is at a higher level than it was when the agreement was signed? That is not my conclusion; it is the conclusion of the Police Service of Northern Ireland from its statistics, yet the Government say that the IRA ceasefire is still intact.
  Using the same criteria, the Government announced that the UDA ceasefire had broken down. Is anyone suggesting that the UDA is guilty of a higher level of violence? Was it the UDA whose members were in Colombia developing new weapons? Was it the UDA that had three members convicted of running guns in a court in Florida? Was it the UDA that broke into Castlereagh police station? Was it the UDA that shot five Protestants in Belfast? Was it the UDA that was targeting me and other Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland?
  Yet the IRA ceasefire, we are told, is still intact. I do not deem it to be intact, judging by the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister. Why do the Government differentiate between the UDA ceasefire and the IRA ceasefire? Of course, at the heart of the process are the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, to which all the political parties in Northern Ireland without exception signed up. Those principles have been demeaned and broken on numerous occasions by all the paramilitary organisations.
  One cannot help but conclude, therefore, that there are occasions and circumstances when the Government are prepared to turn a blind eye to the breaches of the Mitchell principles and of the ceasefire. I believe that we have reached a moment when decisions must be taken about the process. The evidence is clear. The IRA has not made a commitment to peace and democracy, it is in breach of its ceasefire and of the Mitchell principles, and Sinn Fein has failed to deliver on the undertakings that it gave in the agreement.
  On 22 April 1998 here in the House of Commons the Prime Minister told us:
  "it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or to threaten terrorism."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811–2.]
  We are entitled to ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State why Sinn Fein Ministers are still in the Government of Northern Ireland when there is incontrovertible evidence that the IRA is continuing to use and to threaten violence on the streets and to engage in re-arming and in international terrorism.

  245
  A deadline of 24 July has been set by the First Minister for the Government to act and to deal with those transgressions. Let us be clear that another form of words from the Prime Minister will not suffice. In my opinion, nothing short of the exclusion of the Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers from ministerial office will suffice. The promise to act in the future is not enough. We have had those promises before and they have been broken.
  The Unionist community wants to see action taken against those who have transgressed. If we simply admonish them and do not follow that up with some kind of sanctions, what we are saying effectively is, "Colombia is okay. Castlereagh is okay. Florida is okay. What happened on the streets of Belfast is okay. Just don't do it again." But they will do it again. History has taught us that if we let the terrorists off the hook, they will come back to do it again. The idea that we can draw a line under Colombia, Castlereagh and the recent street violence in return for the paramilitaries making some kind of recommitment to the peace process is a non-starter. The agreement has been broken by the paramilitaries, and the Government must now act to hold them to account and to restore public confidence. That must mean altering the terms to ensure that we have effective exclusion mechanisms to deal with those who are in default. That is what the Prime Minister promised that he would do on 10 April 1998 and that is what he must now do. That is where I depart from those on the Government Front Bench. It is time for the Government to legislate to introduce powers for effective exclusion mechanisms. We have to send the signal that no level of violence will be tolerated and that the terrorists must adhere to the agreement, or there will be consequences. That has been the problem in the past. Terrorists on both sides believe that they can play fast and loose with the process and get away with it, and to date—let us face it—they have got away with it.
  It is time for the Prime Minister and the Government to draw a clear line to create the circumstances and make provision for the exclusion of those who have failed to honour their commitments under the agreement. I am told that that is not workable; that the way to bring Sinn Fein-IRA and others along the path to peace is not to exclude them from government. So why did the Prime Minister say that he would do it in the first place? Why does the agreement make provision for it? Why does the legislation make provision for it? Sometimes, we have to deal with the terrorists by taking sanctions and action against them to make them realise that, as the Secretary of State said, there is no halfway house and that when we say that we will exclude, we will exclude. Otherwise, they call our bluff, and the Government's bluff has been called too many times in the past. It is time for the Government to act. The people of Northern Ireland expect them to do so.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the peace process in Northern Ireland. The positive statements made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in moving the motion and the eloquent response by the Secretary of State indicate the progress that has been made in the aftermath of the Good Friday agreement. I must say that I cannot completely agree with the Opposition spokesman's description of today's IRA
  246
  statement as having been precipitated by the threat of the debate—that stretches credulity rather far. I would proffer the explanation mentioned by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as a more likely cause, but my favourite choice would be the imminent prime ministerial statement that is forecast to take place before 24 July, which is only next week.
  No single Act of Parliament, no single event, no single speech, no single comment and no single tragedy sums up the peace process. It is an accumulation of all those things. In Northern Ireland, the peace process is the assimilation of the experiences that we all have while living in that community on a day-to-day basis. It is not surprising that our experiences vary, even from area to area, nor that all have not benefited equally from the peace process. But to argue that it is collapsing is a false argument indeed. Anyone who lives in our community knows quite well that even the most superficial comparison between the past four or eight years and today would indicate very clearly that the peace process is working. That is not to say that it is a complete or perfect peace. A physicist once explained to me that darkness is the absence of light, so I can parallel that by saying that peace is the absence of violence or of those things that are the antithesis of peace. So, our interpretation of peace is that it is a summation of all our experiences, but that is not to say that they are not important milestones for us to note and to gauge as retrograde or progressive.
  The ceasefires and the decommissioning were significant events for both sets paramilitaries. Last weekend, it was terrible in certain areas of east and north Belfast, but, generally speaking, 12 July 2002 was the most peaceful 12 July for many years, and, as a community, we are thankful for that. I pay tribute, as have other hon. Members, to those responsible members of the Orange Order who did not besmirch their true tradition by engaging in violence, to the general good order and to the by and large non-political expressions from the various platforms throughout Northern Ireland.
  Let us dwell for a moment on what we mean by peace. It will not simply involve another round of decommissioning—important and welcome though that will be—or the disbanding of the paramilitaries' apparatus and the cessation of their activities, essential though that will be. As I said earlier, peace will be the sum total of our experiences.
  The Secretary of State described the enormous strides that Northern Ireland has made over the last eight to 10 years in terms of economic improvement, industrial growth, social betterment, the equality agenda, amendments to criminal jurisdiction, and the reform and re-organisation of the police, all of which have made a major contribution to pinning down the existing quality of peace.
  Neither peace nor the prosperity to which the Secretary of State referred have been enjoyed equally throughout our community, however. In fact, one could generalise by saying that many of the areas that suffer sectarian strife are the very areas that have not benefited from the peace dividend of higher employment, permanent jobs, better social conditions and better housing. It is no coincidence that that should be the case.
  One of the most difficult aspects of progressing the peace process in the months and years ahead will be the question not of whether there is another tranche of

  247
  decommissioning, nor of whether there will be evidence of complete demobilisation of the paramilitaries whom I abhor. It will be the question of whether we can create an atmosphere in which we can overcome the sectarian hatreds of centuries—not decades—that have been expressed by petrol bombs and pipe bombs, by the burning of houses, and by the eviction of one community by the other and vice versa.
  Everything that we say contributes to the question of whether that problem can be resolved. Each of us, in the House and in Northern Ireland, has a responsibility to ensure that nothing that we say or do adds to the sense of injustice felt—correctly or incorrectly—by many. The reality is that injustices are felt, and we must do our best to alleviate them. That will eventually eradicate the hatred and sectarianism that are the root cause of all the inter-community strife that poses such a threat to the peace process.
  I have no doubt that there are forces in Northern Ireland intent on destroying the peace process. There are others—we have heard expressions of this in tonight's debate—who, in some perverse way, would like to see the peace process falter, purely for political purposes. That would be a grave tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland, and I hope and pray that it will not happen.
  It all depends on the approach that we take to these issues. Quite honestly, the 24 July deadline referred to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)—I heard it said also by a Member of the Legislative Assembly, possibly for Belfast North—which threatens withdrawal from the Executive by the Ulster Unionist party, is an invitation to disaster. It is playing into the hands of those who want to wreck the entire process and the relative stability that our community has established with great difficulty and sacrifice.
  Sacrifices have been made by all parts of our community. No one can claim the privilege of being alone in making sacrifices for the greater good. We should acknowledge those sacrifices and compromises for what they are: a massive contribution to the common good of our community. It is legitimate to make robust statements on the political platform, but not to the extent of jeopardising the peace process, which has been so tenderly nurtured.
  Lest my remarks on decommissioning and paramilitaries be misunderstood, I stress that it is an anathema that we have bodies in Northern Ireland with access to illegal guns and bombs. It is a constant background threat to the peace and stability that we are discussing, and it must be eradicated.
  It is imperative that, in the fullness of time, without putting a deadline on it, paramilitary trappings be done away with. The organisation of paramilitarism has been translated partly into a political machine and partly into a mafia-type machine. It is a disgrace that the sovereign Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should tolerate the existence of unofficial armed, trained and active armies within their jurisdictions.
  Unfortunately, however, we shall have to wear that anomaly for yet another short while. I hope that that stain will soon be removed from our community.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Has it struck my hon. Friend that many of those who urge the leaders of the
  248
  community to destroy the current basis of the Northern Ireland Executive are those who did not support it in its current form right from the start?
  Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I agree entirely with the implication of what he said. Certainly, those who opposed the Good Friday agreement from its inception and those who oppose the concept of partnership, of working it out and living together, are the very ones who are now saying that the peace process is in danger, and exacerbating that danger by so doing.
  I welcome some elements of the motion. It asks the House to regard the Belfast agreement
  "as representing the best hope for peace and normalisation available or likely to be achievable in Northern Ireland".
  I subscribe fully to that. It then calls on "all parties"—I hope that that includes the Conservatives' sister party, the Ulster Unionist party—
  "to do all they can to contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, forbearance, mutual understanding and respect between the two communities in Northern Ireland, and avoidance of all forms of violence."
  I support that.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: In last Wednesday's Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) suggested that a better description of that debate, which was entitled "Northern Ireland Peace Process", would have been "Northern Ireland political process". In doing so, he made a fair point. As I said then, it is difficult to reconcile Northern Ireland's recent history with anything remotely resembling peace.
  We have heard again today of the IRA's alleged involvement in the break-in at Castlereagh police station. There are also the revelations of IRA activity in Colombia and its links with the narco-terrorist FARC group. We still await the chairman of Sinn Fein's unequivocal condemnation of the attempted murder of a Catholic policeman in Ballymena. The personal details of more than 200 people have been discovered on IRA intelligence files—from senior Conservative Members of Parliament, to forensic scientists. A rural police station in Rosslea, County Fermanagh, was attacked by Sinn Fein-IRA youth wing members, and violence recently broke out in Drumcree and the Short Strand area of Belfast.
  That is hardly the stuff of peace. One need only look at the statistics on the shootings and assaults carried out by so-called loyalist and republican groups to see the hard evidence. There is the cowardly and brutish behaviour of the thugs and gangsters who carry out so-called punishment beatings. A stench of fear and intimidation is created by people who are little more than criminals. They carve out their turf in order to extort, threaten, peddle their illicit wares, and contribute to the misery of thousands of decent, law-abiding British citizens. The behaviour of those groups—their members are not all paramilitaries; some are straightforward criminals—would not be tolerated on the mainland, and nor should it be tolerated in Northern Ireland.

  249
  The problem is that organised crime in Northern Ireland is becoming institutionalised. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's detailed report on the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland states:
  "Nor is there any room for complaining that the problem is confined to Northern Ireland: these criminals are now turning their attention to the larger and potentially more profitable markets of Great Britain."
  The report includes a chilling table that estimates the running costs and fund-raising capabilities of such groups, according to which the Provisional IRA's running costs are in the region of £1.5 million a year, and its fund-raising capabilities are between £5 million and £8 million. The Real IRA's running costs are estimated at £500,000 a year, and its fund-raising capabilities are between £500,000 and £1 million. The UDA's running costs are estimated at £500,000 a year, and its fund-raising capabilities are between £500,000 and £1 million.
  It is clear that many of those organisations have money left over to invest—to launder—in perfectly respectable mainland businesses, as well as in Northern Ireland itself. Indeed, it is reported that the Provisional IRA has employed accountants. One can only hope that the firm was Andersen.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I agree entirely with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he none the less agree that the Bush Administration, who have taken on global terrorism, should also address Sinn Fein-IRA's funding of terrorism in Northern Ireland through their fund-raising activities in the United States?
  Mr. Swire: I do agree, although there is some evidence that the sums raised in America have dropped substantially in the post-11 September environment. The problem is more endemic in Northern Ireland because paramilitaries and terrorists are finding other ways to institutionalise fund raising and criminality.
  We are told that there have even been instances of paramilitaries from opposing traditions acting together to further their illegal business aims. I welcome the Government's attempts to tackle that ever-growing problem through the establishment of the Assets Recovery Agency. However, I regret that, in the Westminster Hall debate to which I referred, the Minister of State while rightly stating that the Government take the recommendations in the Select Committee's report seriously—chose not to respond to my request that they commit to providing the agency with the resources that it needs from day one. Can it really be true that only 10 officers in the police service are assigned to investigate general organised crime by the paramilitaries? As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland employs 103 staff. That is 10 times more people to investigate complaints against the police than are employed to investigate complaints against criminals.
  Many aspects of the Belfast agreement are either not working, or not working as well as they should. The Prime Minister, Jonathan Powell, or whoever is still driving these matters from No. 10, seem so preoccupied with the concept of a peace process that they ignore the reality of what is going on under their noses. Paramilitaries are making a mockery of the Belfast agreement. Whenever the Government make a concession or turn a blind eye, it only serves to undermine the agreement.
  250
  If the Government are serious about saving the peace process—there is every reason to suppose that they are—they should remember what the process was all about originally. The Prime Minister should be reminded of his famous speeches at the Balmoral showground and at Coleraine in 1998, when he set out the tests against which any ceasefire had to be judged. He said that they had to be complete and unequivocal, and bring an end to targeting, shootings, beatings and the procurement of new weapons. He said that paramilitary organisations would have to be dismantled and that the tests would become more rigorous over time.
  The Government must get their priorities right. They should concentrate on helping those people who have been driven out of their country by fear and intimidation—something about which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) always argues so positively. The Government should not concentrate on locating and absolving on-the-run terrorists, as was discussed at Weston Park.
  The Government must get tougher on decommissioning. More guns have come into Northern Ireland recently than have ever been decommissioned. The Minister of State said last week that the two acts of IRA decommissioning were of enormous symbolic significance. To whom are they symbolic? To whom are they significant? We need real, unequivocal decommissioning, not piecemeal decommissioning carried out at times of political advantage to the terrorist organisations.
  The Government must act firmly and fast. More importantly, they must commit whatever resources are needed to break the backs of the godfathers who are responsible for the misery in Northern Ireland, and to whom the peace process is a threat. If the police are given the resources to weed out the criminal gangs, the never-ending cycle of violence will be significantly reduced. The temperature in Northern Ireland will fall, and the peace process will have a chance of working. I cannot believe that there is one hon. Member in the Chamber tonight who does not want that, at least.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sad to think that some people do not consider the statement made by the IRA today to be significant or important, and that they would disregard it. Such people talk of past pains as though they were suffered only by people on one side of the community, or by one family.
  I believe that the IRA statement and its intentions must be tested. We must see where it leads us, but the statement contains an acknowledgement of the pain and grief suffered by the relatives of the people who the IRA consider to be combatants. It also makes apologies for the people who were viciously wounded or killed as a result of IRA activities. That makes it the most profound statement from the IRA that we have had, and we should recognise and welcome that.
  We should welcome the statement, and then test it. The statement's penultimate sentence reads:
  "We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents"
  Some of those challenges and difficulties are within the IRA. One problem for the IRA's political leadership is maintaining the movement's unity and leading the

  251
  movement through the peace process. That is part of the challenge facing IRA leaders, and we should understand that.
  I am not making an apologia for the IRA. I regard it as responsible for the greatest setback in constitutional nationalism in Ireland and for the destruction of the civil rights movement there. It has caused attention to be turned away from the real grievances of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, and towards the violence that it caused to take place on the streets. People should be in no doubt about where I stand with regard to the IRA, but we must recognise the importance of the IRA statement.
  Among various speculation about the significance of the timing, Conservative Members claim that the IRA statement has been made in light of the statement that is to be made next week. That may be the case. However, the date that the IRA has chosen to commemorate in the statement is the anniversary of one of the most bloody events that has ever occurred in Belfast, as a result of its bombing. Not only did people die, as it says in the letter, but hoax calls were made and terrible casualties were caused. For those of us who were active at the time and who remember, it was a most horrific occasion, and the IRA has chosen the anniversary of that day to issue its statement. We should recognise that and understand what has happened.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I lost my message boy, paper boy and a member of my choir on that occasion. However, does not the IRA's "search for freedom" imply that the fight goes on until it ceases to be ruled by this Government?
  Mr. McNamara: I think that the IRA is talking about its political wish to obtain a united Ireland, which was recognised in both the Good Friday and Hillsborough agreements. That is what its political fight seeks to achieve. I understand that. However, it has grasped the constitutional, political method of seeking to achieve it. Again, we must remember that.
  In our debate last week, I welcomed the progress that had been made by the pro-agreement parties and the implementation plan to consider progress under the Good Friday agreement and keep it going. I argued then, as I argue now, that the greatest thing to be achieved is the communities' acceptance, through their political representatives, that the Good Friday agreement and all that has flowed from it is theirs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) spelt out the political advantages for both parties and the material advantages for both communities. They said that it was not all give on one side and take on the other, but that both sides had to reach their communities. Powerful speeches were made.
  Last week, I, along with many other colleagues in the House, received a delegation of women from Short Strand, who gave an account of what was happening in their community. They conveyed the nightmare that they, their families and neighbours experienced every day. That is no doubt repeated in other communities. They spoke
  252
  with fear but not hate, and were confident of their own abilities and in the process of peace. They looked to their political leaders to promote political remedies.
  I welcome the moves that have been made by all communities to address street violence in recent days. The Orange order has maintained a calming influence; in Derry, Sinn Fein stopped the persecution of people in the Fountain and the Waterside. I understand that Sinn Fein also took some of its young republicans to stay for a while in the Short Strand to understand what intimidation meant, so that they could understand what they were doing to the people in the Fountain. That was an extremely educative action.
  I believe that in the year ahead, the institutions created by the Good Friday agreement must be made more robust and durable. That can be done only if the people operating the institutions reach out to others.
  All eyes are focused on the Assembly elections, and all sorts of hypotheses are being put forward. The great thing is that everyone is concentrating on the election and what is going to happen. They are wondering about the results of a political process, which is something that did not happen to such a degree before. This is real politics. We should welcome and encourage that and do everything positive that we can to ensure that the arrangements that are established continue and flourish. The best way to achieve that is not to create new deadlines next week or new hurdles and obstacles to progress—hoops through which one particular party must jump.
  Opponents of the Belfast agreement have pursued a relentless campaign to exclude Sinn Fein from the political process. The louder they shout for republican exclusion, the more disturbing is their silence over violence emanating from violent Unionism—from the loyalist paramilitaries. Conversely, the more they shout for the exclusion of Sinn Fein, the more they strengthen those elements within the republican movement who did not want the Good Friday agreement anyway and who say to their leadership, "There you are. You took these steps and everything that you have done is being thrown back in your face."
  That is a dangerous attitude and one that I hope we will avoid in next week's statement. I hope that we will encourage the parties. Obviously, we cannot accept any degree of violence. There is no tolerable side to violence wherever it is—Sinn Fein, the UDA or anyone else.
  We must also take steps to understand sectarianism better. One sad thing is that the police in Northern Ireland keep no record of sectarian attacks, whether those are balloon water bombs or pipe bombs. Sectarianism is not noted.
  Macpherson's definition of a racist incident ought to be adapted for sectarian incidents in Northern Ireland. A sectarian incident should be any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be sectarian. We should set about establishing the criteria laid down in the Macpherson report, adapting his definition of racist crime to sectarian crime. Such crime should be catalogued and followed through using the procedures suggested by Macpherson to try to root out sectarianism and hatred, in what will be difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside rose—
  Mr. McNamara: I will not give way as I only have a minute and I do not wish to take colleagues' time.

  253
  By adopting that sort of policy, we can achieve much. The process will be long and difficult, but we should accept it as a positive challenge.
  10.3 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall dwell on matters that are relevant to my constituency, which I have represented in this House for more than 30 years.
  At the heart of that constituency lies a middle town, Ballymena, where there is a mixed housing estate. A young man there—a Roman Catholic—desired to join the new police organisation. He applied and was accepted and appointed. IRA-Sinn Fein commenced a campaign in that estate with posters and leaflets to every house, depicting the new police service as another Royal Ulster Constabulary and branding it for murders, discrimination and other activities. The result was that the IRA came to destroy that young man. Its leaflets called on the people to treat new recruits of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the same way that the police had treated the IRA. It was a miracle—an act of God—that the bomb did not go off and that that young life was not destroyed, and his father and mother as well.
  How can any organisation say that it is for peace when its chairman was asked, "Do you condemn what happened in Ballymena", and he refused to condemn it? I have before me a statement from the IRA and I shall read from it in the light of that. Why should I not? It is an up-to-date reference to what has taken place. Indeed, in Rosslea, there was a vicious attack on the police station and Gildernew, a leading member of Sinn Fein-IRA, defended and justified it. She was elected to this place and has an office here, but does not take her seat. She refused to condemn that attack.
  The statement includes condolences but they are limited only to the families of non-combatants. It states:
  "We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families…we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us…There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also"—
  What? "Express our sincere apologies"? No. "Tender our condolences"? No. The sentence continues—
  "acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives."
  If ever there was a whitewash, that is it.
  Do we really expect the people of Northern Ireland to believe as they listen to this debate that we are bearing some wonderful fruit? The statement concludes:
  "The IRA is unequivocally committed to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Northern Ireland. We remain totally committed to the peace process."
  They tell us that they are committed to the peace process, but since they commenced their ceasefire they have murdered 14 people, shot 160 people and carried out paramilitary beatings on 250 people. They have run guns from Florida, carried out exercises in training narco-terrorists in Colombia and raided the special branch offices at Castlereagh to gather information better to target people. They have even targeted members of the Conservative party as well as all the Unionist Members of this place.
  So this is peace. What do people in Northern Ireland with anguish in their hearts think of this House when it expresses defence of that statement? I leave it at that.
  254
  The Mitchell principles stated that there must be a total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. The IRA signed up to that but they do not keep it—they break it. There must be total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. I was amazed to hear people in this House say how terrible it was that we should think—how could we possibly?—that all decommissioning could take place and all beatings could finish overnight.
  On 22 May 1998, the Prime Minister said:
  "Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism."
  There are people in the House trying to pillory the people whom I represent and the view of those people because we have asked for what the Prime Minister promised. The time has come for the Prime Minister to deliver his promise. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want, and they have a right to do so. There is not an hon. Member from the rest of the United Kingdom who would have such things going on in their constituency and lie down about it—they would be up in arms about it, and they would protest in the House—yet the Northern Ireland people have endured great hardship.
  The Mitchell recommendations call on the parties
  "To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations".
  Is the IRA living up to that? The recommendations go on:
  "To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached at all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree".
  Does the IRA do that? The recommendations continue:
  "To urge that 'punishment' killings and beating stops, and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."
  That is what the IRA said that it would do. All of us signed up to that, but only some have lived up to it.
  We expect the Government to do what a Government are supposed to do: to make people subject to the law. All men equal under the law. All men equally subject to the law. That is what we are asking for tonight.
  I must say that I take it rather hard from the Secretary of State because he read a statement by Ambassador Haass, who changes his attitude to terrorism when he leaves America. I am glad that I am telling the House tonight what I told him face to face. When he leaves America, he does not suggest war to the death against terrorism. America is not going to declare war against other countries because of terrorism—Oh, no!—and he told me and my party that he believes that IRA-Sinn Fein must be in the Government.
  The idea that the Americans broadcast for the good of their people is that they cannot have terrorists about the place at all, but when they come to Northern Ireland they suddenly say that IRA-Sinn Fein must be in the Government. Why do they say that? They do so because they want to keep the Prime Minister of this country on their side.
  What is the end of all this going to be? On 24 July, we will hear from the Prime Minister. I understand that there will be a question high up on the Order Paper in the name

  255
  of an official Unionist, and the Prime Minister will reply to that question. That is all we will have—a question and an answer—and then the House will adjourn.
  I say in closing that no one was more relieved than the people of Northern Ireland about the comparative quiet that we had on 12 July. I was certainly very pleased when an SDLP Member of the Assembly congratulated the independent Orangemen in Ballycastle on the way they ordered their march. Although there was great antagonism at the beginning by people in the street, nothing happened to cause a breach of the peace. I am glad that even our opponents acknowledge that. Long may that continue in Northern Ireland.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am aware that some of my colleagues wish to speak, so I hope that I will be forgiven if I speak a little faster than I would normally speak.
  I want to give the House some background to my interest in Northern Ireland. It started in 1985 when I made a visit as a student journalist to Northern Ireland, along with half a dozen or so of my colleagues. We visited Connolly house in Belfast and spoke to Sinn Fein members who had served time for arms offences in the Maze prison. We visited Knock barracks and spoke to officers of the RUC. We spoke to members of the UUP and the DUP at their headquarters, to the SDLP and to trade unions.
  Three things occurred to me at the time and shortly afterwards. First, everyone in Northern Ireland at the time had their own idea of how the troubles could be resolved if only everybody else would listen to them and be persuaded of their point of view. Secondly, everyone to whom we spoke was very keen to listen to our perspective on the troubles in Northern Ireland, coming from mainland Britain. They were just as keen to listen to us as we were to listen to them until we said something with which they did not agree, in which case they would say, "What do you know? You don't live here!" Thirdly, the metaphor of an immoveable object being acted on by an irresistible force was never more accurately used than when describing Northern Ireland politics.
  One of the most moving tributes that I have ever seen to victims of violence in Northern Ireland was at Knock barracks. I do not know whether it is still there—Unionist Members may be able to tell me. There was a book encased in glass, and on each page of that book was the name of an officer of the RUC who had been killed by terrorism during the troubles. Every day, the glass is lifted, and one page is moved on. I found that a very simple but incredibly moving tribute, and the image has stayed with me. Whenever I show friends, relatives or constituents around the House of Commons, I am always careful to point out the shield above the main door as we enter the Chamber bearing the name of Airey Neave, a genuine world war two hero who was murdered by terrorists in 1979.
  I have no intention of going through a long list of the many victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years. What I believe is that the peace process is not simply about addressing long-held political grievances; it is primarily about ending the dreadful waste
  256
  of life and restoring a degree of normality to Northern Ireland. No greater monument to the victims of violence could be imagined than long-term, secure peace for the people of Northern Ireland.
  I understand completely why Members representing both Unionist parties have reservations about the way in which the peace process has developed. When I voted for Sinn Fein Members to have offices in this place, I did not do so with a spring in my step. I did not enjoy seeing convicted murderers being released from the Maze and being welcomed home as if they were conquering heroes. I am extremely worried by the fact that many terrorist organisations are still sitting on a stockpile of lethal weapons. Any assessment of the Good Friday agreement must go beyond a simplistic score chart, however, on which so-called concessions are listed in one column or another as a plus or a minus.
  The question that we must answer tonight is this: is Northern Ireland today a better place to live? What are the poverty and unemployment levels? Do young people in Northern Ireland now have an opportunity to pursue a career, to thrive, to marry and to have a secure life in Northern Ireland instead of moving out? For the first time in 35 years, I think that we can answer yes to that.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, in the three and a half years up to the IRA's first ceasefire in 1994, there were 343 killings. In the past three and a half years, there have been only 50. I will not adopt the position of Reginald Maudling, a former Home Secretary, who said that there was such a thing as an "acceptable level of violence", as, clearly, there is not. I will mention, however, this one factor: the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen a 22.8 per cent. drop in unemployment between May 1997 and May 2002; every one of the 11 constituencies represented by official Unionist and Democratic Unionist MPs in the House has seen a far greater reduction in unemployment. Surely that is something that we should value in this debate.
  Time is pressing on me and I do not want to detain the House any longer, as colleagues want to speak. I want to make one comment, however, on something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned. He spoke of deadlines. I am not aware of a single occasion—I certainly know of no recent occasion—on which imposing a deadline helped. I do not believe that deadlines are helpful at all. Surely it is better to drive slowly and reach a destination than to drive fast and be unable to manoeuvre at the next bend.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: One thing achieved by the vote by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) to give Sinn Fein MPs their peculiar and unique status here was our ability to receive an e-mail from Fisherj@parliament.uk containing an IRA statement 50 minutes before the embargo. That is at least one bonus.
  I believe that the tone of the debate has entirely vindicated the Opposition's decision to devote our last Supply day before the recess to this important issue, and to a process that has now reached a serious stage. Let me briefly dispose of the least serious contribution, that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). He failed to deal with any of the hard questions, and

  257
  continued his efforts to be misleading about the Conservative position. He really must become serious, and his party must address the hard questions without seeking to avoid them as its members did in voting for Sinn Fein membership of the House, when there were 14 votes in favour, 14 against and 24 abstentions. I will remind the hon. Gentleman of that for as long as he continues to misrepresent the Conservative position.
  The Secretary of State was right to draw attention to the contradictory signals that are emerging in regard to events in Northern Ireland—some good, some bad. He also told us, however, that the real test lay in the fact that the transition must continue. He mentioned the four elements identified by Richard Haass. I particularly endorse what he said about the requirement for leadership, strength and courage on the part of all involved in the process, to condition their own communities and help take them towards peace.
  The Secretary of State spoke of risk aversion. All too often, the tactics of Her Majesty's Government have seemed to be risk aversion—doing whatever is necessary to keep the process going. Now, however, we are hearing much more robust language from both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, which I welcome. There should be no halfway house. The difficult questions must be faced now, and rights and responsibilities must be exercised in full.
  Notwithstanding that language from the Secretary of State, there was equivocation when he hid behind the issue of devolved power. Ultimately, he cannot expect the SDLP to do the Government's work for them in delivering a cross-community vote—as the Assembly is currently made up—to take Sinn Fein out of the Executive, if that is what is required if Sinn Fein does not deliver on its obligations.
  Both the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) quoted the Prime Minister. I think that we can be pleased with the words the Prime Minister used today when facing questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), a Select Committee Chairman. He said "I do accept that we've reached a point where we say these things are unacceptable—that it is the right moment to reflect on this—and I hope we can do this." I have relied on my own notes rather than producing a transcript of what the Prime Minister said, but I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that his language today seemed to be entirely in line with the language that he used in 1998 at the Balmoral showground and in the House—language that has been quoted extensively by Unionist Members. The tone of the Government's approach to the debate is now correct. The seriousness with which all Members have contributed to it reflects that.
  I have to say to the Secretary of State that there is now a requirement to take risks. That does not mean taking risks to court unpopularity in making further concessions. The Government may have to take a risk with the process itself, and test what Richard Haass has identified. He said that the process must be robust and resilient enough to withstand setbacks, violence and its opponents. The Government may now have to take those risks and test the words of the IRA. To use the language of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the IRA statement is welcome as far as it goes. However, Sinn
  258
  Fein and the IRA are two sides of precisely the same coin, and we must take them at their word to see what their commitment to wholly peaceful means really is.
  10.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): In the best traditions of the House, we have had a useful, lively and good-humoured debate. Several points have emerged that would command the agreement of all, or almost all, Members on both sides of the House. Given the time that I have, I hope that hon. Members will accept that I will not take interventions in my short contribution.
  The first point of agreement is that the carrying forward of the peace process under the Belfast agreement must be about exclusively peaceful means. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said—hon. Members have referred to this—there is no acceptable level of violence. Indeed, the street violence of recent days is not acceptable. It is wrong, futile and must not go on if those concerned have any interest in the development of a happy and prosperous future for Northern Ireland. We will not see the development of a normal society while people resort to violence. All those involved—the rioter, the paramilitary delivering beatings and shootings to teenagers, the racketeer feathering his nest while claiming to "protect" his community—ruin lives and destroy hope.
  Paramilitary violence, anything that appears to constitute preparation for such violence or the keeping of a war machine in existence are also unacceptable. There must be clear signs that the process of transition to exclusively peaceful means is advancing and is, indeed, irreversible. Anything else would be inimical to confidence. That brings me to the second point of agreement. The process must command the confidence of both communities. It was the essence of the underlying bargain embodied in the Belfast agreement that all sides would put down arms, work exclusively peacefully and work together in co-operation. All those elements must be present.
  The third point that would command general agreement is that the leaderships of both communities must work for confidence and to address the concerns of the other community. The Government, and I believe the Irish Government, will do what we can, but delivering confidence is essentially within the control of the parties and their associates. I believe that the leaderships are working in that direction, but that work must go on. Recent events have caused serious questioning of the basis of trust on which the agreement depends, but the great majority of hon. Members would agree that there is no way forward other than the agreement. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) acknowledged that.
  The benefits that the agreement has brought to the people of Northern Ireland have been rehearsed here and in a debate in Westminster Hall last week. I will not reiterate them, but they are fundamental. The difficulties that we face, serious as they are, must not be allowed to mask the enormous advances that have been made. We were in a much more serious position a few years ago. All those advances are at risk if the present process is not carried forward. It must therefore be for all us of to work to ensure that that happens.
  There has been talk of sanctions. That is understandable. The Government realise that there must be consequences if those involved in the process are not

  259
  all clearly set on the democratic and exclusively peaceful path. I take issue with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). The debate should not be about exclusion. We will have failed if anyone is excluded. We are about ensuring that the agreement works properly and that people complete the necessary transition from violence to exclusively peaceful means.
  However, that is not to say that there will be no sanctions. Our approach is not passive. If violence continues, there are bound to be consequences. That is what we will consider in the coming days, but there is no point in being punitive for the sake of it. Our purpose has to be to change behaviour, building on the great advances that have been made.
  I am aware of the sense of hopelessness in some areas. I see it regularly when I receive deputations not just from the Unionist community, but from people on all sides, especially those who live with and experience the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge that in some instances there are poor material prospects, and that some people feel that their identity and place in the UK are under threat, but those fears are unfounded. However, it behoves us—the Government, the devolved authorities, the police, local politicians and community leaders—to redouble our efforts to reduce tensions, to improve conditions and to invest in peace. When we do so, the dividend will be a more harmonious and prosperous society for all in Northern Ireland.
  I wish to take issue with something that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said. The Assets Recovery Agency will have the resources that it needs at the outset. His representation of my comments was inaccurate. Does he think that the amendments that his party supported in the House of Lords, which hamstring the Assets Recovery Agency—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the debate stood adjourned.

  Northern Ireland Peace Process

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 92) (HC 877) on Special Grant for Asylum Seekers Support (Adults and Families of Asylum Seekers) for 1999–2000, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 92) (HC 877) on Special Grant for Asylum Seekers Support (Adults and Families of Asylum Seekers) for 1999–2000, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

      CONTRACTING OUT
      That the draft Contracting Out (Functions of Local Authorities: Income-Related Benefits) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 26th June. be approved.
      PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
      That the draft Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 3rd July. be approved.

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
      That the draft Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
      That the draft Part-time workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
      Question agreed to.

      PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS
      Ordered,
      That the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1807) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  PETITIONS

    Traffic Congestion
    10.33 pm
    Andrew Selous: The petition, which has been signed by more than 25,000 local residents, states:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
    The humble petition of residents of South Bedfordshire showeth
    That the traffic congestion in Dunstable and Houghton Regis, and the consequent rat-running in the surrounding villages, is appalling; that the people of South Bedfordshire have had to put up with the congestion for far too long; that plans for local bypasses, in place as long ago as 1936, have been repeatedly ignored; and that a proper bypass will enhance the quality of life for all who live and work in South Bedfordshire and is vital for their future.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that a northern bypass is built for Dunstable and Houghton Regis, extending the Leighton Buzzard southern relief road, the A505, from its junction with the A5 to the M1 and on to the A6 and that an HGV ban (other than for access requirements) is imposed through Dunstable and that the A5 through Dunstable is detrunked as a result; and that at the same time the Secretary of State shall undertake a detailed study into the most suitable way of achieving a link from the northern bypass to the Woodside Industrial Estate to relieve congestion in Houghton Regis and the Poynters Road and Luton Road areas of Dunstable and to provide uncongested access for businesses to the M1.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    International Trade
    10.36 pm
    Valerie Davey: I am pleased to present this petition, signed by 500 people, and I give them my support. The petition reads:

    To the House of Commons,

    The Petition of St Bonaventure's Parish, Bristol,

    Declares that poorer countries should be able to lift themselves out of poverty.

    261

    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to push for Fairer International Trading Rules,

    And the Petitioners remain, etc.

    To lie upon the Table.

    Driving Offences
    10.37 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I support the petition and the 14,520 people who signed it. It states:
    The petition of residents of Orchard Park, Greenwood and Hull North, and others,
    Declares that they are concerned about the insufficient sentences imposed by magistrates for driving offences; that in a recent case in Hull, the court fined a driver £200 and disqualified him from driving for 12 months despite having established that he had no car insurance, no MOT, defective brakes, two defective tyres, defective lights, a defective windscreen washer and no registration plate and that, sadly, the driver in this case had hit a nine-year old boy, resulting in the boy's death, and that the driver had failed to report the incident to the police.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to review the range of sentences available to the courts in such cases, and to take such measures as lie within his power to ensure that magistrates use the full rigour of the law at their disposal.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Policing (Merseyside)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  10.38 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: When I was standing at the taxi rank at Euston following my arrival in London on Monday, I noticed a sign saying, "You are safer in Merseyside than you are in London". I do not know what effect that sign is supposed to have—whether it is meant to make one get back on the train to Merseyside or to make people look over their shoulder while they stand at the taxi rank—but it is none the less a fact.
  I want to engage the Minister in what I hope will be a constructive and thought-provoking dialogue about the position of Merseyside police. I apologise to him and to you, Mr. Speaker, for keeping us up so late, but I want to present a reasoned case for increased resources for Merseyside. I know that the Minister will probably say that under the comprehensive spending review, everyone will get increased resources. Increased resources are the order of the day. The Government's coffers are now open and largesse is pouring out.
  There has, however, been a systematic failure by the Home Office to appreciate what policing Merseyside means. Historically, there has been a stand-off between the Home Office on the one hand and Merseyside police authority and the Merseyside police on the other. Merseyside police authority and the Merseyside police have repeatedly said that they want more resources, but the Home Office has remained firmly indifferent. I am a veteran of that process. Many years ago, I was a member of the Merseyside police authority when it was a truly democratic body, and went down to London with an all-party delegation to the Home Office. I saw the then Home Secretary—to give the House an idea of how long ago that was, the post was held by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We complained about the cuts facing us, our problems and the lack of police manpower. We were given sympathy and, I think, tea, but not very much money. Part of the problem was that the Home Office was persuaded that demographic factors were against the Merseyside area. The population was falling so why, in the circumstances, should more police be required? Logically, I suppose, the Home Office could have argued that fewer police were required. I dare say that it was encouraged when subsequently some crime figures in the Merseyside conurbation went down, particularly in connection with burglary. When they did not go down, they did not necessarily go up at the same rate as in other conurbations.
  The Home Office said one thing, the police authority another, and Merseyside police reiterated the views of the authority—that scenario has been repeated year after year. I want to dwell for a second on the reaction of Merseyside police, which is constructive, rather than negative. The force has progressed civilianisation throughout the force, so that front line officers are doing front line duties, and ancillary tasks not related to policing are taken on by civilians. That is commendable and desirable, and in line with Home Office policy.
  Decriminalisation of parking offences has taken place in at least two authorities in the Merseyside police area. Consequently, the police are less preoccupied with those

  263
  chores. The business of school crossings has been transferred to local authorities. The police have therefore done what they can to cope with diminishing resources. There has also been much concentration on target hardening, making it difficult for burglars to gain access to domestic and business premises. Operation Bumblebee was successful in reducing substantially opportunities for burglars and the burglary figures on Merseyside. There has been a plethora of community partnerships, including the safer Merseyside partnership and satellite partnerships. The public has been consulted on ways of addressing the causes, effects and incidence of crime. There has been wholesale encouragement of home watch schemes and bids, successful and unsuccessful, for closed circuit television. All of that has made calls on the police less necessary because the causes of crime have been addressed.
  The police have therefore done what they can to keep their house in order against a background of what they believe to be insubstantial resources. In turn, they have addressed some of their internal problems. In the early stages of the police authority's existence, there was a distinct tendency to save money by forcing expensive, highly paid officers into early retirement. That saved money one year but, of course, cost money in subsequent years. The police authority backed away from that strategy, and has since taken an intelligent approach to managing its resources. To be perfectly honest, absenteeism figures for Merseyside have not been the best in England. The police have paid attention to that and brought the figures down. They have done their best to resolve their problems against the background of the resources that they have, but the fundamental problem is that on Merseyside there is still a manifest fear of crime and a perceived and real shortage of police.
  That registers as public concern, especially about public order offences—youths creating annoyance in local streets, and more substantial annoyance in town centres, where crime occurs. There is general public concern throughout the whole Merseyside area, and certainly in my constituency.
  Something that worries, excites and energises the public is the reaction time of the police when dealing with crime. The fact is, if there are not enough police, few of them can reach the scene quickly.
  Clearly, the public want the police not just to deal with crimes when they occur, but to be there so that crimes do not occur. They want a more visible and effective police presence. The entire Merseyside community wants a greater degree of neighbourhood security. That can be provided only by a proper number of uniformed, trained police. Although other strategies have been tried, such as community wardens—I do not in any way denigrate such a scheme—it is a fact that only a uniformed, trained bobby can have the impact on a scene of disorder that the public expect, want and legitimately look to the police force to provide.
  Merseyside police have recognised the need for proper neighbourhood policing schemes and the need to be properly embodied in their community. They have done all they can to involve themselves in their community, to involve themselves with youth and to involve themselves in various sporting occasions where people who may be
  264
  thought to cause annoyance can be occupied profitably. I pay due respect to those in the police force who have done their best along those lines.
  That is all very good. It is entirely desirable and in line with Home Office policy, as I am sure the Minister would agree. However, it is against a background of a perceived fall of 500 in the police force in Merseyside. That is not a fabricated figure that I have produced for the occasion. It has been repeated by the chief constable on several occasions. He believes that there has been a historic fall in police numbers, and Merseyside has to live with that.
  Last year, for the council tax payer of Merseyside, the facts were stark and not too encouraging. The precept for the police last year went up by 11 per cent. It would have gone up more, had it not been for the fact that £1.6 million of balances were used. It could conceivably be more next year. For that sum, there were no extra police. There was no contribution to the increasing number of police who are required by the Government across England. Worse still—this is a point on which I will press the Minister—there is the spectre of matters getting worse.
  Last year Merseyside police managed by virtue of having a damping grant. The expectation is that that damping grant may not be there in future under the comprehensive spending review. Simply to make ends meet next year, therefore, there may need to be a higher rise in the council tax or a bigger problem for the police budget.
  Other problems, which I am sure the Minister would recognise, although he is not prepared to do anything about them, because in a sense they are historic, are the substantial problems created by the burden of police pensions on the police budget. It may interest the Minister to know that last year it was calculated that more retired policemen were funded out of the police budget than active policemen. That is why the leader of the local city council, Councillor Mike Storey, asked for an investigation into how Merseyside was being policed.
  I believe that the Home Office has not appreciated the reality of the situation facing Merseyside police, and I should like the Minister to comment on that. It is not just a matter of how many people there are to police; it is a matter of the policing task that the force has to perform. Merseyside police are doing not just a local job, but a national job, and some would say an international job. Liverpool is a port, it has an airport and it has all the problems associated with that.
  I am reliably informed—the source is the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—that 60 per cent. of all drugs consumed in Scotland, which I imagine to be a considerable amount, are routed through Merseyside. Fifty per cent. of all Customs and Excise seizures have Merseyside links. Merseyside is identified by criminal intelligence as the main distribution centre for class controlled drugs and increasingly is a major centre for black market cigarettes.
  That is a national and an international problem. It draws substantial sums out of the mainstream budget available for ordinary policing in Liverpool. The police calculate that the figure could be about £14 million. That excludes any contribution to the national crime squad. In addition, following any attempt that the police make to address the issues of well organised crime, costs are incurred by schemes such as witness protection. There is some very high profile, very expensive crime in Liverpool, and my

  265
  message to the Minister is that that is drawing resources from other budgets. There is, however, no apparent awareness of that reflected in the performance indicators presented to the Home Office.
  To be fair, crime has fallen in Merseyside, which could now be said to be safer than other conurbations. I have seen statistics that appear to suggest that, and perhaps the claim on the poster outside Euston station is not too far from the truth. The invisible crime, however, is serious, and it is never far away. Last month, in my own constituency of Southport, which people might consider to be a safe, law-abiding place, two individuals were beaten to death with baseball bats in a drug-related crime. That crime, undoubtedly horrific in itself, will also be very costly to clear up, as all such crimes are.
  On a parochial note, both my own constituency and Liverpool are developing tourist industries involving substantial amounts of European, private, Government and local government funding. That investment is pouring in, but with it come tens of thousands of extra visitors, who appear on a seasonal, nightly or occasional basis. No adjustment is made for the extra policing needs that that provokes. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the expansion of the tourist industry creates additional policing needs and requirements.
  A big event in one part of the Merseyside conurbation seems to take resources from another. Even a simple event such as Liverpool playing at home can draw policemen out of Southport, St. Helens and other parts of the conurbation, because manpower is spread very thinly. That is particularly manifest at night, and Liverpool and Southport both have a thriving night life. There is clearly a need to control that environment and to provide a safe and secure environment in which young people—not just young people, all people—can enjoy themselves without fear of crime. That is not easy in a conurbation in which the police recognise that one third of security firms have criminal connections.
  Correlated with the thriving night life must be a vast amount of unreported crime—some minor, some major, but an awful lot of it preventable. If I had a few extra policemen in Southport to stand at a taxi rank at pub closing or club closing time, I could almost certainly guarantee a significant reduction in incidents and a safer environment for all and sundry.
  I am making a plea to the Minister to consider Merseyside a special case with regard to police resources and manpower. I have read with interest the comprehensive spending review, and I note that it speaks of technology. It is, however fairly unspecific—perhaps the Minister can be more specific—about people, bodies and police. That is what we require: human beings to staff the force. I have nothing against technology; it makes an important contribution to the fight against crime, but, so far as we are concerned, there is no substitute for manpower. In fact, any attempt to make it a substitute for manpower would really ruin matters.
  To keep a presence on the streets, Merseyside police have been driven at times to evacuating the police stations. At such times, people call the police only to find that they are not there, or to be confronted by an exotic call-waiting system. The call-waiting system that the Merseyside police have is bizarre in the extreme; it seems to have been built for business, not for the needs of people who urgently require the police. I have genuinely been
  266
  put in a calling queue after dialling 999, and I am told that, on certain such occasions, one can listen to Vivaldi. That is fair enough for people with only a trivial inquiry, but for people with a serious problem that they want immediately addressed, such as a burglar in their house, perhaps listening to Vivaldi is not altogether the right outcome.
  I understand—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the police force on Merseyside is soon to be inspected. I welcome that, and I hope that there is nothing to hide. I know what we want, and I think I know what the Minister wants, namely a peaceable, active, economically vibrant Merseyside. That is what I want, too, and I hope that we agree on the ends and the means. The comprehensive spending review needs to offer some hope for the area's long-standing ambition to have more police. Does he accept that Merseyside has peculiar features that may require additional policing?
  If earned autonomy is the Government's theme of the moment, we in Merseyside have surely earned something. We are hampered by organised crime and challenged by commercial expansion, and we have been discouraged by successive Home Secretaries, but still people have tried their best to make do with what resources we have, trying actively to develop a strategy of neighbourhood policing. I am sure that the population devoutly wishes that it will work, but we really need the police numbers to deliver, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some hope that we will get them.
  10.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate, and on the measured way in which he presented his case. This will be a useful opportunity to air some of the concerns that have been raised about policing on Merseyside. As he will recognise, the Government are improving police resources so that they can play their key part in tackling crime and disorder and improving community safety. Resources for policing overall have increased by 6.1 per cent. in 2002–03, building on a 10 per cent. increase in 2001–02. We are currently considering the provisions made under the 2002 spending review, so I cannot tonight go into the detail that he requests.
  Under the funding settlement for 2002–03, Merseyside police authority has been allocated grant of £229.1 million, an increase of £5.2 million, which is broadly in line with the average increase in the year in grant for forces in England and Wales.
  Merseyside also receives £7.5 million through the crime fighting fund and £5.6 million in capital allocations. The overall increase in funding over 2001–02, including those elements, is £9.4 million. In addition, Merseyside will benefit from money for DNA profiling and extra money for Airwave, the new radio communications system. It can expect up to £9.1 million for Airwave this year.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding formula. He knows that the Government's consultation document covering reform of the system used to distribute grant to English local authorities was published on 8 July. The system covers all the key local government services, including education, personal social services, police, fire and a wide range of other responsibilities. The consultation paper draws together potential changes for

  267
  funding for all local government services. There is a 12-week consultation period before decisions will be taken. The aim is to provide a fairer, simpler and more stable formula as a basis on which to allocate grants. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will make representations as an individual, and I will be interested to see his party's representations about any changes that should be made to the allocation formula.
  With the help of the recruitment funded by the crime fighting fund, police strength is well on track for the Government's target of 130,000 police officers by spring 2003, which will be an all-time record for police numbers in England and Wales.
  I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about areas with falling populations and the particular problems that that can cause for all local government services. However, I should point out that, excluding the Greater London area, Merseyside has the highest ratio of officers to population. In September 2001, there were 292 officers per 100,000 population, compared with the figure for England and Wales of 236. Police numbers in Merseyside fell by 484 between 1990 and 1997, and numbers continued to fall by a further 149 between 1997 and 2001. The position has been stabilised with the help of money from the crime fighting fund. Between March 2001 and January 2002, numbers rose by 28, to 4,113.
  The CFF has helped to halt the decline in police strength in Merseyside. The force has been allocated 332 CFF recruits, over and above previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. Merseyside police recruited 125 officers through the CFF, and in 2002–03 it recruited 94 officers through the CFF. It will be able to take on a further 114 recruits in 2002–03.
  We sometimes felt that the contributions of the hon. Gentleman's party were a little stifling, but they were not entirely negative in respect of the Police Reform Bill's proposals. I hear what he says about numbers on the streets and the need for officers. By next year, there will be 130,000 officers on our streets—an all-time record—but there remains a need for reassurance. The measures in the Police Reform Bill have the potential to provide such reassurance through community safety officers—the extended police family.
  The hon. Gentleman talked of Merseyside's contribution to the national crime squad as if it were entirely outgoing. For obvious reasons, we cannot discuss the detail of the squad's work with Merseyside police, but I should point out that extensive work is being undertaken in that regard. As he knows, in June a major drug supply network, based on Merseyside and with contacts throughout the world, was busted with the help of the national crime squad. So when we talk about the contribution being made, we should remember that Merseyside receives considerable support from the national crime squad. I hope that that point is appreciated.
  In making his plea to me, the hon. Gentleman knows that the substantial organised crime that exists in Merseyside also exists in other big cities throughout the length and breadth of our country. Will he please consider his party's position on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is going through the House? That legislation has the potential to make a substantial hit against the profitability of organised crime in this country. With the greatest of
  268
  respect, I should point out that his party is supporting amendments in another place that could do serious damage to that proposal. They could limit our ability to take the profit out of crime, and to dismantle the gangs that cause him and his constituents on Merseyside a potentially disproportionate problem, compared with some other places.
  My research shows that, since 1986, we have been talking about adopting effective measures to take the proceeds of crime away from serious organised criminals. We have held out that possibility to the British people, and it is about time that we delivered effective legislation that makes a serious hit on the profitability of crime. If we are going to hedge our bets every time, we will, in effect, present people with a difficult tool to work with. It will not be operated effectively, and will not dismantle the sort of criminality on Merseyside that the hon. Gentleman described. The Merseyside police, with the help of the national crime squad, have put a great deal of effort into the fight against that criminality.
  We are aware of some of the problems. We know that crime on Merseyside rose by 5.6 per cent. in the year ending March 2002, and that violent crime increased by 1.1 per cent. in that time. Vehicle crime fell by 1.3 per cent. in the period, but there remain two areas of particular concern—domestic burglary and robbery.
  The rate of domestic burglary on Merseyside rose by 14.6 per cent. compared with the previous year. That is well out of line with the national figures, and we should be happy to hear any information that the hon. Gentleman may have about that problem. The number of robbery offences rose by 31.1 per cent. in the year to March 2002. That broadly reflects the national situation. It has been well reported that there has been an increase in the numbers of robberies, and that is why we have introduced the street crime initiative.
  The street crime initiative represents a step change in cross-Government action to tackle street crime with a focused programme of action, in the 10 police force areas with the highest level of robbery and street crime. The street crime initiative money announced for the Merseyside force after the Budget amounts to £1.7 million. With the aid of that additional money, the Merseyside force are making a concerted effort to reduce street crime. We are beginning to see some results, as police and other criminal justice agencies—such as local authority health and education departments, and the drug action team—adopt a strong multi-agency approach.
  The hon. Gentleman alluded to the problem of drugs and their impact on crime. I hope that I have made it clear that we are fully aware of the difficulties facing Merseyside, and that he will make a personal contribution to the consultation on the funding formula—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Development Strategy for London
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30am
Mr. Andrew Love: They say that timing is everything in politics, so it is just my luck that this debate should fall between yesterday's statement on the comprehensive spending review and the more detailed statement that the Deputy Prime Minister will be making on Thursday.
The debate is about the spatial development strategy for London, but I share with the Mayor of London the belief that those words are probably the biggest turn-off. I note that the Mayor calls it the London plan. I used all my endeavours to change the title of the debate. The draft London plan was published on 21 June, but it is subject to a three-month consultation, so this is the only opportunity we have to discuss it before the summer recess.
The plan has to rise to the considerable challenges that will face the capital. London is a city of great contrasts. It is a city of extreme wealth and great poverty. It is a city of divisions; it has areas of great opportunity in the centre but also areas of great poverty and blight. London is a world city—it compares with New York and Tokyo—which gives it a reach both global and European, but it is also national and regional. It is a dynamic city; it is changing continuously, perhaps faster than any other part of Britain, or even of Europe. Its population changes. The services that it provides to the country and internationally change, as do its employment structures. London is also a city of great diversity: a third of its population is now estimated to come from one or other of the ethnic minorities, and more than 300 languages are spoken in the capital.
The plan provides two things: an ambitious vision of the London of the future, and alongside that a much more practical land-use strategy, of which the document says:
"planning has to be realistic, responsive, enabling and work with the grain of the future".
Such planning is undoubtedly needed, mainly to guide the public and private investment that will be required during the 15 years of the plan. However, I believe that there is an inherent tension in the plan: whether the practical land-use strategy can deliver the plan's ambitious vision. I shall address that, first by considering the document itself, and secondly by considering what role the Government ought to play in the delivery of the strategy.
We must recognise that the Mayor and the Greater London Authority have few formal powers and even fewer resources to deliver the sort of infrastructure mentioned in the plan. It should therefore be recognised that there must be a partnership with Government; it is they who have the powers and who can provide the
2WH
funding not only for the transport infrastructure, housing and regeneration that are the main objects of the plan, but for health and education and for public services generally.
The plan is based on a number of core assumptions, the first of which is population. Currently the population of London is about 7.4 million but if we project from recent population trends we may predict a population of 8.6 million at the end of the 15-year period. The Office for National Statistics carried out a study some years ago that suggested a much lower figure of 7.6 million. However, the most recent research, conducted by the GLA, puts the figure at 8.1 million. That seems a reasonable assumption, although we must be cautious about accepting that figure as time goes on. It would mean an additional population of some 700,000 people—or, as the Mayor likes to put it, a population approximating to that of Leeds.
The second assumption is about employment creation. It is expected that around 630,000 jobs will be created during that period, the vast majority of them—more than 450,000—in the finance and business sectors. Sadly, it is predicted that manufacturing employment will continue to fall from 320,000 to less than 200,000. However, there is some good news in that the high value-added sectors of manufacturing should be maintained.
The report draws on several experiences that have occurred in London over the past 20 years, when the growth in population and jobs was approximately what is expected during the period of the London plan. What happened in London during those 20 years is instructive. There was a dramatic increase in inequality in the capital, including a housing crisis—there was not only rampant house-price inflation such as we have now, but record levels of homelessness, which have continued to be a problem. There were severe capacity constraints in transport as major infrastructure projects stalled, which limited the capital's development potential.
If the plan is to achieve some of its joint objectives, to improve social inclusion and economic sustainability, specific areas must be considered.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and useful speech. I agree that there is not enough affordable housing in London, but does he think that the Mayor's target of 50 per cent. affordable or low-cost housing is correct and that it will encourage developers to build all the necessary housing?
Mr. Love: Yes, I do. I should point out that the 50 per cent. that is mentioned means 50 per cent. in some parts of London; it is 35 per cent. in others. A detailed study was conducted across London about the acceptability of that target as a standard. It concluded that in most parts of central London 50 per cent. would be a reasonable target, although in other parts, such as my own, a lesser target would be more practical. Later I shall ask whether the Mayor could introduce that target as early as possible.
The report is predicated on several points that address the problems of the past. There must be a radical improvement in the public transport infrastructure; that goes without saying. For example, crossrail 1 is the only way in which we can unlock the potential of the east end,

3WH
and reduce social exclusion there. A focus must be put on brownfield developments—that is generally accepted—and every attempt will be made to resist the development of the green belt. There must be greater density of development and a more intensive use of those areas that have not been adequately used in the past. Although I accept those aims in principle, I have several concerns about whether the land-use strategy can adequately deliver the ambitious vision set out in the London plan. These are not objections. Planning issues are a question of balance, with no "yes" or "no" answer.
The obvious question is whether the plan can be achieved and whether it is feasible. We have witnessed population growth and the creation of new jobs, which I hope will result in new infrastructure. Those developments must be accommodated within London's boundaries without encroaching on the green belt. We shall therefore be talking almost exclusively about brownfield development, but we know that there are problems with assembling the land and with remediation strategies, and services must often be provided on such land. That reflects the concerns that the Opposition spokesman mentioned among developers. I suspect that they will also be concerned about greater density and intensity of use; although it is easy to talk about such things in the plan, it will be much harder to deliver them. The first thing that we must do, therefore, is to recognise that the plan must be flexible if we are to get anywhere near achieving its objectives.
The next issue that I want to consider is capacity constraints and, in particular, land availability. The plan predicts the need for 23,000 housing accommodation units each year, yet that figure reflects the constraints on land availability for new housing development. It is predicted that there will be an 8 per cent. increase in the number of pupils, and we shall require schools if we are to educate them. It is suggested that there will need to be about 500,000 sq m of additional office space each year, which must be accommodated. It is also suggested that there will be a 35 per cent. increase in space requirements for hotels and catering during the period of the plan, which must be accommodated. The question is whether the land is available in London to accommodate all those developments and to implement the plan. There are major land availability issues, which we urgently need to tackle.
There is also an imbalance in the economic development that the plan proposes for inner and outer London. If we closely examine what is suggested, we find that two thirds of the new jobs that will be created in the period of the plan will be in inner London, and I include Canary wharf in the definition of inner London. Additionally, most of the job losses in manufacturing will occur in outer London, which poses a difficult problem. Housing development will be concentrated in east London in the latter part of the plan, but it will generally occur across the whole of London. That will place additional pressures on the transport infrastructure, and the problems of moving people form outer to inner London will become intolerable without major infrastructure improvements. We need to reconsider the balance between the jobs that are created in inner and outer London.
4WH
Another concern is whether the plan can meet the capital's housing needs, and I come to the conundrum mentioned by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). At present, we have a combination of the largest house-price inflation since records began in the late 1980s and the lowest level of house building since 1924. Many reasons are given for that, and some people blame the developers. I do not want to get into a debate about that, but we must recognise that there are problems with site assembly and brownfield land development. Although the plan suggests that there should be 23,000 additional homes with 10,000 of those being affordable units, we need to recognise that that is probably an underestimate of the real need. The Association of London Government figures for what needs to be achieved, and those produced by the commission that the Mayor set up last year, are much higher.
In recognising that the figure of 23,000 is a minimum, we should also recognise the traditional tensions surrounding house building in London—the competition among different local authorities and the tensions between inner and outer London about where affordable housing should be built. All those traditional tensions still exist and if we are to achieve the plan's objective, we need two things. First, we need significant additional resources to build those houses—a statement was made yesterday in relation to that and there is another to come. Secondly, we need a streamlined planning process to deal with the structural difficulties in the London market.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman—housing is the key issue for London. Is he aware that the House Builders Federation has estimated that if all the brownfield sites within the M25 were developed, there would be enough land for London's housing needs for the next 10 years? Is not the reason why a lot of those sites are not being developed the fact that they require Government pump-priming to clean them up and remedy them? Is it not a tragedy that we have lost the gap funding from Europe that was so successful in doing just that?
Mr. Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on gap funding and I hope that the new measures that I understand will be introduced in the near future will deal with the need for that type of Government support to ensure the development of sites that need remediation.
In relation to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, although I accept that there are real difficulties with brownfield development, the problem is much more complex. That is not the entire reason why those sites have not been developed. There are many more reasons, not least the unwillingness of the developers to develop what are, in their terms, difficult sites. They would much prefer to develop greenfield sites.
Mr. Mark Field: I bring the example closer to home. In the hon. Gentleman's own borough—the London borough of Enfield—there has been high-profile concern during the past half decade in relation to a brownfield development site at the Royal Small Arms factory. He referred earlier to the idea of the planning process being streamlined. How would he envisage. in practical terms, that type of

5WH
development being streamlined? Presumably, the aim would be to avoid the long delays that occurred because a number of local residents felt aggrieved by the process.
Mr. Love: I could go into the history of that factory site, its sale and the involvement of various agencies, but I shall not. The site lies not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), so I defer to her. I say only that the existing planning process is clearly inadequate to develop a site as large as that of that factory, which has such a history, in the time scale necessary if we are to deal with the problems in London.
Another area that causes me concern is the low priority that is given in the plan to manufacturing in London. As I have already mentioned, it states that manufacturing employment will reduce from 320,000 to less than 200,000 during the period of the plan. I am concerned about that, not least because it would reduce the diversity of the London economy and make us even more dependent on the financial services sector than we already are. People should be worried about that.
However, my major concern about this document is that it does not seem to include a strategy to deal with the issue of manufacturing. Yes, overtures are made to the high-tech end of the market, and there are suggestions that that specific part of manufacturing can be maintained by a combination of clustering and proposals to train high-tech workers, but little is said about the rest of the manufacturing sector, which is still significant in some parts of London, including my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North. The document is light on tackling the need to find some strategy to sustain manufacturing in the capital.
The Mayor asks in the strategy for a partnership with Government to try to achieve his objectives. Given the level of powers and resources available to him, he needs that partnership, so I support his call for it. He highlights two major areas where concerted action is needed to achieve the objectives of the London plan, one of which is increased public investment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced considerable increases in almost every aspect of public investment yesterday in the comprehensive spending review, and I want to touch on a couple.
In relation to affordable housing, we have a target of 10,000 additional dwellings. The approved development programme to achieve that would cost about £500 million or £600 million a year, increasing by approximately 35 per cent. the existing sum spent on the programme. The announcement yesterday suggested that about £6 billion would be spent on housing. As I understand it, that suggests about £1 billion extra for new development, so we are beginning to address the need. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on Thursday will go into the matter in much greater detail.
We also need infrastructure investment, especially in schools to deal with increasing pupil population during the period of the plan. That matter was addressed in the comprehensive spending review. However, we are not dealing with the developing acute shortage of skilled labour in the building industry, and nor is the plan. That is a serious problem in the capital for two reasons. First,
6WH
it inevitably has led and will lead to cost increases, so all the cost floors included for development in London will need to be thrown out of the window. It will cost us a great deal more to develop a hospital or new housing because of such restrictions. Secondly, the problem will undoubtedly lead to delays. If we want to stop the delays and cost increases, we need to tackle that severe shortage. As is always the case, the problem is much more severe in the capital than anywhere else.
Transport investment is critical. It is almost the crux of the development plan. We must recognise that there is a long lead-in time for such developments. I do not want to go into the subject of the London underground today, because we have done so on numerous occasions. Everyone has their own view of the public-private partnership, and the one issue in relation to it on which all hon. Members are united is the need to get the investment under way as soon as we can. It is two years overdue, and it is needed immediately.
We have discussed crossrail 1 for 10 years. It is vital for the future of the capital, yet we failed to get the relevant Bill through Parliament. As well as the Government, Parliament needs to give priority and its full backing to the development. The plan suggests that crossrail 1 should be completed by 2010. If we are to open up brownfield development in the east end of London, a substantial commitment from the Government is needed. I was pleased to see additional resources for the 10-year transport plan announced in the comprehensive spending review.
The Mayor said that change was needed in the mechanism used to implement development, not only in London but throughout the country. The existing system, with minor changes, has been in place since 1948 and is long overdue for reform. In December 2001, the Government issued a Green Paper, the objective of which was to streamline the planning process, and the subsequent consultation exercise went on until the end of March 2002. In the words of the London plan document, we need to "promote vigorous development." I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister will introduce some reforms of the planning system. I suspect that the Minister will be unable to say anything about that today, but any early indications that he can give us would be welcome.
We should also consider whether we need a special sort of development body to deliver the plan. My impetus in securing the debate was that almost everyone recognises that local authorities have not proved to be the most effective bodies to get development under way. That is especially true where a development area covers more than one local authority area. At the same time, our experience of development corporations has not been that good. The word "remote" comes to mind when one thinks of the London Docklands development corporation, which almost totally ignored the population of the area in which it was carrying out development. If one reads the recent National Audit Office report on the Teesside development corporation, one sees that the chief executive ran the corporation as if it was his fiefdom, ignoring his board of trustees and everyone else. Ultimately, he did not deliver the strategy. Therefore, the development corporation model is not very good either.

7WH
I noticed that in his statement on the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor announced the creation of business planning zones, which he said would
"ensure development and create jobs in high unemployment areas."—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 21.]
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he can tell us anything today about how the zones will operate and, more importantly, whether he would like to set up a pathfinder for those zones in some area or areas of London.
Mr. Edward Davey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. Surely that proposal goes in a different direction from the plan before us. As I understand it, the number of planning rules and guidance in those zones would be reduced, whereas the plan tries to set a raft of new guidance.
Mr. Love: I am not sure that I can comment on that because I do not know how the business zones will operate. The hon. Gentleman is obviously privy to more information than I am. Of course we want to streamline the planning process, but that should not be done at the expense of the needs of the local community in the zone. While we speed up the process and change the planning regime, we must take account of the local community as part and parcel of the process.
The Mayor has suggested several changes to the planning regime that would increase his influence over development in greater London. Without going into all the issues about planning gain and affordable housing, I commend those changes as a mechanism by which we can help to achieve the plan's objectives.
This is a good plan. It is very ambitious—one could be critical and say that it is too ambitious but I am not sure that one can be too ambitious for a capital city. It is informed by London's city-wide government and the leadership of the Mayor, and is based on the statutory consultation process, which is welcome, giving a London-wide accountability that did not previously exist. Its vision is that of the partnership that we can offer the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, and I hope that it will deliver a successful and sustainable city that is much more socially inclusive. If we can achieve that, we shall have done a great deal not only for our capital city but for our constituents.
10 am
Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) not only on having secured the debate but on the rational way in which he delivered his thoughts. That was in distinct contrast to our previous London debate, which demonstrated the split between various factions of the Labour party.
The strategic development plan proposed by the Mayor reflects the fact that London is largely a victim of its success. It is a case of motherhood and apple pie; nobody can argue with the thrust of the points that are made. There is a need for sustainable management of the economy and its growth—London is growing rapidly—for regeneration, transport and schools. We need to tackle poverty and social exclusion and to improve the quality of the environment.
8WH
The only part of the report that refers to my constituency—if anybody in the Mayor's office ever reads such documents—mentions the need to develop the science park at Cane Hill and its being hampered by the lack of transport links. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) will know—she approved the link before she handed the matter to the Mayor—the only reason why the links are not being developed is that the Mayor is not doing it, so there is some inconsistency in parts of the report.
I should like to touch on three controversial areas, which are the test of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. They are development, the need for social housing and planning reforms, to which the hon. Member for Edmonton alluded.
I turn first to office space development. There is a need, as the report says, for some 600,000 new office spaces in London. It is proposed that they will largely be in high-rise blocks. The Canary wharf development and the way in which it is being integrated is a good thing; those who say that we shall have another 75 Canary wharfs are probably exaggerating, as politicians tend to do. Companies clearly like that type of block and, provided that we watch out for bad architecture—the skyline of London is something that everyone will be lumbered with and the vistas should be protected—I shall have no difficulty with more such developments.
One point that touches on the effectiveness of the Act is that much of the discussion between the Mayor and the developers has taken place in private. That is not acceptable. The Mayor's excuse is that, as he alone is the planning authority—to that extent he is right—why should he not conduct discussions in private? They should be conducted in public because then there could be no controversy about the link between the Mayor and the developer when he gives permission for large blocks. The Government should consider amending the Act or the regulations to reflect that point, otherwise questions of corruption can creep in, even if completely unfounded.
The hon. Member for Edmonton dwelt on the need for affordable housing. Discussion about the need in London tends to focus on public sector workers. There is a need for housing for the low paid, whether they are in the public or the private sector. There is a graduated scale of demand, depending on income. We all agree that there is a need for more land. So far, the Government's response has been weak. I suspect that that will change when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement—at least I hope so.
The Government's starter home initiative was inadequate and needs to be beefed up. We also need hundreds of thousands of more affordable houses. The difficulty is that the plan is not in the Mayor's brief. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate will know, it was made clear during consideration of the Bill that it was not envisaged that it would be. That is why the Bill did not give him the powers. He has half a power—a negative power: he can direct a local authority to refuse permission for a development that does not have adequate social housing, but he cannot do anything about it. What is happening now is what we always said would happen: the boroughs and the Mayor have different ideas. The question arises of who decides London's requirements: is it the Mayor, or the boroughs?

9WH
On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"The strategic plan will be based on the boroughs' views".—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 633.]
The position shifted slightly when the guidance came out, which stated:
"The Government expects the Mayor and the boroughs to work collaboratively in the development and review of UDPs".
Newham, which is in the east end of London where most of the development is happening, is resistant to social housing. It would rather have people on middle-class incomes bringing a lot of revenue into the borough. There is therefore a stalemate. The developers are resistant to having 50 per cent. social housing in a development, and will wait until the next Mayor or the next elections, as will the boroughs. The result is that nothing will happen.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making a good point. Will he contrast what is happening in London—the lack of any real action to tackle the severe problems that London faces with social housing and transport—with the powers of the Mayor of New York and with what Mayor Giuliani managed to achieve in New York to revitalise it?
Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The difference between the governments of New York and London is that the Mayor of New York has more powers. However, that was a conscious decision by our Government. I suspect that they thought that Mr. Livingstone might end up as Mayor, and wanted to keep the ball and chain on his leg. I agree with them, which is where I must disagree with the hon. Member for Edmonton, who suggested that the Mayor be given more powers. In fact, the Mayor wants to have a say in section 106 agreements. I urge the Minister not to go down that road. If the Government went down that road, the Mayor of London would become the housing authority for London. That would emasculate the London boroughs, which is not what the people of London want. During consideration of the Bill, we were warned that that would happen. This sort of issue is a test of the legislation.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Mayor is going down that route because his financial powers in other areas have been severely limited? Surely it would be more rational to allow more financial decentralisation and, as he says, to prevent the Mayor from getting his sticky fingers on greater planning powers?
Richard Ottaway: I agree. That is why the Conservative party proposed during consideration of the Bill that the London Assembly comprise representatives of London boroughs, rather than being a bridge between the people and the Mayor, which it is at the moment. We are being proved right as the legislation is tested.
The hon. Member for Edmonton made the point that none of it will happen unless the infrastructure is put in place. We need more transport infrastructure, we need crossrail, and a variety of other projects. I detect signs that the Government are hesitating before announcing more transport infrastructure projects because London
10WH
is working pretty well as it is. The economic prosperity being created by London is dramatic; it is fizzing at the moment. There is enough regional imbalance already. If more money is put into more projects in London and it becomes even wealthier there will be a greater imbalance. I suspect that the Government, as ever, will try to find something between the two positions and come up with a third way.
The comprehensive spending review statements will be the real test. There is an opportunity for the Government, but it is essential to resolve the conflict between the Mayor and the boroughs and the boroughs and the Government. If the Government make it clear exactly how the decisions are made—the process of doing so—the plan will be even more effective.
10.10 am
Glenda Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate and on relieving the burden of delivering the undoubtedly necessary statistics in the Mayor's London plan from the shoulders of every other contributor to the debate. He made it interesting, too.
I question whether my hon. Friend was entirely right in averring that he had chosen the wrong time for the debate in the light of the Chancellor's statement yesterday and the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday, which we await with bated breath. I have little doubt that the Minister will draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to this debate. A great deal in politics can happen in a day, as well as in a week.
I declare an interest inasmuch as I am a member of the Mayor's advisory cabinet on rough sleeping and homelessness. I want to touch briefly on the points made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who said that no one could argue with the London plan because it was essentially about motherhood and apple pie. I remind him that during the passage of the Greater London Authority Act, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues argued ferociously against a mayoralty even being instituted.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues relating to planning, housing, transport and more money for London. In the days of the Conservative Government, I distinctly remember that planning was completely outside the remit of local communities. It seemed that the Secretary of State with responsibility for planning under the Conservative Government simply rubber stamped every major development in the teeth of furious opposition—certainly in my constituency—on certain big developments. They did absolutely nothing to support social housing. They were the architects of many issues on which London now has to carry the burden: not only the lack of affordable housing but the destruction of communities.
In respect of money for transport infrastructure, the Conservative Government's response to the difficulties of creating a properly integrated public transport system for London was simply to sell it off, usually to the detriment of taxpayers, who until privatisation, certainly as far as surface rail is concerned, owned that infrastructure. The Conservative Government proposed to sell off London Underground, too. The argument is

11WH
about how London can create sustainable development, based on one of the Labour Government's great pluses: giving the people of London a direct voice in who is democratically accountable for London as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton put his finger on the issue that must be clarified if the plan is to succeed. I agree with him that the plan, which is based on the most comprehensive consultation, not only of those directly elected to the Greater London Authority, but of the population of London as a whole, deserves Government support and partnership. Achieving the plan's targets will depend on partnership with central Government and with the London boroughs. My hon. Friend referred to a conflict between inner and outer London boroughs over employment prospects, but the borough structures themselves might be a problem for the sustainable development of London, which also depends on the economy of the United Kingdom plc.
People far more expert than I have demonstrated that the creation of a job in London is directly linked to the creation of two other jobs in the wider national hinterland. Apart from being the capital city of this great nation—and a great city by virtue of its variety and energy—London is the engine room for the sustainable development of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is vital not just for Londoners, but for everyone who lives and works in this country that the Mayor's plan works. However, it will not work without commitment and agreement to the plan's overriding essentials and to creating a desperately needed infrastructure. We now have the opportunity to see it happen through central and local government, the voluntary sector, the private sector and others working together.
The city cannot sustain itself if the people necessary to its sustainability find it impossible to rent or to buy a decent home. In fact, that is over-egging the pudding: nowadays it is increasingly difficult to find any home at all. We face the absurd paradox of the worst housing in the country being the most expensive—often for the public purse, which is a clear waste of money. We are doing nothing to maintain our national housing stock and nothing to broaden the aspirations of London's people. In the main, we are leaving them in unsuitable accommodation in unacceptable surroundings.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton pointed out, London's wealth, which is not exclusively financial, is not evenly spread throughout the city. My constituency, which comprises one of the two parliamentary seats in the borough of Camden, is invariably misrepresented in the popular press as being exclusively populated by millionaires living in leafy roads who do nothing except sip champagne and chatter. In fact, my constituency includes two of the most deprived wards in the United Kingdom and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has two more. Pockets of severe deprivation can be found throughout the whole of greater London.
Ms Karen Buck: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, although the Government have been successful across the country in tackling the crisis of child poverty, child poverty in London has not reduced? That must be
12WH
tackled by using all the measures outlined in the plan. The housing crisis, the inability of families to enter employment because of the housing benefit trap, the high cost of child care and so forth have made it difficult for families to move out of child poverty at the same rate as elsewhere.
Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who leads me neatly on to my next point. Undoubtedly, 40 per cent. of London's children live on or below the poverty line. We have heard much about the wealth of this great city. Indeed, I have contributed to that idea in my speech. However, the Association of London Government has issued interesting and detailed briefing papers highlighting its concern that London may lose out at the time of the next standard spending assessment review if the Government change the structures that they are examining in the desperate and entirely laudable attempt to make the process fairer. We may lose the finance that is necessary not only to move forward the Mayor's plan, but simply to keep London ticking over.
The streets of London are not paved with gold, but it is undoubtedly possible to increase the capacity of people who live in the city to make a larger contribution to its economy and the country. They will be only too willing to do that if the proper infrastructures are in place to enable them so to do. I urge the Government to approach seriously and across the range the partnership to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and I have referred.
The Mayor, the GLA and, indeed, the hon. Member for Croydon, South have pointed out that the Mayor has no direct responsibility for the delivery of housing, inasmuch as he has no powers or money to build. However, I argue strongly against any diminution of the Mayor's powers over the planning process with regard to the contribution of affordable social housing.
We know from the Mayor's housing commission that the city should be building simply to catch up and to take more than 50,000 families out of temporary housing and more than 8,000 out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We should also be building to tackle hidden homelessness in London, which is estimated to affect 106,000 to 160,000 people, many of whom are among the most frail and vulnerable of our citizens.
Simply to put those people in some form of decent housing, we should be building at the rate of 28,000 properties a year for the next decade. If we are to put some slack in the housing system, we should be building 46,000 properties a year. However, that will not be possible, given the scarcity of available land in London. The concentration will have to be on brownfield sites, unless the Mayor, working in partnership with the boroughs, has the power to insist that 50 per cent. of developments consist of affordable social housing.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to the Government's approach to starter packs. There has been movement by Government to attempt to tackle the difficulties experienced by nurses, teachers and police officers in trying to find somewhere affordable to live in London. I can understand why the Government did what they did, but it achieves nothing. All it does is pour money into what is clearly a seller's market. We must put more properties into the equation or we will see ever

13WH
greater inflation of rents and house prices, and an ever greater reduction in the number of people on whom the city depends day in, day out, because they cannot find somewhere to live.
That is one group of workers whom the Mayor and Government have defined as key workers, but other key workers in London do not feature in the starter packs. The people who sweep the streets, who push trolleys round our hospitals, who clean our hospitals, doctors' surgeries and schools, and the groundsmen in schools need to live in this city, too.
I hope that the Government will enter into the partnership that the Mayor has called for to deliver on his London plan. I hope that they will look kindly on the financial necessities for delivery of the plan, not least on housing, but also on the transport infrastructure. The Government have made a commitment to invest in transport over the next decade, but what is even more vital to London than the money, curiously, is the prioritisation of which scheme will start first. Otherwise, we will waste more years, and costs will inevitably increase before any project gets under way because of parochial arguments about what is necessary in certain parts of this capital city.
That brings me back to my central point. The Labour Government's great step forward in creating a mayoralty and the Greater London Authority was an acknowledgement that London, in certain basic essentials, must be viewed as one city. We had to move from the situation that had prevailed for too long in which borough was set against borough. I referred earlier to the mess in planning under the Conservative Government. It was acknowledged that because boroughs desperately needed money and work opportunities for their people, planners would hold them over a barrel and say that if they did not give them permission for a particular development, they would move five miles down the road where another local authority would. That situation had to stop. We are suffering from that inability to recognise the long-term planning and development needs of London.
The mayoral plan sets out a framework that can deliver a sustainable, developing and infinitely fairer, healthier and more equitable capital city. As I have said, the Mayor and the GLA cannot deliver the plan on their own and will need partnership from central Government. The boroughs will also need to work in partnership and be open minded, as will all other parts of London life that can make a positive contribution, including the public, private and voluntary sectors.
This is a great city, which can be infinitely greater. Its greatness has always depended on the energy, creativity and commitment of the people who live and work here. Far too many of them are still excluded from making their proper contribution, and we owe a duty to them to ensure that the Mayor's plan can and will deliver.
10.26 am
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this important debate. We go back some five or six years. Hon. Members may have wondered earlier how I could talk about the intricacies of the London borough of Enfield. The reason is not only that I am a bit of a political anorak, but that I was a candidate—sadly unsuccessful—in the 1997 election in Enfield, North.
14WH
I remember meeting the hon. Gentleman when he was a mere prospective parliamentary candidate. It struck me then how firmly he felt about the importance of housing and homelessness issues. During the year that I have been in the House, he has become a leading light in discussing the issues, although he is sometimes a thorn in the side of his own party. It was not a great surprise that a debate on a development strategy for London would concentrate on the issues in the draft London plan and effective housing.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that London is a wonderful place in which to live, and I agree. All London Members recognise London's brilliance, history and vibrancy and the fact that it is a melting pot for people from different cultures and for the young and the old. Equally, it cannot be denied that London has deep-seated problems, and I hope that we can play our part in solving them. We must confess that the role of the 74 London Members is limited. A London Mayor is in place, and we must ensure that we do not obstruct what he is trying to do.
I welcome the publication of a visionary strategic plan for London. This might make me sound a little like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) discussing the Maastricht treaty, but I must confess that I have not read the document throughout. I suspect that reading the draft plan in order to contribute to the consultation process will take up a disproportionate amount of my summer recess. Nevertheless, it makes important comments on the sustainability agenda and transport, in particular crossrail.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman take time during the summer recess to go through the Mayor's development strategy in detail and consider it in the light of a possible bid to host the Olympic games in 2012 or 2016, something that I have long believed London should do? In considering that will he recognise that one of the reasons for making such a bid is to help stimulate the investment in infrastructure and affordable housing that London so desperately needs and that were features of both the Commonwealth games bid in Manchester and the Sydney Olympic games bid?
Mr. Field: I fully accept those comments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will he talking to his constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). Perhaps looking at these large-scale sporting complexes has not been the Government's greatest hour. An Olympic bid for London may be a bit further away than 2012 or 2016.
I shall keep my comments brief, as I know we have to move towards the winding-up speech. I want to make a few points about affordable housing. The policy of 50 per cent. affordable housing in central London, which has been calibrated on the basis of 35 per cent. affordable housing and 15 per cent. for key workers, may have unintended consequences. If we have a tightly prescriptive policy from the Mayor on affordable housing, developers may think that it is not financially

15WH
viable to go ahead and build, particularly in central London. We will suffer because of a lack of flexibility on rules in that regard.
Ms Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Field: I am sorry, but I have to finish in a moment or two.
It is questionable whether this very ambitious agenda, or indeed any part of it, can be driven through by the current incumbent of the mayoralty. Like many other London Members I receive a positive blizzard of publications almost daily from the GLA and from Transport for London, the headcount of which has leapt from 2,257 to over 3,100 in the past year alone. Much of it is virtually irrelevant propaganda on an array of policy areas outside the work of the Mayor and the GLA and is produced by the Mayor's policy unit.
I hope that the Minister will have something to say about ensuring that there is no centralisation by Government on a number of the planning aspects that several hon. Members have dealt with today. We need to put our trust in Londoners. My concern is that if we have a regional government whose raison d'être is to have a large-scale planning power, the 33 London boroughs will suffer. Effectively, planning decisions will be made up on high and will not be responsive to the interests and needs of local people in all the villages that make up London as a whole.
10.32 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on the main thrust of his speech, which highlighted the fact that the London plan is predicated on the idea that the land will be available for all the building, both office and residential, that it envisages. Scarcity of land goes to the heart of the debate. I will focus on that, but I should first like to welcome the Minister to his new position. Some of us were very disappointed that he spent such a long time in the Trappist world of the Whips Office. We look forward to his contributions to the parliamentary dictionary over the next few weeks and months.
I welcome the plan and the debate. It is important that we have such a plan for London. For far too long development in the capital has been chaotic and has had no overarching strategy. To that extent the plan is a welcome contribution to a debate that we have been unable to have for a decade or two. Hon. Members have not so far stressed the fact that this is now a legal document. When boroughs consider their planning applications and review their unitary development plans, the plan will be a material consideration. It will affect the lives of our constituents. It is very important that we and our boroughs debate it. Clearly, if it survives all the consultation and becomes a formal London plan, it will have a significant effect on planning across the capital.
As other hon. Members have said, the plan has many good aspects, such as the focus on affordable housing, which must be right and is in many ways the major challenge facing the capital. The focus on east London
16WH
and development in the east in that regard is very important. That part of our great city has more land available and there is an urgent need to develop it. The Mayor adopts a cross-party belief that much development can take place there.
I welcome an innovative part of the plan, the blue ribbon network. During the proceedings of the Greater London Authority Bill, we debated the various strategies that the Mayor would be statutorily required to produce. The Liberal Democrats argued that he should be required to produce a strategy for the River Thames. Many of the thousand or so amendments that we tabled to that Bill were not successful but I am delighted that the Mayor has taken the kernel of that idea and expanded it to incorporate all the waterways and watercourses across the capital. That is very exciting.
However, I have some concerns about the plan. I am gravely concerned about its underlying assumptions, about some of the delivery mechanisms that the plan skates over and about some of the omissions, particularly the impact on the suburbs—areas such as my own—and the impact of orbital transport networks, which are becoming a theme of Transport for London. On behalf of hon. Members whose constituencies would be affected, I am also concerned that the plan does not state more clearly that a third runway at Heathrow is a bad idea.
I also worry that much of the research underpinning the document has not yet been published. I hope that the Mayor will publish it quickly so that it is available during the consulation period and the examination in public next year. Chapter one of the plan paints four scenarios. The Mayor has gone for what is described as the high-demand, high-supply scenario. I am concerned that the plan is predicated on that; other scenarios may turn out to be correct. We obviously hope that it will not be the case but, for example, growth in the capital may not be as strong as the plan suggests.
Those scenarios are built on the presumption that London is in equilibrium but it is not. We have much demand but insufficient supply, particularly in the infrastructure. We need supply to catch up with the demand. I am concerned about the general view from the Mayor's office that we will take as much growth as can be thrown at us, and about the idea that population growth can and should be absorbed. That is not a sensible way of planning. Some population growth may need to be encouraged in other parts of the country. The Mayor should take a leadership role in saying that he will work with other regions and areas to try to ensure that growth, particularly population growth, is more widely spread. Saying, "We will predict and provide" is not necessarily the right assumption on which to base the plan.
As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, the more optimistic plans for affordable housing do not relate to land availability. Interestingly, the plan uses target figures from a recent housing land capacity study, drawn up in close co-operation with the boroughs, which was more pessimistic than the plan. That raises serious questions. Much extra research, which has not yet been published, has been undertaken to try to work out whether more land can be used. In table 3A1, the plan suggests that my borough will be able to find another 6,710 homes by 2106. I know my constituency

17WH
very well, and that will be enormously challenging, although it is a relatively modest target compared with those in other boroughs. It is worrying that some of the targets do not seem to be linked to where land is available.
I am concerned about the details of the plan. Norbiton is a deprived ward in my constituency, but from reading the plan, one would imagine that Kingston's needs were non-existent. It mentions one or two areas in the south sub-region that require regeneration, but, apparently, not one single area in Kingston requires regeneration. I invite the Mayor and his advisers to visit the Cambridge Road estate and Cambridge gardens, where he will see the need for regeneration. I hope that he will amend the plan so that Norbiton ward becomes a high priority for regeneration.
The plan does not clearly set out how it will deliver some of its aspirational objectives. It says too little about how the Mayor will work with boroughs, such as the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. Such partnerships will be crucial because the Mayor does not have the money or power to achieve the plan's objectives by himself and he needs to engage more. That is a major omission. The Mayor should be working with borough planning departments, which are under-resourced, in spite of the excellent work carried out by officials in those departments. The Mayor could play a significant role in supporting and strengthening those departments.
In conclusion, I welcome the plan. There is much to be debated before its final adoption, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to revisit the subject, perhaps for an even longer debate.
10.41 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for introducing the debate in a calm and sensible way. In fact, all the speeches so far have been constructive. The problem is that this is such a big subject that we can only skirt around it in an hour and a half. We would all like to devote more time to the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a good point. The Mayor's plan is visionary; the question is whether it can be implemented, given what powers he has. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made that point very clearly.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) slightly wrong; this is not a legal document, as yet. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, the plan has been put out for consultation until 30 September, whereafter there will be a public examination until early 2003, followed by a recommendation to the Secretary of State in late 2003. Thereafter, hopefully, we shall begin to see some action.
It is vital to the future of the country to ensure that London retains its world status as a vibrant city, so it is important that we should think about these matters and slightly worrying that a survey by William Mercer for the BBC puts London 34th in its ranking of world countries. The top four cities were Vancouver, Zurich, Vienna and Bern. The reason given for placing London so far down the list was that quality of life there is
18WH
deteriorating. In particular, the survey cited traffic and congestion, to which list I would add crime. Interestingly, the lowest ranked city was Brazzaville, in Congo, which Mr. Mercer perceptively says came bottom of the list because of the civil war in the region.
Some interesting statistics were quoted in the report, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton. When I first said that London's population would rise by 700,000 over the next two decades, the equivalent of the population of a city such as Leeds, hon. Members derided me. I am interested to hear that hon. Members now accept that there will be a huge growth in population in London in the next two decades. Contrary to what some hon. Members said, I think that it will be a good thing, as it will keep the city vibrant. About 516,000 people will be of working age. More importantly, more than 500,000 will be of school age. Unlike the populations of many countries and cities, the population of London is getting younger on average, which we must consider in the facilities that we provide and in planning the city.
As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, it is reckoned that the population will grow from 7.4 million to 8.1 million people. The economy supports a wider area with about 18 million people, so the city is extremely big in world terms. There is huge disparity in wealth, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda. Jackson) said, which is clearly in no one's interests. We aim to bring the level of some of the most deprived areas, such as parts of her constituency, up towards that of the best.
I was interested to see that the Mayor predicted in his plan that the highest levels of housing growth would be in deprived areas. For example, Tower Hamlets will have an extra 2,070 dwellings, Southwark 1,480 and Lambeth 1,450. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is aware the City of London will have only 110. Richmond, which is near the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, will have 270, and Bexley 280.
That may not be sufficient to meet London's severe housing problems. After crime and transport, housing may be the third biggest problem and challenge; all problems are challenges. I welcome the Mayor's statement that we will have an extra 23,000 homes in London, which is a 22 per cent. increase and a challenging target. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Edmonton, I have questions about the Mayor's 50 per cent. target, because 50 per cent. of nothing is nothing. It would be far better to get the houses built with perhaps a lesser proportion of social housing. We all accept that we need social housing, but we need housing—full stop.
The hon. Member for Edmonton was right to refer to points that were made in an article in The Observer that I have previously quoted in this Chamber, which states that the 2000 figure of 161,000 homes is the lowest for house building since 1924, excluding the war years. It is too low. We need to work on some of the brownfield sites mentioned by the House Builders Federation. I repeat that it estimates that if we developed all the brownfield sites within the M25 corridor, there would be enough housing land provision in London for the next 10 years.

19WH
We are not making the progress in housing that we should. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate rightly drew attention to the appalling waste of human resources that is putting people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I think that the figure she gave was 8,000 people in London alone. It is a tragedy. and we should do something about it. We need to build good-quality housing in London in the right places.
The debate has skirted around the fact that we need to consider the planning system carefully. The Government have proposals to make on planning in the autumn. I hope that they have been properly thought out. The Mayor has proposed to aggregate all planning gain together. His desire for that power begins to worry me. Would it be used properly? The Government have made proposals on tariffs, which also concern me. If we are not careful, they will simply amount to a development land tax, yet another tax on developers.
I want the Government to go forward with inner-city regeneration. During the Conservatives' 18 years in government, we had some superb regeneration schemes. However, the Government's policy on urban regeneration seems fragmented, with many different schemes, many budgets underspent, and money not getting to the areas that it should. I want large enough parcels of land aggregated together so that we can have some really imaginative urban regeneration schemes.
There is not enough time in the debate to discuss all London's severe problems. It is an important world city, and it is vital to the success and continued growth of the economy that we ensure that all Government Departments use their powers to work in partnership with the Mayor. We have not discussed the fact that all Government Departments are involved in London's problems, which are not limited to crime, transport, housing or urban regeneration. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health have a vital part to play in the future of London. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about finding solutions to the problems.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on not only securing the debate but the manner in which he opened it. His comments were profound and thoughtful and showed a strong grasp of all the subjects in the plan. I hope that the Mayor takes his comments as seriously as they were intended, and as the first of many responses in the consultation process.
Without seeking in any way to add a partisan note to our deliberations, I heard more of substance from my hon. Friend in his half-hour speech than I heard in any of the speeches made by members of the official Opposition. That is a shame, given the significance of the plan and of London as a city—rather than a country, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had it. I would be surprised if London came 34th in a list of countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton bemoaned his sense of timing. He was right to do so, in light of the fact that there was a statement on the
20WH
comprehensive spending review yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will give his response on Thursday. We are about to respond to the consultation process for the Green Paper on planning, and we have a statutory duty to respond to the Mayor's plan by 30 September.
Sadly, my comments will be couched within my hon. Friend's distressingly bad sense of timing. I hope the debate is the first of many on the plan and its surrounding issues, but it may have an entirely different tenor by next week, let alone by October or November. However, he was right to draw attention to the issues.
We welcome the plan, although there seems to be some confusion in the Chamber about its status. Essentially, it is the successor document to the strategic planning advice for London. It is the strategic planning framework and, when it is adopted, all boroughs will have to use it as a touchstone for the development of their community development plans or local development frameworks. By definition, it is part of a hierarchy of plans. From the comments of some hon. Members, one might get the idea that the Mayor is planning a land grab and that he will be a monolithic superpower in terms of planning for London, but that is far from the case.
At the risk of entering the realm of semantics, the plan is not a legal document—the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was wrong. From its publication, it represents a material consideration in the planning process. In that sense, whether it is legal is a significant point.
I do not have time to make the speech that I had intended to make or to reply to all hon. Members' remarks, but I shall throw out a few ditties. I take seriously the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton about the balance between outer and inner London in the document. For my sins, I served on the London planning advisory committee, which was the body responsible for strategic advice between the demise of the Greater London council and the rise of the Greater London Authority. There was an ongoing debate about not only north, south, east and west London but inner and outer London.
One thing underlay all hon. Members' comments. It is time for government from the boroughs upwards and for central Government downwards to treat London as one living, organic entity, a city in which what happens in one part has a profound impact on other parts. The notion—both simplistic and complacent—that if we utilise every single brownfield site inside the M25, London's housing problems will be solved has been repeated a couple of times. It is nonsense. It gives the impression that all that is inside the M25 ring, which in some places is 25 to 30 miles from the GLA's boundaries, is a land bank of pristine, clean brownfield sites just waiting to be turned into housing by nice, magnanimous developers. Even the developers recognise that that is profoundly wrong. It is equally wrong to cast doom and gloom by suggesting that every site is so poisonous and contaminated that the poor developers cannot do anything with it without Government assistance.
The hierarchy of land use that is the core of the plan has been at the core of planning since the 1980s and 1990s: brownfield, urban fringe, then greenfield, which

21WH
itself has various degrees. Urban fringes and greenfield may be used, and it is misleading to suggest that there is a massive stock of brown field inside the M25 and that the problem will be solved if it is utilised. A recent report—I am not sure whether it was commissioned by the Government or by the GLA—said that to solve some, if not all, of our difficulties, we should look upwards. If the plan suggests anything it is that a portfolio of solutions to housing, planning and developmental issues in London is needed.
We should go to our local shopping centres and see how much single-storey, ground-level development there is. A recent report said that we could secure close to 25,000 units simply by building upwards—perhaps above railway stations, certainly above petrol stations. That has happened in the centre of London to some extent. At this stage in London's growth, single-level developments are a woefully inefficient use of the precious commodity of land. That is not the whole answer, but part of it.
I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton about manufacturing in general, rather than the specifics of the plan, but it is not enough; throughout London, despite the plan, a UDP, local development framework-led planning process remains. We should exhort each authority, whether it is in inner or outer London, to consider every single designation of land. Elected members must now say to the borough valuer who has been marketing a particular site for 25 years with B1 or B8 use—it may be the only bit of the precious manufacturing base left in his outer London borough—that he should take a step back and be creative. He could say that it should be given over either to mixed use or to housing. Every borough must review the land use of each of its sites during the consultation, using the plan as a touchstone. Residents deserve no less.
It has been a good debate, despite my earlier partisan comments. In part it has been a nice déjà vu. Many who are present lived and breathed with me and others in a dusky Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) was there and he has not changed at all. It is still all doom and gloom and the GLA Act is nonsense. I shall look again at our proceedings for the exhaustive amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman to develop a Rudy Giuliani figure for London—I suspect that there was none. In three months, Opposition Members were for the Mayor, against the Mayor, half for and half against. In the end they were not sure at all but would have preferred group leaders on a borough-wide basis, and then they were not sure about the Assembly either.
The important point is that the London plan is an important contribution to our deliberations. Whatever people think of its author or anything else, it matters for the future of London and it will inform the planning context. I look forward to being party to the Government's response, and I urge every London Member and every hon. Member who has London's interests at heart to read it thoroughly and to respond to it.

Flooding
11 am
Mr. John Gummer: First, I thank Mr. Speaker for enabling me to raise this subject. I cannot say that I am an enthusiast for the present procedure, which is yet another way of conning the public, rather like early-day motions. It is rather depressing that we suggest that something will happen after such debates. By ensuring that more happens in the House of Commons, while taking less notice of it, the Government are doing great damage to our parliamentary democracy. These debates are another such con, but one must use what one has.
I am making use of the present procedure because my constituency has 74 miles of coastline. I am honoured to represent a large number of people, but my constituency also contains many rivers, such as the Blythe, the Alde, the Orr, the Orwell, the Deben and their numerous tributaries. I have therefore witnessed the problems of coastal erosion, rising sea levels and fluvial flooding. In one way or another, the constituency of Suffolk, Coastal is well named.
My personal interest in this issue does not cloud my mind to the fact that 10 per cent. of the population in England and Wales live in areas that are at risk from flooding. That affects 1.8 million properties.
Why should one be concerned about this issue now? The reason is that there is growing evidence that the threat is increasingly significantly. The distinguished Halcrow report suggests that the problems with our coastal defences are so serious that approximately one third of east coast defences, two thirds of south coast defences and half of west coast defences are expected to fail in a serious flooding incident. When one realises that about £207 billion worth of property and possessions—I am not even talking about the people—is threatened, one sees the seriousness of the matter.
In case anyone ever listens to what we say in this Chamber or, indeed, in any other, I should remind hon. Members that Hull is one of the key locations at risk. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises that his city is at risk, along with Blackpool, areas around Great Yarmouth, Bristol and Dungeness power station.
Some 47 densely populated locations face high risk, and about 397 sq km of urban areas are at risk in aggregate. Some 98 km of coastal defences were assessed as being likely to fail in the event of a relatively small incident, and they are mainly in the Anglian, north-west and southern regions. We are therefore in a pretty serious situation.
Bob Spink: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right to raise this important subject, and I want to put his words in context. He will be aware of the 1953 flood that occurred at little way round the coast from his constituency, and 53 people from my constituency perished in it. Is he also aware of the great danger of high sea levels later this year and of the fact that global temperatures for the first three months of this year were the highest ever recorded?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. We may commiserate with those who still remember the deaths, but we should also remember that

23WH
the cost of the damage done by the 1953 floods was the equivalent of 10 per cent. of the country's gross national product. That is in the region of £25 billion after inflation. Although those floods were serious, they were unexpected; this is an opportune moment for the debate because such incidents are becoming more regular, more likely and less unusual.
When I had the job now held by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I made the first step in recognising the impact of climate change. It caused a good deal of controversy because people did not believe in climate change in those days, and it was extremely lucky that two members of the Government did believe in it—I was one; the other was the then Prime Minister. It was a useful combination because, without her, I would not have been able to do anything. I raised the specifications for coastal defences because flooding seemed a probability. That was a useful thing to do, but it is some 10 years since I had any connection with the issue, and I started on that course a good five or six years earlier. However, it was the beginning of a realisation, which is now much more widespread, of the impact of climate change.
That is the first reason why the situation has changed. The Government now accept the importance of climate change, and the science is universally accepted. The only argument is whether, and if so by how much, human beings have contributed to it. I believe that the case has been clearly demonstrated and that no Government have the excuse not to take into account at least the median line of what climate change may do.
Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman has a credible and creditable track record on these matters and he is right to raise them. Does he agree that not only do we need protection from possible flooding, but we need to do more to prevent it? One serious problem is that the Environment Agency has no right to object to developments on flood plains, which could disrupt drainage and increase the likelihood of flooding.
Mr. Gummer: I entirely agree. I hope to come to that point later. First, however, I want to explain why we need to move on to a new stage.
The first reason, which I have already mentioned, is climate change. The second reason is the huge change in agricultural practices over the past 10 to 15 years. There is now a great deal more drainage, so that when water rolls off the fields onto the roads it causes a huge build up of water in the drainage pipes. That causes floods in places that never had floods before.
One agricultural change that we have gone in for involves what are called welfare pigs. I have doubts about the principle of welfare pigs because, as I hope everyone knows, pigs do not sweat, and the last thing that we should do is put them out in open fields. Historically, pigs wandered about in oak forests and other woodland areas. That is how they should be kept, but the driving force behind pig welfare comes from people who live in towns and have never seen the animals, so they do not understand what happens. Nevertheless, welfare pigs is the great thing, so out in the
24WH
open air they go. The trouble is that it creates circumstances that cause increased run-off. The village of Blythborough in my constituency is being tormented by the effects of run-off from open-air piggeries, and there are many like that around the country. However, that is not the only cause; there have been several significant changes in arable and husbandry practice over the past 15 years.
The third reason for needing to move on is our ageing sea defences. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about the floods in 1953. Much of the work that has been done as a result of those floods is coming to its end, and those sea defences need to be replaced.
The fourth reason that this is the moment to talk seriously about the issue was supplied by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), in the previous debate, when he was busy promoting the Government line that we should go back on the question of building on greenfield sites. Such references drop into every speech and are designed to change people's attitudes. We all know what the Government are about—building large numbers of houses out in the countryside. They are building up to it, turning their backs on 20 years of environmental battling and returning to a position that obtained before I—when I was a Minister—had the opportunity of stopping out-of-town shopping centres and the like.
That is what they will try to do, so into the Under-Secretary's little speech was dropped the sentence, "There really are not enough brownfield sites in London." There are enough brownfield sites in London to meet our needs if we spend time and money on preparing them and making them available. That is the fact of the matter.
In opposition, Labour Members said that the Conservative Government were mad to suggest that we needed 4.6 million homes during the next 25 years. We were told that that was all wrong, quite unacceptable and nothing to do with the facts. Now, of course, they have accepted it, but in order to hide that fact, they do not use the figure spread over 25 years, but the equivalent figure over 10 years, pretending that that makes it different.
The Government know very well that a huge number of new homes need to be built. If 40 per cent. of them are to be built on greenfield sites, as they have already accepted and which is far too high a proportion, that will cause even greater pressure to build on the flood plain and in areas threatened by floods, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said.
We know that flood-generating rainfall events, as they are called, are increasing. The nature of rainfall is changing. Scattered showers through the summer have been increasingly replaced not just by more rain, but by more continuous and driving rain, which is much closer to tropical rain. We know that that will increase and that its results will be very serious, as will those of river canalisation, which has created other problems in order to defeat particular ones in certain areas.
We know that it will happen, so we should examine what the Government have done about it. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who will reply to the debate, is one of the

25WH
Ministers that I most admire in this Government. In many areas he has actually got things done. Having been a fisheries Minister myself, I honour him particularly for the brave position that he has taken on fishing. He is one of the first people to do that and therefore if I have some unkind things to say about the Government, he must not take them personally.
I will say one unkind thing about him, however: his position on hunting is wholly unacceptable and has damaged what would otherwise be a real power in the countryside. He is one of the few Ministers with some credibility in the countryside and I am sorry that he has adopted a ridiculous and totally urban view of hunting. Apart from that, I am pleased to be able to debate with him.
The risks of flooding are increasing considerably and the Government have admitted that. The consultation paper clearly states that
"because there may be many years between major floods, there is a risk of complacency setting in, and of flood defences being neglected."
The Government should bear those words in mind. The Prime Minister, who got himself rather caught up in the floods, went around saying,
"We used to consider these flood events as relatively rare occurrence, but over the next few years we can expect to see these types of situations."
I do not know what that means, but that is what he said. He went on to say:
"We have to put a lot more investment in."
I want to emphasise that the Prime Minister's only answer was more money. The trouble is that more money alone will not solve the problem.
The first difficulty is the incredible complexity of the way that we in England and Wales handle the matter. The Scots are much more sensible, and I will come to that later. The hon. Member for Gordon will be pleased to know that I am to make my first recorded statement in favour of devolved Government. It may be a moment worth waiting for. Let me tell the Committee what the steering group said. As we know, the steering group was a collection of middle-ranking apparatchiks from the Departments—God knows how many Departments there are—who are interested in flooding. Paragraph 20—a serious paragraph from the steering group's background paper for the consultation—stated:
"The steering group also concluded that evidence indicated"—
it did not give any evidence, by the way—
"that the combined use of the existing strategic framework (supported by the Agriculture Select Committee in its 1998 report) and High Level Targets (HLTs) backed up by ongoing reviews and research projects, was an appropriate means to implement and prioritise flood and coastal defence functions subject to refinement and extension in the light of the experience and the outcome of reviews and research."
That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and how it will be carried out. You may understand what that means for management, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I know that you are a remarkable man—but no one else does.
Can we imagine any business announcing to its shareholders that this is how it will deal with its most pressing risk? This "management of risk" is endangering property worth £207 billion, let alone human beings. We will have something that is backed up by ongoing
26WH
"reviews and research". We can tell that the paper is new Labour: it has all the phrases. The steering group were civil servants, but they seem to have caught the phrases. Interestingly, they did not believe it either. Three lengthy paragraphs later they say:
"The Steering Group concluded that it would be of most value to consider a framework which would both support an integrated, strategic and streamlined approach to flood defence but would have the flexibility to recognise and react appropriately to specific local needs."
A system that is integrated, strategic and streamlined, but has some clear connection with local issues, is a sensible concept. That is totally different from what we have and what the steering group suggested that the evidence indicated was still sensible. It is also interesting that the Under-Secretary does not believe that either. When he appeared to be trying to explain why the Environment Agency had not been quick off the mark in dealing with the floods in Northampton and Kidlington, he said:
"As a starting point, Lord De Ramsey"—
the chairman of the Environment Agency—
"and I agreed that there must be a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1080.]
The flood forecasting, warning and response must be seamless and integrated. However, protecting us against flood depends on a range of different organisations that are largely unaccountable to, and unconnected with, each other, and on hoped-for reviews, research, projects, ongoing this and ongoing that. That is what we have, and it is supposed to defend us. This is a sandbag culture: we wait for the flood, rush out with sandbags, and then row about who should pay for them. In my experience, that is another thing that always happens with sandbags. The sandbag culture must stop, but it will do so only if the Ministry starts by refusing to be complacent, which it is, and if it stops believing that money will solve everything.
In case the Under-Secretary thinks that I have been unfair about complacency, I will give him an example. On 18 March 1999, I asked the Under-Secretary, who was still in his place then—he is a man of considerable continuity—when would he publish the flood and coastal defence project appraisal guidance notes. The relationship between local government, the other agencies and the Government is crucial and what holds all this nonsense together. He told me that there would be six instead of one, which I suppose is some help. The six would be published separately, and altogether would be completed within 18 months. It is now three and a half years later and we still have not seen the last one. In all that time, and doubtless for some time to come, nobody has had the guidance notes. It is not that we do not have an integrated system; we do not even have the guidance note to run an unintegrated system. This is nonsense; it is not sensible.
One has to assess the complexity. The Government believe that if the money goes up—I am glad that marginally it will—everything is fine, but it is funny that the amount is exactly what the insurance companies demanded under threat of withdrawal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is more.
Mr. Gummer: With great respect, that is wrong. The more does not come until later. I have worked out that it is £12 million less; the more does not arrive until three years from now. I have also taken into account the lowest feasible rate of inflation.
Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government and with the Environment Agency that this substantial increase in flood and coastal defence funding cannot be delivered in one year. It will take three years to put the planning, the schemes and the rest of it in place: £150 million of additional money is a considerable amount. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it finally falls into place by the third year, but there has to be some ramping up, as it cannot be spent in one year.
Mr. Gummer: I do not disagree, but the ramping up has to be to the level agreed in the first place; one cannot ramp up to a lower figure, which is what it will be by the time that inflation has cut into it. It is one of the fundamental rules of accounting that one should ramp up to £162 million if one wants to meet the figures provided by the Association of British Insurers. The Government decided on this figure for the simple reason that the insurers said that they would otherwise not continue to insure. It is straightforward blackmail. I do not blame them because we had turned insurance into assurance: it is virtually certain that many areas of the country will be flooded, so it becomes closer to life assurance. The Government know perfectly well that had they not acceded, they would have been in a severe mess.
Nick Pearson, the head of household products in the Norwich Union, made an interesting comment in response to the Government's decision:
"Flooding is a complex issue, where not only funding but organisation, prioritisation and land use management"—
about which the Minister has been talking—
"need to be overhauled to help reduce the problem."
The Government believe that by bellyaching about how difficult it all is and then providing some money, they have solved the problem—but the problem is much more complex than they allow. A throwaway line in the consultation paper says that
"social and environmental concerns are given insufficient weight"
by the Environment Agency and
"there should be a commitment to provide consistent standards of flood protection for similar urban communities and within communities."
However, that has not been agreed: it appears there, but the rest of the document ignores it. The Government are not prepared to face the complexities of the issue.
We have to face increases in cost, but the money has to be spent differently. Is the Minister going to spend this money more sensibly? The Oxera report points to the distortion between expenditure on capital projects and operational expenditure to reduce flood risk. That will be worsened by some of the Government's plans, so what is the Minister going to do about it? What about the necessary reallocation of flood management expenditure to ensure more sustainable flood management, or are we merely going to rush after saving flood protection places that have already been undermined?
28WH
Cost seems to be the Government's single response, so how can we ensure that the money goes where it should? The system of getting it to local authorities, where it becomes their responsibility, is at best flawed and at worst totally arbitrary. People find themselves saddled with a level of support that is unconnected to their needs and seems to change at the whim of the Government. Insurance is important, and the Government, as I have suggested, have given the money because they want to buy off the insurance. However, there is so much to do because severe weather and floods in 2001 led to insurance claims of £1 billion, and insurance claims during the past five years have run at about £400 million a year.
The Under-Secretary should come down with me to Aldeburgh and see the difficulties in the areas by the Rivers Alde and Ore and the complexity of the relationships between English Nature and the Environment Agency for England and Wales. What are the Government doing about the constant inability to get anyone to take responsibility? I had to bring representatives of the Environment Agency, English Nature, the local council and the protection body together on the foreshore of Aldeburgh to get them to talk to each other and tell each other what they intend to do. That shows our current lack of integration.
There are several things that we can do. We should stop building on flood plains and introduce a system in which part of the house building costs or house rates refers to the cost that the developers will impose on the public. Therefore, if we are going to have any building on flood plains or areas liable to flooding, the developer should meet the costs, if that is possible. If it is not, I would much prefer it if such developments were not built at all.
We must take that step, but the Government's recent planning document does not mention the issue. It talks about a lot of other nonsense, but does not address the planning biggest issue or explain what they will do. The Department of the Environment as was has been split up, and as I understand it the planning document was produced by Lord Falconer without any discussion with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The only meeting that took place was with the Minister for the Environment after it had been written to have a nice chat about how good it was. DEFRA had no say in it, and nor did people concerned with flooding, which is the problem with joined-up government.
We should also do proper research to understand the real problem, and a great deal of work is still to be done. Two points from Scotland are important. First, why do bodies in Scotland have a duty to protect people from flooding? In England, they have the power to protect people, but not a duty to do so.
Mr. Morley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I shall be in trouble for taking too much time.
I know what the Under-Secretary usually answers: it is a much smaller problem in Scotland, so they can handle it.
Mr. Morley: No.
Mr. Gummer: Well, that was his answer last time. The point is that the bigger the problem, the more one should want to solve it. It should be the other way round, and I do not understand it. It is no good saying that we will not solve the problem in England because it is so big, but they can solve it in Scotland because it is just small. That does not seem a sensible answer.
It cannot be right that those responsible for flood prevention do not have a duty to prevent floods and protect property and people. It cannot be right that they merely have permissive powers. It cannot be right that the policy system in Scotland means that all local authority chief executives are directed to take climate change into account in all their policies. No one has said that in England, Wales or, as far as I know, Northern Ireland. Why are we not telling people that they have to do it? They should have the responsibility, not just permissive powers.
The second point about Scotland is that the Scottish Executive try to protect because it is dangerous, not because they have the cost-effective figures right. They say that one of their duties is to protect Scotland from flooding, so they will do it. In England, they say that one duty of the English authorities is to see whether, in an entirely cost-effective way, we can find a mechanism to allow people to spend such money as is available to protect people from flooding where there is enough noise and trouble. Those are two different approaches and—it hurts me to say this—I prefer the Scottish approach.
The Government stand in the dock for complacency, for failing to understand the complexity of those issues failing to do for England and Wales what Scotland does, and for not being prepared to admit that climate change has a cost that must be borne in protecting our people from flooding inland and by the sea. The Government stand condemned on those issues. I would understand if this were merely a rural issue—I say "merely" because that is how the Government think about rural areas—but it also affects many urban areas.
I exclude the Minister from those criticisms. I am sure that he is doing his best, but the Government believe that they have only to throw money at the problem. In fact, they have thrown very little money at it, and what they have offered is pretty small. However, that will not work in any case unless we stop building where we should not be building; we do the research that we need; we make permissive powers compulsory duties; and we take a large leaf out of the Scottish book and recognise that on this issue, unlike on many others, we are behind our neighbours north of the border and others in the European Union, who have a great deal to teach us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is common practice in such a debate to commence the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before its conclusion. In other words, we must hand over to the first Front-Bench speaker at 12 noon. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to be clear, to make pertinent points and to bear that time constraint in mind when making their contributions and accepting and making interventions.
11.31 am
Mr. Michael Foster: I welcome the opportunity to debate flooding. October is an important month in the cycle of flood events, because as far as Worcester is concerned, it is the first month of winter, when flooding is likely to occur. I also welcome the spending review announcement of £150 million to be spent on flood defences by the end of the three-year period. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give more details about how the money will be broken down over that period? What will be the breakdown between major capital projects for flood defence, and revenue expenditure, for example to improve flood-warning systems throughout the country?
As a result of the good will shown by the Government in the extra investment plans, I shall take this opportunity to put some pressure on the Association of British Insurers—which was mentioned in the previous contribution—to extend for at least a further three years the moratorium that is due to end in December. For those who live on flood plains, who have properties that would probably be unsellable without insurance and who would face huge bills year on year, the prospect of no insurance is too much to bear. I hope that the Minister will put pressure on the ABI to come up with the goods and continue with household insurance cover.
In Worcester, we have three main types of flooding. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, it is a complicated issue. The most obvious cause of flooding is the River Severn, which flows through the city centre and usually floods because of rain falling in the Welsh hills and mountains. That affects properties on Hylton road, Waterworks road, Diglis avenue, the cricket ground and the racecourse.
We have a minor river course, Barbourne brook, that is prone to flooding and flooded in April 1998. The householders of Beechwood Park estate awoke one morning to find that things were not quite as they would have expected. Sewerage flooding has also become an increasing problem in the city. Sewerage systems that were built in Victorian times—combined surface water sewers—simply cannot cope with the volume of water that now goes through them.
I believe that major flood defences are needed along the banks of the River Severn, similar to the ones that have been pencilled in for Bewdley and Shrewsbury further upstream. I am worried about the number of separate zones that have been identified when assessments have been made of whether flood defences are viable. I have some experience of how the cost benefit system works. I was lucky to pick up in my in-tray in May 1997—the world was not all rosy before that date—an outstanding issue along the Diglis avenue area. A project had been identified, but under the cost benefit rules it was not viable.
I am pleased to say that the project has now been completed. Concrete was poured into the floors of Victorian houses to raise them by 18 in. It makes the bay windows look a bit odd from the inside looking out, but it stops the more regular flooding that takes place along the Severn. I worked with those residents to see how the system works. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, I am a great critic of the current cost benefit rules. I was pleased to hear him say on the programme "On the Record" that from April onwards

31WH
the number of people involved in those assessments would be taken into account. Could he give us an idea how that will take place so that we can look ahead in Worcester to maximising the opportunities for flood defences?
I am also keen to bring in a number of temporary defences in the city for isolated properties. The Severn View hotel stands alone on the banks of the Severn. It is surrounded by roads and car parks. There are no other properties nearby, yet it is in need of some form of flood defence. I understand that some temporary measure was being considered over the winter. Luckily we did not have to use those schemes, but again I urge that money from the spending review be used to provide temporary defences. Let us find out whether they work.
Worcester city council provides the duck boards, the breeze blocks and the sandbags for properties that flood. The sandbag culture is a difficult one to understand. Sandbags do not solve the flooding problems, although they offer residents some reassurance. The council provides sandbags for properties on major roads such as Hylton road, where the biggest problem is caused by lorries ignoring the flood warning signs and going down the road, creating bow waves that then spill into properties. Sandbags can help to prevent such flooding. What advice or guidance will my hon. Friend's Department give to residents in places like Upton-on-Severn? It is not in my constituency, but the Environment Agency has concluded that the geography of the land does not allow permanent flood defences to be installed.
The problem of minor river systems has been far more difficult for people to understand. The Beechwood Park estate is in the centre of Worcester and is about 30 years old. It is two miles from the Severn and yet in Easter 1998 it flooded to incredible depths. There was heavy local rain and the culvert that runs underneath the estate could not cope with the volume of water that was flowing through it. Residents had to be rescued from their first floor windows by an inshore lifeboat. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency for the work that it has done since then. It has improved upstream holding capacity through a penstock valve, which, by increasing the height of the dam by a couple of inches, can hold back a tremendous amount of water to manage the flow through the culvert. It also cleared out the culvert and was surprised to find a concrete blockage, which restricted the flow by 70 per cent. It was no wonder that those houses were at risk. Since that blockage has been cleared, touch wood, there has been no flooding on the Beechwood Park estate. I ask the Minister to do what he can to put pressure on those responsible for maintaining watercourses like that to take the issues seriously, because that block of concrete was not put there over night. It had been there for a while and was restricting the use of that culvert.
Sewerage flooding was one of the worst flooding experiences in the city of Worcester. In the autumn and winter of 2000, Waverley street and Cavendish street, which are miles from the river although they are in a low-lying area, were flooded. The combined Victorian sewer was unable to cope with local rain and the river at high levels and water, and sewage backed up along the system until it came out at the nearest exit point, which
32WH
in some cases was in people's houses and gardens. Hon. Members who are not aware what that is like should imagine papier mâché floating in front rooms. That is the horror that people were faced with.
The River Severn at high level floods the pumping station near the river that deals with the sewage. After a strong campaign, led by a local resident, Mary Dhonau, the Severn Trent water authority put in place plans to improve the pumping station and work is ongoing to enable more sewage and flood water to be pumped under the River Severn to the sewerage works.
In the light of my experience of dealing with sewer flooding, I want to know what the Minister thinks about non-return valves, which can be used in sewerage systems that developers could install in new properties. They might be inconvenient to householders, who may not be allowed to flush their toilets during a period of flooding, but that is a darn sight better than the alternative.
I want to raise a couple more matters, one of which is similar to that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. First, how will PPG 25 be enforced? Building on flood plains is a cause for concern. Many residents of Beechwood Park estate, where the houses are 30 years old, probably did not know that they were living on a flood plain until they woke up to find several feet of water in their front rooms.
In Worcester, we want to develop the city further along the riverside and in the Diglis docks area, which is alongside the River Severn and the canal, which is just above the flood plain, but there is anxiety about how to do so. I fear that with climate change and the increased frequency and severity of flooding, there may be difficulties.
My last point is about insurance. Insurance companies are doing a great deal, digitally mapping flood plain areas to find out which individual properties are affected by flooding rather than using the post-code system. Does the Minister share my anxiety that the insurance companies may use that information not to help households but as a tool for withdrawing cover from properties that are most prone to flooding from sewers and from major and minor rivers? I should like to hear the Minister's thoughts on that matter, especially on how properties shown on digital maps to be in high-risk areas will keep insurance cover to enable residents to maintain their standard of living?
11.43 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he opened it.
The debate refers to the potential for flooding in October 2002 and from my point of view it is important that we remember that fact. In October 2001, south Cambridgeshire was subject to some of the worst flooding for generations and more than 400 homes in my constituency were flooded. Although there may be a small probability of a repeat of that event, many people in the constituency will live in fear of what may happen in October 2002 unless and until measures are taken that substantially reduce the risk. They will ask what has

33WH
been done in the past year. I shall concentrate on a few things that have been done and on some that I hope will be done between now and October 2002.
I shall not detain hon. Members at length on what we have done locally but I hope that the Minister and hon. Members will acknowledge the achievements of the local authority, with the Environment Agency, parishes, the county council and Anglian Water, particularly in terms of sewer flooding; I hope that in due course OFWAT, when it does an interim price determination, will allow additional funds to help Anglian Water do more in respect of sewer flooding in my area. Many such initiatives have been taken on a district-wide and individual parish level so that we do all that we can to minimise risk.
Many actions, however, are beyond the scope of individual local authorities or constituents. I shall focus on some of those. When I had my own debate on the subject on 20 November last year, the first of the 10 points that I made related to the availability of additional funding for investment. It has taken eight months, but the Minister has today said that there is to be additional investment, broadly in line with what the Association of British Insurers recommended last year. As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said, that takes the issue on to whether we can have greater assurance about the availability of insurance. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will make clear the Government's targets. The ABI was not asking for £145 million of investment but for a Government commitment to provision, over a reasonable time scale, of flood defences against a probability of flooding of up to 0.5 per cent. for any significant number of properties and, as an interim measure, for a short-term Government commitment to meeting the 1 per cent. probability in densely populated urban areas and 1.3 per cent. probability in less densely populated urban areas. The first question is: are we now at the point where the ABI and the Government can be brought together so that there is a long-term Government commitment to the 0.5 per cent. standard of defence which gives the insurance industry the degree of comfort it needs to continue to offer insurance? If that cannot be met for a substantial period, will the Government talk to insurers about trying to offer short-term support for the insurance industry, as contemplated in the Government's consultation on the flood defence review, so that insurance continues to be available for householders who have taken all reasonable steps to protect themselves but who would not for the time being be protected against such flood risk?
I hope that other initiatives will be in place before October. The Government have published several reports and the flood and coastal defence funding and organisation review, to which hon. Members, the public and others have responded; the Government have not yet responded to that. I hope that by October we will have such a response from them, before we debate the issues again. I also hope that we will be told whether there is a prospect of a development connection charge—the Government left that open as a possibility yesterday. However, I do not stress that too forcefully because in places where development is occurring—much of it in south Cambridgeshire—demands on it are already very high. Affordable housing, infrastructure costs and meeting the direct drainage and flood defence
34WH
charges associated with such developments are factors that are substantially affecting costs. The scope for additional connection charges may therefore be modest, but may exist. I hope that in places such as south Cambridgeshire, where we have both substantial development and substantial flood risk, those two factors can be closely related at a local level.
I also hope that we will have substantial additional progress on catchment studies. The catchment for the Cam, in the first instance, and also for the Great Ouse and so on—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) who will respond on behalf of the Opposition will speak about those rivers—is a matter of the greatest importance to people around Cambridge. The catchment studies have to be the starting point for identifying where the risks are and how we can deal with them. We cannot make good progress without them.
Linked to that is the point that rural areas will not necessarily need costly physical flood defence barriers, but their requirements may be beyond the investment measures that the Government announced yesterday. In the context of reform of the common agricultural policy, one of the principle measures that we can achieve using agricultural support to the farming industry is to encourage farmers to make land available for flood storage and reservoirs up stream, so that rural areas can be defended in ways that are sympathetic to the environment. Those of my constituents in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would also say that there could be substantial wildlife benefits. We have identified two locations in my constituency where flooding could have been prevented last October if such flood storage areas had been created, or in some senses re-created as compared with what happened in recent years when flood plains were lost.
I shall mention two other matters that should be in place by October. We should know where the responsibilities lie for managing the watercourse, warning people about flood risk and taking action when required. I shall not dwell on who should have the responsibility, but I shall say that action cannot be removed from first-tier local authorities. They have a substantial role to play and are accountable locally to their voters for delivery of that service. However, they need the resources, which brings me to my last point.
In the context of the local government review of funding—it is now no longer part of the Minister's Department—we will know by October the shape of the new structure of revenue grant funding to local authorities and how it is to be calculated. I have considered the relevant document, which suggests several options. However, I must confess that I have not yet found any reference to flood defence as one of the factors that must be included in the calculations. I cannot believe that it would not be there, so I hope that it is and that it will be prominent among the measures that will lead to additional needs-related block funding to local authorities.
All such measures could be in place by October. On the basis of some of them being implemented, I could return to my constituents and say that some measures had been taken by the Government and Parliament to make the repetition of the flooding last October and the risk to them a great deal less likely.
11.52 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), not only on securing the debate, but on the passion with which he spoke. He brings a great deal of experience and expertise to the issues. I will not detain hon. Members long, because my right hon. and hon. Friends have covered the subject so comprehensively and with such expertise that I will largely repeat what they said, and so shall curtail my remarks.
It was the flooding in autumn 2000 that enforced my interest in the subject, especially because of my constituents' experience. We have two problems in the New Forest. One is the coastal problem of the western Solent and the Lymington river, which is protected to an extent by Hurst spit. However, it is subject to tidal flooding, especially when it is exacerbated by high river levels with increased rainfall. Further along the coast, we have the erosion of the cliffs at Barton-on-Sea. That is a well- known phenomenon. I once met someone from New Zealand who explained that they knew all about the problems of Barton-on-Sea because they had read about it in textbooks at school.
An equal if not greater problem is flooding on the Avon valley, which affects towns such as Fordingbridge and Ringwood, and villages further south. Increased rainfall leading to high river levels is exacerbated by a high water table when there has been a persistently wet period before the immediate flooding. That means that the ground simply cannot absorb any more water. In that respect, I was interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said about pigs. In the autumn of 2000, the run-off from pigs caused a substantial problem. I was unaware until he mentioned it that pigs are like ladies in that they do not sweat. I am not sure what bearing that has on flooding, but it was news to me.
After the experience that we had in the autumn of 2000 and the winter of 2001, there is a certainty that the problem will get even worse. The Henley centre, which is attached to the Meteorological Office, estimates that the sea level will rise by some 24 cm in the next 50 years. That is about 9 or 10 in. That rise in levels will have a different effect on different parts of the United Kingdom, and the Scots have less of a problem in that respect. Extraordinary as it may seem, Scotland is rising as England is sinking; the entire United Kingdom is pivoting. The sea level will rise on average by 16 cm in Scotland but by 31 cm in England. When one adds to that effect the other phenomena associated with global warming, such as increased and more persistent rainfall, storms and winds and so on, we can expect flooding problems to increase.
That begs the question whether we can continue with a legal framework that merely permits local authorities to take action over flooding rather than imposing duties on them. That approach might have been adequate in the past, but will it be adequate in future? Equally, can we go on with fragmented responsibilities and the lack of clear lines of accountability, with responsibility spread between local authorities, DEFRA, the DTLR and so on?
Finally, I entirely support the changes made with respect to PPG 25. That is a highly desirable development, and the proposal that building in the flood
36WH
plain should be entirely exceptional should be rigorously adhered to. However, I wonder whether it is sustainable when unrealistic targets are imposed on local authorities. Huge pressure continues to build on greenfield sites, which is entirely out of keeping with the guidance note. I suspect that that contradiction will be the greatest source of continual flooding for many of our constituents.
Those three areas should be addressed.
Bob Spink: My hon. Friend has made some interesting points. He identified global warming as an underlying cause of flood risks. In the light of the performance and innovation unit report on the energy review from earlier this year, does he accept that replacing the 25 per cent. non-carbon nuclear capacity with carbon generating capacity for our energy source over the next 10, 20 or 30 years will add to global warming, increase sea levels and river levels and add to the flood risk? It will be a disaster for this country, and we shall miss our Kyoto targets.
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is right. It is not simply a question of cutting back—we must put the process into reverse, because even if we stop generating carbon at present levels, the problem will persist for many years. The problem will have to be addressed in future, but it needs to be addressed now.
11.59 am
Malcolm Bruce: First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on securing this timely and important debate. As I said in an intervention, his reputation in the area is not in dispute and is well regarded both inside and outside the House. As he also said, as he represents Suffolk, Coastal, he has a direct concern and responsibility to ensure that these matters are discussed.
At the Liberal Democrat party conference last September, I co-chaired with the Environment Agency a breakfast on flooding. The Environment Agency was then and remains extremely concerned about the fact that it has some responsibility but insufficient control to be able to prevent, and protect people from, flooding. The sad truth is that the risks of flooding are likely to be as great or even greater than they have been in recent years, and nothing has really changed during the past year. Flooding may occur in different places, but certain pressure points will be overwhelmed.
The Minister will, no doubt, make much of the spending review's commitment to provide more money. That is, of course, welcome, but he must accept that it will take time, and therefore more floods, as well as more money, to deal with the problem. Even then, we are unlikely to keep pace with the increasing pressure to build, which will create floods, so we are chasing a target that is moving away from us faster than we are moving towards it. There is a lack of control and co-ordination, as well as a lack of funding, which together reduce our protection against floods. As has already been mentioned, it will soon be 50 years since 300 people lost their lives in the coastal flooding that occurred on the night of 31 January and 1 February 1953. In the money of the day, there was £5 billion-worth of damage. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the scale of damage and loss of life would be far greater were such an event to happen now.

37WH
Coastal defences were strengthened after that event, but unfortunately the circumstances that conspired to cause it have worsened in the ensuing 49 years, and the coastal defences are now at the end of their useful life. The severe weather that arises from climate change—not an issue in dispute in this debate—means that catastrophic tidal surges are more likely to happen and on a greater scale, not least because weather patterns are becoming more extreme. I saw a photograph in my local newspaper, The Press and Journal, of a tornado in Aberdeenshire. Such an event has never been heard of before, let alone photographed for the local paper.
Coastal erosion has also accelerated along the south and east coast and sea levels are rising. It has been estimated that, in the south of England over the next 50 years, the rise could average 0.6 mm a year. That means that existing sea defences, including the Thames barrier, will be overwhelmed in just a few years. Cities, such as Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol. Hull, Grimsby and Manchester, all face major flooding risks. I am afraid that, in my view, it is a matter of when, rather than if, such a major inundation of the east coast will happen, and it is by no means clear whether we could cope with coastal flooding on such a scale. Some 5 per cent. of England's population—more than 2 million people—live in the 2,200 sq km of land most at risk of flooding from the sea, but five times as much land is at risk of flooding from rivers in England and Wales, and more than 1.3 million properties are at risk. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the combined flooding risk affects more than 2 million properties.
In both cases, it is likely to prove more expensive and less effective to spend money purely on flood protection rather than on prevention. The Association of British Insurers has said that it needs £145 million—it is funny how that figure connects—if it is not to withdraw the insurance. I have seen its press release, and the association has not said that the deal is done, only that it will consider it.
I accept that work needs to be done and, of course, protection mechanisms must be put in place. I am not suggesting that the money is unnecessary for physical protection, but I hope that the Minister accepts that we must think more deeply about how to deal with flooding, because we must address the issue of prevention as well as protection. We should not be concerned only about development on flood and coastal plains, although that is an issue. We must also ask whether we should continue building on land that is at risk from flooding from the sea, from rivers and from natural drainage patterns while recognising that development on other land, including farming practices, disrupts natural drainage patterns and increases flood risks, sometimes in unexpected places—including some of the brownfield sites that the Government want to develop, many of which have not been properly assessed for their contribution to floods.
I speak from personal experience as well as that of a constituency MP. I suffered a couple of years ago as a result of very localised flooding. After three and a half days of continuous rain, the water had risen until it came up through the floor of my house. My concern, like anybody's, was not only how to prevent it, but how to ensure that it did not happen again. Things happened by serendipity: my next door neighbour but one put down hardcore and gravel for his car—that flooded the lane,
38WH
but not my garden. A house was built two doors the other way that cleared some natural drainage obstructions that we had been trying sort out for some time, and another neighbour, as a precaution, put a submersible pump in her garden in case the water level rose again. We have not had a puddle, never mind a flood, since, despite fairly heavy rain. That revealed to me that there are natural mechanisms, if one knows what one is doing. We did not know what we were doing; it was serendipity. Nevertheless it solved the problem without transferring it to anybody else and the water was diverted to the local burn.
Inverurie, the main town in my constituency, has repeated flood problems. It has not been foolish enough to build on the flood plain, although a recent development plan review suggested that it should. A more sensible suggestion was that the flood plain should be changed into an ornamental lake—I should say loch, but they call it a lake—with houses and recreational facilities built around it. That seemed a better idea. The problem was the houses that were built up the hill.
Major developments on former farming land meant that where water had previously fallen on fields and had leached away slowly in a natural drainage pattern, it now hit tarmac and tiles, overwhelmed the drainage system and inundated the centre of the town. The force of the water was so great that one constituent described to me having seen a manhole cover blown 20 ft in the air by the force of water after a cloudburst. We must recognise that we build at our peril. Any new development can have unexpected effects on drainage. We need more research and more control. If we are to build the 4.4 million homes—an astonishing number—planned for England and Wales, it is difficult to see how, under present planning rules, we will not contribute to new flooding problems that are on a scale that we have not previously experienced and that we shall have enormous difficulty preventing.
We need to take positive action to change the planning rules. I accept the role of English Nature, in terms of both wildlife and biodiversity and drainage patterns. When I say that the Environment Agency should be given overall control of flood management, it should be in partnership with English Nature. In Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage work together in that way. The hard standing for my neighbour's car demonstrated in a very local and specific way that sustainable urban drainage systems can make a major contribution to preventing rapid run-offs. I suggest that the Minister tell the Department that is responsible that they should be made mandatory for new developments—they work and make a real contribution.
Reference has been made to the practice and experience in Scotland. We do not have England's scale of coastal threat or the pressure of development in so many areas that England and Wales experience. However, we have had serious problems in places such as Paisley, Perth, Inverness, Elgin and Inverurie. That has contributed to what the Scottish Parliament and the Executive have done. I shall not read it, because of the time constraints on me, but I have a checklist that draws a sharp contrast to the mandatory practices adopted in Scotland, where all local authority chief executives are directed to take climate change into account and to take

39WH
responsibility for flood prevention measures. There is a series of mandatory requirements on local authorities and other agencies to ensure that they take all relevant factors into account in assessing the possible impact of development on flooding. In England, however, there is no such mandatory requirement; particular practices may be voluntary, advisable or encouraged, or there may be endless consultation about what should happen.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must conclude.
Malcolm Bruce: I will. In conclusion, if we do not take such issues into account, we shall be unable to tackle a problem that has been bad enough over the past few years, but which will get worse in the coming years.
12.10 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on introducing the debate, although I have one complaint. He brings such knowledge, fluency, humour and passion to such important subjects that he is an extremely difficult act to follow. Indeed, he makes so many of one's own points so much more effectively that I sometimes feel like a man with a very large brush and a very large bucket following a resplendent cavalcade. However, I shall do my best.
The floods of 2000 demonstrated the disaster that inundation can be for people and their property. Some 700 locations were flooded, 11,000 people had to evacuate their homes or businesses, 10,000 properties were damaged and 37,000 others were saved only by prompt local action.
This October, there will be an unusually high tide. Rainfall has been high this year, the aquifers are full and much of the ground is saturated. We continue to build on water-absorbing land, however, and 5 million people, 2 million homes and 130,000 commercial properties in England are in areas at risk from flooding. In a normal year, with existing defences, flood damage costs about £600 million. In 2000, the floods cost insurers £1.3 billion, and uninsured losses may take the cost to £2 billion. This October, matters could be much worse.
It is therefore right to ask how the Government have prepared the nation. Although they cannot turn back the tide, stop the rain or immediately reverse rising sea levels, they can do much to protect us from something that is foreseeable and which may be a calamity. However, they have not prepared very well, according to a March 2001 National Audit Office report called "Inland Flood Defence". The report found that flood defences have remained constantly poor because of a continued lack of funding. In a condition survey of the Environment Agency's flood defence assets, which was completed in 2000, 43 per cent. of structures and 36 per cent. of linear barriers in England were categorised as very poor, poor or only fair.
I am sorry to say that little has changed. Indeed, the complacency of new Labour's attitude to coastal flood defences is clear from an examination of the figures supplied by the then Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries
40WH
and Food in July 2001. In 1997–98, MAFF allocated£46.8 million to local sea defence projects. The following year, the figure dropped to£36.5 million. In 2000–01, when there was£2 billion of flood damage, a mere£25.7 million was earmarked for spending on coastal flood defences. Over three years, central funding for sea defences dropped by almost 50 per cent.
Mr. Morley: It may assist the hon. Gentleman if I say that it is question of interpreting the figures. There has not been a drop in expenditure. Everything very much depends on the capital programmes and engineering schemes that are in place, and those vary from year to year. Sometimes slippage occurs on projects, and sometimes the amount of money allocated for ongoing projects may vary. In themselves, the figures do not indicate a decline in investment in flood defences.
Mr. Gummer rose—
Mr. Sayeed: I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gummer: May I point out that the Minister always gives that answer. The truth is that, at the same time, the proportion of support given to coastal authorities had been cut, and the result was that many coastal defence projects did not go ahead because local authorities like mine could no longer afford them.
Mr. Sayeed: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures show that the Government have cut the amount being spent on protecting us from flooding. It does not matter how one cuts the cake—that is the reality. The 2001 Labour party manifesto stated:
"The dangers of coastal and inland flooding are now widely appreciated,
and we are committed to investment in preventative solutions."
A £21.1 million reduction in grants for sea defences over three years is an odd way to demonstrate that commitment.
In the aftermath of the catastrophic events of autumn 2000, the Association of British Insurers called on the Government to increase spending on all flood defence measures in England and Wales by at least £145 million. However, when increased Government funding finally arrived last year in the shape of additional subsidies from DEFRA, it did little to help a deteriorating situation. Money allocated for flood warning and flood defence programmes increased from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04—a nominal increase of £48 million, when insurers had asked for a minimum of £145 million a year.
The Minister may tell us that yesterday's comprehensive spending review will provide an extra £150 million, but my right hon. Friend has dealt effectively with that figure. True, it is to be welcomed, but how much of it will be used to maintain or improve defences; or will a third once again disappear down a bureaucratic black hole? Will the Minister confirm that none of that money will avert the effect of possible floods in October?
The Government have responded to requests from Conservative Members—which we have been making for many years—to curtail development on flood plains,

41WH
yet their house building targets include the construction of 40 towns the size of Slough, which will invariably mean building on water-absorbing greenfield land.
I acknowledge that the Government are considering whether the Environment Agency should take responsibility for critical rivers, yet operational responsibility for flood alleviation measures currently lies with local authorities, the water companies, riparian owners, the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards and a host of other bodies. That is a recipe for evading responsibility, until a problem becomes a disaster. That is why, yet again, I ask the Minister to consider appointing a body to take overall responsibility for flood defence systems. That body, which may be an expanded Ofwat, should have no direct financial interest in the provision of defences, for that may give rise to accusations of conflicts of interest. It should be empowered to act as an independent adjudicator and enforcer, so that it can order emergency works to be carried out before a problem becomes a disaster, determine who should do them and, once the division of responsibility is clear, apportion the costs.
In a Westminster Hall debate on 10 July, at column 288, I raised the need for natural or what are known as soft defences, because inland hard defences often tend to shift the problem up or down stream. The Minister acknowledged the value of natural defences but neglected to say what the Government were doing. I would ask him today to remedy that. I also pointed out the need for better dredging. He replied that
"it is not that useful in tidal estuaries. Whatever is taken out of a tidal estuary is simply filled up by the volume of the sea and has a limited effect"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2002; Vol.388, c. 289WH.]
I will be charitable: that was clearly an off-the-cuff remark to which the Minister had given little thought. One does not have to be a hydrologist to recognise that the reason that water flows from rivers to the sea is because there is a difference in pressure. A dredged river mouth permits the passage of a greater volume of water over a period of time, particularly at the twice-daily low tide levels. This time, I hope that the Minister will tell us what dredging operations are being undertaken and at what cost, or at least agree to write to me and place a copy of that information in the Library.
Finally, the Government have been in power for five years. What they have proposed is likely to be too little and is certainly too late.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on securing this debate. He is acknowledged for his interest in the environment and for his work in the previous Conservative Government. He put his case in his usual flamboyant manner, which I enjoyed listening to very much. However, I do not necessarily agree with all his points, and there seems to be something of a schism among Opposition Members who have accused us of throwing money at the problem and of not providing enough money in the first place. Their approach seems confused.
Our approach has been sensible in recognising what is needed. The amount of funding that we have provided is based on independent reports that we commissioned.
42WH
It is worth spelling that out and I know that the right hon. Gentleman expected me to do that. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), however, seems to have written his speech before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review.
It is worth bearing in mind that the funding comes from several sources. We provide capital funding and funding for other expenditure on forecasting and early-warning systems. Funding comes from local authorities in the standard spending assessment and through the levy that they pay, and the internal drainage boards also provide some.
Total funding has risen from £312.4 million in 1997, the year when the Halcrow report was written, to a projected £564.2 million for 2005. During the three years of the previous comprehensive spending review, there was a real growth rate of 3.2 per cent. in the money invested in our flood and coastal defence. In the new comprehensive spending review, covering the next three years, there will be an increase in real terms of 8.6 per cent. in funding for such defence. That represents a real average increase over the period of 15.02 per cent. Those are substantial sums of money and are in line with what the ABI has been asking for and with our own independent assessments of the investment that we need to make.
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is not just an issue of money. Money is important when dealing with such matters, but doing so involves a package of measures. We recognise that flood plain development is an issue in itself. It did not feature very much in the recent planning Green Paper because it has already been addressed in PPG 25, which was referred to by some hon. Members.
I accept that there are large communities living in flood plains. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Hull, which has invested substantially in reducing risk. I myself opened the Saltend flood defence scheme, which protects the outskirts of Hull. One of the rocks in that scheme has my name on it, as do several pumps that I have opened over the years in various obscure places in the Fens. That is part of the substantial investment in such schemes over the past few years. Since 2000, the Government have approved 274 schemes, at a total cost of £386 million.
On some of the comments about Scotland. it was conceded that Scotland has a smaller problem in that regard—it has approved 60 schemes in the past 40 years and has an annual spend is £12 million. I must correct the right hon. Gentleman: there is no statutory obligation in Scotland to provide flood defences. The situation is no different from that in England. There are statutory obligations in regard to maintenance but that is not quite the same.
Changes at sea level are taken into account in the projected changes in our planning and forward proposals, in the research that we have commissioned into shoreline management plans and strategies and in the fully integrated research programmes that we have with the Environment Agency. I accept that in some cases factors such as changes in agricultural practices have not helped in regard to water run-off, although I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the grassland environmental impact assessment, which is a

43WH
significant study of the impact of change in land use, was not implemented for more than a decade under the previous Administration. However, I am glad to say that we have administered that environmental impact assessment; although it might have had more effect if it had been done many years ago, it is still helpful in understanding the effects of important changes such as ploughing up downlands and converting grassland into land for cultivating potatoes, for example.
We have set targets on a range of issues, including brownfield sites. We are ahead of target on the proportion of brownfield sites used for development. We are looking at ways of raising other income. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned connection charges; we can look at that, not only in terms of raising additional money for flood defence but of making people think carefully about development in flood risk areas. A flood plain levy was also suggested but it is clear from our consultation that that is not a favoured option and we will take that into serious consideration.
We recognise that there has to be a range of elements in this package of measures. We are streamlining capital, maintenance and operational funding into one fund, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire requested; we have announced warning systems; we have improved forecasting; there is stronger planning guidance and long-term strategic planning; we have a foresight programme, overseen by the Government chief scientist, which is a 100-year assessment of need; high-level targets have been set; there is investment and research into climate change; there is streamlining of institutions in our study of the funding review; there is support for self-help publicity through flood awareness campaigns; catchment study plans; and support for new technology and mobile schemes, as my hon. Friend the
44WH
Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) mentioned. Those are all substantial areas of investment and no one can accuse the Government of being complacent.
Since 1998, when we commissioned the Bye report after the floods in Northampton, there has been a revolution in the provision of flood and coastal defence in this country, in terms of the number of reviews that we have initiated, the actions that we have taken to enhance flood warnings and to strengthen our response to flooding and our substantially increased investment. We have also introduced a points system to try to ensure a transparent method of determining priority in flood defence schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said, we will review that next April, to emphasise the number of people who are affected.
One cannot ignore the issue of cost benefit, which was introduced in the flood defence strategy in 1993. We accept cost-benefit analysis as part of our approach. We also recognise that we need to look at planning and that includes sustainable urban drainage. We are in close discussion with insurance companies and we listen carefully to what they say. We welcome the development of digital mapping, for example, and understand that there is a potential risk in using such mapping to exclude property. We hope that that will not happen. We hope that insurance companies recognise that only in exceptional circumstances will properties be unable to get insurance. Our dialogue on that will continue. Sewage flooding is also important, and the impending waste water directive will cover that. Those are all substantial investments that will help us examine how to reduce the flooding in this country. Huge sums of money are being invested, and our record on the problem is good. There is no complacency in the Government, and we will continue to work to reduce the risk.
As time is short, I will be happy to write to hon. Members who asked questions that I was unable to answer.

Endowment Mortgages
12.30 pm
Ian Lucas: I am particularly pleased to have secured today's debate because the question of shortfalls on endowment mortgages is raised regularly in my constituency surgeries. Such shortfalls are causing real hardship, often to some of my constituents who are least able to bear hardship and who are approaching retirement. The problem is of a big scale, and about 6 million householders in the UK—about 61 per cent. of mortgage endowment holders—are facing shortfalls on their endowment mortgages. The issue has been raised regularly because it is serious for those who are affected. It cuts across a large group of people.
It is necessary to remember the past position to understand some of the present difficulties. I refer back to the 1980s, when the industry was poorly regulated. Indeed, there was simply no regulation of the sale of endowment mortgages between 1982 and 1988, during which there was a substantial increase in the sale of endowment mortgages. It was a time when many people moved into the property market and purchased their own home for the first time. Some of those first-time buyers were young couples who had no experience of purchasing properties, while others were people who had lived as tenants for many years and were given big discounts to purchase their council houses. Sadly, in 2002, the chickens are coming home to roost, and the mis-selling that occurred at that time is causing real hardship.
It is important to recognise that the sale of endowment mortgages in the 1980s increased substantially. The proportion of endowment mortgages increased from 60 per cent. of mortgages in 1982 to 84 per cent. by the end of the decade, despite the fact that life assurance premium relief was abolished. That happened in 1984; I remember that particularly well because I was an articled clerk to a solicitor's firm at that time. We had a yearly panic at the time of the Budget, and that year people were rushing to secure endowment mortgages before the Budget took effect because they feared that they would lose the relief on endowment mortgages that was offered at that time. Those people felt that the loss of relief would be the death of the endowment mortgage because it could not logically continue after the tax relief given on premiums paid on an endowment mortgage was removed. They believed that the move would make endowment mortgages more expensive, and that is what happened.
During the decade, endowment mortgages became more expensive, but sales increased. Why was that? I am afraid the answer is largely due to ignorance on the part of those who bought the mortgages. A lot of money was made in the 1980s from the sale of endowment mortgages based on commissions that were paid to the people who sold them and those who benefited from them.
First, the commissions were paid to the life companies. They secured a great deal of money because the commissions paid were not disclosed to the individuals who bought the endowment mortgages. Secondly, the building societies that benefited from the endowment mortgages also received large amounts of
46WH
commission throughout the 1980s. For example, in 1989, Abbey National building society received £95 million in commission payments; the Halifax building society received £113 million; the Nationwide building society received £109 million. The public were ignorant of those payments. They were not aware that many of the payments made in connection with their mortgage gobbled up all the premiums that they paid in the first year. That disgraceful situation meant that people were buying endowment mortgages that were more expensive than the ordinary repayment mortgage because the situation was misrepresented to them when they originally purchased the product.
Endowment mortgages—especially with-profits funds—were presented to people as nest-eggs. People were told that taking out a life policy at the time of their mortgage would ensure that the mortgage was paid off and provide them with the bonus of an additional sum left over at the end of the term after the mortgage was paid.
Ironically, with-profits funds were presented as the safe option. At the time, if someone wanted to take a chance on the markets, index-linked endowments were presented as more risky, but with a greater benefit in the longer term. From my experience in the 1980s, when I qualified as a solicitor, I know that with-profits funds were presented to the consumer as safe bets. Regrettably, that was entirely untrue.
The safe bets led to hardship in individual cases, which, when one hears about it from the people involved, becomes difficult to bear. A couple who came to see me recently—a manual worker and his wife—purchased an endowment mortgage in the 1980s to buy their council house. They saved £6,000 during their working lives from their small income and have now received correspondence telling them that the endowment mortgage that they were sold in the 1980s will fall short by about £3,000. Half of their life savings—money that they had put by for their retirement over 30 to 40 years—will have to be used to pay off their mortgage. That situation is not untypical.
I am proud that the Government have taken positive steps to improve the regulation of financial services and I commend them for that. It was ironic that when we were discussing the matter last week, the Conservative party was commending deregulation. I have heard from my constituents the effect of that policy on individuals' lives. If beggars belief that that policy is still promulgated.
We have taken steps to encourage the building societies and the life companies to be proactive in their approach to consumers receiving compensation, but the existing system is not satisfactory. It depends upon those who were mis-sold these policies in the 1980s themselves being able to establish that, some 15 to 17 years ago, statements were made that misled people and persuaded them to purchase products that they would not otherwise have bought. The onus rests upon the consumer, which is very unfair, as many of those who sold the policies between 1982 and 1988 are no longer in the industry. In many cases, they received no training because, at that time, they did not need it. I suspect that most of them have left the industry, and it is difficult for individuals to contact brokers who sold them their policies. It is also difficult for individuals to record details of conversations that took place 15 to 17 years

47WH
ago. It is an unreasonable burden for consumers to bear. It is unsatisfactory to place on them the burden of proof—to use another legal phrase—in these circumstances.
Last week in the Chamber in answer to one of my questions, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to the expense of a full compensation scheme for endowment mortgages, referring, I believe, to a figure of £5 billion. Such a scheme would be extremely expensive, partly because the building societies, life companies and brokers benefited substantially in the 1980s from the hundreds of millions of pounds that they received in commission. The compensation would be at the levels to which my hon. Friend referred because those companies profited hugely in the past. The resulting hardship is difficult to bear for some people who come to my surgery.
I want the Government to consider reversing the burden of proof because of the money that various companies in the industry received. If someone is notified that there will be a shortfall on their endowment mortgage and makes a complaint, they should be able to assume that unless the company can establish that the policy was properly sold to them, they will receive an appropriate amount of compensation. The onus should be on the companies that made the profits to establish that the policy was properly sold. It is also incumbent on those companies to show the profits that they made in each case. Unfortunately, because of the rules at the time, people who took out the mortgages do not know how much they paid to the companies in commission. It would be a positive step if companies were obliged to disclose the commission that they received. That should extend not only to life companies, but to building societies that took the commission at the time.
The Government have taken steps, and some compensation has been paid. I know from answers to parliamentary questions to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that that some £151 million has already been paid in compensation. However, the scale of the mis-selling in the 1980s, and the extent of the hardship that it caused, outstrips the compensation that has been paid to date.
The obligation to compensate and to pay shortfalls does not rest with those who took out the endowment mortgages, but should be shared between those who took out the endowment mortgages and those who profited by them when they were sold. That would be fair, and it is right and proper that we focus not only on the life companies, but on the building societies and brokers who made substantial sums of money when the policies were mis-sold. I ask the Government to accept that there was comprehensive and institutional mis-selling in the 1980s. They should strengthen the scheme and simplify the method of compensation that is required to put those people who are suffering so much hardship in the position that they would have been in had they bought the right product 20 years ago.
12.45 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am very pleased to see you presiding over our deliberations, Mr. O'Brien. This is an important subject
48WH
in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) takes a keen interest. I am sure that he is not the only hon. Member to have received many representations from constituents on this matter. Before dealing with the specific issues that he raised, I should like to say a few words on our policy towards making the market for retail financial services work better for both consumers and the industry.
The Sandler report—which was published last week and which the Government endorse—sets out a vision of a simpler, more transparent and more competitive medium and long-term savings industry. Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to benefit consumers and the retail investment industry and to improve the operation of the market. They will bring greater competition and efficiency and more productive investment. If we can produce, for example, simpler, safer products that consumers can understand and that are economic for providers to sell, we will be able to boost the level of saving without compromising consumer protection.
We welcomed the main conclusions of the review. It contains important proposals that will be of benefit to consumers, the industry, and the economy as a whole. I will be asking my officials to begin work on designing standards for those, consulting the Financial Services Authority, the industry and consumers. The FSA has indicated that it, too, will be consulting on other aspects of the review such as, for example, the reform of with-profits policies. By increasing the level of investment and channelling it towards productive uses, we can drive higher levels of growth across the economy, while at the same time ensuring consumer confidence in the financial services required to operate in the modern world. I am sure that that is an agenda to which we can all sign up.
I should like to point to a couple of recommendations in the Sandler report that bear closely on what my hon. Friend said. First, Ron Sandler commented on commission and how it is disclosed by financial advisers to consumers when they borrow on financial products. He recommends that during that process consumers should be advised up front as to what commission is paid, if it is to be paid. If financial advisers label themselves as independent, they would not be able to charge commission for their services. He also suggests that when simple, transparent products are sold to consumers, there should be a system of warnings that flag up the fact that investments products that invest in the equity market may not be suitable for someone who wants to pay off a specific liability at a specific date in the future. As he rightly says, we have to restore consumer confidence in the savings market.
Consumer confidence is a prerequisite for progress. Trust is the most important commodity that the retail financial services industry can possess. Pension mis-selling is a scandal that still reverberates around the financial services industry, and rightly so. Some 1.7 million pension mis-selling cases have been examined. Offers of redress, totaling £11.5 billion, have been made in more than 1 million cases. That represents a serious breach of trust and it is understandable that concern has spread to other areas, such as endowment mortgages. The problems consumers have experienced with endowments have undoubtedly shaken the essential bond of trust on which financial services depend.

49WH
I should like to set out first the background to the endowment issue, and then the actions the FSA are taking to address it. The Government have been successful in achieving low, stable inflation. Low inflation has meant that nominal forecast returns from investments have fallen. Industry and others no longer need to pay out a premium to investors for economic uncertainty. But the wider benefits that lower inflation has brought include, for many borrowers, welcome reductions in their monthly mortgage payments as the interest element has fallen.
The recent falls in financial markets globally have also had an impact, although it is important to keep these in perspective. Endowments are a long-term investment and should be judged against long-term trends. Lower cash returns on investments have meant that, in some cases, the return on the endowment is no longer enough to cover the outstanding mortgage at the end of the term. That is unwelcome news for any homeowner, and I can certainly understand the concerns that have been expressed and the hardship experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents.
However, there are three points to bear in mind when comparing the problems with endowments with, for example, the scandal of personal pensions mis-selling. First, a shortfall does not necessarily mean that someone has been mis-sold a product or an endowment, provided that the risks were clearly explained and the investment forecasts used to illustrate the investment reasonable. Unhappily, in many instances, that was not the case or the policy was manifestly unsuitable. I shall outline later the steps that the FSA is taking to ensure that people can claim any redress owed.
Secondly, even where there is mis-selling, there is not necessarily financial loss. This is a hard point to grasp, but falling interest rates have meant that endowment holders have often done better overall than those who took out the alternative of a repayment mortgage.
Thirdly, because the FSA has taken swift action, endowment holders not due redress can take remedial action themselves by increasing their payments or renegotiating their mortgages now, so that they will not face a terrible outcome when their policy matures.
None of that should downplay the seriousness with which we take the problem of mis-selling; it merely puts it in its proper context. Problems with endowments emerged in the late 1990s. After discussion with the FSA, the Association of British Insurers developed a code of practice to ensure that adequate premium reviews were undertaken. The ABI began to send reprojection letters to policyholders, setting out the status of their investment.
A further round of such letters has started, showing shortfalls in more cases, and the issue has returned to prominence. Included in the reprojection letter to endowment holders is a fact sheet that explains the background to the endowment issue and sets out how to complain. The FSA has taken the view that the right way to address the problem is to tackle directly the pockets of mis-selling and to give other endowment holders the information that they need to complain and secure any redress that is due.
That strategy has had considerable success. First, the FSA has identified, and required firms to resolve, a number of areas of significant consumer detriment
50WH
caused by pockets of mis-selling and mis-pricing of products. As a result, to date, 20 firms have agreed proactively to compensate policyholders who were mis-sold their products. That involves about 218,000 policies, and total compensation of about £315 million is currently due. Public enforcement action has been taken against two firms so far, and investigations are continuing into a number of others where there is evidence of potential mis-selling. Where mis-selling is established, steps will be taken to ensure that consumers receive appropriate redress. Disciplinary action against the firms may also result.
Secondly, as a result of the first reprojection exercise, firms have received just over 100,000 complaints since April 2000. That represents about 1 per cent. of all policies. The firms upheld about a third of the complaints, with an average redress of £3,000. Consumers who are not satisfied with how firms have dealt with their complaint have a channel of complaint through the financial ombudsman service. In the past two years, some 23,000 complaints went to that service, 45 per cent. of which were resolved in the consumer's favour.
My hon. Friend suggests that the onus is on the consumer to prove mis-selling. However, if a consumer complains to the financial ombudsman service, the firm, not the individual, must provide the paperwork, which makes the process much more straightforward for the individual. Although the ombudsman's ruling is incumbent on the firm, if the consumer still feels dissatisfied, they always have the right to take the matter further, to the courts. Various options are available if people feel that their complaint has not been satisfied straight away.
My hon. Friend mentioned the £5 billion figure, but that is the administrative cost of running a full-scale review, rather than the cost of tackling pockets of clear mis-selling. Administrative costs come before any potential compensation, which, because of the greater number of holders of endowment policies, will be much greater than the £2 billion costs for the administration of the pensions mis-selling scandal.
The FSA's strategy strikes the right balance between informing consumers to help them to take the right decisions and ensuring that firms do the right thing. Learning from the past should help us to build for the future a more efficient system with proper processes of consumer protection and redress in place.
Paul Flynn: Many reputable high-street companies have decided not to sell endowment mortgages, but the less reputable ones continue to sell them. The Financial Secretary talks about the future, but is it not worrying that, in the first quarter of this year, one in 10 of all mortgages were still endowments?
Ruth Kelly: Some categories of consumer may decide to invest in the equity market, despite the fact that they have to pay and cover their liabilities at a certain date in the future. Such consumers may be prepared to accept the risk. However, that is clearly inappropriate for the vast majority of people when they have no other sources of finance to cover them. I shall not comment on the precise number of endowment policies sold at the moment, but some people, perhaps with other sources of

51WH
finance or funding alongside their endowment mortgage, might want to invest in the stock market as a means of paying off their mortgage. I would not say that endowments are never appropriate for consumers. The vast majority of consumers, however, clearly want to pursue another option. Ron Sandler's report sets out a variety of simple and transparent products with warnings about when they may be inappropriate. We endorse his general vision of the future.
Paul Flynn: Is it not more likely that endowment mortgages are still being sold in such large numbers because of pressure from the salesmen? As we know from the past, salesmen profited hugely from endowment mortgages because they gained seven times the rate of commission than they would have gained from a redemption mortgage.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to point to commission as an incentive to make sales, which is why Sandler's proposals have strict caps on charges and are sold free of the previous regime's dependence on commission. We must try to restore confidence and trust in the financial services industry, which plays an important and valuable role in allowing people to save and allocating savings efficiently across the economy. We have a shared interest in encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own future, increasing their levels of saving and employing the savings pool to enhance the productivity of the UK economy. We need to create a virtuous circle of saving, investment in economic growth and enhanced incentives to save.
Consumer protection will remain a top priority for the Government. The FSA will continue to act in the public interest, protecting and educating consumers, policing the retail market and ensuring appropriate mechanisms for review and redress when things go wrong. The market will continue to be responsive to consumer concerns. Reputational risk has assumed a much greater importance these days. Firms know that if they want to prosper in the future, they cannot afford to repeat the problems of the past.

Child Support Agency
1 pm
Andrew Selous: It is a great pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate. This is my fourth such debate, and the first not to be on a specific constituency interest.
The previous Conservative Government set up the Child Support Agency with cross-party support. The CSA currently has 1.1 million clients, and its caseload is being added to at the rate of 300,000 new applications a year. It deals with many vulnerable people throughout the country, although they are mainly mothers who are seeking maintenance payments for their children. The CSA employs 12,000 part-time and full-time staff. Many of them do an excellent job in difficult and trying circumstances, and I want to place on record my thanks to them.
On 20 March, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in the House that the child support reforms that were due to be implemented on 1 April would be delayed because of problems with the computer system that the agency had hoped would be up and running by that time. At present, there is no firm date for the introduction of those reforms.
It is vital that the CSA maintains complete fairness in its work with fathers. I should stress that at the start, because I will be talking mainly about the plight of mothers who are unable to receive the payments that are due to them. It is important that fathers are treated fairly and that amounts are taken from them to support children by former wives or partners only where that is fair. The CSA must stick to that principle.
Many mothers in my constituency surgeries have advised me to advocate the stopping of visits by fathers who do not make their payments, but I shall not do that, because it would be wrong on two counts. First, it would be unkind to the children, who will already have endured the break-up of their parents' marriage or relationship. Secondly, the non-resident parent's contact with his children should enable the CSA to have greater contact with him. There is therefore a double benefit in maintaining contact with fathers, and it should be allowed to continue.
I want to go through, on a confidential basis, several of the case histories that have recently come to my attention, because they illustrate the scope of the concerns that I am discussing. A few months ago, a mother came to my surgery to tell me that she was absolutely fed up with receiving official CSA statements telling her how much money would be paid into her bank account and when. She showed me the statements, saying, "I don't want to receive more bits of paper like these. I find them so upsetting, and I have had them so many times. I go to the bank on the date specified and ask the people behind the counter whether the money is there. But, time and time again, it isn't."
Another lady told me that her ex-husband was living in a four-bedroomed house in another part of the country in much greater style and comfort than she and her children were. That was because his new partner had moved out, and the CSA had said that he needed all his available money to meet his housing costs. Unsurprisingly, the mother who came to see me found that unacceptable.

53WH
Another lady told me that she was on the verge of losing her home, as she and her new partner were unable to meet the rent. If even a proportion of the money from the CSA and the considerable arrears due to her were paid, she would be able to keep her children in the home that they were used to. In that case, the father—the non-resident parent—was able to buy expensive clothes for the children on a weekly basis. Unpleasantly, he insisted on keeping the clothes in his house rather than letting the children take them to the mother's home. However, he was not prepared to make any child support payments.
Another mother complained to me about the expensive presents showered on her children by their father, who drove a T-registration car that was much smarter than any car that she could muster. She told me that she could not afford swimming lessons for her children, and sometimes even found the weekly food bill a struggle to meet. The father clearly had no such restrictions on his lifestyle.
I was told by another mother that her application had at one point been closed by the CSA. There had been a brief reconciliation, but it did not work, and she then found that the whole application had to be reopened and all the forms filled in again. She felt that that procedure caused unnecessary delay.
I also think of the mother who came to me several months ago, whose ex-husband had been at the other end of the income scale. He had substantial assets and income, and she had not received a penny from him. Apparently he had several bank accounts, moved money around and kept money in different names. He enjoyed a high quality of life and did not give a penny to the large number of children that his former wife looked after.
Yet another lady told me that she had first taken her case to the CSA in 1995, and in the seven years up to 2002 had received only £500 in payment. She wrote to me about the effects that her battle with the CSA had had on her children and herself, saying that her children
"have had to go without so many things that are considered to be an entitlement for children…they have been under considerable stress because their father has not taken his parental responsibilities; this has particularly affected them when they have been taking their school examinations … they have found preparing for university life stressful because of their financial insecurity … ongoing worry and stress…has adversely affected my health and can be confirmed by my GP".
She also said that she had had
"to give up my employment as by working five and a half days a week I was never able to speak to my caseworker, who only worked two days a week at the CSA unless I took time off work, which I could not afford".
I hope that those examples have been useful to put a little flesh on the bones of individual CSA cases. I understand the importance of computer systems that work well. We all know the benefits in working life of computer systems. My central contention is that the CSA can run a more efficient enforcement system even without the new computer system for which it is waiting.
We know that the CSA payment compliance rate is around 72 per cent, with payments not received in 27.1 per cent. of cases. If we take the current stock of cases, at present some 300,000 clients are not receiving payment. CSA statistics suggest that more than 80,000 out of every 300,000 new cases every year will not receive the payments to which they are entitled.
54WH
How can we improve matters? I shall make several suggestions, which I ask the Minister to take back to the Department and to consider seriously. I should be grateful if she could respond, now or later, to my suggestions or proposals, because there is huge cross-party concern about the issue. Many vulnerable mothers are not receiving the entitlements that they should receive.
First, we should ensure that CSA procedures are tighter. A time scale should be laid out for applying to letters, chasing up phone calls and making sure that forms have been sent out. There should be a two to three week maximum period before clients are chased so that the agency can make progress with their case. Basic procedures should be set up to ensure that cases progress more quickly.
People have suggested to me that P45s and national insurance numbers could be tagged so that the Department and new employers would realise that a new employee had a CSA payment liability. A new employer would straight away be able to action the payments and contact the agency to ensure that the money went through.
There are huge difficulties in relation to businesses that pay cash to their staff. Again, there should be a much stronger onus on companies that pay cash, whether in the building trade or elsewhere, to ensure that they ask all their employees about potential CSA obligations. They should not be allowed to treat the subject lightly simply because they pay their employees in cash. I know of cases of non-resident parents who invoice companies for their services rather than receiving a salary for their services. That is a method being used by non-resident parents to avoid their liabilities. Legislation should be imposed on employers so that they have a duty to check whether an employee who takes that route has a CSA liability. Non-resident parents should not be able to avoid their liabilities in that way.
Mothers—or, rather, parents with care—tell me that when the non-resident parent has his own business or is self-employed, there is even greater delay in the process. I realise that assessments have to be made and that the area is complicated, but I urge the Department to consider how estimates might be made more quickly. It is a common pattern that, as soon as an order arrives for deductions of earnings, a non-resident parent leaves the firm that pays him on a monthly salaried basis and becomes self-employed or asks to be paid in cash. That makes the trail much harder for the CSA to follow. More thought should be given to that problem.
The CSA does not have the same surveillance powers as the former Benefits Agency. I would not normally advocate greater surveillance of the citizens of this country, but what signal are we sending by depriving the CSA of those powers? Are we saying that abuse of the benefit system that costs the state money is a worse offence than failing to pay mothers with children the money to which they are entitled? That sends out the signal that we are not serious about supporting mothers and children.
The National Canine Defence League has as its slogan "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas." How much more that slogan applies to our children. We must send a clear signal that having children is not merely a

55WH
lifestyle choice or an obligation that lasts for a few years while the relationship between the parents is going well; it is a commitment for life. We need to send that message more clearly and loudly so that it is readily understood by everyone, especially younger people, so that they understand what commitments they are taking on when they have children.
Above all, prevention is better than cure, and we should do all that we can to reduce the agency's additional caseload of 300,000 a year. I urge the Department, in its broader thinking and wider policy, to have the greatest concern for building up the stability of family life.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I first congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. He raised some important issues, which have caught the concern of people throughout the country. Many of us meet people like the parents to whom he has referred in our surgeries when we are out there trying to discover what is going on in the world, so interest in the subject is not confined to south-west Bedfordshire.
The hon. Gentleman gave some indication of his concerns by referring to cases in his constituency. Naturally, he did not mention specific details, and I would not expect him to, but given that he did not tell me all the details of each case, I hope that he will understand that I cannot answer his questions on the cases that he mentioned, which appear in my notes as "Mrs. A to Mrs. G." He did not even give basic details about whether the non-resident parent in each case was working or whether the constituent to whom he had spoken was working. He highlighted some interesting issues, which I cannot deal with on a case-by-case basis today, although I can make some general points.
All Members of Parliament are concerned about compliance by non-resident parents with assessments and payments. Compliance by non-resident parents is key to an effective child support scheme, and the agency was set up to ensure that maintenance payments were made and people confronted the financial consequences of bringing up children, whether or not the parents were still together. The hon. Gentleman will know—this is not a partisan point—that because of the 1992 legislation, the current formula for assessing maintenance is complicated. The agency must work out the disposable income of both parents. and take account of necessary day-to-day expenses and even a new partner's income. In complicated cases, that can mean collecting more than 100 pieces of information before even attempting to do the calculation to make the assessment. In one in three cases processed under the old scheme, no maintenance is paid, and full maintenance is paid in fewer than half of all cases. That is after the assessment has been made. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there has been concern in recent years about the speed with which assessments are made. The new scheme will make the process simpler.
On another of the hon. Gentleman's themes, a small minority of parents simply do not want to support their children. One suspects that that lies behind some of the
56WH
problems to which he referred. The current complicated process leaves those parents who want to evade their responsibilities with ample opportunity to frustrate the system and to delay the provision of information. The current formula makes it difficult for the agency to get maintenance assessments right and to pay them speedily. As some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents told him, non-resident parents can wait a long a time for assessments—as long as seven years in one of the cases that he mentioned—and they cannot be confident that the assessments are right. Many may then face having to pay off large sums of arrears, which is a disincentive; those who start with a mountain of debt will think that they will never get to the end of the payment process. The current formula is not a good way to ensure early and regular compliance from non-resident parents. That is one of the systemic problems that we inherited with the old formula.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we should not overlook the great improvements made in recent years. Compliance by non-resident parents has steadily improved. Since February 1997, the number who pay the full sum asked of them has increased by 32 per cent. to 53 per cent., which is a significant achievement. The number who pay nothing at all has reduced by 9 per cent. to 27 per cent. That is still too high, however, and we hope that the new formula will be able to tackle that.
The agency has put greater emphasis on customer relations, which was one of the problems of the old-style agency. For instance, telephone lines are now open for longer. The hon. Gentleman referred to a constituent who had to give up her job in order to contact the CSA—that was the lady who had been waiting for seven years for what transpired to be a small payment. She would not have to suffer such problems now because the telephone lines are open out of working hours. We should not overlook the great improvements that have been made to the scheme. When necessary, face-to-face interviews can now be conducted outside the office.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the work of the agency's staff. They have a difficult job, placed as they are in the middle of relationships that have gone wrong. Those who have been in such a situation will know that that is a difficult place to be; the consequences are not always directed at those who are at fault. The agency staff have an inherently difficult job, and the improvements that have been made over the past few years owe much to their dedication and professionalism. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman mention that.
Because of the complexities of the formula, there is a limit to what we can do within the confines of the scheme established by the 1992 legislation. That is why we are introducing a new and simpler child support scheme. The maintenance calculation will be based on a simple percentage of the non-resident parent's net income; it will be 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., depending on the number of children involved. That is a far simpler calculation. Far less information will be required to complete the calculation. That should free the agency's time and resources; as a result, more time can be spent chasing payments and ensuring that they go to the parent with care instead of working out what the payments should be and then chasing arrears because it has taken so long.

57WH
Non-resident parents, especially those who have no intention of complying, will now find themselves with no excuse. They will be able to work out for themselves fairly accurately how much maintenance they will be expected to pay. More important, because the agency will be able to calculate their liability much more quickly, large amounts of arrears will not have built up before they know exactly what they will have to pay. The new scheme will have simplicity and clarity at its heart. It will free the agency staff and allow them to spend more time ensuring enforcement and compliance.
Unfortunately, some non-resident parents will still be determined not to make any maintenance payments. The agency has already taken steps to deal with that, and it has a range of enforcement tools at its disposal. For example, it can deduct earnings at source, get a liability order, send the bailiffs in or garnishee a bank account, which is a legalistic way of saying that it can force people to hand over money from that account. Ultimately, a non-resident parent can be committed to prison for a wilful refusal to pay maintenance. The agency is not interested in resorting to such tactics at the first stage, however, and it is always looking for ways to make it easier to collect maintenance and obtain compliance. It can, for example, require companies, employers and accountants to provide information about a non-resident parent's income. The failure to provide such information, or the provision of false information, is a criminal offence that carries a penalty of up to £1,000.
The courts can now also take away a non-resident parent's driving licence as an alternative to committing them to prison. That measure has been very successful in other countries—notably the United States of America—in getting formerly recalcitrant non-resident parents to start paying maintenance, and the early signs are that it is beginning to be effective here. So far, the courts have taken away only one driving licence, but that is because 51 non-resident parents who faced the same penalty started making regular maintenance payments, which is what we want. The measure's deterrent effect therefore seems to be working. We regard sending a parent to prison or preventing them from driving as a failure because we want voluntary compliance. If we cannot get voluntary compliance, we want compliance. We want maintenance to be paid and children to be supported.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's comments about some self-employed parents. Where people are self-employed, it is obviously more difficult to work out their incomes, what they should pay and what their assets are. It is not only the CSA that has difficulty in getting money from some—although by no means all—self-employed people, and the problem is familiar to revenue collectors at home and abroad. However, the measures that we have put in place, particularly those that allow us to gather information from independent
58WH
sources, will help to improve our record on getting maintenance. If the non-resident parent will not tell us what the situation is, we can get information from elsewhere-the Department for Work and Pensions, the Inland Revenue, the non-resident parent's accountant, companies that have employed him, local authorities, which can provide bank account details, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. We can now gather information from a range of organisations, and we ensure that we do. Our main concern—and the hon. Gentleman's—is to get compliance.
I turn now to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. He made some interesting points, and I shall take some of them to the agency to get its comments. I shall be more than happy to drop him a line with detailed feedback, although I can deal with one or two of his points now.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a constituent who had to give up her job to contact the agency. She should now be able to contact it up to 8 pm each evening—that should deal with most problems related to working hours—and up to 5 pm on Saturdays. She will not necessarily be able to contact a named caseworker, but she will be able to make contact out of normal working hours, which should assist in some situations.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a constituent whose case was reopened after an attempted reconciliation failed. When a fresh application is made after a failed reconciliation, it is necessary to go through the details again. Maintenance must be assessed on the basis of the circumstances at the time; those may have changed considerably after a period of reconciliation, and it would not be safe to assume that everything was the same. I well understand his constituent's annoyance, given that her situation may have been the same and that it must have seemed like she was jumping through the same hoop again. I am afraid, however, that we must establish the circumstances that exist at the time; we cannot simply assume that they have remained the same.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the duties on employers to make checks. It is the responsibility of the parent, not the employer to pay maintenance. We do not want to impose additional burdens on employers who already operate deduction from earnings orders on our behalf, although we do want to ensure compliance. The hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that where non-resident parents hide their situation and their assets, there are other steps that we can take.
The agency aims to answer 70 per cent. of correspondence within 10 days, and we exceeded that target last year, answering 82.1 per cent. within that period, so we are tightening up on the procedures that he mentioned. In respect of his other points, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with some feedback. Finally, I would like to thank him and congratulate him again on raising the issue.

Energy Policy
1.30 pm
Mr. Bill Tynan: It is interesting that this debate is taking place on the same day as UK Coal's announcement of the closure of Britain's biggest coal mining complex at Selby, near York, by March 2004. The continuation of coal mining until then is dependent on productivity being improved but, regardless of that improvement, 2,000 mining and 3,000 auxiliary jobs will be lost in that area when that complex closes. Millions of tonnes of coal will be left underground. Some have claimed that the decision goes against the European Commission's policy to maintain access to our strategic reserves of coal.
Only last month, the Government gave support for limited state aid to coal producers to fund up to 30 per cent. of new investment in coal mines. Unfortunately, the Government have been reluctant to extend operating aid, which is also allowed under European Union rules. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider what more can be done for the coal industry. Is it not sensible, if closure is the only option for UK Coal, for the Government to consider taking over the ownership of the mine to protect a valuable resource?
The performance and innovation unit report and energy review raises many issues that need to be considered and addressed and I believe this debate is part of a continuing process to involve the population at large. I am a member of Amicus, one of the major unions within the energy industry, and my union's record in playing a constructive role in promoting the most efficient and cost-effective methods of generation and distribution is widely acknowledged.
When the Prime Minister asked the PIU to examine the long-term challenges for energy policy in the UK, it was against a background of a number of key issues, including competitiveness, security of supply and affordability to the consumer. I believe diversity of supply should also be included.
Energy impacts on all our lives, yet we take for granted its delivery, which enables us to switch on a light, boil a kettle, switch on a cooker or a fire, watch TV or simply listen to the radio. It is only when the lights go out, as they did in California recently and in Britain during the three-day week associated with the 1974 miners' strike, which I am old enough to remember, that we realise the benefits of energy security.
There are concerns regarding some aspects of the review. At present we have a balanced energy mix of gas, oil, coal, nuclear and renewables. We are self-sufficient at present but, within the next three or four years, this will not be so. Different lead times are involved in maintaining energy security, but the building of a power station takes considerable time, from planning consent to the actual construction.
That means that the decisions reached within the near future will determine the success of any long-term strategy in energy policy. In 30 years, world oil may have become not only scarce but expensive. Over-dependence on gas imports from countries such as Russia and areas such as north Africa and the middle east might not seem as attractive as it does today. To rely on the delivery from such countries of 90 per cent. of a 70 per cent. gas component in our energy policy by 2025 would be, in my opinion, totally irresponsible.
60WH
We must remember also our responsibility concerning our international environmental objectives and our commitment to reduce the emission of CO2 and greenhouse gases. It is logical that we should consider how best we achieve low carbon energy production in this country. The UK has done well in comparison with other developed countries in meeting our targets. The UK target under the Kyoto protocol was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels for the period between 2008 and 2012. All projections suggest that we will reach that goal. In fact, we are on target—but only just—to meet the Government's most ambitious domestic target of reducing CO2 emissions to 20 per cent. less than 1990 levels by 2010.
I welcome the debate. For the first time in years, we are committed to a serious and wide-ranging debate on energy policy, a policy that will have a profound effect on social and economic aspects of UK life. Our thinking must not be too narrow or pushed down pre-determined routes. The beauty of the current position is that we stand on the verge of an exciting new energy era. The Government, Members of Parliament, businesses and the people of the country must engage in a proper debate to develop energy policy for future generations.
I believe that the free market panacea will not produce the security of energy supply that the country so desperately needs if it is to remain an economic powerhouse in the new century. The decisions that we take in the coming months will have a profound effect on the legacy that we leave to future generations. We must adopt policies that will maintain the security of supply, although there is increasing demand for energy.
We must meet our environmental obligations, which have grown in importance in the eyes of not only the international political community but the world population. We must also consider the future employment opportunities of the UK manufacturing industry that supplies the power industry. Research and development into expanding technologies can give us a lead in world markets. What options must we consider? Certainly, it is essential to drive forward the need for greater energy efficiency.
Pursuing energy efficiency is unique, in that it would contribute to all the UK's key energy and environmental objectives. Energy efficiency reduces carbon dioxide emissions, is a sustainable solution for fuel poverty, reduces consumers' fuel bills, helps preserve indigenous energy supplies and creates employment. That is not unproven technology, but simply common sense. The royal commission on environmental pollution has called for a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 gases by 2050. Some 27 per cent. of the UK's carbon dioxide comes from household use of energy.
Without sustained effort on energy efficiency from everyone, the household sector will have increased its energy use by 2010. That is why it is important that the Government make available substantial resources in order to convince not only the public but local authorities and the construction industry about their role in achieving energy efficiency.
As I have mentioned, coal at present accounts for about 30 per cent. of energy production. In an initial response to the Government's energy policy consultation, Coalpro, the Confederation of UK Coal

61WH
Producers, advocated certain policy actions. In its submission it says that we must recognise that coal, and indigenous coal in particular, has a security value to the nation beyond the commodity price it commands on the market.
Maintaining a healthy level of indigenous coal production will require Government support. Coalpro points to the range of flexible support options available to the Government under state aid rules recently agreed by the EU. It believes that the Government should establish a legislative framework that makes it attractive for owners of coal-fired power stations to maintain those assets and carry coal stocks as necessary back-up to renewables and as cheap insurance against gas supply interruptions.
The Department of Trade and Industry must start the supercritical boiler retrofit project at an existing coal-fired power station. That project was recommended in the Department' s "cleaner coal" review earlier this year, and requires that the DTI cleaner coal technology research and development programme budget be increased. Clean-coal technologies offer immediate benefits and, in the longer term, with carbon capture and storage, can help achieve—at significantly less cost than other options—the great cuts in CO2 emissions that are called for by the royal commission on environmental pollution.
As today's announcement demonstrates, coal mines in the UK have a relatively short life ahead of them. Targeted investment aid under the new rules replacing the European Coal and Steel Community treaty would allow mining companies to access reserves from existing mines. However, any investment in coal production, whether public or private, must be underwritten by long-term supply contracts. In today's liberalised energy market, producers are often unable to negotiate anything other than short-term or spot contracts that put them in a poor position to finance capital projects.
A controversial option is replacing nuclear with nuclear. At present, nuclear power stations produce a quarter of all Britain's electricity. In Scotland, the proportion is well over 50 per cent. Under the current policy strategy, the amount of electricity produced by nuclear power will reduce to about 3 per cent. by 2025 because nuclear power stations will reach the end of their productive life and close.
For example, the Magnox stations built in the 1950s and 1960s are expected to close between now and 2010 and, a few weeks ago, the closure of the Chapelcross Magnox plant was announced, the first Magnox plant to close. The advanced gas-cooled reactors that were completed in the 1970s and 1980s will close between 2010 and 2025, which will leave one pressurised water reactor at Sizewell B that was built in the 1990s to continue until 2035. If we are to replace the plants, we must take that decision as soon as possible.
It is interesting that power produced by coal-fired power stations over the same period is expected to reduce from about 30 per cent. of the supply to a small percentage. British Energy's nuclear stations currently avoid carbon emissions equivalent to over half that produced by the UK's cars. Nuclear is the only reliable, large-scale and carbon free source of electricity and the UK will not be able to maintain low carbon emissions or have any hope of meeting CO2 reduction targets without it.
62WH
British Energy's submission to the PIU review argued that nuclear power has a vital long-term role to play in meeting our energy needs as part of an even-handed policy that encompasses coal, gas, renewables and energy efficiency. Maintaining a balanced portfolio is the only viable solution that will deliver secure supplies and meet environmental targets. That was supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union when it investigated security of supply. It recommended that the UK should maintain the share of its power produced by nuclear at no less than 20 per cent.
Other countries have assessed their future energy policy. There was a free parliamentary vote in Finland in May 2002 that gave the go-ahead to build the country's fifth nuclear reactor. In Italy, a parliamentary committee has said that the country should consider a return to nuclear power. An opinion poll in Sweden last month found that almost 80 per cent. of people supported the continued use of nuclear power. The United States Administration has set out plans in "Nuclear Power 2010" to remove barriers to enable the building of new nuclear plants by the end of the decade. Eleven countries throughout the world are presently constructing 31 reactors.
Obviously, one of the big issues is the question of nuclear waste production and waste management. Due to the political short-termism of successive Governments, the United Kingdom has lost its way on a policy for the final disposal of spent fuel and other radioactive waste products. In this country, Nirex could be the vehicle to develop a policy for the management of nuclear waste. The Government would take a massive step towards tackling the enormous problem by supporting the call from Sir Ken Jackson for its independence.
The situation in Finland is a total contrast. Finland has a fully operational underground repository for low and intermediate-level waste. That cost £10 million and was built over two years. There was governmental approval and local community support for the underground retrievable spent fuel repository.
On 9 July, the US Senate gave final legislative approval to the storage of spent nuclear fuel beneath the Yucca mountains in Nevada. That vote was the culmination of a major debate in which the US Administration viewed progress on the repository as critical to efforts on expanding domestic energy production.
The UK Government must act on nuclear waste. We must learn from other countries and thus remove some of the public's aversion to nuclear energy. British Energy is keen to replace its existing nuclear stations as they are retired. New-build nuclear plants will produce electricity at a cost of around £25 per MW after initial research and development and "first of its kind" costs have been written off. That cost is fully inclusive of all waste management and spent fuel disposal costs.
I turn to jobs and employment today. The UK nuclear industry supports some 30,000 jobs. The programme to replace nuclear with nuclear would create some 5,000 manufacturing jobs in the UK over almost two decades and would ensure that the UK remained at the forefront of nuclear technology. However, vision and leadership will be required from all involved if we

63WH
are to grasp this opportunity; the electricity and contractor industries, the unions, the regulators, and especially the Government.
The fourth component in a balanced energy policy is the development of renewable technology. The cost of development is addressed in the energy review. It suggests that to bring down the cost of new renewables and to establish new options, renewable targets should be expanded; renewables should supply 20 per cent. of our electricity by 2020. However, the review did not reach any conclusion about the means by which that target could be achieved; in fact, it indicated that it is by no means certain that the existing target of 10 per cent. can be achieved by 2010.
At present, Scotland is extremely well served by its existing portfolio of hydro-electricity stations. Provision within renewable obligations to support refurbished plant will ensure that hydro-electricity continues to make an important contribution to our climate change programme.
I am short of time, and I want to give the Minister as long as possible to deal with the issues that I have raised. We must continue to develop renewables; that will give us the opportunity to become a world leader in many of the methods and processes that we would create. A balanced energy policy is essential. It would be a mistake to be dependent on one source of imported fuel. Coal, gas, nuclear and renewables have served us well, and they will continue to do so if they are given a level playing field in the future.
1.46 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing this debate. The issues that he has so eloquently raised are vital to our ongoing consultation on future energy policy, and I welcome his contribution.
Before turning to specific issues, I want to recap on where we have reached in our progress towards producing a new White Paper. As my hon. Friend said, this is an important opportunity for us to get our policy on energy right for the next 50 years. In June 2001, the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to carry out a major review of the strategic issues that surround energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050. In large part, that was a response to the royal commission on environmental pollution, which had recommended that the UK should aim for a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The PIU energy review was published on 14 February. It is a report to Government, and it makes a valuable contribution to the debate on how best to meet our future energy needs. It reinforces the importance of environmental considerations in formulating energy policy.
In welcoming the review's publication, we made it clear that fuller consultations would be required if we were to take the issues forward, and on 14 May we launched a consultation document that initiated the next stage of the debate at the start of working towards the White Paper. That stage includes workshops with stakeholders, and seeking the views of the public. Therefore, this debate and the one that was held on the Floor of the House on 20 June are very timely.
64WH
Everyone has a stake in our consultation. All of us use electricity and transport, as my hon. Friend said. All of us are dependent on gas, either directly or through its use in electricity generation, and we, and succeeding generations, have a clear stake in the environment, and in the challenge of combating climate change. We have a range of objectives relating to the environment, security of supply, competitiveness and social issues. We have to prioritise those and, as far as is possible, make them compatible with each other.
The precise nature of the White Paper will be determined in the wake of the consultation. However, we start from the assumption that it should be broad, and that it will need to consider all aspects of energy use. The consultation will be open and—we trust—constructive.
Working on the practicalities of future energy policy is complex, and time is short this afternoon. I will now turn to the substance of some of the key issues. Energy security amounts to more than keeping the lights on, and we should not be complacent about it. We must have efficient and competitive energy markets that have the correct incentives to invest. We also need to maximize the economic potential of our own fuel sources, and to build on close relationships with fuel exporting and transporting countries. With this in mind, we will continue to press for the liberalisation of energy markets throughout the Community and will continue to work with other Government Departments in building on our good relations with fuel operators.
Last year, the Department of Trade and Industry and Ofgem set up the joint energy security of supply working group, which has brought together key indicators to monitor the security of energy supplies as part of an initiative to keep the reliability of energy supplies under continuing review. The indicators, which include supply and demand forecasts and forward prices, will provide a means to gauge possible future trends and help inform energy company decisions on future investments.
The working group's first report, published on 25 June, highlights the important role that effective competition and regulation can play together in delivering keenly priced and secure gas and electricity supplies by signalling long-term investment needs and providing the incentives to respond to them efficiently. Centrica's recent announcement of a long-term contract to import large quantities of gas via Norway is a welcome demonstration that the market is making active preparations to ensure our gas supplies.
My hon. Friend spoke with great conviction about nuclear energy. As he will know, the PIU report also raised the question about whether given the continuing aims to deliver lower greenhouse gas emissions and the uncertainties surrounding renewables, the nuclear option should he kept open. There are also issues of security of supply. As such, nuclear was seen by the PIU as a potential safety net if other approaches to low carbon generation and energy security proved difficult to pursue cheaply enough. The Government's current consultation on energy policy is seeking views on that in the light of the fall-off of electricity generated by nuclear over the next 10 years as existing nuclear reactors reach the end of their operating lives. Alongside the central question of whether we need to keep the nuclear option open is the question of how that would be done, should the need arise. We expect that the consultation

65WH
responses and various stakeholder dialogue discussions in the coming months will help the Government answer some of the questions.
Radioactive waste can continue to be stored safely in the medium term using current technology, although the PIU report acknowledges that the problem is mainly an historic one and that new nuclear stations would make only a small addition to the total. In practice, it is for generators to apply for consent to build new power plants, and decisions on whether they will use nuclear technology will depend on its costs compared with other generation options and on securing public confidence about issues such as safety and the environment. The Government recently completed our public consultation on managing radioactive waste safely, and we understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make an announcement shortly.
My hon. Friend made a point about the independence of Nirex; Sir Ken Jackson, the general secretary of Amicus, has called for its independence. Indeed, Nirex has recently expressed a wish for independence from its shareholders, but the only people able to do that are the shareholders themselves. The Secretary of State does not hold that power, and it is up to Nirex to convince the shareholders of the argument's logic.
On climate change, I am pleased to say that, at the end of May, the UK ratified the Kyoto protocol with the European Community and other member states, which means that the UK is legally bound to achieve its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. by 2008–12. However, we must also think hard about what happens after the Kyoto commitment period. The challenge is that unless extra steps are taken, the UK's emissions are forecast to begin rising again in 2010.
I want briefly to mention combined heat and power. Encouraging CHP and other energy efficient technologies is an important part of the Government's strategy to combat climate change. The Government are also committed to increasing the UK's CHP capacity because of the considerable environmental, economic and other benefits that it can bring.
The PIU report concluded that promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewables should be the immediate priority of a low carbon energy policy. As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set an ambitious target of securing 10 per cent. of the total UK electricity supplies from renewables by 2010. The renewables obligation, which came into force on 1 April this year, is a 25-year commitment to the development of renewables. It requires electricity suppliers to provide a rising proportion of their supplies from eligible renewables by 2010; 3 per cent. by March next year, 5.5 per cent. by March 2006 and 10.4 per cent. by March 2011. The expected cost is an average increase in electricity prices of 4.4 per cent. in 2010 above 1999 price levels, which is a good deal all round.
We are also well down the road now on developing regional renewable energy strategies that will help renewables in the planning process, leading to a much more positive approach to planning. We also propose to revise planning policy guidance 22 to provide much more up-to-date guidance on renewables to local planning authorities.
I shall now deal with coal. My hon. Friend spoke about the sadness and tragedy of today's announcement that UK Coal is to shut the Selby complex. He
66WH
mentioned taking the pit into public ownership, but I have to say that the geological position of the pit means that it will have to close. The Department commissioned its own independent study, which is available—like so many other things these days—on the internet. It was carried out by the mining consultants IMC, who endorsed UK Coal's assessment of the geological problems that militate against delaying closure beyond the first quarter of 2004.
My hon. Friend will know that the DTI announced separately earlier today a package of measures designed to soften the blow of this closure. He asked what more could be done to help the coal industry. We have negotiated flexibility to pay investment aid beyond the expiry of the ECSC treaty on 23 July, which could enable support for the development of commercially realistic mining projects and allow for coal to be treated on a level playing field with other industries.
Coal is still crucial. As the PIU pointed out, more than a third of UK electricity is currently generated from coal-fired power stations and coal is expected to continue to play a key role in the provision of secure energy supplies in the medium term. It has important advantages such as the geo-political diversity of supply sources, the relative ease with which coal can be stockpiled and the flexibility of load factors for coal-fired generation, which make it particularly useful for meeting peak demand or covering for supply difficulties in other fuels.
Environmental considerations also need to be borne in mind. If we want for security of supply reasons to continue to use significant amounts of coal in electricity generation in the longer term, we will need to adopt technological advances to deal adequately with the remaining potential environmental impacts. The DTI's cleaner coal research and development programme is supporting the necessary work.
Transport is another key sector. Vehicles are already getting more fuel efficient, and using less energy. Further substantial energy-saving developments are opening up, including hybrid electric and internal combustion cars, which simply make the internal combustion work better. Here in the UK, one of our world-class automotive companies has developed a diesel hybrid demonstration car that reduces energy use by 30 per cent. on a 1.2 litre engine. Further ahead, fuel cell vehicles will use hydrogen.
In summing up, I would like to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the current review of our energy policy options. Some huge issues will have very considerable implications for the UK for decades to come. We shall face some tough decisions when we write our White Paper towards the end of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will resume his normal place as the Minister for Industry and Energy. I am off the substitute's bench today. The current debate is crucial to helping us to think through the issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on raising this issue; I greatly welcome his contribution to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the correspondence, dated 17 January, from the hon. Member for Leominster, on behalf of a constituent in respect of compensation for loss of his wormery. [42693]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 12 June 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in her Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44940]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's agreed target times for replying to correspondence from hon. Members and from members of the public is 15 days.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle of 11 June regarding policy guidance for county waste plans. [69954]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 July 2002.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Woking, dated 10 January concerning Mr. A. Giles and the British Cattle Movement service. [61150]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 2 July 2002.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will provide a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), dated 4 February, her reference 165197, on antibiotic remedies and nitrate vulnerable zones. [52403]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 10 June 2002.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which EU regulations govern the use of the gamma interferon test as applied to bovine TB. [69000]
  132W
  Mr. Morley
  Community legislation on the control of bovine TB for purposes of intra-Community trade is set out in Council Directive 64/432/EC. A recent amendment to this will allow for the use of gamma interferon as an adjunct test. We await publication in the Official Journal.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with members of the European Parliament about a possible inquiry into bovine TB and its causes. [69002]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials have had no discussions with members of the European Parliament on this matter.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 25 April from the hon. Member for Northavon regarding bovine TB. [60185]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 25 May 2002.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long it takes on average for farmers in(a) England and (b) Wales to receive the results of TB tests on their animals. [68919]

  Mr. Morley
  Farmers are notified immediately when TB reactors are found in their herd. The average number of days taken for the culture results of samples taken at post-mortem to become available is given in the table.

  Country

  Average number of days1

  England

  52

  Wales

  53

  1The average number of days between the receipt of samples at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and reporting of the results to the State Veterinary Service Animal Health Office. Figures are based on samples received at VLA since 1 November 2001.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what extra resources have been secured in order to clear the backlog in processing the results of TB tests in England. [68921]

  Mr. Morley
  A claim against the Reserve has been considering how best to use the additional funding when tackling the TB backlog.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what resources are being dedicated to ensuring that the results of TB tests on animals in(a) England and (b) Wales are processed as quickly as possible. [68918]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not available in the format requested, in that separate figures for England and Wales are not available. The planned expenditure for the 2002–03 financial year on the bovine tuberculosis testing programme at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency is given in the following table.

  The TB skin test gives a result at reading. The owner is notified of the skin test results immediately. Skin test results are confirmed by microbiological culture of tissues removed at post mortem. The main time delay in getting results from the culture of mycobacteria taken from post mortem samples is due to the time it takes for the mycobacteria to multiply sufficiently to be identified.
  133W

  £

  Planned expenditure

  Surveillance for bTB (infection status of cattle, farmed deer and exotic species in GB)

  2,624,701

  TB in cattle post-mortemed at VLA regional laboratories

  10,673

  Surveillance for bTB (infection status of badgers and other wildlife species)

  573,568

  TB in species apart from badgers and cattle

  43,987

  Total

  3,252,929

  Fishing
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement concerning the failure to meet the required targets set under MAGP IV for the pelagic sector and the effect this will have on future EU funding for fisheries from 1 January 2003; [69212]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of I July 2002, Official Report, column 71, on fishing, what assessment she has made of the impact of the United Kingdom not meeting the required targets set under MAGP IV in the pelagic sector on the quota allocations from 1 January 2003 for (a) pelagic species and (b) white fish species. [69211]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK has chosen the option to set MAGP IV targets for the pelagic segment of the fleet in terms of fishing effort; and we expect those effort targets to be achieved at the end of 2002, as they were at the end of 2001.

  The Council of Ministers has yet to determine what penalties would apply, should a member state fail to meet its MAGP IV targets at the end of 2002.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what reports she has received from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate regarding the release of radioactive substances into the groundwater under Sellafield in Cumbria from tanks; and if she will make a statement; [65062]

  (2) if she will establish an inquiry into the leaking of radioactive substances into groundwater under Sellafield in Cumbria; and if she will make a statement. [65063]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have not received any reports from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate about the release of radioactive substances into groundwater under Sellafield. I am aware, however, that technetium-99 (Tc-99) has been detected in groundwater from boreholes in and around the Sellafield site. I understand that the likely source of the Tc-99 leakage is from the B24I sludge storage tanks.

  The Environment Agency has carried out an assessment of the radiological impact of the levels of Tc-99 detected and is satisfied that this would be insignificant. Recent borehole data from BNFL supports this conclusion. The groundwater at Sellafield is not used for drinking water supplies.

  The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Environment Agency, respectively, have asked BNFL to undertake further monitoring of Tc-99 levels on and off the Sellafield site. The regulators will consider whether
  134W
  any regulatory action is necessary. In the light of the actions of the regulators I have no reason to believe that an inquiry is necessary.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the staff of her Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66906]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 622W.

  Subsidies
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value was of subsidies to agriculture in the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [66840]

  Mr. Morley
  Our latest estimates relate to 2000, and suggest that in that year UK farmers received in total £4.9 billion of support. In addition to the direct payments and market support measures that fall directly to the EU and UK budgets, this includes the effect on farmers' incomes of the higher prices paid by consumers as a result of the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the foot and mouth disease livestock movement restrictions, with special reference to the 20-day standstill rule, on the operation and profitability of livestock producers in Cheshire; and if she will make a statement. [67200]

  Mr. Morley
  Discussions are in progress with industry stakeholders on the basis of preliminary work by the Department's economists in order to gain a better understanding of the economic impact of the current rules both in aggregate and for particular sectors.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the reasons for the maintenance of the foot and mouth disease livestock movement restrictions, with specific reference to the 20-day standstill rule. [67199]

  Mr. Morley
  There is firm veterinary and scientific advice in support of the present movement controls which are designed to protect against the rapid spread of any new incursion of disease.

  The 20 day standstill is an important element of these controls for two reasons. Firstly, it allows time for the disease to become evident in animals brought on to a holding and so improves the prospect of identifying disease on infected premises before animals move off. Secondly, it also prevents potentially infected animals being moved off the holding during the 20 day period and so slows the rate of spread of any undetected disease.

  Livestock Movements
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to remove foot and mouth disease livestock
  135W
  movement restrictions, with particular reference to the 20-day standstill rule; whether she proposes to lift the 20-day standstill rule in time for the marketing of the lamb crop at the autumn sales; and if she will make a statement. [67201]

  Mr. Morley
  No decisions about the future of the 20 day standstill will be taken before the publication of the reports of the Royal Society and Lessons Learned inquiries.

  Rabies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to increase the number of ports that will allow the import and export of animals that have been vaccinated against rabies. [67581]

  Mr. Morley
  Animals subject to the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974, as amended, must enter the UK through Dover (Eastern Docks), Harwich (Parkeston Quay), Hull, Portsmouth or Southampton. If the animals are vaccinated against rabies but do not meet the requirements of the Pet Travel Scheme they must go into quarantine.

  However, dogs and cats which fully meet the requirements of the Pet Travel Scheme may enter England, without going into quarantine, through the ports at Dover, Portsmouth, Harwich, Poole and Plymouth. These ports are the ones used by carriers on routes approved by this Department. My Department will consider applications for approval from transport companies for routes into England using other ports. It is currently processing an application for a route which would use Newhaven. Whether transport companies choose to seek approval is a commercial and operational decision for them.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she holds a definitive map of the navigable inland waterways network in England. [68082]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State does not hold such a map. However, "Waterways for Tomorrow", the Government's policy paper on the waterways contains a general map of the inland waterways of England and Wales. A copy of this document is in the Library of the House. Maps of the inland waterway system are also available from commercial sources.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to seek derogations from the EU Animal By-Products Regulation to allow the on-farm trial of fallen stock in the upland areas of(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Southern Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [68618]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: I am not planning to seek further derogations from the EU Animal By-Products Regulation with respect of on-farm burial of fallen stock.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much sheepmeat was imported into the United Kingdom from each of the other countries of the European Union in each of the last five years. [68086]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]The table shows the volume of sheepmeat imported into the United Kingdom from each of the other countries of the European Union.

  UK imports of sheepmeat from the EU 1997–20011

  Tonnes

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Netherlands

  6,456

  5,106

  4,809

  4,419

  4,425

  Irish Republic

  2,899

  2,616

  3,387

  2,683

  3,055

  Spain

  2,368

  1,920

  1,287

  1,295

  1,625

  France

  1,208

  1,214

  1,419

  1,617

  1,871

  Germany

  1,668

  878

  594

  671

  1,350

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  442

  482

  208

  332

  829

  Italy

  68

  150

  3

  16

  159

  Denmark

  44

  32

  165

  28

  112

  Austria

  16

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Finland

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  15,182

  12,398

  11.882

  11,061

  13,426

  1Product weight. Excludes exports of live sheep.

  Source

  H.M. Customs and Excise

  granted which provides additional funding for DEFRA for several areas in the current financial year. We are now

  Badger Culling
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 786W, on badger culling, what preliminary findings have emerged from badger culling triplets B, C and F. [69242]

  Mr. Morley
  The Independent Scientific Group for Cattle TB (ISG) advise that it is too early for an analysis of results. It is a basic rule for scientific trials that results are not published prematurely. It has however been possible to complete a preliminary analysis of the risk factors associated with cattle TB, and this is set out in the ISG's Third Report, available in the House Library.

  A summary of the completed work for each triplet is shown on DEFRA's website at www.defra.gov.uk/ animalh/tb/point5/p5prog.

  Public Footpaths
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent steps the Department has taken to open(a) more footpaths in the countryside and (b) more private land to the public; [69411]

  (2) what (a) discussions the Department has had with private landowners nd (b) steps it has taken to encourage private landowners to open their land to the public. [69412]

  Alun Michael
  The Department recently consulted on draft guidance to local highway authorities in relation to the requirement in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to prepare and review rights of way
  137W
  improvement plans. Once the relevant provisions are in force, later this year, local highway authorities will be required to take a strategic look at how the local network of rights of way takes into account the needs of the public and to prepare a statement of the action that they propose to take to improve the network. including creating new rights of way where they are shown to be needed.

  In January this year we issued a consultation paper on proposals for regulations under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which enables landowners voluntarily to give people a statutory right of access to their land. The consultation ended on 15 April and we are presently considering the responses from landowners and others. The Department is also working closely with the Forestry Commission which, earlier this year, arranged a number of seminars for private woodland owners on the provision of access under section 16. In addition, private landowners are encouraged to allow permissive public access under DEFRA's agri-environment schemes. The provisions are currently the subject of a public consultation that began on 8 July and will end on 27 September 2002.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to improve safety on public footpaths and other rights of way that are(a) poorly lit, (b) in desolate areas and (c) in areas where crime is above average. [69410]

  Alun Michael
  I recently published draft guidance arising from rights of way provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The draft guidance encourages local highway authorities to take positive management measures, such as consideration of the use of lighting and schemes to encourage informal surveillance to counter problems of criminal activity on public rights of way.

  Where rights of way are facilitating high levels of crime in built up areas the provisions that are covered in the guidance will enable such rights of way to be diverted or extinguished.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the development of a National Access Database; what funding she has made to the Countryside Agency to fund a feasibility study into a national access database; and when the feasibility study will be published. [70041]

  Alun Michael
  The Government announced the plan to establish a National Access Database in the Rural White Paper "Our countryside: the future a fair deal for rural England" in November 2000. The Countryside Agency has commissioned consultants to look at the feasibility of establishing such a database. The feasibility study is being funded from within the Agency's annual grant in aid settlement. The Agency will publish a research note in September 2002 and use the findings of the study to make recommendations on how the project should proceed.

  Biofuels
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons
  138W
  the UK Government did not support the development of mandatory and indicative targets for biofuels in the relevant EU draft directive. [69340]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In common with the majority of other European Union member states, the UK Government do not support the European Commission's proposals for mandatory targets applied uniformly to every state, as originally proposed by the European Commission in the Biofuels Directive. In order to maintain the UK's ability to set national policy on the basis of the UK's own domestic circumstances, the Government favour the adoption of flexible, indicative targets; an approach endorsed by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament.

  The Government actively support the use of transport biofuels, in particular through the 20 pence per litre reduction in fuel duty on biodiesel—due to come into effect shortly—and through the further round of the Green Fuels Challenge, offering zero duty for pilots demonstrating innovative technologies for environmentally beneficial fuels.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set the Pesticides Safety Directorate for 2002–03. [70677]

  Mr. Morley
  I have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate the following performance targets for 2003–03.

  Quality of service

  To complete evaluations and contribute to the EC Review Programme under Council Directive 91/414/EEC, according to the processing times set out in Table 1.

  1. To deliver high quality scientific work to underpin the protection of human health and the environment.

  2. To provide clear and accessible public information about pesticide issues consistent with sustainable and economic production.

  3. To ensure the UK's objectives are reflected in the revised Council Directive 91/414/EEC and to maintain our international reputation as a leading regulatory authority.

  Efficiency

  1. To implement a Quality system by the end of December 2002 that enables an improvement in quality and efficiency and which takes account of priorities identified in the 2001 Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  2. To deliver 3 per cent. efficiency savings through the combination of achieving reductions to processing times for applications for approval and through savings in cost of outputs.

  Financial performance

  1. To recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (as calculated according to resource accounting principles) of its services.

  139W

  Table 1 Approvals group: predicted workflow and target processing times for 2002–03

  Estimated workflow

  Target processing time (weeks)

  Application type

  2002–03

  2002–03

  2001–02

  UK Reviews

  Anticholinesterase programme

  5

  —

  —

  Other activity

  3

  —

  —

  EC Reviews Rapporteur (2nd stage)

  Completeness

  10

  26

  n/a

  Evaluation

  4

  52

  n/a

  New active substances

  Evaluation

  Sift

  8

  5

  6

  Full

  8

  42

  48

  Resubmission

  3

  42

  48

  Departmentals

  8

  42

  45

  Re-registration

  4

  40

  —

  Normals

  135

  30

  35

  Associated fast-normals

  25

  30

  35

  Assessed experimental approval

  2

  20

  20

  Extrapolated experimental approval

  2

  10

  10

  Emergency off label

  15

  9

  10

  Non-emergency off label

  30

  25

  30

  Mutual recognition

  3

  20

  20

  Fast

  200

  10

  10

  Parallel imports

  50

  9

  10

  Administrative fast

  700

  4

  4

  Administrative experimental

  100

  1

  1

  Simplified own-use parallel

  10

  2

  2

  Note

  Overall target—90 per cent. of applications with a stated processing time must be completed within that time.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2001–02 Annual Report for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. [70676]

  Mr. Meacher
  The 2001–02 Annual Report and Accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for 2002–03. [70674]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science the following performance targets for 2002–03.

  Quality of Service

  To make satisfactory progress with the action plan resulting from the 1999–2000 Science Audit.

  To manage the Agency in an effective manner including pursuit of commercial exploitation of research outputs.

  140W
  Efficiency

  To give satisfaction to customers in the way that outputs are provided, as measured by the CEFAS Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  To achieve savings and efficiency gains in a range of key functions.

  Financial Performance

  To recover from Government Departments and Agencies and external customers the full economic costs of the Agency's services.

  Livestock Diseases
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has received the report of the Royal Society's Scientific Review of Infectious Diseases in Livestock; and if she will make a statement. [70949]

  Margaret Beckett
  I am delighted that the Royal Society have today published the report of their independent Scientific Review of Infectious Diseases in Livestock. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  This report was commissioned by the Government following the unprecedented outbreak of foot and mouth disease last year. I am very grateful to Professor Sir Brian Follett and his committee for producing such a thorough and excellent report in such a short space of time. This is a very significant contribution to our work to strengthen our ability to guard against and deal with animal disease.

  I welcome the importance that the report places on the livestock industry in this country and Great Britain having animal disease free status. We are already taking action on imports and disease surveillance to protect this and the report's views on these matters will be of great assistance.

  More widely, we intend to press ahead with an animal health and welfare strategy and will need to consider carefully the recommendations made by the report on research arid development in the light of yesterday's spending review announcement.

  The report's recommendations will be of crucial importance in developing the Government's emergency preparedness for controlling animal diseases, and we will need to study these closely, in particular the recommended approach to vaccination against foot and mouth disease. The Government has never rejected vaccination as an option in the fight against foot and mouth. The report recognises that there are aspects of vaccination, in particular trade and technical issues, which are not yet resolved, but which can and should be resolved. Even then, vaccination will not necessarily be a panacea and will not necessarily be right in all circumstances. The report notes that, even with emergency vaccination in place, culling would still be necessary.

  I welcome the Royal Society's endorsement of the need to take forward the work we have in hand on a greatly improved contingency plan for foot and mouth. Its findings on biosecurity and animal movements will also be of particular importance.

  In taking work forward on the report, we will need to involve stakeholders, in particular the farming industry, who have a share in the responsibility for maintaining the animal disease free status recommended by the report.
  141W
  I intend to give a fuller initial response on the recommendations in this report when the Lessons Learned Inquiry has reported on Monday 22 July. It is also intended, later in the year, to issue a detailed reply to the recommendations in both these independent reports.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government have taken to ameliorate the problem of(a) leylandii and (b) other rapidly growing trees associated with neighbour nuisance. [69575]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government supported the high hedges Bill introduced last Session by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). Unfortunately, it fell due to lack of time before the election. Although it has not been possible to bring forward a high hedges Bill in the current Session, we remain committed to legislation allowing local authorities to deal with complaints about high hedges as soon as parliamentary time can be found.

  In December last year, we published guidelines on "Hedge height and light loss" developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). The guidelines explain how to calculate whether a hedge is likely to block out too much light from a garden and from the main rooms of a house. These scientifically based tests might carry some weight with hedge owners and help them to understand the impact of their hedge. As a result, they might be more willing to negotiate with neighbours.

  We are now preparing a leaflet for members of the public, advising them how they might approach their neighbours to try to agree a solution to their hedge problems. The leaflet will include information on a range of factors that people might consider in settling on the right hedge height for their particular circumstances. It will cover such matters as what heights will ensure privacy; those at which a hedge can be safely maintained; and those likely to block light to neighbouring properties.

  Authority

  Scheme

  Expected start date

  Bradford

  South Bradford Integrated Transport Improvements

  November 2001

  Cheshire

  Chester-Deeside Transport Scheme

  May 2004

  Durham

  Belmont Interchange

  October 2003

  Tyne and Wear PTA

  Four Lanes End Interchange

  April 2002

  Wiltshire

  Salisbury Integrated Transport Measures

  April 2002

  The provision of parking facilities, including park-and-ride, is a matter for the local highway authority and rail operators. In addition to the major schemes, a number of smaller schemes have been implemented or proposed by the local authorities as part of their local transport strategies. These have included proposals for the extension of existing sites or new sites for both bus-based and rail-based schemes. The smaller schemes as presented in the local transport plans annual progress reports submitted in July 2001 are summarised in the table. Details of the smaller schemes, including proposed timetables are not kept centrally.
  142W
  We expect to publish the leaflet later in the summer and will provide copies to all Members of Parliament.

TRANSPORT

  Railtrack Asset Register
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the programme developed by the ORR for Railtrack to create an asset register; and what stage(a) they had reached by 5 October 2001 and (b) they have reached. [62298]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]Railtrack is required to establish and maintain a register of the condition, capability and capacity of its assets, and to demonstrate that it is taking all necessary steps to do so by the earliest practicable date. Railtrack submits plans for the Rail Regulator's review every six months.

  By 5 October 2001, Railtrack had completed its assessment of the state of asset information within the company; finalised its strategy for managing asset information; defined the work that it needed to do to implement that strategy; and completed all data collection for the asset register.

  The Rail Regulator is currently reviewing Railtrack's latest plans, submitted in April 2002, taking into account the views of key stakeholders. He will then consider in consultation with Railtrack what should be published and when.

  Park-and-ride Schemes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the park-and-ride schemes introduced in each of the last two years, including the start date for each scheme; and if he will list the further schemes that are being proposed, including their expected start dates. [66567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following chart lists major local public transport projects that contain proposals for park-and-ride within them, that have been approved or provisionally approved. The expected start dates are those provided by the authorities in July 2001 as part of the Local Transport Plans annual progress reports.

  Schemes listed in LTP submissions

  Type of scheme

  July 2001

  July 2002

  Bus-based P and R—new

  7

  11

  Bus-based P and R—extension

  6

  7

  Rail-based P and R—new

  4

  6

  Rail-based P and R—extension

  7

  8

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which occasions since 7 June 2001 the
  143W
  minutes of ministerial meetings have been placed in the Library; what the reason was in each case; and if he will make a statement. [66246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the undertaking he gave to the Transport Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) sent to the Committee and placed in the Libraries of the House on 27 November 2001, a copy of the minutes of a meeting he had held with John Robinson, the then chairman of Railtrack, on 25 July.

  Car Use
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to discourage car use by engineering greater road congestion. [67555]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Rural Stations
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources the Government will be putting into rural stations for services and maintenance of stations in the next three years. [69396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Station maintenance is funded from the generality of Railtrack's income. Rural stations and services can also benefit from the £430 million funding available through the Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) operated by the Strategic Rail Authority. Extended in December 2001 to run for 10 years, the RPP fund is designed to assist in the provision of new or enhanced local and regional rail services or facilities.

  A404
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to alter the slip roads on the A404(M) and A404 approaching the junction with the M4 and the M40. [69166]

  Mr. Jamieson

  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Proposed improvements to the M40/A404 junction at Handy Cross include a new slip road from the A404 to the westbound M40.

  Any major changes to the junction between the A404(M) and the M4 are subject to the Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study. In the interim, it is proposed to widen the immediate approach from the A404(M) to the junction roundabout as a low cost measure to decrease queue lengths and increase throughput on A404(M).

  Tubelines and Metronet Consortia
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency plans he has for the case where there is failure of a key partner in the Tubelines and Metronet consortia; and if he will make a statement. [69786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The provisions of the PPP competition process allow for changes in the shareholders of the bidders, subject to the consent of London Underground. The contracts themselves also contain provisions relating to changes in a consortium's shareholders.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the SRA has made PAYE-liable salary payments to employees of Network Rail. [69944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. The Strategic Rail Authority does not employ those working on the Network Rail bid team.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date Network Rail was legally named. [69941]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail Limited was incorporated on 22 March 2002.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 984–85W, ref. 67062, what estimate he has made of the cost (a) to public funds of providing an indemnity and (b) to Railtrack and its shareholders if such an indemnity were not in place. [70080]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With Railtrack Group expected to take full advantage of exemptions in tax legislation for disposals by companies of substantial shareholdings, there would be no tax liability as a result of its disposal of Railtrack Plc and, therefore, no additional cost to public funds.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which(a) organisations and (b) individuals the SRA has made payments in relation to the establishment of Network Rail. [69942]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has made payments to the following bodies:

  Ove Arup and Partners

  Natwest Card Centre—Purch

  Sita Security Shredding

  Pret a Manger

  Coucher Pender

  Specialised Contract Interior

  Astor Lodge Holdings Ltd.

  Claire Howard Consultancies

  Durance Ltd.

  Financial Dynamics

  SQE Integrated Solutions

  Blue Haven

  Egon Zehender International

  JJR Partnership

  Dentons Catering Equipment

  Fastways Flyers

  Socite Generale

  Partnerships UK plc

  Yellow House Consulting

  Asset Performance Man. Ltd.

  Bechtel Ltd.

  Coolwater (London) Ltd.

  Demita Plants

  Wings Catering Equipment Ltd.

  Morgan Spencer c/o LSM

  Supplies Team.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a copy of the Network Rail directors' incentive plan in the Lib. [70516]
  145W
  Mr. Jamieson
  No, Network Rail intend to prepare and publish an incentive plan annually.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to whom potential applicants to serve as members of Network Rail should apply; and if he will make a statement. [70509]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Applicants should apply to Network Rail at their registered address.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the members of Network Rail to approve the appointment of directors. [70510]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The timing of the arrangements for the appointment of directors is a matter for Network Rail.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish reports and accounts for Network Rail for the period between its inception and the date on which it becomes a private sector company in the national accounts. [70513]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No, this is the responsibility of Network Rail.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the members of Network Rail will be appointed. [70515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail, but I understand that the company wish to appoint members as soon as possible, if their bid is successful.

  London to Ipswich Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the London to Ipswich Multi-modal Study relating to the rail and road infrastructure within the Haven Gateway sub-region. [69989]

  Mr. Spellar
  This study will report later this year. We will then consider the recommendations once we have received advice from the east of England local government conference.

  United States Embassy
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what authority representatives of the United States embassy prevent public pedestrian access to the pavement outside the United States embassy. [69984]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Metropolitan police, using their common law powers, control public pedestrian access outside the United States embassy to maintain the security of those who work at, visit or live nearby the location. The United States embassy does not itself prevent public pedestrian access. The security arrangements are regularly reviewed.

  Public Highway Closures
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1094W, on public highway closures, if he will list the roads in London in respect of which he has sought an order under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980. [69974]
  146W
  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  US-UK Air Services
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communications he has received in the last three months from the European Commission regarding the regulation of UK-US aviation; and if he will make a statement. [70062]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have had correspondence from the Commission about a complaint by bmi british midland about the operation of the Bermuda 2 agreement with the United States.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures his Department has collated for the SERAS report on comparative rates of growth over the past five years at(a) Heathrow airport and (b) its competitors. [70063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority published statistics show the rate of growth in terminal passengers at Heathrow airport over the last five years. These are set out in the table below together with equivalent figures for Heathrow's main European competitors.

  Terminal passengers

  million

  Heathrow

  Amsterdam

  Paris(CDG)

  Frankfurt

  1997

  57.84

  31.02

  35.10

  39.68

  1998

  60.35

  33.95

  38.47

  42.15

  1999

  61.97

  36.43

  43.48

  45.43

  2000

  64.27

  39.27

  48.14

  49.05

  2001

  60.45

  39.31

  47.94

  48.29

  Percentage increase

  +4.5

  +26.7

  -36.5

  +21.7

  Source:

  CAA statistics (Heathrow only) and DP statistics.

  Light Rail and Tram Links
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library statistics relating to the average journey time, distinguishing between scheduled and excess, on the(a) DLR, (b) Tyne and Wear Metro, (c) Manchester Metro link, (d) South Yorkshire Supertram, (e) Midland Metro and (f) Croydon Tramlink. giving the source for each data set used. [69774]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not available for(c) Manchester Metro link. The available information for the other five light rail systems has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  NATS
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what help will be given to NATS to make sure that the problems of computer failure are addressed. [69492]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for NATS, who have already introduced measures to address the problems which caused the recent computer failures.
  147W
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the overall manning level of air traffic controllers at Swanwick has been, expressed as a percentage of optimal manning levels since its opening; [70126]

  (2) how much time has been lost to flight delays in the London Flight Information Region in each month since January 1999; [70124]

  (3) how many overload reports have been made by air traffic controllers in the London Flight Information Region in each month since January 1999; [70123]

  (4) what the full establishment of air traffic controllers in the London Flight Information Region has been in each month of the past three years; and what the current establishment of air traffic controllers is; [70122]

  (5) how much time has been lost to absenteeism by air traffic controllers in the London Flight Information Region in each month since January 1999. [70125]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for National Air Traffic Services Ltd (NATS).

  Bus Services
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will review the bus service operating tolerance guidelines introduced on 2 April. [70364]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The guidelines were introduced by the Traffic Commissioners and any review would be a matter for them.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many more buses there are on UK roads since 1997; and what improvements in bus travel have been made. [69528]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for Great Britain from the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) show that there were 78,577 buses and coaches with nine or more seats registered on 31 December 1997. On 31 March 2002, the equivalent figure was 89,867, an increase of 11,290.

  In the same period, 31,386 buses and coaches were newly registered. The average age of the local service bus fleet has fallen from 9.4 years in 1997 to 8.4 years in 2001 and the bus industry is committed to reducing it to 8.0 years and maintaining it at that level in line with the Government's 10-year plan for transport. From 31 December 2000 all new buses used on local or scheduled services have been accessible to disabled people including wheelchair users.

  Bus service provision in rural areas has been enhanced since 1998 by additional funding to local authorities in the form of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) and Rural Bus Challenge (RBC). RBSG funding for 2001–04 is £138 million and is supporting 1,800 new and enhanced services in rural areas. The RBC competitions have provided £69.8 million to enable 213 innovative local authority schemes for rural communities to be introduced. Since 2001 the Urban Bus Challenge, targeted at urban communities suffering from high levels of deprivation, has resulted in awards of £15.3 million to 32 schemes in 24 local authority areas.
  148W
  Local authorities are encouraged to consider installing bus priority measures where they are feasible and sensible. The local transport settlement for 2002–03 will help fund up to 110 bus priority measures.

  RMT Strike
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London Underground management on the strikes called by the RMT union for 17 and 18 July. [70508]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground. However, the Government are extremely disappointed that the RMT has decided to call industrial action. We urge both sides to do all they can to reach agreement and avoid making the 3 million people who rely on the tube each day suffer again.

  Roads
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government have done since 1997 to convince people to use methods of transport apart from the car. [69527]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We published our Integrated Transport White Paper in 1998, and our 10-year plan for Transport in 2000. These documents set out our policy for promoting choice for the travelling public. Initiatives we have taken or are taking to promote alternative forms of transport to the car include:Introduction of Bus Quality Partnerships; introduction of a new Urban Bus Challenge Fund; guaranteeing half-fare travel concession for elderly and disabled people;
  Increased funding for rural transport; resulting in over 1,800 new or enhanced services so far in England alone. In supporting 150 innovative rural transport schemes under the Rural Bus Challenge scheme;
  Rural Transport Partnerships which we aim to have in every rural community in England by next year;
  Appointment of a new team of regional cycling co-ordinators, to support delivery of the National Cycling Strategy, and announced funding for the first 10 cycling projects under a new £2 million Cycling Projects Fund;
  Preparation .of a draft national walking strategy which will be issued for consultation in due course;
  £1.5 billion for local authorities in England to implement their Local Transport Plans in 2002–03. These include many measures designed to make public transport more available, more reliable and more attractive;
  Encouraging and supporting the take-up of travel plans by businesses, schools, hospitals, local authorities and other major employers:
  Establishment of "traveline"; a national telephone-based public transport information system;
  Working on "Transport Direct", an internet programme which aims to provide travellers with all the information they need. This will be online in 2003;
  Supporting a range of travel awareness campaigns including "Walk to School, Bike Week" and "In town, without my car".

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new road have been constructed since 1997. [69526]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The public road length of Great Britain at 1 April 2001 was estimated to be 3,066 miles longer than at 1 April 1997. Motorways accounted for 59 miles of this increase.
  149W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent progress has been made with the plans for new toll roads and motorways. [69529]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no such plans. The M6 toll (the Birmingham northern relief road) is already under construction and is expected to open in early 2004.

  Secondary fires1by bridge area, UK 2000

  Location/Item

  Brigade

  Total secondary fires1

  Derelict buildings

  Grasslands/heathlands2

  Refuse

  Other1

  United Kingdom

  241,357

  4

  24

  61

  10

  England and Wales

  197,253

  4

  24

  61

  11

  England

  179,753

  4

  22

  63

  11

  England—non-Met counties

  86,934

  4

  25

  59

  12

  Avon

  2,837

  4

  22

  66

  8

  Bedfordshire

  1,485

  5

  19

  60

  16

  Berkshire

  2,054

  3

  28

  0

  69

  Buckinghamshire

  1,888

  2

  14

  66

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  1,678

  4

  27

  51

  19

  Cheshire

  3,778

  4

  22

  70

  5

  Cleveland

  5,028

  1

  17

  79

  3

  Cornwall

  848

  2

  50

  41

  7

  Cumbria

  1,538

  6

  19

  68

  6

  Derbyshire

  2,244

  5

  29

  53

  13

  Devon

  2,314

  5

  25

  60

  11

  Dorset

  1,646

  3

  52

  31

  14

  Durham

  3,317

  5

  26

  65

  4

  East Sussex

  1,603

  3

  22

  62

  14

  Essex

  4,474

  3

  32

  51

  14

  Gloucestershire

  929

  5

  23

  65

  7

  Hampshire

  4,602

  3

  27

  58

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,514

  2

  33

  46

  18

  Hertfordshire

  2,127

  2

  26

  57

  15

  Humberside

  4,819

  5

  18

  71

  6

  Isle of Wight

  172

  4

  38

  51

  8

  Kent

  4,326

  3

  17

  57

  23

  Lancashire

  6,451

  4

  12

  77

  7

  Leicestershire

  2,346

  4

  31

  55

  10

  Lincolnshire

  1,105

  7

  30

  53

  10

  Norfolk

  1,312

  4

  28

  61

  7

  North Yorkshire

  1,153

  3

  23

  64

  10

  Northamptonshire

  1,943

  4

  14

  60

  22

  Northumberland

  1,339

  2

  37

  56

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  3,620

  5

  42

  42

  10

  Oxfordshire

  999

  3

  24

  61

  13

  Shropshire

  1,209

  2

  39

  52

  7

  Somerset

  745

  3

  22

  67

  9

  Staffordshire

  3,233

  4

  35

  54

  7

  Suffolk

  979

  2

  32

  53

  13

  Surrey

  1,623

  3

  29

  54

  15

  Warwickshire

  1,443

  8

  30

  48

  15>

  West Sussex

  1,428

  3

  27

  51

  19

  Wiltshire

  780

  3

  24

  63

  9

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  —

  100

  —

  —

  England—Met counties

  92,819

  5

  19

  66

  10

  Greater Manchester

  14,189

  7

  12

  75

  5

  Merseyside

  12,810

  4

  18

  73

  5

  South Yorkshire

  6,844

  8

  26

  53

  12

  Tyne and Wear

  8,821

  2

  22

  69

  6

  West Midlands

  12,855

  5

  31

  55

  8

  West Yorkshire

  10,908

  8

  14

  68

  11

  Greater London

  26,392

  3

  17

  64

  16

  Secondary Fires
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of secondary fires were(a) on grassland and heath, (b) in refuse, (c) in derelict buildings and (d) in none of the above in the last 12 months. [60448]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information in the table relates to secondary fires attended by UK local authority fire brigades in 2000.
  151W

  Secondary fires1 by brigade area, UK 2000

  Location/Item

  Brigade

  Total secondary fires1

  Derelict buildings

  Grasslands heathlands2

  Refuse

  Other3

  Wales

  17,500

  3

  43

  46

  8

  North Wales

  2,642

  2

  41

  52

  6

  Mid and West Wales

  4,309

  2

  50

  40

  8

  South Wales

  10,549

  3

  40

  48

  9

  Northern Ireland

  11,672

  6

  32

  55

  7

  Scotland

  32,432

  5

  24

  65

  7

  Strathclyde

  18,920

  6

  23

  64

  7

  Highland and Islands

  657

  2

  58

  33

  7

  Grampian

  1,537

  5

  29

  60

  7

  Tayside

  2,644

  4

  17

  76

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  5,183

  3

  22

  69

  6

  Fife

  1,829

  2

  31

  62

  5

  Central

  1,374

  4

  23

  64

  9

  Dumfries

  288

  2

  26

  66

  6

  1Secondary fires are those fires which did not involve property, casualties or rescues or were attended by four or fewer appliances.

  2Includes intentional straw and stubble burning.

  3Includes outdoor structures and derelict vehicles.

  Land Records
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps he has taken to encourage local authorities to adopt a policy of differential charges for providing answers to conveyancing search inquiries; what further steps he will take; and if he will make a statement; [58271]

  (2) how many local authorities have digitised their local land charges and associated records and obtained the necessary computer equipment to connect to the National Land Information Service; and if he will make a statement; [58269]

  (3) how many local authorities have applied to his Department for funding to assist them in digitising their land records and obtaining the necessary computer equipment to connect to the National Land Information Service; and if he will make a statement; [58281]

  (4) what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to digitise their land records and obtain the necessary computer equipment to connect to the National Land Information Service; and if he will make a statement; [58268]

  (5) how many applications by local authorities have been approved by his Department for funding to assist them in digitising their land records and obtaining the necessary computer equipment to connect to the National Land Information Service; and what the total value is of the approvals granted; [58283]

  (6) what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to apply to his Department for funding to assist them in digitising their land records and obtaining the necessary computer equipment to connect to the National Land Information Service; and if he will make a statement; [58284]

  (7) what the total value is of the applications which have been made by local authorities to his Department for funding to assist them in digitising their land records and
  152W
  obtaining the necessary computer equipment to connect to the National Land Information Service; and if he will make a statement; [58282]

  (8) how many local authorities at 1 April were at level (a) 3 and (b)2 in their development of links with the National Land Information Service; and how many local authorities he expects by December to be at level (i) 3 and (ii) 2 in their development of links with the National Land Information Service. [58270]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The National Land Information Services (NLIS) is a project, which has been developed and is run by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) for local government.

  NLIS is an important part of the Government's policy to improve the home buying process. In particular it has the potential of significantly improving the turnaround times for conveyancing searches. We have written to local authorities drawing the benefits of both NLIS and the associated National Land and Property Gazetteer project to their attention. I have placed a copy of that letter in the House Library.

  From information provided to us by the IDeA as at 28 May 2002, we understand for local authorities in England that: 117 of the 388 authorities are electronically connected to NLIS with 81 authorities connected at Level 2, and 36 at Level 3.

  From information provided to us by the IDeA as at 28 May 2002, we understand for local authorities in England and Wales that: there are 132 local land and property gazetteers (LLPGs) produced by local authorities which are linked to the National Land and Property Gazetteer (NLPG); with a further 117 gazetteers in prospect to be linked to the NLPG in the near future; and a further 33 local authorities known to be developing LLPGs.

  There is no direct funding available from Government for local authorities to participate with NLIS. The Government are providing £155 million over the next
  153W
  two years to local authorities and to partnerships of local authorities targeted towards helping authorities electronically enabling all their services.

  Fees for searches of the local land charges register are fixed by statutory instrument in accordance with the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Otherwise, it is for local authorities themselves to set income targets and fees for dealing with conveyancers' inquiries. However they must do so taking account of the cost of providing the service.

DEFENCE

  Weapons Systems
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the forecast in-service date as at 31 March(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) Type 23 Frigate, (ii) Single-role minehunter, (iii) Sting Ray Torpedo, (iv) Sonar 2087 Type 45 Destroyer, (iv) Seawolf Block 2, (vi) C-17, (vii) Auxiliary Oiler, (viii) Vanguard Class and (ix) Trident II; [69564]

  (2) if he will list the forecast cost of demonstration and manufacture phase as at 31 March (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) Type 23 Frigate, (i) Single-role Minehunter, (iii) Sting Ray Torpedo, (iv) Sonar 2087 Type 45 Destroyer, (v) Seawolf Block 2; C-17, (vi) Auxiliary Oiler, (vii) Vanguard Class and (viii) Trident II; [69568]

  (3) if he will list the (a) date of initial gate, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval for the (i) Type 23 Frigate, (ii) single-role, (iii) Minehunter, (iv) Sting Ray Torpedo, (v) Sonar 2087 Type 45 Destroyer, (vi) Seawolf Block 2, (vii) C-17, (viii) Auxiliary Oiler, (ix) Vanguard Class and
  (x) Trident II; [69556]

  (4) if he list the (a) approved cost of assessment phase at initial gate, (b) actual cost of assessment phase, (c) approved cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at main gate and (d) approved in-service date at main gate for the (i) Type 23 Frigate, (ii) Single-role Minehunter, (iii) Sting Ray torpedo, (iv) Sonar 2087 Type 45 Destroyer, (v) Seawolf Block 2, (vi) C-17, (vii) Auxiliary Oiler, (viii) Vanguard Class and (ix) Trident II. [69560]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the forecast in-service date was as at 31 March(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) COBRA (Counter Battery Radar), (ii) Chinook MSH/HC2A, (iii) Chinook MSH/HC3, (iv) BR 90 Bridge Systems, (v) SHIELDER, (vi) Combined Arms Tactical Trainer and (vii) Medium and Light Utility truck; [69567]

  (2) if he will list the forecast in-service date as at 31 March (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) COBRA (Counter Battery Radar), (ii) Chinook MSH/HC2A, (iii) Chinook MSH/HC3, (iv) BR 90 Bridge Systems, (v) SHIELDER; Combined Arms Tactical trainer and (vi) Medium and Light Utility truck; [69563]
  154W
  (3) if he will list the (a) date of initial gate,(b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval for the (i) COBRA (Counter Battery Radar), (ii) Chinook MSH/HC2A, (iii) Chinook MSH/HC3, (iv) BR 90 Bridge Systems, (v) SHIELDER, (vi) Combined Arms Tactical Trainer and (vii) Medium and Light Utility truck; [69555]

  (4) if he will list the (a) approved cost of assessment phase at initial gate, (b) actual cost of assessment phase, (c) approved cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at main gate and (d) approved in-service date at main gate for the (i) COBRA (Counter Battery Radar), (ii) Chinook MSH/HC2A, (iii) Chinook MSH/HC3, (iv) BR 90 Bridge Systems, (v) SHIELDER, (vi) Combined Arms Tactical Trainer and (vii) Medium and Light Utility truck. [69559]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) date of initial gate, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) approved cost of assessment phase at initial gate for the (i) future Carrier-Bourne aircraft, (ii) future Carrier, (iii) Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, (iv) Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System (Gun) and (v) Microwave Landing System. [69554]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the forecast in-service date as at 31 March(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) Tornado F3-weapon system upgrade, (ii) Sea Harrier FRS I to F/A2 conversions, (iii) Next Generation Anti-Armour Weapon and (iv) Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids; [69565]

  (2) if he will list the forecast cost of demonstration and manufacture phase as at 31 March (a) 1997, (b)(c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) Tornado F3-weapon system upgrade (ii) Sea Harrier FRS1 to F/A2 conversions, (iii) Next Generation Anti-Armour Weapon and (iv) Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids; [69569]

  (3) if he will list the (a) date of initial gate, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval for the (i) Tornado F3—weapon system upgrade, (ii) Sea Harrier FRSI to F/A2 conversions, (iii) Next Generation Anti-Armour Weapon and (iv) Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids; [69557]

  (4) if he will list the (a) approved cost of assessment phase at initial gate, (b) actual cost of assessment phase, (c) approved cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at main gate and (d) approved in-service date at main gate for the (i) Tornado F3—weapon system upgrade, (ii) Sea Harrier FRSI to F/A2 conversions, (iii) Next Generation Anti-Armour Weapon and (iv) Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids. [69561]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  155W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the forecast in-service date was as at 31 March(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) E3D Sentry-Radar Improvement Programme, (ii) Skynet 4 Stage 2 and (iii) Skynet 5; [69566]

  (2) if he will list the forecast cost of demonstration and manufacture phase as at 31 March (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 for the (i) E3D Sentry-Radar System Improvement Programme, (ii) Skynet 4 Stage 2 and (iii) Skynet 5; [69570]

  (3) if he will list the (a) date of initial gate, (b) target date for main gate approval and (c) date of main gate approval for the (i) E3D Sentry-Radar System Improvement Programme, (ii) Skynet 4 Stage 2 and (iii) Skynet 5; [69558]

  (4) if he will list the (a) approved cost of assessment phase at initial gate, (b) actual cost of assessment phase, (c) approved cost of demonstration and manufacture phase at main gate and (d) approved in-service date at main gate for the (i) E3D Sentry-Radar System Improvement programme, (ii) Skynet 4 Stage 2 and (iii) Skynet 5. [69562]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer .15 July 2002]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Anti-armour Technology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the jobs created by the new anti-armour technology contract will be established; whether these will be permanent; and if he will make a statement. [67418]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contractor for the Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon programme, Saab Bofors Dynamics, estimates that a total of 520 jobs will be created or sustained in the United Kingdom as a result of this contract. The timing of the creation of these posts and their permanency is a matter for the contractor and as such I cannot comment specifically. However, work on the programme has now started and production for the UK is expected to be complete by 2010. This could be extended if the contractor wins further orders from other customers.

  Storm Shadow Cruise Missile
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the Storm Shadow air launched cruise missile; and if he will make a statement. [67835]

  Dr. Moonie
  As reported in the 2001 Major Project Report, the total estimated procurement cost of the Storm Shadow conventionally armed stand-off missile project is £981 million. This figure includes development, production and initial support costs. Information on the cost of an individual missile would enable deductions to be made on the planned size of our Storm Shadow inventory. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Skill Force Initiative
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the expansion of his Department's sponsored Skill Force initiative to assist under-achieving youngsters in schools. [67705]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Skill Force scheme forms part of the Ministry of Defence's contribution to wider Government social exclusion policies. The initiative aims to prevent young people from feeling long-term disaffection with school and society. It is currently being piloted in 11 areas and in 47 schools in England and Scotland.

  An integral part of the Skill Force pilot scheme has been rigorous and independent evaluation by the British Market Research Bureau. The most recent evaluation report, based on the two original schemes that started in September 2000 in Newcastle and Norfolk, has been completed. The report has shown that Skill Force has helped to maintain attendance rates of over 90 per cent. among children who would otherwise have been expected to display sharply declining attendance, sometimes leading to exclusion through years 10 and 11. Exclusions among participating children in these schools have been reduced by 72 per cent. compared with those predicted by the head teachers at the start of the scheme. A copy of the full report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The positive results from the independent evaluation have encouraged DIES to work with the MOD in offering Skill Force more widely. In response to the Government's Street Crime Initiative, Skill Force is one of the schemes 11 local education authorities have been invited to consider to help them to deliver part of DfES's Behaviour Improvement Programme. The LEAs concerned have all been in discussions with the MOD and a final decision on locations and schools is expected to be made in the next month. In addition, discussions are currently being held with a view to extending the pilot scheme to Wales. A decision is expected shortly.

  Eurofighter
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Eurofighter will be delayed beyond the end of the year. [67706]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Eurofighter In Service Date (ISD) is dependent on industry's ability to deliver an aircraft that meets the nation's requirements. The programme is hugely complex and therefore some risks are inevitable. As I stated in the initial announcement of the delay on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 478W, nations have reviewed the programme with industry and we have jointly concluded that the ISD should be achieved towards the end of the year.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) how many Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft he plans to purchase for the RAF, (b) how many aircraft there will be in each tranche to be ordered and (c) when confirmation for each tranche is planned to be completed; and what the equivalent plans were for Eurofighter procurement as at November 1998. [69862]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]The Ministry of Defence plans to purchase a total of 232 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The
  157W
  contractual commitment for the first 55 aircraft was made in 1998. The order for a second tranche of 89 aircraft is planned for 2003; and we plan to order a third tranche of 88 aircraft in 2007. The planned numbers and timings are unchanged from those in place in November 1998.

  Anti-air Missile System
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the procurement of a further five shipsets of the principal anti-air missile system; and if he will make a statement. [67709]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is intended that the requirement will be contracted by the end of the year, subject to the agreement of acceptable terms.

  Mox Lead Test Assemblies
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the minutes of the meeting between his Department's officials, French Government officials and United States Administration officials at the Bristol Abbey Wood establishment on 1 and 2 March 2001, in respect of the project to manufacture mox lead test assemblies. [68257]

  Dr. Moonie
  Mixed oxide (MOX) fuelled lead test assemblies are required for a Russian/US programme for the disposal of excess plutonium. There is an international project to manufacture the assemblies. The purpose of the meeting in March 2001 was to make provisional assessment of the technical and time-scale implications of incorporating surplus UK weapons grade plutonium into the assemblies. It has subsequently been agreed not to proceed in this manner. As the meeting touched on programme and planning matters within the authority of respective Governments, I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, Security and International Relations).

  Watchkeeper
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of potential barriers to interoperability between Watchkeeper and(a) other elements of the ISTAR capability, (b) systems used by US forces and (c) systems used by other NATO forces; and if he will make a statement; [68675]

  (2) whether the platforms offered by the firms competing in the Watchkeeper tendering process are mutually compatible; and if he will make a statement; [68676]

  (3) when the results of the Watchkeeper tendering process will be published; and if he will make a statement. [68674]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the current assessment phase of the Watchkeeper project we are considering proposals for more detailed assessment phase work from four potential prime contractors. Two of the companies will be selected to undertake a series of systems integration and assurance activities before we make our main investment decision. Studies conducted by the four contractors have not identified any significant barriers to achieving interoperability with other elements of ISTAR capability, whether national or NATO (including US). The platforms offered by the contractors within their proposed solutions
  158W
  are mutually compatible. We expect to announce the selection of the two companies to go forward into the next stage by the end of August 2002 and to select a preferred bidder to undertake demonstration and manufacture in the 2003–04 timescale.

  Defence Projects
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the original in-service date, (b) the current in-service date, (c) the original estimated cost and (d) the current cost of the (i) advanced short range air-to-air missile, (ii) advanced landing ship logistics, (iii) Astute class submarines, (iv) Bowman, (v) directional infra-red counter measures, (vi) future aircraft carrier, (vii) future carrier borne aircraft, (viii) joint tactical information and distribution system, (ix) landing platform dock replacement, (x) Link 16 joint tactical information display system, (xi) microwave landing system, (xii) mine counter measures vessels, (xiii) NATO submarine rescue system, (xiv) primary casualty receiving ship, (xv) remote influence minesweeping system, (xvi) SeaGnat DLH project, (xvii) Sonar 2087, (xviii) Sting Ray Life Extension lightweight torpedo, (xix) support amphibious and battlefield rotocraft, (xx) type 45 destroyer, (xxi) airborne stand-off radar, (xxii) BattleGroup thermal imaging, (xxiii) combined arms tactical trainer, (xxiv) extended range ordnance/modular charge system, (xxv) future command and liaison vehicle, (xxvi) future engineer tanks, (xxvii) future integrated soldier technology, (xxviii) ground based air defence, (xxix) multi-role armoured vehicle, (xxx) Airbus A400M, (xxxi) beyond visual range air-to-air missile, (xxxii) deployable air command and control system, (xxxiii) Eurofighter, (xxxiv) future offensive air system, (xxxv) Nimrod MRA-4, (xxxvi) Skynet 5, (xxxvii) Storm Shadow conventionally armed stand off missile and (xxxviii) UK air command and control system. [67632]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the type 45 destroyer could offer a ballistic missile defence capability. [68774]

  Dr. Moonie
  The type 45 destroyer has been designed with substantial weight and space margins to enable its capability to be upgraded through life. At present, no Ministry of Defence studies have been done to assess its specific suitability for a Ballistic Missile Defence role.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) planned capabilities and (b) strategic purposes and systems for type 45 destroyer. [68773]

  Dr. Moonie
  The type 45 will be a versatile destroyer capable of contributing to world-wide maritime and joint operations in multi-threat environments and providing a specialist air warfare capability. With regard to the planned capabilities and systems for the warship, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 April 2001,Official Report, column 232, to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). As the design of the type 45 progresses, opportunities to upgrade the ship's capability are being identified and acted upon. During the
  159W
  past year it has been confirmed that all type 45s will be fitted with sonar during build and all will be fully interoperable with Merlin helicopters.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms exist for ensuring that Defence Housing Executive achieve value for money; what criteria are used to assess their performance; and if he will make a statement. [69070]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive has been set challenging targets each year since its establishment as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Defence in 1999. In 2001–02 these targets were as follows:

  Key Target 1
  To house at least 72 per cent. of families in accommodation that matches their entitlement by posting date or on return to Great Britain from overseas; and at least 93 per cent. within 28 days of their required date.

  Key Target 2
  Less than 5 per cent. of occupants should experience significant defects within 14 days of moving in.

  Key Target 3
  To complete the planned upgrade of 2,400 properties by 31 March 2002 as part of the programme to upgrade core stock by November 2005.

  Key Target 4
  To complete at least 95 per cent. of emergency repairs within 24 hours of notification; at least 90 per cent. of urgent repairs within five working days of notification; at least 95 per cent. of routine repairs within two months of notification.

  Key Target 5
  To reduce the management margin progressively towards 10 per cent. by November 2005, better to balance supply and demand, while delivering other key targets.

  All the above targets have been met except that key target 4 on repairs indicates a slight shortfall in performance on urgent and emergency orders, although urgent repairs were considerably improved over the previous year. Targets for routine repairs were met.

  Armed Services Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the standard practice for Defence Housing Executive branches on records of repairs done on housing. [69462]

  Dr. Moonie
  Requests for repairs are logged locally on the Defence Housing Executive IT database. The database is nationally networked and each administrative stage of the repairs process is electronically managed to the stage of financial completion. Records are stored electronically and supported by hard copies of works orders and invoices.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters there are in Warminster, broken down by standard of condition. [69695]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 601 service family quarters in Warminster, of which 85 are at Standard 1 for condition, 443 at Standard 2 and 73 at Standard 3. Just under 90 per cent. are thus at Standard 2 or above.
  160W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the standard of service families' accommodation in Wiltshire. [69696]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 846W.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) single living accommodation and (b) single family accommodation was empty in each month since January; and if he will make a statement. [69461]

  Dr. Moonie
  The figures for empty single living accommodation are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The approximate figures for vacant service family accommodation (SFA) in mainland United Kingdom at the end of each month from January to June 2002 is as follows:

  Figures

  January

  10,500

  February

  10,300

  March

  8,800

  April

  8,500

  May

  8,600

  June

  8,800

  Many disposals took effect in March 2002. Since January 2000, over 10,000 surplus SFA have been released for disposal. Of the properties currently vacant, some 2,400 properties are in the course of disposal; some 2,300 are held for future unit deployments; 1,100 are awaiting modernisation and the remainder are available to incoming occupants or already under offer to them.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the findings of work sponsored by the US Administration that Gulf War veterans have a reduced ability to metabolise organophosphates due to reduced levels of the PON1 enzyme (paraoxonase) in their blood; [68766]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the findings of work commissioned by the US Administration that N-acetylaspartate levels are reduced in the right and left basal ganglia of Gulf War veterans compared with those in a control group, resulting in reduced dopamine production; [68767]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the findings of the research commissioned by the US Administration from Robert W. Haley of the University of Texas relating to variants of Gulf War Syndrome. [68768]

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

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of Procurement Executive operating costs(a) in each year since 1997–98 and (b) at the latest date for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [69084]
  161W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Procurement Executive (PE) was vested as the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) in 1999. The cash figures in the table show the PE/DPA operating costs for each of the years in question. There have been various structural changes over these years; accounting conventions have also changed with the move from cash to resource budgets. It has not been possible to adjust the figures fully to reflect these changes. Cash figures for 2001–02 have yet to be finalised.

  £million

  1997–98

  282

  1998–99

  247

  1999–2000

  249

  2000–01

  237

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Procurement Executive was ready for agency status; and if he will make a statement. [69104]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Procurement Executive became the Defence Procurement Agency when the agency was vested on 1 April 1999.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of average in-year slippage for the Procurement Executive of the in-service dates of new major projects in each year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [69085]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The average amount of in-year slippage to the in-service dates for the Ministry of Defence's major projects in 1997–98 was four months; in 1998–99 seven months; in 1999–2000 three months; and in 2000–01 one month. The MOD is currently gathering data for 2001–02.

  Strategic Lift
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to enhance strategic lift by(a) securing additional roll on/roll off container ships and (b) purchasing additional large transport aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [69097]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]As I announced on 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1038W, an enhanced sealift capability of up to six roll on/roll off ships will be available from 2003 under PFI arrangements agreed with AWSR Shipping Ltd. Our strategic airlift capability has been enhanced by the acquisition of Hercules C130J aircraft and leased C-17s. We also plan to introduce around the end of the decade the A400M transport aircraft, the contract for which we are working to make effective at the earliest opportunity.

  MoDAS
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies submitted expressions of interest to his Department to provide the UK with a MoDAS; and if he will make a statement. [67417]

  Dr. Moonie
  16 expressions of interest were received, in reply to the Ministry of Defence's Contracts Bulletin announcement, to provide the United Kingdom with the
  162W
  Modular Defensive Aids System. We expect to determine which systems will be taken forward into the assessment phase of the programme later this year.

  Imber
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on the preservation of St. Giles' Church in the village of Imber in each of the past five years. [69239]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 12 April 2002,Official Report, column 640W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).

  Land Mines
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent by his Department in 2001–02 on the research and development of new technology to detect and remove land mines. [69312]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total expenditure on the research and development of new technology to detect and remove land mines was £9.7 million in the financial year 2001–02.

  Procurement
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what difficulties have been experienced with the procurement of a further five shipsets of the principal anti-air missile system. [69934]

  Dr. Moonie
  Negotiations on the PAAMS production contract for the systems for ships two to six are under way. No difficulties have been experienced to date that would put at risk the in-service dates of the type 45 Destroyer.

  Red Dragon Project
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Red Dragon Project Team at DARA, RAF St. Athan. [70107]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Aviation Repair Agency Red Dragon Project Team is currently being restructured to take account of the need to move the project forward to the approval stage.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Red Dragon Project to commence following the signing of the memorandum of intent between his Department and the WDA. [70108]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Red Dragon Project will shortly be at the approval stage and I expect to be in a position to announce a decision by the autumn.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when work will commence on a single purpose-built facility for DARA's operations at RAF St. Athan. [70106]

  Mr. Ingram
  Subject to approval, the new build is currently planned to commence by the end of the year.

  Service Personnel (Birmingham Hospital)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what messing, accommodation and recreational facilities are available to service personnel based at Birmingham hospitals. [69266]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]At present there is no service accommodation for permanent staff, long-term or short course students at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM). Depending on their personal circumstances and the nature of their duties, staff and students are housed either in Ministry of Defence quarters within reasonable travelling distance of the site, MOD-hired accommodation, university student accommodation, hotels or suitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Mess and recreational facilities at two reserve units in Birmingham (202 Field Hospital and HMS Forward) are being used by those posted to the RCDM. In the longer term, a number of options are being considered for the development of facilities for staff and students at the RCDM.

  DARA, Almondbank
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to transfer MOD posts to DARA, Almondbank. [69282]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I advised the hon. Member in my letter dated 17 June, the Ministry of Defence has no plans to transfer any further posts to Defence Aviation Repair Agency, Almondbank in the foreseeable future.

  However, a transfer of work from St. Athan will take place which can be absorbed within existing spare capacity.

  MOD Holdings
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list MOD holdings; and if he will make a statement. [69552]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's land holdings are listed in section seven of the National Asset Register published by HM Treasury on 19 July 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. A number of disposals and acquisitions have taken place since.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the housing project at(a) RAF Halton and (b) RAF Brize Norton has been completed; what the total cost has been; and if he will make a statement. [69463]

  Dr. Moonie
  The project at RAF Halton to upgrade 110 service families' quarters is complete and was undertaken in three phases. The details are as follows:

  Halton project

  Commenced

  Completed

  Numbers

  Cost (£ million)

  Phase

  September 2000

  July 2001

  50

  2.236

  Phase 1(a)

  July 2001

  February 2002

  50

  2.223

  Phase 1(b)

  January 2002

  March 2002

  10

  0.513

  Total

  4.972

  164W
  The individual project phases started and finished on time, and within budget.

  The project at RAF Brize Norton, to upgrade 129 service families' quarters on base, began in October 2001 and is planned to finish in January 2003. The total cost is estimated at £8.512 million.

  Military Sites (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military sites in West Sussex. [70038]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]There are four Ministry of Defence sites within West Sussex. Baker barracks, Thorney Island and Roussillon barracks, Chichester are regular sites and the Royal Electrical Engineers TA centre at Crawley and the Infantry TA centre at Worthing are reserve sites.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the local programmes the Government have funded to encourage sports, indicating the level of the funding that each programme has received, broken down by region, over the last five years. [68537]

  Mr. Caborn
  The majority of Government funding for sport in England is channelled through Sport England. Details of its funding programmes in each region have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had on broadening the Criminal Record Bureau's access to criminal records from other countries with regard to child protection for the forthcoming Commonwealth Games. [68830]

  Mr. Caborn
  Child protection issues in relation to the Commonwealth Games are being taken forward by Manchester 2002 Ltd., the Games' organisers, in close liaison with Manchester City Council's Social Services Department. They have been working to ensure that the Games' child protection policies and procedures are consistent with relevant legislation and best practice.

  In relation to Games' competitors who are under 16 years of age, Manchester 2002 Ltd. is requiring each team to provide chaperones to ensure that minors can be accompanied at all times. Assistance is being given to those teams that could otherwise not afford to meet this requirement. Manchester 2002 has asked all nominated chaperones to undergo subject access checks if they are from the UK, or via a similar scheme, if available, if from outside the UK. Otherwise teams are being required to provide a letter of support for each chaperone from someone in an official capacity.

  In the case of children performing in the Games' ceremonies, provisions have been made to ensure that all minors are properly chaperoned. All chaperones have been asked to undergo subject access checks.

  Lottery Funding
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds have been allocated, but not distributed, by each of the National Lottery distribution funds in each of the last five years. [70065]

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

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many projects awarded lottery funding of over £100,000 have subsequently been shut down, closed or made inaccessible to the public; [70066]

  (2) how many projects awarded lottery funding of over £100,000 are (a) open to the public (i) free of charge and (ii) at a cost of below £5 and (b) not open to the public; and if she will make a statement. [70067]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. According to the national lottery awards database, which is based upon information supplied to us by the distributing bodies, 15,103 lottery grants of over £100,000 have been awarded up to 11 July 2002. Of these, 6,402 are capital grants, 6,077 are revenue grants and 2,624 are both capital and revenue grants.

  Racing Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the racing industry will be given additional time to respond to changes proposed by the Office of Fair Trading. [69367]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  A number of agreements have been notified to OFT by the British Horseracing Board and the Jockey Club, including the Orders and Rules of Racing. The Office is currently investigating these agreements. The Competition Act 1998 provides time for parties to consider and respond to any findings made by the Director General. If the Director General proposes to grant an individual exemption to a notified agreement, he must first consult the public.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Industry
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of Government policy to the coal industry and the imminent expiry of the ECSC treaty. [70298]

  Ms Hewitt
  The future of coal policy must be considered both within the context of the new European coal state aid rules which are to come into force following the expiry of the ECSC treaty on 23 July, and in recognition of today's announcement by UK Coal on the future of the Selby complex.
  166W
  Mineworkers and their families will obviously feel great disappointment at the news that production at the Selby complex will be phased out over the next 20 months. The chief executive of UK Coal, Gordon McPhie, said today that

  `there was no prospect of the Selby complex becoming viable'.

  Our analysis supports this conclusion: the independent review undertaken on our behalf by IMC Group Consulting Ltd. has endorsed UK Coal's assessment that there is little prospect for a later closure date, concluding that there is now an inevitability of a cessation of production at the complex. Seeking to prolong the life of the pit would be hugely expensive, and become increasingly so over time, for no long term gain. Therefore it seems to be unavoidable that the mine will have to close, and it would make little sense to seek to delay this by paying extra money to the pit. I very much regret this situation.

  I am committed to providing for the welfare of Selby's mineworkers and their families. The Government have worked closely with UK Coal and the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), and are today announcing a substantial closure package for regeneration and retraining, on top of an extended redundancy settlement. UK Coal's current redundancy agreements end in March 2003. UK Coal wanted to extend the current redundancy terms to cover the whole period of job losses at Selby, but were unable to bear the full costs of doing so at a time when it is making substantial losses and when such a large programme of redundancies is in prospect. We will contribute £10 million to enable Selby miners to receive the pre-privatisation "British Coal" redundancy terms.

  I can also announce a multi-agency Task Force to combat the impact of the pit closures in the Selby coalfield to be led by Yorkshire Forward member, Lord Haskins. As a major local businessman he brings broad experience to the role. By taking action now, we will be able to offer the regeneration and reskilling packages exactly when they are needed.

  The terms of reference for the Task Force will be:

  to ensure a comprehensive package of services are available to individuals directly affected by closure to help them access new training and job opportunities;
  to produce an action plan based on detailed analysis of the socio-economic impact of the closures on the local and regional economy;to identify and prioritise required short, medium and long term key actions to address the socio-economic impact on affected communities;to allocate responsibility for their delivery to relevant agencies and to identify new economic opportunities locally;to galvanise existing and to identify new resources and opportunities for support from Government and European sources and to make recommendations by October 2002;to co-ordinate and monitor delivery of agreed actions up to October 2004.
  Membership will include: Yorkshire Forward; English Partnerships; Jobcentre Plus; GOYH; Selby council; Selby Strategy Forum; North Yorkshire county council; the North Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council; UK Coal plc; NUM; NACODS; the Coalfield Regeneration
  167W
  Trust; Ricall Regen Centre; North Yorkshire Business Link; Wakefield First; Barnsley metropolitan district council; and the Association for Voluntary Services.

  The remit of the Task Force will not include UK Coal's responsibilities to its work force, such as arrangements for redundancy and pensions.

  Yorkshire Forward will lead the multi-agency Task Force, with an immediate £1.5 million injection of funding for set-up costs and commissioning of initial research, in response to the announcement of the closure of the Selby coalfield with further funding promised in the future. A comprehensive retraining programme will be required to minimise the impact of the closure on local economies.

  Jobcentre Plus will provide advice and guidance to help individuals return to work as quickly as possible. It has experience of supportive involvement in major redundancies in a number of large organisations including Corns, Rolls Royce, Vauxhall and Unipart. It will co-ordinate its input to the support package for Selby via the Task Force. Specific measures provided will include the Rapid Response Service, through which a range of direct support to redundant workers at Selby will be provided, including:
  provision of advice, guidance and support—if possible by placing staff on site;
  skills needs assessments for all workers, identifying skills held, future training needs and help seeking appropriate work and training;
  access to existing training provision, if necessary through the Work Based Learning for Adults programme, which can address basic skills, soft skills and vocational skills needs; and
  where necessary by arranging additional provision.

  Jobcentre Plus will also co-operate with key partners to help ensure other necessary support measures are identified and a cohesive response package is developed to provide appropriate support when it is needed.

  The North Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber will contribute fully, both to help the Task Force develop its strategy and to secure the effective implementation of the agreed actions.

  The North Yorkshire LSC, working with the local learning partnership and others, is already heavily involved in the Selby area, helping to re-engage people into learning. It will consider in particular what re-skilling packages might be needed to help regenerate the local economy and will seek to provide funds by applying a range of funding flexibilities from its:

  core funded provision;

  Local Initiative Fund;

  partners use of European budgets.

  In addition to support Selby workers, the Government will make payments on a similar basis to mineworkers at Longannet transferred from British Coal at privatisation and not already in receipt of "British Coal" redundancy payments. This will amount to £5,000 per person.

  The principle of Government support for redundancy payments in the coal and steel sectors lies in the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, which expires on 23 July. The Government have already made use of the provisions of the ECSC treaty in similar circumstances
  168W
  to make special payments to steel workers following the announcement of a programme of job cuts and closures throughout the UK by Corus in 2001.

  All payments are subject to agreement from the European Commission. No further coal or steel redundancy schemes will be put in place by the Government once the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty has expired.

  We have the most efficient coal industry in Europe, but to date European rules have prevented us from supporting viable investment projects through Regional Selective Assistance. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction, has therefore secured agreement at a European level to the flexibility to pay investment aid for pits that have a viable future and we will shortly be consulting on the case for introducing such a scheme in the UK.

  Such a scheme could allow for coal to be treated on a level playing field with other industries. We need to be clear that any new scheme will be cost-effective and make a real contribution to the capacity of the industry to exploit viable reserves of coal in the UK. As part of this analysis we will also commission an independent study of the remaining reserves at existing deep mines to help identify where investment support might be directed. Subject to the conclusions of our work and to the availability of resources we may be in a position to make specific proposals by the end of the year. The details of any scheme will of course need to be agreed with the European Commission consistent with the new EU regime.

  I am also announcing a targeted extension of the current operating aid scheme, to the end of 2002, in order to help secure the long-term future of viable mines under exceptional short-term pressure and will consult on the details shortly. Aid has been paid under the current scheme on the understanding that recipients are viable without aid beyond July 2002, so a general extension of the scheme would not be appropriate. However real concerns have been raised about the risk that short term pressures at a small number of pits may force operators to change existing mining plans in such a way as to close off for good access to significant and otherwise viable reserves of coal. I therefore intend to seek the European Commission's agreement to a modified extension of the current subsidy scheme targeted to address these specific concerns.

  Company Law
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish a consultation paper on the reform of company law. [67660]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Our current company law is creaking with age. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today publishing plans to modernise and reform it for the 21st century. Company law is central to our economy and our prosperity. A thorough overhaul is needed to make the law clearer and accessible.
  169W
  The White Paper reflects the changes that have taken place in the business environment in recent years, particularly the growth of small businesses and advances in communications technology, and include plans to:
  Simplify the law and reduce burdens on small firms;
  Improve transparency to increase confidence in business;
  Improve governance to encourage and support responsible business.

  EU Copyright Directive
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations her Department will undertake during the process to implement EU Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright. [69723]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We intend to circulate a consultation document setting out our proposals for legislative changes to implement this Directive to a wide range of interested parties already known to us, representing holders of rights, users of protected material and intermediaries. The consultation document will also be posted on the Patent Office website (www.patent.gov.uk) in order that any other interested organisations or individuals may comment if they wish.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to replace the nuclear power plants that will retire between 2010 and 2025; what renewable energy plants will be considered; and what will be done with the nuclear power plants that will be taken out of service between 2010 and 2025. [68185]

  Mr. Wilson
  In common with all generation options, the initiative for bringing forward proposals to construct new plant lies with the market and the generating companies. The future role of all electricity generation technologies is currently being considered as part of the work leading to the White Paper. Closed nuclear power plants will be decommissioned.

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from the(a) Government of the Republic of Ireland, (b) National Assembly for Wales, (c) Northern Irish Assembly and (d) Scottish Executive on the transportation of nuclear waste to Sellafield by sea. [68093]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]I have not received any recent representations from these bodies about the transportation of nuclear waste to Sellafield by sea.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from organisations in Scotland on reform of procedures relating to time orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [67119]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.
  170W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding possible reform procedures relating to time orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and if she will make a statement. [67118]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Scottish Executive have recently consulted on the Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland and this consultation mentions time orders under the 1974 Act while recognising that any changes to the 1974 Act would be a reserved matter. DTI officials plan to meet with their colleagues in the Scottish Executive to discuss the outcome of the consultation.

  British Accounting
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from British Business regarding the review of British accounting. [69074]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Co-ordinating Group set up to bring together the responses of the key regulators to post-Enron audit and accounting issues invited comments from 80 representative bodies, firms and individuals. The invitation was also published on the DTI website. There have been 25 responses. A summary of these will be included in the Group's interim report, which is expected to be published this month.

  Regulation
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer by Chancellor of the Exchequer of 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 628W, when she will lay the relevant regulations before Parliament. [70078]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]We will lay the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations before Parliament following a consultation exercise on certain aspects of the regulations, which will begin later this month.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the action which the Regulatory Reform Action Plan(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take for better regulation and reform across Whitehall, local government and health authorities. [70101]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]In February the Government published the Regulatory Reform Action Plan, setting out over 250 proposals that will benefit businesses, charities and the voluntary sector, the wider public sector and individual citizens. The Plan includes measures that will deliver better regulation and reform across Whitehall, local government and health authorities. This is a programme for action, and where possible, Departments have given published targets for delivery.

  The Government are monitoring progress on these proposals.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in England. [65168]
  171W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]The Postal Services Act 2000 established an independent regulator (Postcomm). It is Postcomm's primary statutory duty under that Act to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. The Act lays down that the obligation consists of a service provided at an affordable price determined by a public tariff uniform throughout the United Kingdom, and includes the delivery each working day to the home or premises of every individual in the United Kingdom and a collection each working day from access points.

  In her statement to the House on 13 June 2002, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, set out the proposals agreed by the Board of Consignia to return the company's postal business to profitability, consistent with its statutory obligations.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution she expects competitors in the UK mail industry to make to the universal service obligation; and if she will make a statement. [66751]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government laid down the universal postal service obligation in primary legislation in the Postal Services Act 2000. Under that legislation, it is Postcomm's primary duty to exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service, and subject to this. it is also under a duty to exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to further the interests of users of postal services, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators. Any contribution to be made by postal competitors to the universal service is therefore a matter for Postcomm.

  Family-Friendly Working Hours
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on family-friendly working hours for parents of young families. [69725]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to helping working parents. From April 2003 parents of children aged under six or of disabled children aged under 18 will have the right to apply to work flexibly. These parents face particular challenges and their employers will have a duty to consider these requests seriously. The Government continue to encourage the wider adoption of flexible working practices through the Work Life Balance Campaign.

  At the same time, the Government will be increasing and extending maternity leave and pay and introducing new rights to paid adoption and paternity leave. These new rights, together with existing rights to take parental leave and time off for dependents will provide parents with more opportunities than ever before to balance work and family life. Employers, parents and their children stand to benefit as a result.

  Mineworkers Pension Scheme
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made on the scheme announced on 17 January to award one-off lump sum payments to members of the mineworkers pension scheme on the lowest pensions.[70299]
  172W
  Mr. Wilson
  Payments totalling £38.2 million have now been made to over 28,000 coal pensioners on the lowest incomes. This is the first tranche of the initiative I announced that will benefit around 66,000 former coal miners at a cost of £90 million.

  Those who have been paid are the oldest members of the mineworkers pension scheme. The remaining members who are not yet at pensionable age will receive their payments over the next 12 months.

  These lump sum payments are in addition to the average bonus increase of 30 per cent. that have been awarded to members of the British Coal pension schemes since privatisation, over and above the annual inflation increase.

  Timesaver Programme
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the timesaver programme for assisting small businesses. [69677]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service has carried out work on a timesaver service to reduce the time spent by small businesses in dealing with Government and complying with regulations. As a result of this work this project is being taken forward as part of a cross-departmental programme.

  Excess Profits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those sectors of industry in which excess profits have occurred in the past four years, using the same definition of excess profits as the Competition Commission. [68002]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]This information is not available. The Competition Commission's inquiries relate to markets not sectors.

  Your Guide Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the Your Guide scheme. [66748]

  Mr. Timms
  The evaluation of the pilot of post offices as Government General Practitioners has been completed to schedule. Work to establish whether a national service could offer value for money to all stakeholders, including Government and post offices, is continuing.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60142]
  173W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The consultations undertaken by the Department since June 2001 are as follows:

  Commission proposal for a directive on the working conditions of temporary (agency) workers;

  Company Investigations: Powers for the 21 Century;

  Concerns about gas prices and possible improvements to market efficiency;

  Developing Energy Policy—Key Issues for Consultation for the White Paper:

  Directive 2000/53/EC on End of Life Vehicles;

  Directors' Home Addresses;

  Directors' Remuneration;

  Discussion document on Electronic Signatures Directive Implementing Regulations;

  Discussion Paper on a Possible Producer Responsibility Model for Used Tyres;

  DTI Reviews: Structure and Priorities and Business Support; EC Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility;

  EC Green Paper on the review of the ECMR;

  Employment status in relation to statutory employment rights;

  Final consultation on Fixed Term Work;

  Flexible working;

  General Product Safety Directive;

  Guidance on applications for resolution of disputes over third party access to Oil and Gas Infrastructure;

  High Performance Workplaces: The Role of Employee Involvement in a Modern Economy;

  ICANN and the Management of the Internet Domain Name system;

  IT Security Industry in connection with the Private Security Industry Act;

  Joint DTI/DCMS consultation on the Draft Communications Bill;

  Maternity and parental leave, and paternity and adoption leave and pay;

  Modernising The Consumer Credit Act 1974;

  Modernising trading standards;

  Proposal on the EU Statute for a European Co-operative Society;

  Proposals to Tighten Consumer Protection against Short Measure of Draught Beer and Cider;

  Proposed amendments to Part-Time Workers Regulations;

  Proposed changes to the legislation that deals with price marking of food and drink served in bars, restaurants and cafes;

  Proposed changes to the Price Marking (Food and Drink on Premises) Order 1979;

  Reform of EC Competition Regime;

  Report of the Task Force on Car Servicing and Repair;

  Review into the case for Government support for cleaner coal technology demonstration plant;

  Routes to Resolution: Improving dispute resolution in Britain;

  Second Consultation on Proposed Modifications to Licence Conditions and Ofgem Guidelines;

  Second consultation on the Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees;

  The DTI Race Equality Scheme;

  The E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC): draft implementing Regulations and interim guidance for business;

  The preliminary decision to add new user groups to the approved users list in the Airwave mm02 Telecommunications Act licence;

  The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999;

  The process for identifying the GB system operator (GBSO);

  The UNIDROIT/ICAO Draft Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment;

  174W

  Towards Equality and Diversity: Implementing the Employment and Race Directives;

  Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) reform;

  Treasury Shares;

  Under-Investment in University Research Infrastructure;

  Young Workers Directive.

  Figures for the number of respondents and the percentage of those specifically consulted who responded are not held centrally. All DTI consultation documents are posted on the Department website and that of the Central Office of Information to ensure we consult as widely as possible.

  Employment Liability (Quarries)
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the willingness of the insurance industry to provide employer liability cover for small quarries. [66762]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provision of insurance is a matter for insurance companies in the light of their commercial understanding of the market. There is no statutory requirement on the insurance industry to provide employers' liability compulsory insurance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action was taken by the Government to ensure that Zimbabwe would follow the Southern African Development Community's programme for free and fair elections. [67133]

  Mr. MacShane
  The SADC parliamentary forum published norms and standards which set a very high standard for the conduct of free and fair elections. They formed the basis of the norms and standards adopted by the EU.

  The EU sent election observers to Zimbabwe. But the Government revoked the visa of the EU team leader, which forced the withdrawal of the observer mission.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations personnel at the Foreign Office have made in the past year to the European Commission concerning the recruitment and appointment of personnel to positions in the Commission dealing with Zimbabwe, with special reference to representations made on behalf of British citizens to Commission appointment boards. [68876]

  Peter Hain
  It is not practical to attempt to check every contact between British officials and the Commission over the last year. But we are not aware of any representations being made over that period concerning the recruitment and appointment of personnel to positions in the Commission dealing with Zimbabwe.

  British Goods Promotion
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding he gave to promote(a) high quality and (b) other British goods and services abroad in the last 12 months. [67786]

  Mr. MacShane
  British Trade International (BTI), has lead responsibility within Government for trade development and investment overseas and inward investment. The BTI is a joint FCO and DTI operation.

  The trade promotion and development arm of BTI is Trade Partners UK (TPUK). In financial year 2001–02, TPUK's budget for promoting goods and services overseas was some £69.6 million.

  Information distinguishing between funding for the promotion of (a) high quality and (b) other British goods and services is not collected.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which UK overseas territories(a) have and (b) have not produced timely, complete and reliable statistical abstracts annually since 1997; with which United Kingdom overseas territories his office has raised queries on the timeliness, completeness and reliability of their (i) annual statistical abstracts and (ii) other statistical reports since 1997; and from which United Kingdom overseas territories satisfactory responses are still awaited. [67642]

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library the National Income Accounts for each overseas territory received by his Department; and if he will list the date of their last submission; [67852]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the latest official statistics for each of the overseas territories that his Department has received; [67850]

  (3) with whom the duty for publishing and submitting to his Department the National Income Accounts on Official Statistics for each overseas territory lies; [67849]

  (4) on which occasions he has received official statistics over the past five years from each overseas territory; and if he will indicate, in each case, if they are of the standard that he requires. [67851]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]Each overseas territory has a slightly different system for the collection and publication of statistics but we look to them all to produce suitable and regular information.

  Of the nine overseas territories where there is significant economic activity, seven have regularly produced and published statistics over a five year period up to and including either 2000 or 2001. Montserrat, due to particular circumstances, has been unable to produce comprehensive statistics for several years, but expects to do so in the near future. Gibraltar has recently published a compendium of statistics after a gap of several years. I will be making arrangements for the most recent statistical returns from each of these overseas territories to be placed in the Libraries of the House.
  176W
  HMG are in consultation with certain overseas territories about refining and improving their statistical returns, and where appropriate have offered assistance with this, for example by the secondment of experts.

  Botswana
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the policy of the Botswanian Government to relocate the bushmen is in accordance with the terms of the programme to support and improve protected reserves agreed between the European Union and the Botswanian Government. [69224]

  Mr. MacShane
  The relocation of the bushmen from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is not linked in any way to the terms of the EU programme. While the programme allows for support to inhabitants of the community-use zones adjacent to game reserves, it is not dependent on relocation of people from those reserves.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what part Her Majesty's Government played in negotiating the programme between the European Union and the Botswanian Government to support and improve protected reserves; [69223]

  (2) what part her Department had in the negotiation of the programme for supporting and improving protected reserves agreed between the European Union and the Botswanian Government. [692251

  Mr. MacShane
  We played no direct role in negotiating the programme to support and improve protected reserves. The European Commission does this on behalf of the EU under agreed procedures governing disbursement of the European Development Fund.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the repatriation of refugees to Afghanistan from neighbouring countries; and if he will make a statement on the infrastructural and security situation within Afghanistan. [69370]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  So far approximately 1.2 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan from neighbouring countries. Since September 2001, the UK has contributed over £5 million to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) for their programme of assistance to Afghan refugees, and over £3.5 million to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and returnees to Afghanistan. We are also supporting a number of other humanitarian programmes which will help to create an environment for the sustainable return of both refugees and IDPs, including the United Nations-led programme of mine clearance and mine awareness in Afghanistan.

  Years of fighting and instability have taken their toll on Afghan infrastructure, which has had a direct impact on humanitarian, reconstruction and rehabilitation work in Afghanistan. A World bank trust fund has been established to co-ordinate international development assistance for Afghanistan, including for infrastructure.
  177W
  The overall security situation in Kabul has improved greatly since ISAF began its operations there last December. However, the security situation elsewhere in Afghanistan is more uncertain, and there are many challenges still to face. The key to improving security throughout Afghanistan is to offer the Afghans assistance with Security Sector Reform. We are leading on the counter narcotics effort, with the US leading on army training, the Germans on police training, the Italians on judicial reform, and the Japanese on demobilisation.

  United States Farm Act
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of the new United States Farm Act on the(a) enlargement of the EU and (b) the development of agricultural exports from the Third World. [69227]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Government are a champion of EU enlargement and are committed to concluding negotiations by the end of this year with those candidates who are ready. The US Farm Act will have no direct consequences for the substance and timing of the EU enlargement process.

  (b) Further liberalisation of agricultural trade is important for fostering trade led growth, and thus poverty reduction, in developing countries. These are key UK objectives in implementing the WTO's Doha Development Agenda. Regrettably, the US Farm Act seems likely to further distort world markets.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his most recent assessment is of the UK's role in relation to the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. [69498]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in the House on 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 728, this is at root a bilateral matter, which can be resolved only by direct dialogue between the parties. We welcome the lowering of tensions but remain deeply concerned about the military mobilisation on both sides of the border. We will remain fully engaged in seeking further de-escalation and encouraging India and Pakistan to work towards a lasting settlement of all their differences, including Kashmir.

  As part of this engagement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the region on 23 July, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be visiting again later this week. The purpose of both visits is to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on using(a) UK and (b) non-UK carriers. [69689]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our policy is to use airlines that provide the best value for money in terms of cost, safety and service on the routes flown.
  178W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what internal budgetary rules govern the travel of his Department's staff, embassy staff and associated staff. [69690]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Rules governing expenditure on staff travel at home and overseas are set out in the FCO Code of Management. These cover entitlements, authorisation of expenditure, value for money and budgeting.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British high commissioner to Cyprus has taken to bring together Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots living on Cyprus to discuss issues of general interest; when such meetings have taken place during the last 12 months; and where the meetings took place. [69732]

  Peter Hain
  The Government are committed to developing practical co-operation between the two communities on and off the island. I myself hosted a reception and gave a speech to an intercommunal gathering on 10 April which was attended by senior politicians from both communities. The British high commission has made a significant contribution to intercommunal dialogue, bringing Turkish and Greek Cypriots together at a wide range of events.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's relations with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. [69704]

  Peter Hain
  The Government enjoy excellent relations with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what the United Kingdom Government's policy is on the United Nations resolutions that have been passed as the basis of a settlement for Cyprus; [69750]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's policy on Cyprus; [69699]

  (3) what the United Kingdom Government's policy is on the development of two sovereign states for the island of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [69705]

  Peter Hain
  It is for the two sides in Cyprus to agree the terms of a settlement. However, the Government are committed to UN Security Council Resolution 1250 of June 1999 which called upon the two leaders to give their full support to a comprehensive negotiation under the auspices of the Secretary-General for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus, which takes full consideration of relevant Security Council resolutions and treaties. We are working hard to help all involved in the current direct talks to move negotiations forward and urging both sides to co-operate fully in such an effort, in particular to work with the Secretary-General's Special Adviser, Alvaro de Soto.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the recent statement made by Lord Hannay, during a recent Turkish television interview on Cyprus, was(a) a statement of United
  179W
  Kingdom Government policy on Cyprus and (b) made with approval of his Department; and if he will make a statement; [69700]

  (2) if Lord Hannay discussed his recent Turkish television interview on Cyprus with the British High Commissioner for the Republic of Cyprus before the interview took place; and if he will make a statement. [69703]

  Peter Hain
  Lord Hannay is the Government's Special Representative on Cyprus, and speaks with our full support.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met President Clerides of the Republic of Cyprus; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [69730]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and President Derides both attended the European Council in Seville in June. I met him in April.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what salary has been paid to Lord Hannay as the United Kingdom adviser on Cyprus in each of the last five years; [69706]

  (2) how many days Lord Hannay has been employed by the United Kingdom Government to work as the UK adviser on Cyprus in each of the last five years. [69707]

  Peter Hain
  Between June 1997 and June 1998 Lord Hannay was employed by the United Kingdom Government to work as the UK adviser on Cyprus for 98 days and was paid a salary of £39,200.

  Between June 1998 and June 1999 Lord Hannay was employed for 79 days and was paid a salary of £31,600.

  Between June 1999 and June 2000 Lord Hannay was employed for 99.5 days and was paid a salary of £39,800.

  Between June 2000 and June 2001 Lord Hannay was employed for 100.5 days and was paid a salary of £45,315.

  Between June 2001 and June 2002 Lord Hannay was employed for 88.5 days and was paid a salary of £39,825. His expertise, authority and the respect in which he is held by both sides shows that this is good value for money.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy is of the United Kingdom Government on the application of the Republic of Cyprus for the membership of the European Union. [69729]

  Peter Hain
  The Government welcome and indeed champions Cyprus' application to join the European Union. The Government's policy remains based on the position outlined by the Helsinki European Council, which stated that"a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union".

  If no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council's decision on accession will be made without the above being a precondition. In this the Council will take account of all relevant factors.
  180W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of settlers from mainland Turkey who are permanently settled in northern Cyprus. [69712]

  Peter Hain
  The number of Turkish citizens who have come from mainland Turkey to northern Cyprus is a matter of dispute between the various parties concerned. No authoritative figures are available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations peacekeeping forces are based in Cyprus. [69711]

  Peter Hain
  As of June 2002, UN forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP) numbered 1,206 military personnel, 35 civilian police, 44 international civilians and 103 local civilians.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British High Commissioner to the Republic of Cyprus last visited the occupied area of northern Cyprus; who he met; and what issues were discussed. [69709]

  Peter Hain
  The British High Commissioner and his staff in Nicosia maintain regular contacts on both sides of the green line, including on consular support for British nationals living in the north of Cyprus and support for a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had, and with whom, on the future of the town of Famagusta; and if he will make a statement. [69731]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent detailed discussions on the town of Famagusta. The future of the town of Famagusta is under discussion in the negotiations currently taking place under UN auspices for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus, to which the Government give their full support.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the resolution of the European Parliament of 13 June that only a single sovereign Cyprus state should be permitted to accede to the European Union. [69767]

  Peter Hain
  The Government fully support the Conclusions of the Seville European Council, which state that"as a Member State, Cyprus will need to speak with a single voice and ensure proper application of European Union law".

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many chapters the Republic of Cyprus has negotiated in its application for membership of the European Union. [69728]

  Peter Hain
  The Republic of Cyprus has opened 30 negotiating chapters and provisionally closed 28 in its accession negotiations with the European Union.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on sovereignty over Western Sahara. [69977]
  181W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK—in common with most other countries—regards the sovereignty of Western Sahara as undetermined pending UN efforts to find a solution to this dispute.

  We supported UN Security Council Resolution 1359. This reiterated full support for the ongoing efforts of MINURSO to implement the Settlement Plan and agreements by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara.

  It also endorsed the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to invite all the parties to meet directly, or through proximity talks under the auspices of his Personal Envoy, James Baker, to discuss any proposal in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement.

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards EU enlargement. [69872]

  Peter Hain
  Excellent progress was made under the Spanish presidency, which agreed EU positions on the four final chapters for negotiation, in line with the "road map" agreed at Nice. The Seville European Council reiterated the EU's commitment to completing negotiations with the best-prepared candidates by the end of the year, so they can join the EU in time to take part in the 2004 European Parliament elections. The UK is firmly committed to this timetable, first proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 2000. I0 candidate countries are on track to complete negotiations this year, having closed between 23 and 28 of the 30 chapters.

  Middle East
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia concerning anti-Semitism in the media in those countries; and if he will make a statement. [70169]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We deplore anti-Semitism and make this clear to those concerned.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Saudi Ambassador and (b) the Saudi Government concerning recent statements made by the Ambassador relating to suicide bombing; and if he will make a statement. [70168]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The FCO has made clear to the Saudi Ambassador our well-known position on suicide bombings. We condemn them as we condemn all forms of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians. We have not made any other representations to the Saudi Government.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sure Start
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes to ministerial responsibilities he will be making in relation to Sure Start, early years and child care. [70678]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor announced yesterday a significant increase in the combined budget for child care, early years and Sure Start, rising to £1.5 billion in 2005–06. This includes a more than doubling of investment in child care by 2005–06, following an inter-departmental review of child care co-ordinated by the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  The extra investment will support the expansion of child care places across the country, and the integration of good quality child care with early years education, family support and health services through a network of children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas.

  In keeping with this new focus on integration, responsibility for early years education, child care and Sure Start will be brought within one inter-departmental unit based within the Department for Education and Skills. The Chancellor announced yesterday the PSA target for the new unit which will be shared by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions.

  This new inter-departmental unit will report to a new Minister for Sure Start, early years and child care, who will be jointly appointed to the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions, to ensure that our early years and child care vision delivers on both our educational and employment objectives. I have asked Baroness Ashton, who led the interdepartmental review of child care, to take on this role.

  Baroness Ashton will report to a new cross-departmental ministerial group on Sure Start, early years and child care. This Group will be a sub-Committee of MISC9, the Cabinet sub-Committee on Children's Services. The focus on health has been vital to the Sure Start programmes already up and running. To ensure that this is maintained, the sub-committee will be chaired by the Minister for Public Health. The sub-committee's other members will include the Paymaster General and the Minister for Disabled People.

  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills will continue to speak on these issues in Cabinet. At junior ministerial level, the Minister for Disabled People will answer questions in the House of Commons.

  I believe these new arrangements will ensure that an integrated approach is taken to the development and delivery of our early years and child care vision.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  E-democracy
  Rob Marris
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on E-democracy. [68012]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government will today publish "In the service of democracy, a consultation paper on a policy for electronic democracy". Copies of the paper are
  183W
  available in the Vote Office, Libraries of the House and on the new e-democracy website www.edemocracy.gov.uk. A copy of the paper will be sent to all MPs and Peers.

  Our strategy for e-democracy offers new ways of participating and seeks to complement rather than replace existing structures. The paper sets out our aim of using new technologies to promote, strengthen and enhance our democratic structures.

  Government action is proposed in two main areas, e-participation and e-voting. We outline new ways in which the mechanisms of democracy can be enhanced, by modernising voting methods, improving access to ballots and broadening the scope of Government consultations.

  Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) provide a means to increase public participation, and we hope that with an active Government policy the potential benefits can be maximised.

  The period of public consultation will end on Wednesday 31 October 2002.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many exclusions from(a) primary and (b) secondary schools there have been in each English local education authority in each year since 1980–81; and if she will make a statement. [67105]

  Mr. Stephen
  Twigg [holding answer 8 July 2002]Tables showing the available information have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Child Care (Regulations)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans there are to advertise the existence of the national register of child minders and day care providers; [69117]

  (2) what action has been taken to advertise the existence of the national register of child minders and day care providers; [69118]

  (3) when the national register of child minders and day care providers will be available online; [69119]

  (4) how many child care professionals are listed on the national register of child minders and day care providers; [69132]

  (5) how many child care professionals are listed on the national register of child minders and day care providers within the area of the Devon county council. [69140]

  Margaret Hodge
  The establishment of a national register of child minders and day care providers is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). The HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell, will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library. Ofsted routinely transfers information from its database of child care providers to local Childcare information Services (CISs). The Government have made funds available to local CISs across England in order to make child care information available to parents. The Department has set up the ChildcareLink national
  184W
  information line (0800 0 96 02 96) to help parents find their local CIS. There is also a ChildcareLink website www.childcarelink gov.uk that includes a search facility to find local child care provision.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when assessment of child care providers against OFSTED's satisfaction criteria will(a) commence and (b) be completed; [69142]

  (2) what OFSTED'S draft satisfaction criteria for child care providers are; [69143]

  (3) when OFSTED's satisfaction criteria for child care providers will be finalised. [69145]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). The HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell, will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further training is necessary for staff as a result of the transfer of responsibilities for child care regulation to OFSTED; and what plans there are for its provision. [69144]

  Margaret Hodge
  Training for staff employed by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) is a matter for OFSTED. The HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell, will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to consult students on higher education courses. [63936]

  Margaret Hodge
  Students' views are at the heart of the new arrangements for quality assurance in higher education, which will be introduced from September 2002. Students and graduates will be asked to rate their courses through a range of surveys and their views will be published. A national survey of graduates will be piloted in October 2002 and will be followed by full implementation in Autumn 2003.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people in each English county entered higher education in the latest year for which information is available; and if she will make a statement. [67106]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]The latest available information, showing the proportion of 18 year olds from each local education authority in England entering full-time undergraduate courses in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), is shown in the table.

  Our programmes to raise standards in schools and colleges will have a major impact on increasing participation in HE. We have introduced the Excellence Challenge in Excellence in Cities areas and Education Action Zones, working with young people from the age of 13, which, together with the Aim Higher campaign, will encourage more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to aspire to HE. We are also encouraging more Higher Education Institutions to introduce a range
  185W
  of measures to enable more people to participate in higher education including part-time learning and access programmes for mature students.

  Proportion of English domiciled students aged 18 accepted through Ucas to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK autumn 2001 entry

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  17 year old population in 2000

  18 year olds accepted to HE in 2001

  Proportion entering Higher Education percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,029

  231

  11.4

  Barnet

  3,872

  1,234

  31.9

  Barnsley

  2,723

  437

  16.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,913

  479

  25.0

  Bedfordshire

  4,729

  1,119

  23.7

  Bexley

  2,671

  488

  18.3

  Birmingham

  13,765

  2,447

  17.8

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,059

  368

  17.9

  Blackpool

  1,734

  254

  14.6

  Bolton

  3,449

  826

  24.0

  Bournemouth

  1,564

  363

  23.2

  Bracknell Forest

  1,439

  305

  21.2

  Bradford

  6,797

  1,209

  17.8

  Brent

  3,177

  976

  30.7

  Brighton and Hove

  2,602

  370

  14.2

  Bromley

  3,163

  989

  31.3

  Buckinghamshire

  6,017

  1,826

  30.3

  Bury

  2,332

  597

  25.6

  Calderdale

  2,424

  513

  21.2

  Cambridgeshire

  6,711

  1,467

  21.9

  Camden

  1,929

  359

  18.6

  Cheshire

  8,179

  2,491

  30.5

  City of Bristol

  4,541

  797

  17.5

  City of Derby

  2,859

  558

  19.5

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  3,197

  356

  11.1

  City of London

  31

  54

  175.9

  City of Westminster

  2,032

  330

  16.2

  Cornwall

  6,012

  1,303

  21.7

  Coventry

  3,942

  762

  19.3

  Croydon

  4,125

  1,038

  25.2

  Cumbria

  5,931

  1,305

  22.0

  Darlington

  1,255

  259

  20.6

  Derbyshire

  8,620

  1,891

  21.9

  Devon

  8,323

  1,710

  20.5

  Doncaster

  3,886

  711

  18.3

  Dorset

  4,796

  1,017

  21.2

  Dudley

  3,731

  753

  20.2

  Durham

  6,540

  1,191

  18.2

  Ealing

  3,609

  998

  27.7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  3817

  883

  23.1

  East Sussex

  5,769

  1,188

  20.6

  Enfield

  3,088

  877

  28.4

  Essex

  15,402

  3,483

  22.6

  Gateshead

  2,541

  432

  17.0

  Gloucestershire

  7,067

  1,656

  23.4

  Greenwich

  2,797

  406

  14.5

  Hackney

  2,286

  319

  14.0

  Halton

  1,793

  293

  16.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,444

  295

  20.4

  Hampshire

  15,830

  3,617

  22.8

  Haringey

  2,399

  432

  18.0

  Harrow

  2,770

  1,059

  38.2

  Hartlepool

  1,226

  224

  18.3

  Havering

  2,758

  525

  19.0

  Herefordshire

  2,015

  503

  25.0

  Hertfordshire

  12,421

  3,401

  27.4

  Hillingdon

  2,921

  686

  23.5

  Hounslow

  2,521

  646

  25.6

  Isle of Wight

  1,494

  301

  20.2

  Isles of Scilly

  18

  10

  55.9

  Islington

  1,849

  302

  16.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,665

  320

  19.2

  Kent

  16,431

  3,622

  22.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,607

  507

  31.5

  Kirklees

  4,973

  1,056

  21.2

  Knowsley

  2,371

  319

  13.5

  Lambeth

  2,848

  448

  15.7

  Lancashire

  14,806

  3,418

  23.1

  Leeds

  8,655

  1,743

  20.1

  Leicester City

  3,758

  826

  22.0

  186W

  Proportion of English domiciled students aged 18 accepted through Ucas to full-time undergraduate courses in the U K autumn 2001 entry.

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  17 year old population in 2000

  18 year olds accepted to HE in 2001

  Proportion entering Higher Education percentage

  Leicestershire

  7,466

  1,844

  24.7

  Lewisham

  2,827

  442

  15.6

  Lincolnshire

  7,487

  1,705

  22.8

  Liverpool

  5,893

  1,032

  17.5

  Luton

  2,447

  422

  17.2

  Manchester

  5,955

  715

  12.0

  Medway Towns

  3,079

  602

  19.6

  Merlon

  1,991

  456

  22.9

  Middlesbrough

  2,098

  406

  19.4

  Milton Keynes

  2,828

  499

  17.6

  Newbury

  2,138

  448

  21.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,239

  754

  23.3

  Newham

  3,421

  688

  20.1

  Norfolk

  9,044

  1,624

  18.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,124

  339

  16.0

  North Lincolnshire

  1,991

  363

  18.2

  North Somerset

  2,303

  531

  23.1

  North Tyneside

  2,374

  417

  17.6

  North Yorkshire

  7,397

  1,882

  25.4

  Northamptonshire

  8,030

  1,726

  21.5

  Northumberland

  4,094

  916

  22.4

  Nottingham City

  3,423

  424

  12.4

  Nottinghamshire

  9,230

  1,913

  20.7

  Oldham

  3,004

  570

  19.0

  Oxfordshire

  7,889

  1,737

  22.0

  Peterborough

  2,174

  396

  18.2

  Plymouth

  3,232

  537

  16.6

  Poole

  1,635

  289

  17.7

  Portsmouth

  2,174

  306

  14.1

  Reading

  1,637

  348

  21.3

  Redbridge

  2,962

  944

  31.9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,824

  353

  19.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,878

  608

  32.4

  Rochdale

  2,942

  537

  18.3

  Rotherham

  3,204

  568

  17.7

  Rutland

  746

  118

  15.8

  Salford

  2,804

  359

  12.8

  Sandwell

  3,772

  594

  15.7

  Sefton

  3,708

  1,028

  27.7

  Sheffield

  5,775

  981

  17.0

  Shropshire

  3,706

  892

  24.1

  Slough

  1,388

  341

  24.6

  Solihull

  2,545

  757

  29.7

  Somerset

  6,313

  1,349

  21.4

  South Gloucestershire

  2,758

  497

  18.0

  South Tyneside

  1,959

  336

  17.2

  Southampton

  2,397

  395

  16.5

  Southend

  1,900

  350

  18.4

  Southwark

  2,448

  362

  14.8

  St Helens

  2,304

  503

  21.8

  Staffordshire

  10,282

  2,459

  23.9

  Stockport

  3,633

  919

  25.3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,495

  534

  21.4

  Stoke on Trent

  3,119

  502

  16.1

  Suffolk

  8,006

  1,679

  21.0

  Sunderland

  3,905

  617

  15.8

  Surrey

  12,979

  3,618

  27.9

  Sutton

  2,011

  558

  27.7

  Swindon

  2,199

  315

  14.3

  Tameside

  2,823

  407

  14.4

  Telford and the Wrekin

  2,148

  399

  18.6

  Thurrock

  1,574

  168

  10.7

  Torbay

  1,489

  278

  18.7

  Tower Hamlets

  2,522

  367

  14.6

  Trafford

  2,857

  710

  24.9

  Wakefield

  3,974

  749

  18.8

  Walsall

  3,454

  624

  18.1

  Waltham Forest

  2,485

  522

  21.0

  Wandsworth

  2,100

  501

  23.9

  Warrington

  2,404

  573

  23.8

  Warwickshire

  6,311

  1,553

  24.6

  West Sussex

  8,658

  1,910

  22.1

  Wigan

  3,836

  661

  17.2

  Wiltshire

  5,426

  1,283

  23.6

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1,876

  464

  24.7

  187W

  Proportion of English domiciled students aged 18 accepted through Ucas to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK autumn 2001 entry

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  17 year old population in 2000

  18 year olds accepted to HE in 2001

  Proportion entering Higher Education percentage

  Wirral

  4,284

  1,099

  25.7

  Wokingham

  1,986

  640

  32.2

  Wolverhampton

  3,200

  682

  21.3

  Worcestershire

  6,735

  1,549

  23.0

  York

  2,161

  533

  24.7

  Known total

  610,936

  131,254

  21.5

  Unknown

  —

  68

  —

  Total

  610,936

  131,322

  21.5

  Sources:

  Office of National Statistics (ONS), Government Actuary Department (GAD),

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service(UCAS)

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) courses and (b) chairs in British universities are funded by the EU; and what process ensures the academic rigour and impartiality of these arrangements. [68648]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]The European Commission co-funds, with Universities, courses and academic posts in relevant subjects via its Jean Monnet project. The project did not operate last academic year, but according to the Commission website, this programme contributed funding towards 94 academic posts and 209 course modules in UK universities in the year 2000. There will be another round of the project this year. The posts supported are referred to by the Commission as 'Chairs' but are not always professorships. Academic institutions make their own appointments, which are then subject to approval by the Commission. Further information about the Jean Monnet project and the activities it supports can be found on the European Commission website www.europa.eu.in/comm/education

  In addition to this source, UK universities and research institutions derive significant amounts of funding from the European Union's Framework Programmes for Scientific research. The Government do not however hold any figures on how many courses are being funded as a result of successful UK applications made under the Improving Human Potential Programme in this Programme.

  The quality and standards of all the programmes and awards delivered by UK higher education institutions are encompassed within the quality assurance arrangements of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). University Chairs are institutional appointments and as such, standards are a matter for institutions in respect of their own recruitment policies.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff were employed by her Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60920]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for State at the Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Special Educational Needs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 4 July 2002,Official Report, column 498W, on MLD and SLD schools, on what basis the Government allocates funding to meet SEN requirements. [69501]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Most provision for the education of children with special needs (SEN) is included within general revenue grant support for local authorities. The Education Standard Spending Assessment formula through which this general support is distributed allows for different levels of additional educational need, between authorities, but does not specifically allocate funding for SEN needs. In practice, about 11 per cent. of local authority schools expenditure is attributable to SEN and to other "special" kinds of provision such as pupil referral units. In addition to general grant support, the Government pay specific grant through the Standards Fund which will support £91 million of expenditure on SEN in 2002–03. This specific support is distributed to authorities on the following basis: 70 per cent. on full time equivalent pupil numbers in all LEA maintained schools and 30 per cent. by entitlement to free school meals.

  Early-years Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of three-year-olds in deprived areas have access to early-years education. [69382]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect data in the format requested.

  However, we have increased the national percentage of three-year-olds able to access a free, part time, early education place from 34 per cent. in January 1997 to more than 66 per cent. in January 2002. By September 2004, all three-year-olds will be able to access a free place.

  Already, 65 of the most deprived local education authorities offer a free nursery education place to all three-year-olds whose parents want one. The remaining authorities are responsible for devising eligibility criteria for the distribution of free places in their area according to social need.

  Children and Young People's Unit
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she will take in response to the publication of the 'Yvote?/Ynot?' report by the Children and Young People's Unit. [69615]

  Mr. Denham
  The Children and Young People's Unit will be working with the Electoral Commission and a wide range of young people's organisations to extend the debate about the report's findings. We plan to make the materials from the project available to teachers, youth workers and organisations working directly with young people. We shall be working with the All Party Group on Youth Affairs to explore how honourable Members can be helped to improve their communication with young people. The report also identified the importance of information about the political process and this will be a
  189W
  key feature of citizenship education which will be part of the national curriculum for secondary schools from August 2002.

  My objective is to seek to ensure that all young people who have the opportunity to vote for the first time at the next general election should have considered the issues involved.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places there were in each state grammar school in each English local education authority; what percentage this represented of the total number of secondary school places in these local authorities; and how many and what percentage of children was entered for the admission test for each of these schools in each of the last three years. [68172]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not regularly collect information on the number of school places in any type of school. Nor does it collect information on the number of children entered for admission tests.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  S/Waste Paper
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much waste paper was produced by the House in each of the last two years; how it was disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [2635]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 June 2001, c. 156W]In July 2001 I said that some 3,000 tonnes of waste were incinerated per year. In fact the total quantity of domestic waste (that is, not including builders' waste) removed from the parliamentary estate and burned over the last three years has been under 1,500 tonnes per year. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for this error; the wrong information was provided by a contractor, and that mistake has only just come to light in the course of preparing an answer to a recent question.

HEALTH

  NHS Dentistry
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on dental health. [67272]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since the inception of the NHS oral health has improved greatly and NHS dentistry has worked well over this period. There have been dramatic falls in the numbers of adults and children with decayed, missing or filled teeth. However variations remain across the country and we are taking action to tackle these. We are also working with representatives of the profession to modernise NHS dentistry and to see how new demands on the service can be met for the benefit of patients and dentists.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of adults are registered with an NHS dentist. [67295]
  190W
  Mr. Lammy
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to national health service services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that even if a patient is not registered with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  Forty-three per cent. of adults were registered with a general dental service dentist in England at 31 May 2002. Registrations lapse if patients do not return to the dentist within 15 months. Patients who are not registered can be seen under occasional treatment arrangements that were introduced last year.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available to the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency for NHS dental provision. [60776]

  Jacqui Smith
  [pursuant to her reply, 24 June 2002, c. 727–28W]I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:

  Information on funding of national health service dental provision is not available on a constituency basis.

  The gross fees paid to general dental practitioners (GDP) within the old Morecambe Bay health authority area, for providing NHS dental treatment, were £9.28 million in 2001–02. Additional sums are paid to GDPs, for example to reimburse business rates. Funding for hospital and community dental services is drawn from the health authority's main allocation. This information is not identified separately.

  In 2001–02 the following additional funds were made available to Morecambe Bay health authority to improve NHS dental services:
  £308,000 revenue and £312,000 capital to establish a personal dental services dental access centre pilot scheme (DAC). The DAC has a surgery in Barrow offering unregistered patients access to dental services. A second surgery, to be located in Morecambe, has been funded and should be operational from April 2003. In the interim Morecambe Bay PCT is looking into proposals to provide an alternative DAC site in Lancaster on a part-time basis.
  The revenue funding available for the current year for this DAC is up to £820,000 and a further capital payment will be made of around £160,000. The service aim is to treat up to 17,000 patients a year when both centres are fully operational.
  An allocation of £270,800 was made in 2001–02 to GDPs from the modernisation fund for grants to local dental practices to provide practice improvements and additional facilities.
  £7,500 was allocated to the health authority from the dental action plan fund to enable additional patient registrations to be secured.

  Elderly Care
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on implementing the elderly care strategy in north Staffordshire. [67274]

  Jacqui Smith
  My hon. Friend has worked hard over many years to ensure better care for the elderly in the north Staffs area. I am aware that following concerns expressed by herself and the Community Health Council about plans for the future of elderly care services in north Staffs, Professor Brian Edwards was commissioned to make an independent report on the best way forward.
  191W
  I understand that the Shropshire and Staffordshire health authority are on target with the implementation of their elderly care strategy and are addressing all recommendations made in Professor Edwards' independent report including ensuring an extra 48 places in community hospitals over and above Professor Edwards' recommendation of 163 long-term beds.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made with the diabetes national service framework; and if he will make a statement. [R] [67275]

  Mr. Hutton
  We published the standards for the Diabetes National Service Framework last December. The delivery strategy for the Framework is currently being developed with the help of an Implementation Group and will be published later this year.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to introduce a high-risk screening programme for type-2 diabetes. [67296]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State (Jacqui Smith) on 11 January 2001,Official Report, column 260W. Any decision about a start date for a possible programme will depend on the advice the Department receives.

  Community Health Services
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage the role of social and mutual enterprise in community health services. [67276]

  Ms Blears
  We are actively exploring the contribution that social enterprise can make to Primary Care Trusts' delivery of the Department's aim of a modernised and responsive health service. I hosted a workshop on this which was attended by key stakeholders, including experts from the not for profit sector, universities, trade unions and Government Departments and we will continue to discuss practical steps we can take to encourage full developments.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the contributions his Department has received in response to the consultations prior to the publication of the new draft Mental Health Bill. [67279]

  Jacqui Smith
  The consultation responses received in respect of the draft Mental Health Bill will be available to the public after the consultation period ends unless respondents ask for confidentiality.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) causes of and (b) treatment for dementia. [67302]

  Jacqui Smith
  The most common causes of dementia are degeneration of brain nerve cells (Alzheimer's disease) and insufficient blood flow to the brain (vascular dementia).
  192W
  The National Service Framework for Older People published last year outlines the appropriate components for the treatment and care of people with dementia. It sets standards for the delivery of improved and comprehensive health and social care services to support people with dementia and their carers.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding allocated to primary care trusts for mental health services has been ring-fenced. [60567]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2002–03 £75 million was earmarked for mental health services. The funding is allocated to health authorities (HAs), which then allocate funding to primary care trusts (PCTs), on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. HAs were instructed to allocate earmarked funding to PCTs on the same basis as allocations were made to HA. PCTs share of the earmarked funding for mental health is shown in the table. Special consideration will need to be given to improving access to mental health services through crisis resolution, assertive outreach and early intervention teams; increasing capacity and improving service quality.

  Earmarked funding for mental health

  Primary care trust

  £000

  Adur, Arun and Worthing

  355

  Airedale

  170

  Amber Valley

  178

  Ashfield

  117

  Ashford

  138

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan

  479

  Barking and Dagenham

  258

  Barnet

  514

  Barnsley

  380

  Basildon

  156

  Bassetlaw

  148

  Bath and North East Somerset

  236

  Bebington and West Wirral

  159

  Bedford

  205

  Bedfordshire Heartlands

  313

  Bexhill and Rother

  133

  Bexley

  298

  Billericay, Brentwood and Wickford

  184

  Birkenhead and Wallasey

  356

  Blackburn with Darwen

  242

  Blackpool

  254

  Bolton

  438

  Bournemouth

  255

  Bracknell Forest

  127

  Bradford City

  225

  Bradford South and West

  226

  Brent

  465

  Brighton and Hove City

  417

  Bristol North

  342

  Bristol South and West

  283

  Broadland

  150

  Bromley

  417

  Broxtowe and Hucknall

  194

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  396

  Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth

  195

  Bury

  268

  Calderdale

  292

  Cambridge City

  182

  Camden

  408

  Cannock Chase

  171

  Canterbury and Coastal

  247

  Carlisle and District

  172

  Castle Point and Rochford

  223

  Central Cheshire

  343

  Central Cornwall

  285

  Central Derby

  181

  193W

  Earmarked funding for mental health

  Primary care trust

  £000

  Central Liveipool

  457

  Central Manchester

  301

  Central Suffolk

  125

  Charnwood and North West Leicestershire

  314

  Chelmsford

  153

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

  207

  Cherwell Vale

  160

  Cheshire West

  227

  Chesterfield

  169

  Chiltern and South Bucks

  207

  Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford

  179

  Chorley and South Ribble

  285

  City and Hackney

  461

  Colchester

  226

  Cotswold and Vale

  262

  Coventry

  489

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District

  286

  Crawley

  154

  Croydon

  508

  Dacorum

  195

  Darlington

  159

  Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley

  313

  Daventry and South Northamptonshire

  116

  Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire

  115

  Derwentside

  140

  Doncaster Central

  162

  Doncaster East

  134

  Doncaster West

  170

  Dudley Beacon and Castle

  160

  Dudley South

  280

  Durham and Chester-Le-Street

  227

  Durham Dales

  142

  Ealing

  544

  Easington

  177

  East Birmingham

  393

  East Cambridgeshire and Fenland

  206

  East Devon

  176

  East Elmbridge and Mid Surrey

  359

  East Hampshire

  262

  East Kent Coastal

  383

  East Leeds

  232

  East Lincolnshire

  397

  East Staffordshire

  171

  East Surrey

  209

  East Yorkshire

  199

  Eastbourne Downs

  281

  Eastern Cheshire

  255

  Eastern Hull

  193

  Eastern Leicester

  266

  Eastern Wakefield

  284

  Eastleigh and Test Valley

  187

  Eden Valley

  97

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  124

  Enfield

  404

  Epping Forest

  151

  Erewash

  141

  Exeter

  180

  Fareham and Gosport

  247

  Fylde

  105

  Gateshead

  339

  Gedling

  135

  Great Yarmouth

  144

  Greater Derby

  218

  Greenwich

  375

  Guildford and Waverley

  323

  Halton

  187

  Hambleton and Richmondshire

  152

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  307

  Haringey

  424

  Harlow

  120

  Harrow

  293

  Hartlepool

  150

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  157

  194W

  Earmarked funding for mental health

  Primary care trust

  £000

  Havering

  345

  Heart of Birmingham

  464

  Herefordshire

  238

  Hertsmere

  124

  Heywood and Middleton

  121

  High Peak and Dales

  144

  Hillingdon

  364

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  122

  Horsham and Chanctonbury

  118

  Hounslow

  365

  Huddersfield Central

  257

  Huntingdonshire

  183

  Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  172

  Ipswich

  205

  Isle of Wight

  207

  Islington

  401

  Kensington and Chelsea

  373

  Kingston

  243

  Knowsley

  265

  Lambeth

  539

  Langbaurgh

  151

  Leeds North East

  226

  Leeds North West

  257

  Leeds West

  167

  Leicester City West

  217

  Lewisham

  439

  Lincolnshire South West

  244

  Luton

  274

  Maidstone Weald

  304

  Maldon and South Chelmsford

  102

  Mansfield District

  138

  Medway

  357

  Melton, Rutland and Harborough

  178

  Mendip

  143

  Mid Devon

  137

  Middlesbrough

  315

  Mid-Hampshire

  228

  Mid-Sussex

  179

  Milton Keynes

  297

  Morecambe Bay

  467

  New Forest

  249

  Newark and Sherwood

  166

  Newbury and Community

  132

  Newcastle

  449

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  153

  Newham

  484

  North and East Cornwall

  224

  North Birmingham

  233

  North Bradford

  139

  North Devon

  215

  North Dorset

  121

  North East Lincolnshire

  239

  North East Oxfordshire

  85

  North East Warwickshire

  246

  North Eastern Derbyshire

  226

  North Hampshire

  241

  North Hertfordshire and Stevenage

  261

  North Kirklees

  210

  North Lincolnshire

  218

  North Liverpool

  187

  North Manchester

  273

  North Norfolk

  148

  North Peterborough

  166

  North Sheffield

  205

  North Somerset

  262

  North Stoke

  218

  North Surrey

  285

  North Tees

  273

  North Tyneside

  326

  North Wilts and Kennet

  253

  Northampton

  292

  Northamptonshire Heartlands

  378

  Northumberland Care Trust

  463

  195W

  Earmarked funding for mental health

  Primary care trust

  £000

  Norwich

  203

  Nottingham City

  474

  Oldbury and Smethwick

  169

  Oldham

  363

  Oxford City

  253

  Plymouth

  376

  Poole

  244

  Portsmouth City

  288

  Preston

  228

  Reading

  289

  Redbridge

  243

  Redditch and Bromsgrove

  204

  Richmond and Twickenham

  276

  Rochdale

  214

  Rotherham

  379

  Rowley, Regis and Tipton

  131

  Royston, Buntingford and Bishop's Stortford

  94

  Rugby

  119

  Rushcliffe

  151

  Rushmore and Hart

  231

  Salford

  389

  Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale

  236

  Sedgefield

  152

  Selby and York

  373

  Sheffield South West

  188

  Sheffield West

  181

  Shepway

  154

  Shropshire County

  384

  Slough

  177

  Solihull

  288

  Somerset Coast

  202

  South and East Dorset

  214

  South Birmingham

  533

  South Cambridgeshire

  116

  South East Hertfordshire

  225

  South East Oxfordshire

  100

  South East Sheffield

  269

  South Gloucestershire

  286

  South Hams and West Devon

  150

  South Huddersfield

  122

  South Leeds

  227

  South Leicestershire

  184

  South Liverpool

  150

  South Manchester

  237

  South Peterborough

  123

  South Sefton

  263

  South Somerset

  201

  South Stoke

  214

  South Tyneside

  260

  South Warwickshire

  325

  South West Dorset

  202

  South West Kent

  236

  South West Oxfordshire

  233

  South Western Staffordshire

  241

  South Wiltshire

  161

  South Worcestershire

  368

  Southampton City

  354

  Southend On Sea

  272

  Southern Norfolk

  267

  Southport and Formby

  175

  Southwark

  451

  St. Albans and Harpenden

  174

  St. Helens

  295

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  148

  Stockport

  422

  Suffolk Coastal

  131

  Suffolk West

  303

  Sunderland Teaching

  477

  Sussex Downs and Weald

  199

  Sutton and Merton

  529

  Swale

  132

  Swindon

  257

  Tameside and Glossop

  356

  196W

  Earmarked funding for mental health

  Primary care trust

  £000

  Taunton Deane

  145

  Teignbridge

  155

  Telford and Wrekin

  219

  Tendring

  219

  Thurrock

  202

  Torbay

  209

  Tower Hamlets

  360

  Trafford North

  147

  Trafford South

  183

  Uttlesford

  88

  Vale Of Aylesbury

  244

  Wakefield West

  218

  Walsall

  398

  Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone

  276

  Wandsworth

  469

  Warrington

  274

  Watford and Three Rivers

  245

  Waveney

  181

  Wednesbury and West Bromwich

  186

  Welwyn Hatfield

  136

  West Cumbria

  204

  West Gloucestershire

  299

  West Hull

  250

  West Lancashire

  158

  West Lincolnshire

  308

  West Norfolk

  209

  West Of Cornwall

  234

  West Wiltshire

  153

  Western Sussex

  307

  Westminster

  472

  Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead

  224

  Witham, Braintree and Halstead PCG'

  177

  Woking Area

  245

  Wokingham

  171

  Wolverhampton City

  387

  Wycombe

  181

  Wyre Forest

  146

  Wyre

  187

  Yorkshire Wolds and Coast

  208

  Total

  75,000

  1Planned care trust from 1 October 2002

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to take steps to collect centrally information on(a) the proportion of individuals with a diagnosis of severe mental illness who are in employment and (b) trends in the prevalence of employment among such individuals. [68126]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Department is taking steps to ensure that this information is collected for both local and national monitoring. Local services have been asked to ensure that written care plans for people with mental health problems on the enhanced level of the care programme approach show plans to secure suitable employment or other occupational activity. The outcomes implementation programme and the implementation of the mental health minimum data set will ensure that these data are collected routinely.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of community mental health teams are fully integrated as between NHS and social services. [68128]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The information requested is not collected centrally.
  197W
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on black and ethnic minority groups of the proposals contained in the draft Mental Health Bill. [68665]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government acknowledge the inequalities that people from black and minority ethnic groups face in mental health services and the over-representation, in particular, of young black men in the mental health system has been well documented (Mental Health Act Commission Biennial Report 2001). The mental health task force has been given a specific remit to look at black and ethnic mental health and are developing a strategy that will address the provision of services to people from these groups, while the proposals contained in the draft Mental Health Bill will offer individuals greater safeguards of their rights.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect he estimates extending compulsion, as envisaged in the draft Mental Health Bill, will have on average waiting times for treatment. [68252]

  Jacqui Smith
  We anticipate that the impact on waiting times for urgent treatment will be minimal. The implementation of the "national service framework for mental health", and the development of new services such as assertive outreach, crisis resolution and early intervention, will help to ensure that fewer people become so ill that they need compulsory treatment.

  Care Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of care home places in the south-west. [67280]

  Jacqui Smith
  At 31 March 2001, there were 44,791 registered residential care places and 24,073 registered nursing care beds in the south-west.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with Government Departments and other organisations about the treatment of elderly people in residential and nursing care for the purposes of the standard spending assessment. [67288]

  Elderly residential and nursing homes placements—gross expenditure by local authorities at 2000–01 prices

  £million

  Region

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  North West

  475

  486

  512

  533

  568

  North East

  143

  161

  174

  202

  237

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  294

  319

  337

  355

  411

  East Midlands

  233

  242

  258

  286

  305

  East

  254

  273

  295

  313

  344

  London

  394

  415

  431

  437

  489

  South East

  405

  428

  443

  457

  483

  South West

  244

  265

  298

  325

  357

  West Midlands

  278

  312

  330

  353

  371

  Total England

  2,721

  2,901

  3,077

  3,262

  3,565

  12000–01 figures are inclusive of overhead costs.

  Source Form RO3 (PSS EX1 from 2000–01)—annual return of social services expenditure made by local authorities.
  198W
  Jacqui Smith
  I have had a number of recent discussions with other Government Departments and organisations about the older people's standard spending assessment formulae. I also commissioned independent research into this formula. As a result of these discussions and research there are a number of possible options for change to the existing formula that we are considering. A consultation document was issued on 8 July setting out these options and councils have 12 weeks to comment on them.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new admissions to care homes during each of the last five years in England and Wales he is aware were previously resident in Scotland. [69439]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not centrally held on the previous place of residence of residents in care homes in England. Questions relating to Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of England and Wales he is aware have chosen to enter into a care home in Scotland in each of the last five years. [69438]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not held centrally in respect of individuals normally resident in England and in care homes. Information in respect of residents in care homes in Scotland and of individuals normally resident in Wales and in care homes are the responsibility of the respective devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a list, by region, of the publicly funded elderly care homes in the last five years; and how much money they received in real terms. [68527]

  Jacqui Smith
  Prior to April this year, local councils were responsible for the registration of residential care homes. Lists of registered homes were not maintained centrally. Nor are there central records of the size of contracts entered into with individual homes either by councils or by people who used income support to purchase care which they had arranged for themselves. However, the following table shows the gross expenditure on residential care and nursing provision by councils with social services responsibilities in each region in England at 2000–01 prices for the five years from 1996–97 to 2000–01.
  199W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study comparing the quality of care between public and private care homes. [68528]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no need for such a survey. Under section 7(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000, the National Care Standards Commission has a duty of keeping my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed about the quality of services regulated under Part II of the Act.

  MS Sufferers
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered respite care homes for MS sufferers there are; and how many have closed since 1997. [67281]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  I understand from the MS Society that there are 204 registered nursing or residential homes providing respite care, where staff have attended an MS study day and so have a basic knowledge of the condition.

  In addition, I understand that the society provides respite specifically for people with multiple sclerosis at three registered nursing homes in England. It also operates three homes which provide holidays for people with MS who have lower dependency, for carers, and for people with other conditions.

  The management of these homes is a matter for the MS Society.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of drug treatments for patients suffering from multiple sclerosis. [67293]

  Jacqui Smith
  Up to 9,000 patients in England and Wales may be eligible to receive a drug treatment for their multiple sclerosis under the risk-sharing scheme, which started on 6 May 2002. Patients are now being treated under the scheme, but we recognise that appropriate infrastructure is not yet in place in some localities.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Copaxone is available at St. Bartholomew's Hospital; and for what reasons a valid prescription for Copaxone would be inadmissible. [66741]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) is available on the national health service under the risk-sharing scheme for disease modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that came into operation on 6 May 2002.

  Barts and the London NHS Trust met with specialist commissioners on 5 July and agreed funding arrangements for MS therapy. A clinical discussion forum took place on 11 July. As a result of these discussions, all patients who are under the NHS for their MS care but are receiving MS therapy on a private prescription, are now eligible for NHS treatment, as long as the Association of British Neurologists criteria has been met. Consequently, all patients in this category will now be called in for review.

  Hospices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for hospices in Lancashire. [67282]

  Ms Blears
  During 2001–02, primary care trusts in Lancashire provided a total of £2.5 million to hospices in their respective areas. These included: Trinity Hospice in Fylde; St. John's Hospice in Lancaster; St. Catherine's Hospice in Preston; Derian House Hospice in Chorley; Burnley and Pendle Hospice; Rossendale Hospice; Springhill Hospice in Rochdale; East Lancashire Hospice; St. Joseph's Hospice, Jospice International; and Queenscourt Hospice.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his oral answer of 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 140W, on hospices, what evidence he used to base his estimate of the need for funds for palliative care in hospices. [67286]

  Ms Blears
  It is for the national health service locally to make arrangements for financial support for hospices based on the agreed strategic plans for palliative care provision within each cancer network's service delivery plan.

  The National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services undertake an annual survey on investment in palliative care. They estimate the total expenditure on adult palliative care services to be around £300 million of which around £170 million is provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the NHS. The Government have pledged in the NHS Cancer Plan that funding for specialist palliative care services, including hospices, will increase by £50 million by 2004.

  NHS Menus
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in introducing the new NHS menus. [67283]

  Mr. Lammy
  Good progress is being made in introducing the new menu and ward housekeeping. This long term initiative, supported by £38.5 million, is already delivering more choice and better quality to patients across the NHS. Two thirds of trusts were on course to include three leading chef dishes by April.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to ensure that neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis will be made universally available and free of charge. [67284]

  Jacqui Smith
  A developmental programme is in place to plan for the NHS provision of neonatal cystic fibrosis screening. Further advice from the UK National Screening Committee about time scales and details on the implementation of a national programme, is expected in the autumn.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will add cystic fibrosis to the list of conditions exempt from prescription charges. [67339]
  201W
  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) on 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the assessment of the initial project involving sending patients overseas will be complete; and if that assessment will be made public. [67285]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following a competitive tender exercise the York University Health Economics Consortium was commissioned to evaluate the pilot scheme to refer NHS patients overseas for routine elective surgery. Copies of the final report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on the Department of Health website.

  Health Care Expenditure
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of household expenditure on health care in the period 1997 to 2001. [67287]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure on the national health service in England increased from £1,620 per household in 1996–97 to £2,095 per household in 2000–01.

  GPs
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of general practitioners. [67290]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS is working towards a target of 2,000 more general practitioners by 2004 and to continued growth thereafter.

  We are increasing the number of doctors training to be GPs. There are now 1,910 General Practice Registrars, the highest ever number of doctors in training for general practice.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from general practitioners who say they cannot admit further patients to their GP practices; and if he will make a statement. [67294]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received no recent representations on this subject from general practitioners or their representative organisations.

  Disability Equipment Services
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve disability equipment services. [67291]

  Jacqui Smith
  In relation to the five disability equipment services covered by the Audit Commission's `Fully Equipped' reports, plans are: to continue to invest in and modernise audiology and community equipment services; to improve the commissioning of orthotic and prosthetic services, and for the Department of Health to work with the Modernisation Agency to identify and spread good practice for wheelchair services.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability and effectiveness of treatment for drug addicts in Worcester. [67292]

  Mr. Lammy
  No formal assessment of local drug action teams currently takes place, but this is being developed. The National Treatment Agency (NTA) was established in 2001 to set standards and ensure that every drug treatment programme is of the highest effectiveness. The NTA has agreed a business plan to deliver its targets up to March 2003.

  Locally, the Worcestershire Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT) is responsible for ensuring quality services for drug addicts, in line with the national drug strategy, and is developing a framework for assessing the effectiveness of treatment. The SMAT also reports regularly to the NTA. Worcestershire primary care trusts commit over £2 million to the treatment of substance misuse.

  Free Personal Care
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the provision of free personal care. [67297]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's policy on the funding of personal care is set out in paragraph 15.20 of the NHS Plan, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Doctor Numbers
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policies to increase the number of general practitioners and consultants in the NHS. [67298]

  Mr. Hutton

  We recognise the need for increases in the number of general practitioners (GPs) and consultants. "Delivering the NHS Plan", published in April this year, now includes the latest forecasts for growth in the national health service work force. By 2008, we expect there to be 15,000 more doctors and GPs than in 2001.

  Privately Funded Operations
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collate information on an annual basis on the number of people who have funded their operations themselves. [67299]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department collects and publishes information on the number of patients who are treated privately in national health service hospitals, but it does not collect information on who pays for such treatment. We have no plans to collect that information, nor to collect information on the number of people who have operations performed privately in the independent sector.

  Refugee Doctors
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support he will introduce to enable refugee doctors to get the training and qualifications needed to work within the NHS. [67300]
  203W
  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to enabling refugee doctors to access the training opportunities they need to succeed in the national health service. Over the last two years £1 million has been made available to various projects designed to help refugee health professionals prepare for work in the NHS, by providing English language and clinical skills training, along with guidance on gaining employment in the NHS.

  NHS Hygiene
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve standards of cleanliness in NHS facilities. [67301]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Plan, which was published in July 2000, set out a work programme for the national health service to improve the standards in cleanliness within hospitals and initiated an immediate nationwide campaign to clean and smarten up the NHS. Patient environment action teams (PEAT) undertook unannounced visits to assess progress. Over £60 million has been invested to make improvements to the hospital environment since the NHS Plan was launched, which will directly benefit patients and visitors.

  The clean hospitals programme has been a clear success and has had a significant impact on standards of cleanliness, decoration and supporting services, to the extent that by October last year there were no hospitals in England where cleaning standards were found to be less than acceptable. Standards are now much more in line with patients' expectations. National results of the PEAT programme, as set out in the table, were published on 31 October 2001.

  Red (poor)

  Yellow (acceptable)

  Green (good)

  Autumn 2001

  0

  387

  300

  New national standards for cleanliness in the NHS, which form part of the performance assessment framework, were issued to the NHS last year. They describe what a "clean" hospital looks like and will help all hospitals further raise the levels of cleanliness and, importantly, they will help to ensure that the standards achieved are maintained in the future. This means that for the first time there is a definitive set of cleaning standards with which all trusts will have to comply.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when beta interferon will be available to those assessed as needing it in South Derbyshire. [67303]

  Mr. Lammy
  Beta interferon has already been made available to a number of patients previously paying for beta interferon. The local health community are discussing issues connected with delivering the national guidance. The new arrangements will be fully in place later this year.

  Health Prioritising
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made on the impact of his prioritising certain services and disease areas on those services and disease areas not so prioritised. [67278]
  204W
  Mr. Hutton
  Since 1997, the Department of Health has put in place comprehensive performance management and assessment procedures to ensure that the national health service provides services that can meet the needs of all patients.

  Sausage Casings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in the national sheep flocks of(a) EU member states and (b) non-EU countries which process and export natural sausage casings. [68499]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of scrapie cases in member states is available on the European Commission's website at www.europa.eu.int. Between 1998 and 2000, the following numbers of cases have been reported: Belgium 19 cases; Denmark nil; Germany three cases; Greece 130 cases; Spain five cases; France 97 cases (1998–99 only); Ireland 198 cases; Italy 208 cases (1998–99 only); Luxembourg nil; Netherlands 32 cases (1998–99 only); Austria five cases; Portugal nil; Finland nil; Sweden nil; UK 1,652 cases.

  Information on scrapie cases in non-EU countries is available on the website of the Office Internationale des Epizooties at www.oie.int. The main exporters of sheep casings are Pakistan, Turkey and New Zealand. According to OIE data, Pakistan, which has a scrapie surveillance programme, has not reported any occurrence of the disease. The last reported occurrence of scrapie in New Zealand was in 1954. No information is available in relation to Turkey.

  Health and Social Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals the Government have to improve the co-ordination of health and social care, youth and leisure, careers, guidance, education and benefits services. [68179]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The Connexions Service, which is currently being rolled out across the country, brings together a range of services working with young people to make sure 13–19 year olds receive cohesive advice, guidance, support and personal development opportunities.

  The Government's consultation document, "Building a Strategy for Children and Young People", included proposals for improving the co-ordination of services for all children and young people aged 0–19, building on the experience of Connexions and other initiatives. We are currently considering the responses to this consultation exercise.

  Bed Blocking (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to tackle bed blocking in Lancashire. [48596]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2001–02, the Government allocated in excess of £2 million to the three social services departments, Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and
  205W
  Blackpool, in the form of the Building Care Capacity Grant to reduce delayed transfers of care. In 2002–03, these authorities will receive £4 million. In addition, they will receive more than £1.75 million from the performance fund towards improvements in intermediate care. Delayed transfer numbers in Lancashire are among the lowest in the country.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the EU directives relating to his Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64951]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following European Union directives have been amended and repealed in 2002:

  European Parliament and Council directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use, which incorporated Commission directive 2000/38/EC on administrative action relating to medicinal products (pharmacovigilance), repealed the following EU directives: Council directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by:

  Council directive 66/454/EEC

  Council directive 75/319/EEC

  Council directive 83/570/EEC

  Council directive 87/21/EEC

  Council directive 89/341/EEC

  Council directive 92/27/EEC

  Council directive 93/39/EEC.

  Council Directive 75/318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to analytical, pharmacotoxological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of medicinal products, as amended by:

  Council directive 83/570/EEC

  Council directive 87/19/EEC

  Council directive 89/341/EEC

  Commission directive 91/507/EEC

  Council directive 93/39/EEC

  Commission directive 1999/82/EC

  Commission directive 1999/83/EC.

  Council directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by:

  Council directive 78/420/EEC

  Council directive 83/570/EEC

  Council directive 89/341/EEC

  Council directive 92/27/EEC

  Council directive 93/39/EEC

  Commission directive 2000/38/EC.

  Council directive 89/342/EEC of 3 May 1989 extending the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC and laying down additional provisions of immunological medicinal products consisting of vaccines, toxins or serums and allergens.
  206W
  Council directive 89/343/EEC of 3 May 1989 extending the scope of directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC and laying down additional provisions for radiopharmaceuticals.

  Council directive 89/381/EEC of 14 June 1989 extending the scope of directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products and laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma.

  Council directive 92/25/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the wholesale distribution of medicinal products for human use.

  Council directive 92/26/EEC of 31 March 1992 concerning the classification for the supply of medicinal products for human use.

  Council directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets.

  Council directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use.

  Council directive 92/73/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic medicinal products.

  The Medical Devices directive (93/42/EEC) was amended by directive 2001/104/EC and directive 2000/70/EC as regards medical devices incorporating stable derivatives of human blood or human plasma.

  Rapid Response Units
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid response units are operating in each NHS region to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. [65141]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of rapid response units is not collected centrally.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66925]

  Mr. Lammy
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance, which is set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30. para.30.2.5, which notes that Government do not need to purchase insurance to protect the viability of their business, and should consider insurance only 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; or (c) incurring the total cost of the accommodation in question, including the cost of the insurance, is more cost-effective than other accommodation options.
  207W
  Financial records show the following payments in respect of buildings occupied by the Department (excluding Agencies) against the heading of building insurance:

  2000–01: £67,050

  2001–02: £56,443.

  Meaningful comparisons between one year and another are difficult to make, due to changes in the estate and consequent insurance obligations. The following four premises were occupied during all or part of 2000–01 and not during all of 2001–02:
  Temple Way, Bristol (Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry)—finally cleared/vacated 1 August 2001;
  Norwich House, Liverpool (Alder Hey Inquiry)—vacated 15 December 2000;
  Trevelyan House, London SW1 (HDA)—vacated 15 March 2002.

  The timing of payments during the year, to meet policy renewal notices, mean it is not possible as yet to identify any effects of the events of 11 September on premium levels.

  Infliximab
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between his Department and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence about the use of infliximab. [66815]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on infliximab for Crohns Disease in May 2002 and recommended to the national health service in England and Wales that infliximab should be available to some people with severe active Crohn's disease.

  In March 2002 NICE recommended that, etanercept and infliximab, new drugs for the treatment of arthritis, may be given as part of the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adult patients who have rheumatoid arthritis that has not responded adequately to at least two disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including methotrexate.

  As a stakeholder the Department and National Assembly for Wales are given the opportunity to comment on draft scopes and the provisional guidance. The NICE review of infliximab is due May 2005, and during revision the Department and National Assembly for Wales will be given the opportunity to comment on the draft appraisal.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 2001 annual report and accounts diverged from previous practice in not providing performance data on(a) IVF data, (b) multiple births, (c) two and three embryo transfer and (d) donor insemination; [67137]

  (2) for what reason the publishing of the HFEA 2001 annual report and accounts was delayed for nine months. [67052]
  208W
  Ms Blears
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has identified some problems with its information technology infrastructure. These problems are now being resolved, but they have delayed the availability of recent performance data.

  The annual report was held back in the hope that the data would be ready to include. When this proved not to be possible, the decision was taken to go ahead and publish the annual report without the data.

  The data will be made available shortly on the HFEA' s website.

  Birth Statistics
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for the reduction of(a) premature births, (b) stillbirths and (c) miscarriages. [67074]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although specific reduction targets have not been set, we are continuing to support the work of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy to improve care during pregnancy and provide the right quality and level of support. The difficulties of premature birth and the tragedy of losing a child through stillbirth and miscarriage have some associations with, and are always compounded by, poverty and social exclusion. We are addressing this through the 'Sure Start' initiative, including pilot programmes to provide personal co-ordinated support for pregnant teenagers, and parents under the age of 18. We are also investing more in the provision of maternity care and seeking to ensure the most effective configuration of these essential services.

  Kaiser Permanente
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings(a) Ministers and (b) special advisers have held with Kaiser Permanente in the last six months. [67607]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with David Laurence of Kaiser Permanente on Wednesday 19 June 2002. Both special advisers attended the meeting.

  NICE
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure NHS staff are involved in deciding on the future work programme of NICE. [67686]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department consulted recently on a series of proposals to make it easier for national health service staff to propose topics for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) future work programme, and to involve them more fully in the process of assessing and prioritising proposals. The response to the consultation is now being analysed and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. That response will also take account of recommendations made by the Health Select Committee in its recent report on NICE.

  Sun Awareness
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to fund a nationally co-ordinated sun awareness programme for the United Kingdom; [67769]
  209W
  (2) whether he plans to launch a follow-up campaign to the sun know how campaign; [67768]

  (3) how much money has been allocated annually to sun awareness campaigns since April 2000; [67767]

  (4) what the cost was of the Health Education Authority's sun know how campaign from April 1999 to April 2000; [67765]

  (5) how much the Government have invested in sun awareness campaigns in each year since 1995. [67766]

  Ms Blears
  The health education authority (HEA) was originally commissioned by the Department in 1996 to provide sun awareness information. The HEA then developed the "Sun Know How" campaign up until the HEA's functions were moved to the health development agency and health promotion England in March 2000. As the "Sun Know How" messages had been successful, existing HEA promotional material continued to be made available but on a smaller scale. The success of the campaign was acknowledged and it was recognised that a new approach was needed.

  From 2001 work has been undertaken towards a co-ordinated programme of work to counter skin cancer. A collaboration group was formed by the departmental funded national radiological protection board (NRPB) with other key organisations such as Cancer Research (UK), the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the British Association of Dermatology (BAD). Various initiatives are taking place to raise awareness of sun safety and information is available from NHS Direct. On 14 March a new website, www.doh.gov.uk/sunsafe, providing sun safety advice, was launched. We are also collaborating with other key stakeholders this year in ensuring that a range of sun safety advice is publicly available. For example, the Department funds the Meteorological Office ultra violet index for radio, television and newspaper forecasters. The NRPB is currently running a sunsense campaign and the HSE is targeting outdoor workers in their advertising campaign.

  We have no current plans to launch an equivalent to the "Sun Know How" campaign as run by the then HEA.

  The HEA's campaign launched in 1996–97 anticipated spending £1.5 million over three years to 1998–99. Detailed figures on the final spend by year by the HEA are not available.

  In 1999–2000 spending on the "Sun Know How" campaign by the HEA was £543,000. Since then, spending on sun awareness by the Department in 2000–01 was £50,000, and in 2001–02 was £126,000.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new recruitment will be needed at Solihull hospital to facilitate its proposed improved accident and emergency service; and whether the necessary resources are in place to support that recruitment. [67613]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Birmingham Heartlands anti Solihull National Health Service Trust will recruit two additional consultants specialising in accident and emergency medicine, a new tier of four critical care/clinical fellow grades, specialist physicians and additional nurses including emergency nurse practitioners. The resources
  210W
  required are still being finalised but Solihull Primary Care Trust has agreed to pre-commit revenue resources in emergency care during the forthcoming priority setting process.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that recruitment difficulties do not stand in the way of proposed improvements to accident and emergency provision at Solihull hospital. [67612]

  Mr. Lammy
  Responsibility for the recruitment of staff for local services rests with local national health service trusts. The Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust is confident that recruitment difficulties will not occur and believe the new tier of critical care/clinical fellow grades, a rigorous recruitment campaign and the trust's commitment to "Improving Working Lives" will ensure the right calibre and number of staff will be recruited.

  Prescription Drugs
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy for payments made to pharmacists by the NHS in respect of the supply of prescription drugs to comply with the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Act 1998 and the Late Payment Directive. [68372]

  Mr. Lammy
  We do not consider that the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 applies to payments made to pharmacists by the national health service in respect of the supply of prescription drugs. We are considering the position in relation to Directive 2000/35/EC on combating late payment in commercial transactions.

  NHS Trust Reviews
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it the Government's policy that the Commission for Health Improvement should respond positively to a request by an NHS trust to conduct a review of any department identified by the trust as in need of review. [68042]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Health Act 1999 requires the Commission for Health Improvement to undertake local reviews (known as clinical governance reviews) to examine the quality of care provided by national health service bodies. The commission may also undertake investigations into the management, provision and quality of health care NHS bodies provide. The commission will consider all requests for investigations against its published criteria. Copies of the commission's "Policy on assessing requests for investigations and fast track clinical governance reviews" are available in the Library and on its website at www.chi.nhs.uk.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) terms of reference and (b) timetable for the independent scientific advisory group of the Medical Research Council on CFS and ME due to be set up in spring 2002; and who the members of the group are. [68079]
  211W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) have now agreed to set up an advisory group. Their final report should be made available early in 2003.

  The proposed terms of reference are:
  to consider the report of the independent working party on chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), including its recommendations for research;
  to consider other recent reviews of current knowledge and understanding of CFS/ME;
  to take account of patient and lay perspectives;
  to recommend to MRC a research strategy to advance understanding of the aetiology, epidemiology and biology of CFS/ME; and
  in the light of current knowledge, suggest what areas of further research are needed with regard to possible treatments.

  The group members are:

  Professor Nancy Rothwell (Chair)

  Professor Janet Darbyshire

  Professor Diana Elbourne

  Professor Alan McGregor

  Professor Jonathan Weber

  Professor Jackie Oldham

  Professor Til Wykes

  Professor Philip Cowen

  Professor Jon Nicholl

  Jacqueline Apperly

  Sue Haselhurst

  Observer Department of Health.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 306W, on performance targets, how many performance targets he has set for the NHS; and how many that were included last year have been dropped this year. [68313]

  Mr. Lammy
  It has been the Government's policy to reduce the number of priorities facing national health service organisations in order to shift the balance of power away from the centre. A reduction was achieved in the 2002–03 planning and priorities framework in comparison to the previous year.

  An on-going commitment to this approach has been made, with the Government's "Delivering the NHS Plan" document stating very clearly that our plans to modernise the NHS do not constitute a raft of extra targets.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on achieving energy efficiency targets by the NHS. [68227]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national health service in England successfully achieved the 20 per cent. reduction in energy use from a base year of 1990 to 2000. In line with the Government's climate change programme, the NHS in England has now been set a new mandatory target to reduce the level of primary energy consumption by 15 per cent. or 0.15 million tonnes carbon from March 2000 to March 2010.
  212W
  NHS Estates (an Executive Agency of the Department) is working with the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme (now Action Energy) to assist the NHS to meet this challenging target. Progress and activity continues to be monitored using the agency's database. It is too early to determine progress against this new target.

  AIDS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent(a) on research and (b) on care in connection with AIDS in each of the past three years. [67799]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]Expenditure on AIDS research was £20.2 million in 1999–2000 and £21.3 million in 2000–01. Data for 2001–02 are currently being compiled and are expected to be in line with spend for previous years.

  Expenditure on HIV/AIDS treatment and social care is shown in the table.

  £million

  NHS

  authorities

  Total

  1999–2000

  233

  15.5

  248.5

  2000–01

  234.6

  16

  250.6

  2001–02

  276.2

  16.5

  292.7

  Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the differences are in treatment for(a) colon cancer and (b) other cancers. [67802]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]The NHS Cancer Plan set out our intention to ensure that people with all types of cancer get the best treatments. Evidence based guidance to improve outcomes in each of the tumour groups is being published by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE also continue to appraise and issue guidance on the use of new chemotherapy treatments. When developing its guidance, NICE takes into account relevant evidence from all over the world.

  Public Interest Company
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 303W, on mutual organisations, if he will make a statement defining the modus operandi of a public interest company. [68511]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]The public interest company is one option being considered by the Department for the legal status of national health service foundation trusts. We will publish further details in due course.

  Departmental Memos
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many written communications were sent to(a) NHS hospitals and (b) primary care trusts in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001 by his Department; [68280]
  213W
  (2) how many written directives were sent to (a) NHS hospitals and (b) primary care trusts in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001 by his Department. [68282]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]The number of written directives and communications which where sent to national health service hospitals, primary care trusts in 2000 and 2001 by the Department are shown in the tables.

  Health service circulars sent to chief executives of NHS trusts and primary care trusts in 2000 and 2001

  To chief executives of:

  NHS trusts

  Primary care trusts

  To chief executives of NHS trusts and chief executives of Primary care trusts

  2000

  16

  2

  15

  2001

  1

  1

  19

  Electronic bulletins and other e-communications to chief executives of NHS trusts and primary, care trusts in 2000 and 20011

  E-bulletins

  Other e-communications

  2000

  52

  100

  2001

  111

  111

  1 Both chief executives of NHS trusts and chief executives of primary care trusts were on the distribution list for all e-communications.

  E-prescriptions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities' general practitioners are able to write prescriptions produced by computer and issued electronically. [68283]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]Almost every general practitioner (GP) has a desktop PC. Software suppliers must meet Requirement for Accreditation standards for GP's to be reimbursed. Therefore they must ensure that systems support the ability to write prescriptions via the desktop. Limited numbers of GPs are able to issue prescriptions electronically via the Electronic Transmission of Prescription pilots, which are currently being run by three private sector consortiums on behalf of the Department.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the amounts taken from local authorities to fund the National Care Standards Commission. [69170]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has received six letters regarding the amounts taken from local authorities through the standards spending assessment (SSA) to fund the National Care Standards Commission.

  Before deciding to transfer local authorities net expenditure on registration and inspection from the national SSA we consulted local authorities. This method of transferring funds was supported by most local authorities. However, as a result of the comments we
  214W
  received we reduced the amount of the transfer. We believe the adjustments made represent a fair way of deciding what to deduct from local authority budgets.

  Child Protection in Sport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had with Ministers in other Departments with regard to(a) child protection in sport and (b) inter-agency working on child protection in sport. [69123]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has had no meetings with ministerial colleagues specifically regarding child protection in sport or inter-agency working on child protection in sport. However, officials have attended meetings of the child protection in sport unit steering group—a joint initiative between the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Sport England. The child protection in sport unit advises organisations on how to introduce child protection policies, commissions research into abuse within sport and raises the profile of child protection among sports' governing bodies. One of the unit's key aims is that sport will play a full and positive part in inter-agency child protection work.

  Arthritic Knee Conditions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is with respect to promoting alternatives to surgery for arthritic knee conditions; and if he will make a statement. [69064]

  Jacqui Smith
  The ultimate responsibility for deciding what treatment is best for an individual patient rests with health professionals, who in consultation with the patient, are required to exercise their clinical judgment. These decisions can be complex and may need to take account of a range of factors; chief among these must be the ability of the patient to benefit from the treatment proposed. Non-surgical treatments for arthritis include the new drugs, infliximab (Remicade) and etanecerpt (Enbrel) which were recently approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  The importance of good arthritis services, particularly for the health and well being of older people is recognised in the national service framework for older people.

  ICT Procurement
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his director of procurement is in charge of ICT procurement. [68108]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Department's head of procurement is responsible for information and communication technology (ICT) procurement for the Department itself.

  Procurements undertaken by national health service trusts and authorities in England are formally the responsibility of the relevant chief executive. They are advised and supported by the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency. As an integral part of the Department, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is in a key position to advise on policy and the strategic direction of procurement, and its impact on developing healthcare, across the NHS. The agency contracts on a national basis
  215W
  for products and services that are strategically critical to the NHS (including ICT). It also acts in cases where aggregated purchasing power will yield greater economic savings than those achieved by contracting on a local or regional basis.

  National strategic procurements for the NHS in England are undertaken by the NHS information authority in conjunction with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency.

  Overall direction of the NHS information management and technology strategy for the NHS in England, including ICT procurement policy, is led by the director of research, analysis and information, Sir John Pattison.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 156W, on audiology services, what the cost was

  Kidneys retrieved from cadaveric donors for transplantation, England, 2000,2001, by kidney retrived centre, including per million population values (Pmp)

  Kidneys retrieved—2000

  Kidneys retrieved—2001

  Retrieval/alliance centre

  Number

  Per million population

  Number

  Per million population

  Retrieval population estimates (million)

  Newcastle

  138

  46.9

  135

  45.9

  2.94

  Leeds

  65

  17.3

  63

  16.8

  3.76

  Leicester

  54

  25.2

  26

  12.1

  2.14

  Nottingham

  38

  27.3

  26

  18.7

  1.39

  Sheffield

  40

  21.3

  44

  23.4

  1.88

  Cambridge

  41

  17.2

  65

  27.2

  2.39

  N Thames

  123

  17.1

  169

  23.5

  7.19

  S Thames

  202

  30.0

  185

  27.5

  6.73

  Portsmouth

  61

  26.6

  62

  27.1

  2.29

  Oxford

  82

  27.4

  60

  20.1

  2.99

  Bristol

  24

  12.2

  46

  23.5

  1.96

  Plymouth

  52

  29.2

  52

  29.2

  1.78

  Birmingham

  70

  15.5

  93

  20.6

  4.51

  Coventry

  40

  50.0

  28

  35.0

  0.80

  Liverpool

  85

  25.8

  67

  20.3

  3.30

  Manchester

  125

  30.9

  96

  23.7

  4.05

  England

  1,240

  24.8

  1,217

  24.3

  50.10

  Cardiothoracic organs retrieved from cadaveric donors for transplantation, England, 2000, 2001, by donation zone, including per million population values (pmp)

  Organs retrieved—2000

  Organs retrieved—2001

  Donation Zone

  Number

  Per million population

  Number

  Per million population

  Retrieval population estimates (million)

  Newcastle

  56

  7.5

  54

  7.2

  7.51

  Sheffield

  41

  9.6

  46

  10.8

  4.27

  Papworth

  90

  9.6

  65

  6.9

  9.36

  Harefield

  76

  6.1

  113

  9.1

  12.38

  St. George's

  62

  9.1

  68

  10.0

  6.83

  Birmingham

  36

  5.0

  30

  4.2

  7.14

  Manchester

  51

  7.8

  32

  4.9

  6.54

  England

  412

  8.2

  408

  8.1

  50.10

  Note:
  Cardiothoracic organs comprise hearts and lungs (sometimes transplanted in combination).
  216W
  to the NHS of purchasing each digital hearing aid under the previous contract; and what the cost is under the newly negotiated contract. [69518]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]Under the national health service contract, digital hearing aids had been available at a cost of between £140 and £205 each, for moderately powered aids. The contracts and prices have been renegotiated by a team set up by Ministers and led by James Strachan, Chief Executive of Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which includes representatives from the Department and the purchasing and supply agency, and allows moderate powered digital aids to be purchased at £65 to £75 each plus value added tax.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs were made available for transplant in each of the regional retrieval zones in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; what the population estimate is for each retrieval zone; and if he will make a statement. [69272]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is in the following tables.
  217W

  Livers retrieved from cadaveric donors for transplantation, England, 2000, 2001, by donation zone, including per million population values (pmp)

  Organs retrieved—2000

  Organs retrieved—2001

  Donation Zone

  Number

  Per million population

  Number

  Per million population

  Retrieval population estimates (million)

  Newcastle

  53

  16.3

  49

  15.1

  3.25

  Leeds

  120

  13.6

  93

  10.6

  8.81

  Cambridge

  83

  10.3

  81

  10.1

  8.05

  The Royal Free

  50

  8.9

  59

  10.5

  5.64

  Kings College

  164

  11.4

  174

  12.1

  14.42

  Birmingham

  138

  10.0

  145

  10.5

  13.86

  England

  608

  12.1

  601

  12.0

  50.10

  Note:

  Drafting guidelines are attached to the PQ Reference Guide.

  Queen Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost is of the proposed private finance initiative expansion of Queen Alexandra. Hospital, Cosham; [69268]

  (2) what the latest annual running cost was of Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosharn. [69269]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]I have been advised by Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust that the cost of the private finance initiative, to reconfigure services to focus on the Queen Alexandra Hospital, is currently estimated at £173 million.

  The trust also informs me that its 2000–01 accounts record a turnover of £212.5 million. It is not possible to separate out individual hospital sites. The 2001–02 accounts are to be presented to the trust board for adoption this month.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the question of 13 June 2002 from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, reference 61670, on Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [70429]

  Ms Blears
  I replied to the hon. Member on 11 July.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the annual report and accounts 2001–02 for the NHS Estates Executive Agency. [70807]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid in accordance with the requirements of section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Audiology Services
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002 to the hon. Member for Kingswood,Official Report, column 156W, on audiology services, what the new price of individual digital hearing aids purchased by the national health service is. [70349]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) today.

  Immunisation Statistics
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS immunisation statistics for England for 2001–02 will be published. [70355]

  Ms Blears
  It is planned to publish the statistical Bulletin, "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2001–02", in September 2002. A copy of the Bulletin will be placed in the Library and will be available on the Department's website.

  Saxon Square Health Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the former health centre premises in Saxon Square, Christchurch, are to be sold; and if he will make a statement about the reasons for the delay in the sale. [70358]

  Ms Blears
  Terms for the sale of Christchurch Health Centre to Christchurch borough council were agreed in the financial year 2001–02, and terms for its disposal were endorsed by the district valuers office.

  The borough council advised that they were unable to complete by March 2002 due to funding difficulties, but indicated their willingness to proceed in the early part of the financial year 2002–03.

  Health Services (East Kent)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to develop(a) cottage hospitals and (b) GP surgeries in advance of the re-organisation of acute services in east Kent; [70360]

  (2) when he intends to make a decision on the re-organisation of acute hospitals in east Kent. [70361]

  Ms Blears
  Since Kent and Medway health authority made its recommendation on the reconfiguration of services at East Kent Hospitals National Health Service Trust, the local community health councils have registered objections with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health. Ministers will need to give careful consideration to these objections before deciding whether to accept the health authority's recommendation. At this time it is not possible to give an indication of when this may be. I will be visiting the trust on 18 July to hear the views of local stakeholders.

  The development of primary and secondary care services are a matter for the Kent and Medway health authority, in partnership with local primary care and NHS trusts. All four primary care trusts in east Kent are
  219W
  actively working to develop community services to support the reorganisation of the acute service provided by East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Acute Medical Services
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 46 hospitals in England referred to in table 1 on page 16 of the recent report from the Royal College of Physicians entitled "Isolated Acute Medical Services". [70158]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report, "Isolated Acute Medical Services", was prepared by the Royal College of Physicians following collection of survey data. The Department did not take part in the research and does not have access to the survey data.

  Carers
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many carers in London are over the age of(a) 60, (b) 70 and (c) 80 years. [69168]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2000, there were an estimated 140,000 carers aged 60 and over in London, based on the general household survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics. A more detailed age breakdown is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Air Weapons
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the deliberations of the Firearms Consultative Committee on the use and ownership of air weapons. [53452]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are determined to tackle the misuse of air weapons and welcome the Firearms Consultative Committee's (FCC's) views on how the problem might be dealt with. A copy of their annual report was placed in the Library on 19 March. In taking forward their recommendations for better education on safe air weapons use and enforcement of the existing law, the possible use of anti-social behaviour orders will also be explored. We will also explore with the police, the practicalities and benefits of changes to the age of ownership of air weapons and registration of ownership.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to return asylum seekers to France who have already applied for asylum in that country. [69274]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]Section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for the removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements agreed between member states. Such standing arrangements are currently provided by the Dublin Convention.

  The Dublin Convention provides an agreed framework to determine which member state is responsible for consideration of asylum claims made in the European Union (EU) where applicants have travelled between
  220W
  states. This includes provision for the return of an applicant to the member state where a claim for asylum has already been made.

  Section 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for the removal of asylum claimants in circumstances other than those set out in section 11, including the return to the appropriate member state of any identified individual already recognised as a refugee by that state.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total value is of the civil penalties issued under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to the(a) UK and (b) foreign-based transport industry since April 2000. [68807]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since 3 April 2000 when the penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 were introduced, and as at 31 March 2002, a total of 1,429 penalty notices have been issued in respect of 7,516 clandestine entrants detected concealed in road vehicles arriving in the United Kingdom. The combined value of these penalties is £15,032,000.

  No records are held centrally distinguishing where transport companies that have received penalties are based, and reviewing each of the 1,429 individual cases to obtain this information would involve disproportionate costs. Records are kept centrally of the nationality of drivers who have been penalised. These show that a total of £3,314,000, or approximately 22 per cent., of penalties have been imposed on United Kingdom drivers and £11,492,000, or approximately 76 per cent., on foreign nationals. 'The remaining approximately 1.5 per cent. of penalties were imposed in respect of clandestine entrants who arrived in unaccompanied detached trailers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the possibility of a public inquiry into plans for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers near Bicester. [57967]

  Beverley Hughes
  None.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 12 February, 12 March, 10 April and 21 May, relating to her constituent, Mrs. Svitlana McLean of Waltham Cross. [59231]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]My noble Friend the Lord Filkin wrote to the hon. Member on 15 July 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ashraf Khan and Zakia Jan Lehan. [68201]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 15 July 2002.
  221W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 17 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. K. Mohammed Haji. [68198]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 15 July 2002.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a subtantive reply will be given to Mr. M. Egdell's letter of 17 April 2002, concerning asylum seekers. [68268]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]A reply to the hon. Member's letter is currently being prepared.

  A substantive response will be sent as soon as possible.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letter of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire of 4 February, ref 2513/2. [66253]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]I wrote to the hon. Member on 16 July 2002. I am very sorry for the delay in replying.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police about procedures designed to make it easier for special constables to enlist. [65491]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner has regular bilateral meetings with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) in which the subject of recruitment and retention of specials has been discussed.

  al-Akhbar
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the content of the newspaper al-Akhbar; and what plans he has to monitor anti-Semitic propaganda. [67537]

  Beverley Hughes
  Allegations that articles in the al-Akhbar newspaper contain extreme anti-semitic language have been reported to the police and are being investigated.

  We are very much aware of the deep anxiety extreme language causes to the Jewish community, particularly at a time when, following the terrorist atrocities in the United States and the current difficult situation in the Middle East, it is inevitably feeling vulnerable.

  The investigation of behaviour or material that may incite racial hatred under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 is an operational matter for the police. However, the increase in the maximum penalty for incitement to racial hatred from two to seven years' imprisonment, a change we made as part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, is a clear indication of the seriousness with which we view this offence. I would continue to encourage anyone to report to the police any material they believe breaches the incitement to racial hatred laws.
  222W
  The police and Jewish bodies continue to work closely to safeguard Jewish people and property. We are in close touch with the Community Security Trust of the British Board of Deputies, which provides up-to-date details of anti-Semitic activity in the UK, such as assaults and criminal damage.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects on community safety and overall policing of the Lambeth cannabis relaxation pilot project; and if he will make a statement. [66737]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has noted carefully the emerging findings of the ongoing evaluation of the Lambeth cannabis policing pilot, whose aim is to provide police officers with more time to concentrate on more serious offences in relation to Class A drugs and other core policing business—in particular, robbery, gun crime and burglary.

  He has noted that from July 2001 to May 2002 there was a 10 per cent. increase in arrests for Class A drug trafficking offences in comparison with the 12 month period July 2000 to June 2001; that, according to a Police Foundation/MORI poll, 83 per cent. of Lambeth residents supported the cannabis scheme and 74 per cent. believed the scheme would result in more police time being redeployed to tackle serious crime; and that this is what has happened. 1,350 hours of police time, the equivalent of 1.8 officers, were saved in the first six months of the pilot.

  My right hon. Friend has also taken note of a survey of headteachers in Lambeth, conducted by the Metropolitan Police, which revealed that the policing of cannabis pilot operating in that borough has revealed no adverse impact in terms of increased prevalence (levels of use) problems or problems such as truancy.

  He recognizes that continued community confidence in the scheme and community safety depend upon police officers continuing to spend more time dealing effectively with serious crime in the borough. In particular, he expects the police to respond swiftly and effectively to any attempt to defy the law by those dealing in drugs.

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of crimes committed that were alcohol related and their cost in each of the last five years. [67019]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Precise information on this subject is not available except where intoxication is an element of the definition of the offence (as with driving while intoxicated). The term alcohol-related crime potentially covers any criminal act where the perpetrator may have been drinking alcohol prior to, or at the time of, the offence. While the relevant offence may be recorded, there is at present no requirement on police forces to record whether or not the offender had been drinking.
  223W
  We know from the British Crime Survey that about 40 per cent. of all violent crime is alcohol-related, that is where the victim considers that the offender had been drinking prior to the commission of the offence. But victims are less able to make such an assessment where the offence does not involve direct contact with the offender.

  The suite of Best Value Performance Indicators for the police for 2002–03 will provide a more consistent measure of alcohol-related violence across all police forces in England and Wales, by including both a measure of violent offences committed in connection with licensed premises and a measure of violent offences committed under the influence of an intoxicating substance.

  The Government is determined to tackle the range of problems that arise from alcohol misuse, including alcohol-related crime and disorder. This includes tackling under-age drinking, recognising that young people are generally less likely than adults to differentiate between legal and illegal substances. As part of the response to this, each Drug Action Team has now drawn up a Young People's Substance Misuse Plan detailing how education, prevention and treatment activities for drugs and alcohol will be expanded according to local needs and integrated within wider provision for children and young people.

  Confiscated Criminal Assets
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was confiscated from convicted criminals in each of the last three years. [68438]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The receipts realised in England and Wales from confiscation orders made against convicted criminals in respect of the proceeds of their crimes for the last three years for which figures are available are £16,510,000 in 1998–99, £25,044,000 in 1999–2000, and £19,833,000 in 2000–01. The value of confiscation orders made for those years were £34,947.000, £49,146,000 and £50,031,000 respectively.

  Deportees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the financial cost involved in the removal of people being deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [68441]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the specific costs requested by my hon. Friend. The provision of such information would require an examination of individual case files and would incur disproportionate cost.

  Europol
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards extending the(a) competence and (b) executive powers of Europol. [68335]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Europol Convention gives Europol the power to deal with a full range of serious international crime where an organised criminal structure is involved. This includes drug trafficking, people smuggling, crime committed in the course of terrorism, counterfeiting and money laundering. The Government would look sympathetically at any proposal to extend
  224W
  Europol's competence to cover other forms of serious organised international crime, provided a need had been identified, and Europol could add value.

  Europol does not have executive police powers in the member states. The Government would not support giving Europol such powers. Europol's role is to support member states own law enforcement operations by, for example facilitating the exchange of information between the member states and analysing information and intelligence.

  Immigration
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures the Government have in place to keep track of immigrants who enter the UK; and if he will make a statement. [69013]

  Beverley Hughes
  A great many people who are not British citizens come to the United Kingdom each year. Excluding European Union citizens, approximately 13 million people were given leave to enter the United Kingdom in 2000, the last year for which data has been published.

  Foreign nationals who are granted limited leave to enter or remain for longer than three months for employment, and foreign nationals granted limited leave to enter or remain for a total period in excess of six months for any other reason are required to register with the police. Failure to do so is an offence. For this purpose, "foreign nationals" excludes European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and citizens of Commonwealth countries. This requirement does not apply to anyone who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain.

  Arriving passengers awaiting a decision on whether or not they should be given leave to enter, passengers who have been refused entry, and people liable to deportation or to removal as an illegal entrant or under the powers contained in section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 may be granted temporary admission pending a decision whether or not to grant leave or pending removal. This temporary admission may be subject to conditions as to residence, employment and reporting to the police or an immigration officer. Failure to comply with these conditions is also an offence. A person detained under Immigration Act powers may also be released on bail, again subject to conditions, which may include a requirement to report.

  The Immigration Service has seven designated reporting centres, which have been established to assist the Immigration Service in managing these reporting regimes. Alternatively a person may be required to report to a police station near their address.

  We are seeking to further improve our ability to remain in contact with persons seeking leave to remain in the United. Kingdom. In particular, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will provide for the creation of accommodation centres for asylum seekers, and we will also seek to improve arrangements in respect of asylum seekers outside those centres. During the new induction process all asylum seekers are advised of the importance of informing the Home Office of any change of address and of the need to report as required. The Bill provides that the provision of support to asylum seekers will be conditional on their reporting as required.
  225W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the definition used for each category of immigrant to the UK; and if the European Union has agreed upon these categorical definitions. [69206]

  Beverley Hughes
  Our immigration system is formed around the concept of categories of entry, each with its own eligibility criteria, conditions and restrictions. The categories are broadly for the purposes of visiting, study, economic activity, family reunion and humanitarian protection.

  Details for each category are set out in the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC395. In addition there are a number of concessions that operate outside the rules under which individuals may qualify if they meet the requisite criteria. The European Community (EC) does have competence under Title IV of the EC Treaty in the area of visas, asylum and immigration. The European Commission has brought forward a number of proposals for Community legislation on rules on admission of third country nationals to the member states, covering family reunification, admission for the purposes of employment and self-employment, the status of those who are long-term residents and the conditions in which third country nationals have the freedom to travel. None of these proposals have so far been adopted by the Council of Ministers. The United Kingdom has not exercised its right to opt in to the adoption and application of these measures. The United Kingdom has legislation which governs the rights of entry and residence of European Union (EU) citizens, as defined in the EC Treaty.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers entered England in the past five years, broken down by country of origin; what proportion this total represented of the total number of immigrants to enter England in these periods; and how many emigrants to England were recorded from each of the countries listed in this period. [69210]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that information on how many asylum applicants entered England in the past five years is unavailable. Regional information is available on where asylum applications in the United Kingdom were made (by port of application) but not on the entry routes of asylum seekers. In 2001 over a third (36 per cent) of applications were made at United Kingdom ports, while most applications (64 per cent) were made in country.

  Information on the numbers of asylum applications (excluding dependants) at port and in country, by nationality, for 1999 to 2001 is published on the Home Office Research Development Statistics website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html in Table 3b of the quarterly web pages "Asylum Statistics: 1st Quarter", and corresponding data for 1997 and 1998 are published in Table 2.2 of the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics 2001" (also available from the Library).

  Information on the numbers of persons granted settlement annually, by nationality, is published in Table 6.5 of the Command Paper "Control of Immigration Statistics 2000", available from the Library and from the Research Development Statistics website.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria are used to determine which asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are allowed to stay in Great Britain until the new elections in Zimbabwe; and when they will be required to return to Zimbabwe; [69005]

  (2) what changes are planned to the criteria relating to asylum seekers from Zimbabwe. [69007]

  Beverley Hughes
  Applications for asylum from people from Zimbabwe are considered on their individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations' Refugee Convention.

  On 15 January, we announced a temporary suspension of returns of unsuccessful asylum applicants to Zimbabwe. We will resume returns only when we are satisfied that it is safe to do so. We are monitoring events in the aftermath of the Zimbabwe presidential election and other developments in the country situation. A decision on resumption of returns will be made when we have properly assessed the risks to returnees. That process is under way.

  Time Limited Development Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the assessment of applications for grants from the Time Limited Development Fund will be completed. [68791]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) announced the allocation of grants to organisations successful under the Time Limited Development Fund at the re-launch of the Home Office Active Community Unit on 29 May this year. 113 projects in deprived areas of England will benefit from £13.5 million grant aid over the next three years.

  Volunteering Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by organisation of the annual grants for 2001–02 that have been paid to voluntary and community organisations pursuing volunteering projects. [68794]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The requested information is provided in the table:

  £

  Organisation

  Annual grant

  African Family Support Centre

  22,195

  Age Concern

  38,000

  Age Concern Ledbury and District

  9,918

  Alzheimer's Society

  5,208

  Big Brothers and Sisters

  200,000

  Bishop Creighton House

  15,273

  Bolton Lads and Girls Club

  27,775

  Business in the Community

  258,362

  Carlisle Mencap

  7,320

  Chance (UK) Ltd.

  20,518

  Children's Society

  24,500

  Community Service Volunteers—Make a Difference Day

  60,000

  Community Service Volunteers—Media-Community Action Desks

  300,000

  County of Northampton Council on Addiction

  29,000

  Dines Green Streets Ahead

  15,929

  227W

  £

  Organisation

  Annual grant

  Enfield Business Education Partnership

  2,500

  Experience Corps

  5,292,000

  Family Service Units

  15,462

  Focus Mentoring

  27,381

  Focus—Interaction Volunteer Development Initiative

  69,000

  Foyer

  50,000

  Fun in Action (FUN) for Children

  12,000

  Halton Voluntary Action

  289,286

  Help and Care

  55,000

  Help the Aged

  25,032

  Home-Start Bournemouth

  12,250

  Home-Start Nottingham

  16,753

  Home-Start Sittingbourne and Sheppey

  6,219

  Home-Start Stoke-on-Trent

  19,543

  Home-Start Wisbech

  12,000

  Lambeth Wellcare

  8,378

  Media Trust—Teletext

  50,000

  Media Trust—Community Channel

  190,000

  Media Trust—New Year New You

  111,000

  Media Trust—Voluntary Matters

  180,000

  Mersey Volunteer Bureau

  50,000

  MSF Union

  50,000

  National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders— Walsall

  32,009

  National Association of Volunteer Bureaux—Media Skills

  100,000

  National Centre for Volunteering

  8,000

  National Centre for Volunteering—Diversity Challenge Website

  16,215

  National Centre for Volunteering—IYV 2001 Consortium

  127,711

  National Centre for Volunteering—IYV 'Image Bank'

  50,000

  National Centre for Volunteering—Volunteering Convention

  14,000

  National Centre for Volunteering—Volunteering Supplement

  28,000

  National Mentoring Network: A Plan to Equality

  430,000

  National Trust—Sharing the Caring

  45,752

  National Trust

  26,542

  National Youth Agency—Philip Lawrence Awards

  100,000

  North East Council on Addictions Services Ltd.

  25,223

  North Tyneside Voluntary Organisations Development Agency

  270,000

  Northampton Volunteer Bureau

  32,000

  Northorpe Hall Trust

  15,954

  One to One Youth Befriending

  27,846

  Pabulum

  23,330

  PACT Community Projects

  15,091

  RAMP—The Renewal Programme

  15,857

  Ravidassia Community Centre

  10,000

  Retired Executives Action Clearing House

  22,725

  Regional Interactive Safety Centre

  19,000

  Routes to Volunteering in Havering

  25,000

  Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  52,654

  Royal Philanthropic Society Rainer

  47,223

  Salford Business Education Partnership

  90,000

  Sandwell Volunteer Bureau

  60,928

  SCOPE—South West

  27,000

  SCOPE—North West

  22,356

  Second City, Second Chance

  12,200

  SENSE

  5,250

  SKILL

  8,672

  Somerset Youth Voluntary Network

  35,000

  South Northants Volunteer Bureau

  36,000

  SOVA

  26,793

  Swindon Education Business Partnership

  24,900

  Terrence Higgins Trust

  13,859

  The Befriending Network

  15,000

  The King's Cross Project

  12,946

  The Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  34,285

  The London Connection

  5,798

  Those on the Margins of Society

  40,000

  TimeBank

  710,000

  Voluntary Action Camden

  227,690

  Voluntary Action Luton

  250,456

  Voluntary Action Sheffield—Doing it Locally Campaign

  39,928

  Whitbread Volunteer Action Awards

  60,000

  Youthnet—Developing Diversity Project

  134,508

  Youthnet—Do It Database

  29,701

  Total

  11,081,204

  Private Office Guidelines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his private office operates under when dealing with requests from hon. Members on exceptional, urgent and compassionate cases. [69424]

  Beverley Hughes
  My predecessor, my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Rooker, wrote to hon. Members on 15 May 2002 setting out how their representations in relation to immigration cases would be dealt with. In exceptional, urgent and compassionate cases, private office staff will intervene directly and act according to the nature of the case to try and seek an urgent resolution.

  However, due to the nature of exceptional, urgent and compassionate cases, there are no specific guidelines which private office staff follow. Each case is considered separately, dependent on its individual circumstances. Private office staff liaise with the relevant departmental officials to obtain the necessary information to enable the Minister to make an informed decision.

  Asylum (Iraqis)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is regarding(a) Iraqi Kurds seeking asylum and (b) removals in the event of their claims being unsuccessful; and if he will make a statement. [69344]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government recognise that there may be certain people from northern Iraq who are in need of international protection under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. However, there are also some asylum seekers from that region who, after careful consideration of their application, do not appear to meet the criteria set out in the convention. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner is on record saying that it would not object to the return to northern Iraq of asylum seekers from that area who have been found, through fair and objective procedures, not to be in need of international protection.

  Iraqi citizens of Kurdish origin are able to return voluntarily to northern Iraq. We are exploring the options for enforcing returns to northern Iraq using routes that will not cross territory controlled by the Government in Baghdad. We hope to be in a position to begin enforced returns shortly.

  Pig-to-Primate Organ Transplant
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons behind the decision not to allow a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding pig-to-primate organ transplant research by Imutran Limited at Huntingdon Life Sciences. [68393]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]Home Office Ministers considered the matter very carefully, but concluded that the issues, including those regarding compliance with the authorities granted to Imutran Limited under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for its xenotransplantation research programme, did not merit such an inquiry. Nor were they considered to justify any other form of special investigation. Instead, in November 2000, the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) asked the Chief Inspector of the
  229W
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to carry out a routine assessment of compliance with the relevant authorities issued to Imutran Limited under the 1986 Act. The Chief Inspector's report, which covered five years work, was published on 13 July 2001 and copies placed in the Library. It confirmed that the general level of compliance was good and identified no new factors justifying a judicial inquiry.

  Passport Control (Biometric Techniques)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 886, on the meeting with the French Interior Minister, if he will make a statement on the use of biometric techniques in establishing more secure methods of passport control. [66745]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]The use of biometric techniques to link a travel document to the rightful holder has long been recognised as a policy goal by passport issuing authorities around the world. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is developing a biometric standard for use in machine readable travel documents to ensure global interoperability. The United Kingdom (UK) is supporting the work of ICAO in establishing this standard. In addition the UK Passport Service is investigating ways to use biometrics information in UK passports and in passport cards as the latter are developed; and in its efforts to counter fraud.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited the Public Inquiry Office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [67926]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) visited the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Public Inquiry Office in Croydon on 26 June 2001.

  My noble Friend, (Lord Rooker), the former Minister for Immigration also visited the Public Inquiry Office, as did I, on 20 June 2002.

  Foreign Nationals (Domestic Violence Provisions)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the provisions relating to domestic violence have been applied to allow a foreign national who has married a UK citizen to remain in the UK despite the break-up of that marriage due to domestic violence. [70035]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]Up to the end of 2000, the latest available data from case records, 63 applicants under the domestic violence concession have been granted settlement.

  Internet (Child Protection)
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet has met since it was set up last year; what progress has been made; and if he will make a statement. [70809]
  230W
  Hilary Benn
  The then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) announced the establishment of the Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet on 9 May 2001. Since then, the full Task Force has met four times and most recently on 3 July 2002. The work of the Task Force has been taken forward by a number of Sub Groups which have met regularly and have been looking at the criminal law, law enforcement, child protection measures, public awareness, training and further developing co-operation between the industry and others on reporting and handling child protection issues.

  Members of the respective Sub Groups have given freely of their time to support the aim we set last year: to make the United Kingdom the best and safest place in the world for children to use the internet, and to help protect children the world over from abuse fuelled by criminal misuse of new technologies.

  The Task Force has developed, run and now evaluated a successful national awareness campaign. Research had confirmed two key gaps: first, that parents are ill-informed about their children's use of the internet and chat rooms, and second that young people give out their personal details without considering the consequences. Two campaigns were designed, one to target 14 to 16-year-olds and the other parents/carers of 11 to 13-year-olds. The media used included press advertising, cinema, radio, on-line and viral marketing from December 2001 until spring 2002. Independent evaluation of the campaigns shows significantly improved awareness of the key messages in both target audiences. The Task Force is now considering that evaluation and how to build on the momentum created.

  The Task Force has also developed proposals for a criminal offence to tackle the "grooming" of children by paedophiles online or offline. This is intended to allow prosecution at an early stage when children are being groomed, before an existing sexual offence has been committed. In addition, the proposals include the creation of a new civil protection order relating to behaviour towards a child for an illegal or harmful sexual purpose.

  Practical online child protection measures have been drawn up in a draft good practice document for service providers which deals with chat, instant messaging and web services. These encourage, among other things, clear and accessible safety messages and advice and user-friendly ways of reporting abuse. The drafts are being considered by the wider industry through the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) and the London Internet Exchange (LINX).

  Work is also in hand to develop a shared matrix for reporting and handling child protection issues, and developing good practice for dealing with law enforcement requests for information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This is being taken forward, with the oversight of the Task Force, by the Internet Crime Forum.

  The Task Force will continue to work in partnership with the industry to: consider the extent to which the criminal law currently covers unsuitable material being sent to children and all forms of indecent representations of children; assess the new challenges posed by
  231W
  development of 3G mobile phones; and develop basic training materials for child protection staff on children's internet use.

  In parallel with the Task Force, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in the development of a G8 strategy for protecting children from sexual exploitation on the internet. The strategy, which is not yet finalised, will cover issues such as: victim identification; intelligence gathering and sharing; location of suspects; enforcement tools and training; awareness building and prevention; and police working with industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay before Parliament the annual report for the Forensic Science Service. [70810]

  Mr. Denham
  Copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) Annual Report and Accounts for 2001–02 have today been laid before Parliament.

  Performance against Agency targets 2001–02
  The FSS met seven of its 10 targets and concluded the financial year with a strong performance.
  Financial targets
  A 12.9 per cent. return on capital employed was produced against a target of 10 per cent.A three-year rolling efficiency gain of 10 per cent. was achieved against a target of 10 per cent.
  Service Delivery
  An average turnaround time of 35 days was achieved against a target of 26 days.94 per cent.. 92 per cent. and 90 per cent. of agreed dates were achieved in urgent, critical and persistent young offender cases (respectively) against targets of 97 per cent., 97 per cent. and 100 per cent.89 per cent. of agreed delivery dates in all categories were achieved against a target of 93 per cent.Service level agreements were put into place with 92 per cent. of police forces—against a target of 90 per cent.A biennial customer satisfaction survey was conducted.A baseline overall measure for putting into place routine and robust customer satisfaction measurement processes based on transactional approach, and for demonstrating year on year improvements in police (customer) satisfaction was established.External quality accreditation to ISO standards was maintained—and extended.Application for 50 per cent. of reporting officers for accreditation to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, where appropriate, was achieved.
  The targets for 2002–03, the agency's fourth year of trading fund, are:

  Finance:
  Target: a 10 per cent. return on capital employed.Target: a 10 per cent. efficiency gain (over three years).232W
  Service delivery:
  Target: a five per cent. increase in transactional index of customer satisfaction (baseline 100 per cent).Target: agreements on service levels implemented with 92 per cent. of police forces.Target: maintain quality accreditation.Target: meet dispatch dates in 98 per cent. of urgent and critical cases and 99 per cent. in persistent young offenders cases.Target: meet dispatch dates in 93 per cent. of all categories of cases.Target: achieve a 70 calendar day turnaround time in 90 per cent. of standard jobs (violent and volume crime cases) by the year end, demonstrating improvements through the year.Target: submit applications for accreditation to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) of 100 per cent. of reporting officers in areas where the CRFP is registering people.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further renovations are planned to transform Dungavel detention centre into a removal centre; what the estimated cost is; and from which budget line such renovation costs will be met. [69281]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no physical alterations needed to transform Dungavel House from a detention to a removal centre. Any future proposals to alter the building will be considered and if found to be economically advantageous the costs will be met by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  EU Committees (Scottish Executive Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the EU Advisory Committee on the Free Movement of Workers 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. [67751]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The EU Advisory Committee on the Free Movement of Workers is next due to meet in November 2002 (date to be set by the European Commission). Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been and are not currently members of this committee. The advisory committee is composed of six members for each member state of the European Union, two of whom represent the Government (normally only one representative attends), two the trade unions and two the employers' associations, plus one substitute member for each of these. The committee and its composition were established by regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the EU Technical Committee for the Implementation of Regulations concerning the Free Movement of Workers 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. [67744]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.
  233W
  The EU Technical Committee for the Implementation of Regulations concerning the Free Movement of Workers is next due to meet in November 2002 (date to be set by the European Commission). Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been and are not currently members of this committee. The advisory committee is composed of one member for each member state of the European Union, plus one substitute member. The committee and its composition were established by regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when(a) the EU Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers and (b) its working
  234W
  parties are next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members; and if he will make a statement. [67743]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The EU Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers is next due to meet on 2 October 2002. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been and are not currently members of this committee. UK representation consists of two officials from the Department for Work and Pensions (normally only one attends), three trade union representatives and three employers' representatives (the latter two includes substitute members). The committee and its composition were established by regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60747]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry. Energy and Environment, on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Sprinkler Systems
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many sprinklers were installed in properties owned by local authorities last year; and if he will make a statement. [65857]

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

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on encouraging the installation of sprinkler systems in(a) local authority owned houses and (b) new build houses; and if he will make a statement. [65856]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Government have no formal role in encouraging local authorities to install sprinkler systems. It is a matter for local consideration, although authorities will be assisted by the proposed introduction of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This will provide a risk based approach to the implementation of safety measures in dwellings. The HHSRS provides an analysis of risk from 24 broad hazards, including hazards from fire, and of the counter-measures to address those risks. Sprinklers are listed as one of the measures to promote fire safety.

  (b) Although there are currently no plans to revise the building regulations to include provisions for domestic sprinkler systems into new build houses, we are keeping this under review in the light of emerging standards and improvements in sprinkler technology. We have recently let two research contracts to look at the whole issue of residential and domestic sprinklers, including an assessment of their actual effectiveness and the undertaking of a regulatory impact assessment to consider their costs and benefits. The results and conclusions of this work should be available around the end of 2003.

  We will need to await the findings of the research work referred to above, before we are in a position to consider more fully if the provision of residential sprinklers should be a requirement of the building regulations.

  Local Taxation
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to introduce forms of local taxation in addition to the council tax; and if he will make a statement. [65863]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" detailed our scheme for Business Improvement Districts (BIDS). Under a BID, projects of benefit to the local community will be funded by a levy on the business rate paid by local businesses. Before a BID can be established a majority of the ratepayers liable for the levy will need
  236W
  to have voted in favour. The draft Local Government Bill published on 12 June contains the necessary primary legislation

  Apart from the BIDs levy, the Government have no plans to introduce other forms of local taxation in addition to the council tax.

  We said in the White Paper that once some further analysis had been done, we would establish a high-level working group, involving Ministers and senior figures from local government, to look at all the aspects of the balance of local government funding, reviewing the evidence and looking at reform options. We intend to make an announcement regarding this review in due course.

  Local Government Bill
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 820W, on the draft local government Bill, if councils have been informed of (a) the consultation and (b) the availability of paper copies. [66086]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have ensured that the launch of the Local Government Bill was widely publicised. Individual councils were informed of the consultation via local government association bulletins and "Info4Local". "Info4Local" is a one-stop portal for local authorities to get quick and easy access to information on the websites of Government Departments, and we used its e-mail service to send out information on the draft Bill as soon as it was published. Paper copies were also sent to key representative organisations and have been made available to others on request. The consultation document itself contains details on how to obtain paper copies.

  Data Services
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new data services, broken down by(a) sex, (b) race, (c) disability and (d) age have been commissioned by his Department since it was created. [66713]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Romsey on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 83W. I am not aware of any new data series being commissioned since the establishment of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether he has established a baseline for policy appraisal; against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved. [66714]

  (2) if he will list the subjects of the gender impact assessments drawn up by his Department, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [66715]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 83W.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regeneration; and if he will make a statement. [67444]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Deputy Prime Minister has decided that for the time being Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will take on the portfolios of their predecessors. This means that Lord Rooker, Minister of State and I, Parliamentary Under-Secretary have responsibility for regeneration issues.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants there are in his Department, broken down by pay band; and if he will make a statement. [67454]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Central) (ODPM(C)) employs approximately 4,216 staff. This figure is composed of staff working on policy areas and an estimate of 50 per cent. of the support staff who worked for the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). This figure may change when restructuring is complete and final decisions have been taken on whether support staff are allocated to ODPM(C) or Department for Transport (DfT). The table shows these staff split by pay band.

  Band

  OPCM (C)

  SCS

  75

  Band 7

  37

  Band 6

  264

  Band 5

  204

  Band 4

  355

  Band 3

  383

  Band 2

  274

  Band 1

  44

  Secretarial

  78

  Total

  1,714

  The ODPM also includes Government office staff and the following table shows the grade breakdown of these staff.

  Band

  Total

  SCS

  54

  Band 7

  30

  Band 6

  212

  Band 5

  225

  Band 4

  542

  Band 3

  635

  Band 2

  489

  Band 1

  86

  Secretarial

  87

  Total

  2,360

  Finally ODPM also includes 142 staff who have transferred across from the Cabinet Office. A breakdown by pay band is not yet available for these staff.

  Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the adequacy of housing supply for the next 10 to 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [67217]

  Mr. McNulty
  Annual rates of housing provision to be kept under regular review are established through regional planning guidance and the spatial strategy it sets out. We expect local authorities to provide sufficient housing land to meet this housing provision. A central feature of "plan, monitor and manage" is the process of review and adjustment if indicators show that more or less housing is needed. This should occur as a minimum every five years, and sooner if there are signs of under or over provision.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take into account low cost housing in North Staffordshire when assessing the need for affordable housing for key public sector workers in(a) the West Midlands, (b) Cheshire and (c) South Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [69688]

  Mr. McNulty
  In each region the Government Office and the Housing Corporation produce a Regional Housing Statement working closely with local and regional stakeholders including local authorities and housing associations. This highlights key housing issues and pressures in each region and helps to identify regional priorities. The corporation also produces a Regional Investment Strategy which contains priorities for investment in that region. These priorities are also discussed with local and regional stakeholders.

  Multiple Occupation Houses (Deaths)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many deaths there have been in houses of multiple occupation in each of the last five years for which records are available, broken down by the causes of death; and if he will make a statement. [68245]

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

  Priority Development Areas
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Government's priority development areas. [68357]

  Mr. McNulty
  Priority areas for development are identified in Regional Planning Guidance issued by the Deputy Prime Minister, in the draft London Plan published by the Mayor and in development plans adopted by local planning authorities.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the overseas trips on departmental business that have been undertaken in each of the last five years by officials in his Department; and what the(a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) result was in each case. [68729]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness (Local Authority Powers)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what statutory powers local authorities possess to(a) refuse housing to, (b) refuse services to and (c) return to their place of origin rough sleepers and homeless people. [68663]

  Mr. McNulty
  Authorities cannot refuse to secure accommodation or provide advice and assistance, as appropriate, to applicants where this is required as a result of a specific duty being owed to them under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Rough sleepers or homeless people who apply to a housing authority for accommodation or advice and assistance must be treated in the same way as all other applicants.

  Authorities do not have a power to return homeless people or rough sleepers to another area, but where an authority decide that an applicant is owed the main homelessness duty and (a) he or she does not have a local connection with the area of the authority and (b) does have one with the area of another authority, the case may be referred to that other authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages of the system of the area cost adjustments within the local government finance system; [68893]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that regional wage differentials are reflected in the local government finance system. [68892]

  Mr. Leslie
  As we set out in the Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finance", we believe that the case for recognising that pay levels vary across the country is clear-cut. There will therefore continue to be an area cost adjustment in the new local government finance system that we intend to introduce in 2003–04.

  We do, however, recognise that how the adjustment is calculated is difficult and contentious. That is why the formula grant distribution consultation paper we published on 8 July includes a range of alternative options on which we are inviting comments. We will be carefully considering the views that are put to us during the consultation period before taking final decisions on the best way forward.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the average SSA per head of population for local services after discounting area cost adjustment is in each(a) metropolitan area, (b) Government office region and (c) local authority; [68897]

  (2) what the average SSA per head of population for local services is in each (a) metropolitan area, (b) Government office by area and (c) local authority. [68898]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average 2002–03 SSA per head of population, using the mid-2000 population estimates, for each metropolitan area is:

  £

  Metropolitan area

  SSA per head

  Greater Manchester

  1,061

  Merseyside

  1,141

  South Yorkshire

  1,027

  240W

  £

  Metropolitan area

  SSA per head

  Tyne and Wear

  869

  West Midlands

  1,114

  West Yorkshire

  1,015

  The area cost adjustment (ACA) factor for each of the metropolitan areas is 1,000, and hence the ACA contribution for each of these areas is zero. The average 2002–03 SSA per head of population, excluding the ACA contribution is, therefore, the same as that in the table.

  The average 2002–03 SSA per head of population, both including and excluding the ACA contribution, for each Government office area is:

  £

  Government office

  Including the ACA contribution

  SSA per head Excluding the ACA contribution

  South-west

  876

  876

  South-east

  892

  833

  London

  1,265

  1,085

  Eastern

  909

  865

  East Midlands

  906

  906

  West Midlands

  989

  989

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  992

  992

  North-east

  1,043

  1,043

  North-west

  1,027

  1,027

  A table showing the 2002–03 SSA per head, both including and excluding the ACA contribution, for each local authority has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to impose transitional arrangements on the implementation of changes to the local government finance system; and if he will make a statement. [68890]

  Mr. Leslie
  As we announced in the local government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", we will continue to operate the floors and ceilings scheme to limit changes in grant to councils in any one year. Precise details of our proposals for the scheme for 2003–04 will be announced in the provisional local government finance settlement around the end of November 2002.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities spent(a) at or below SSA levels and (b) above SSA levels in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Leslie
  In 1998–99, 78 out of 433 authorities incurred a Net Revenue Expenditure at or below SSA. In 1999–2000 there were 52 and in 2001–01 there were 54.

  SSA includes Police Grant in the case of police authorities and, in 2000–01, General GLA grant in the case of the Greater London Authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the new grant formula that will replace SSA will be fairer and simpler and address the needs of all classes of authority. [69985]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 8 July, we published a consultation paper setting out a number of options for reforming the distribution system for general revenue grants. One of the aims of the consultation paper is to
  241W
  make the system simpler overall, but it must be recognised that the formula will never be completely simple.

  Central and local Government have worked together to develop the options contained in the consultation paper to make the system fairer for all local authorities. Decisions on the future funding system will be taken only after all consultation responses have been fully considered.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions a local authority has put into the public domain the confidential draft of the local authority's corporate governance inspection by the Audit Commission prior to publication; and what action he intends to take against such local authorities. [69692]

  Mr. Leslie
  Of the corporate governance inspections that have been carried out to date four reports have come into the public domain prior to publication. Such premature disclosure does not help authorities to derive full benefit from inspections. The Audit Commission strongly advises local authority officers and members not to reveal the contents of draft reports prior to an agreed release date. Confidential drafts are provided in order to allow full discussion and deliberation of the recommendations within the council; and between the council and the inspectors, and the incorporation of any subsequent changes to the report before publication of a final report. The detailed management of these arrangements is a matter for the Audit Commission and the authority concerned.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 820W, on the Millennium Dome, if he will (a) commission from Jones Lange Lasalle and (b) publish estimates of the value of the Millennium Dome site to Meridian Delta Ltd. (i) with and (ii) without the Dome. [69202]

  Mr. McNulty
  English Partnerships, with professional advice from Jones Lang Lasalle, undertook full assessments of the value of the deal with Meridian Delta Ltd. and Anschutz Entertainment Group, and of alternative development scenarios with and without the Dome.

  The net present value of the deal, assuming the full scheme is developed, is around £240 million. This is higher than both the estimated value of the site developed under alternative development scenarios with the Dome, and the estimated value of the site developed without the Dome. Our professional advice was that the establishment of a successful and iconic venue enhances the value of the rest of the development.

  Precise valuations are commercially confidential, in order not to compromise the joint venture arrangements, negotiations between the joint venture and third parties, and the ability of English Partnerships to secure value for money through their commercial negotiations.

  The National Audit Office is examining the sale process, including valuations and value for money assessments, and will report to Parliament in due course.

  "Our Towns and Cities: The Future"
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the goal in section 4.10 of the DETR document, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future", on 100 per cent. capital allowances for creating flats over shops for letting. [69377]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have introduced 100 per cent. capital allowances for owners and occupiers to cover the costs of creating flats over shops and similar commercial premises for letting. This measure was introduced in the 2001 Budget and has been available since May 2001. The Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of all the fiscal measures in the urban White Paper.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the goal in section 4.10 of the DETR document, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future", to bring about VAT reforms to encourage conversion of properties for residential use. [69375]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have reduced VAT to 5 per cent. on the cost of conversions of residential property into residential communal homes, such as care homes and homes with multiple occupation, and on the cost of renovating residential properties that have been empty for three years or longer. A similar VAT reduction on the cost of converting residential properties, which have been empty for three years of more, into a different number of dwellings has been introduced. An adjustment has also been made to the zero rate of VAT to provide relief for the sale of renovated houses that have been empty for 10 years or more.

  The measures above were introduced in the 2001 Budget. The reduction in VAT on residential conversions has been available since May 2001 and the relief from VAT on the sale of renovated homes has been available since August 2001. The Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of all the fiscal measures included in the urban White Paper.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the goal in section 4.10 of the DETR document, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future", on accelerated payable tax credits for cleaning contaminated land. [69376]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have introduced an accelerated payable 150 per cent. tax credit on qualifying expenditure incurred on or after 11 May 2001 on cleaning-up contaminated land (land remediation expenditure) for companies that acquire contaminated land for the purposes of a trade or schedule A letting business. The tax credit is intended to make the development of contaminated sites more viable, helping to tackle the legacy of previous industrial usage and reducing pressure to develop greenfield sites. This measure was introduced in the 2001 Budget and has been available since May 2001.

  The Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of all the fiscal measures in the urban White Paper.

  Open Spaces
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the introduction of
  243W
  the Green Flag Award scheme for recognising excellence in local parks, play areas and open spaces; and if he will make a statement. [69381]

  Mr. McNulty
  Work to further develop the Green Flag Award scheme began on 1 April 2001. This has already led to an increase in the number of awards from 50 in 2000 to 81 this year. A new award category—the Green Pennant—was introduced in May 2002 to recognise the achievements of community managed and maintained spaces, and a further award category is being developed to recognise excellence in play space provision.

  Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money has been provided for the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme since its establishment. [69383]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The New Opportunities Fund was directed by the Government to distribute £125 million to green spaces and sustainable communities by 2002. So far more than £30 million has been awarded to over 900 projects.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were sleeping rough in each year from 1998. [69423]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 3 December 2001, the Prime Minister announced that the Rough Sleepers Unit had met its target to reduce rough sleeping by at least two thirds by 2002. The latest figures on the number of people sleeping rough since June 1998 are as follows:

  England

  Reduction (per cent.)

  June 1998

  1,851

  —

  June 1999

  1,633

  11.8

  June 2000

  1,180

  36.3

  June 2001

  703

  62.0

  November 2001

  532

  71.3

  The new Homelessness Directorate within my Department brings together the Rough Sleepers Unit, the Bed and Breakfast Unit and a new team to advise local authorities on the development of strategies to tackle homelessness. The Directorate will continue to work on sustaining the two-thirds reduction in rough sleeping.

  Public Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department issues to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the(a) starting dates for major public inquiries and (b) avoidance of overlapping dates for separate major public inquiries affecting the same objectors. [69625]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no specific guidance issued by the Department to the Planning Inspectorate for:

  (a) the start date for inquiries. The Inspectorate is in general expected to handle cases as quickly as possible and statutory rules require most inquiries to start within 22 weeks of the announcement of the intention to hold them;

  244W

  (b) the avoidance of overlapping dates for separate major public inquiries affecting the same objectors. The Inspectorate takes account of potential overlaps: where they occur, programmes for the inquiries concerned can usually be arranged to avoid problems for objectors.

  Local Elections
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Minister is responsible for the administration of local elections. [69359]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 197W, ministerial responsibility for policy, including for reform and modernisation, on elections to English, and to the extent issues are not devolved Welsh, councils, the Greater London Authority, and any future English regional assembly is for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69319]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets out the specific business requirements that software is required to meet. Suppliers are free to propose open source software to meet these requirements.

  The Department's use of open source software will follow the Government's policy when published, currently planned for summer 2002. The draft policy may be viewed at http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_ documentasp?docnum=429.

  At present, less than 1 per cent. of the Office's software is open source.

  Council Tax Bands
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what percentage of properties are in council tax Band F and above, broken down by(a) RSLs and (b) local authority properties in (i) London and (ii) England. [70032]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the number of properties in each council tax band is shown on the valuation list compiled by the Valuation Office Agency. The number and percentage of properties in council tax Band F and above, as at 26 March 2002, for London and England is shown in the table. A breakdown by RSLs or local authority properties is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  London

  England

  Number of properties in Band F and above

  486,089

  1,932,365

  Total number of properties

  3,125,684

  21,436,841

  Number of properties in Band F and above as a percentage of the total number of properties

  15.6

  9.0

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what percentage of properties are in each council tax band in(a) England and (b) each Government office region. [70031]
  245W
  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 397W.

  Fire Service (Radio Communications)
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government's proposed revised national strategy for the replacement of the fire services main scheme radio system will(a) provide and (b) fund a solution which will meet the user requirements determined by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. [70002]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government have undertaken to fully fund the new national procurement strategy for the fire service radio system. This work will be taken forward in close co-operation with fire authorities, including the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

  Alconbury Airfield
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the timetable is for his decision on the Planning Inspectorate's report concerning the proposed development at Alconbury airfield, Cambridgeshire. [69727]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Planning Inspectorate has advised that it expects to send the report to the Deputy Prime Minister towards the end of August. Until we have received and considered the report, I cannot say when the decision on the appeal might be made.

  Ordnance Survey
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey Executive Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [70808]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey for 2002–03:To achieve revenue target of £98.0 million (excluding the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement)
  To achieve an efficiency gain of 6 per cent. over the period April 2000 to March 2004. The target for 2002–03 is 4.5 per cent. against the baseline of 1999–2000.
  To complete national coverage of the OS Explorer Map series by 31 March 2003, and for our principal national paper map series, we will issue full up-to-date revisions:

  Years

  On average not more than every

  and, no longer than every

  Explorer May (403 sheets)

  2.5

  6.5

  OS Landranger Map (204 sheets)

  3

  6

  246W
  To increase the number of users of Ordnance Survey websites by 35 per cent.
  To represent 99.5 per cent. of significant real world features in the database within six months of completion.
  To reduce the carbon emissions from the Ordnance Survey Headquarters building by at least 1 per cent. year-on-year.

  These targets reflect Ordnance Survey's continuing commitment to customers and to improved value for money for all its stakeholders.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many asylum seekers are supported by(a) each local authority and (b) local authorities in each Government office region. [68901]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  From the grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at September 2001, 26,800 single adult asylum seekers and 14,600 families were supported by local authorities. Figures including dependants are not available.

  Of these cases, the following number were supported by each local authority.

  Total number of:

  Local authority1

  Single adults2

  Families2

  Barking and Dagenham

  490

  470

  Barnet3

  260

  380

  Barnsley

  50

  10

  Bath and North East Somerset

  *

  *

  Bedfordshire

  210

  50

  Bexley3

  120

  60

  Birmingham

  360

  150

  Blackburn with Darwen

  10

  *

  Blackpool

  20

  *

  Blaenau Gwent County

  0

  0

  Bolton Metro

  20

  10

  Bournemouth

  120

  30

  Bracknell Forest

  *

  *

  Bradford

  30

  20

  Brent3

  330

  450

  Bridgend County

  0

  0

  Brighton and Hove

  170

  20

  Bristol City

  160

  40

  Bromley3

  80

  100

  Buckinghamshire

  40

  10

  Bury

  10

  10

  Caerphilly County

  *

  0

  Calderdale

  20

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  110

  30

  Camden3

  280

  270

  Cardiff

  40

  20

  Carmarthenshire

  0

  0

  Ceredigion CC

  *

  0

  Cheshire

  20

  10

  City of Newcastle

  160

  40

  Conwy CBC

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  *

  *

  Corporation of London3

  100

  30

  Coventry

  50

  20

  Croydon3

  70

  160

  Cumbria

  *

  0

  Cyngor Gwynedd Council

  0

  0

  Darlington

  0

  0

  Denbighshire County

  0

  0

  Derby

  100

  20

  Derbyshire

  *

  0

  Devon

  10

  0

  247W

  Total number of:

  Local authority1

  Single adults2

  Families2

  Doncaster

  10

  10

  Dorset

  40

  *

  Dudley

  20

  10

  Durham

  0

  0

  Ealing3

  150

  190

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  10

  0

  East Sussex

  160

  20

  Enfield3

  420

  470

  Essex

  140

  40

  Flintshire

  *

  0

  Gateshead

  40

  0

  Gloucestershire

  90

  30

  Greenwich3

  500

  340

  Hackney3

  0

  0

  Halton

  0

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham3

  520

  420

  Hampshire

  50

  10

  Haringey3

  1,290

  1,360

  Harrow3

  150

  180

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  Havering

  190

  100

  Herefordshire

  *

  *

  Hertfordshire

  340

  90

  Hillingdon3

  570

  170

  Hounslow3

  120

  190

  Isle of Anglesey CC

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  *

  *

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Islington3

  1.400

  520

  Kensington and Chelsea3

  390

  270

  Kent

  3,020

  460

  Kingston Upon Hull

  40

  10

  Kingston Upon Thames3

  60

  80

  Kirklees

  30

  10

  Knowsley

  10

  10

  Lambeth3

  980

  740

  Lancashire

  10

  *

  Leeds

  70

  20

  Leicester

  110

  60

  Leicestershire

  50

  20

  Lewisham3

  460

  450

  Lincolnshire

  100

  20

  Liverpool

  180

  70

  Luton

  460

  130

  Manchester

  450

  180

  Medway

  20

  10

  Merthyr Tydfil County

  0

  0

  Merton3

  160

  200

  Middlesbrough

  80

  10

  Milton Keynes

  80

  30

  Monmouthshire County

  *

  0

  Neath Port Talbot

  *

  0

  Newham3

  1,110

  1,130

  Newport County (South Wales)

  20

  10

  Norfolk

  110

  30

  North East Lincolnshire

  60

  10

  North Lincolnshire

  *

  *

  North Somerset

  10

  *

  North Tyneside

  20

  10

  North Yorkshire

  10

  *

  Northamptonshire

  580

  110

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  110

  20

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  *

  Oldham

  10

  10

  Oxfordshire

  490

  140

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  Peterborough

  60

  30

  Plymouth

  10

  10

  Poole

  0

  0

  Portsmouth

  150

  30

  Powys CC

  0

  0

  248W

  Total number of:

  Local authority1

  Single adults2

  Families2

  Reading

  240

  80

  Redbridge3

  670

  330

  Redcar and Cleveland

  20

  *

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County

  10

  *

  Richmond Upon Thames3

  570

  260

  Rochdale

  20

  10

  Rotherham

  30

  10

  Rutland

  10

  *

  Salford

  80

  40

  Sandwell

  250

  50

  Sefton

  20

  10

  Sheffield

  320

  120

  Shropshire

  *

  0

  Slough

  340

  190

  Solihull

  10

  *

  Somerset

  *

  *

  South Gloucestershire

  10

  10

  South Tyneside

  *

  *

  Southampton

  310

  50

  Southend on Sea

  210

  100

  Southwark3

  1,100

  500

  St. Helens

  *

  0

  Staffordshire

  80

  10

  Stockport

  20

  10

  Stockton On Tees

  *

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  50

  *

  Suffolk

  20

  10

  Sunderland

  20

  10

  Surrey

  210

  40

  Sutton

  110

  80

  Swansea City and County

  0

  0

  Swindon

  60

  20

  Tameside

  20

  *

  Telford and Wrekin

  20

  *

  Thurrock

  90

  30

  Torbay

  0

  0

  Torfaen CBC

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets3

  700

  250

  Trafford

  20

  10

  Vale of Glamorgan

  10

  *

  Wakefield

  50

  10

  Walsall

  20

  10

  Waltham Forest3

  470

  360

  Wandsworth3

  110

  220

  Warrington

  *

  0

  Warwickshire

  90

  20

  West Berkshire

  10

  *0

  West Sussex

  120

  20

  Westminster3

  490

  370

  Wigan

  10

  *

  Wiltshire

  10

  10

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  *

  *

  Wirral

  0

  *

  Wokingham

  10

  *

  Wolverhampton

  20

  10

  Worcestershire

  40

  10

  Wrexham

  0

  0

  York

  10

  *

  Total

  26,230

  14,180

  1All figures rounded to the nearest 10. Figures between 1 and 4 are represented by a *. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2Supported as at end of September 2001.

  3 Greater London

  Note:

  Figures by government office region are not available.

  Chipboard Manufacture
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has commissioned on the environmental impact of chipboard manufacture. [68353]
  249W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for environmental matters rests with the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency. Neither DEFRA, the Environment Agency, nor the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have commissioned any research into the environmental impact of chipboard manufacture.

  Local Public Service Arrangements
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend local public service arrangements to district councils. [699871

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are keen to involve districts in local PSAs, but believe that better outcomes can be achieved through co-operation between county and district councils than by districts acting alone. It therefore offers incentives to encourage county councils to work with their districts in drawing up and implementing their local PSAs. Most of the county councils involved in the roll-out of local PSAs to top tier authorities have involved their districts, including Suffolk county council, whose local PSA was recently agreed. There are no plans to extend local PSAs to districts alone.

  Social Services
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those London boroughs that are anticipating overspending on their social services budgets in this financial year. [69150]

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

  Social Exclusion
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the EU Advisory Committee on the implementation of the community action programme to combat social exclusion 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. [67750]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Programme Committee set up under the programme of Community action to encourage co-operation between member states to combat social exclusion is next due to meet on 10 October 2002. The United Kingdom members of the Committee are two named DWP officials. Representatives of the Scottish Executive are not, and have not been, members.

TREASURY

  Energy Efficiency
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Government propose to take forward their Budget announcement to consider ways in which economic instruments might be used to improve household energy efficiency. [70865]

  John Healey
  A consultation document "Economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency" will be published today on the Treasury website. Copies are
  250W
  also available in the Libraries of both Houses. Responses to this consultation, which should be sent to HM Treasury by 8 October, will help to inform the Government's policy development in this area.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the Public Sector Classifications Committee; and if he will make a statement on the process by which they were selected. [70512]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chope, dated 16 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the list of members of the Public Sector Classification Committee, and the process by which they were selected. (70512)
  The Public Sector Classification Committee's members are selected for their National Accounts expertise. Most are automatically entitled to membership through holding particular jobs in The Office for National Statistics. The committee may co-opt others in particular cases if their areas of expertise are relevant. The membership is:

  Head of National Accounts Group (chair)

  Head of National Expenditure & Income Division (vice-chair)

  Head of National Accounts Co-ordination Division

  Head of Balance of Payments & Financial Sector Division

  Head of Short-term Output Indicators Division

  Head of Public Sector Accounts Branch

  Expert on Gross Domestic Product

  Expert on Financial & Sector Accounts

  Expert on Gross National Income

  Others as appropriate.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the statement by the Head of National Accounts at the Office for National Statistics publicised in a news release of 11 July on responsibility for deciding on classifications in the monitoring and control of public finances. [70514]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Office for National Statistics is responsible for classifying institutions and transactions for national accounts in accordance with international guidelines. Ministers have decided to adopt national accounts definitions in the monitoring and control of public finances. Similarly in the EU, the Council has decided to adopt national accounts definitions in the Maastricht Treaty, its protocols, and in the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Employer Liability Insurance
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from companies in high-risk sectors on their ability to secure cover for mandatory employer liability insurance; and if he will make a statement. [69864]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not generally intervene in the terms and conditions of insurance policies. There is no statutory requirement for insurers to offer particular types of cover.
  251W
  The Government are aware that some companies are experiencing difficulties in obtaining employers liability cover and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are limits on the extent to which the devolved Administrations can enter into contingent liabilities. [70040]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is for the devolved Administrations to manage their contingent liabilities from within their existing Departmental Expenditure Limits if the contingent liabilities materialise.

  Tax Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff of the Inland Revenue have investigated and monitored(a) negotiated tax contracts for individuals and companies, (b) tax domicile status and (c) multinational company transfer pricing in each year since 1996. [62023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have entered into agreements with the Inland Revenue in each year since 1997 to pay a specified sum in tax in lieu of submitting an annual tax return; what the rationale is for this policy; and if he will make a statement. [62055]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have not entered into agreements that absolve individuals from the general obligation to submit an annual tax return. Under Inland Revenue's power of care and management agreements of the type described were entered into and intended as a practical basis for taxing future income and gains where there would otherwise have been particular difficulties in establishing an exact figure. The Inland Revenue are no longer making these agreements.

  No central records were kept of these agreements at the time they were made, but the number of individuals so far identified to have been covered by them in the years in question is as follows:

  1997: 7

  1998: 4

  1999: 3

  2000: 2.

  These figures include one case (covering four individuals, in 1998) that has come to light following recent publicity. Agreements in other cases have also covered the tax affairs of more than one individual.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the administrative cost of replacing the working families tax credit with the working tax credit and the child tax credit. [67776]
  252W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the revised Regulatory Impact Assessment for the new tax credits which is available in the Library and from the Inland Revenue's website www.ir.gov.uk.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of fraudulent claims for working families tax credit which result in prosecution in each of the last three years. [67775]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue's approach to compliance is based on the progressive use of civil penalties and it prosecutes in more serious cases of fraud.

  The table gives the numbers of cases investigated which were found to be non-compliant, the number of penalties imposed and the number prosecuted in the last three years.

  As at 31 March

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cases found to be non-compliant

  250

  5,213

  8,595

  Penalties imposed

  3

  237

  524

  Successful prosecutions

  0

  2

  29

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been paid as a result of working families tax credit fraud since 31 December 2001. [67774]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information cannot be supplied in the form requested.

  As with other parts of the tax system the Inland Revenue Code of Practice (COP 1) allows for certain exceptional payments to be made to working families tax credit (WFTC) applicants where they suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of mistakes in dealing with their application. The Inland Revenue classifies the compensation payments it makes according to the nature of the complaint: for example, delay or mistake.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families receiving working families tax credit have an allowed claim for child costs. [69735]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of recipients of the working families tax credit (WFTC) who benefit from the child care tax credit is shown in Table 1.3 of each WFTC Quarterly Enquiry, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are claiming working families tax credit, expressed as a percentage of the working population in(a) Leeds and (b) each of the English regions. [69952]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of recipients of working families tax credit in each region and local authority, quarterly from May 2001, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W.

  Estimates of the average population in employment in the same areas in the year to February 2001 appear in the January 2002 issue of Labour Market Trends. Quarterly estimates for regions, most unitary authorities and larger districts appear in the labour Force Survey Quarterly
  253W
  Supplement. Copies of these publications are in the Library. All these estimates are based on the Labour Force Survey, and are subject to sampling uncertainty.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the accuracy of the estimates in the 'Tax Credits Act 1999 and Accompanying Regulations: Regulatory Impact Assessment', published in December 1999 of the costs for employers of administering the working families tax credit; and if he will place the assessment in the Library. [69935]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The accuracy of the estimates is being assessed through a survey of employees, which is part of the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit evaluation programme.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 13 June 2002,Official Report, columns 1393–94W, for what reasons the figures for the cost of advertising the working families tax credit are lower than the figures offered to the former hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on 22 June 2000, Official Report, column 288W. [68608]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures for working families tax credit given to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), included other promotional activity such as a freephone helpline, while the figures given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) included only direct advertising expenditure.

  Budget Summary
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on designing, producing and distributing the Budget 2002 summary leaflet; and to whom it was distributed. [67811]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Budget 2002 summary leaflet was designed, written and edited by Treasury officials. The costs of production and distribution of the leaflet were met from within Departmental Expenditure Limits and amounted to approximately £208,000.

  The leaflet is available free of charge from the Treasury and is published on the Treasury website. Copies of the leaflet were also distributed nationwide through libraries, educational establishments, citizens advice bureaus, Jobcentres, NHS hospitals, GPs' surgeries, and other organisations.

  Expenditure
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue department's Vote on Account provision for 2002–03 will be sufficient to finance spending until Royal Assent to the Appropriation Act later this summer. [68862]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Royal Assent to the Appropriation Act was given on 8 July. Prior to that point, the overall Vote on Account provision for the Inland Revenue Estimate was sufficient in terms of both resources and cash to finance spending until Royal Assent. However, the Valuation Office Agency's Request for Resources (RfR) 4 had consumed £500.000 more resources than anticipated in the Vote on Account because of a change in the profile of the liabilities.
  254W
  The increase in resources was offset by lower resource consumption on RfR1 enabling resource consumption on the Estimate as a whole to remain within the overall Vote on Account resource provision. The net cash requirement remained unchanged.

  Vote on account provision

  £

  Before

  After

  Change

  RfR1

  1,006,990,000

  1,006,490,000

  -500,000

  RfR2

  —

  —

  —

  RfR3

  93,600,000

  93,600,000

  —

  RfR4

  14,045,000

  14,545,000

  500,000

  Total

  1,114,635,000

  1,114,635,000

  0

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on recent steps taken to alleviate child poverty. [68801]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's annual anti-poverty report, "Opportunity for All" shows progress on a range of poverty and social exclusion indicators linked to child poverty—low-income, worklessness, health, education and housing—each of which is reflected in a short-term Public Service Agreement (PSA).

  The Government will continue to make progress towards their goal of eradicating child poverty with the introduction in April 2003 of two new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit. The Government are also making substantial investment in services for children.

  Poverty Policy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are planned in relation to the Government's poverty policy. [69010]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to halving child poverty by 2010 and abolishing it within a generation. As a result of personal tax and benefit changes announced since 1997, by April 2003 the poorest families with children will be on average £2,400 better off in real terms.

  To make further progress towards its eradication goal, Government are introducing two new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit—in April 2003. The Government are also making substantial investment in services for children.

  The Government are also committed to tackling pensioner poverty. It has introduced the minimum income guarantee and is committed to raising it in line with earnings throughout this Parliament. From 2003, the pension credit will enable those with a modest amount of second pension or savings to gain on average just over £400 a year.

  Tax Credits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the reply from HM Treasury to the Statistics Commission, dated 2 July,
  255W
  to the Head of Profession for Statistics at HM Treasury concerning tax credits; and if he will make a statement. [69244]

  Ruth Kelly
  Yes. I have arranged for the Treasury's reply to the Statistics Commission to be placed in the Library.

  Horse Breeding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide tax reliefs for(a) the horse breeding industry and (b) stallion owners, similar to those which exist in Ireland. [69368]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review as part of the normal Budget process.

  In the UK, racehorse owners, including breeders, already benefit from the VAT Registration Scheme for Racehorse Owners which allows owners, breeders, dealers and trainers who generate business income through horseracing, to register for VAT and thus recover the full VAT costs on the purchase and training of their horses. In addition to this stud farming is treated as farming for tax purposes and is therefore subject to special reliefs such as the Agricultural Buildings Allowance and Agricultural Property Relief.

  Pensions (Public Servants)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) full-time and (b) part-time public servants for whom no occupational retirement pension provision exists; whether such provision will be made by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make retrospective pension arrangements for such public servants. [69255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most public servants now are covered by occupational pension schemes and any that are not have access to stakeholder pensions. Individuals may opt out of their employer's pension arrangements.

  Precise eligibility for membership is a matter for the individual pension schemes. Since 1995 public service occupational schemes have been required to provide access to part-timers. Where eligibility has been extended retrospective membership has not usually been allowed unless it is legally required.

  A recent ECJ ruling on the Preston case, concerning a part-timer working for the NHS who claimed retrospective admission, means that many thousands of part-timers will be admitted into public service scheme prior to 1995, once the outstanding legal issues have been resolved in the Employment Tribunals.

  Health Funding
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of health care systems in other countries funded by charges and private medical insurance. [69233]

  Mr. Boateng
  Further to the answer given by my predecessor (Mr. Andrew Smith) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 772W, in April Derek Wanless
  256W
  published a study commissioned by his review on international health care systems, considering health systems in individual countries around the world.

  A copy of this study, prepared by the European Observatory on Health Care Systems, is available in the Library and can be accessed from the Treasury's website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/observatory_report.pdf.

  False Identity
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) estimated annual number of people and (b) amount of tax unpaid by people using false identities, broken down by (i) VAT, (ii) other Customs and Excise duties and (iii) Inland Revenue taxes; and how much he estimates would have been prevented if everyone had been required to possess an ID card. [69311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue do not keep records of the number of people specifically using false identifies involving VAT, Customs or Excise frauds or in connection with tax evasion.

  Savings Tax Directive
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in negotiations to encourage non-EU countries to adopt measures equivalent to the Savings Tax Directive. [69371]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Presidency and Commission of the European Union are now engaged in negotiations with all of the third countries named in the Conclusions of the European Council when meeting in Santa Maria da Feira on 20 June 2001 (Switzerland, United States of America, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra and San Marino). The ECOFIN Council reported to the Seville European Council on 21–22 June on progress in the negotiations, and this report can be found on the Council's website, www.europa.org.

  Companies (Ilford, North)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT-registered companies in the Ilford, North constituency have an annual turnover of £100,000 or less. [69616]

  John Healey
  Customs data on VAT registered traders is maintained on a national and regional basis. Each of the seven Customs regions incorporates a number of parliamentary constituencies. It would involve disproportionate cost to produce this turnover data in the format requested.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many higher rate taxpayers there were in(a) Leeds, (b) Yorkshire and Humber and (c) London expressed as a percentage of the total population of each area in each of the past 10 years; [69950]

  (2) what percentage of the population of (a) Leeds, (b) Yorkshire and Humber and (c) London have an income (i) twice, (ii) three times, (iii) four times, (iv) five times and (v) more than five times the national average in each of the past 10 years. [69951]
  257W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates are in the tables.

  Number of higher rate taxpayers1 as a percentage of the total population2 for the respective geographical areas

  Leeds

  Yorkshire and Humber3

  London

  UK

  1995–96

  3.0

  2.5

  5.3

  3.6

  1996–97

  2.8

  2.5

  5.2

  3.5

  1997–98

  2.7

  2.4

  5.3

  3.6

  1998–99

  3.2

  2.7

  6.0

  4.0

  1999–2000

  3.7

  2.8

  6.4

  4.2

  1Number of higher rate taxpayers based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  2Source for population estimates: Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  3Government Office Region of Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Number of individuals1 with total income over twice GB average earnings2 as a percentage of the total population3 for the respective geographical areas

  Leeds

  Yorkshire and Humber4

  London

  UK

  1995–96

  1.8

  1.5

  4.1

  2.5

  1996–97

  1.7

  1.4

  3.9

  2.4

  1997–98

  1.7

  1.4

  3.6

  2.2

  1998–99

  1.8

  1.4

  3.5

  2.2

  1999–2000

  1.6

  1.4

  3.3

  2.1

  Number of individuals1 with total income over three times GB average earnings2 as a percentage of the total population3 for the respective geographical areas

  Leeds

  Yorkshire and Humber4

  London

  UK

  1995–96

  0.7

  0.6

  1.9

  1.0

  1996–97

  0.7

  0.6

  2.0

  1.0

  1997–98

  0.6

  0.6

  1.8

  0.9

  1998–99

  0.7

  0.5

  1.6

  0.8

  1999–2000

  0.6

  0.5

  1.6

  0.8

  Number of individuals1 with total income over four times GB average earnings2 as a percentage of the total population3 for the respective geographical areas

  Leeds

  Yorkshire and Humber4

  London

  UK

  1995–96

  0.4

  0.3

  1.2

  0.6

  1996–97

  0.4

  0.3

  1.2

  0.6

  1997–98

  0.3

  0.3

  1.1

  0.5

  1998–99

  0.3

  0.3

  1.0

  0.5

  1999–2000

  0.2

  0.2

  1.0

  0.4

  Number of individuals1 with total income over five times GB average earnings2 as a percentage of the total population3 for the respective geographical areas

  Leeds

  Yorkshire and Humber4

  London

  UK

  1995–96

  0.2

  0.2

  0.9

  0.4

  1996–97

  0.3

  0.2

  0.9

  0.4

  1997–98

  0.2

  0.2

  0.8

  0.3

  1998–99

  0.2

  0.2

  0.7

  0.3

  1999–2000

  0.2

  0.1

  0.7

  0.3

  258W

  1 Number of individuals based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  2 Average earnings based on the New Earnings Survey.

  3 Source for population estimates: Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  4Government Office Region of Yorkshire and the Humber.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her oral answer of 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 866, what the result is of her inquiries into the use of landmines by Afghan cultivators to protect poppy crops; and if she will make a statement. [66746]

  Clare Short
  Inquiries into the use of land mines by poppy cultivators in Afghanistan indicate that this was predominantly a case of rumour to disrupt the crop eradication programme. There has been only one reported incident since the start of the eradication campaign: on 22 April 2002 25 people were injured, seven seriously when a land mine was detonated in a poppy field in Uruzgan. Two deaths were reported but these were not verified. Casualties included people undertaking the crop eradication.

  Both the Afghan Transitional Administration and the international community remain committed to the eradication of the opium poppy and the development of alternative livelihoods for all poor people in Afghanistan.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the UK Government with other EU member states will encourage other Governments to join the 'Everything But Arms' proposal at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [69479]

  Clare Short
  The European Union's 'Everything But Arms' initiative provides all Least Developed Countries with duty and quota free access. As of I January 2003, the Government of Canada will extend duty free and quota free access to all imports except dairy products, poultry and eggs from the Least Developed Countries. The European Union is committed to pressing other OECD countries to also provide the Least Developed Countries with duty and quota free access. The World Summit on Sustainable Development will provide another opportunity for the EU to press for this.

  Education for All
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources to support the Education for All programme were agreed at the G8 Summit. [69252]

  Clare Short
  At Kananaskis, G8 leaders undertook to significantly increase the support provided by their bilateral aid agencies to basic education for countries with a strong policy and financial commitment to the sector, particularly in Africa; but no specific sums were pledged. Leaders agreed that each G8 donor will make public the steps it will take to fulfil this commitment. And they
  259W
  viewed the World bank's Fast Track proposal as a welcome first step in mobilising financial resources for countries committed to Education for All and demonstrating credible performance.

  G8 Leaders also called upon the World bank and the Regional Development banks to provide additional support to countries that have made a strong commitment to education and gender equality, and have a proven track record of strong management or are demonstrating strong management progress.

  Mr. Challen

  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that qualified teachers in developing countries are encouraged to contribute to the Education for All initiative in their own countries. [69253]

  Clare Short
  Attaining universal primary education by 2015 will require a major increase in the supply and retention of trained teachers. National governments will need to determine appropriate policies and strategies for achieving this. Teachers' salaries absorb a very large share of education expenditure and in many countries national resources will need to be supplemented by external financing. We believe the international community should provide recurrent expenditure support for basic education to countries that are clearly committed to Education for All and are demonstrating strong management of their resources. The World bank's Fast Track initiative provides an opportunity for accelerating such support and we are working closely with the bank on taking this forward.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department is making to the Education for All initiative. [69251]

  Clare Short
  The Government believe that education is a basic human right which enables people to transform their own lives and the society in which they live. Education also has a vital role to play in enabling developing countries to achieve the levels of economic growth that are necessary for tackling poverty and achieving sustainable development. We are strongly committed to the Millennium Development Goals on education: achieving universal primary education by 2015 and eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. We believe that these goals are achievable if the governments of poor countries implement effective policies and receive the right assistance from the international community.

  Since May 1997, DFID has committed over £700 million to support primary education for poor people. We are using these funds to support national education policies which form part of developing country governments' broader poverty reduction strategies. We want to see an end to the fees and other costs which have prevented many poor children from attending school in the past. We also seek a commitment from developing country governments to prioritise primary education, especially of girls, in their own spending plans.

  The Government are also working to mobilise the international community in support of Education for All. Our aim is to achieve consensus by the end of 2002 on well co-ordinated international action for mobilising new resources and better co-ordinated programmes designed to
  260W
  meet this goal. We are working with the World bank to develop its new Action Plan for accelerating progress towards Education for All. We believe the Action Plan's fast-track initiative marks an opportunity to try to ensure that no country genuinely committed to economic development, poverty reduction and good governance is denied the chance to achieve universal primary education through lack of resources.

  DFID is committed to further increasing UK support for basic education, particularly in Africa. We will continue to work with the World bank to support their fast-track proposals. Our target Strategy Paper "The challenge of universal primary education" and Issues Paper "Children Out of School" provide further details of DFID's policy and proposals.

  World Bank/IMF Programmes
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by when the World bank and IMF will report on their analysis of the poverty and social impact of substantial macro-adjustments or structural reforms supported by their programmes in poor countries. [69440]

  Clare Short
  The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) of the Board of Governors of the IMF Communique of April 20, 2002 noted the importance of using poverty and social impact analysis and will be reviewing the progress that the World bank and IMF have made on this issue at its next meeting. This will be at the annual meetings of the World bank and IMF in autumn 2002.

  To date, progress on integrating PSIA in developing countries' poverty reduction strategies has been reported in "Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers—Progress in Implementation", a bi-annual report prepared by the World bank and IMF. The next such report will be for the annual meetings of the IMF and World bank, scheduled for 28–29 September 2002.

  Self-employed Women's Association
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds have been allocated to the Self-employed Women's Association in India for work(a) in the state of Gujarat and (b) in the rest of India. [69232]

  Clare Short
  DFID has allocated to the Self-employed Women's Association (SEWA) about £15,000 for work in Gujarat on alternative resources for rainwater harvesting, and £17,000 to support the work of the National Labour Commission in helping women and child workers. SEWA has also been allocated £26,000 to support activities in Gujarat to help respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action has been taken(a) through bilateral assistance and (b) through co-operation with international agencies working in the region to ensure that armed combatants fleeing Liberia do not destabilise Sierra Leone. [69230]
  261W
  Clare Short
  Effective procedures are already in place to disarm combatants fleeing Liberia, and hand them over to the responsible authorities.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the European Commission's proposal for CAP reform on farmers in developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [69473]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government welcome the publication of the European Commission's proposals for CAP reform. The UK Government recognise the need for CAP reform in order to ensure that developing countries' agriculture sectors are given the right incentives to grow and thus support poverty reduction. My Department is currently analysing these proposals, to determine their impact on developing countries. This analysis will then feed into the UK's response to the proposals.

  Fair Trade
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what she estimates the World Summit on Sustainable Development will do to promote fair trade between developed and developing countries. [69477]

  Clare Short
  The Government will be pushing for an outcome which is consistent with the Doha Development Agenda. This resulted in the following achievements:Agreement on TRIPS and public health, recognising the need for a flexible interpretation of TRIPS to enable developing countries to protect public health.
  Action on some 50 measures from the developing countries' implementation agenda from the Uruguay Round.
  On agriculture, commitment to real progress on market access and action on export subsidies.
  Continuing negotiations on services, which offer real prospects for developing countries to make substantial benefits through liberalisation and economic growth.
  Commitment to tackle tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation as well as non-tariff barriers on non-agricultural products.
  A commitment to a work programme on trade, debt and finance.
  Systematic attention throughout the text to the issue of capacity-building.
  A comprehensive set of commitments on the particular needs of the least-developed countries, including a commitment to the objective of duty and quota free market access plus a commitment to make their accession process faster.
  A review of Special and Differential Treatment—across all WTO business areas—to strengthen these provisions and make them more precise, operational and effective.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [161010]
  262W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boateng), on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66924]

  Mr. McCartney
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's policy on insurance, which is set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30, para 30.2.5, which notes that government do not need to purchase insurance to protect the viability of its business, and should consider insurance only where the value of claims met would exceed the cost of insurance premiums. Commercial insurance of a building is acceptable in cases where(a) insurance is a condition of a lease (b) the lessor will not accept a Government indemnity (c) incurring the total cost of the accommodation in question, including the cost of the insurance, is more cost-effective than other accommodation options [Government Accounting, para 30.2.11a]

  The only circumstance where the Department incurs insurance costs is where this is a condition of a lease, with payment being made as part of the service charge paid to the landlord. Information on these charges is not held centrally.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the Spending Review. [68695]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Spending Review involves a comprehensive assessment of the Department's performance, priorities and resource requirements and a range of staff make a contribution.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families failed to respond to the child benefit verification form sent to parents in the summer of 2001; and of these how many have lost benefit. [67530]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Each summer an exercise is carried out to verify the education plans of those children approaching the end of compulsory education. A form is issued asking the parents of these children to confirm the child's continuance in education, and to report a change of circumstances, applying, where appropriate, for continuing payment of benefit. There is no requirement to return the form as benefit entitlement will automatically cease from September. This procedure ensures those parents whose child is continuing in full-time education continue to receive child benefit uninterrupted.

  In June 2001, 411,000 forms were issued, of which 197,000 were returned applying for continuing benefit. 60,000 were returned notifying that the child had commenced employment or training. In the remaining cases child benefit would cease from September.
  263W
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information the Government have collated about the use of child benefit in families where there are young people aged between 16 and 19 years. [67529]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions has not collected information about how families with children aged 16 to 19 years use their child benefit.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take measures to allow the payment of child benefit to continue beyond 12 weeks when parents choose to have a child educated in a country outside the European Economic Area without the written approval of the school which the child previously attended; and if he will make a statement. [70098]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 July 2002): There are no plans to change the provisions on child benefit for children being educated abroad outside the European Economic Area (AWAY). Generally child benefit is not payable for children who are absent from Great Britain (GB), and the current rules provide for most exceptions. The written approval of the school the child normally attends ensures there is a continuing link with GB throughout the temporary absence. Although entitlement for children being educated in non AWAY countries ceases after they have been absent for 12 weeks, if they return for home visits and then go abroad temporarily again, a new 12 week easement begins.

  Disabled Access
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of(a) the number of village halls requiring adaptation and (b) the estimated total cost of such adaptations to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so far as access is concerned. [65639]

  Maria Eagle
  A village hall is covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act where it provides services to the public. We have made no separate assessment of the number of village halls requiring adaptations or the costs involved.

  All service providers, including village halls, will only ever have to do what is reasonable to meet their access obligations. There is no question of unreasonable costs being imposed on village halls, or on any other service provider. The Disability Rights Commission will act as a source of information and guidance to service providers, like Village Halls, and the Commission's Code of Practice—Rights of Access: Goods, Facilities, Services and Premises provides examples of good practice and how the Act is likely to work.

  Making adjustments to assist disabled customers need not necessarily be costly or difficult. Recent research commissioned by the Disability Rights Commission and the Department for Work and Pensions, with co-funding from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, has examined the costs and benefits to service providers when making adjustments to meet the needs of their disabled customers and clients (DWP Research Report 169).
  264W
  The research surveyed a UK-wide representative sample of 1,000 establishments in scope of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. The establishments surveyed covered a range of sectors, including public and private sector organisations. The research found that for many service providers that had made adjustments costs were not seen as the dominant issue when making adjustments. The research identified a wide range of types of adjustments, and found that the costs of these adjustments varied significantly depending on the type. For most kinds of adjustments, the mean initial costs lay between £100 and £1,000. The mean on-going costs for most adjustments lay below £100 per annum.

  Contributory Maternity Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on contributory maternity benefits in each of the last 30 years; and which categories of national insurance contributions generated eligibility to such benefits in each year. [166523]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: Maternity benefits are being reformed as part of the Government's drive to help pregnant women and parents financially and to achieve a better balance between their work and home lives.

  The improvements introduced by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 mean that entitlement to maternity allowance is now based on a woman's earnings and that help is extended to women earning at least £30 a week but less than lower earnings limit applied to national insurance contributions. As a result of these changes, an additional 16,000 low-paid expectant mothers a year can get maternity allowance. Our reforms have also increased maternity allowance by 15 per cent. for around 11,000 self-employed women who previously received less benefit than employed women.

  Prior to 20 August 2000, entitlement to maternity allowance was based on the payment of either Class 1 or Class 2 national insurance contributions by the mother within the relevant qualifying period.

  We have also introduced Sure Start Maternity Grants to help people on low incomes meet the cost of buying essential items for a new baby. These grants have been increased this year to a significant £500 for babies due or born on or after 16 June 2002. The new scheme means more than just a cash payment. Mothers and expectant mothers also receive health advice for themselves and, importantly, for their child.

  Prior to March 2000, Social Fund Maternity Payments were available to women or families in receipt of qualifying benefits or tax credits. These payments replaced the maternity grant in April 1987. Between 1982 and 1987 eligibility for the maternity grant was based solely on a test of residency in Great Britain. For confinements taking place before 4 July 1982, eligibility for the maternity grant was linked to the contribution record of either the mother or her husband using national insurance contributions of any class.

  The information on expenditure on contributory maternity benefits is in the table.
  265W

  Expenditure on contributory maternity benefits

  £million

  Maternity allowance

  Maternity grant

  1972–73

  42

  18

  1973–74

  42

  17

  1974–75

  47

  16

  1975–76

  55

  16

  1976–77

  81

  15

  1977–78

  92

  15

  1978–79

  105

  16

  1979–80

  125

  16

  1980–81

  149

  16

  1981–82

  158

  16

  1982–83

  152

  416

  1983–84

  141

  —

  1984–85

  161

  —

  1985–86

  164

  —

  1986–87

  168

  —

  1987–88

  51

  —

  1988–89

  27

  —

  1989–90

  30

  —

  1990–91

  34

  —

  1991–92

  31

  —

  1992–93

  32

  —

  1993–94

  33

  —

  1994–95

  27

  —

  1995–96

  29

  —

  1996–97

  33

  —

  1997–98

  36

  —

  1998–99

  38

  —

  1999–2000

  38

  —

  2000–01

  545

  —

  1 Figures are expressed in cash terms to the nearest £1 million.

  2 Statutory maternity pay was introduced in 1987 replacing maternity allowance for most employees.

  3 Figures are consistent with the Budget 2002 expenditure tables.

  4,5 Conditions of entitlement to maternity grant and maternity allowance changed during the course of the financial years 1982–83 and 2000–01 respectively. Figures include expenditure under both the contributory and non-contributory conditions.

  Source:

  Departmental reports and benefit forecasting model development. Maternity grant expenditure prior to 1978–79 is estimated from the published number of grants in each financial year.

  Large Goods Vehicle Drivers
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department is doing to provide training for large goods vehicle drivers. [61485]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our welfare to work initiatives provide unemployed people with a range of help to overcome the barriers they face in the labour market. National programmes such as Work Based Learning for Adults (WBLA), the New Deal 25 plus and the New Deal for Young People can offer participants training opportunities tailored to their needs so they have the skills they require to find and remain in work.

  Each Jobcentre Plus District is responsible for identifying training requirements for their unemployed clients, and for putting provision in place, including training for heavy goods vehicle drivers. If such provision is not in place in a particular area, Districts have the discretion to purchase 'one-off training to meet an individual's need.

  In the East of England and East Midlands Jobcentre Plus regions, there are a total of 478 contracts to deliver training and related programmes to unemployed adults,
  266W
  including those in my hon. Friend's constituency. These contracts cover many occupational areas, such as construction, manufacturing and transportation. Heavy goods vehicle training is in place in most Districts in the regions through WBLA and New Deal 25plus.

  Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones are helping disadvantaged people in the most deprived areas of the country into work. They give help tailored to the needs of individual clients, developing innovative ways to help people overcome the barriers they face when looking for work. This has included paying for heavy goods vehicle training where this has been judged to be the most effective way to help the people concerned into work.

  Child Benefit Centre (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many telephone inquiries were made to the Child Benefit Centre in Washington, Tyne and Wear during 2001. [56131]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of telephone calls made to the Child Benefit Centre's helplines between January 2001 and December 2001 was 2,589,348.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many successful prosecutions for fraud involving housing or council tax benefit were undertaken by local authorities in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [69859]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 July 20021: For the number of successful prosecutions for benefit fraud I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer given to him on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 542W. Local authorities are not required to inform the Department of prosecutions which are subsequently abandoned or result in an acquittal.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed by local authorities to investigate suspicions of fraud involving housing or council tax benefit in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [69861]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  Average total number of fraud investigators (full-time or full-time equivalent) employed by local authorities

  1997–98

  1,990

  1998–99

  2,170

  1999–00

  2,140

  2000–01

  2,160

  Note:

  Information is not available for all 408 local authorities. The total includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System

  Child Support
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend the Child Support (Maintenance and Special Cases) Regulations 1992, Schedule 1 Part II Para 7, to exclude working families tax credit awards from the assessment of child support maintenance. [70097]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: No. There are no plans exclude working families tax credit awards from the assessment of child support maintenance. It is only fair that the same level of income in different cases should be treated the same for assessment (current scheme) or calculation (new scheme) regardless of the source of that income.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received about the inclusion of working families tax credit awards in the assessment of child support maintenance. [70096]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: Some individual clients have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to their MP, or to the Agency commenting adversely that awards of working families tax credit are taken into account for the non-resident parent's income, but not for that of the Parent with Care. No organised representations have been made.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how long it will take to transfer existing cases to the new child support scheme for calculating maintenance payments made by non-resident parents. [69530]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No decision on the date for the commencement of the new child support scheme has been taken. The Government have made clear that they will see how the new scheme is progressing before reaching a decision on new cases, but our current assumption is that existing cases will convert to the new scheme around a year after the new scheme is introduced for new cases.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the average sum in maintenance paid by non-resident parents under the child support scheme which existed prior to April; and how many of these will see their payments(a) increased and (b) decreased under the new child support scheme, with an average calculation made of increase and decrease. [69532]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Average maintenance paid in the current child support scheme

  Number of qualifying children

  Average per week (£)>

  One

  7.98

  Two

  10.65

  Three

  10.23

  Note:

  Includes nil assessments.

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of the Child Support Computer System August 2001.

  It is not possible to make firm estimates of the change to the average payment of child support maintenance as a result of the introduction of the new child support scheme.

  Benefits (East Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the total cost of housing benefit paid in(a) Christchurch borough and (b) East Dorset was in each and of the last five years; [70352]

  (2) what the total cost of council tax benefit paid in (a) Christchurch borough and (b) East Dorset was in each of the last five years. [70353]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the tables.

  Christchurch borough council: Housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure

  £000

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  1995–96

  5,436

  1,271

  1996–97

  5,548

  1,255

  1997–98

  5,782

  1,453

  1998–99

  5,890

  1,576

  2000–01

  6,079

  1,691

  East Dorset district council: Housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure

  £000

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  1995–96

  6,294

  1,894

  1996–97

  6,486

  1,845

  1997–98

  6,809

  2,057

  1998–99

  6,765

  2,179

  2000–01

  7,091

  2,298

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The figures for 2000–01 are provisional. All other figures are actual annual expenditure but are subject to change as local authority activity is fully audited.

  Source:

  Annual subsidy returns by local authorities to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in receipt of retirement pension in the Christchurch constituency receive payment of their benefit(a) directly into their bank accounts and (b) through local post offices. [70357]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is in the table:

  Number

  All methods of payment

  29,600

  Payment by Order Book

  12,300

  Payment by automatic credit transfer

  17,100

  Other

  200

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Figures under 500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should be used only as a guide tot he current situation.

  Source:

  Figures taken from the Pensions Strategy Computer System on 30 September 2001.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Christchurch constituency are eligible for the minimum income guarantee, and how many are in receipt of it. [70354]
  269W
  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of the number of people eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee are not available below National level. As at February 2002 there were 2,300 Minimum Income Guarantee claimants in parliamentary constituency of Christchurch.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry February 2002

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in(a) the north-west, (b) Lancashire and (c) Burnley were claiming housing benefit at the latest date for which figures are available; [65549]

  (2) how many people in (a) the north-west, (b) Lancashire and (c) Burnley had claimed (i) jobseeker's allowance and (ii) income support at the latest date for which figures are available. [65547]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Income-related benefit recipients in north-west England, Lancashire and Burnley

  Government Office Region of North-west England

  Lancashire

  Burnley

  Housing Benefit

  515,000

  63,000

  7,000

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  119,000

  14,000

  1,000

  Income Support

  579,000

  79,000

  8,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Lancashire figures for Housing benefit refer to the local authorities of Burnley. Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre. Figures for jobseeker's allowance and income support include all or part of the following parliamentary constituencies which fall within Lancashire boundaries: Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn. Lancaster and Wyre, Morecambe and Lunesdale, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and Darwin, South Ribble and West Lancashire.

  3. Burnley figures refer to Burnley borough council area for housing benefit and Burnley parliamentary constituency for jobseeker's allowance and income support.

  4. Housing benefit figures refer to households which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  5. Housing benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  6. Jobseeker's allowance figures have not been seasonally adjusted.

  7. Income support figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. case load count, February 2002 (figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated); 100 per cent. count of Jobcentre Plus computer system, May 2002. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 2002.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the EU Advisory Committee on employment 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. [67739]
  270W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Employment Committee is next due to meet on 18 July 2002, which will be an informal meeting under the Danish Presidency. Each member state has two nominated delegates to the Committee and for the UK those represent the Departments of Work and Pensions and for Education and Skills. The main business of the Committee is the European Employment Strategy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has lead responsibility for the Strategy. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has a significant interest, as do my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive Ministers, Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Ministers.

  There is close contact between relevant officials to ensure that ministerial responsibility is properly represented at the Employment Committee and, indeed, on any activity under the Employment Strategy. For example, the main UK output under the Strategy is the UK Employment Action Plan and the devolved Administrations actively contribute. The Plan will be discussed with the European Commission in the autumn and the devolved Administrations have been invited to attend that meeting.

  Basic Bank Accounts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter from the FSA Consumer Panel on their report into basic bank accounts. [70412]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A copy of my Private Secretary's letter of 17 May 2002 to the Chairman of the Financial Services Consumer Panel has been placed in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans his Department has to review the operation of the social fund with respect to those benefit recipients whose income is marginally above the basic income support level; and if he will make a statement; [69277]

  (2) what plans his Department has to review the operation of the Social Fund as far as access thereto on the part of 16 and 17-year-olds is concerned; and if he will make a statement. [69279]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Social Fund plays an important role in the welfare system by helping the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society with the cost of intermittent expenses. Access to the Social Fund is therefore generally limited to people receiving income-related benefits or, in the case of Sure Start Maternity Grants and Social Fund funeral payments, tax credits. Crisis loans are available to anyone where there is a serious risk to their health or safety.

  We keep all elements of the Social Fund under review to see whether further improvements can be made to its operation and to ensure that the Fund supports our wider welfare reforms. However, we have no plans to broaden the eligibility criteria.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether it will be part of the duties of Jobcentre Plus staff to provide assistance with completing application forms for the new tax credits. [67243]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Yes. From 2003 customers, if they choose, will be able to have their new tax credits business (including assistance with claim form completion) dealt with by Jobcentre Plus staff.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assistance he intends Jobcentre Plus staff will provide to people who do not have the information and evidence of income they are required to provide in connection with an application for new tax credits. [67241]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From 2003 Jobcentre Plus staff will help people complete their new tax credits claims, including the income information they need to supply. Guidance for staff will therefore cover all the options available in helping people calculate the income details they need to enter on the claim form.

  The help available from Jobcentre Plus will complement that provided by the Inland Revenue and the comprehensive guidance to the new tax credits claim form.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what programme of training will be provided to Jobcentre Plus staff on the new tax credits. [67242]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All Jobcentre Plus staff dealing with NTC business will receive a full package of training so that they can provide people with information about new tax credits, and assist with new tax credits claims and related inquiries.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to bring occupational pension schemes under the jurisdiction of TUPE. [67700]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government carried out full public consultation at the end of last year on the proposed reform of the TUPE Regulations. The issue of the Regulations' coverage of occupational pension rights was one of those on which comments were sought. We are currently considering the responses received and hope to announce our decisions shortly.

  Local Government Councillors
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many elected local government councillors are registered disabled; and if he will make a statement. [61949]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.
  272W
  There is no longer a register of disabled people. However, the 2001 National Census of Local Authority Councillors in England and Wales carried out by the Improvement and Development Agency indicates that just over 13 per cent. of [the 21,2681 councillors consider themselves to have a disability.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Commission Report
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 257W, when he will announce his decision concerning Law Commission report No. 270. [68019]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government accept in principle the Law Commission's recommendations on limitation of actions, subject to further consideration of certain aspects of its report, and will legislate when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she plans to publish guidance on publication schemes under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for central Government and non-departmental public bodies. [70811]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am pleased to inform the House that I have today published guidance for Central Government and non-departmental public bodies on Publication Schemes under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Copies of the Guidance have been placed in the House Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Fast Stream Recruitment
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the 2002 Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment report. [70675]

  Mr. Alexander
  The seventh annual Civil Service Fast Stream Report was today placed on the Cabinet Office website at www.fast stream.gov.uk and in the Libraries of the House. It covers the year from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, and reports the results of Fast Stream competitions completed during that period and the developments that have taken place.

  The standard of entry to the Fast Stream Development Programme has remained consistently high and the report shows that the Civil Service has had increasing success in filling its vacancies. In addition there has again been steady progress in broadening the diversity of Fast Stream recruits. Women and men were recruited in equal numbers and the proportions of those recruited from ethnic minority groups, those with disabilities, and those attending universities other than Oxford and Cambridge have all increased.

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58781]

  Mrs. Liddell
  One special adviser accompanied me on a trip to Brussels in October 2001. The cost to my Department was £545.87.

  All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of her Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [65975]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office does not have a regulatory impact unit. Staff in the Department maintain contacts with the regulatory impact unit in the Cabinet Office as required.

  Crown Estates Commissioners
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received about the role of the Crown Estates Commissioners in Scotland. [69288]

  Mrs. Liddell

  One representation on this subject has been received.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Government-Press Relations
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their relationship with the press is satisfactory.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, a functioning democracy requires a competent government and a free press. Both exist in this country at this time. The relationship is therefore entirely satisfactory.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the Government and the country still believe in a free press. But why, with a free press, do the Government feel obliged to spend so much time, effort and taxpayers' money in manipulating the press to see things from their point of view? Spin is self-defeating in the end and the Government must know that. Meanwhile, how much is the Government's publicity machine costing and is the taxpayer given value for money?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, doing the job I do I try to emulate the lily of the field: I toil not, neither do I spin.
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Leader of the House yet had the opportunity to read Hugo Young in this morning's Guardian? He gives a good assessment of the Government's record as a news provider. He says,
"It has not been a reliable bearer of honest news about its own record. It has not been good with statistics. It promised much, claimed too much and delivered too little [in] the era when spin equated with mendacity".
Is not that a more accurate description of this Government's record in their relations with the press than the rather complacent response of the noble and learned Lord?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, complacent? Moi? The fact is that all political organisations, however unsuccessful—for instance, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—expend money on press relations. Speaking for myself as an entirely helpful and impartial observer, if the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Central Offices are paying money to have their message put across, I advise them to ask for the money back.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, are not the Government the biggest advertiser in this country? Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what is the total spend of taxpayers' money on advertising by all government departments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course the Government advertise. We have been advertising for police officers and so at the moment have the largest number of police officers there have ever been. We shall have 130,000 police officers on the beat next year. The figure the noble Baroness may be looking for is the Central Office of Information advertising spend which, in 1986–87, at modern-day prices, was £191,600; at 2001 prices the spend in 2001 was £192,000—hardly any difference at all. I advise those noble Lords who may be obsessed with spin to consider whether or not there is too much froth in the approach generally. All organisations want to put their message over. The Government: have done that rather well in two successful general elections.

European Arrest Warrant
2.39 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannochasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Parliament is free to refuse or amend the European arrest warrant as agreed by Her Majesty's Government on 13th June in the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant was adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13th June and cannot itself be amended. However, the European arrest warrant will come into operation in the United Kingdom if the Bill to give effect to it is approved by this Parliament. Naturally Parliament is free to refuse or amend the Bill, the draft of which was published on 27th June.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But if the British Parliament refuses or amends the arrest warrant, will we be in breach of our treaty obligations? Is not one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of our relationship with the European Union and one of the least known that once the executive has agreed or been out-voted on a new law in Brussels, Parliament must rubber stamp it or the United Kingdom is in breach of its treaty obligations? Sometimes, though not in this case, that can result in payment of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court. Therefore what is the point of Parliament debating and scrutinising EU legislation if the executive signs up to it anyway and we become a rubber stamp?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I repeat that Parliament has a completely free hand in this respect and there is nothing that the executive can do to compel it to respond in a certain way. However, I am confident

1087
that, when we have properly considered the draft Bill, Parliament will approve it because it is in the interests of the British public. We have an extensive system of scrutiny in this House and the other place to ensure that the United Kingdom does not sign up to any measure of the Justice and Home Affairs Council before we have had clearance of the scrutiny processes and are sure that it is in the interests of the British public to do so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the power to refuse extradition on human rights grounds, as set out in the draft Bill and the White Paper, will cover cases where conviction of the defendant involves a breach of his human rights; for example, where it would be contrary to his right to freedom of speech?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is exactly right. To put it beyond any doubt, the draft Bill will make clear that we will not extradite in any circumstances where we consider there is a probability that doing so would breach the prisoner's human rights.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at the meeting of Sub-Committee E the noble Lord told myself and other Members that if Parliament decides not to pass this legislation in a Bill there can be no infraction procedures by the Commission. I understand, however, that the Commission believes that it can introduce infraction procedures. Can the Minister tell us whether he or the Commission is right? If Parliament does not agree to the provisions for the European arrest warrant, will there be political rather than legal consequences? What would those consequences be?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord's question invites a relatively easy answer. I shall not change my view. Therefore, he must draw his own inference as to who is right or wrong. It is of course possible that there has been a misunderstanding as to exactly what are the respective roles.
The position is clear. In the unlikely event that Parliament decided not to pass legislation to put the framework document on to the face of European legislation, as is its right Westminster law would prevail. It would be open to a member state, if it so wished, to take action for non-compliance against the British Government in the European Court. I do not envisage those circumstances coming about for reasons I have already explained.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord thinks this is a reasonable measure. He also says that there has been pre-scrutiny. My recollection is that there was a proposal to introduce a European arrest warrant in legislation that passed through this House and that that provision was removed. Is that the pre-scrutiny he was referring to, or has there been some other?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage on me. I am not certain that I connect with
1088
what he has referred to. The pre-scrutiny I was referring to was the deposition in October last year in both this House and the other place of the draft framework agreement which led to a most careful and thorough process of scrutiny in both Houses. The British Government reserved their agreement to the framework agreement until scrutiny had been cleared in both Houses.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most practical place to hold the European Council of Ministers accountable is in the European Parliament? When did he last hear the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, recommend that course?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the honest answer is that I cannot recollect the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, having recommended that course.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, with great respect, I was under the impression that the appropriate committee did not receive sufficient time for scrutiny. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether the legislation before the House will or will not provide that persons who have committed an act which is a crime in other European countries but not in ours will not be extradited. That has been the position so far. The proposal was that that should change. Can he tell us what the situation is and what the legislation will provide for?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the House may well know, the draft legislation is available to be inspected. It was deposited in draft form at the end of June, allowing a three-month consultation period. No doubt parliamentarians will contribute to that as much as ever. With regard to dual-scrutiny, the position is that if someone commits in, say, France, an offence which is covered by one of the 32 generic headings—for example, terrorism, trafficking in human beings, laundering the proceeds of crime, kidnapping, rape or murder—it will be possible to apply for his extradition from this country to France. That will be a quicker process. It will bring to justice sooner people who have committed crimes. By reverse, it will make possible people facing justice in this country who have fled justice by going abroad. It is in the interests of British society that they should be held to account in British courts rather than being able to avoid justice—for many years in some cases.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lifting of a scrutiny reserve by the Select Committee of both Houses is not the same as full agreement in debate in both Houses? Secondly, when he says that the arrest warrant was not agreed by the Government until the scrutiny reserve had been lifted, does he agree that the British Government gave provisional agreement to the arrest warrant a long time before the scrutiny reserve was lifted? Can he clarify what is the legal source of provisional agreement in the European Union?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, provisional contracts, like draft contracts in that sense, have no force at all. They

1089
are an indication that the British Government thought that the framework agreement was moving in the right direction. They were seeking to achieve objectives that were in the interests of British people. The reserve is put down, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, well knows, to preserve the position of scrutiny so that proper scrutiny can take place. Scrutiny can influence the final shaping of such documents, as I believe happened in respect of the framework agreement on the arrest warrant. Therefore, the scrutiny processes in this House had a positive effect on the final document.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the Minister say what would happen if someone in the Channel Islands were accused of uttering a xenophobic remark, say, about Belgians or Greeks? The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom; nor are they part of the EU. However, the United Kingdom is responsible for their external relations. Could an arrest warrant be issued in such a case?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is one of my many failings that I am not an expert on Channel Islands law. If someone made xenophobic remarks in the United Kingdom about another country he could not be extradited under the framework agreement. We are firm that if anyone undertakes an act in this country which is not an offence in this country he cannot be extradited.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, am I right in thinking that, if the Government had wished, on 13th June they could have placed a full parliamentary reserve on the matter, saying that they would wait until Parliament had had the opportunity to approve the legislation? On reflection, would that not have been a better approach?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I do not think so, unless one thinks that there is absolutely no benefit to this country from the processes of collective working and co-operation in the European Union. We think that there are significant benefits to Britain from the European arrest warrant. Having negotiated what we felt was an improvement to it, and having allowed both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise it thoroughly, we lifted our reserve. I repeat: it is still open to Parliament, if it so wishes, not to incorporate the framework agreement into domestic legislation.

Violence in the NHS
2.51 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking sufficient action to tackle violence in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, action has been taken to tackle the problem of violence as part of the NHS zero-tolerance zone
1090
campaign. For the first time ever, that includes central funding to support a large number of local initiatives being introduced to protect staff.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Government have talked tough on violence in the NHS for years now, but the latest survey from the Department of Health shows a rise from 65,000 to 85,000 violent incidents during the past two years. How will the department reduce violent incidents by 30 per cent during the next year, as its target states? Is it riot time to ensure that violent patients are banned from National Health Service treatment and prosecuted?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, prosecutions have taken place. There are many examples of good practice. We have a policy on withholding treatment. I cite the example of Bart's and The London NHS Trust, which produced a policy on withdrawal of treatment from violent patients in September 2000. That has been an effective deterrent.
As for the baseline survey, of course the number increased. The original survey was incomplete because it lacked robust data requirements. The baseline figure of 85,000 reported incidents is for 2000–01. We are now beginning to measure the most recent financial year; we shall continue to measure. The target of 30 per cent is for financial year 2003–04.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many charges have been brought against those violent people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. that information is not held centrally, nor is it held by the Crown Prosecution Service. But there are recent examples of prosecutions. For instance, in the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust area, a man was sent to prison for four months for threatening paramedics with a crossbow and a replica gun. There are other examples of successful prosecutions. The key is getting across the message that we shall not tolerate violent action against our staff.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not only staff but patients need protection? There have been several cases of rape. Does he agree that it may be worth considering breathalysing disruptive and disorderly people on National Health Service premises for drugs and alcohol?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure about breathalysing, but I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that members of the publicpatients—have been the victims of violent assaults on NHS premises. That makes it important that the NHS has effective policies in place at local level to protect patients. Many of the measures that are being taken, including the introduction of closed-circuit television and the use of swipe cards in selected areas will have a protective effect for both patients and staff. At the

1091
same time, we are stepping up staff training so that they can deal with those difficult situations and, we hope, defuse what can otherwise become extremely nasty incidents.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proportion of those violent offences occur at weekends compared to other parts of the week? Anecdotally, it appears that many of those are alcohol-related incidents on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. Would it not be wise for the Government to recommend that a higher number of security guards be available at times when those incidents are likely to take place?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, clearly, the experience of each individual NHS trust is different, but I certainly agree with the noble Lord that many accident and emergency departments face especial problems in the late hours of the weekends and the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings. As for the use of security officers, I agree that a proper security policy in each trust would consider the number of incidents and match the presence of security personnel and other staff to ensure that sufficient people are present to deal with such incidents. My impression is that from almost a standing position several years ago, the NHS has become much more fully geared-up to deal with those issues.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, were not the previous two supplementary questions an attempt to get the Minister to remark on alcohol and other substances? Is it not unusual for people in this country to become violent unless they are mentally unstable, have been taking either alcohol or other drugs or, possibly, have just got out of their motor car? If we removed all such cases from the incidence of violence in hospitals, would there be any violence left?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am afraid that the extensive research that I have undertaken—which is of course available—does not help to answer that question. We do not know the causes of each of those 85,000 recorded incidents of violence. The noble Viscount is absolutely right: substance misuse and alcohol are a cause of many incidents. Sometimes, where there has been a violent incident in the community—whether or not caused by drink—the trouble can follow injured people into the casualty department and NHS staff have to pick up the pieces.
In common with many other sectors of society, members of the public in hospitals are less patient than they used to be. Staff often have to deal with incidents of rage. We need to give out a clear message to the public that we will not tolerate such incidents in future. The zero-tolerance campaign is beginning to work. The example of Bart's and other hospitals, which have withheld treatment, shows that we are taking the matter seriously.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the continued use of mixed-sex
1092
wards increases the chance of attacks—especially on women? Will the promise completely to phase out such wards by the end of 2002 be kept? When we speak of single-sex wards, we mean real single-sex wards, not merely partitions and curtains.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised the question of mixed-sex wards on several occasions. I agree that they add to problems of security and violence, as well as being disliked by many patients in normal situations. We are well on the way to meeting that target.
Earl Howe: My Lords, did the Minister read the balanced and responsible press release issued by the British Medical Association last November, which supported the zero-tolerance policy but also pointed out the ethical and practical difficulties for doctors in withdrawing treatment from violent patients? Does he accept that there may be genuine medical reasons why a patient may behave violently or abusively? Does not that present an ethical dilemma for the staff involved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not always associate the BMA with balanced press releases, but there is always hope. Yes, of course we must accept that there are ethical dimensions to the withholding of treatment. But we have discussed that carefully with representatives of the National Health Service. Life-saving treatment will always be available.
I mentioned the example of the approach taken at Bart's. There, they have introduced a policy of withdrawal of treatment from violent patients, known as the yellow and red card scheme. The use of yellow cards has a deterrent effect, and, although the trust has issued 12 yellow cards, it has proved necessary to issue only one red card.
There is a balance to be struck, and there is an ethical dimension. However, if we are to get over to the public the fact that such incidents will not be tolerated, we must show that we mean business.

Directors' Remuneration
3 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the conclusion of the International Corporate Governance Network that pressure from the international market-place is not a justification for rapidly rising boardroom salaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, it is for shareholders and remuneration committees to decide whether international market comparisons should be taken into account in setting the level of their directors' pay. The main concern for the Government is that there should be an effective

1093
linkage between pay and performance. The Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations, which we recently laid before Parliament, will improve the transparency, accountability and disclosure of linkage to performance.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I welcome the steps to which my noble friend referred. Does he agree, however, with the finding of the International Corporate Governance Network that the attempts to justify boardroom pay increases averaging 10 per cent year on year—three times the average for the rest of the workforce—on the grounds of international market performance are spurious and unsustainable? Does the Minister agree with John Monks that the scrutiny of the work of remuneration committees by annual general meetings of shareholders—fewer than half of whom bother to vote—would be more credible if there were worker representation on the committees, as in the successful economies of Scandinavia?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the report to which my noble friend refers—the International Corporate Governance Network report, Executive remuneration—the caucus race,was probably right to say that there was no clear justification for the continuous leap-frogging of settlements taking place in many cases. The information that the network provided on international comparisons was rather scant. The report said that more than 10 per cent of FTSE 100 companies now have a chief executive or chairman from another country. There is, therefore, some merit in the argument about international comparisons but not as much as to justify the use that has been made of it.
My noble friend referred to the representation of workers on remuneration committees. Under UK corporate governance structures, it is for shareholders and non-executive directors to make the decisions about remuneration. It is important to realise that best practice guidance states clearly that remuneration committees should be sensitive to the wider scene, including pay and employment conditions elsewhere in the group.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the Minister referred to the reference in the report to the fact that 10 per cent of chief executives of FTSE 100 companies are of international origin. Does he accept that a significant number of chief executives of FTSE 100 companies bear no international comparison with regard to their remuneration?
The Minister probably answers this question at least once a month—certainly once every two months—from where he sits. Does he accept that Her Majesty's Government must make up their mind? Do they think that this is something to do with them, and, if so, what will they do about it? Or, do they think that it has nothing to do with them, in which case why does not the Minister say so?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that many directors have no
1094
opportunity to go abroad to get another job and should not be compared to people on the international market.
The Government's line has been clear and consistent on the many occasions on which I have answered the question: it is for shareholders and remuneration committees to make the decisions. It is the Government's role to make certain that there is a proper framework, including transparency and accountability. That is why we are bringing in the regulations, which will mean that shareholders will have a chance to vote on the remuneration report produced by the directors. That is the right division of responsibility between the Government and the shareholders.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, on this occasion, I agree with what the Minister says. It must be up to shareholders to make the decision. The real resentment lies not in the initial salary of the board or the chief executive but in the fact that, when a company goes pear-shaped, it often seems that the chief executive walks away with a huge amount of compensation. Is not that the area on which the major shareholders—life companies, pension funds and so on—should concentrate? They should make certain that, at the point at which a company fails under particular boardroom leadership, salaries should be reduced and bonuses and stock options removed.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the noble Lord paid me the compliment of agreeing with me, I shall return the compliment and agree entirely with what he said. If a company fails, it is for shareholders to make certain that there is a proper linkage between pay and performance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall is to be congratulated on bringing the matter to your Lordships' attention. As has been said, it depends on what the Government will do about it. My noble friend the Minister spoke about relating the payments to performance, but does he agree that the sort of huge increases that we see almost every week are paid when the companies are, in fact, losing money? That cannot be justified in any circumstances.
Does my noble friend agree that the Greenbury report of 1995 promised many things but has been a failure? Will he tell us—however briefly—the essential difference between that report and the report on the statutory instrument that is now before the House?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we come again to the question of the linkage of pay and performance. The reason why the Government are bringing in the regulations is that the Greenbury report effectively recommended that boards should take new measures. Those measures have not, in fact, been taken, and it is clear to the Government that, unless there is legislation, best practice will not be followed. That is why we are introducing the regulations.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on education spending.

Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Enterprise Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Office of Fair Trading]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"() In discharging its general functions the OFT must, so far as is reasonably practicable, have regard to—

(a) the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the UK;

(b) the need to minimise the adverse effects on competition that may arise from anything done in the discharge of those functions; and

(c) the objective of minimising the regulatory burdens placed on UK business and commerce.

() The OFT must make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting practitioners, consumers and organisations and individuals in UK business and commerce.
() In managing its affairs, the OFT must have regard to such generally accepted principles of good corporate governments as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to it"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is one of a series of probing amendments designed to tease out the Government's views on what might generally be described as corporate management. Noble Lords will be aware that the Director-General of Fair Trading and his organisation are bodies established separate from government. That means that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not directly accountable to your Lordships' House for the conduct of the Director-General of Fair Trading.
Since that is the case, it is extremely important that a constitutional system is established in the Bill which will ensure that the director-general and his board are fully accountable to Parliament. Amendment No. 1 is one of the amendments designed to achieve that objective.
1096
Other amendments seek, first, to ensure that the chairman of the new board and the director-general of the new board are not one and the same person; secondly, to establish a system of reporting on an annual basis that will entitle your Lordships' House and another place to scrutinise fully the conduct of the director-general, his team and his board during the course of the previous year; and, thirdly, although it has not been made explicit on the face of the amendment, to enable the appointment of the director-general, before it is finally made by the Secretary of State, to be examined by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry of another place.
Bearing that in mind, I suggest to the Minister that a good example of how the relationship of an independent regulatory authority to the Government and to the Crown should function is to be found in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Minister will note that Section 2 of the Act sets out the authority's general duties, while subsection (3) of the section states:
"In discharging its general functions the Authority must have regard to".
The purpose of the section is to provide a framework of law within which the Financial Services Authority should operate. If it exceeds that framework, then the courts may entertain judicial review actions against the board or against any individual member of the board.
I seek to secure in Clause 1 the same objective with regard to this Bill; that is, to set out the general functions to which, so far as is reasonably practicable, the OFT must have regard. That will provide a statutory discipline within which the OFT has to operate.
Noble Lords will note that I have been extremely kind to the Minister. Instead of setting out seven or eight matters to which the OFT should have regard, I have listed only three. However, they are all important. The first is,
"the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the UK".
That is not the same as ensuring that a particular market is competitive. I would submit that, when the OFT undertakes its work, it is appropriate to look at the competitive position of the United Kingdom in the international economy.
There is no point in reaching a certain decision on competition in the context of a special market only to discover that the scale of enterprises in that market is so small that they are incapable of taking on their major international competitors. Of course the scale of a company is only one factor, but the general point is pertinent. When the OFT examines the competitive position in the market, it should address the overall competitive position in the European and, indeed, the global market.
Paragraph (b) of my amendment complements paragraph (a) by declaring that if, as a result of having to intervene in the market, the OFT requires companies to observe certain regulatory standards, those standards should then be the minimum necessary. I do not think that the Minister will have

1097
any difficulty in entertaining that proposition because it is part of the Government's overall objective with regard to deregulation.
Finally, paragraph (c) asks the OFT to have regard to,
"the objective of minimising the regulatory burdens placed on UK business and commerce".
This form of wording would require the OFT to look further than individual companies functioning in the market and address the regulations that the Government themselves are making for particular markets. That mirrors a provision in the Financial Services and Markets Act where, as the noble Lord is very well aware, the Financial Services Authority is responsible for setting the overall competitiveness of its regulatory measures. It seeks simply to reflect that very important provision in the proposed Bill.
Turning from the amendment before the Committee to the general intention of the Bill, perhaps I may say at the outset that I look forward with enthusiasm to the Committee stage. I had the honour of sitting on the Opposition Front Bench during the passage of the 1998 Bill and the pleasure of looking straight in the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I believe that he participated as regularly as I did.
When they have completed their assessment of the amendment, will the Government say why they think that this Bill is necessary at all. I ask that because less than four years have passed since the Competition Act became law, while many provisions of that Act did not take effect until several years later. In my judgment, we have not yet been able to assess clearly whether what was done in 1998 was sufficient to guarantee the competitive market that we all seek.
I suggest to the Government therefore that, in so far as the Bill addresses market competition, much of what is in it is premature. If the Bill completes its course and becomes an Act, the Government should think carefully about delaying the onset of its content until we see how the measures already in place have worked themselves through the economy.
I have taken a slight advantage on the opening amendment to raise a general point, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for doing so. It is a matter that may well arise again later in the proceedings. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I shall say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend, in particular as regards the competitive position of the UK. It must be our objective, no matter what may be our political affiliation, to create within Britain world-class companies that can lead the way in their fields. That was a point I made on Second Reading. It is extremely important to ensure that the actions of the authority should not in any way inhibit such developments. There are altogether too many difficulties for British businesses competing on the world stage. The competition authority should have regard to any barriers they seek to put in the way of success.
1098
A further important point was made by my noble friend with regard to the regulatory burden. It is something that arrives like barnacles on a ship, one by one. Each barnacle of itself may seem reasonable. Each barnacle has a protagonist who declares that, "This is an essential barnacle". However, over a period of time the ship of British business is slowed down by those barnacles. Unless a real effort is made to ensure that the ship is streamlined, our competitive position in the world will be affected.
I support both the important points made by my noble friend.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The question of why the Bill is necessary was covered in detail at Second Reading, but perhaps I may repeat the main issue which emerged from that debate. The Bill tackles issues which were not tackled by the Competition Act 1998 and seeks to develop our policies in those areas. We shall need to debate the Bill clause by clause. I am happy to debate any part of the Bill which Members of the Committee feel is not necessary and does not achieve new and important aims.
The amendment would place a number of demands on the OFT, not all of which are relevant to its remit. The first subsection of the amendment is particularly problematic. The OFT's goal is to,
"make markets work well for consumers".
Markets work well when there is vigorous competition between fair-dealing businesses. When markets work well, good businesses flourish. Competitive markets provide the best means of ensuring that the economy's resources are put to their best use by encouraging enterprise and efficiency and widening choice. Where markets work well, they provide strong incentives for good performance, encouraging firms to improve productivity, to reduce prices and to innovate, while rewarding consumers with lower prices, higher quality and wider choice. By encouraging efficiency, competition in the domestic market—whether between domestic firms alone or between those and overseas firms—also contributes to our international competitiveness.
The noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hodgson, both commented on the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom. That struck me as a throwback to the world of national champions and Japanese industrial policy, which I did not expect to hear from noble Lords opposite. Most of the accumulated evidence on national competitiveness shows clearly that people perform best in international markets where there is strong competition in home markets. Different countries strongly support the view that strong competition at home produces the champions who are successful in international markets. Attempts to choose national champions to protect businesses on the basis that they can build up a strong position in their home markets from which to launch attacks on international markets have again and again proved to be wrong.

1099
Focusing on the broader objective in the way that the amendment suggests could lead the OFT to make short-term, narrow-sighted decisions. We believe that the right approach is for the OFT to focus on targeted functions, which will in turn drive up productivity. We want UK businesses to prosper through fair competition which plays by the rules. That is what the OFT should ensure.
The second issue in the first subsection relates to adverse effects on competition. Given the OFT's goal to,
"make markets work well for consumers",
the OFT is already well placed to ensure that the anticompetitive impacts of any of its actions are minimised.
The third issue in the subsection relates to minimising the regulatory burdens on UK businesses. This is not something which is wholly within the OFT's gift. The OFT must enforce laws and regulations made by Parliament. It does not itself make regulations. It will be consulting fully on how it intends to carry out many of its responsibilities under this Bill. The OFT is already fully seized of the importance of less regulatory approaches. For example, under Clause 8 of the Bill it will actively promote the use of good quality consumer codes of practice to help consumers to identify reputable traders and to give those traders a marketing edge.
As to the second subsection of the amendment, I agree that it is important that the OFT should consult widely on its activities. As I have said, it will do so on many of its responsibilities under the Bill. Indeed, it has already published three draft guideline documents on aspects of the Bill, with each one sent directly to a substantial number of business and consumer organisations and law firms. The drafts are also available to the wider public on the OFT website. The OFT will consult widely on its annual plan.
As to the final subsection of the amendment, I expect the OFT to act in accordance with the principles of good governance in so far as they are relevant to the OFT. I am not convinced, however, of the need to set this out in the Bill. That is more appropriate for documents such as the statement of purpose—the mission statement—and the annual plan. The OFT chairman can be summoned by parliamentary Select Committees. I am sure that the Trade and Industry Select Committee and others will be very interested indeed if they think at any time that the OFT has acted in a way that is contrary to good governance principles. This is a matter of good administration rather than something which is appropriate for the Bill.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that some elements of his amendment are already catered for elsewhere and that others are not strictly relevant to the Bill. In view of these arguments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: The Minister referred to giving reputable traders a market edge. I attended a meeting
1100
this morning where concern was expressed about the monopolistic position occupied by a very large company in the field of IT and software which could leave the Government and many traders vulnerable. Representations have been made to the current OFT—which it has not taken up—that it should do something about this abuse of a monopolistic position. I hope that the new OFT will, in this particular case, ensure that open sources and open standards for software are adopted. This would give people a competitive edge and ensure that one person does not dominate the market place. I agree that reputable traders should get a market edge, but we have to be careful not to buildup monopolistic positions which may be abused. This may be happening already.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I cannot comment on a situation when I do not know what it is. Clearly the Bill is directed towards ensuring, above all, that small companies are not put in an adverse position because of monopolistic companies in the market place. That is one of the main purposes of the Bill.
As to the point I made about reputable traders having a marketing edge, I simply meant that companies which sign up to codes of practice should have an advantage when it is known to their customers that they have done so.
The Earl of Erroll: In the case I have referred to it will be large companies and the Government which will be most disadvantaged. I shall tell the Minister about it later.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: If the noble Earl writes to me, I shall certainly look into the situation.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister will recall that, in the opening phases of my moving of the amendment, I drew his attention to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Section 2(3)(e) of that Act mirrors paragraph (a) of the first subsection of my amendment. My amendment refers to,
"the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the UK".
Section 2(3)(e) of the Financial Services and Markets Act states:
"In discharging its general functions the Authority must have regard to … the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom".
Why is it desirable that the Financial Services Authority should have this objective but undesirable that the OFT should have it?
Section 2(3)(f) of the Financial Services and Market Act refers to,
"the need to minimise the adverse effects on competition that may arise from anything done in the discharge of those functions".
If the Minister turns to paragraph (b) of my amendment, he will see,
"the need to minimise the adverse effects on competition that may arise from anything done in the discharge of those functions".

1101
Paragraph (c) of my amendment mirrors almost entirely paragraph (g) in the Financial Services and Markets Act. What I am trying to elicit from the Minister is an understanding as to why the constitutional position of the Financial Services Authority should be so very different from that of the OFT.
I mean no disrespect to the Minister when I say that he made a rather disparaging remark about the commitment of myself and my colleagues on these Benches to central planning. I must say that I find that a hit rich coming from the Government Benches. But that aside, it was quite clear that the Government were prepared to adopt this formula in the Financial Services Act. So to the extent that the Minister's remark is a criticism of me, it must be a criticism also of the Government.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We are talking about organisations which are constituted to do radically different things. This is a body which is constituted specifically to deal with issues relating to competition. The Financial Services Act clearly has a different remit; namely, to control the financial services industry in this country. That is clearly completely different. There is no reason why every organisation should have the same set of objectives when they are doing completely different things.
Lord Kingsland: With respect to the noble Lord, surely that strengthens my point. If the specific responsibilities of the OFT are exclusively about the management of competition, then the requirement that they address the international competitive context is all the more important.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks and subsequent comments. I shall look at them closely in Hansard. I suspect that I shall wish to return to them on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Education Spending
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor confirmed that education is this Government's number one priority. Since 1997, we
1102
have broken the cycle of under-funding in education. But we have done more than that. We have demonstrated that our policies of resources for reform work.
"In 1997, we took the tough decision to focus our extra resources and reforms on early years and primary schools because we know that we have to get the basics right. The results are there to see: more nursery places; 500 Sure Start areas; and the biggest ever expansion in childcare. Every primary teacher has been re-trained in the teaching of literacy and numeracy and the result has been a huge leap in the performance of our 11 year-olds.
"We also laid the foundations for raising standards in secondary education. Again, where we committed resources for reform, we delivered results. The number of specialist schools increased from 181 in 1997 to 982 by September this year; and in these schools GCSE results are rising more swiftly. In our Excellence in Cities areas results are increasing faster than elsewhere. Our record is one of investment and reform, and thousands of pupils and parents have benefited from it.
"Because we know it works, it is now time to step up the pace of investment, matched by a step up in the pace of reform. England will now see education spending rise by an average of 6 per cent a year over the next three years. That is a £12.8 billion increase, a total investment of nearly £58 billion a year in 2005–06—more than £1,000 per pupil more in real terms than we inherited in 1997.
"In the time available to me today, I cannot do justice to every issue covered by my responsibilities as Secretary of State. Today I intend to focus on the reform of secondary education. But when we have completed our consultation on our reform document for further education, I will make further announcements. I can confirm that, subject to agreement to this reform, core unit funding in further education will increase by 1 per cent per annum in real terms over the next three years.
"We will publish in the autumn a 10-year strategy for our universities, setting out how we 'will deliver the twin goals of excellence in teaching and research and widening access and participation. But I can announce today, as part of the Government's commitment to research excellence, that we will substantially increase recurrent funding for research, raising the additional investment by over £200 million by 2005–06. Alongside the investment in the science budget announced by the Chancellor yesterday, this will enable our research to be truly world class.
"To carry on now to raise standards in our secondary schools, we need to make a decisive break with those parts of the existing comprehensive system that hold us back.
"In saying this, I want to be clear about one thing. This is not a return to the old, failed two-tier system. The comprehensive principle was right and remains right. Every child is of equal worth; where ability is not determined by the family or background you are

1103
born into; and where every child has a right to an education that meets their highest aspirations and helps them to achieve their individual potential. That is as true now as it has ever been.
"Without doubt, the move to comprehensive education brought progress. It has given more people the qualifications for higher education, and more children are gaining good GCSEs. It has led to an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum for all children; huge progress in the achievement of girls; and more life chances for many young people.
"But progress at secondary level has not been fast enough, and no one can say that what we have now is good enough. Too many pupils still go backwards between 11 and 14. Pupil behaviour too often deteriorates at secondary school. Half of 16 year-olds do not get five or more GCSEs at A to C. The UK still has one of the greatest class divides in education. Too many schools are failing or coasting along without stretching all their pupils.
"It has not achieved all we hoped for. So we need to be bolder and change our secondary system if we are deliver high standards for all our children. We need radical reform in four areas: school structures; school leadership; teaching and learning; and the link between rights and responsibilities both within schools and between schools and the broader community.
"First, the reform of school structures. In the past, the comprehensive system has been too uniform. There have been insufficient incentives for schools to improve. Excellence has been isolated and has not been used to raise standards across the school system as a whole.
"So we need a secondary system which, instead, promotes specialism and diversity; where every school is honest about its strengths and weaknesses and has clear incentives to improve; and where our best schools are rewarded for levering up standards in the rest.
"The new secondary system must have schools that are in some respects the same as each other. They must have high aspirations, a broad and balanced curriculum, good-quality teaching and leadership, fair admissions and clear routes of progression.
"But every school should be different as well. That is why specialist schools are central to our school reform. Their specialism is in addition to the national curriculum and encourages them to develop their own ethos and mission. Let me be clear: our aim is that, over time, every school which wants to be, and can be, a specialist school will be able to do so. I can announce today that we will increase the number of specialist schools to 2000 by 2006. More than half of our secondary schools will be specialist within four years.
1104
But it is not just specialist schools. We will create at least 33 new academies by 2006, and new extended schools—each school with its own mission, each school with its own strengths, all contributing to raising standards.
"We need to build a ladder of achievement to make sure that every school has clear incentives to improve, a system in which every school knows where it stands, is challenged to raise its level, is incentivised and is supported when it does so. Rather than "one size fits all", we need an acknowledgement of the truth: that different schools are at different stages in school improvement and need different levels of challenge and support, freedoms and responsibilities.
"On this ladder of improvement, weak and failing schools will have extra resources, but matched to tough improvement programmes. And if schools do not improve, there will be quicker action to close them down, re-open them as academies, replace their leadership or let them be taken over by more successful schools. For coasting schools there will be incentives to develop school improvement plans and work towards the specialist status. For good schools, such as our specialist schools, training schools, and extended schools, there will be extra resources matched to the development of real centres of excellence in each school, whether in curriculum, teaching, inclusion, or partnerships for improvement. For our best schools there will be new resources and new freedom, but matched to new responsibilities to improve the school system as a whole.
"As a result of this ladder of improvement, a vital new principle for our new secondary system will be that for the first time we will be using our best schools and head teachers to lever up the rest. That is why we will encourage our best schools to expand. That is why we will promote our best schools taking over and running weak and failing schools. That is why we will provide incentives for our best schools to federate and improve standards in our weaker and coasting schools. That is why we will reward our best heads for taking on new roles as chief executives of clusters of schools.
"Today we are announcing that we will designate 300 advanced schools over the next four years. These schools will be charged with helping to lever up standards in our weaker schools and will have the resources to do so.
"But it is not only school structures we need to reform. Leadership is essential to the success of any school. We have already established the National College for School Leadership as the world's first institution dedicated to identifying and training excellent leaders in the school system. The college will ensure that every new head is properly qualified and that existing heads are properly supported and trained, with access to mentors from outside education. The college will take on new roles in developing a new generation of transformational leaders.

1105
"We recognise that it is vital to get the best possible leadership for schools that face the toughest challenges. So from next year we will introduce a leadership incentive grant to make sure excellent leadership is in place in our most challenging secondary schools. The grant of about £125,000 a school will be paid to about 1,400 schools in Excellence in Cities areas, excellence clusters and schools in challenging circumstances outside those areas. Where schools are well led, the grant will be paid directly with no strings attached. Where leadership is weaker, the head and governors will need to agree a development plan with the director of education in their local authority. Where necessary, these plans will include the replacement of the head teacher if this is in the best interests of the school and its pupils.
"The third area for reform is teaching and learning. Every child realising their potential is what every teacher wants for their pupils and what every parent wants for their child. Increasingly, the new specialist secondary school system will be able to tailor education to the needs of each child. But that needs a radical change in how teachers use their expertise and their time, in the professional development they have, in how they use technology—in fact, in how they do their job.
"We have already been discussing with the profession how we can bring about these changes. Now we can back up these discussions with resources.
"The money schools receive through the standard spending assessment will rise 3.5 per cent in real terms for each of the next three years. On top of that record sum, the Chancellor has also announced a substantial increase in the school standards grant, paid direct to schools. The grant will increase by £325 million in 2003–04 and by £375 million in each of the following two years. That means that from next year, direct payments will rise by £50,000 a year to at least £165,000 for a typical secondary school in England. Direct payments to a typical primary school will rise by £10,000 to at least £50,000.
"This, together with the increase in general funding, can be used at head teachers' discretion. But I want to make absolutely clear that the extra school standards grant is conditional on reform of the way schools work. It must be matched by a commitment from across the schools sector to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school workforce—more flexible, more diverse and focused on raising standards. We need a commitment to new professional roles for teachers. We need a commitment to new roles for school paraprofessionals, taking on new tasks in schools and supporting teachers. We need commitment to an improved pay and performance management regime that rewards excellent teaching and eliminates poor teaching. So we will set out in the autumn our more specific proposals and the process for achieving this agreement.
1106
"We know we need to do more to tackle bureaucracy. We will reduce reporting requirements on the Standards Fund to a single annual return, with schools having additional flexibility on how grants can be spent.
"Finally, we must strengthen dramatically the link between rights and responsibilities. This new system needs to capture not only what schools can do for themselves, but how parents and the wider community can play their part. We must have zero tolerance of indiscipline in schools. Today I can announce a significant expansion of the measures taken earlier this year to tackle poor behaviour and crack down on indiscipline. We have already seen the success of learning support units—on-site centres that can better deal with the small minority of pupils who cannot settle and who disrupt others in the classroom. As part of a national behaviour strategy to be launched in the autumn, we are now able to announce that we will provide learning support units for every school where these are needed. There will be more police on site at our toughest schools. Outside schools, truancy sweeps will be extended.
"But broader than this, I want to break down the walls and do more to help schools become a central part of their communities. We will therefore be developing new extended schools, which will provide a range of services on site.
"Moving to the new comprehensive ideal means higher standards, zero tolerance of bad behaviour and a greater choice of good schools for parents.
"The Government have made their choice. We have chosen to make education our number one priority. We have backed this choice with sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, matched by reform of unprecedented ambition. We have a proven model of reform. We have the best teachers ever in our schools. We have the resources and the ambition to achieve the change. And the prize is worth winning".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. We already know that the Secretary of State is flexible in her use of language. For example, we read in today's papers that the Secretary of State deliberately used different language when negotiating with the Prime Minister from that she used when negotiating with the Chancellor. Nevertheless, she has been very successful and for that we congratulate her. However, the British people are less easily fooled and will make their own judgment over time.
This is a complex Statement and in parts it is a confusing one. The gap between rhetoric and reality haunts the Statement. It makes no mention of special educational needs. Every other part of education is mentioned, but not special educational needs. Reference is made to there being more than £1,000

1107
more per pupil in real terms than was inherited in 1997. However, the Statement does not say that an unprecedented proportion of that money is controlled and allocated from the centre. Indeed, the Statement goes on to exacerbate that problem.
The Statement says:
"But when we have completed our consultation on our reform document for further education I will make further announcements".
It goes on:
"We will publish in the autumn a 10-year strategy for our universities".
What is the residual total sum available to answer the strategy for further education? What is the residual global sum that will be available to fund the 10-year strategy? At least the total sums should be known at this stage.
One could be forgiven for being confused by the Secretary of State's Statement, which includes the following:
"The comprehensive principle was right and remains right.…Without doubt the move to comprehensive education brought progress. It has given more people the qualifications for higher education; more children gaining good GCSEs; an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum for all children; huge progress in the achievement of girls; and more life chances for many young people".
It goes on:
"Too many pupils still go backwards between 11 and 14. Pupil behaviour too often deteriorates at secondary school. Half of 16 year-olds do not get five or more GCSEs at A to C. The UK still has one of the greatest class divides in education. Too many schools are coasting along without stretching all their pupils.… The comprehensive system has been too uniform: insufficient incentives for schools to improve; and excellence has been isolated and not used to raise standards across the school system as a whole".
Yet the Government claim that the comprehensive system was right and remains so. That is very confusing.
The noble Baroness referred to the ladder of improvement. She said that weak and failing schools would get extra resources, coasting schools would get extra resources, good schools, such as specialist schools, training schools and extended schools, would get extra resources and our best schools would get new resources and new freedom to match their new responsibilities. How much more money will be held back at the centre, thus denying core funding to all of our schools, in order to provide for the fairly large number of civil servants needed to make judgments on weak and failing schools, coasting schools, good schools such as specialist schools, and the so-called "best schools"? Which are the "best schools"? Are they the beacon schools, the extended schools or the advanced schools? Let us know what they are and who will be making that judgment.
There is only one mention in the Statement of bureaucracy, the one issue that dogs every school in the land. After our consideration of the Education Bill and our discussion of the bureaucracy issue, the noble Baroness now knows that, in every staff room in every school, there is a poster which states, "Please do what
1108
you can to persuade the House of Commons not to overturn the Secretary of State's duty to reduce the amount of regulation and bumf going into schools". All the Statement says is:
"To free up headteachers and teachers we know we need to do more to tackle bureaucracy. We will reduce reporting requirements on the Standards Fund to a single annual return, with schools having additional flexibility on how grants can be spent".
There is nothing about regulation, the daily bumf or the other forms of bureaucracy.
What we do know is that the Secretary of State is travelling even further down the path of central direction, second guessing from the centre and nitpicking interference in our schools. Today's Statement will not promote any improvement in what parents worry about. It will not help to solve the crisis in discipline, whatever has been said, which has seen 130 teachers seriously injured in violent incidents in schools in the past year alone. It will not help teachers to spend more time teaching rather than dealing with bureaucracy.
The Secretary of State already sends 4,500 pages of guidance and advice to every school annually. One thing that is surely predictable is the extra paperwork that will be generated by the changes announced today. This is not real reform, and it is certainly not reform that our schools need.
The Secretary of State talks tough about closing schools that miss their targets. It is proposed that teachers who miss their targets will probably lose their jobs. But what about government targets such as their truancy target? In 1998, the department set a target to cut truancy. In 2000, that target was strengthened. This year, however, the old target was scrapped and replaced with a new one which aims at a reduction that is 70 per cent less than the original target. Does the noble Baroness accept that this is an appalling example of double standards? If teachers miss a target, the teacher will be sacked. If Ministers miss a target, the target is sacked.
The centrepiece of the Statement is the introduction of new types of school. Will they replace beacon schools and centres of excellence? What will be the criteria to decide whether they should be extended and/or advanced schools? How will they be different from beacon schools and those in the centres of excellence? What will happen when a super head and/or a chief executive of an advanced school is tasked to take over four or five poorly performing schools? Will those poorly performing schools be headless? Will the new chief executive become the head of all of the schools? Or will those head teachers, who have a sovereign responsibility for their own school, Find themselves superseded by the new chief executive? How will a chief executive of four to six schools get to know the children and the staff in those schools? These are important practical issues which the Minister will have to address.
What message does the Minister have for the head teacher Janette Smith, from Lealands High School, in Luton? She is quoted today as saying of the Government's spending plans,
"It's always been tied up, attached to this initiative or that scheme. I need to be trusted to decide what my school needs".

1109
I think that she is absolutely right. Many good heads are good precisely because they concentrate on every detail in their school. Today's proposals would take the best heads out of schools and make them strategic chief executives of half the schools in their area. What evidence does the Minister have that this is the best way of improving all the schools that the Secretary of State would not touch with a barge pole? There will be real worries, especially among parents with children at schools with good heads, that this is a gimmick that will do more harm than good.
What is the logic behind concentrating on 300 schools, out of 25,000, to solve the crisis? Would it not be better to focus directly on the failing schools, dealing with their problems, rather than proposing yet more gimmickry and interference?
For a Statement that is meant to set the course for education policy in this Parliament, there are several glaring gaps. There is nothing about reducing exam load in secondary schools and nothing about slimming down the national curriculum. As for further education—well, whither further education? Nothing has been said about the universities—where morale among both students and teachers is even lower than it is in the schools sector—other than a promise of more tomorrow. Does the noble Baroness accept that the dithering over student funding, on which we were promised a decision early in the new year, has contributed to this collapse in morale?
This Statement is a sad waste of an opportunity by the Government. Instead of retreating from the path of dictating to schools and too much bureaucracy and intervention, the Government have chosen to go further down that route than ever before. There will be more quangos, more targets and more regulation. When will they ever learn that micro-management from the centre is not the way to create world class schools'? The devil as always will be in the detail. We await the details, as will all teachers, governors and parents.
Finally, money without real reform will be wasted, as it has been over the past few years. There is an alternative vision for our schools whereby heads control the discipline policy; teachers are allowed to concentrate on teaching, not form filling; and parents know that the school is concerned with their children's needs and not with the latest initiative from the Government, such as that in regard to running ill thought through companies. The Government have chosen instead the dead hand of central control.
When the euphoria over additional money has settled to an air of reality, it will dawn on everyone that this is not reform but a recipe for continued crisis in our schools, colleges and universities. The Government talk devolution, but I am afraid that they do not understand the meaning of the word.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, given the time constraints, I shall try to be as brief as possible.
We on these Benches welcome the extra money that is going into education. It is long overdue. In 1997, the Government were elected on the back of the slogan
1110
"education, education, education", after which they proceeded to reduce the proportion of resources going into education. They are now, at long last, putting in what is necessary. Average annual spending per pupil in our state secondary schools is about £2,800. Average annual spending in private schools per secondary pupil is £6,000. It is not surprising that private schools do better in achievement as measured by examinations and so forth than state schools. It is long past the time when we needed more resources for our state schools. So we welcome that money.
We welcome, too, the leadership initiatives. For too long we have neglected leadership in schools. The training now being given to heads and deputy heads is necessary and long overdue. We also welcome the initiatives to increase the number of in-school learning support units. As far as possible, disruptive pupils must be kept within the school framework rather than expelled.
We have some reservations, however, about the tone of the Statement. The noble Baroness, Lady 131atch, mentioned the article in The Times today which described the two tones adopted by the Secretary of State. I feel that this Statement very much adopts the "new Labour lexicon", as David Charter put it. The emphasis is very much on centres of excellence, beacons of success and "radical reform" of the comprehensive system. However, I am a little unhappy about language such as,
"we will promote our best schools taking over and running weak and failing schools. That's why we will provide incentives for our best schools to federate and improve standards in our weaker…schools".
Yet, only a month or six weeks ago, in Committee in this House, when we discussed federation, we were assured by the Minister that federations will work only if they are entered into because schools want them and are committed to them. She said that federations will only be in the best interests of schools arid that it was vital that the decision to federate must be entirely voluntary. However, we find someone from No. 10 boasting on the front page of the Observer that we will force failing schools into federations. Thal is not what we want or the way in which we should be running the education system. I hope that that is not the intention. That appears to be the language of No. 10 rather than of No. 11, which is a little more emollient and, as David Charter says, in which the socialist semantics come forward.
We on these Benches are also concerned about the fact that the money will go directly to the schools. It is nice to see money going into the pockets of schools but that is yet another step towards getting rid of or bypassing LEAs because the money is put directly into the hands of the head. It will not be very long before those bodies are completely bypassed. Schools forums have been set up, as primary care trusts have been in the health service, to be shadow administrations and to ensure that there will be a convenient group of professionals and lay members who can take over the running of the schools at a local level when we no

1111
longer need the duly elected and accountable LEAs. We are worried by the moves that appear to be afoot in the Statement.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and point out that the Statement was billed as a Statement on education. However, it is not about education; it is about secondary schools. There was nothing about further education, although educational maintenance allowances were a big issue in yesterday's review. We are worried about work-based learning, which is a big issue. All the money from education or maintenance allowances will go to those who will continue in education. We had a very useful little debate last night on skills. One of the key issues is to involve those who start in work-based learning. For many who leave school with relatively low GCSE qualifications, work-based learning is a better route. It is important that we discuss further education at some point.
What about higher education? It has lacked resources for a very long time, but we heard absolutely nothing about it in the Statement. The issue has been put off once again until the autumn.
The money that has been routed to schools has gone into recruiting teachers—or the attempt to recruit teachers. One problem is that we have not got the teachers to fill the vacancies that are being created. Do the Government really believe that they can meet the needs for teaching that the funds will generate? How will they cope with that?
Finally, I am glad that extra resources are going into capital spending. We are on the verge of a huge digital revolution in schools. Whiteboards, individual laptops for school kids and so on will become essential within the next five years or so. Will there be enough money in schools to provide the necessary capital equipment that will be needed to keep up with that revolution?
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in view of the time, I shall be brief.
Special educational needs are a fundamental part of our inclusion strategy. In the Statement, I referred to the important issue of inclusion. I was sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—was unable to welcome at least in part the announcement of extra money for education.
We have discussed centralisation. The direct contributions to schools that were referred to in the Statement are an important part of ensuring that schools are able to spend the money directly. There will be £50,000 extra at the secondary level and 10,000 at the primary level. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, feels that that involves bypassing LEAs. I somehow feel that we cannot win in that regard. I make it clear to the noble Baroness that LEAs are crucial to the work that we do. We believe that direct payments involve a shared responsibility between central and local government for our
1112
educational system. The great majority of funding will continue through LEAs and the 3.5 per cent real terms increase each year should be welcomed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the comprehensive system and the importance of recognising where we have come from and where we are heading. The difference—it is fundamental to understand this—is that a system that decides, when children are 11, what kind of education they can access is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong in terms of what happens to those children and in terms of economics because it does not enable us to make high-quality education available to all children. We recognise the need to ensure that our education system is fit for its purpose in relation to the young people whom it serves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the ways of defining which schools were coasting and which were good schools. We have many measures. We are very pleased with our accountability framework, which enables us—through Ofsted and our "value added" tables, which are coming in—to see which schools perhaps need extra support.
The noble Baroness has previously raised the issue of bureaucracy. We are seeking to do something about that, as she said. It is worth pointing out that DfES administration costs account for less than 1 per cent of its overall budget. The administration costs settlement in the SR 2002 represents a 1.7 per cent reduction in real terms, which will not allow for large increases in the numbers of civil servants.
I turn to the issue of violence in schools. I said in the Statement that we are expanding our learning support units to all schools that feel that they need them. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, welcomed that. Those units, which play a crucial role, are having a dramatic effect dealing with behavioural issues in schools. We want that to expand. We are sticking to the existing truancy targets. It is important to address those issues carefully and rapidly. We recognise that there is still much that we have to do in that regard.
I turn to the role of head teachers who are truly excellent. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will have met many such head teachers in their time. We want to get those skills out into the schools sector. That does not mean that we will seek to make schools headless; rather, we want a more strategic role for those who wish to, are able to and can develop that role. The issue, in a sense, involves asking: where do they go next, having been an excellent head? Noble Lords will be aware of many examples of heads who have moved from one school to another for a short time in order to support the school and other head teachers have come in to continue their work. It is very important to expand that process.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch said that the Statement was in many ways complex and self-contradictory. I want to ask the Minister two general questions. First, how does she justify saying that the Government need to do

1113
more to tackle bureaucracy and, at the same time, making announcements that increase enormously the power of central government over the provision of education throughout the country? That will be the effect of the Government's approach.
Secondly, how does the Minister justify praising the principles of the comprehensive system when at the same time she is effectively scrapping it—rightly so—by recognising the importance of specialist different schools? She goes so far as to take credit for the fact that 50 per cent—I believe that that is the figure that she quoted—of our pupils will in future be in specialist different schools. Is it not unfortunate for the generation that has just left school that the Labour Party did not earlier take a more sensible view of education and recognise the damage that the comprehensive system was doing?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that I believe that the comprehensive system has been a fundamental part of the achievement of all of our young people—of the generations who have had the benefit of that system. It is important for the noble Lord to understand our approach. With regard to our lack of desire to return to what went before, I repeat what I said earlier: this approach is not about deciding at the age of 11 which children are suitable for high-quality education and which children are suitable for another kind of education. Our approach involves a system in which admissions policies are fair and children in schools have the benefit of a broad and balanced curriculum and of specialisms within that school and other schools in the area. As new technology expands, I foresee real opportunities for children to benefit more widely from other schools and to have the education that helps them to achieve the best that they can. I should not wish to return to a system about which many people felt that at the age of 11 they were denied access to A-levels and university. That system is not appropriate.
I turn to bureaucracy. We recognise that there is an issue about ensuring that our teachers do not feel burdened by bureaucracy but we want to ensure that there is continuous improvement in our school system. We have a vital role to play in that regard.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and her colleagues on achieving a 1 per cent increase in GDP for education, as advocated in this House. However, perhaps I may mention to her that the cost of crime committed by those released from prisons exceeds that figure. According to the report from No. 10 issued this month by the Social Exclusion Unit, those who have not received education or training in prison are three times more likely to reengage in crime than those who did receive education and training.
Is the Minister aware that the report indicates that, whereas the money for pure education is ring-fenced, the money for vocational education—an issue that we debated last night—is not? In recent years, the sums spent on such education in the construction industry—
1114
an issue with which we were particularly concerned in our debate last night—have been greatly reduced. Will the Minister undertake to consider very carefully the wisdom of investing in people in prison to make them more fit to engage constructively in life after release? I know that the Minister feels strongly about that matter, but I should be grateful for her reassurance.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, which will come as no surprise to him. It is most important that we tackle such issues, especially in relation to young men, who are of particular concern. The percentage of young men who have a criminal conviction by the time they are 30 is very high and that is deeply worrying. I cannot recall the figure off-hand but it is of the order of 25 per cent. In a previous life, I was involved in examining ways of engaging industry in supporting training within prisons. In many cases, remarkable results were achieved, and I believe that that work will continue. The noble Lord made a very valid point, which I shall consider.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the response from these Benches is, "Yes, but" I shall not go into the "yeses" because there is not time, but I want to highlight one or two points. First, over the past few months I have been carrying out a tour of schools in the diocese. In doing so, I have picked up a growing concern about the resourcing of special needs—a point that I raised in a previous debate in your Lordlships' House. That also echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said.
Perhaps I may push the question theoretically. Is it possible to conceive that a school might fail because it is inadequately resourced in the area of special needs? That may be like asking whether it is possible for an angel to dance on a pinhead. But I put the question sharply because it concerns an issue which is felt increasingly keenly by our schools. I hasten to add that the issue is not one of failing but of the resourcing of special needs. I know that I speak for schools situated not only in my own patch.
The second point that I want to ernphasise goes back to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. There is a need for a strategy for further education. From recent meetings that I have had with principals of colleges of further education, I sense an enormous amount of courage among them. But increasingly I also sense that, while developments are taking place in education on other fronts—in secondary and higher education—those in further education are feeling neglected and squeezed out of the picture. I ask the Minister to urge the Minister for Education to address this very important area. It concerns many of our young people as well as those involved in adult learning.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has raised two very important points. The first concerns special educational needs. In my view, it is not a question of schools failing because they have inadequate resources. Some interesting

1115
discussions could be had about the word "adequate". However, we are clear that the aim of our investment in special educational needs is to support schools in funding the resources that they need. We have worked closely with local education authorities to achieve that.
As I am sure the right reverend Prelate would do, I pay tribute to all the schools that do fantastic work with children with special educational needs. Within our settlement, we want to ensure that we support those schools. As was mentioned in the Statement, we talk about inclusion as being an important part of that.
The right reverend Prelate referred to further education. The 1 per cent real terms annual increase is important. We shall obviously look closely at the subject of further education and there will be a great deal more to say on the issues that the right reverend Prelate raised. We want to see better rewards for high-performing staff in FE colleges. We want to ensure that the funding gap between school sixth-forms and colleges is acknowledged and examined, and we shall return to your Lordships' House with more details on that.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, clearly education is, or should be, child-centred. That issue has been raised by many other noble Lords today. I want to focus on the issue of child-centredness and ask my noble friend about the educational pathway that the child goes through from pre-school to further education. We all know that there are certain hiatuses where children experience difficulty. They dip and they fail, for example, between primary and secondary school.
This money is clearly welcome. Let us not be mean about that. But how will the extra funding serve to ease the way for young people to move successfully through the system from nursery school to higher education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend has posed a deeply philosophical question. As she said, there are important moments in a child's pathway through education where more must be done. The particular issue highlighted in the Statement is what we call the "transition" between primary and secondary school. That is one of the most important, and often the most memorable, experiences of any person's life, including, I suggest, that of most noble Lords.
We want to ensure that we engage in the links between our children's early years education and the foundation stage through to the end of the reception year. We want them to have a breadth of experience that will enable them better to engage in a formal education, if I may describe it as such, through to key stage 2. There, we must ensure that their basic needs are met so that they can access a secondary curriculum. An increasing number of our young people should feel able to continue in or rejoin further and higher education through to adult skills.
Education presents a long journey from cradle to grave. My noble friend is absolutely right. A key part of what we do must focus on the important issues of
1116
education, maintenance allowances, the transition to secondary school, and foundation to key stage 1, where children need extra support.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the president of the Association for Science Education. In that context, I ask the noble Baroness whether her attention has been drawn to a recent report showing a severely deteriorating supply of quality teachers of science in our schools and particularly in the subjects of mathematics and physics.
In yesterday's Statement we were told that the DTI has won a significant increase in money for science and scientific research. But where will the people come from if the schools cannot recruit the necessary qualified teachers to teach young people science and get them into university in that subject? Is it not clear that the Government must be brave and recognise that for many scientific disciplines recruitment is taking place in a market situation? Unless the market rate of pay for such teachers is met by the schools and those schools can offer jobs, they will not be able to obtain the necessary quality of teachers. Is it not clear that there needs to be more joined-up government so that the noble Baroness's department can match the aspirations of the Office of Science and Technology? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, is in his place. The present situation does not add up. There must be an approach that will give schools far greater flexibility in what they pay to science teachers.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there is a degree of flexibility within the budgets now within schools which enables teachers to be paid differentially, if that is what schools want. I take the point made by the noble Lord. From memory, I believe that figures show that the number of science teachers is increasing. However, in certain disciplines within science we are not seeing the inroads we should like. I suspect that the noble Lord referred to one such discipline. I think also of the Roberts report in that regard.
We shall match the increased investment in the science budget by a significant increase in HEFCE's recurrent funding for university research. That is an important part of the spending review. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury and I are working closely together. As noble Lords may be aware from a recent announcement, we have extended science year for a further year, which will perhaps become, "science year plus one", in order to begin to develop for our secondary schools in particular curriculum-wide new methods and techniques. We are working with our best teachers carefully to consider mentoring roles, the role of business in supporting our young scientists and the important issue of the recruitment and retention of science teachers, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what is my noble friend's response to the accusations made today

1117
and, indeed, during our education debates in recent weeks that the Government are deliberately seeking to reduce the role and work of local education authorities? The financial aspect is perhaps of most importance.
From time to time there have been specific examples of the newly proposed forums in which LEA representatives are barred from taking part. It would seem to me, perhaps because of my age and experience, that members of LEAs have an important and particular role to play. I am a little concerned that the contributions made by LEAs over many years should now be diminished or, indeed, in some cases abolished. I hope that my noble friend will say something positive about that criticism.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, during the passage of the Education Bill I spent much time trying to reassure noble Lords and, indeed, put it on the face of the Bill—I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree that it is now on the face of the Bill in several places—that local education authorities have a key role to play. There is no question but that they have a vital and continuing role to play in education. However, individually they do not manage schools.
We have to consider the relationship between schools and local and central government. That has always been a dynamic and, dare I say, on occasions shifting relationship which needs to be constantly monitored if we are to ensure that it works effectively. The increase of 3.5 per cent will go through local education authorities. We have announced direct payments to schools in some cases. We believe that it is appropriate for it to be done in that way. However, local education authorities continue to play a vital role within schools and our education system. In my view, that role is not diminished but may change over time, as all good relationships should.
Noble Lords who may have watched what happened in another place last night will know that we thought long and hard about how to ensure that local education authorities are involved with our schools forums. Part of their purpose has always been to provide the opportunity for schools to understand the role of local education authorities as much as for local education authorities to be involved in schools. That is an important and continuing role.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare the same interest that I declared yesterday; that is as deputy chairman of the council of the University of London. When I asked then about the restoration and renewal of our world-class universities, I was reminded about research spending but otherwise referred to today's Statement. In the past year the research assessments have not been fully funded. Is there anything else the Minister can say about universities in advance of the autumn strategy statement, the delay of which has so far been unexplained?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that the statement referred to by the noble
1118
Lord, Lord Brooke, has been delayed. We promised to put forward a strategy statement which will encompass the range of issues across higher education. Noble Lords involved in universities have been asking for that for some time. I have often been challenged about our desire to have 50 per cent of young people by the age of 30 involved in higher education and the consequences and implications of that for the university sector.
The purpose behind the strategy statement is to think more broadly about the way forward on that issue. I hope that noble Lords will welcome that. However, I recognise that many noble Lords involved in universities will want to see substantial statements made at that time in order to encompass the different issues raised. We are obviously committed to the targets we set ourselves. We expect the Comprehensive Spending Review to be good news for our universities and students. I look forward to being able to give much more detail to noble Lords at that time.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and wonder whether she can expand a little on two aspects. First, have decisions been taken about the geographical spread of the specialist schools and the advanced schools? Secondly, I refer to the question of zero tolerance of bad behaviour. The effect on schools of disruptive behaviour has been mentioned several times and is important. Is it too early to ask about the kind of measures that will be considered to deal with disruptive behaviour?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have not yet made decisions about the geographical spread of schools. However, we hope to ensure that areas of the country have the opportunity to come forward. That is particularly pertinent in our rural communities, where we are in discussion. As noble Lords will be aware, schools are in discussion with each other about specialist schools status. In Stevenage, for example, the seven secondary schools are discussing a collaborative model of specialist school, and such discussion is common. We shall ensure that the specialist schools that come into existence represent our country and that schools in more challenging circumstances will not feel that they cannot participate.
As regards zero tolerance of bad behaviour, our learning support units have been a success. That is why I made clear in the Statement that every school that needs a learning support unit will be able to have one on site, providing opportunities to work with young people and keep them within the school. It is also important to remind the House of the important work done by pupil referral units and educational psychologists, and of the way in which we have now moved to ensure that any child who is permanently excluded from school is still in full-time education. From September next that will be a requirement across all education authorities, which are working well towards that. That is important.

Enterprise Bill
4.28 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 1 [The Office of Fair Trading]:
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 191, line 5, leave out "a" and insert "an independent"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I shall start by making a brief declaration of tangential interest. Until last week I was secretary of the All-Party Group on Retail Industry. I had served in that post for 20 years and someone else has now taken my place. Furthermore, I have a lifelong association with the Co-operative movement. I have consulted with and been consulted by the British Retail Consortium which, as the Committee will be aware, represents 90 per cent of retail sales in this country. Therefore, I know that the Committee will understand that it takes a keen interest in these matters.
The Minister will not need reminding that in its submission at an earlier time the BRC welcomed the proposal to establish the OFT as the statutory authority; called for guidelines to distinguish between day-to-day and strategic matters; and supported a degree of flexibility in the structure and size of the board with a minimum and maximum number of voting members to be specified in the legislation to avoid expanding the board as a way of changing the general tenor of its decisions. It is envisaged that co-opted, non-voting members will provide additional expertise and a majority of outsiders.
As the Minister and Members of the Committee are aware, at present the Bill provides for a chairman and at least four other members. The members may be removed only for incapacity or misbehaviour, which, to some extent, covers the concerns over the nature of the board being changed. During the consultation period, the BRC certainly advised the Minister in no uncertain terms that it was strongly opposed to the idea that the Director-General of Fair Trading should automatically chair the board, and called for an independent chairman. It also called for board members with experience and a reasonable balance of experience and interests to be represented on the board.
Having given the Committee that outline explanation, I simply want to point out that the intention behind these amendments is to try to tackle what one might call the "governance" of the new arrangements. The idea of an independent chairman has been proposed as an alternative to leaving this as an option and appointing the Director-General of Fair Trading as chairman which, I understand, is the current intention. It would remove officials from the OFT board, leaving them the option of being co-opted and thereby retaining the possibility of sitting on working groups and sub-committees.
The amendments tabled in my name seek to limit the maximum number of board members to avoid the possibility of the board being expanded if its decisions
1120
are not acceptable to the Secretary of State. We are really talking about four, five, or six members, though the intended number under the Bill is four. Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert reference to a number "no greater than six", and there is a further amendment in this group tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which proposes that instead of four members there should be six. These are matters of judgment and of experience.
The amendments tabled in my name are what I call "benign". Others would call them "probing" amendments; in other words, they are not intended to damage the Bill. The intention is to seek from the Minister some assurance that the fears and concerns that I have expressed may very well be unfounded. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 3A, which is tabled in my name, has been included in this grouping. I must say that I find myself in agreement with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has just said. In particular, I believe that it is most important to emphasise the independence of the chairman because the heart of this Bill is the creation of a body that is free from political interference.
My amendment seeks to expand the board from four to six members, simply because I believe that four is too small a number. There is a danger that this provision could be too narrowly drawn and, possibly, too introverted. When the matter was raised in debate in another place, the Minister said, "We've put down four, but we always expect to have more than four". I never like that kind of response; indeed, I never feel very happy about it. If we want to have more than four members, it seems to me that we should have more than four and that the Bill should specify that number.
We are talking about a body with a strategic function that is very important to British industry. When we deal later with Amendment No. 14, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, we shall no doubt discuss its function and its approach. However, it definitely needs to command public respect and confidence. In my view, a board of four members is insufficiently widely drawn to be able to achieve that aim.
Lord Sharman: I support the general principle behind these amendments. When he spoke earlier, the Minister dismissed the parallels between this Bill and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 when it was being considered in this House—the legislation that created the Financial Services Authority. Essentially, we are dealing with the whole issue of corporate governance and accountability. It is the division of responsibility as between an executive authority and those who will govern or supervise it.
When creating bodies that are quangos with enormous power, it seems to me to be eminently sensible for the Government to follow the best principles of corporate governance, which is what

1121
these amendments seek to do. The position of chairman and that of chief executive should be separate; there is no rationale for combining them. There should be a sensible division of those responsibilities. I support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, should be congratulated on tabling some very relevant amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for adding some important points as regards the number of board members involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has just pointed out, there is something of an anomaly in the Minister's refusal to acknowledge that there is any precedent in the Financial Services and Markets Act. Indeed, in a rather challenging statement the noble Lord virtually accused my noble friend Lord Kingsland of being a Little Englander—"a throwback to the world of national champions" and Japanese industrialists. In fact, all my noble friend was doing was quoting from the Minister's own Act; namely, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
We are moving to yet another important area that I suppose in many ways lies behind a large part of this Bill. There is a paradox here. At present, everyone refers to the OFT, the Office of Fair Trading; but, in fact, there is no such organisation. There is only a Director-General of Fair Trading. The Government now seek to establish the OFT, which everyone thought was already established—but was not—and to abolish the post of Director-General of Fair Trading. We shall deal shortly with amendments in respect of which I shall be asking the Minister to justify that move.
As regards the setting up of the OFT, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is quite right to advise us to perhaps draw back and review exactly what we are seeking to establish under the Bill. This is an excellent opportunity to do so. There is a confusion in the mind of the Government regarding the chairman, the chief executive and the director-general. That confusion came to light during the debate in Standing Committee B in another place on 16th April. No doubt Members of the Committee have spent some time reading carefully the Official Report of such debates. When discussing the Office of Fair Trading, Miss Melanie Johnson said that the Director-General of Fair Trading,
"currently has a wide range of functions in the areas of competition and consumer protection, many of which are being reformed in the Bill. The Government believe that in the light of the reforms, it is no longer appropriate for all those powers to be vested in one individual".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 16/4/02; col. 12.]
I return to the confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, did me a great favour: he referred me to The Sunday Times advertisement, which seeks to preview what the Government are expecting us to do; namely, to rubber-stamp their Bill. In seeking non-executive directors for this strategic board, there is a bland statement in that advertisement that the present Director-General of Fair Trading will be the chairman and chief executive of the board. I repeat what the
1122
Minister said in another place; namely, that it is no longer appropriate for such powers to be vested in one individual.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is quite right. No doubt we shall return to the issue a little later in our debates—the issue of vesting all the powers in the chairman and the chief executive and of both those positions being taken by one individual. This emphasises the importance of the points being made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson and by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We should examine what kind of people will be serving on the board.
Some later amendments seek to ensure that. there will be on the board people who are active in industry and commerce, but the amendments now before the Committee give us an opportunity to consider 'whether members of the board should be employees of the OFT. Presumably, the chief executive would be an employee of the OFT. Some confusion arises, which I hope the Minister will put right.
Then we turn to numbers. With all the powers vested in one person—the chairman and chief executive—it is essential that there be some strong directors. But we are told that if we wish to apply for the position, we will need to commit only a minimum of 30 days out of a total of 365. So that is not 30 days a month, as I suspect the present director-general would say he works; it is a minimum of 30 days a year.
What do applicants need to qualify? They need a strong record at senior level in their own field. There is nothing in the advertisement about independence; nothing about being employees. I am happy to join with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in requesting an explanation of those matters.
How many board members are there to be? The initial view was that there would be four or five. That was contained in the original press release. But then Melanie Johnson—helpful, as she always is—said in Standing Committee B,
"We are looking at five to seven members".— [Officiai Report. Commons, Standing Committee B, col. 19]
Can the Minister clarify how many will serve on the board? Presumably the department is receiving lots of applications as a result of the advertisement last month, no doubt anticipating a speedy Royal Assent—not, of course, something they can predict. However, when all the applications are in, the department must have in mind exactly how many members there are to be.
We shall discuss in a moment what parts of the economy the board members are to be drawn from. But the only response to the suggestion that the powers must not be vested in one individual is, "We will have five to seven and they need only sit 30 days a year". That is not adequate. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Borrie: I am glad I was able to assist the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, by pointing to the advertisement in the Sunday Times. That revealed a number of things, including the fact that the present

1123
Director-General of Fair Trading—not myself; I have not held that role for 10 years—Mr John Vickers, is expected to be the chairman and chief executive.
I want to make two points in relation to my noble friend's amendment. First, unlike some Members of the Committee—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman—I do not see any necessary play across from corporate governance and how a specific governmental authority should be run. Therefore I do not automatically see that, in relation to the Office of Fair Trading, the chairman and chief executive should be two separate persons. I remind those Members of the Committee on the Opposition Front Bench who are so fond of the Financial Services Authority that Sir Howard Davies is both chairman and chief executive of that body, although the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will remember, as I do, how much disputed that was at the time the Bill went through.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord will recall that these Benches fought extremely hard to try to ensure that the position of chairman and director-general of the Financial Services Authority were separately held. It was a battle which, in the end, we lost.
Lord Borrie: That is absolutely correct.
Lord Sharman: I draw the noble Lord's attention to the annual report of the Financial Services Authority in which it justifies the combining of the titles of chairman and chief executive by reference to the fact that executive responsibility is divided among other members of the board, including members who are "managing directors". It concludes, as verified by the independent auditors of that body, that they are in compliance with the Cadbury code which recommends the division of those separate responsibilities.
Lord Borrie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. I persist with my original point that I do not necessarily see any write-across from corporate governance in the private field of companies to how a governmental authority should be run.
My other point on Amendment No. 2 is that, as I see it, it is not intended that Mr Vickers should be an employee of the OFT or that the members of the new body will be employees. As the schedule indicates at various points, they will be appointed on a certain salary for a certain period of time and will clearly be different from and unlike the employees of the OFT who would normally be full-time members of the Civil Service. That has been the case since the Office of Fair Trading was set up in 1973. All members of staff were civil servants except the Director-General of Fair Trading whose special provisions, closely followed in Schedule 1, meant that dismissal could only occur on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour and that the occupant of the post had a five-year contract which, indeed, is being continued.
1124
Therefore the intention is already established that the chairman should be independent and should not be an employee. As for the numbers, I do not have a view. I shall be just as interested as other Members of the Committee in what the Minister has to say.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Before it becomes part of the mythology of this debate perhaps I can say that in no way did I dismiss the Financial Services Authority. I felt I was being rather precise in saying that there was not an automatic read-across from the objectives of a Financial Services Authority to the OFT, which is a rather more modest statement of my position.
Amendment No. 2 aims to make the chairman independent. We are doing much in this Bill to increase the independence of the OFT from Ministers and the chairman's role will be consistent with that.
Taken with Amendment No. 3, this amendment would prevent an employee of the OFT being appointed chairman. That is not necessarily the right way forward. As drafted the Bill does not limit who may be appointed chairman. Employees could apply for the post when advertised and be considered alongside other candidates. As Members of the Committee will be aware, we are intending to appoint John Vickers as the first chairman for the remainder of his existing Director-General of Fair Trading term.
In terms of independence we are already taking a significant step in depersonalising regulation by abolishing the post of DGFT and replacing it with a statutory authority—a board. Because of his particular skills and to provide for some continuity through this period of change at OFT. we intend to appoint John Vickers as chairman with no separate appointment of chief executive. I do not accept that there is a parallel here between having a chairman and chief executive and having a board; it is having a board which goes a long way to depersonalise the role. We have said that that is what we are doing. There is no parallel between doing that on the one hand and having the same person as chairman and chief executive, on the other.
The Bill provides for flexibility in the future in this area. John Vickers will lead the OFT through the upcoming period of change, working together with the board. He will be independent of Ministers and accountable for the OFT's actions. Similarly, Amendment No. 5 would prevent OFT employees taking up any OFT board appointment. I am sympathetic to the idea that the board should have strong non-executive representation; that is, people who have not been employed by the OFT. Indeed, we expect the final board to have more non-executive members. But I am not convinced that the board should be entirely non-executive. The Bill does not preclude OFT employees being appointed to the board. It is vital as OFT moves forward that its senior managers, through executive members of the board, are fully engaged in the board process. The board will play an important role in steering OFT through a period of change as it takes forward its new powers and responsibilities and its increased independence from Ministers. It is crucial that the executive team is

1125
part of that process. But both executive and non-executive members of the board will be independent of Ministers and bound by the rules on conflict of interest.
Amendment No. 4 would set a maximum number of six members of the OFT board. Amendment No. 3A would change the minimum number of members from four to six.
We have not set a maximum size for the board in the Bill because we believe that some flexibility is important if the Bill is to stand the test of time. We believe that the board will need to have at least five members if it is to hold a sufficient balance and range of skills and experience. I am happy to confirm that, as my honourable colleague said in another place, we expect the final board to be between five and seven members, including the chairman, and with more non-executives than executives. That seems to be about the right size to ensure a good range of expert views and expertise without becoming too unwieldy. But, by building some flexibility into the board size, we can ensure that the practice of board appointment reflects the realities of the time.
I accept that the amendments of my noble friend Lord Graham are benign but I think that they are taken account of in the way that we are setting up the board. In view of these arguments I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. The past 23 minutes has been well spent. I plead in aid the advice I have received from the British Retail Consortium. Its members have expressed their fears, concerns or alarms that what is on the face of the Bill appears to be detrimental to their interests. When I discuss today's proceedings with them, I suspect they will point out how the Minister has explained how he envisages the board developing. With the flexibility that will be given to the new board, I imagine that my colleagues outside the House will be reasonably reassured. I shall consult with them. If necessary, I shall return with another amendment at a later stage. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 191, line 6, at end insert "of whom at least 50% will be currently active in industry or commerce at the time of their appointment"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 seeks to provide that at least 50 per cent of board appointees will be currently active in industry or commerce. My concern relates to the advertisement in the The Sunday Times on 30th June. The extract from the advertisement stated that candidates for the non-executive posts on the strategic board will need to demonstrate a strong track record at senior level in their own field,
"which could include business".
1126
Those are hardly comforting words when I look at the importance of this body and the need for hands-on industrial or commercial activity.
Obviously, I would not want to proscribe too tightly the importance of having a wide range of interests on the board. Equally, we would not want it to be a parking place for former civil servants, although I have considerable respect, as a former Civil Service Minister, for former members of that great service. But, with the OFT having such a key part to play in the economy, we need to ensure that at least half the members, if not more, will have that activity in industry or commerce at the time of their appointment.
I recall a much greater reassurance being given at the time that the Bill was previewed by Mr Byers, the then Secretary of State. In May 2000, in a Department of Trade and Industry press release, he stated that,
"board members will give a wider range of expertise to the organisation, rather than executive power resting with one person. This will give businesses a stronger voice at the heart of the OFT".
Obviously consumers need to have a stronger voice, and I am sure that they will. But why is the advertisement so quiet on that clear commitment that businesses would have a stronger voice by just saying that,
"candidates could come from business".
My concern is reinforced by knowledge of the action by the Director-General of Fair Trading since he took over from Mr Bridgeman. I know John Vickers and I have enormous respect for his experience and expertise. On the Financial Services and Markets Bill we had equal respect for Howard Davies. But it should not in any way influence our overall altitude to legislation which has to last for generations to come.
Mr Vickers has set up a four-member advisory panel that meets monthly to discuss policy., strategy, research and communication. It includes a former editor of the Financial Times and a leading competition academic and author. It may be made clear to me by the Minister that this body is purely advisory. No doubt it was in no way intended to be a shadow board or a pre-cursor to the statutory hoard. But it gives us a feel for the kind of relationship that may exist in the future between the chairman and the chief executive and his strategic board.
I suppose that we could guess from the reaction of the OFT and the director-general that the composition of the new board would be different from that of the advisory panel. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us his more detailed thinking on that point.
When one analyses the powers that will be within this new body, one recognises immediately the 'vital need for people from the heart of industry and commerce to be well represented. That is why I very much hope the Minister will carefully consider the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support what my noble friend has just said. His amendment is rather more elegant than mine which refers to the,
"directors of public limited companies".

1127
A great deal of the burden of this legislation will fall on the public limited companies. Therefore, people with practical experience of working on a board of a plc will know what it is like at the sharp end; to be on the receiving end of the decisions of this body. That applies widely, but its sharpest application will be on that body of companies. As my noble friend has said, if this body is to be effective and garner respect for what it is doing it will need real experience. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in order to reassure us on those points.
5 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be extremely brief, but I also rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench—in particular, his reference to the advertisement and its reference to business. I have previously cited in this House an advertisement in the Church Times in the 1930s: "Rural curate required (slow left-arm bowler preferred)". On many occasions, the words inside parentheses are more revealing than those outside them. The whole Committee should be grateful to my noble friend and, I gather, indirectly to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for having drawn that matter to our attention.
Lord Borrie: It was helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to supply that quotation, but it would have been more helpful if he had cited the whole sentence, not just a part of it. Perhaps I may do so. It states:
"Candidates will need to demonstrate expertise in competition or consumer protection issues, with a strong track record at senior level in their own field, which could include business, regulated industries, or public bodies including NGOs".
In other words, the word "include" applies to those other bodies, it is in no way diminishing to the word "business". Such an interpretation would be wrong.
I am pretty sure—this will appear in Hansard, so I hope that this is so—that, among the five to seven members, there will be two people from the world of business, who may well be directors of public limited companies. But, having been a distinguished Minister for many years, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows only too well that it is not appropriate for Ministers to suggest a close limiting of the formula set out in legislation for appointments to such boards.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments would write into the Bill that a proportion of the Office of Fair Trading board must be active businessmen at the time of their appointment. I share the Committee's desire for strong candidates from business to apply to be members of the OFT board. Clearly, their experience and insight would be extremely valuable. But we will run a fair and open competition to appoint those members. We want to appoint people with a range of skills, expertise and abilities, as the advertisement demonstrates.
We will be looking for at least some candidates to have a wide ranging and in-depth experience of competition and consumer issues. I see no reason why a former editor of the Financial Times, or a former
1128
academic expert on competition policy should not be able to play a part on the board. I draw the Committee's attention to the long and distinguished career of my noble friend Lord Borrie as Director-General of Fair Trading. I may be mistaken, but I do not think that he had long business experience. We want those who are the best people to do the job and who have experience from a wide variety of backgrounds.
I do not think that it would right or fair to say now that any proportion or number of those appointed will come from one background or another—to impose a quota. If we stipulate that a certain number should come from industry, should we then also stipulate that a number should represent consumers? We will appoint the best candidates from the recruitment process. Because of their experience, I hope that a number of those will come from the business community. That would add great value to the board.
In view of those arguments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thought that the case for the amendment had been so eloquently and convincingly made by my noble friend that there would be no point in my intervening. Knowing and respecting the Minister as I do, I was reasonably confident that he would say that he could not accept the amendment because he did not like its drafting or because the point was made sufficiently elsewhere in the Bill. The latter is a powerful argument when dealing with a Bill of this length. I should be the first to admit that there are many things in the Bill that may still surprise me. I am not aware of what every line in this compendium says.
What caught my ear and my attention was the Minister saying, "We will choose the best people". I should be happy to think that all Ministers had the same acumen, intelligence and experience as has the noble Lord. But unfortunately and unhappily, that is not so. Were another Government to be in power, I can well hear myself saying exactly the same. I do not always feel total confidence in Ministers when they say that they intend to appoint the best possible people.
Personally, like my noble friends, I look for some assurance that people with adequate current experience of business—people who know what can be the impact of such laws—will be on the board as a certainty. That is not much to ask. I am astonished by my moderation, but the very least that the noble Lord should say is that he has been much impressed by the weight of argument, that he will take the matter away to consider it and may return to it later.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: What a wonderful performance by my noble friend Lord Peyton. When I hear him make speeches in this wonderful Chamber, I am always impressed by the cogency of his argument. When his argument is in support of an amendment that I have moved, I find it overwhelming. He is

1129
absolutely right. Although the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may like to read the whole of the advertisement, there is a huge difference between an advertisement that says that a strong track record,
"that could include business, regulated industries, or public bodies including NGOs",
and what Mr Byers said of the setting up of this new body. He said:
"This will give businesses a stronger voice at the heart of the OFT".
My noble friend Lord Hodgson made a good point: we are discussing a new body—I almost said, "a new body, not an old Borrie"; but that would not be courteous. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie will agree that the Director-General of Fair Trading is now—and in particular, will be in the new body—a different person with a different range of functions from those which the noble Lord assumed when he was first appointed.
We shall have to go away to think carefully about what the Minister has said, because he has not given us the reassurance that we sought. But for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6A not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 191, line 7, after "chairman", insert "and shall secure his consent"
The noble Lord said: I can be extremely telegraphic in moving this amendment. Schedule 1(1)(2) states:
"The Secretary of State shall consult the chairman before appointing any other member".
The amendment would add, after the word "chairman", the words "and shall secure his consent".
The purpose of the amendment will be patently clear to the Minister: there is not much point consulting the chairman if he is then ignored. The chairman is entitled to a board with which he is confident that he can work. Consequently, the drafting of Schedule 1(1)(2) is inadequate. I have suggested the expression "and shall secure his consent". I should be perfectly content with another form of words that had the same effect. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment would give the chairman of the Office of Fair Trading a veto over appointments to the OFT board. It is certainly our intention that the chairman should play a full and active role in the selection of board members. The schedule already provides for him to be consulted by the Secretary of State on such matters. It is important that the chairman has board members with whom he can work, but it would be wrong for the chairman to have the final say. OFT board members will, ultimately, carry out their responsibilities on behalf of the Crown. It is imperative that the Secretary of State has confidence in board members, and, for that reason, she should have the final say in appointments.
Appointments to the OFT board will be made following Nolan procedures, with an open competition. For the first appointments, John Vickers
1130
will be a member of the selection panel that will make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the final appointments. He will therefore be fully involved. Future appointments will also be made in an open and accountable way, following the Nolan rules.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, and I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but it did not surprise me. I shall reflect on what he said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment
No. 8:
Page 191, line 8, at end insert—
"(3) The Board shall be broadly representative of interests in the area of responsibility of the OF."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9.
I am one of those people who, sometimes, get irritated when people insist that they want words in the Bill, rather than accept ministerial assurances. I am in the happy position of being able to say that, if the Minister can assure me that the purport of the amendments is in his mind and the mind of his advisers, I shall be content. He has already gone some way towards that in the debates in the past hour. I want the Minister to say that the thrust and intention of the amendments is well understood, even if it is not necessary to make them.
So far, the Minister has eased the situation somewhat. He told us that the size of the board could go up to seven members, rather than sticking rigidly to a membership of four. That strengthens the board. In his responses to other amendments, the Minister has clearly indicated that the scope of the Bill is important. It will have a huge impact on business and economic affairs in this country. A great deal of expertise is available, and I hope that, when we hear of the appointments, we can be satisfied that all sectors of the economy and of life in this country will feel that there is somebody there with experience of their position. I have some little knowledge of retail, and it will be good if there is someone on the board—not necessarily a retailer—who can be seen by the retail world as knowing what he or she is talking about.
I put forward the amendments in the confident hope that the Minister will tell us that they are unnecessary and that the Bill will, as intended by his ministerial colleagues, give effect to the provisions in the amendments in some other way. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but I must start by saying how surprised I was that the Minister—I looked in his direction—did not respond to the telling intervention of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of

1131
Edmonton, make the same telling point. I hope that the Minister will do my noble friend the courtesy of responding to him.
It is vitally necessary for the board to be broadly representative of interests in the OFT's area of responsibility. I did not intend, in any way, to disparage the editor of the Financial Times; there can be a wide range of interests represented on a board. However, if the board is to be composed of retired civil servants, authors and journalists, it will lack the substance that we seek. It was not necessary for the Minister to defend the editor of the Financial Times. The director-general had already said, as had the OFT, that the advisory committee was, in no way, intended to mirror the board that might be set up or its character.
The Committee wants reassurance from the Minister about the sort of people that he and his colleagues intend to appoint. Normally, as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil would remind me, when a Minister places an advertisement in a newspaper, not only does he approve the wording but he will probably have in mind already the range of people that he would like to see responding to it. The Minister does not just sit in his office and hope that someone somewhere will apply. He should already have some view of the ideal board.
Why does not the Minister throw away the brief, just for a moment? He should certainly not listen to the whispered comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The Minister should tell us about the ideal board and tell us what he would he like to see. If he did, influential people such as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will leave the Chamber and go out as emissaries for that ideal board, so that we can ensure that the necessary people apply—if only we had some idea of what the Minister intends. Will he tell us?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am happy to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I did not think that it was necessary because the main burden of his speech was that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, had spoken brilliantly in support of the amendment and that it had his full support. Then, there were some charming comments aimed at blandishing the Minister into changing his views. I did not think that it was for me to intervene as the noble Lord paid those compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I thought that the compliments were entirely justified, just as I do not agree with the argument put forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was making a simple point. Without being too confident, I had a slight hope that the Minister might be moved to say that he would consider the point—nothing more. It greases the wheels and makes everyone feel better when such remarks are made. They do not always lead to a useful result, but they help. I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for his support. If, every now and again, Ministers could rub out the word
1132
"reject", which appears at the bottom of the brief, it would make a nice change. We might feel that summer was here at last.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I have rubbed out a few, but they come later in the proceedings.
The amendments seek to ensure that the OFT board is made up of people who are representative of the key areas of OFT responsibility and that such people would not be disqualified from taking up board appointments on grounds of conflict of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, suggested that I state clearly what sort of people we want to see on the board. Above all, we want to see a range of people who can represent different interests; they may be businessmen, academics, lawyers or representatives of consumers' interests. They should be united by the fact that they represent a range of interests, and they should be extremely able people who can bring different kinds of experience to the board.
However, I do not think that we should lay down quotas of what is needed. As I have said, we are holding a fair and open competition for board posts in accordance with Nolan procedures. We want to appoint the best people in order to give the OFT a strong and strategic board with a balance of skills, expertise and abilities. We shall be looking for at least some candidates with a wide-ranging and in-depth experience of competition and consumer issues, but we are also looking for other forms of experience which will be of value to the board.
The range of skills and qualities that we seek may indeed mean that some members of the board are drawn, for example, from competition, consumer or business backgrounds. But our aim is to appoint the best candidates, not to fulfil quotas or make de facto appointments representing certain interests. Although board members are likely to have other outside interests, they will be appointed to the board in their own right, not as representatives of any particular interest. Their role on the board will be to see that the OFT takes the right strategic decisions effectively to fulfil its functions and achieve its goal of making markets work for consumers.
I agree with my noble friend that candidates with backgrounds relevant to the OFT's responsibilities should not automatically be disqualified from taking up board appointments on the ground of conflict of interest. There is no need for them to be disqualified provided that they comply with the OFT's procedures on conflicts of interest.
The OFT will be extending those procedures and it will consult the Secretary of State on them. The office expects the revised procedures to follow the same general principles as currently apply for OFT staff. That would mean that, at the outset, board members would have to declare all actual and potential conflicts of interest involving themselves, their families and significant others. They would be expected to discuss with the chairman or board secretary any actual or potential conflict of interest raised by an agenda item in advance of the meeting itself, or immediately if an

1133
item is raised under any other business in which potentially there could be a conflict. And, of course, board members would be expected to withdraw from discussion of any items which could present a perceived conflict of interest.
The OFT must consult the Secretary of State on its procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest or any revision to those procedures. Furthermore, under her power to remove the chairman or any board member for misbehaviour, the Secretary of State could remove any board member breaching those procedures.
Therefore, while I agree with my noble friend that the kind of candidate about which he is concerned should not automatically be disqualified from being appointed to the OFT board on grounds of conflict of interest, it is unnecessary to set that out on the face of the Bill. The legislation already makes it clear that the OFT will have procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest and board members will have to act in accordance with them or face removal by the Secretary of State. I do not think that we need to add anything more to the Bill.
In view of those arguments and my assurances, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Once more I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. His explanations have gone a considerable way towards satisfying me that some of the fears or concerns may be ill founded. When we see the list, I hope that my noble friend and his colleagues will have ensured that no significant sector of commerce, industry or social life would perceive that there is not at least one person on the board having at least the appearance of knowing about their particular problems.
The Minister has given me the assurance I seek. Although he has five to seven members already, common sense would indicate that, because he wants the board to get off to a good start and there are some very good people about, even seven may be insufficient. I do not wish to comment on which fields I would include, although if I had to take on the difficult job of making the selection, no doubt I would be able to do so.
I started off by saying that I am not one of those who insists, in the face of a ministerial assurance, that the words of the amendment should appear on the face of the Bill. I am quite certain that, after I have consulted with colleagues outside the Committee, I shall not have to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 191, line 25, at end insert "and approved by affirmative resolution of the House of Commons"
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we move on to considering the financial provisions for the terms of appointment, specifically remuneration and pensions. Amendment No. 10 seeks to ensure that any payment made under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1
1134
should be approved by an affirmative resolution of the other place. If there were to be a "golden goodbye" or a "golden handshake" agreed by the Secretary of State, such compensation should be subject to approval by the other place. Furthermore, the general terms and conditions of service and appointments of staff should also be subject to such scrutiny. Many precedents have been set whereby such resolutions are necessary for payments of this nature.
The Minister has not yet indicated clearly the level of payments, the number of people involved and the arrangements for travel allowances and so forth. The amendment provides an excellent opportunity for the Minister to give us some idea of what he proposes should be the remuneration of the individuals on the board. I realise that he could refer me to the pack now being sent to all the candidates, for which I could apply by e-mail or telephone. However, I thought that he might do the Committee the courtesy of explaining exactly what I would be told with regard to remuneration.
In giving those details, can the Minister also indicate the size of the organisation he envisages under the legislation and the number of people to be employed? Would he further agree that, in particular where the levels of remuneration are not yet specified—certainly not on the face of the Bill—facilities should be put in place for compensation to be paid for loss of office? However, such compensation should be subject first to scrutiny by the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These amendments would require House of Commons approval by affirmative resolution for matters relating to the operational framework of the OFT. They would mean that approval would be needed for setting levels of remuneration, travelling and other allowances for OFT board members, for determining the amount of compensation that should be awarded to someone who ceases to hold office as OFT chairman or an OFT board member, and for setting the numbers, terms and conditions of service for OFT staff; that is, the civil servants.
All that would impose a significant new procedural burden on the operation of the OFT. It is a burden that I am not convinced is either appropriate or necessary. At present, my department sets the framework for the OFT's remuneration and for compensation issues for board members. That is entirely appropriate since the appointments are made by the Secretary of State. The numbers, terms and conditions of OFT staff—the civil servants—are determined by the OFT itself, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Again that is entirely right, mirroring the arrangements in other government departments, leaving as it does day-to-day management decisions in the hands of the OFT board within an overall framework set by Ministers.
I am not convinced that it would be a good use of parliamentary time to become involved in matters of this detail at the OFT. The office's annual plan and report will be laid before Parliament. If Members of the Committee are concerned about anything relating to the OFT, they can of course request a debate at any

1135
time, but I do not think that it is necessary for discussions on these matters of detail to take place as a matter of course.
I do not think that agreed levels of remuneration and so forth have been set for board members. In view of the arguments that I have put to the Committee, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Perhaps I may press the Minister further because I am not sure that he has given the Committee any information at all. It is quite important in matters of this nature that there should be some visibility as to the level of remuneration. That is what the amendment seeks to ensure. I invited the Minister to share with us what Members of the Committee would be told if they said that they were interested in becoming non-executive directors committing a minimum of 30 days. I understand that the Minister's department is already giving some indication to applicants as to the level of remuneration. I said that the Minister could refer me to e-mail RYXN@SAXBAM.CO.UK. but, instead of referring the Committee to the information pack, perhaps he will share a little information with us.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can only repeat that, as far as I know, no agreed levels have been set for board members. I shall check on that point. If I am wrong and information has been given out or agreed, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that he will accept that my point covered allowances, travel expenses and all kinds of remuneration in addition to direct pay. The Minister is nodding in answer to my question. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 192, line 12, at end insert "and shall publish in full the procedures and criteria in dealing with conflicts of interest"
The noble Lord said: Again I can be brief. Paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 states:
"The OFT shall consult the Secretary of State before making or revising its procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest".
My amendment seeks to require the OFT to publish in full the procedures and criteria which deal with conflicts of interest.
As the Minister is aware, conflicts of interest is a very sensitive topic and has a crucial bearing on the legitimacy of decisions which can sometimes cost entrepreneurs and consumers many millions of pounds. It is in the interests of everyone concerned with the operation of the Bill that the public should
1136
know exactly what the rules are. I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know what his intentions are in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support my noble friend's amendment. We have already discussed the fact that this will be a small body, the actions of which will be carefully scrutinised. It therefore needs to be absolutely above reproach. There have been debates in the House recently about the decline in public confidence in the probity of our corporate governance. This body, which will be at the heart of British industry and making, as my noble friend said, decisions which will affect millions of pounds and thousands of people, should be prepared to make its corporate governance in regard to conflicts of interest absolutely clear and beyond peradventure. There would then be no room for any misapprehension or misunderstanding, or for any subsequent recrimination and regret.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment would require the OFT to publish its procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest. This is an excellent point. The Bill already requires the OFT to consult the Secretary of State on these procedures but, in principle, I can see no reason why they should not be published. I am quite happy to take the matter away and to consider further how it may be set out in the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for his extremely constructive response. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borriemoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 192, line 12, at end insert—
"() Otherwise than in exceptional circumstances, all operational decisions shall be made by the chairman of the OFT following such consultation with the other members of the OFT as he thinks appropriate."
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading I expressed the view that in the field of mergers and take-overs, more than in any other aspect of competition policy, swift and firm decision making was particularly important for all concerned—that is, the shareholders and employees of companies—because if there are no particular public interest reasons why a merger should be prevented it should be allowed to go ahead as soon as possible. If there are serious concerns that the merger might adversely affect competition, then the public interest is surely that those concerns are speedily addressed and a decision as to whether the merger should be either stopped or allowed arrived at after due process but without undue delay.
It was in that context that I was concerned about the proposal in the Bill to replace the Director-General of Fair Trading with a board of which, as we heard earlier, he will be the chairman and chief executive. If decisions on whether or not to refer mergers to the Competition Commission have to go routinely to this new board, consisting in the main of part-timers, I foresee the risks of serious delays and a serious reduction in efficient decision making.

1137
I drew attention to the advertisement in the Sunday Times, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and others, for non-executive directors of the board. I was struck by the fact that, according to the advertisement, the non-executive directors are to put in only 21/2, days a month. They are, in other words, to be very much part-timers. I wanted a reassurance from Her Majesty's Government that the board of the Office of Fair Trading would not be involved in case-by-case, day-to-day, routine decision making in regard to, for example, prohibitions of cartels, abuses of monopoly position under Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1988, merger references to the Competition Commission or market investigation references to the Competition Commission, but would concern itself only with strategy, broad principles and priorities.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who replied for the Government, gave me a degree of reassurance. He said that the new board would focus on the Office of Fair Trading's strategic vision and direction, prioritisation and monitoring progress against targets. He then added:
"We expect the board to delegate most operational decisions to the Chairman and OFT officials".—[Official Report, 2/7/02; col. 184.]
My amendment—which I shall not read out because it is in front of the Committee—seeks to put the Minister's assurance on the face of the Bill. I do so, in part, because the advertisement for members of the board to which I have referred is somewhat ambiguous. It refers to the board being responsible for,
"overall strategic direction, priorities, plans and performance",
but it adds that,
"it will also be directly involved in decisions on individual market studies".
It then goes on to state that the board may exceptionally be involved in matters of strategic importance, to which I have no objection.
If the board is to be directly involved in individual market studies, that suggests to me that it could veto a proposal from the chairman to engage in a market study into a particular market or a proposal to refer a particular market to the Competition Commission. I ask the Minister, is that so?
The 21/2 days a month that the part-timers on the board will work could be accounted for by a day for a meeting and a day or so for reading the papers. If it is more than that, the advertisement may be misleading to those splendid members of the community who offer themselves to the Minister as willing to become part-time non-executive directors of the board.
I am, of course, aware of the trend in recent years away from individual regulators to regulatory boards. I believe that it was desirable for the director-general of Ofgas to be replaced by a board under the Utilities Act 2000 because where a single industry was dominated by one firm, for example, British Gas, and
1138
the regulator was a single individual, there was undue personalisation of regulatory powers. It is a matter of record that relations between the gas regulator and the chairman of British Gas were at times so confrontational that they were barely on speaking terms. Undue personality clash and confrontation could not be good either for the industry or for the public interest.
I suggest that the work of the Office of Fair Trading is markedly different from that of a single industry regulator because its consumer and competition remits stretch across the whole of industry and commerce. The chance of daily confrontations between individuals is too remote to be thought at all likely.
My case, therefore, to the Government in bringing forward this amendment is to let John Vickers who will be chairman and chief executive of the board—at present he is the Director-General of Fair Trading—continue as now to take all operational decisions otherwise than in exceptional circumstances. The board will be a valuable sounding board for consultation and will deal with strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, pointed out earlier, there is at present an advisory board. In future there will be the board provided for under Clause 1. But if the board's statutory remit is left uncertain under the Bill, it may at some stage be tempted to interfere in day-to-day decisions at the cost of the efficiency of the organisation and at the cost of the public interest. Diffusion of responsibility could be a recipe for feebleness or delay or both in decision-making. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I had a dim feeling while the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was speaking that he had in mind his own past experience and was speaking perhaps from a somewhat subjective point of view. I do not believe that it would be in any way desirable to underline the power of the chairman by giving him this added provision. He already has a good pair of braces with which to keep up his trousers; he does not need a belt as well. For once I am rather hopeful that the Minister and I will be on the same side and that he will see strength in rejecting his noble friend's amendment.
Lord Sharman: I register our opposition in regard to the amendment. We are getting into a terrible tangle over the governance and management of the new body. The Bill states that it is a body corporate with a board. It is proposed that the chairman and chief executive should have unbridled power in all matters operational. I completely lack understanding as to how one can justify such a system or how it meets any kind of sensible approach to corporate governance. Surely what we must seek here is a sensible balance in a board adequately representative of the interests which it oversees and composed of executive and non-executive members who can provide the necessary checks and balances. To imbue the chairman and chief executive with the authority to make all operational decisions after having made such consultations as he thinks fit leaves me breathless with disbelief.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I believe that I can help the Minister to some extent. Under paragraph 11 of Schedule I there is a section entitled Performance of functions. There it seems to me clear that,
"Anything authorised or required to be done by the OFT … may be done by—

(a) any member or employee of the OFT … or …

(b) any committee of the OFT".

Therefore, it is clear that the board has statutory powers of delegation to any authorised section of the directorate.
What I think is more worrying is the fact that the board itself seems to have a structural power imbalance in that there is a full-time chief executive and chairman who is an acknowledged expert in the field flanked by non-executive directors who, however distinguished, will be there only for 30 days a year. In my submission the issue is not so much whether or not the Bill contains powers to provide effective operational decision-making—I believe that it does—but rather that superficially the OFT is a board but in fact one member of that board is so strong that it is almost a misrepresentation to call it board management.
There is a further concern. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is one of the great experts in the United Kingdom on non-executive directorships, not, I hasten to add, because he has a large number of them but because it is a function that he has studied in some depth. It is well known that although non-executive directors do not have intimate involvement with day-to-day management of companies, they have in law equivalent responsibility to other directors who have full executive responsibility.
I endorse the approach of the Government to having a board for the OFT. I think that that is the right route down which to go, but I wonder whether the board in terms of the powers of its members other than the director-general is sufficiently well balanced in terms of its power structure. To say that I should be wary is perhaps putting it too strongly. However, if I were considering applying to be a member of the board, I should want more guarantees about my capacity to influence its strategy than appear to be on the face of the Bill.
This is not meant to be a cynical observation but the section of Schedule 1 entitled, Terms of appointment, remuneration, pensions amounts to 31 lines whereas the section entitled Performance of functions—a crucial part of the schedule—amounts to seven lines. I do not suggest for a moment that that disproportionality is necessarily unjustified, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has put his finger on a very important issue which in my submission merits further consideration by the Government in everyone's interest. I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not making in any way a party political point. I make the point because I believe that we all want the system that the Government seek to devise to work properly. It merits some further reflection.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to ensure that the OFT board will not automatically have a role in operational decisions. It would specify that, unless the circumstances were exceptional, these decisions would be taken by the chairman of the OFT following such consultation with the other members of the OFT as he thought appropriate.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Borrie explained his concern that the board could intervene in routine decision making with regard to mergers, cartels or market investigations and that by doing so it could slow down the decision-making process. He has sought reassurance that the board will be concerned only with strategy and broad principles.
I can offer my noble friend this reassurance. It has always been the intention that the board should focus on strategic issues, not on day-to-day decisions. However, at the same time it is important that the possibility of the board taking a role in case decisions of strategic significance is maintained. That will be the case with most corporate bodies. Most boards are concerned with strategic decisions, but there will be operational decisions of strategic importance with which the board will want to be involved.
The board is being introduced in order to widen the input into consumer and competition decisions—to depersonalise this important area of regulatory activity. To say that the board should not as a matter of principle play a role in these decisions would undermine this move. For that reason, I do not believe that it is wise to set out on the face of the Bill the detailed role of the board. However, I offer my noble friend my reassurance that it is not the intention that the board should slow down routine decisions.
I turn to my noble friend's particular concerns about the potential for the OFT board to slow down decisions leading to feebleness and delay. On some mergers, where decision making is time critical, the timetables are very tight. This would severely limit the ability of the board to become involved. On markets, the speed of decision making is less critical and the decision to investigate a market can be a strategic decision—and one which would benefit from board involvement. On cartels, the board could be involved in decisions relating to cases of strategic significance. However, one would always want those to be of strategic significance for the board. It would not be involved in decisions relating to the issue of intrusive surveillance powers as such decisions are reserved for the chairman and may involve timing considerations. But, as with markets, there is no reason to prevent board involvement in the strategic decision of whether to begin an investigation in the first place.
I hope that that clarifies the way in which we see the role of the board, which is clearly a strategic one. I am happy to be able to offer that reassurance to my noble friend and I in view of those arguments I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Borrie: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate, even including the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He

1141
was undoubtedly right in noticing a subjective element from my past in tabling the amendment. I would call it an element of nostalgia, which I hope he will accept.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sharman and Lord Kingsland, because this is an important matter. I do not share their collective view that there is a great read-across between corporate governance in the private world and that of public authorities. Directors of boards of companies do not have statutory powers which need to be exercised in the public interest with reasonable promptitude. They do not have statutory functions of any kind and one has to look at each public authority separately—not even collectively—to see how best they ought to be run.
My noble friend the Minister described the board of the Office of Fair Trading working on a day-to-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis and he gave me reassurance on that matter. However, a great deal needs to be done in terms of the different types of decisions which the public authority will have to make. He has given me reassurances and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Director General of Fair Trading]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 2, after first "The" insert "position, power and the"
The noble Lord said: In rising to move the amendment, I want to stress that one of the questions which the Government have not yet fully explained is why there is a need to abolish the office of Director-General of Fair Trading. Implicit in some of our debates, is the confusion in the two roles of chairman and chief executive. I therefore should have thought—perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it was considered—that one of the options should have been the transfer of the functions, position and power of the Director-General of Fair Trading into the new statutory body with the creation of a board and a chairman. In that way, the question of corporate governance, which has been the subject of considerable debate today, would have been more easily tackled.
The second area I want to probe with the Minister is the difficulty—I found it virtually impossible—of finding a document in which all the functions, property rights, liabilities and powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading are to be found. There is the opportunity of ploughing through the 46 pages of Schedule 25 which, although described as minor and transitional provisions, contain a number of the powers.
I wonder whether the Minister could make available to us a document setting out the functions which are now being transferred. Clause 2(1) states that they are being transferred but it does not detail exactly what is being transferred. It seeks to do so generically. I do not know whether it is possible to express it more clearly, but it would be easier for us to make progress in the Committee if they were set out more clearly in a separate document.
1142
Thirdly, I return to the words of Miss Melanie Johnson about it being no longer appropriate for all the powers to be vested in one individual; namely, the Director-General of Fair Trading. If it is no longer appropriate for all those powers to be vested in one individual, why do we need to abolish the office? Why cannot those powers be made subject to the board, and the statutory board be put in charge of those powers? The director-general would carry on exercising his powers, which it is proposed should be transferred from a person to a body. That gives rise to the confusion about who will exercise the powers. We have had an interesting discussion about that.
I hope that the amendment will give the Minister an opportunity to justify why the position of director-general is being abolished. Whether or not he and his colleagues considered the matter prior to their announcement, might it not be possible to continue with the post? That would enable us to do away with a substantial part of the schedules to the Bill and would enable a board to be set up in the new body which will oversee the work of the director-general and his staff. I am probing the Minister to share with us a little more of the background to the decision and I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The second of these amendments, Amendment No. 16, would retain the post of Director-General of Fair Trading. The first amendment would transfer the position, powers and functions of that post to the OFT board.
The Government are quite clear that we should abolish the post of Director-General of Fair Trading and transfer his property, rights, liabilities and functions—which include his powers—to a new statutory authority, the OFT. The OFT will consist of a board headed by a chairman. This will broaden the decision-making base and de-personalise this important area of regulatory enforcement.
I cannot see that this is a very difficult exercise. We are transferring those functions and powers to the new organisation, and it is clear that they should be set out on the basis of what the new organisation will do. To transfer to the OFT the functions of a post that we are clearly changing seems to me to be a recipe for confusion. The way to do this is to abolish one post, to transfer all the functions to the new body, and then to set out, as we hope we have done, how that new body will operate and what its powers and responsibilities will be.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am merely asking the Minister: where are the functions of the Director-General of Fair Trading set out?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: They are set out in a number of pieces of legislation. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with a list. Then, I think it will be quite clear that this is a sensible move. Many of the functions of the DGFT are being reformed in this Bill In the light of this, we believe that it is no longer appropriate for all of these powers to be vested in one individual. We consulted on this move in September 2000, and it

1143
has received wide support. I am happy to let the noble Lord have a list of the pieces of legislation; and in view of my response I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, would it make sense to have a definition of "functions" in this Bill—as, for example, in the Education Act 1996? The word is used throughout the long clauses that the Bill contains. It would be a clarification that the Government might consider.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am not quite sure of the noble Lord's point. If it relates to the functions of the whole board, we covered it when we considered the first amendment. Here, we are talking about what will happen as regards the duties of the Director-General of Fair Trading. It is clear that they will move across and are redefined in the schedule on the Office of Fair Trading.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I did not make myself as clear as I should have done. I was referring to the definition of the word "functions" as such. I do not think that the Bill contains such a definition. It occurs in the Education Act 1996, where the concept is much used. Quite apart from the issue of what the functions are, I suggest that it would be useful for those who have to implement the Bill's provisions if it contained a definition of that word itself, given its prominence. If the Bill does contain such a definition, I apologise. I could not find one—and I made a long search.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to supply the list of functions. Rather than merely providing a list of sections, it would be very helpful if he could list the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading—then, if necessary, giving the sections containing them. I think that Members of the Committee would find this matter much easier to follow if the powers were set out, without having to run to 160 different Acts of Parliament. As the Minister is so readily agreeing to that, so do I readily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Annual plan]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 13, leave out "consult such persons as it considers appropriate" and insert "lay the draft plan before Parliament and shall consult as widely as is reasonably practicable"
The noble Lord said: I join with my noble friend in challenging Clause 3. With reference to the annual plan which the OFT will publish under the terms of
1144
Clause 3(1) containing a statement of its main objectives and priorities for the year, subsection (2) provides that,
"Before publishing the annual plan … the OFT shall consult such persons as it considers appropriate".
That is a little rich. In setting up this body with these wide-ranging powers, I hope that the Minister might carefully consider, first, my amendment which would leave out the words enabling the OFT to decide whom it would consult and would insert a provision for the draft plan to be laid before Parliament. The OFT would then consult,
"as widely as is reasonably practicable".
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has rightly put a further suggestion; namely, that the consultation should include recognised bodies representing business opinion and consumer bodies designated under Clause 11(5).
When the Bill was in the other place, Miss Melanie Johnson stressed time and again that the OFT would be fully accountable to Parliament and to the public. In terms of that accountability, the procedure as regards the annual plan is very important. I noted that Miss Melanie Johnson said:
"there may be an interest in who the OFT plans to consult, but it is part of its accountability that it will have to explain who it is consulting and why".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 16/4/02; col. 32.]
I am not sure that that is the right way round. I do not think that the OFT should decide whom it is going to consult and then tell us. I believe that Parliament has a role to play here and I hope that the Minister will accept that. In that context, I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As my noble friend has said, I have an amendment in this group. I felt that this provision was not merely "a little rich"; it was very rich—that the OFT can decide whom it should consult "as it considers appropriate". The OFT is a standalone body. Its independence is the keystone of much that we have been discussing: it will affect many groups of people, and in particular businesses and consumers. I do not suggest that the wording of my amendment is the right wording, but there ought to be some provision to force the OFT to have regard to, to listen to, and to consult with business opinion and consumer opinion.
The wording that I have used is merely to make the OFT focus on consulting the two groups that will be particularly affected by its plans and actions. That is important. Consultation with academics and economists is no doubt very worthwhile and very worthy, but we need consultation with people who are at the real life cutting edge.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These amendments seek to set out further provisions in regard to whom the OFT must consult on its annual plan. The Bill already provides for consultation by the OFT on its annual plan; and the OFT certainly intends to consult widely. It would intend such consultation to include leading business groups, consumer organisations and other interested parties. By publishing the consultation on

1145
its website, the OFT would ensure that the wider public could put their views forward. Members of both Houses of Parliament are, of course, always able to participate in such consultation.
However, I agree with Members of the Committee that the ultimate weasel world of politics is appropriate, as so few people are prepared to come forward to say that things that may seem inappropriate should be done. In view of the concerns expressed, I am happy to take this matter away and to consider further what might be put on the face of the Bill, including how Parliament can be engaged in the consultation process.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am very grateful to the Minister for those assurances and for the way in which he has so swiftly met my concerns and those of my noble friend. It is therefore with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Annual and other reports]:
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert "; and

(c) an assessment of the extent to which the OFT has—

(i) advanced the objectives of promoting competition and competitiveness;

(ii) maintained a fair balance of rights and duties for consumers and business;

(iii) assessed the costs for business of its decisions; and

(iv) observed the Enforcement Concordat."

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. Clause 4 deals with annual and other reports. It states:
"The OFT shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, make to the Secretary of State a report (the 'annual report') on its activities".
The clause goes on to spell out some of the things that the Minister and his colleagues feel should be in the report. The Marshalled List shows that, as well as my amendment, others have further ideas. We do not disagree with the idea of an annual report, but we would like an understanding that there will be more in it. The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Sharman, would pointedly bring the report to the attention not of the general public—although they are important—but of Parliament, which should be able to look at it through the Select Committee procedure.
As well as providing information, the OFT should give an account of how and why it has done what it has done. Paragraph (c)(iii) of the amendment would require an assessment of how the OFT has,
"assessed the costs for business of its decisions".
I focus on that in passing because we are very concerned about all kinds of costs on business. We are all law-abiding people in this House and we all
1146
generally want the Bill, but if there is agitation that it will be more costly than expected to put into effect, we need to pause and hear the Minister talk about that.
Sub-paragraph (ii) refers to the way in which the OFT has,
"maintained a fair balance of rights and duties for consumers and business".
That may not be so easy to codify or quantify, but at least the Minister and his colleagues ought to be in a position to have a stab at giving us their assessment of what has happened. There is no doubt that there are two sides—the rights of consumers and those of business. One may be looked on as the beneficiary and the other may be looked on as the cause of concern.
As with other amendments, the aim is to give the Minister a chance to tell us how he sees this playing once the provisions are put into operation. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I have two amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. Amendment No. 21 is almost identical to paragraph (c)(iii) of Amendment No. 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord was concerned about the costs to business of the legislation. I share that view. I would rather rely on the silken tongue of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, than on my pedestrian meanderings in justifying the logic behind the amendment. I shall leave it at that.
In Amendment No. 20, I am looking for a detailed summary of OFT decisions and investigations over the preceding year. My text for that is the practice pursued by the European Commission in Brussels, which every year produces an excellent account of its decisions and of the decisions of the court of first instance and the European Court of Justice in so far as they have a bearing on competition matters.
That account is particularly import ant because, by setting out those decisions, it provides a framework of precedents that helps to provide some certainty for the business community in dealing with competition and merger officials. I can see no plausible reason why the Government should shy away from adopting a similar practice. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reaction to that.
Lord Sharman: I have two amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 21A and 177A. Both deal with accountability to Parliament. I strongly support what the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Kingsland, have said. We are creating yet another hugely powerful and influential quango. In addition to covering what we need to see in an annual report from that immensely powerful body, it is essential that we place on the face of the Bill provisions that ensure that those who are charged with the stewardship and operation of the body are fully accountable to Parliament.
Other parts of the Bill make a significant difference to the influence of Ministers in decisions on competition and investigations and the like. We

1147
[LORD SHARMAN]
wholly support the removal of that to an independent body, but it is vital that that independent body is not only accountable to Parliament, but seen to be so properly and in the best possible manner.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My remarks will be brief. I support my noble friends on the Front Bench. When we discussed the 1998 Competition Bill in Committee in another place there was a considerable discrepancy between the views expressed by the Opposition on the costs to business arising from the Bill and the Government's forecast in their assessments. I have read Miss Johnson's response in Committee in the Commons on this occasion to amendments similar to those that we are talking about. I am surprised that there is no reference to the comparative outcome between 1998 and 2001. That suggests at first blush that perhaps the Government are not anxious to revisit the subject.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 would set out on the face of the Bill certain material that the OFT must include in its annual report. The Bill was drafted on the basis that such specific detail was not appropriate for primary legislation. We have included in the Bill only the minor broad minimum criteria that the annual report must fulfil. That allows flexibility in the light of experience and ensures that the Bill can stand the test of time.
The annual report will have to include a general survey of developments on matters relating to the OFT's functions and an assessment of the extent to which the OFT's main objectives and priorities for the year, as set out in the annual plan, are met. In doing so, the OFT will need and wish to include the sort of information covered by Amendment No. 20. The Director-General of Fair Trading already includes such information in his current annual reports. I expect the new OFT to continue to do so.
I turn to the specific issues raised by Amendment No. 19. Under Clause 6, the OFT has a very general function to promote the benefit of competition to the public. This function is, by its nature, not capable of quantification in terms of success. All the OFT can do is to outline in its annual report any initiatives that it has taken during the course of the year, and any feedback it has received on the results. We have considered that it would be inappropriate to require in the legislation that it must provide such details.
The OFT's present statement of purpose, published on its website, is,
"to make markets work well for consumers. Markets work well when there is vigorous competition between fair-dealing businesses. When markets work well, good businesses flourish".
This recognition that good businesses, as well as consumers, benefit from markets that work well is important. OFT activity is not, and will not be, about pitching businesses against consumers, but about seeing both benefit from competition in markets. This is one reason why I do not agree with the idea that the
1148
OFT's annual report should include an assessment of the costs to business of its decisions, which is also the focus of Amendment No. 21.
A more fundamental reason is that the OFT will only be exercising the powers granted to it by Parliament. There are appropriate checks on the OFT. For example, the OFT is not able to make a market reference unless it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the reference criteria are satisfied. The OFT will not use its powers without good reason, and the Bill includes measures to build the OFT's accountability into the system at all levels.
Finally, on the content of the annual report, as Amendment No. 19 recognises, enforcement of competition and consumer protection rules is a key area of OFT activity. The OFT has publicly accepted the principles of good enforcement set out in the Cabinet Office's Enforcement Concordat. The OFT and all who subscribe to the concordat are committed to good enforcement policies and procedures, and the principles of the concordat form the basis of the OFT's enforcement procedures. This includes helping businesses to meet their obligations through giving advice and assistance with compliance, as well as more formal enforcement action when proportionate to the risks to consumers.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 21A and 177A. The Bill already states that the OFT and the Competition Commission must lay their annual reports before Parliament. If Members of this House or of the other place wish to examine these or other reports published by the OFT in more detail, or propose at any time that a report should be considered in depth, it is open to them to do so. In any event, I should imagine that the Trade and Industry Select Committee would take a good deal of interest in both the OFT's annual report and that of the Competition Commission. In addition, the chairman of the OFT board will be accountable to Parliament for the OFT's performance, and both he and the chairman of the Competition Commission can be summoned to appear before Select Committees at any time. I therefore do not think it necessary to specify in the Bill further possibilities for parliamentary scrutiny of either body's activities. Such possibilities already exist and it is open to Members of both Houses to use them.
I hope that I have helped the Committee to understand the rationale for our drafting this clause in broad terms. However, given the strength of the concerns expressed today about the content of the OFT annual report, I propose to consider further what we might set out in the Bill, paying particular regard to noble Lords' concerns over the impact on business, and to come back with something at Report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that that is the nearest I am going to get to a concession. I shall certainly not put words into the Minister's mouth, but I am very grateful indeed for his indication that there may be scope to look again at the provisions. I was also interested in his repeated use of the word "inappropriate". If the provision we seek is inappropriate, to whom or for whom is it

1149
inappropriate? It is not inappropriate to those who are asking for it, because they genuinely believe that it would he helpful. However, the Minister himself has been very helpful by indicating that he will examine the whole situation and return to it at the next stage or later. In those circumstances, I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 21A not moved.]
Clauses 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Acquisition of information etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: A clause like this one makes my nerve ends twitch a bit. Before giving very wide powers to a body which has yet to prove its virtue to obtain almost any type of information that it thinks would he helpful, appropriate or relevant, we should consider such a possibility and ask ourselves: just how far is this to go?
I am prompted to make these brief comments by the conduct of the Financial Services Authority in pushing, pressing and cadging every banker, stockbroker and accountant to chivvy and vex their clients, some of whom they have known for many years, to discover whether or not they are money launderers. I do not want to discuss the vices of the Financial Services Authority at great length. However, I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that people are reluctant to give to such official bodies the power to collect such information as they think fit. Some of those bodies have an overweening and excessive curiosity to poke their noses into things that are none of their business.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for raising this issue in his inimitable fashion. I should like to develop it, if I may, by reminding the Minister of the remarks I made in support of Amendment No. 1. I drew his attention to Section 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and pointed out how the Government had set out in that legislation with quite considerable rigour—although not quite the amount of rigour that I sought when the Bill was passing through Parliament; nevertheless with some rigour—the regulatory objectives and other matters to which the Financial Services Authority should have regard.
That is in stark contrast to Clause 5, the first in a series of clauses headed "General functions of OFT". If noble Lords care to glance through those clauses, they will see that the general functions amount simply to a set of powers, if the OFT so wishes, to acquire information, to provide information, to obtain information and to promote good consumer practice. What is lacking here is an expression of functions. At an earlier stage, the Minister responded to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, by saying, "It is true that we have not consolidated the functions under the Bill, but they are in other legislative measures". It seems strange that the
1150
Government have given themselves an opportunity to set out and consolidate the functions of the OFT in this series of clauses but have not taken advantage of that opportunity.
I should therefore like to encourage the Minister, in the spirit of what was just said by my noble friend Lord Peyton, to try to tighten up this part of the Bill; to draw together from other bits of legislation the various functions that, as we know, the OFT already has; and to set out those functions in a logical manner. This would have two benefits. First, it would let us all know where we stand. Secondly, it would enable us to see in exactly what circumstances the OFT was acting within the law and in what circumstances it was acting without.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: What is lacking in this regard, apart from generality, is a requirement to be cost effective. The body is permitted to do almost anything and not necessarily ensure that there is a real return—a real benefit—to the consumer, a business, the country or whatever. My noble friend Lord Peyton raised the issue of money laundering, about which I know he feels very strongly. That initiative began with very good intentions but now thousands of reports are produced and there are, I believe, 12 people looking after the inquiries in NCIS. Most of us believe that nothing ever happens as a result; all of the information is filed away and never used again. One can foresee something similar happening under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause. Huge amounts of research will be commissioned, no doubt for all sorts of very good reasons at the time and no doubt at very great cost, but it will all be put in a pigeonhole and no one will ever follow it through. That is rather like what most of us believe has been happening with money laundering. The idea was very good but the system is now so thorough that it has overwhelmed those who run it. We need to get down to some cost-effective requirements with regard to the acquisition of information under Clause 5.
Lord Borrie: Later on. I anticipate, we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, subtle arguments about the basis on which the OFT is entitled to conduct investigations and to make references to the Competition Commission. He will probably argue—I do not wish to put words in his mouth—that the OFT should have a very strong basis or reasonable cause for believing, rather than suspicion, that this or that has happened. I suspect that he will base those arguments on the need for the OFT to have a good sound basis before it spends money and sends a matter to the Competition Commission. However, the noble Lord cannot have it both ways. If the OFT is to have a solid basis for doing its work and for raising individual investigations before sending matters to the Competition Commission—let alone for dealing with and prohibiting cartels and abuses of a monopoly position—it must carry out work and research and keep up to date with what the markets are doing.

1151
[LORD BORRIE]
The provisions in the clause are very general provisions. The word "general" in the heading above Clause 5 can be somewhat misinterpreted. The powers are general instead of specific. The noble Lord knows very well that there are specific provisions in the Competition Act and later in the Bill. The provisions in the clause are broad information-seeking matters; they are very broad general functions but they are necessary for the reasons that I have described.
Lord Kingsland: My intervention was not intended to add to the point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton because he had expressed himself so coherently on this point but I may further sharpen what he said. The distinction at which my noble friend was getting was that between targeted information gathering, which he regarded as perfectly legitimate, and the conduct of general fishing expeditions, which he emphatically does not think are legitimate. He concluded, having examined the provisions, that they were a recipe for fishing expeditions rather than targeted investigations.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very much obliged to my noble friend, who is absolutely right. I was concerned that the new body would fall for the temptation of following the very bad example of the Financial Services Authority in pursuing those who are in no way relevant to its affairs and who are nothing to do with money laundering.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support all those who have spoken, which may appear to be an impossibility. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and that made on this side of the Committee, which was that the acquisition of information by the state has become a new disease. We are well acquainted with the warehousing of that information in our debates on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act.
Clause 5(1) states:
"The OFT has the function of obtaining … information".
Will the Minister confirm—I hope that this question is not unfair—that that is a general statement giving the OFT a general power to engage in the collection of information but that it gives the OFT no specific powers at all? I also seek confirmation—these matters have now become so complex that one cannot really rely on common sense—of the fact that giving that general power will not have any repercussive effects vis-à-vis the dormant powers that lie in RIPA, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act or any of the other information-gathering Acts. I should hate the House subsequently to learn that this apparent innocence of expression triggers an existing clause in existing legislation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I start by going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, a short while ago. The term "function" covers both powers and duties and has generally accepted legal meanings. The general function is set out in Part 1 and
1152
the specific functions are set out in other parts of the Bill and other legislation. Clause 5 will give the OFT the function of obtaining and reviewing information relating to any of its functions in respect of competition and consumer matters. That information-gathering role, which may involve research, is with a view to the OFT having the information it needs to make decisions and carry out functions. I should have thought that we all agree that the essential nature of the OFT's work means that it should have good information so that it does not refer matters when there is not a strong or good case or a real knowledge of the markets.
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's specific question about whether the provision triggers powers in existing legislation. I shall take that away and if it does trigger such powers I shall write to the noble Lord explaining the powers that it releases in existing legislation. The power is very clear and relates clearly to the function of the OFT. I cannot see how the OFT could operate effectively without such a power. I urge that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: If the Minister will allow me to say so, I am profoundly disappointed that he has not bothered to take much notice of what has been said. We have an example of what concerns me. I do not remember when the debate took place, but presumably the FSA was given powers which were considered reasonable, sensible and necessary for it to achieve its purposes. In fact, in the exercise of those powers, it annoyed and vexed a whole lot of people for no reason whatever. The Government seem to take no notice of that; they simply go on with their huge inquisitive appetite. That is intensely irritating to people who have never thought of money laundering and who have never been involved in the issue with which the body that has the powers is concerned.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provision of information etc. to the public]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
"() promoting awareness of the need to reduce the regulatory burden on UK business and commerce;"
The noble Lord said: I can, I trust, move this amendment relatively briefly. I once again remind the Minister of my Amendment No. 1. If he glances at it, he will see that in paragraph (c), I suggest that one of the objectives of the OFT should be the minimisation of,
"the regulatory burdens placed on UK business and commerce".
It must follow therefore that in dealing with the matters set out at the top of page 3 of the Bill, one of the duties that the OFT should have would be to promote awareness of the need to reduce the regulatory burden on UK business and commerce.
One of the central functions of the OFT should be to monitor the impact of other ministries' legislation on the effectiveness of competition. In order to achieve

1153
that purpose, in my submission it is essential that the OFT uses the powers that have been given to it in Clause 6 to look very carefully each year at what needs to be done to reduce the overall regulatory burden and publicise those requirements as widely as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 23, which stands in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, also put his name to the amendment, and it is a matter of inadvertence that the name of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham was omitted from it. I mention that in particular because, together with the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, he has huge business experience. My noble friend Lord Holme is an officer of the All-Party Corporate Social Responsibility Group of both Houses.
Clause 6 would be of only passing interest to me if it had confined itself to Clause 6(1). That states that the OFT's functions are to help public awareness of the ways in which competition may benefit consumers and to give information and advice. But subsection (2) also gives the OFT a discretion—it is expressed as a function which it "may" carry out—to publish educational materials, to carry out other educational activities and to support others who may be doing so or who propose to do so. I declare an interest as president of the Citizenship Foundation, which is a charity devoted to helping young people, in particular, to understand the complex society of which they are part.
Therefore, given that that is obviously a very intentional allowance and given that the OFT will, I hope, use the power given here to publish educational materials, I am anxious that it should do so on a platform consistent with citizenship education. I believe that that is more appropriate than is presently the case by dint of the language of Clause 6(1).
In saying that, I pay tribute to the Government for the fact that citizenship will enter the school secondary curriculum this autumn. It will be the first time in our history that that has happened and, in view of the fact that the subject will be taught on a wide scale, I believe that it represents a first world-wide. Every child in every year of his secondary education will have citizenship education to GCSE level.
I refer the Committee to the debate that we had in this House on these proposals some while ago and also to the debate in the other place. It has been of perfectly reasonable concern that citizenship education should be absolutely unbiased. It should not be prescriptive or, as some would say, propagandist. It should not endeavour to peddle a particular line but should strive to open the minds of young people so that they can decide for themselves what they consider to be right and proper. It is because the language of Clause 6(1)(a) is unnecessarily prescriptive that I propose its replacement by the words before the Committee.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may read from the statutory order that came before this House recently. It embedded citizenship education in the secondary curriculum. I hope that it will illustrate far better than
1154
I have been able to do in these few words the tenor and style of citizenship education which is to be provided to all secondary school pupils. It says:
"During key stage 3"—
that is, the 13 to 14 year-old age group—
"pupils study, reflect upon arid discuss topical political, spiritual, moral, social and cultural issues, problems and events. They learn to identify the role of the legal, political, religious, social and economic institutions and systems that influence their lives and communities. They continue to be actively involved in the life of their school, neighbourhood and wider communities and learn to become more effective in public life. They learn about fairness, social justice, respect for democracy and diversity",
and so on. That language is clearly far wider, broader and more culturally rich than it would be if it were to refer simply to telling the public about the benefits of competition. Therefore, hope that, in considering the amendment, the Government will have regard to what the Department for Education and Skills is assiduously trying to do in its citizenship programme. Indeed, I hope that they will have regard to the assurances given in both Houses that that would be the nature of citizenship education.
I close by saying that in key stage 4, which covers the 15 to 16 year-old age group, it is specifically stated in the statutory order that pupils should be taught about,
"how the economy functions, including the role of business and financial services … the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employers and employees … the wider issues and challenges of global interdependence and responsibility, including sustainable development".
As I said, I hope that the Committee, and the Government in particular, will consider that, against that background, the amendment is entirely consonant with what the department is trying to achieve.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I find myself in sympathy with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just said. I tabled Amendment No. 24 because of the nature of the wording in Clause 6(1)(a). It seems to me that the use of the word "benefit" is inappropriate, and I seek to replace it with the word "affect". I am afraid that my writing is very had, and the word should be "affect" and not "effect", as it appears in the Marshalled List. I hope that the Minister will forgive me on that point.
The purpose of the amendment is rather along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just said. It is to require the OFT to be even-handed in its approach in explaining the pluses and minuses of competition. Important and vital a body though it is, I do not see the OFT as a missionary or propagandist for competition. It is a regulator of competition. It ensures that competition survives—a very important function. But it should not have to trumpet its virtues all the time.
One reason that I am concerned about this matter is that, when one talks about the benefits of competition, very often one comes down to discussing it in terms of quantifiable elements, of which price is often the most easily assessable. Price is vital but it is not everything. There are less quantifiable elements—for example, service and availability—which are equally important.

1155
I give a simple example. The food distribution world is now dominated by supermarkets, as the Minister knows. They offer long hours of opening, a huge range of foods and low prices. They meet the aspirations of the vast majority of people but not everyone. For some people—the elderly, the infirm and those living alone—a local shop is more attractive. It is not only the fact that such shops are physically close to the individuals; they provide an opportunity for a chat and the chance to pass the time of day.
How will that be dealt with when we discuss the benefits of competition? Competition from the supermarkets is driving out small shops, and, for some people, that is not a benefit. It may or may not be a loss, but it certainly affects the consumer. If the OFT is to have an educational role—I am happy for it to have one—then it must talk in a more balanced way about what is happening as a result of competition: who is winning, who is losing and what is coming from it. I do not doubt that the OFT can do that, but it should not have to talk just about the benefits. There are negatives to the way in which services are provided to some sections of society, as in the example I have given and in other similar cases.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider how we can make the wording of Clause 6(1)(a) more evenhanded and more appropriate to the role of this important independent body.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: I welcome the place given by the Government in Clause 6 to public accountability as distinct from simply parliamentary accountability. At the same time I welcome the timely amendment. I add my support to the qualifications which would be given to the clause as drafted by words such as "free and fair" and "ethical and social responsibility". I believe that that will give a degree of comfort to the public at a time when evidence of matters such as share dealings indicates that public confidence in business and competition has been seriously undermined.
Lord Borrie: The right reverend Prelate underlined points made by other noble Lords and in particular the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, of the desirability of the public knowing about matters of ethical and social responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also made a number of other important points, including on the subject of the education of children.
One of the difficulties about each of the three amendments in this group is that they come within a clause concerned with the functions of the OFT. It is unfortunate that we are discussing them at the beginning of the Bill rather than at the end. Whatever the desirability of the public having knowledge of those matters and of discussing regulatory burdens and the ethical aspects of business, there is a question mark over whether that is a function for the Office of Fair Trading, which is to pursue and promote competition; to remove difficulties in the way of competition and to promote consumer benefit. I
1156
deliberately use the word "promote" in that context because the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, wanted the function of the OFT to be much more balanced in that regard.
However, it strikes me that the specific functions of the OFT in the Bill and in the Competition Act are partisan in the promotion of competition. More balanced judgments are made by the Competition Commission and others. In future, it will be part of the job of the Office of Fair Trading, as it has been in the past 30 years, to be partisan in those respects. In its role—as distinct from the role of other people—in giving information to the public and in educating children it seems appropriate that it should do so in the terms of Clause 6 in relation to the benefits of competition, consumer protection and so forth.
We have said a few words today about resources. The OFT can carry out its informational and educational work only on the back of its experience, which is in terms of the economic benefits of competition and consumer protection. It does not have those other functions which we should like someone to have in terms of information and education.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for giving way. Surely, we are talking of the Office of Fair Trading; not the office of trading. There are public interest considerations in the Bill. In Clause 8, for example, the OFT has a function to promote good practice. The Bill is littered with value judgments. Does the noble Lord seriously suggest that none of those matters is to be considered by the OFT?
Lord Borrie: All I suggest is that if we examine all the specific functions, powers and duties of the Office of Fair Trading, 90 per cent or more of its time is taken up with case law, studying cases and markets, and promoting the economic benefits of competition. It does not concern itself beyond those specific duties. It is principally an enforcement body. In so far as it can be educational and helpful to that extent, it can be so only on the back of its normal day-to-day role; otherwise it would have to import other resources, bring in other people and have a much broader function than it has had for the past 30 years. It is not intended by the Bill that it should have a much broader function.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 all seek to amend the function of the Office of Fair Trading of making the public aware of the ways in which competition may benefit consumers and the economy.
I begin by reminding noble Lords of the purpose of Clause 6. A key role of the OFT, as its mission statement states, is to make markets work better for consumers. That is reflected in the clause, which gives the OFT the function of promoting to the public the benefits that competition has for consumers and the economy, and of providing the public with information or advice on matters relating to its

1157
functions. Competition does indeed benefit consumers. The best form of consumer protection is choice. The clause will help to create knowledgeable consumers who are more aware of the importance of competition, more confident of their rights and more demanding. Such empowered consumers drive quality improvements and innovation.
Amendment No. 24 proposes that the OFT will have the function of making the public aware of the ways in which competition may affect rather than benefit consumers and the economy. The intention of the clause is very much that the public should become aware of the benefits of competition. That is what the Bill is about: believing passionately that competition brings benefits. That is why the clause states "benefit" rather than a more neutral word such as "affect". In my view the amendment would dilute the intention of the clause. I am surprised that noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber do not share our belief that competition brings benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am rather puzzled by that remark. Can the Minister explain why he believes that this side of the Chamber does not believe in competition?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We are discussing a clause which states that the OFT should put forward the benefits of competition. The amendment suggests that that is too strong a task for the OFT; that essentially it should put forward a neutral view and state that competition has benefits but also some disbenefits. It is a rather strange view that competition involves only price and does not involve innovation, service or quality. That is an extraordinary view of competition. This is about the benefits of competition. We are saying in this clause that the OFT, the job of which is to promote competition, should strongly put forward those views. The amendment seems to suggest that that should not be done.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The clause is headed,
"Provision of information etc. to the public",
which is propagandist. That is not to say that there is not value in competition. Of course competition is good, otherwise one would oppose the principle of the Bill. However, there is a question as to whether a body such as the OFT, which is set up independently, should be missionary or propagandist, or whether one should state, "Your job is to regulate the competitive field and to leave someone else to describe the benefits; both pluses and minuses". However, to state that that body should be propagandist seems to be moving away from being fair to the public.
7 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That might be so if the whole tenor of the debate had been that the OFT should have no information at all. However, we have another amendment that suggests that it should have a propagandist role on the question of regulations,
1158
which, of course, is not central to its functions. I am not quite certain whether this constitutes an objection to competition or an objection to the OFT having any informatory role. It seems to me that the proposals are directed at saying that we must have a more qualified view of competition, and not highlight the benefits.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 both seek to amend the description of what the OFT should be promoting awareness of. Amendment No. 22 seeks to give the OFT the general function of promoting awareness of the need to reduce the regulatory burden on UK business and commerce. I should emphasise that this Government are committed to ensuring that they regulate only when there is good reason to do so, and when the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. When they regulate, the Government want to do it as simply and as effectively as possible.
The Enterprise Bill makes existing regulations more streamlined, targeted and transparent. It does not impose additional regulations on business. Indeed, businesses will benefit from a more effective and predictable competition regime, the reduction in unfair competition from those traders who do not meet their legal obligations, and a modernised insolvency regime that promotes enterprise.
We agree with the importance of reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on business, but we do not consider it appropriate that the OFT should be given a general function to promote awareness in this respect. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that this approach would not fit in with the intention of the clause; nor, indeed, with the general purpose of the OFT. The question of how to reduce regulatory burdens on business should be addressed in government policy and legislation, rather than by way of an "awareness raising" role for the OFT.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to amend the clause so that the OFT would have the function of making the public aware of the role of free and fair competition in the economy within the context of business commitment to "ethical and social responsibility". I certainly agree with the importance of ethical and social responsibility in business. However, I must disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said at Second Reading; namely, that an excess of competition is anti-social. As I said earlier, strong competition is good news for consumers. The clause is not, to use the noble Lord's word, "propagandist"; it is designed to help empower consumers. It is not in line with the OFT's functions to have a general function to promote ethical and social responsibility in business, and certainly not the focus of this clause.
However, that is not to say that we do not believe that the ethical and social responsibility of business should not be promoted. Indeed, as the noble Lord will know, we do that through a whole series of different routes—for example, through our promotion of social enterprise, through our promotion of corporate social responsibility, and by way of the review of company law. As the noble Lord, rightly pointed out, bringing citizenship into the national curriculum is also a way of encouraging ethical and social responsibility. These

1159
are the ways to do it, not through a body, the Office of Fair Trading, which is concerned with promoting competition.
Quite simply, I believe that we should require the OFT to concentrate and focus on its primary task; namely, the promotion of competition. We should have the confidence to let it promote the benefits of competition, because that is its role. If we did not believe in that, we should not have such a competitive authority. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: For me to say that I am grateful for the Minister's response would, perhaps, be insincere. I am deeply disappointed in the Minister's remarks. I do not understand the impression that I gain from his comments; namely, that, for him—he said it himself—I am "passionately" in favour of competition, as if competition was a clearly defined modus operandi. Under the guise of competition exist many and various forms of business organisation and activity. When I said at Second Reading that I thought that an excess of competition could be anti-social, I meant that passionately. Surely we see evidence of that on all sides, especially at this time.
No one in this Chamber of whom I am aware—indeed, no noble Lord on Benches that hitherto had many doubts about competition—any longer doubts the central role of free market enterprise in our society. The Minister said that we should not worry the head of the OFT with all this, while the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that it is all far too complicated for the OFT to start thinking through what constitutes good practice, or fair trade. I believe he then went on to suggest that other people would have to be brought in—and a damn good thing!
Frankly, I simply do not understand the intention to leave the issue of business education—if you want to call it that—within the ambit of the Office of Fair Trading, which is a hugely powerful body with statutory powers to spend state funds in entering into the realm of citizenship education, without putting it into a broader cultural context and one with which the Minister agreed at the end of his speech when he talked about "corporate social responsibility".
I should be most grateful if the Minister would reconsider the matter. In the reality of the delivery of citizenship there will be many competitive influences as to what should be taught. I have in mind the opportunities and the available resources that will deal with issues of business, enterprise, competition, and social responsibility. There will not be many hours or resources devoted to that end. It would be a tragic mistake to extract from that situation the possibility of the OFT, which will be the most important element in all of this, engaging in that part of the citizenship curriculum.
Lord Kingsland: Having been lampooned by the Labour Party throughout most of my political life as a proponent of Manchester School market economics, it is somewhat bizarre to find myself in the position of
1160
being accused of not believing in competition. Just for the record, I refute that allegation. In any case, my amendment—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should point out to the noble Lord that "to refute" is to prove the opposite.
Lord Kingsland: Exactly.
In any event, Amendment No. 22 is the one amendment in this group that does not refer to competition; it refers to regulation and the desirability of engaging the OFT in the battle,
"to reduce the regulatory burden on UK business and commerce".
I take it that the Minister wishes to reduce that burden on business and commerce. I know that the Bill foresees a role for the OFT in that respect. I hope, therefore, that I can reasonably conclude that he supports the spirit of my amendment, if not its proposed position in the Bill.
Perhaps I may reflect on the other part of the debate on the amendment that took place as a result of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Joffe, and by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. In my view, it is very difficult to divorce ethical judgment from the concept of competition. For example, in some competitive societies it might be wholly acceptable for a powerful firm in a market to cut its price ruthlessly over a period of time to drive out other competition. In the United Kingdom, I hope that we would regard that as unfair competition.
However, there may be other market economies in the world that have not yet reached that stage of maturity. Equally, I suppose, there may be some societies that permit child labour—something that we once did in the 19th century—in order to steal a competitive march over their rivals. Nowadays, we would regard that as unfair competition and wholly unethical. In my judgment, one cannot divorce ethics from a competitive market-place. If one looks back to the competitive market-place in 19th-century Britain, one would see that it was an entirely different ethical sub-structure to competitive activities than the one that we have today. Thank Heavens that we have made such progress.
I entirely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, suggested that we should not introduce factors that are not germane to the judgments that the OFT has to make. However, underlying the judgments that the OFT is asked to make in this Bill are important ethical propositions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provision of information and advice to Ministers etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 13, at beginning insert "Subject to the overriding requirement to keep sensitive business information confidential"

1161
The noble Lord said: I reinforce the words of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. I sat on the Front Bench from 1977 to 1995 and heard the Labour Party criticise the Conservative policies of full, fair and free competition, so I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was a little confused. The Minister has gone charging off in the completely opposite direction to the policy the party pursued for many years and has perhaps gone too far in denying the ethical considerations and social context laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
I turn to another area where I had hoped to see more from the Government; namely, the Freedom of Information Act. It may be of assistance if the Minister could tell us where the Act is. There appears to be general confusion, not only in this Chamber but also within the Government, as to when and where it is corning into effect. Perhaps he will daily a moment or two and give us a little background as to the whereabouts of the Freedom of Information Act.
Amendment No. 25 deals with the publication of the information and advice provided to Ministers. I had responsibility for open government and, indeed, also for the code of open government. I recall that the Labour Government came to office on a pledge to implement legislation to ensure that information and advice to Ministers from outside bodies was published. Therefore I make no apology for now giving them the opportunity to deliver on that promise. Amendment No. 25 would insert into Clause 7 the words,
"Subject to the overriding requirement to keep sensitive business information confidential",
and Amendment No. 27 would add, on page 3 line 22, the words,
"any such proposals, information and/or advice made or given to a Minister of the Crown or other public authority shall be published".
There is also a proviso that where the proposals or advice have been published, there should be a reasoned response within six weeks. However, I do not press that amendment as hard as I press Amendments Nos. 25 and 27, which would ensure, subject to confidentiality, that the proposals are published.
Clause 7 would presumably enable the OFT—the Minister can confirm this—to make Ministers aware of areas where, in its view, laws and regulations were creating barriers to entry to markets and competition or where markets were being channelled in a specific direction which was holding back innovation and progress. I mention that because I heard Melanie Johnson say—I cannot remember the context—that that was the purpose of Clause 7.
If the clause deals with general trends, and if the Government believe in transparency, what is the problem in making that advice public? It would greatly assist a wider discussion of those barriers and the problems holding back innovation and progress if there was to be publication of the advice. It would not greatly assist fair trading for such advice to be kept private behind the scenes, known only to Ministers and not even to Parliament. If the problems exist, then
1162
Parliament should be made aware of them and general publication would be a good idea. I hope that the Minister agrees. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In reply to the comments on competition and ethical and social responsibility, one of the things of which I am most proud is that in both my business life and my political life I have held to the same line throughout; that is, to believe strongly in the value of competition that stimulates innovation and gives value to consumers, believing that alongside that one can put ethical and social responsibility on the shoulders of business.
The issue that we were discussing was whether or not a specific body should have the responsibility for dealing with questions of ethical and social responsibility which were not included in its function. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was saying that we should have competition alongside strong views on the ethical and social responsibility of business. I am totally in agreement.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to make the OFT's provision of information and advice to Ministers or public authorities subject to an overriding requirement to keep sensitive business information confidential. The clause is aimed at the OFT commenting on general trends and specific legislation, not on specific companies. In any case I can reassure Members of the Committee that "specified information" cannot be disclosed by the OFT without having regard to the criteria in Clause 240 in Part 9 of the Bill. That criteria includes considering the need to exclude commercial information which may harm legitimate business interests. I suggest therefore that the amendment is unnecessary. In addition, the amendment as drafted might also hinder the capacity of the OFT to advise government and public authorities.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 seek to ensure that all proposals, information and/or advice to a Minister from the OFT is published and that any Minister of the Crown who receives proposals or advice from the OFT shall deliver (and publish) a reasoned response within six weeks of receipt.
Both of those amendments could place significant and unnecessary burdens on the OFT, Ministers and other public authorities. Publication of such material would not always be necessary or appropriate, and there is the possibility that it might harm individual and business interests. And it would not always be appropriate or necessary for the Government to publish their response to each piece of advice or proposal from the OFT. We intend to respond publicly when the OFT advise that laws and regulations create barriers to entry to markets and competition, or channel markets in a particular direction thereby holding back innovation and progress. The Government have committed themselves in the competition White Paper to publishing a response within 90 days of receiving such a report. But requiring a response within six weeks to every piece of advice that Clause 7 covers would be inflexible and unnecessary.

1163
In view of those arguments I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Can the Minister say where we are with the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That comes into effect in January 2005.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Under that Act, if it is to come into effect in 2005, would it not assist in ensuring that the proposals from the OFT were published if the amendment were to be accepted? As I understand it, under the Act the Minister's responses would have to be published. Against that background, why is the Minister not willing to consider the amendment? It may be that he will want more time to do so.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We shall need to look at that detail. We are talking about a reasoned response being given within six weeks of receipt thereof. That is rather a strong requirement. We think it is an inflexible one. Obviously, the Freedom of Information Act—when it comes into force—will take over that issue.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert—
"() it shall also be a function of the OFT to issue guidance to trading standards departments about the use of their powers to obtain "Stop Now" orders and to ensure that such powers are used consistently."
The noble Lord said: We now turn to stop now orders. I believe that the Government intend to improve the consistency of approach in the use of stop now orders. The amendment seeks an additional function for the OFT to issue guidance to trading standards departments about the use of their powers to obtain stop now orders and to ensure that such powers are used consistently.
There are considerable concerns as to how the 200 trading standards departments across the country use their powers. They have varying amounts of resources to devote to particular abuses. They have different priorities. There have been failed attempts to ring-fence resources. Some trading standards departments have been hard hit by cuts in expenditure. The Trading Standards Institute and the Local Government Association have strong views about that.
This all produces a rather disparate accumulation of differing standards in different parts of the country. The subject of the amendment is inconsistency between different trading standards departments in different local councils. Surely, the OFT should have some overview of how stop now orders are carried out in practice.
1164
The OFT has a duty to issue guidance on stop now orders under the Stop Now Orders Regulations 2001. I appreciate that we are not debating those at the present time. Under Clause 224 there is a duty to issue guidance on the corresponding provisions in Part 8 of the Bill.
Interim draft guidance was published by the OFT on stop now orders last year. After extensive consultation, the final version was published a few weeks ago. These are complicated documents. I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be helpful to have some reassurance about the emergence of these differing standards, and to find some way—if not with this amendment—for the OFT to have a general overview to ensure that such differing standards do not emerge. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to improve the consistency of approach in the way in which stop now orders are used, and I thoroughly support its intention.
The amendment aims to do two things: first, to give the OFT a duty to issue guidance. As the noble Lord pointed out, this is unnecessary because the OFT is already under a duty to issue guidance on stop now orders under the Stop Now Order Regulations. Clause 224 puts the OFT under a duty to issue guidance on the corresponding provisions in Part 8. Again as the noble Lord said, the OFT issued interim draft guidance on stop now orders last year, and, after extensive consultation, the final version was published on 10th April 2002.
The amendment also seeks to place a duty on the OFT to ensure that stop now order powers are used consistently. We also want the powers in the Stop Now Order Regulations and Part 8 of the Bill to be used consistently by enforcers. The OFT's guidance has the aim of promoting consistency. It can direct that enforcers—other than Community enforcers—may not take a case to court if another enforcer is already doing so, to prevent business facing duplicate proceedings. But the OFT does not have a general power to direct the activities of trading standards departments which are part of local authorities. We do not think that it would be appropriate to give the OFT such a power. We would expect the OFT to do everything it could to support and encourage the consistent use of these powers, but it would not be right to put the OFT under a duty to ensure that when it does not have the power to do so. These powers rest really with the local authorities.
There is nothing between us on wishing to see consistency on the matter. I believe that we are giving the OFT the powers it needs to do the job as far as it should be doing it, but leaving that ultimate responsibility with the local authorities. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for so clearly acknowledging the problem. I should like further time to consider what he has said about the inappropriateness of a general power for the OFT to

1165
direct the activities of trading standards departments. He said that it was a matter for local authorities. Of course there is no overall power that could look across the country at how different local authorities utilise those powers. Under Amendment No. 30 we shall have a further discussion of this subject and I hope that we might return to it at a later stage. Perhaps at that later stage the Minister might think again, given that the OFT is the only body—not a local authority—which could look over the whole country at the differing standards. I am very grateful to him for his words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Promoting good consumer practice]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 25, leave out "the economic interest of"
The noble Lord said: I should like to ask the Government why the phrase "the economic interests of" has crept into Clause 8(1). It states:
"The OFT has the function of promoting good practice in the carrying out of activities which may affect"—
not "consumers in the United Kingdom", but—
"the economic interests of consumers in the United Kingdom".
Subsection (6) refers to a "consumer code",
"safeguarding or promoting the interests of consumers",
not the "economic interests of consumers". Can the Minister explain why he has restricted the OFT's function in that way? One of the key issues—certainly when the Bill was considered in another place—was this constant emphasis on looking after the interests of consumers. I could not understand why, in promoting good consumer practice, it was only when the consumers' economic interests were affected that this particular function applied. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My answer can be very short. The amendment effectively widens the OFT's function to promote good practice in all areas of interest to consumers. Everyone would agree that that would be impractical as it would include areas such as health and safety where the OFT has no powers or interests.
The principle of the clause is that by approving codes of practice the OFT will help consumers to find reliable traders. It is in order to differentiate their economic interests that we have drafted this part of the Bill in this way. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the responsibilities of the OFT should not include areas such as health and safety, which the clause would if it was widened in this way. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I should like to reflect on what he said and, perhaps, return to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that Committee begin again not before half-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [33rd Report .from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, tackling homelessness is a vital strand of the Government's wider housing strategy to ensure that everyone has the opportunity and choice of a decent home. Homelessness legislation provides an important safety net for people who are homeless through no fault of their own and who have a priority need for accommodation. Where applicants meet those criteria, the housing authority must ensure that they have suitable temporary accommodation available until a settled housing solution becomes available for them.
This priority need order extends the categories of those for whom the housing authority must secure accommodation if they are unintentionally homeless. Currently, such persons include families with dependent children, households that include someone who is pregnant or vulnerable as a result of age, mental illness, physical disability or some other special reason, and people who are homeless as a result of a disaster, such as flood or fire. Both existing and new categories focus on those likely to have the greatest need for housing.
The order will ensure that, where necessary, housing authorities must secure suitable accommodation for all 16 and 17 year-olds who are genuinely homeless, unless they are owed a duty under social services legislation. Of course, wherever possible, housing authorities should explore the possibility of reconciling 16 and 17 year-olds with their families as a first priority, to allow them to return home. Where 16 and 17 year-olds are estranged and cannot return home, there can be no question but that they will be at risk if they have nowhere to live. The order will also give priority need to people who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing their home because of violence or threats of violence that are likely to be carried out.
Plenty of evidence demonstrates that a high proportion of people who end up homeless come from institutionalised backgrounds. The order will also extend priority need to young people aged 18 to 20 who have previously been in care—a group who may be at risk because of a less-than-propitious start in life.
Other categories of people who will have priority need for accommodation under the order include people aged 21 or over who are vulnerable as a result

1167
of having spent time in local authority care and those who are vulnerable as a result of having spent time in the Armed Forces or in prison. The key test in relation to those categories is whether applicants are vulnerable: that will be for local housing authorities to decide in individual cases.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a proper statutory safety net for those most vulnerable and at risk is essential to protect them from the damage that homelessness and rough sleeping can inflict on them and to help them rebuild their lives.
The other place has considered the order. By building on previous legislation, it will strengthen the protection available to homeless people. It is proof of the commitment of the Government and of all sides of the House to improve housing for all and to tackle social exclusion. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending the code of guidance in advance of our consideration of the order. I appreciate that. Although it was nothing to do with him, it would have been nice to have received it during consideration of the Bill, but better late than never. No doubt at some stage we shall have the chance to return to some questions raised by the code of guidance.
Extension of priorities was discussed at length during the passage earlier this year of the Homelessness Act 2002. As I said then, we broadly support the extension of the categories under that Act—certainly those to whom the Minister referred: young children or young people who have been in or are leaving care. It is perfectly proper that the local authority should stay in loco parentis until they are standing on their own two feet, part of which must mean that they have somewhere secure to live. It is interesting that those priority categories now catch those young people who become separated from their families, and that responsibility for them is placed on the local authority.
Our concern remains that, however worthy that extension may be, local authorities are already struggling to deal with those who are entitled to be given help under existing homelessness legislation. Those additions will mean even more prioritisation than already occurs. That prioritisation will have to be applied by assessing the degree of vulnerability of one applicant against another.
As the Minister is well aware, there is a chronic shortage of housing available for those who require it, especially in London, and local authorities are daily having to decide where they can house the homeless as well as trying to deal with those who are in need of housing help, but are not in the homeless category.
1168
Of course, the Chancellor has now voted zillions of pounds to housing. But with the best will in the world, the Housing Corporation will struggle to spend it in the short term, and, as has been made clear by the Deputy Prime Minister, much of it will be absorbed in dealing with key workers. Local authorities are also now under a duty to find alternatives to bed and breakfast accommodation, which is another pressure point.
In the other place, a question was raised by the shadow Secretary of State about the application of the test to which the Minister referred, which is set out in the Explanatory Note, by which a local authority determines a person's vulnerability. My honourable friend asked whether the test would now apply to all those stipulated not only in the order but in previous legislation. In reply, the Minister in the other place said that he thought that that referred only to the additional categories in the order and no one else. Can the Minister enlighten us as to whether that is the case? The Minister in the other place said that he would let my honourable friend know, but I am unclear whether that matter has been decided.
During the debates on the Homelessness Act 2002, questions were asked about which local authority would be responsible for those considered to be vulnerable as a result of leaving the Armed Forces and prison. Concern was expressed that it might be the authority in which the prison lay, in the case of prisons, and any local authority in the case of those from the Armed Forces. Although I am concerned that that is not dealt with by Armed Forces personnel or the prisons, that could put great pressure on a small number of authorities, if a large number of former members of the Armed Forces decided to go to their areas—in particular, those that provide the best services. It could also put great pressure on the areas in which prisons are located.
Perhaps the Minister could give us further information on that. Finally, I simply reiterate that although the implementation of the order is likely to be fraught with practical complications, we do not oppose the principle behind it.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role as a housing Minister. I know that he has said that few Members of this House are interested in housing. I fear that as a housing Minister, he will get to know the familiar faces. Tonight perhaps represents a start.
We on these Benches welcome the order. It is an important adjunct to the Homelessness Act 2002. We supported the Act; indeed, we worked hard with Ministers in both Houses to try to improve it. The order is supported by many people who work in the field of homelessness. I am particularly grateful for briefings from Shelter on the order.
The extension of priority need for accommodation to new categories of homeless people will strengthen the homelessness safety net. It will help those who, statistics show, are most at risk of ending up on the

1169
streets. The categories that we heard about this evening correspond to the groups who find themselves in acute housing need. However, I want clarification from the Minister on two areas of concern. Some of the issues were raised in another place. First, the code of guidance is only in draft form. Can the Minister tell us when the code will come out and how long the consultation will be? I shall return to that matter. Secondly, there is the issue of financial support for local authorities to carry out their duties. I shall say more about that in a minute.
The inclusion of 16 to 17 year-olds is, obviously, welcome. Paragraph 8.39 of the draft guidance recognises the possibility of reconciliation between young people leaving home and their parents, which means that they may need only temporary accommodation. However, if reconciliation is not possible, young people will require permanent accommodation. In particular, they will require continuing support. The guidance talks about collusion between parents and young people. I do not know whether the Government have evidence of collusion between young people and their parents to get accommodation or evidence that the practice is widespread. If it is widespread, we have a problem; if it is not, I am concerned at its inclusion in the guidance.
Many people working in the field particularly welcome the inclusion of 18 to 21 year-olds leaving care. That group of people lack support from family and others. It is particularly welcome that the order includes those who left care before the introduction of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Paragraph 8.14 of the draft guidance refers to joint working between social services and housing authorities. It could be strengthened to be more specific and spell out that it means accommodation and support services.
Some of us feel that greater clarity is needed with regard to the vulnerability of people leaving institutional care. Some local authorities may look for a direct causal link between leaving the Armed Forces and being vulnerable to homelessness. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the final version of the code will make it clear that the presence of an institutional background should be seen as a strong indicator of vulnerability. Importantly, such vulnerability may not be apparent immediately after people leave an institution; the effects of living in an institution can come out many years later.
Like others, I welcome the inclusion of people who have left the armed services. Anyone who has visited a night shelter will know that a large number of people there will have a background in the services. In another place, my honourable friend the Member for Bath raised a point about what was happening in Wales. I am sure that the Minister has read what was said in another place. I refer particularly to service personnel who have been discharged following detention in the Military Corrective Training Centre. Provisions similar to those in the order have been in place since last year, and there is some evidence that local authorities, having accepted applicants who have been dishonourably discharged as being in priority need, find such people intentionally homeless, on the basis
1170
that they should have known that their offence would lead to their being discharged and losing their accommodation. The Minister in another place said that he did not think that that should happen. I would be grateful if the Minister here could give a commitment that the final version of the code of guidance will explicitly advise against that practice.
The treatment of ex-offenders has been a controversial issue in some areas. Recent research has shown that people coming out of prison without a home are far more likely to re-offend quickly. That is why I and others support what is in the order. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the guidance will make it clear that local authorities cannot use the fact that ex-offenders have run up rent arrears while in prison to claim that such people are intentionally homeless.
I would like to see the definition of domestic violence in the guidance strengthened. I welcome moves by the Government to deal with confidentiality. There are other categories of people who often suffer violence, on account of their gender, race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religion or sexual orientation. Such groups will also be vulnerable. I hope that the final version of the code will make it clear that it is not always necessary for applications to be supported by statements from the police. Not all applicants will have the support of the police; often, they will go to the GP as their first port of call. I hope that the guidance will make that clear.
We know that the Government have given local authorities 10 million to carry out their extra duties under the Homelessness Act 2002. Can the Minister say how that money will be distributed? That question was also raised in another place. It is clear that some authorities deal with a greater number of people presenting themselves as vulnerable and in need of housing. Can the Minister tell us the Government's thinking on that?
We support the order. It is an important part of ensuring that the Homelessness Act 2002 is effective. I have said many times that I am disappointed that it has taken so long. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that we have such low figures for house building. That has not happened overnight. The figures for the past few years show that the problem has crept up on us. I am pleased that the Government have realised that there is a problem, but it has taken them a long time. We now have more households than we have homes, something that has not happened for many years. We welcome the order, and I hope that the Minister will answer the points that I raised about the code of guidance.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I assure the Minister that the whole of the Labour Party on these Benches is behind him. I came here at 2.30 p.m., and I have rarely moved from the Bench since. My interest today was the Enterprise Bill. However, when I saw the two noble Baronesses and the Minister coming, in, I knew that there was something on, so I looked at the

1171
Order Paper. I must confess that the importance of the subject had escaped me because of my interest in the Enterprise Bill.
I am exceedingly glad to hear of the legislation. The Minister entered the other place with me in 1974. Having represented the seat that he did, he will be familiar with the problems. At that time, housing was the priority, above education, crime and transport. Housing problems now are just as pressing, but the nature of housing needs has changed.
Last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I discussed with the Minister the problems faced by people living in mobile homes. That was an almost unheard-of problem once, but it is a problem now. I can remember more than one occasion on which I left my surgery, got into my car, behind my constituency office, and cried because I could not do anything to help the people who were in need.
The greatest aggravation we face in the year 2002 is that, while I genuinely believe that we have a government and a Minister who want to do something about it and know what needs to be done, they are beaten back by the appalling building rate referred to by the noble Baroness. My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to it in another context. I say "all power to his elbow". That is because, ultimately, a good house, a decent home, a good family and the future of the children is secured. As a constituency MP, the greatest misery I came across was when I found myself powerless to help good people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in a terrible situation where either they had appalling housing or no housing at all.
I listened to the two noble Baronesses explaining the matter, and I see the order as a tiny step in the right direction. I wish it well.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the provision. I welcome too the cross-party agreement and unanimity of the House that this is the right direction in which to proceed.
This morning HM Chief Inspector of Prisons visited the House to discuss her work. She told us that prison overcrowding is now so great that many prisoners have to share two to a single cell. In practice this means that there may be a single lavatory in a cell shared by two men, with no screen or shield. The inspector cited an instance where a man with a catheter shared a cell with a young man who was self-harming. That example drives home the importance of reducing the rate of reoffending by ensuring that prisoners and others leaving institutions are prioritised in terms of housing.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer all the points raised by the noble Baronesses, my noble friend and the noble Earl. I shall jump the gun and respond to a point put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. By the Recess, I shall have been in post for eight weeks. During that time I have taken one Parliamentary Question which concerned something that was nothing to do with my department;
1172
that is, the mortgage rate. Since I moved to the department, I have not had to come to the Dispatch Box and answer a single Question on housing. That says something about the overall interest. That is not meant to be a criticism—although it is—but this issue is central to our fellow citizens. While I do not want to go wider than the order before us, I welcome the contribution of all Members of the House tonight and the opportunity to respond.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, remarked, local authorities have to struggle with this problem. We have increased resources, although I suspect that they will never be enough. But we have made a conscious effort to increase resources as a direct result of the legislation. A genuine complaint often made by local authorities is that resources are not tied. We shall monitor that.
Consultation has taken place with the Local Government Association about the £10 million allocation. That is not all; a huge amount of money is being put into housing. It would be totally unfair to divide the extra £10 million equally among housing authorities because they bear different levels of burden. Shortly we shall announce how the money is to be allocated.
Particular pressure affects London and other urban areas. On the subject of the Housing Corporation, I do not think that it will struggle with its new resources. My experience of the corporation is that it is a real go-go body. Given the announcements made yesterday and the further detailed announcements to be made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday, the Housing Corporation will be let off the leash, so to speak. We expect to see quick action.
I turn now to the test for homelessness. I read swiftly through the debate held in the other place. While I am not familiar with every detail of that debate, I have to say that, on balance, the test has got to be the same. We cannot have two categories of vulnerable homeless people because of the way that the legislation has been drafted. My honourable friend in the other place, Tony McNulty, responded to the points raised by the honourable Member for Bath. I shall not repeat all the details, but he confirmed that the definition of vulnerability in the proposed guidance is set out at paragraph 8.13:
"The critical test of vulnerability for applicants of all these categories is whether, when homeless, the applicant would be less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that he would be likely to suffer injury or detriment, in circumstances where a less vulnerable person would be able to cope without harmful effects'. That definition is already well established by the courts".—[Official Report, Commons Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 1/7/02; col. 15.]
So the test of vulnerability is one for local authorities to assess; it is not one for government. People at the sharp end are much better qualified to deal with this.
I should make a point about prisoners. Being in prison does not qualify someone as a resident in a locality. I should make that absolutely clear and put it on the record. Just because the prison is in a certain locality a prisoner does not acquire rights of residence

1173
with regard to that local authority if the prisoner is making a claim of homelessness as a result of being vulnerable.
So far as former servicemen are concerned, while I cannot be specific, my view is this—although I stand to be corrected: the person would have had a home base before they joined the services. Therefore the claim may have to be made in that area rather than wherever the discharge from the armed services took place. However, it says something about the way that the Armed Forces have run this country over generations. We have a massive proportion of vulnerable homeless people who were in the Armed Forces. I know this and my noble friend on the Benches behind me will confirm that that was my experience in my own constituency. It is quite appalling. Qualified, skilled, trained and assertive individuals, prepared to lay down their lives for their country, become so totally institutionalised that they cannot cope when they leave the services. But they are not spotted before they leave and that is the tragedy of the situation.
With proper planning and exit strategies, the problem could be dealt with before servicemen leave. Then we would not need to prioritise such people as vulnerable. Nevertheless, we have reached a point where we have to do so and we have to take steps to look after them. They must be helped to stand up on their feet because homelessness brings with it many consequential problems of which we are all well aware. I do not need to detail them, but they relate to former prisoners as well.
On the subject of domestic violence, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. Exceptions occur if someone has to flee a violent domestic situation and then out of necessity move away from the relevant local authority. They may have to present themselves to another authority. The test would be: is this a vulnerable person who is homeless? This concerns women in the main, usually accompanied by their children.
I should tell the noble Baroness that the guidelines were published on 8th July and they will have statutory force when the homelessness provisions come into force on 31st July. However, the guidance is open to consultation until 31st October. I can assure both noble Baronesses that the points they have raised tonight will be taken on board by my officials when we consider the consultation process. There is no obligation to write in separately. What has been said in our debate tonight is good enough and is on the record. I shall make sure that all the comments are fed into the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the issue of young people colluding with their parents. I know that the noble Baroness was briefly a Member of the other place. I cannot remember for how long she was a Member of Parliament and I cannot remember the constituency, but I recall that it was not a roughed-up urban area.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I rise simply to confirm that my constituency was Christchurch, but
1174
for nine years I served as a councillor on a housing committee in Southampton. That was quite a different kind of place.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is my experience that young people feel a sense of desperation with regard to housing. There are not too many cases, but the temptation to enter into collusion with parents in order to get housing is very great. I have to say to the noble Baroness that the notion that such collusion has never happened simply does not reflect the real world. For that reason, checks have to be made with parents and other family members; the statements cannot be taken at face value.
The main priority for 16 and 17 year-olds is to try to reconcile them with their families. In checking to see whether that would be possible, an experienced housing officer would be able to assess whether the state of homelessness is genuine. The person has to be unintentionally homeless—that is part of the test—and vulnerable, and officers should take that on board.
I should say to the noble Baroness that I am not fully briefed in regard to Wales. When I noticed that the order refers only to England—and I deal only with England—I regret that I did not pick up on the issue of Wales. I shall get one of my other colleagues in government to address that issue and perhaps write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, in his reply the Minister said that he had read the proceedings in the other place. Obviously we cannot decide precisely what happens in Wales here, but local authorities have used the excuse that people had made themselves intentionally homeless when they were dismissed from the Armed Forces. We should try to make clear in the guidance that they are not allowed to do that. If the Minister reads what was said in the other place it will become quite clear.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take that point on board when looking at the guidance. If someone otherwise meets the test of being homeless unintentionally, it would be wholly unreasonable and irrational for public institutions to make the connection that he has made himself intentionally homeless as a result of losing a job.
I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Everyone accepts the propensity of ex-offenders to re-offend when they are homeless. That was made clear in the recent report of the Social Exclusion Unit.
I believe that I have covered all the points that have been raised. I am grateful for the support of the House. I came late as Minister to this legislation. It passed through the House during the last Session, when I was at the Home Office. The legislation itself goes back to a Private Member's Bill introduced by the former Liberal Democrat Member for the Isle of Wight, Stephen Ross. I pay tribute to that legislation. It was the gateway through which Parliament dealt with

1175
homelessness in a different way than in the past. I am pleased that we have taken the legislation to the point it has now reached. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
8.2 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these regulations on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I shall speak also to the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002.
The two sets of regulations are very similar save for some differences reflecting differing electoral provisions and institutions in Scotland, but their effect is the same. Similar regulations have been laid relating to Northern Ireland, but they differ in some important points of detail and are being considered separately. I shall refer primarily to the England and Wales regulations and mention any important differences which appear in the Scottish draft regulations.
These regulations are necessary to implement Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. Your Lordships will be aware that this provides for two versions of the electoral registers to be compiled—that is, a full register containing, as now, the names and addresses of every elector and an edited version to contain the details of only those electors who have not indicated via an opt-out box that they object to their details appearing on the version of the register which is available for commercial purposes.
These regulations seek to strike a balance between the right of individual electors to their personal privacy and the needs of industry to have access to personal information when this can clearly be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The regulations we are debating today represent the results of wide consultation. They are constrained, as with all legislation, by the need to be compliant with the Human Rights and Data Protection Acts. By proposing to permit access to the registers for specified, defined commercial purposes these regulations provide a reduction to the financial burdens placed on some sectors of the financial services industry, a move welcomed by the companies concerned.
I do not intend to speak on each of the new regulations but I shall say something on the major provisions. New Regulations 92 to 94 place general restrictions on the sale of and access to the full registers and on the use which recipients of the register may make of the data. I emphasise that nothing in these regulations prevents members of the general public from inspecting the full registers. Indeed, it is essential that electors should continue to be able to do so, so
1176
that they can check to see that they themselves are correctly registered and also be able to object to the registration of anyone who they think is not entitled to be included. The full registers will be open for inspection at council offices and other appropriate places, where they can be supervised to prevent unauthorised copying. The public will be able to take hand-written notes but not to make photocopies.
New Regulation 103 provides for the supply of the full register to elected representatives—that is to MPs, MEPs, Members of the National Assembly for Wales, local councillors, the Mayor of London and London Assembly members and elected mayors. They may receive free of charge the parts of the register covering the areas which they represent and can use the information for all electoral purposes and for any purpose connected with their office. For example, if an elected representative wants to contact a group of his constituents, he may refer to the register to ascertain its address. He may pass the register to his research assistant to assist with constituency matters. The full registers may continue to be used as a tool in the work which representatives are elected to carry out.
New Regulation 108 provides for the supply of the full register to candidates at a parliamentary, European parliamentary or local government elections for electoral purposes. This allows candidates to know precisely who the electors are so that they can carry out their canvassing in the traditional way. Provision for copies of the full register for electoral purposes to holders of elective offices in terms of the Scottish Parliament are not made in these regulations. They will be provided for in a new order to be made under Section 12 of the Scotland Act later in the year. That will deal with a range of matters concerned with elections to the Scottish Parliament.
New Regulation 104 allows MPs, MEPs, members of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies, local councillors, elected mayors, and so on, and also candidates at parliamentary, local government or authority elections, to have free copies of all the full registers to enable them to comply with the statutory controls on political donations contained in Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983.
New Regulation 105 provides for the supply of the full register to local constituency parties for electoral and electoral registration purposes. These purposes have been deliberately defined in a very broad way so that electioneering can continue unhindered. There are no restrictions on elected representatives using the full registers for canvassing or for any other activities connected with the electoral process. It is however not permitted for the full registers to be passed to charities which might previously have used them for local fundraising.
I am aware that fundamental questions were asked in another place about the nature of "electoral purposes". It is a broad concept and it is right to adopt a broad interpretation of its meaning. The Government's view is that it should include anything

1177
that is for the purpose of seeking election and representing the public in a democracy. It is right that it includes fundraising by a party or a politician for purposes connected with elections. It would be a different matter if money were to be raised to buy equipment for a local hospital or for the refurbishing of a party's offices. But fundraising for the core purpose of communicating with electors and campaigning clearly counts as "electoral purposes". The Government do not wish to tie this down too much in regulations. If we were to do so we would create the contrary effect and restrict various things that we might all agree should be legitimately part of the electoral process.
New Regulation 113 provides for the sale of the full register to government departments and restricts its use to the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the criminal law; the vetting of employees and applicants for employment where such vetting, is required; and the supply and disclosure of information to an "authorised person", who may not disclose information contained in it except to other authorised persons, and only for use for the purposes for which such a person could obtain the full register directly under these regulations.
This provides the means for legislative support to secure the effective participation of all local authorities in the LASER project now being proposed by the Improvement and Development Agency to clean and standardise electoral register data in electronic format. I should make it clear that we are currently considering the agency's business case, received at the end of last month, and while we strongly support developing an electronic register we have yet to decide whether the current proposals will be the best way forward for everyone.
I now come to that section of the regulations which specifies what limited commercial use is to be permitted of the full registers. Many commercial companies have used information from the electoral registers for many years and for a range of purposes, including direct marketing and credit reference checks. A High Court case last year made it clear that electoral registration officers had been wrong to sell the registers for those purposes without first giving electors the right to opt-out of having their personal details sold in that way.
The Government have carefully considered the situation and have consulted with bodies representing commercial interests such as the British Bankers' Association, the Finance and Leasing Association, the Direct Marketing Association, the credit reference agencies themselves and numerous others. All have impressed on us the importance of the electoral registers as a tool in checking a person's identity and consequently their credit-worthiness.
In addition, banks and financial institutions have a statutory obligation under the Money Laundering Regulations to verify the identity of their clients. In complying with the Money Laundering Regulations, banks and financial institutions make extensive use of the electoral register to verify information about the
1178
identity and address of their customers. They usually carry out these checks using credit reference agencies as their agents. If institutions were denied access to the full register to make these checks and had to rely on lower and poorer quality information, there would be a lower level of compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations.
The Government are, however, very much aware of the importance of the human rights of individuals, in this case the right to a private life and to participate in free and fair elections. Although such rights are qualified ones, which can be interfered with in the pursuit of a legitimate objective of the state, we are mindful that the extent and nature of any such interference must be proportionate to the importance of and benefits to be obtained from the interference. We have therefore given very careful consideration to the balance to be struck between any interference with individual rights and the public benefits obtained.
The Government are proposing regulations that permit the sale of the full register to credit reference agencies; first, to enable financial institutions to meet their statutory obligations to prevent money laundering and, secondly, to enable credit checks to be fully undertaken.
In relation to money laundering, the credit reference agencies will be permitted to provide information, from a full register that they have obtained, to banks and financial institutions for the purposes of these bodies meeting their statutory obligations. It is clear that the strong public interest in enforcing the laws against money-laundering and the relatively limited purposes for which access is permitted, result in the balance being in favour of those purposes.
The second category of cases where the Government have concluded that there should be continued access to the full register is for credit reference agencies when vetting applications for credit. Without access to the full register it would be more difficult for lenders to verify an applicant's identity and hence assess the credit risk.
The consequences of denying credit reference agencies access to the full register in terms of increased fraud, increased cost of credit, and reduced availability of credit, especially to those at risk of financial exclusion, amounts to a strong public interest for continued full access. This public interest can be balanced against the following two factors which relate to the extent of the interference with human rights which will be permitted.
In cases where an application for credit is the first transaction between any individual and a financial institution, there is, in any event, a statutory obligation to verify identity under the Money Laundering Regulations. That will usually be fulfilled through a check with a credit reference agency. Applicants for credit are always told that their details will be checked as part of the assessment process and their consent to such checks is required before these can be undertaken.

1179
There is a clear public interest in there being efficient and prudent availability of credit to all sectors of the economy. It is the Government's view that there would be a real risk to this continued availability of credit if the full registers were no longer available.
Given the strong public interests in facilitating the use of this information for identity checking in relation to the provision of credit, the overlap between the use of the full register for money laundering and credit assessment checks, and the fact that people have to consent to the checks being made, the Government consider that the interference with individual privacy is proportionate to the public benefits obtained.
I am satisfied that this limited commercial access represents an important public service and pursues a legitimate public aim in a manner which is proportionate to the intrusion into individual privacy and is therefore compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Electoral Commission, while maintaining its own basic view that electoral registers should not be made available for any commercial purposes, has publicly stated that it welcomes the Government's intention to put in place a comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure compliance with the human rights requirements.
Should the limits imposed by these regulations on authorised recipients of the full registers be breached, new Regulation 115 creates a criminal offence for information from the full registers to be passed to an unauthorised person, or for an unauthorised person to use such data, however he or she came by them.
The regulations implement the decision of Parliament to allow electors to decide, subject to some exceptions in the public interest, the limit to which their personal information may be used. They represent a legitimate balance between individual rights and the public interest. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Commit tee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I do not wish to go over the discussion we had during the passage of the Representation of the People Act. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will doubtless remember those discussions well. I find the need to have a full electoral register and an edited one a rather heavy-handed way of ensuring that electors can remove their names from lists sold to commercial bodies. I should have preferred one register, with that register not being available for commercial use. The present situation is thus not ideal. However, I concede that it is the reality.
Given that we are to have an edited register, I make just two points on the regulations before us. I refer to the forms prescribed under Regulation 4 in both sets of regulations. The first concerns the form to accompany the electoral registration form. It explains that there are two versions of the register and there is a short paragraph on the edited register. Given how
1180
short these sections are, and given that the situation is a new one, I hope that the Minister can give some assurances that there will be more to educating citizens about the edited version than simply the words contained in the form. Otherwise, I fear that there is the danger that many electors may not realise that they have the right to have their name excluded from the register that is sold to commercial concerns.
The second point concerns the electoral registration form. Under the England and Wales regulations, the heading of the relevant column reads:
"If the person does not wish his or her name to appear on the edited register enter [a tick] below".
That construction strikes me as somewhat awkward and may well confuse many who have to complete the form. I reflected after I had read the regulations whether a better form of words was possible. I thought of one. I then looked at the regulations for Scotland. I find there a different formulation of words, more or less along the lines that had occurred to me. In the electoral registration form in the regulations for Scotland, the relevant heading reads:
"If the person wishes their name to be excluded from the edited register enter [a tick] below".
That strikes me as a much clearer and less ambiguous form of words.
Can the Minister advise the House why there is a difference between the two registration forms and whether there is a possibility at this late stage of changing the wording in the registration form that is to be used in England and Wales to bring it into line with that for Scotland?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I raise a query with regard to Regulation 114 which, as the Minister has explained, allows the full electoral register to be made available for certain crime prevention purposes such as money laundering and crime covered by the Financial Services and Markets Act. I suggest that it is important for the public to fight financial crime in general, including, for example, fraud by cowboy dealers. Is it not a pity that the full electoral register is not available for the prevention of all types of financial crime, as I believe the regulations provided for when they were originally drafted? It may be that there is some concern arising out of the case referred to under the Human Rights Act. That is not easy for some of us to understand. I hope that the Minister will place the Government's legal advice on the matter in the Library.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition of the instruments. He said that he expected further regulation to be brought forward under Section 12 of the Scotland Act. I was interested to note that under the Scotland regulations the candidates who are allowed to obtain copies of the register are those involved in European Parliament elections and local government elections. I believe that there is another section on Westminster elections. Does that mean that the use of any register in a Scottish election will be in a local government election?

1181
Will the candidates be able to gain access to the register, or must a separate register be kept for Scottish elections because access will not be available?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was surprised to discover only a few years ago that electoral registers were on sale to anyone who wanted to buy them. Indeed, I discovered that one could buy a CD-ROM containing all the registers for the whole of the United Kingdom. I then discovered that such sales had been taking place for a long time. However, there can be no doubt that the development of information technology, in particular the publication of electoral registers in electronic form, made it simpler to use them for commercial purposes and therefore more valuable for, say, direct marketing.
It then became apparent that the sale of electoral information gathered under compulsion from people who did not want the information to be used for other purposes was likely to be in breach of both data protection laws and the Human Rights Act. Therefore, in the Representation of the People Act 2000 the Government proposed restrictions on the availability of the full electoral register and at the same time provided for an edited version of the register which could be available for sale generally and which omitted the names of those who wanted to opt out.
That move was strongly opposed by marketing organisations, which wanted continued access to the full register. We supported the Government's proposals to have an edited register and these regulations implement the provisions in the Representation of the People Act providing for separate full and edited registers. We therefore welcome the regulations and regret the delay in introducing them.
It is a little surprising that a new set of regulations was issued in 2001, after the Representation of the People Bill 2000 had been passed, which did not provide for edited registers. I wonder whether it is a little cynical to suggest that the Government were prodded into moving on the matter only by the decision in the case involving Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. That case held that the sale for commercial purposes of the full register was a breach of data protection legislation.
The Electoral Commission has produced an interesting paper recommending that there should be no commercial sales of electoral registers, even if on an edited basis. I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, but the policy was established by the Representation of the People Act two years ago and we cannot and should not revisit that when considering the statutory instruments which implement that Act. That Act provided that electors should be required to opt out rather than required to opt in to the edited register.
The question whether the vetting of applications for credit is a proper ground for access to a full register is, in my view, somewhat uncertain. There is a case for saying that it should be open to an individual to take
1182
the view that he does not expect to require credit and sees no reason why his name should therefore remain on an edited register. However, it would obviously he necessary to ensure that any instruction form warned people that if they opted out they would be at risk of difficulty if they sought credit which required reference to a credit reference agency.
The paper from the Electoral Commission, while I do not feel able to support its major proposition, raises a number of more limited points which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. First, under the regulations as amended, people are allowed to inspect the full register but to take only hand written notes of it. I can see why that is done. However, that could require constant monitoring by electoral registration officers, or their staff, in order to prevent abuse; for instance, someone who produces a hand-held scanner and runs it over the electoral register while officials are out of the room. Do the Government therefore accept that the proposal is potentially burdensome?
Secondly, the Electoral Commission states that the prescribed form of instructions, while mentioning the right to buy the edited register, should specifically refer to direct marketing as a potential use of the edited register. It may well not occur to a person completing the form that it is likely to be used for that purpose. I agree also with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on the form.
Thirdly, where an applicant for registration makes his application on a non-standard form, the regulations require the electoral registration officer to send to the applicant a request to be told whether or not the applicant wishes to be excluded from the edited register. If the applicant does not apply within 21 days, it is then assumed that he or she does not wish to be excluded. It appears that the application may not therefore be complete until the applicant either replies or until 21 days have elapsed. If so, it seems that the delay caused by this could deprive the applicant of the right to vote if he or she would otherwise have been on the register which was in force at the date of the election. I wonder whether that is the case and, if so, whether anything can be done about it.
In addition to the points raised by the Electoral Commission, we on these Benches have two questions of our own. First, when the full register is supplied for electoral purposes, can it be supplied in a form which will make it electronically possible to identify those who have opted out of the edited register? There are a number of reasons why that might be useful. Some candidates may, for example, prefer to avoid sending direct mail to those who have opted out for fear of irritating them.
Secondly, does the expression "electoral purposes" include referendums? My inspection of the regulations suggests that it probably does not, because a referendum does not involve the election of anyone. I cannot see any wider definition of "electoral purposes" either in these regulations or in the 2001 regulations which they amend. I believe it is plainly desirable that the full register should be made available to those who are contesting referendums so that a right

1183
to copies should extend to all people who are permitted participants in referendums under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It may be that the Government believe that the appropriate way of dealing with the matter is by including a power to make such regulations in primary legislation which would be necessary to authorise any future referendum. However, if there is no such provision, plainly a major lacuna would be created.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Register of Electors is a document prepared and maintained by local councils. In essence, the document is produced as a list of persons who are eligible to vote at elections.
Legislation enables commercial organisations to purchase the data and use them for a variety of purposes, such as marketing and credit references. This has been a constant matter of concern to electoral registration officers as, in effect, those persons supplying their details for electoral registration were given no notice that that was the case.
Last November, an individual initiated legal action against an electoral registration officer under the Human Rights Act—the Robertson case—for failing to confirm that his details would not be sold on for commercial gain. The case was upheld in the High Court and since then the provision of information to organisations, other than those involved in elections, has been suspended on the advice of the Electoral Commission.
In May this year, the DTLR published draft regulations to address the situation. In the main the proposals set out a process whereby electors could decide whether or not their details could be sold on for commercial purposes. Effectively, this will provide two electoral registers: one complete list for electoral purposes and another available for commercial purposes. It is also the Government's intention to allow the complete list to be used for credit reference and law enforcement purposes.
The DTLR invited comments on the draft regulations and the Association of Electoral Administrators, along with the Society of Local Authorities Chief Executives and the Electoral Commission, objected strongly to the provisions allowing credit reference companies and commercial organisations to purchase the data. Effectively, the new arrangements will place a responsibility on local councils to prepare a statutory document solely for commercial purposes.
Additional resources will need to be identified and there is a real possibility that the accuracy of the data will be compromised as members of the public learn that information they provide is made available for other purposes. The draft regulations do not address the primary issues of the Robertson case.
The Electoral Commission and others, in commenting on the proposals, made a strong, consistent objection to the commercial aspect. Despite these representations, and many others made by individual councils across the country, no account was taken of them and the revised regulations now before the House remain unaltered.
1184
Organisations and council officers with extensive experience of electoral matters devoted considerable time and energy to the consultation process, only to find that their time had been completely wasted. Furthermore, the delay in the government department responsible (now the Lord Chancellor's Office) reacting to a High Court judgment made last November has seriously compromised the annual process of updating the information.
Overall, councils and the appointed electoral registration officers now find themselves in a most precarious position. Hiding behind a process of collecting information for electoral purposes to satisfy commercial activity is wrong and will cause concern among the public.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the questions that have been asked. I shall try to respond to them in turn as best I can, although I freely admit from the outset that I shall not be able to cover all the points raised.
The first of two questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, related to the clarity of understanding that people might have of the new registration form with its extra tick-box. It is the case that the Electoral Commission intends to issue guidance to electoral registration officers on the information to be sent out with the form. Obviously, it will cover that aspect.
The noble Lord also made a point about the wording above the opt-out box, saying that it was slightly different. He is right about that, but we are satisfied that it has exactly the same effect. I have to advise the House that the wording cannot at this stage be changed for the purposes of these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made a point about Regulation 114. This does not allow wider access with regard to financial services for the purposes of prevention of fraud more generally, beyond the specific requirements under the money laundering regulations. The Government consider that the proposed level of access strikes the right balance between private rights and public interest. This level of access allows our statutory obligations to be met.
The noble Lord suggested that we might consider placing a copy of the legal advice made available to the Government in the Library. It is a convention of government that we do not make available legal advice given to the Government. To do so would endanger legal professional privilege. But I hope that I have given a full explanation of the Government's view on the issues involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a number of helpful and useful comments and observations. I do not intend to respond to them all, but it is worth reminding the House that, although the Electoral Commission has a firm and interesting view on the use to be made of electoral registers, it made it clear that it very much welcomed the Government's intention to put in place a comprehensive regulatory framework for the purposes of ensuring consistency with the requirements of the European Data Protection

1185
Directive and the Data Protection Act 1998, and our desire to make sure that we are fully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and the provisions of the Human Rights Act. The commission, although it had its view, recognised that we had put in place a firm framework which attempted to secure the right balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a point about the way in which applicants might be disenfranchised. An applicant is given 21 days in which to state whether he or she wishes to be on the edited register. Applicants are put on the full register before being asked their wishes. So I do not think that they will be disenfranchised. They certainly should not be. If they were, we would want to know about that, because, clearly, the scheme would not be operating properly.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made a point about the register in Scotland. Registers of electors for UK parliamentary elections will be created and registers for local government elections in Scotland. The local government register is the register which is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament. The entitlement of MSPs to obtain copies of the full register, and the other circumstances in which access can be obtained to the full register in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament, will be fully set out in an order under the Scotland Act later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made some observations about the scheme. These issues were debated, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, very fully during the passage of the Representation of the People Act. The Government have worked hard and have consulted extensively to try to strike the right balance. We think that we have achieved that balance for the purpose of these regulations. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the most important point that I made was that relating to referendums and whether that was an electoral purpose.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question. It is an extremely interesting point. I shall write to the noble Lord and circulate a copy of my response to all Members of this House who have contributed to the debate.
The other question that I did not cover related to copying. Yes, of course, we shall have to keep that carefully under review. Electronic copying is becoming easier in many forms and there are other ways in which data can rapidly be stored.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) (Amendment) Order 2002
8.39 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee.
The noble Lord said My Lords, the draft statutory instrument before the House makes a limited number of changes to the list of securities markets to which insider dealing legislation applies.
Insider dealing is a serious crime that taints the integrity and efficiency of any financial market, whether it constitutes the passing of information informally between two people or the elaborate large-scale operation of an offshore syndicate involving many others. Anyone who invests in our financial markets expects a trading environment that is fair, trustworthy and confidential. If we do not have a sound regulatory regime that works towards those goals, we are failing the investor.
London is one of the world's leading financial centres and attracts institutions from all over the world to invest and set up their operations here. Being—and being seen to be—a clean place in which to do business is an important part of London's success. We are determined to maintain that.
The criminal offence of insider dealing governed by Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which allows the Treasury to make an order specifying the regulated markets on which it is an offence to trade using inside information. The Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order specifies the regulated markets. It was last amended in 2000. This order amends it again to add one overseas market, thereby bringing the securities traded on that market under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice Act for the purposes of insider dealing. The market concerned is SWX Swiss Exchange. The Swiss Exchange is a fully electronic trading system which, as part of the SWX group, offers integrated solutions in specific market segments on a cross-border basis.
Two other changes to the order are just the substitution of names. The first is Trade point, which, following an agreement with SWX Swiss Exchange, formed virt-x Exchange Limited. The new name needs to be changed on the list. Secondly, Cordeal became CoredealMTS after its alliance with EuroMTS. Again, the list needs amending.

1187
Finally, we would like to remove the words,
"operated by J P Jenkins Limited",
from the market known as OFEX, since OFEX plc took over the operation of the OFEX market from J P Jenkins in January 2002.
It is important that the order is amended to keep market entries up to date. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we are perfectly content with the order.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, this is simply an updating measure and raises no issues of policy. We are therefore happy to support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Well, then I am going to say something, my Lords. I do not think that this should be an affirmative instrument. It is exactly the kind of thing that should be dealt with by the negative procedure. We tried to do it generically, but that did not give enough specificity to enable people to know what publicly quoted exchanges they were dealing with. I think this is a very bad order. I commend it to the House.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if we thought that the noble Lord really thought that, we would have had plenty of things to say.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enterprise Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Sharmanmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
"() In pursuance of its function under subsection (1) above the OFT shall work with every local weights and measures authority in Great Britain to—

(a) ensure the delivery of coordinated, consistent enforcement,

(b) improve consumer protection, and

(c) develop more competitive markets."

The noble Lord said: The amendment would ensure that the OFT worked closely with local authorities in promoting good practice. We touched on that in earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Promoting good consumer practice will be a function of the OFT. The purpose of the amendment is to get an assurance from the Minister that the OFT will continue to work closely with local weights and measures authorities in exercising this power and to describe how the relationship will work in practice.
1188
The OFT currently works closely with all local weights and measures authorities in the enforcement of a range of consumer protection legislation. LACORS, which is the co-ordinating body for a range of regulatory services including trading standards, helps to facilitate that relationship. The Local Government Association and LACORS would like to ensure that the current good working relationship will continue under the new legislation.
They believe that it is essential to ensure that effective co-ordination arrangements are formalised through the use of formal memorandums and concordats between the OFT, general enforcers, designated enforcers and appropriate self-regulatory bodies. It will be important to ensure that mechanisms are available to resolve any potential conflicts if more than one enforcement body wishes to take proceedings.
I can only endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said on an earlier amendment. We must have good, consistent application of the standards across the country. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can give the noble Lord the reassurance that he wants. The amendment would widen the OFT's functions to ensure that it worked closely with local authorities in promoting good practice. This is not the place in the Bill for this amendment, as this clause is solely about codes of practice. Nor do I think that the amendment is strictly necessary to legislate to give the OFT a coordinating role.
The OFT already has a role in co-ordinating enforcement—for example, stop now orders, unfair contract terms and developing a consumer regulation website. A lot of work is going on in the DTI to modernise trading standards services.
We have worked with the trading standards profession, the OFT and LACORS on a new national performance framework for the service, which came into effect in April this year. It sets out priorities and standards for service, including on enforcement, and aims to ensure more co-ordinated consistent delivery. The framework will be developed year on year and we shall measure its effectiveness. In particular, we want to see a more consistent approach to enforcement.
The modernisation fund for improving consumer protection at local level is in its second year. Some of the funding has been used by trading standards for joined-up enforcement projects. We are now seeing the results of the first year's projects. There are some good examples of much more joined-up working among local authorities. For example, the website for consumer, complaints— www.consumercomplaints.org.uk—a new series of good practice guides and a toolkit for protecting vulnerable consumers are all being made available across England, Scotland and Wales with support from the modernisation fund.
That shows that by supporting trading standards authorities and enabling them to work together a lot of expertise and experience can come together without

1189
the need for legislation. I assure the noble Lord that the DIE will continue to work with the TSI, LACORS, NWML and the OFT on the development of the framework. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed and full response to my proposals. I am pretty satisfied and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to. Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Part 2 of the 1973 Act]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 12, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—
"The functions of the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee are transferred to the OFT."
The noble Lord said: I should like to hear from the Minister why the Government decided to jettison the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee and the procedure for it. I understand that it had fallen into disuse and had not been used since 1983. That was mainly because the cumbersome procedure under the original provisions was felt to be too lengthy to have proper effect. Orders were made under the provisions. Clause 10 continues those orders that still exist. It may be of interest to the Committee to know how and why the Government reached their decision to abolish the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment would retain the elements of Part 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 which we are seeking to repeal in Clause 10.
Part 2 was designed to deal with novel unfair trading practices as they emerged. It allowed the Secretary of State, by way of secondary legislation, to prohibit or modify unfair, but not illegal, trade practices that harmed the economic interests of consumers. The Secretary of State would have made these orders on the advice of the DGFT and a then newly-created Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. The truth is that Part 2 has barely been used; only three orders have been made under it. The two that are still in force and in everyday use by trading standards officers would be retained under Clause 10, together with the enforcement provisions for them.
The Consumer Protection Advisory Committee, upon whose report the order-making power in Part 2 is dependent, has not existed in practice since 1983, having lost its quorum in 1982. The order-making power itself was found to be rigid and the process took too long. Specifically, it proved very difficult to satisfy the legal tests in Part 2, in particular the test of attributing a specific consumer economic detriment to practices that were clearly undesirable.
The possibility of reforming Part 2 to make it easier to use has been considered at length. However, it has proved extremely difficult to identify the circumstances in which a revived Part 2 might be used
1190
in the future, and consultation on the issue failed to generate any enthusiasm from consultees for the provisions. In any case, this Bill significantly strengthens the enforcement of consumer protection, and we therefore see no need to keep on the statute book these provisions in Part 2.
In view of the history of the matter and the fact that the provisions have not proved successful, the case for removing them from the statute book seems unarguable. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Super-complaints to OFT]:
Lord Sharmanmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 37, leave out "that any feature, or combination of features of" and insert "alleging that any agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices in"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 34.
These are very straightforward and simple amendments designed to ensure consistency in wording, so that the wording in this Bill is the same as that in Article 81 of the Chapter 1 prohibition in the Competition Act 1998 and the EU treaty. The amendments would ensure that there was consistency in wording both within 1JK law and in relation to the law of other EU member states. We see this as a particularly important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: We have three amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 33,34 and 53. The approach taken in these amendments is similar to that so clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 apply to subsection (1) of Clause 11, on super-complaints to the OFT. Amendment No. 33 replaces the expression,
"any feature, or combination of features, of",
with the expression,
"any agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices in".
Amendment No. 34 replaces the expression,
"or appears to be significantly harming the interests of consumers",
with the expression,
"prevents, restricts or distorts competition".
Two purposes lie behind these amendments. The first is the one explained by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman—to make this part of the Bill consistent with the Part 1 and Part 2 offences under the Competition Act 1998 and with Article 81 of the European Community treaty. As I understand it, the philosophy behind the 1998 Act was to bring our domestic competition law into line with European Community competition law. In my submission, if Clause 11(1) is passed unamended, it will mark a serious derogation

1191
from that approach. I believe that that was a very sensible approach: to simplify in so far as possible the competition rules facing British enterprise.
If the clause stands in its current form, it will have the opposite effect. Not only will it not repeat the 1998 tests, it will also introduce a new test—the test of,
"significantly harming the interests of consumers".
What does this test mean? Where is the jurisprudence that tells us what effect it will have on our enterprises and on our competitive markets? I suggest to the Minister that this question is especially important in the light of the overall approach of Clause 11, which is to give a privileged status to certain classes of consumer interest to bring complaints against individual companies. Not only are these classes of consumer interest to have a Rolls-Royce route to bringing those complaints, but they are also going to have a specific set of new rules to apply when making those complaints.
If we are to have super-complaints, let them be based on exactly the same jurisprudence as that which relates to complaints in general under our competition law.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These amendments seek to narrow the definition of a super-complaint by placing the emphasis on conduct connected to breaches of Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 81 of the EC treaty rather than broader problems in the market that may harm the interests of consumers. Amendment No. 34 also seeks to narrow the definition of a super-complaint by turning it into a preliminary to a particular type of competition investigation rather than a look at the broader problems in the market that may harm the interests of consumers.
Our intention, of course, is to ensure that consumers receive better protection by enabling consumer bodies to complain on their behalf about—this is the key point—any market failure that causes significant harm to consumers and to be guaranteed a response from the OFT within 90 days. In order to do this, we need a broad definition of the circumstances in which a super-complaint can be made, rather than limiting the focus of the procedure to the potential investigation of anticompetitive agreements.
Anyone who wants to complain about basic infringements of the Competition Act can already do so. Super-complaints should not be limited to being a preliminary to a particular type of competition investigation; they should be an open-ended vehicle for the OFT to launch investigations under any of its consumer and competition powers. Additionally, these amendments would make it very difficult for consumer bodies to submit super-complaints. As third parties, they are very unlikely to know much about the agreements that firms have entered into between themselves.
We are thinking of complaints such as the current one in relation to the uncompetitiveness of and lack of clarity in private dental charges. We want to tackle
1192
these more general market failures, and much of what we are trying to achieve would be lost by narrowing down the provision. I therefore hope that, with that explanation, noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.
9 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps the Minister can help me. He said that significantly harming the interests of consumers is a broad test. In what way? In what circumstances would significantly harming the interests of consumers provide a remedy to a super-complainer which the European Community test would not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments involve in particular the Competition Act and Article 81 of the European Community treaty. The amendments make it clear that this matter involves agreements that restrict competition. This requirement is much wider than agreements to restrict competition; it is about market failures. That is significantly wider than the matter to which the amendments draw attention. That involves the difference between the phrase,
"feature, or combination of features",
and the phrase,
"alleging that any agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices".
That clearly significantly narrows down the provisions.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister. Is he saying that significantly harming the interests of consumers is the sum of the law in the 1998 Competition Act plus the new measures that the Bill puts in place to deal with the general failure of markets to operate properly, which will be investigated by the Competition Commission?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes. Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful.
Lord Sharman: I shall reflect on the Minister's explanation and may return to the matter at a later stage. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 40, leave out "90" and insert "30"
The noble Lord said: Here we present the Minister with a choice. We are pleased to see in Clause 11(2) a fixed period within which the OFT has to respond; that is very welcome. However, the period of 90 days is too long. We give the Minister the option of reducing that period to 60 days, in Amendment No. 36, or to 30 days, in Amendment No. 35.
The background to this matter is that there will be companies that—and perhaps some small businesspeople who—would have to contend with the

1193
threat of action or investigation. Such business entities should not have to contend with the sword of Damocles hanging over them for such a lengthy period. Companies should be told quickly whether the matter will or will not be pursued. I believe that a period shorter than 90 days would be more appropriate. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Brennan: There are two points to be made about the amendment. First, the shorter the period, the more likely it is that the affected commercial enterprise will seek judicial review of the OFT for not taking long enough. Secondly, the longer the period, provided that it is within reason, the more the public interest is served by balancing the interests of the commercial enterprise with those of the consumer. Ninety days is a reasonable compromise.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am thankful for that helpful intervention.
The OFT is required by the Bill to produce a full and reasoned response to super-complaints and so must be given the time it needs in which to do that. There is a possibility that the quality of the response could be weakened if it does not have enough time properly to analyse the evidence submitted by the super-complainant. With the complexity of the issues involved, the process will necessarily be time consuming and it is important that the OFT should have enough time in which to give a substantive answer.
Having considered the issues, we believe that 90 days is the right time period for OFT in these cases, striking a good balance between speed and quality. It should be remembered that this is a maximum time period and that we would expect the OFT to respond as soon as it is practicable to do so within that period. Super-complainants will be expected to submit a reasoned case in accordance with the OFT's guidance. That will require a serious commitment of resources by the complainant. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for the OFT to give an ill-thought-out answer because it had to rush to meet the deadline. We feel that that helps nobody. If the time period is too short, the OFT is likely to be putting forward more complaints for additional investigation to ensure that it can make a properly informed decision about what further action is needed. If there is a case to answer, business will also need time to format a response.
We are confident that 90 days is the right maximum time period but acknowledge that we are at only the beginning of this new super-complaint process. If experience shows us that super-complaints can be dealt with properly in less than 90 days, we have ensured that the Secretary of State can shorten the statutory timescale by using the powers under subsection (4). Equally, if we find that 90 days is insufficient, the time period could be lengthened. Subsection (4) allows us to keep our options open, which is a sensible precaution. The OFT will do everything that it can to keep the period as short as possible.
1194
In view of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for his contribution. I am greatly reassured by what the Minister said: by his stress on the maximum period, by his reference to subsection (4) and the discretion that it would give the Secretary of State, and by the fact that he hopes that the OFT will respond well within the timescale where it is reasonably possible for it to do so. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert "and how long such action will take"
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows on the idea of a crisp timetable applied to the civil complaints section. Clause 11(2)(b) concerns the case where the OFT decides that it should take action, and the action that it proposes to take. The clause does not impose any form of timetable in relation to the implementation of that.
I am not sure that the wording that I have chosen is as solicitous as I should like. However, the purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that the notice given to a firm not only explains the decision and the action which it is proposed to take in consequence, but that it should also give timetables for remedial action and other events that might flow therefrom. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As with other complaints, there are a number of different actions that the OFT might decide to undertake in response to a super-complaint under either its competition or its consumer powers. Eventual outcomes could, for example, include an immediate market investigation reference to the Competition Commission, enforcement action, the publication of a report recommending changes in laws and regulations or the suggestion of the use of codes of practice as a self-regulatory solution.
In some cases, further investigation and consultation may be required before the OFT can decide on which eventual outcome, if any, is appropriate. With so many options, it is clear that the time-scale for completing them will vary. In some cases, there is a fixed timeline; for example, shortly after a market investigation reference is made, the Competition Commission will be required to publish a detailed administrative timetable setting out how long it expects each phase of that particular inquiry to take, subject in all cases to an absolute statutory maximum of two years but with the expectation that most investigations will not take anything like as long. However, it may not always be possible to set a deadline from the beginning. Therefore, we prefer to leave it to the discretion of the OFT to give a timetable if it considers that to be appropriate.

1195
As a back-stop, judicial review can he used if a business believes that the OFT has acted unreasonably by pursuing an investigation for an unreasonable length of time; for example, after receiving sufficient information to make a decision. We realise that unnecessary delay is damaging for industry and, indeed, for the consumer. But in these circumstances, subject to the back-stop of judicial review, we believe that the situation must be kept reasonably open. In the light of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. The sword of Damocles comes into one's mind here. When one talks about a back-stop of two years, that means that a business could be waiting for a very long time. When we come to other amendments, I shall want to raise an issue concerning a company of which I was a director and which became the subject of an investigation. Managing a business while under investigation is extraordinarily difficult. Morale slumps and one's better people tend to leave. If there is a case to be answered, that is fine. But it is important that if there is no case to be answered, the firm should be let free.
I accept that it is almost impossible to build into legislation what I was seeking to achieve. The situation is not as satisfactory as it should be. However, in the light of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sharmanmoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
"() Where the OFT has decided to take no action in response to the complaint and an undertaking has incurred costs as a result of that complaint, the consumer body which made the complaint shall bear the costs of that undertaking."
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 39 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt of Wirral, seek to address the issue of what remedy a company or a business which is the subject of a super-complaint has in the event that no action is taken by the OFT as a result of that complaint. Any investigation arising from a super-complaint will, in my opinion, inevitably create cost and resource burdens on the business. The noble Lord has just spoken about the problems of running a business while it is subject to a complaint.
Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to provide a route whereby that business can recover some of its cost. That should ensure that the rights of a company are protected and that vexatious complainants are deterred from bringing unjustified complaints. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, indicated, Amendment No. 39 tabled by us is in similar terms. I support the comments of the noble Lord. Under Clause 11 it will not be impecunious bodies which will bring complaints but designated consumer bodies, frequently with substantial sums of money at
1196
their disposal; perhaps larger sums than the target of their complaint. Therefore, it seems only fair that, if at the end of the day the complaint proves irresponsible at worst or even ill-considered or naive at best, they should pay at least part of the cost incurred by the target company as a result of the complaint being brought in the first place.
As the noble Lord is well aware from his experience in the department, some of the complaints brought against enterprises have colossal cost implications in terms of human and capital resources and, as my noble friend pointed out in a different context, are capable of taking a long time. Even if at the end of the day the OFT decides to take no further action, such complaints can have serious consequences for the profitability of companies.
We do not use such words as "must" or "insist" in the amendments, but suggest that on the application of the undertaking the OFT may make the order. The discretion is there for the OFT to consider each case on its merits. If it reasonably concludes that the claim is unmeritorious, it can always say no. We seek on the face of the Bill the power for the OFT to make the awards in appropriate circumstances.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Brennan: At Second Reading I welcomed Clause 11 as a particularly important protection for consumers because it introduced a speedy and efficient system of dealing with major consumer complaints. I little thought that there would be attached to it what I might generously describe as a primitive framework bespoken by the two amendments; namely, a framework in which the least ability by the designated organisation would be assumed, a litigious context would be inferred and costs would become a weapon between the consumers' organisation and the affected commercial party. I invite the Committee to do away with such considerations.
Surely, the more appropriate way to interpret this important clause is that only those organisations which are designated can complain. They will be designated by reason of the Secretary of State concluding that they represent the interests of consumers, as in subsection (6), and meet such criteria as the department shall from time to time determine. I imagine that the criteria will invoke concepts of responsibility, cost-effectiveness and the like. The structure intends a competent basis for complaint.
In order to allow that competence to mature, I suspect into more effective action, subsection (7) allows the Office of Fair Trading to issue guidance on a mandatory basis as to how complaints are to be constructed and reasoned and, in addition, such further guidance as may be appropriate. I regard that as an intent to provide the speedy and efficient structure which I believe Clause 6 produces.
I suggest that in those circumstances it is entirely wrong to treat this as a litigious context in which the winner gets his costs and the loser has to pay. That is not the intent of the Act. The protection for industry and commerce is given by designation, the mandatory

1197
publication of the method of reasoned argument and further instruction where required. That is entirely adequate protection. I have no doubt that industry and commerce will seek to influence the Government to ensure that it is comprehensive.
The last thing the clause should produce is fear by designated organisations that if they dare to take on the high and mighty of industry and commerce they will eventually suffer in costs, and woe betide that members of such organisation meet their doom because they cannot meet those costs. The ultimate safeguard is for the Secretary of State to remove the designation of any organisation that seeks to abuse the privileged position on behalf of consumers that the designation provides.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Lest it be thought that liberality is dead on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I should like to endorse the remarks just made by the noble Lord. If these amendments were accepted, I believe that the proposal would prove to be a torpedo under the waterline of Clause 11. That is especially so as regards Amendment No. 38, which, unlike Amendment No. 39, gives no discretion on the issue of costs.
Similarly, the costs are not clearly defined in the amendments. They could be the costs to the undertaking commercially, not the legal costs. If that were the case, the commercial losses consequent on such a complaint could amount to an enormous sum of money. Frankly, knowing a little about the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council, I believe that this would absolutely deter any complaint being made. The bigger the quarry, so to speak, the more the costs would be; and, yet, the more important the potential claim might be.
Although I understand the issue under discussion, I believe that this is a dangerous proposition. If Amendment No. 39 were to proceed, which, as I said, has the merit of being a discretionary remedy, it should at least be qualified by allowing an award of costs only in a case of frivolous or vexatious complaint; otherwise, one would be subject to a risk so high that, in my view, it would deter the realistic prospects of Clause 11 being utilised.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments before the Committee seek to make consumer bodies bear all or part of the costs incurred by business where the OFT has decided that there is no case to answer. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan for putting this particular clause in the context of the whole Bill. The clause must be seen in that way, and consideration must be given to the way that super-complaints will be handled.
There is a concern that some consumer groups might make frivolous or vexatious super-complaints forcing businesses to devote considerable resources to defending themselves. However, there are inherent checks in place to ensure that such complaints are not submitted. Consumer bodies will have to meet certain criteria, on which we shall be consulting fully. They will have to demonstrate their ability to put together a
1198
reasoned case. These bodies will have to devote considerable resources to produce a well-reasoned case in accordance with the OFT's guidance. The cost of making a super-complaint will he a serious consideration. Therefore, taking into account all those factors, it is unlikely that that the making of a super-complaint will be entered into lightly.
We expect that there will also be an informal consultation before the OFT accepts the complaint. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that a frivolous super-complaint will be submitted. However, if it does happen, the OFT will not take further action beyond the initial consideration. In all super-complaint cases, the OFT will publish the reasons for what action, if any, it proposes to take. This cuts both ways, as it holds the OFT to account but also ensures that consumer groups submit decent super-complaints. Clearly, they will not want bad publicity and subsequent damage to their reputation.
The process does not impose new burdens. The super-complaint process will consider only whether further action is justified. The process involves no sanctions or judgments of its own. Super-complaints are simply a new route into the OFT system— an initial fast-tracking to ensure that complaints about market failure that harm consumers are given consideration within a fixed period of time. The options that the OFT has for follow-up action to super-complaints are the same as for any other complaint. It is therefore right that they should all follow the same procedure in terms of costs. It should be noted that parties do not get their costs back when other complaints are submitted to the OFT and when investigations are carried out that result in no action being taken. It is therefore both an unnecessary additional burden and unfair to have this condition attached to complaints via the super-complaints procedure.
We do not want inadvertently to discourage consumer groups from making super-complaints with cost threats. As previously stated, the OFT guidance on the presentation of a reasoned complaint should prevent groups from making frivolous super-complaints anyway—and the OFT can throw out a frivolous complaint quickly without imposing cost burdens on the markets concerned.
Quite simply, we have already taken the point that we do not want to see frivolous complaints made which put burdens on industry. But we have taken care of that by carefully structuring the route by which super-complaints are heard. In that way we can make certain that there is no need for the kind of action proposed in the amendments. In view of that reassurance I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask two questions arising out of what he has just said.
First, he mentioned guidance. I suspect he is referring to subsection 7(a) of Clause 11 which states that the OFT,
"must issue guidance as to the presentation by the complainant of a reasoned case for the complaint".

1199
We are soon to rise for the summer adjournment and will probably come back for Report stage relatively early in October. Will the Minister contemplate the prospect of producing, on Report, draft guidance under subsection (a) so that your Lordships can consider it? That may help those of us who have been party to tabling Amendment No. 39 to look afresh at the issue in the light of the comments the Minister makes.
My second question concerns the relationship between super-complaints and ordinary complaints. It is a point the Minister partially addressed in his response to the amendment. Are super-complaints to have some special status in the great spectrum of complaints that come in to the OFT? The Minister was at pains to say that they ought to be treated no differently from ordinary complaints in terms of cost. If that is so, what distinguishes a super-complaint from an ordinary complaint? Can an ordinary complainant be confident that his complaint will not drop down the queue because a super-complaint has arrived on a similar, though not necessarily exact, issue? Is the Minister contemplating any internal guidance for the OFT on the relationship between super-complaints and ordinary complaints?
If super-complaints are to have priority, is that fair to ordinary complainants? I may be wrong, but I do not believe those issues are addressed on the face of the Bill. They may be issues the noble Lord is contemplating dealing with in guidance. However, I should like to hear his views before we take the matter any further.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We will be happy to give noble Lords a draft before Report stage of what the guidance will cover. That is an important consideration in this matter.
The reason for super-complaints is to encourage bodies to put together a case which would be difficult for single consumers to put together, and therefore to make a real status of it. But the OFT will still give proper consideration to complaints from the public. The OFT has an administrative target of replying to general correspondence within 10 days. But that depends on the complexity of the issues raised and it may take longer for the OFT to provide a substantive response to some issues. But consumers are unlikely to put forward the kind of case, in the kind of detail, that we would expect in super-complaints. So it is not a case of super-complaints driving out others, but of giving the reassurance that they will be answered within a particular timeframe. The provision is there to encourage bodies to put forward complaints which an individual consumer would find difficult.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: In Clause 11(2) there is an obligation on the OFT when it receives a super-complaint to publish a response within 90 days. That is clearly on the face of the Bill. My question concerns what happens next. Having got that response, does the
1200
super-complaint join its place in the queue, or does it leapfrog other complaints, capturing the attention of the OFT at a much earlier stage?
Clearly, the OFT will be under constant pressure. It will have to—to use that ghastly but extremely useful American word—prioritise the demands on its resources. Once the 90 days are up, will the super-complaint simply take its place in the queue or will there be further leapfrogging?
I share with the Minister one of the reasons behind my question. A company may have a competitor which wants to make a complaint against it for legitimate or illegitimate means. If it suspects that a super-complainant can jump the queue, it might seek to hitch its star on to the super-complainant bandwagon either by directly approaching the consumer body concerned or by having someone connected with it masquerade as a consumer and directly approach the consumer body.
I am not saying that that will happen, but I am trying to speculate on what might happen. I suggest to the Minister that this would be an illegitimate use of the super-complaint procedure. As I understand it, the procedure is designed for the consumer who, unlike another competitor, does not have the resources or the skills at his disposal to make complaints in the way that a commercial body can.
I apologise for making more of this amendment than of some of the others. I know that the Minister attaches great importance to it. I suspect that he will be determined to drive it through this Chamber whatever any noble Lords say. If that is true, I think that the Minister owes it to us to make sure that it achieves precisely the objectives that he wishes to achieve and that it cannot be abused in any way.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It clearly is important that this procedure is not abused by a company or other body which wishes to use it to make a complaint against a competitor as part of some kind of competitive battle. Only designated bodies can make these complaints. I very much doubt that designated bodies will take kindly to the idea of being used in this way by a particular company.
The case that must be made will be rather more complicated to make than in the normal circumstances. It is not an obvious route to get attention quickly. Of course if a designated body starts to abuse this process, it can be de-designated and cease to be a designated body. So one will not find bodies taking kindly to that idea.
It is fast track in the sense that there is a 90-day deadline for the complaint to be answered. After that, it simply goes into the system in the normal way. The Bill does not "prioritise" it in any way. So there is little chance of it being abused in the way that concerns the noble Lord. I hope that that reassures him on that point.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding in the way that he has to all my questions.
Lord Sharman: I listened with great interest to what the Minister said and have taken considerable comfort from it. The draft guidance, which he has undertaken to give us before Report stage, will be particularly valuable and important to us in forming a view on whether to pursue the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 9, leave out "which appears to him"
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 40, in the names of my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Sharman. In the spirit of helpfulness, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 46, which at present stands on its own, because it fits with Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 45.
The object of Amendments Nos. 40 and 46 is to ensure that the designation process under Clause 11 is justifiable. I think that that principle underlies the amendments in this and the following group. Although the Consumers' Association states in its briefing that no new rights are created by the clause, that is not entirely the case. The 90-day rule will apply only to super-complainants and the whole procedure provided for by the clause will clearly give complaints made under it a special and privileged status.
It would be obnoxious to English legal tradition if the designated bodies were, in effect, ministerial favourites. I doubt that the Government intend by their drafting of Clause 11 to make that the case. I expect the Minister to say that anyone can apply for designated status and that all applications for such status will be treated impartially and equally, as long as they comply with subsection (6).
Subsection (6) states that designated bodies must,
"represent the interests of consumers … and"—
here is the problem—
"meet such criteria as he"—
the Secretary of State—
"may publish for the purposes of this section".
Subsection (6) is drafted in permissive or discretionary language, stating:
"The Secretary of State may designate any body which appears to him … to meet such other criteria as he may publish".
When taken with the Explanatory Notes, which state that any organisation applying for designated status will have to meet,
"any other criteria that the Secretary of State may specify",
it is clear that the wording should be tightened to make it perfectly clear that if the Secretary of State does not act fairly on normal grounds, judicial review will be available to the applicant.
If we consider the language of subsection (7), it will be clear that I am not over-egging the importance of the word "may" rather than "must" in subsection (6).
1202
In subsection (7)(a), the words "must issue guidance" are intentionally used, while subsection (7)(b) states that the OFT,
"may issue other guidance".
So the usual argument that revolves around the use of the word "may" and whether it means "must" is clearly resolved in the context of the clause against such an interpretation.
That is why the amendments are an attempt to depersonalise or desubjectivise, if I may put it that way, the language of subsection (6) in the manner proposed. That is their purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I have tabled two of the amendments in this group in a minor key. Amendment No. 41 concerns Clause 11(6) and would replace the expression,
"which appears to him",
with the expression,
"where he is satisfied".
Amendment No. 45 is a consequential amendment to subsection (6)(b). The amendment would insert what is, I submit, the normal statutory expression for those circumstances.
Lord Brennan: I hope that the Committee will forgive a moment of legal interpretation. We have here one extreme versus the other. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is concerned to protect the interests of consumer bodies. I realise that that is a matter of importance. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is concerned to ensure that the industry or commercial entity can have a satisfactory test before designation is granted. There are dangers in both approaches.
The approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would produce a situation in which an affected commercial entity, realising that the Minister must be "satisfied", would, if the occasion required it, seek judicial review of whether he was properly satisfied, in designating the body that has brought a complaint. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is concerned to ensure that organisations that properly protect consumers' interests should not be barred by the Minister's decision. That concern could be met if we address subsection (6) with common sense. The phrase "which appears to him", if we are to interpret it properly and avoid idiosyncracy, must be taken as meaning,
"which reasonably appears to him".
The Secretary of State cannot, therefore, designate or refuse to designate as he thinks fit. Any decision would be dictated by the conditions that the body must,
"represent the interests of consumers"
and, secondly,
"meet such other criteria as he may publish".
The condition that the body must represent the interests of consumers is straightforward. I imagine that the other criterion will be directed at establishing

1203
the sufficiency of the organisation and whether it is properly organised and managed and whether it has means.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Subsection (6)(b), which sets out the second criterion to be satisfied, says that a body must meet,
"such other criteria as he may publish".
Our concern is that the Secretary of State is not obliged by that to publish criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, may say that that is a far-fetched interpretation, but I refer him to the use of the words "must" and "may" in the subsequent subsection.
Lord Kingsland: In the interests of economy of movement by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I shall also pose a question. He can deal with both in one rise and fall.
Is it the noble Lord's view that, if the text remains as it is and the expression "which appears to him" remains the determining expression, the Secretary of State's decision will not be judicially reviewable under subsection (6)?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brennan: I shall rise and complete my response without, I hope, falling.
I start with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That which requires a Minister to be "satisfied" will be determined by the evidence available to him. That which "reasonably appears to him" is a lesser test, as I interpret it. That test favours the consumer organisation and disfavours the commercial entity.
Turning to the analysis of subsection (6) by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, sub-paragraph (b) gives an option that the Minister may or may not issue criteria. So his primary obligation is to determine whether the organisation represents the interests of consumers. If that is met in respect of an organisation, I cannot imagine that the other criterion would be used to undermine that requirement. As I have said, it would be directed towards the structure of the organisation and its efficiency and ability to meet the purpose which will merit it being designated.
My main concern in rising to speak to these two amendments is to avoid on either side a further forum for lawyers to debate whether a consumer organisation could be properly designated or a commercial entity could properly protect itself. On a sensible reading of the clause as it stands at present, neither problem should arise.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if everyone has now received their legal advice from my noble friend Lord Brennan, perhaps I may seek to move the debate forward on this issue. Before I do so, I think that it would be useful if I respond to Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 45 and mention also Amendment No. 46, because it is relevant to this matter.
1204
The amendments seek to ensure that the Secretary of State will only appoint designated consumer bodies that meet the criteria to be published. There is a concern that the words, "which appears to him" are very subjective. We are resisting Amendment No. 40 only because we believe that it is unnecessary, not because there is a policy difference between us. Where there is an assessment against criteria the words, "which appears to him" are often used to make it clear that this is a matter of judgment and as such it is not possible to be completely objective.
I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will only appoint designated consumer bodies that meet the criteria to be published. I should add that we will, of course, be consulting fully on the criteria and hope that all interested parties will contribute to the consultation process. Additionally, the bodies will be designated by order so that designation will be subject to the parliamentary process.
I turn now to Amendment No. 46. The amendment would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue criteria which bodies would have to meet in order to be designated as super-complainers. It has always been the Government's intention to issue such criteria—indeed, it is being worked on at present—and I am therefore happy to accept the principle of the noble Lord's amendment and come back on Report with a government amendment that will deliver the same result.
With the reassurance that the criteria will be issued and with an explanation of why we have used the particular wording set out in the Bill, I hope that the concerns expressed by noble Lords on this point have now been met.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response and for the concession made on Amendment No. 46. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Is it the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to move Amendment No. 42? I am sorry. I thought that the amendment had already been spoken to.
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 10, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"() that it is sufficiently representative of the legitimate interests of consumers, and"
The noble Lord said: I thought that I was to be deprived of my moment of glory. I have been riveted by the wise words of eminent Queen's Counsel—completely free of charge. Speaking as a solicitor, that is a first for me.
I wish to move Amendment No. 42 to confirm whether the Minister feels that he has exactly the right wording in Clause 11(6); namely, that:
"The Secretary of State may designate any body which appears to him … to represent the interests of consumers of any description".

1205
It might be a good moment to remind ourselves that it is the Director-General of Fair Trading and, under the Bill, the Office of Fair Trading, which will have the public duty to represent consumers. Certainly the current holder of the office of director-general sees this as one of his key roles and has made a number of important contributions on the subject.
Consideration of subsection (6) should start on the basis that specific organisations should not be granted preferential treatment under the law. All parties must have the right to have their cases heard and to be treated equally. That is why I would like the Minister to clarify when a consumer group will be regarded as having the standing to bring such a complaint.
At present it is difficult to identify which consumer organisations would he in a position to perform a balancing role in a manner that would facilitate the effective enforcement of competition laws. The existing wording is too broad and runs the risk that bodies which are not representative of consumers will be able to exercise a far-reaching power. There should he a requirement on the face of the Bill that a super-complaint may only be made where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the body in question is sufficiently representative of the legitimate interests of consumers.
The Minister's concessions and his promise to publish the criteria under subsection (6) and the guidance under subsection (7) are very welcome. However, I hope the Minister agrees that it is important in this primary legislation to get the wording exactly right and that we do need bodies which are "sufficiently representative of the legitimate interests of consumers".
It may be that the Minister has a draft list of the bodies that will be designated. It would greatly assist the Committee if he could share at least the terminology with us so that we can understand the number and nature of the organisations that are likely to be designated. Presumably he has given the matter some considerable thought. I beg to move.
Lord Sharman: Amendment No. 43 in this group seeks to clarify the issue of who may bring these super-complaints. It concerns those consumer bodies which also have trading arms or commercial interests. We would like clarification from the Minister that it would be inappropriate for such bodies to be able to bring super-complaints where the business against which the complaint is brought is in competition with their trading arm. That would be wholly inappropriate. It may well be that the Minister will tell the Committee that the guidance to which he referred earlier, and which will be published in draft before Report stage, will clarify this issue in its entirety. We believe that it is an important issue.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 47 and 48, which are grouped with Amendment No. 42.
I am grateful for the temperate language that has been used to skate around what can undoubtedly be a sensitive issue—that is, consumers versus business
1206
interests. Everyone is conscious that the consumer movement and the Consumer Association are impeccable in many ways, but in the context of the Bill the question needs to be asked whether in practice under the super-complaints procedure there is a danger of a lacuna appearing after the event. I hope that the Minister will look on this series of debates as providing him with an opportunity to tell the Committee not only that we have got it wrong but that we have said sufficient for him to think again.
I have concerns about the introduction of super-complaints on a statutory basis although it is an extension of current procedures. Consumer groups able to bring such complaints should not themselves have a commercial interest in the same area if the system is to be seen to be fair. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. If we are to avoid costs to business, the OFT must deal with such complaints judiciously and only on the basis of clear evidence of abuse. We question any extension of such complaints into the US-style class actions which could lead to excessive claims with resultant costs for consumers as a whole. I fear that the Government may already have embarked on such a path without further discussion on the introduction of damages for consumers under the law.
The Consumers Association is not a representative body but a private club or special interest group with its own commercial trading interests. 'That is perfectly fair. I was a member of the Consumers Association when it was established. I believe that we all support it. However, enforcement agencies should be independent, accountable to public authorities of one kind or another and riot at the same time the competitor of those against whom they are potential enforcers. Those are legitimate questions. As I indicated earlier, I have taken advice from the British Retail Consortium, which is associated with the All-Party Retail Industry Group.
I support Amendments Nos. 44, 47 and 48 which stand in my name. Amendment No. 44 proposes the following paragraph,
"is not itself a trading body or connected to a trading body which could itself be the object of a complaint".
The Minister may say that he is not prepared to accept the amendment as I am trying to read too much into the situation. That may be correct.
Amendment No. 47 proposes the following paragraph,
"and is genuinely representative of the collective interests of consumers and exists solely for that purpose".
Again, the Minister may tell us that that "ain't necessarily so".
Amendment No. 48 proposes the following paragraph:
"No body may be designated where that body, or any person or body connected with that body for the purposes of conducting a business, could itself be the object of a super-complaint".

1207
The Minister and his advisers who have consulted on the matter have their own sense of what is right. However, can the Minister assure me and many others that our sense that there may be an injustice here is unfounded?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 47 and 48. There are essentially two issues here. One is the request for reassurance that the designated bodies will be sufficiently representative of the legitimate interests of consumers. The second issue concerns how we deal with those bodies which have a trading arm. I shall deal with those two issues in turn.
As regards the designation of bodies, we have given a commitment to publish the relevant criteria. Only groups that request super-complaint status can be designated. The Secretary of State will publish the criteria against which possible candidates will be assessed. It is thought that the criteria will include requirements that bodies act independently and with integrity while being impartial. In addition, bodies will be expected to demonstrate that they represent and/or protect the interests of consumers and that they have the capability to put together reasoned super-complaints. We shall consult fully on the criteria. The Secretary of State will also issue guidance on the application procedure. The Secretary of State will be able to amend the list of designated super-complainants.
The second question concerns the anxiety about a conflict of interest if consumer bodies have the right to bring super-complaints in which they have a commercial interest, for example making a complaint against a business that is in competition with its trading arm or even being the object of a super-complaint itself. I should like to assure the Committee that the criteria will act as a safeguard against such an occurrence. It is intended that the designation of bodies with trading arms will include provisions to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are properly dealt with. We believe that the fact that a body has a trading arm should not disqualify it from super-complainant status, provided that the trading arm does not control the body and that any profits made by the trading arm are used only to further the stated objectives of the consumer body. The overall purpose of such bodies should be the representation and/or protection of consumers, not the commercial activities of its trading arm.
Excluding bodies with trading arms would exclude many charities which often use commercial activities to fund their consumer representation or protection work. It is worth remembering that if designated bodies breach any of the criteria, the Secretary of State will be able to remove their designated status. As I said, we shall consult fully on the criteria and this will give all interested parties an opportunity to raise their concerns. They will be better able to do so once they have seen the criteria.
1208
It is therefore clear that we have recognised that a potential problem exists. The criteria will make it clear that we will have procedures in place which will deal with the question of whether the super-complainant bodies are able to represent the interests of consumers generally and the fact that there can be no conflict of interest when they have trading bodies. We do not want to rule out all bodies which have a trading arm because we believe that that will disqualify too many of the bodies we want to see acting in this way.
With those reassurances, I invite Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 48 not moved.]
Lord Sharmanmoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State shall review the status of a designated consumer body not less than every 12 months to determine whether such a body is an appropriate body, under subsection (6)(a) and (b), to retain the right to raise super-complaints to the OFT."
The noble Lord said: This is the final amendment in the group which deals with the designation of consumer bodies entitled to bring super-complaints. The Minister has already stated that where a designated body fails to maintain the appropriate status it will be de-designated; its right to bring such a complaint will be removed.
The objective of the amendment is to ensure that the status of so designated consumer bodies is reviewed on a regular basis. We have taken as an example every 12 months but that is not cast in stone. Consumer bodies may not be bringing complaints all the time but they may be changing their status or arrangements. We believe that it will be appropriate for the Secretary of State to conduct a regular review of those bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I have two amendments in the group. They point in the same direction as that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, but journey a little further down the road. The intention of the amendments is to probe the Government's lack of power under Clause 11 to de-designate a body once designated. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has an elegant and kindly proposal in Amendment No. 49 and the Minister may feel that the Opposition Front Bench is being uncharacteristically harsh in its Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
My concern here is not so much to take a "drop dead" approach, but to ensure that on the face of the Bill there is a clearly stated mechanism for reviewing

1209
the performance of a designated body, containing criteria for removing it from the list in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Brennan: Perhaps I may raise two points. The first relates to the period of 12 months which Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 seek to introduce. That, it seems to me, would be an unduly onerous requirement on properly designated bodies. They would be spending the last three months of each year meeting a bureaucratic requirement to confirm that whatever standards that are thought necessary are being met.
Much more important, however, is Amendment No. 50, which has within it an implicit message which I fear is entirely wrong. It assumes that upon the making of a complaint the OFT must come to a conclusion which involves action or no action. But surely that does not pre-empt the OFT, on the receipt of a complaint, in addressing that complaint to the affected commercial entity with a view to its accepting the substance of the complaint or coming to some satisfactory arrangement that does not require the OFT to take action. Clause 50 as presently drafted would pre-empt that short-term effective compromise solution, which I hope is implicit in these procedures.
Lord Borrie: My noble friend Lord Brennan has made a very apt comment. The idea—
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Lord for giving way, as he always does. I think I made it clear that this is intended to be a probing amendment to tease out the requirement for some provision on the face of the Bill for de-designation. I entirely accept that it is at the harsh end of the scale and is not something that I myself should necessarily want to see on the face of the Bill.
Lord Borrie: I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord has said. The idea of penalising the body because it has made more than one complaint which is not successful seems to be just one way of knocking on the head the whole process of super-complaints and designated bodies. It seems as though those who drafted Amendment No. 50 have had second thoughts halfway through. Instead of saying that the Secretary of State "shall" revoke the entitlement of the consumer body to make a complaint, the words used are, "shall consider revoking". So it does not get you anywhere at all. On the basis that this is entirely a probing amendment, I think that there is very little to be said for it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, slightly withdrew his position on this. "Two strikes and you are out" is probably not the right approach to consumer organisations in this case.
Lord Kingsland: I apologise for intervening. I do not think it can be said that I "slightly" withdrew it. I think I made it absolutely clear that it was a probing amendment, and it was on that basis that I hoped the
1210
noble Lord would respond. I quite take the point that "two strikes and you are out" would be unacceptably harsh in these circumstances.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I take the point. Perhaps I may deal with the generality of the amendments. They would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the status of designated super-complainants at least every 12 months, and to review the status of consumer bodies that make unsuccessful complaints.
Essentially, the amendments are unnecessary. There will already be proper safeguards in place to ensure that bodies designated as super-complainants act properly. We have already considered those. In order to be designated in the first place, bodies will have to meet criteria that the Secretary of State will publish, which will be fully consulted on. If a body at any time acts in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria, the Secretary of State will be able to revoke the designation. That will ensure that there is an ongoing review of the way in which the super-complaints procedure is working and will enable the Secretary of State to take quicker action in the event of a super-complainant breaching the criteria than might be the case if she had to wait for the next annual review.
Also, a legal requirement for an annual or more frequent review would introduce an unnecessary administrative burden on the Government and consumer bodies and would be extremely bureaucratic. We are clear that bodies that abuse and cease to meet the criteria will have their designation revoked. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will be reassured and will not press their amendments.
Lord Kingsland: It may be the lateness of the hour, but I cannot put my finger on exactly where the power to revoke the designation is contained. It may well be there. Can the Minister point out where it is?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that it would be an implied power to amend the order under the Interpretation Act. That would allow the Secretary of State to de-designate or revoke the designation.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I should like to hear that argument developed on the clause. Would it not be prudent in any case for the Minister to have an express power to de-designate? That would not undermine the philosophy of Clause 11, but would provide a highly desirable balance, in my submission. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to consider that over the summer.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I should be happy to take that point away and consider it. If there is any doubt about the Secretary of State's powers to do that, we shall come back with amendments to take care of that point.
Lord Sharman: Having heard the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sharman: Members of the Committee may not be aware that my noble friend Lord Phillips has been ill of late and has already exceeded his permitted stay in the House today. With regard to his notification that he wished to oppose the Question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill, he has asked me to say that, having heard the Minister's response to a number of the amendments on the clause, he is now satisfied that the consumer bodies are to be designated objectively. He therefore withdraws his objection to the clause.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [The Competition Appeal Tribunal]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 38, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
The noble Lord said: The aim of Amendment No. 54 and the consequential Amendment No. 55 is to question whether it is appropriate for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to select the panel of tribunal members other than the chairmen. It is not clear what qualifications the Minister is expecting other members of the tribunal to have. However, it is undesirable that a tribunal which is intended to form a single unit, although with clearly more than one member sitting on it, should owe its legitimacy to two separate Secretaries of State. There will be the danger—not the certainty, but the danger—of a lack of coherence. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: I am rather surprised by this amendment. I believe that it is most appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to appoint the president and the chairman because they are lawyers, whose legal qualification, from judge downwards, is specified in the schedule to the legislation on the composition of appeals tribunals. Conversely, one would not expect the other members to be lawyers. One would expect them to be businessmen or from other walks of life and to be representative in the manner of other tribunals such as employment tribunals. The chairmen of other tribunals are often very well qualified lawyers, whereas the other members are not.
It is much more appropriate that the Secretary of State—presumably the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—should select the panel from which the other panel members are drawn. The Secretary of State has his or her hands on the world of business, commerce and consumer organisations. I see no difficulty in distinguishing the person who appoints the president and the chairman from the person who appoints the other members.
Lord Brennan: At Second Reading, I think that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House to speak about this clause on the constitution and functioning of the competition appeal tribunal. The emphasis with which I sought to endow it was flexibility and
1212
informality. The flexibility will come from a broad spread of expertise among those who constitute the tribunal. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie on that point.
As I said at Second Reading, I think that the informality is essential to the successful functioning of this tribunal. It should not be converted into yet another arm of the High Court. Rather, it should be an adjunct to the competitive world in which problems are quickly analysed and efficiently solved. This combination of appointment of judicial chairmen by the Lord Chancellor and the expertise of members appointed by the Secretary of State is a happy compromise.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for his intervention. As I understand it, the reason for having members of the tribunal in addition to lawyers is not the desirability of informality but the need for expertise in matters other than the law. As I understand it, the current trend in competition cases is towards much greater involvement in the complex economic analysis of markets than was the case 10 or 20 years ago. It is therefore highly desirable that professional economists play a bigger part in the jurisprudential process.
So I can quite see why it is desirable to have other experts. However, it does not necessarily follow that the process should be more informal. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is well aware, the High Court can sometimes be extremely informal. In some circumstances, appearing before some judges can be more informal than appearing before the competition tribunal. Informality in itself is not a necessary ingredient or even a particularly desirable component.
Lord Brennan: I hope that the noble Lord was not assuming, when I used the word "informality", such a superficial understanding of the word as he implied. I meant to suggest—I hope that this was clear—that expertise by lay members who know what they are talking about will enable the entire tribunal, including the chairman, to reach a much more informal solution to a problem, which will properly emerge from their expertise rather than the chairman's legal experience.
Lord Kingsland: I do not know whether it will help the Minister if I respond for a second time to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Borrie, that this non-legal expertise is crucial to the success of the tribunal. My concern is about the way in which those other experts—economists and in certain circumstances others with professional skills—are appointed. My submission is that it would be far better to have one Minister appointing all members of the tribunal, but in circumstances in which non-lawyers form part of the tribunal, on the advice of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There should be a joint approach to the selection of the whole tribunal, rather than the

1213
Lord Chancellor choosing the chairman and the Secretary of State choosing the other members in apparent total isolation.
Lord Borrie: Does the noble Lord agree that the Lord Chancellor's Department has tremendous knowledge of lawyers up and down the country and that details on all lawyers are kept on files there? Nowadays, those details are no doubt kept electronically for possible judicial or tribunal appointments. When it comes to economists, businessmen and the like, the Lord Chancellor does not have that available resource, whereas the Department of Trade and Industry may be expected to have it.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord is quite right; I entirely accept that. The Lord Chancellor could make his selection on the advice of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is my proposal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the lawyers need me. This debate has been carried virtually to its conclusion without ministerial intervention. We have come to the position that we all agree that we want lawyers to be the president and chairman and that we want people with relevant business experience—we will debate this in relation to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57—to form the ordinary members. The only issue left is whether the Lord Chancellor should appoint ordinary members on the advice of the Secretary of State. All that I can say is that that seems to be a quite unnecessary complication. I see no advantage in doing that the roundabout way when one can do it the direct way.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall reflect on this debate and consider whether to return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Competition Appeal Tribunal]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 193, line 30, leave out "any other relevant law and practice" and insert "commercial competition economics or business experience"
The noble Lord said: I believe that the Minister got so carried away with enthusiasm in his previous speech that he sought to reply to amendments which I had not yet moved; namely, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
I simply want to reinforce the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—I am anxious to cling on to his expertise—when he said that there should be a broad spread of expertise and that it was essential to have people,
"who know what they are talking about".
1214
Therefore, I hope very much that he will support Amendment No. 56, to which I am now speaking and which seeks to delete the rather superfluous words,
"any other relevant law and practice",
and make clear that we are talking about commercial competition economics or business experience.
I am not sure whether the words,
"any other relevant law and practice",
add very much. I hope that the Minister will accept that the words that I suggest, coming from a very inspired source, provide a far better description of the type of situation which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, sought to bring about.
Perhaps I may also mention Amendment No. 57, to which Amendment No. 56 is linked. It concerns the importance of having business as well as competition expertise. It is possible that a great deal of thought has already been given by Ministers to the composition of the tribunal. However, I hope that the Minister will make some reassuring noises as to the calibre, expertise and experience of the people whom he and his colleagues have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I do not consider the amendment to be at all appropriate because I believe that chairmen should be lawyers. The other members should not be lawyers. This is an amendment to a schedule which deals with eligibility for appointment as a chairman. I believe that it should remain as it is—that is, having experience or knowledge,
"either of competition law and practice or any other relevant law and practice".
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said that the final words seem to be redundant. However, I suggest that a requirement for expertise in competition law would be too narrow in that not many solicitors or barristers would claim to be experts in competition law and practice. However, if they are experienced in commercial law generally or something a little wider than that, then the pool from which to draw becomes a little wider, and no doubt they will develop their expertise in competition law as time goes by. I believe that it would be far too narrow if the requirement was only for experience in competition law and practice.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It seems to me that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may or may not apply to Amendment No. 56. It does not apply to Amendment No. 57, which deals with membership of the service. Therefore, the amendment moved by my noble friend would ensure that the,
"appointed members must include members who have business as well as competition expertise".
We have dealt with this issue several times today. I believe that it is important that there is practical experience within the competition service. If there is not, there is always a danger that this will become a theoretical as opposed to a practical exercise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said it for me. So far as concerns Amendment No. 56, it is clear that the chairman of a tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor should be a lawyer. It is also clear—to me, at any rate—that the tribunal is acquiring new responsibilities, for example, for claims for damages and judicial review of decisions, and that requires the possibility of wider expertise than simply that in competition law.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 57, I am not against widening the range of skills of the appointed members, but I do not believe that it attacks the right target. A wide range of individuals could usefully contribute to the running of the service. A business person may be able to add value, as suggested by the amendment, but, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, a lawyer could be an ordinary member. It is a quasi-judicial body and we would not rule that out.
I believe that the answer to Amendment No. 57 is that we are very reluctant to limit in statute the scope of people who might be eligible to apply in response to an advertisement.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The Minister has had an opportunity to clarify his vision of what the tribunal will be. That has been useful. The only issue to which I take exception is the seemingly rather inconsequential theme that lawyers cannot have business experience, or that business and lawyers do not seem to go together. I would hope that the Minister would know that there are some 55,000 lawyers involved in the business world, some of whom are exceedingly distinguished. We should not allow the myth that lawyers are isolated from business to run any further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is why I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The thought terrifies me, but I do not think that they should be excluded.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I should point out that I did not say that it should be
"either of competition law and practice"
and then immediately to insert "commercial competition". I wanted the disjunctive "or" to remain. However, this has been an interesting opportunity to clarify the position, which the Minister has done. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Competition Service]:
[Amendment Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 197, line 2, after "anything" insert "reasonably necessary"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 59 refers to the procedure to be laid down for the running of the competition service. It addresses paragraph 10, which states:
"The Service has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the performance of its functions".
We seek merely to add after "anything" the expression "reasonably necessary". I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Am I right in assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not move Amendment No. 60 concerning transparency, accountability and proportionality?
Lord Kingsland: Indeed, the noble Lord is right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That will save time. I was about to say and cannot resist saying that all of the criteria are worthy but they do not happen simply because we put the words in the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister must be aware that I did not move the amendments simply because I did not want to give him the pleasure of saying that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am too fly for that. One always answers the questions one wants to answer, regardless of the questions asked. That is the basic principle of answering questions from the Dispatch Box.
The answer to Amendment No. 59 is simple. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, knows as well as I that there is a general requirement on the part of all public bodies to behave fairly. If the competition service, which is the subject of this schedule, were ever to be the subject of judicial review, the court could in an appropriate case also consider the issue of whether it acted proportionately. We do not need to make specific provision for that. Legislation would be twice as long if we did.
Lord Kingsland: I am not quite sure that that is so. I should be most interested to hear the Minister say something further on the issue. It is clear that the body must satisfy the classic Wednesbury rules; in other words, it cannot behave so unreasonably that no reasonable person could possibly behave in that way. It is also clear that, since 1998, it is subject to the principles of proportionality under the Human Rights Act. However, the test of "reasonably necessary" is, in my submission, a stronger test than that under either the Wednesbury rules or under the principle of proportionality. It requires the decision-maker to be objectively satisfied that the particular solution that he has chosen is the correct one.

1217
I expected the Minister to say that that is also implied in such clauses. If he responds by saying that expressly at the Dispatch Box, he will have entirely satisfied the objective that I seek.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall be delighted to do so. I believe that we are talking about paragraph 10 of Schedule 3. The provision that the competition service "may regulate its own procedure" is required to provide the service with the power that it needs to organise its own affairs. This is a standard provision. The Competition Commission has the same power in effect under Schedule 7(5) to the Competition Act 1998.
In particular, in reference to paragraph 10, the service needs to have the power to do,
"anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the performance of its functions".
This is another standard provision. I should add that, again, the Competition Commission has the same power under paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the 1998 Act.
Lord Kingsland: I think that the Minister has given me my assurance. However, I shall go away and study Hansard tomorrow in the hope that I shall be entirely satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Tribunal rules]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 7, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
"() No statutory instrument shall be made under subsection (4) unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: In debating the powers of the tribunal, I believe that we are all agreed that we are giving the competition appeal tribunal significant power. It is essential, therefore, that we should provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the rules. At present, under Clause 15(4):
"The power to make Tribunal rules is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
I know that the Minister made reference to procedure earlier when dealing with another set of regulations, but I hope that he will accept that, rather than the negative procedure, the 'affirmative procedure is preferable in this case because we are talking about detailed tribunal rules of a tribunal that has significant power. Parliamentary scrutiny should be available. That is why I wish to provide for no statutory instrument to be made,
"unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament",
under the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As always, the short answer is that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory
1218
Reform Committee thought that the negative procedure was appropriate. We always follow its recommendations. We do not like to have unnecessary parliamentary activity unless it is called for by the committee.
The longer answer is that we circulated a draft of the rules to Members last week. We are carrying out a consultation exercise. We are consulting the president of the tribunal, the Competition Commission, the OFT and anybody else in a position to offer informed contribution. The opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny actually arises now. If the Opposition want to query any of the rules circulated in draft they can bring that up on Report. I do not recommend that, but it may allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I have not vet had the opportunity to scrutinise the draft rules. Perhaps the Minister will check as to whether or not I was included on the circulation list.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The copy I saw was addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. However, if a copy has not yet arrived, I shall see that one does so sharpish.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: As always, the Minister responded positively and constructively to the suggestion by delivering what I am sure all Members of the Committee would like to have; that is, an opportunity to scrutinise the rules we are debating. Therefore in acknowledging the Minister's positive contribution, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Tribunal: procedure]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 199, line 11, leave from "shall" to end of line 12 and insert "exclude"
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments relates to page 199 in Schedule 4 and "Decisions of the Tribunal". In paragraph 1(2) it says,
"In preparing the document the Tribunal"—
I prefer to insert the word "exclude" but the paragraph states—
"shall have regard to the need for excluding, so far as is practicable".
Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 leave out the words, "in its opinion", in each subparagraph (a) to (c) in subparagraph (2). The schedule provides that the Competition Appeal Tribunal may exclude information contrary to the public interest or confidential information. The problem is that the wording throughout the paragraph at present places a great deal of discretion in the hands of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in relation to the disclosure of sensitive business information. I hope that that explanation helps the Minister to deal with the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take this group of amendments very seriously. The amendments would

1219
ensure that when a tribunal publishes its decision, having regard to the need for excluding anything which would in its opinion be contrary to the public interest or that significantly harms individuals or businesses, the tribunal must simply exclude such material without having any discretion or margin of appraisal.
The problem is that we need to strike a balance between the adequate protection of individual, business and public interests. This is a quasi-judicial tribunal, subject to what the lawyers say. The balance we have achieved between protecting individual interests and seeing that as far as possible the tribunal has its reasoning in public I believe to be right. To change it as these amendments propose would distort that balance against the transparency of justice.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I agree that it is necessary to get the right balance. I should like to reflect therefore on what the Minister said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 199, line 30, after "costs" insert "or expenses"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 66, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 to 83. These are technical and drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 70 ensure that the correct terminology from Scots law for "costs", namely "expenses", is entered in all the appropriate places.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 ensure that, where the competition appeal tribunal has made an order for any monetary award to be paid to a consumer body for onwards distribution to the individuals concerned—we have debated the principle of the issue of consumer bodies—the body can subsequently enforce that order on behalf of the individuals.
The new versions of paragraphs 6 and 7 and the new paragraph 8, all of which are inserted by Amendment No. 71, are necessary in order take into account the amendments to Clauses 17 and 18 made by Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 94 and 95, which we can discuss at leisure at the next Committee sitting. The changes allow for the possibility of an order under the new Section 47B(5A) for the payment of damages awards to consumer bodies, and the possibility for a claim under the new Section 47A(1) for a sum of money other than damages. In all circumstances, as before, awards made to individuals in the course of consumer group claims can only be enforced by the relevant individual with the permission of the High Court or Court of Session. Any costs awarded against the consumer body can only be enforced against the body and not the individuals involved in the group claim.
1220
The new paragraph 8 explains what the word "damages" covers for the purpose of the whole schedule and avoids the need to make such an explanation each time "damages" are mentioned.
Amendment No. 72 enables the competition appeal tribunal rules to stipulate the time period in which damages claims can be brought. Again we can discuss that at leisure. The amendment makes it clear that, in the case of group consumer claims brought under Clause 18, the time period relates in the first instance to the individual claim rather than to the proceedings as a whole.
We envisage that the tribunal rules will specify a limitation period of two years from the date of a final decision after any appeals in a competition case. In the unusual case where the loss suffered by an individual claimant occurred after that date, the two-year period would run from the date of the loss. In the courts, claims of this kind would be subject to a limitation period of six years from the accrual of the cause of action; that is to say, the date of the damage or loss occurred. However, in the case of claims before the tribunal, such a period would be inappropriate. A claimant does not have any possibility of lodging a claim until the relevant decision has been taken by the OFT or the European Commission, and any appeals have been exhausted. It is therefore more appropriate for any time period to begin with the earliest point at which a claim can be brought. Two years is enough.
Amendment No. 74 clarifies the situations in which the competition appeal tribunal will be able to reject claims being made under Section 47A or 47B. It is obviously important that the tribunal rules should give it the power to reject any claims that have no reasonable grounds, or do not fulfil the criteria under which claims can be brought at an early stage. This redraft of paragraph 12 clarifies the grounds on which the tribunal will be able to reject claims for damages. It allows the tribunal to reject claims that do not meet the requirements for a consumer claim or where an individual involved in a group claim has not given his consent. The tribunal will still be able to reject any proceedings it considers vexatious.
Amendment No. 75 is consequential on the repeal of Section 56 of the Competition Act 1998.
Amendment No. 76 enables the competition appeal tribunal rules to make provisions for awarding costs against individuals that were incurred in an individual claim before that claim was subsumed into a consumer group claim.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 simplify the provisions that govern the interest payable on any sums awarded by the competition appeal tribunal.
Amendment No. 80 enables competition appeal tribunal rules to be made in relation to the withdrawal of individual claims included in proceedings brought under Section 47B.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 73, 77, 81, 82 and 83 are consequential amendments that are required as a result of the redrafting of Clause 17.

1221
I am sorry to rush through that, but the important point is that that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury wrote to everyone about these amendments in advance. The second point is that these are paving amendments for the substantive amendments which we are free to discuss, as I say, at our leisure on Thursday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 67 to 83:
Page 199, line 32, leave out "or costs" and insert ", costs or expenses"
Page 200, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) for the purpose of enforcing a decision to award damages, costs or expenses (other than a decision to which paragraph (c) applies), by the person to whom the sum concerned was awarded; and
(c) for the purpose of enforcing a decision to award damages which is the subject of an order under section 47B(5A) of the 1998 Act, by the specified body concerned."
Page 200, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) for the purpose of enforcing a decision to award damages, costs or expenses (other than a decision to which paragraph (c) applies), by the person to whom the sum concerned was awarded; and
(c) for the purpose of enforcing a decision to award damages which is the subject of an order under section 47B(5A) of the 1998 Act, by the specified body concerned."
Page 200, line 16, leave out "or costs" and insert "costs or expenses"
Page 200, line 25, leave out paragraphs 6 and 7 and insert—
"6 A decision of the Tribunal in proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act which—

(a) awards damages to an individual in respect of a claim made or continued on his behalf (but is not the subject of an order under section 47B(5A)); or

(b) awards costs or expenses to an individual in respect of proceedings in respect of a claim made under section 47A of that Act prior to its being continued on his behalf in the proceedings under section 47B,

may only be enforced by the individual concerned with the permission of the High Court or Court of Session.
7 An award of costs or expenses against a specified body in proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act may not be enforced against any individual on whose behalf a claim was made or continued in those proceedings.
8 In this Part of this Schedule any reference to damages includes a reference to any sum of money (other than costs or expenses) which may be awarded in respect of a claim made under section 47A of the 1998 Act or included in proceedings under section 47B of that Act."
Page 201, line 6, at end insert—
"(3) Tribunal rules may make provision as to the time limits for making claims to which section 47A of the 1998 Act applies in proceedings under section 47A or 47B."
Page 201, line 8, leave out "a claim for damages under section 47A" and insert "proceedings under section 47A or 47B"
Page 201, line 14, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—"
12 Tribunal rules may provide for the Tribunal—

(a) to reject the whole of any proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act if it considers that the person bringing the proceedings is not entitled to do so or that the proceedings do not satisfy the requirements of section 4713(1);

1222

(b) to reject any claim which is included in proceedings under section 47B if it considers that— (i) the claim is not a consumer claim (within the meaning of section 47B(2)) which may be included in such proceedings; or

(ii) the individual concerned has not consented to its being made or continued on his behalf in such proceedings;

(c) to reject any claim made under section 47A of the 1998 Act or included in proceedings under section 47B of that Act if it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for making it."

Page 202, line 12, leave out from "in" to end of line 15 and insert "paragraph 1(2)"
Page 202, line 32, at end insert—
"(1A) Rules under sub-paragraph (1)(h) may provide, in relation to a claim made under section 47A of the 1998 Act which is continued on behalf of an individual in proceedings under section 47B of that Act, for costs or expenses to be awarded to or against that individual in respect of proceedings on that claim which took place before it was included in the proceedings under section 47B of that Act.
(1B) Otherwise Tribunal rules may not provide for costs or expenses to be awarded to or against an individual on whose behalf a claim is made or continued in proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act."
Page 203, line 9, leave out "or" and insert "and"
Page 203, line 18, leave out "damages or other"
Page 203, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 204, line 7, at end insert—
"(2) Tribunal rules may make, in relation to a claim Included in proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act, any provision which may be made under sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the whole proceedings."
Page 204, line 30, leave out "for damages"
Page 204, line 40, leave out from "claim" to end of line 41 and insert "made in proceedings under section 47A of the 1998 Act"
Page 205, line 1, leave out from "provision" to "in" in line 2 and insert "in connection with the transfer of a claim to which section 47A of the 1998 Act applies"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Education Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed to the words so restored to the Bill; with further amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof and a consequential amendment to the Bill; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons amendments he printed. (HI. Bill 104)
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Limitation of Actions
  Limitation of Actions
  Government Publication Schemes
  Government Publication Schemes
  Railway Activity in Scotland
  Railway Activity in Scotland
  Northern Ireland: Air Travel
  Northern Ireland: Air Travel
  Businesses: Tax Affairs and Redress of Grievance
  Businesses: Tax Affairs and Redress of Grievance
  Single Currency
  Single Currency
  Road Fuel Duty
  Road Fuel Duty
  Women in the Criminal Justice System
  Women in the Criminal Justice System
  Forensic Science Service
  Forensic Science Service
  Child Protection on the Internet
  Child Protection on the Internet
  Dome Site: Decontamination
  Dome Site: Decontamination
  AONBs: Sporting Arena Applications
  AONBs: Sporting Arena Applications
  Leasehold
  Leasehold
  Planning Green Paper
  Planning Green Paper
  Anschutz Entertainment Group
  Anschutz Entertainment Group
  Military Air Transport Emissions
  Military Air Transport Emissions
  EOC: Expenditure on Law Enforcement
  EOC: Expenditure on Law Enforcement
  Agricultural Grants
  Agricultural Grants
  Defra Office, Worcester
  Defra Office, Worcester
  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Infectious Diseases in Livestock
  Infectious Diseases in Livestock
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  DPP Annual Report
  DPP Annual Report
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  NHS Estates Executive Agency
  NHS Estates Executive Agency
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Charities and the Voluntary Sector
  Charities and the Voluntary Sector
  Civil Service Fast Stream
  Civil Service Fast Stream
  Downing Street: Entertainment Budget
  Downing Street: Entertainment Budget
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Early Years Education and Childcare
  Early Years Education and Childcare
  Funding of Opposition Parties in the House of Lords
  Funding of Opposition Parties in the House of Lords
  Parliamentary Website
  Parliamentary Website