Sitting of 17 July 2002

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

    Health Services
    Adam Price: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly concerning the specialised health services commission for Wales consultation paper. [67872]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have frequent meetings with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, and health is a matter that we regularly discuss.
    Adam Price: The Secretary of State will be aware of the strength of feeling in west Wales about the proposal to centralise paediatric services in University hospital Cardiff. He will also be aware of the South Wales Evening Post petition, which has received more than 72,000 signatures. How has the specialised health service commission allocated its budget to date between the different regions of Wales? Does he agree that the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration in Cardiff should base their health strategy on networks of excellence that are accessible to patients in all parts of Wales, not just to those in Cardiff and the south-east?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the details of how the specialised health service commission for Wales operates because that is a matter for the National Assembly, not the Government. I agree that we need centres of excellence throughout Wales, but I am sure he is aware that the commission, which was established by the health authorities in Wales, is composed of specialists and they are giving the issues careful consideration. No doubt he is also aware that the matter is subject to public consultation. I am aware of the strength of feeling that he and other hon. Members have about the issue, but we must await the verdict of the consultation.
    Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have lobbied him on the deep anger that exists in Swansea and south-west Wales because of the threat to the paediatric neurosurgery unit at Morriston in my constituency. The anger is evidenced by the magnificent campaign of the local newspaper, the
    270
    South Wales Evening Post, which has received more than 70,000 signatures. Does he realise that many local medics say that the consultation process is flawed? Does he agree with me and, I hope, the First Secretary that devolution should not mean centralisation in Cardiff? Centralisation was wrong in London; it is equally wrong in Wales.
    Mr. Murphy: Devolution of health services to local communities is a main feature of the new reorganisation of the health service in Wales. That is what it is about, and I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend on that. I know he understands that we have to balance the importance of achieving excellence in the delivery of medical service, which is recommended by the experts in that sector, with the issues that he raises. I am sure that his concerns, together with those of other hon. Members, will be made clear to the First Minister and the Health Minister. However, I emphasise that the decision will be made by the commission rather than the Assembly.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State rightly says that the matter is subject to public consultation. As we heard, more than 70,000 people have signed the petition organised by the South Wales Evening Post. The unit is important not just for Swansea, but for the surrounding areas, including west Wales. We know that there is a good road network to Morriston hospital. It has a helipad, which Cardiff does not, and skilled staff whose commitment and dedication save lives. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the provision of that facility with the Health and Social Services Minister? Cardiff does excel in some specialities, as do other areas, but when paediatric neurological experts state that first-class care is needed within a two-hour period, the facility cannot be allowed to move on health grounds alone because the consequences will be grave.
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I give an undertaking to talk about the issue with the First Minister and the Health Minister in Cardiff. The hon. Gentleman understands, as a native of Swansea, how important it is that medical services are of highest standards in west Wales. He can rest assured that I will take up the matter.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the health service commission that many of us in the House regard its approach as hypocritical? It holds it against Swansea that it does not have intensive care beds, but it refused to allow the hospital to have those beds despite a recommendation by the Welsh Office in 1998.
    Mr. Murphy: The fact that my right hon. Friend has added his voice to the campaign is significant. He, too, can rest assured that I will raise his specific point with the Health Minister.

    Regional Airports
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly regarding assistance for regional airports. [67873]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with the First Minister about matters affecting Wales, including a wide range of transport issues.
    I was delighted to hear the recent announcement that BMI is to use Cardiff International airport as a base for flights to the European mainland. That is a tribute to the airport operators as well as to the Assembly and its partners in marketing Wales as an attractive place to do business.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Many people from Somerset use the airports at Bristol and at Cardiff, where BMI is now an operator, to go abroad, and one problem with getting to both those regional airports is the road system. Given that the regional consultation document will come out later this year, will the Minister do what he can, when the consultation is over, to make sure that people who want to use the airports, in an area that is not well known for easy access, will have the chance to do so?
    Mr. Murphy: Obviously, I will do what I can. In the job that I hold I cannot promise that I can do much for Bristol, but I can probably do a little more for Cardiff. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that in south-west England, which includes his constituency, and south Wales there is a need for the road and rail system to integrate with the air transport system. He made valid points, and I shall certainly make sure that I raise them when I discuss the matter with the First Minister.
    Mr. John Smith: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the best way to boost regional airports is to attract low-cost airlines, such as bmibaby, which we have just secured as an operator at Cardiff International airport. That will mean an increase of up to 1 million passengers a year coming through Cardiff, but it could also mean 500,000 traffic movements on the road to the airport, so it will present challenges concerning access. Will my right hon. Friend look into that matter?
    Mr. Murphy: The point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) is exactly the one made by my hon. Friend. I agree with him about the numbers. He will know that about 1.5 million passengers a year use Cardiff International airport, and with BMI coming on board that figure will rise to 2.5 million. That is good news for Wales and for my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Lembit Öpik: The experiences of the south of Ireland have shown that the economic development of regional airports directly stimulates economic development around them, and that has been very beneficial. Is the Secretary of State aware that Welshpool and other regional airports in Wales have strategic plans to, for example, extend runways and terminal facilities? Is he willing to lend Wales Office support to the inevitable consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority as those airports seek to extend their operations?
    Mr. Murphy: I very much take the hon. Gentleman's point about regional airports as well as the other airports in Wales that I have mentioned, and I have been to Welshpool airport. The Under-Secretary of State for
    272
    Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who deals with these matters, have been in discussion about the regional air services study, which will come out shortly. It will examine the need for road and rail links to airports in Wales, as well as their potential for economic growth. They are indeed magnets for such growth, and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will take up those matters.
    Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend use his position to ask the management of BAe in Broughton in north-east Wales if it will open its runway to commercial private use for airlines in Wales? After all, BAe has received £250 million of public funds to help it to develop the airbus, and the least that it could do is open the runway.
    Mr. Murphy: I will be in north Wales in a few weeks, and I shall certainly make sure that I raise the issue. It is important because although many people in north Wales use Manchester airport, a regional airport in north-east Wales would be a great advantage to my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Air Wales on its new routes from Cardiff to Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are a great boost to Cardiff in the light of British Airways's reduction and withdrawal of services from the airport? In recognising the importance of regional airports such as Swansea and Cardiff, will he set up and chair a working party including, for example, the Welsh Development Agency and local authority chief executives and development officers, who can drive forward and assist regional airports in Wales so that the whole of Wales, especially the outer-lying areas, can fully benefit from the extra business opportunities that this will bring?
    Mr. Murphy: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a special interest in the airport at Swansea, and he is right to point out that Cardiff has new services to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I am aware of the aspirations to have a service from Swansea to Scotland, which would be good news for west Wales and indeed for Wales in general. As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I chair a working party, it would be a good idea for him and other hon. Members who are interested in these issues to meet me to discuss the way forward.

    Policing (Cross-border Co-operation)
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of cross-border co-operation between Welsh and English police forces. [67874]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): There is good co-operation between the Welsh and English police forces aimed at combating organised crime. The national services, including the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, also provide valuable links across all police forces.
    Mr. O'Brien: Given the 13 per cent. rise in overall recorded crime in north Wales, especially the 19 per cent.

    273
    rise in robbery, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I have been told by the Cheshire constabulary that many of the criminals committing robberies in my constituency come over the border from north Wales. May I urge him to ensure that maximum co-operation is permitted and encouraged between police forces, and that no political and administrative boundaries or differences in accountability can possibly get in the way of that full co-operation?
    Mr. Touhig: I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. Cross-border co-operation is important if we are to reduce crime. He mentions the crime figures for north Wales. I can tell him that overall crime has fallen by 22 per cent. since the Government came into office, which compares with the doubling in crime that occurred during the 18 years when his party was in government.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Can my hon. Friend assure us that there is full co-operation between the police forces of south Wales and of Bristol to stem the dreadful epidemic of cocaine, especially crack cocaine? It already has too strong a hold on Bristol and its dealers are now looking to expand their market into south Wales.
    Mr. Touhig: On 5 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the three south Wales police forces in response to increased criminal activity, particularly in relation to drugs coming into Wales. The police forces have created a joint specialised drugs unit and are diverting resources into combating drug misuse. They are also working closely with their colleagues on the other side of the River Severn. To a certain extent, the supply of drugs in Wales is based on geographical factors. Supplies to the south come largely from drug dealers in Bristol and the west midlands, while those to the north come from Manchester and Liverpool. Cross-border co-operation is vital if we are to rid ourselves of that misery.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Many people who live in the Welsh marches live in very isolated communities, such as south Herefordshire, and when they dial 999 they want an immediate response, regardless of the badge on the emergency vehicle that comes. Given that fire brigades regularly cross borders to attend fires, should not police cars also do so, so that the closest patrol car responds to an incident?
    Mr. Touhig: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a difficult issue in some of the marches areas. I undertake to pass his point on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Crime Reduction
    Mark Tami: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on measures to reduce crime in urban areas. [67875]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about a number of issues affecting Wales, including measures aimed at reducing crime.
    Mark Tami: I thank the Minister for that answer. Antisocial behaviour is a crime that blights many of our towns and cities in Wales. I recently met community leaders in Connahs Quay, where such activities are increasing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appropriate authorities need to be far more rigorous in their use of antisocial behaviour orders if we are to counter that threat?
    Mr. Touhig: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, I believe that he recently hosted a conference in Connahs Quay to discuss issues arising from crime levels there. Several initiatives are being considered by members of the Flintshire crime reduction partnership to tackle underage drinking, including the introduction of proof-of-age cards. I agree with my hon. Friend that the use of antisocial behaviour orders could be greater. In my part of south-east Wales they have been used to some extent with some effect. I hope that police services and local authorities that can make an impact on such behaviour will use them much more than they have in the past.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I want to focus the Minister's attention on a specific recent urban crime: the defiling of the synagogue at Ffynone in my home city of Swansea. Does the Minister know that the previous synagogue was destroyed by the Nazis during the second world war? Is not it ironic that Nazis should be trying to destroy the current synagogue? Will he accept, through his office, the thanks of the Swansea Jewish community, including members of my family, who have lived there for more than 100 years, for the warmth and hospitality that the people of Swansea have traditionally shown to their Jewish residents?
    Mr. Touhig: I can think of nothing more offensive than desecrating a place of worship. Like all decent Welsh men and women, I was outraged by the attack on the synagogue in Swansea. The Jewish community in Swansea has always played a vibrant and important part in the life of the city, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) knows. We must condemn such actions; we should be ashamed of them in this day and age.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend knows about the drugs problem in valleys communities in south Wales. Local police reckon that 90 to 95 per cent. of local crime relates to drugs. Has he had an opportunity to decide when the all-Wales drugs conference, for which hon. Members and Assembly Members have called, will take place?
    Mr. Touhig: That matter was raised by chief constables when they met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently. I have also discussed it with colleagues, including Edwina Hart, the Assembly Minister responsible for anti-drugs policy, this morning. We take the view that such a conference should produce positive outcomes, and it should therefore have clearly defined objectives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will raise the issue when he next meets the First Minister.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given the undoubted benefits of closed-circuit television, will the Minister make representations for the next phase in next year's Budget allocation? Phase I was £3 million; phase 2 was half of that. That meant that only 13 out of 300 applications were granted in Wales. Will he make representations for an adequate budget, given the usefulness of CCTV in tackling crime?
    Mr. Touhig: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about CCTV's contribution to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, and I take his point on board. The Government have extensively supported initiatives and contributed a great deal of money so that we can have CCTV projects throughout Wales and the United Kingdom. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of it.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I, too, condemn the mindless and racist attack on the Swansea synagogue, which I shall visit on Friday.
    The latest crime figures show a 16 per cent. increase in robberies in Wales, with Gwynedd experiencing a staggering 440 per cent. increase and Bridgend a 105 per cent. increase. Detection has fallen from 41 per cent. to 39 per cent. Part of the reason for that is the fall in the numbers of police and special constables who patrol in Wales, and the increase in form filling that the police have to undertake. The Prime Minister stated that street crime, which has shot up, will be brought under control by September. Does the Minister stick by that commitment for Wales? If so, what will change to achieve that?
    Mr. Touhig: The Government have laid the foundations for the most co-ordinated attack on crime in a generation. Billions of pounds have been invested in fighting crime; there are 4,500 more policemen on the beat in England and Wales now than two years ago. There are 523 more policemen on the beat in Wales than there were when the Conservative party was last in government. Only investment and reform will tackle the menace of crime. The Tories do not understand that, which is why they have not supported our investment or reform. No wonder the Tories have no Members of Parliament in Wales; they are not credible as a political party.

    NHS Dentists
    Ann Clwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales about increasing access to NHS dentists in Wales. [67876]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with the First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister to discuss the NHS and other health matters.
    The Assembly aims to increase availability of NHS dental service provision in those parts of Wales where it is most needed, and in Wales overall, through the Welsh dental initiative scheme.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, there are fewer NHS dentists per head of the population in Wales than in any other country in the United Kingdom. Despite
    276
    the Assembly's best efforts, access to NHS dentists and registering with an NHS dentist remain extremely difficult. That is directly linked to dental fees. The Conservative party was responsible for the growth of privatisation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for the Conservative party.
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and she is of course right—whether she is responsible for the Conservative party or not, Mr. Speaker—about the reasons why the NHS dental system in Wales has been so poor. It will take a great deal of time and money to put it right. I know that she is aware that the enormously successful financial settlement that has gone to Wales from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that at last proper resources are going into the health service as well as the dental service in Wales.
    I should also tell my hon. Friend that there are 42 new dental practices, 41 expanded practices, 15 new posts in community dental services, and five mobile units at each health authority that deals with these matters. She is of course right about fees, and I shall ensure that the First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister are made aware of the points that she has made.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Owing to the unfortunate death of a dentist in Aberystwyth, the imminent retirement of a dentist in Lampeter, and the possible criminal conviction of a dentist in Cardigan, thousands of my constituents have been told to travel to Brecon, Ammanford, Milford Haven and areas outside Wales for such services—a two-day journey by public transport for pensioners in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State consider reforming NHS dental fees and talk with the Welsh Assembly about introducing salaried NHS dentists?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I shall ensure that those points are made to the appropriate Ministers in the National Assembly. The hon. Gentleman knows that about a decade ago there was a 7 per cent. cut in NHS dentists' fees, and they have not got over that. What is certain is that something like £71 million is now spent on dental services in Wales. I hope that some of that money goes to rural areas, because that is particularly where difficulties lie. I know that in his constituency only 23 dentists deal with the national health service. That is a problem, but I know it is one that the Assembly is tackling.
    Llew Smith: Does the Minister recall the statement made by the Welsh Assembly regarding the reorganisation of the NHS in Wales—made by the people who will be responsible for deciding many of the health issues that we have discussed today? Does he recall the Assembly giving a commitment that that reorganisation would be cost-neutral? Now we are told that it will cost £15.5 million. Does he believe that the people responsible for making that commitment should be subject to a compulsory numeracy hour, or was it another cheap public relations stunt by the Assembly?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's point—of course I do—but I know that he understands that,

    277
    although £10 million to £15 million will be involved in changing the system, in the first instance that will result in more locally provided services. Much more important than all that, however, is the fact that, between now and five years' time, nearly £2 billion extra will go to the health service in Wales because of the spending review of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is only the resources going into those services in Wales that will provide the insurance for our future.

    Welsh Lamb
    Michael Fabricant: If he will meet the First Secretary to discuss the sale and promotion of Welsh lamb in England. [67878]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has frequent discussions with the First Minister, and I regularly meet the Assembly Rural Affairs Minister. A wide range of issues related to agriculture are discussed, including the sale and promotion of Welsh meat beyond Wales. Next week, I am due to attend the Welsh lamb presentation at the Royal Welsh agricultural show. I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me there to promote Welsh lamb.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister makes a tempting offer; I might do just that if I can borrow his ministerial car. I invite him to visit David Trant in Welshpool. He belongs to the Waitrose Welsh assured lamb scheme, which promotes Welsh lamb. Will the Minister join me in congratulating department stores and supermarkets such as Waitrose and others which promote Welsh lamb? I invite him to read the John Lewis Partnership gazette of 1 June, which outlines the plan in considerable detail.
    Mr. Touhig: I shall commend the hon. Gentleman for a job with the Welsh Tourist Board; he does a very good job, and I know that he is also a Welsh learner. Congratulations! I also congratulate the gentleman whom he mentioned. It is important that we should take every opportunity to promote the good produce that we have in Wales. Only last week, we had a very successful food fair in Cardiff, and there are about 40 events between now and October to promote Welsh food, including Welsh lamb. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members visit Wales, where they will receive a warm welcome and taste some wonderful food.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bob Laxton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Laxton: Following the Chancellor's announcement on Monday of the huge investment in public services,
    278
    which has been warmly welcomed throughout the country—the only lack of warmth coming, I suspect, from the Conservatives—may I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome the ongoing funding of £2 million for the new deal for communities, along with the increase in resources for the neighbourhood renewal fund? That will have a strong impact on local communities. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would like to visit the Derwent new deal project in my constituency, and see the real partnership between local authorities that operates there? Does he agree with me—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I think I got the point, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it is not just about the money that is corning to the constituency of my hon. Friend and of other hon. Members; it is also about what the money that has gone in through the new deal has already delivered. To those who say that the extra investment delivers nothing. I would point to long-term youth unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency being down by 75 per cent. through the new deal, to the best primary school results that we have ever had, and to in-patient and out-patient waiting lists being down. That is a result of the investment, which is why it is so right to put it in, and such folly to take it out. Talking of which
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith:
    "It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent."
    [Interruption.] I am surprised that Labour Members get so upset about that, because those were the words of the Prime Minister in 1997. So, while we are on the effect of what he is actually spending and whether it is delivering, will he tell us how much recorded street crime has risen over the last 12 months?
    The Prime Minister: Recorded street crime has indeed risen over the last 12 months. I do not know the precise figure, but it has risen. However, it is as a result of that that we are taking the necessary measures, including investing in our police and increasing the number of police on the heat. Even for street crime, it would be folly to take that investment in the police out.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister for ever says that he will be judged on exactly how effective the measures are that he is taking, but street crime has actually increased by more than 30 per cent. over the last year, and doubled in the last three years. So, presumably, by his own measure, he must now be failing. In the spending review of 2000, the Home Office promised to cut recorded robberies by 14 per cent. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Government are now on track to achieve that as well?
    The Prime Minister: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, as a result of the additional measures that we are taking on street crime, we will indeed—as I have said before—get street crime under control by the end of September, as we said we would. I think that he will see from the initiatives being taken, particularly the safer streets initiative in London, that we will do that.

    279
    Of course, overall, crime under this Government has fallen, not risen, whereas it doubled in the 18 years of Conservative government. However, if he is serious in his commitment to the fight against crime, there is the Proceeds of Crime Bill that is now before the other House. According to the police, that measure is essential to deal with drug dealers and others who can secret their assets. I ask him now to reverse the position of the Conservative party and to support what is an essential measure in the fight against crime.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister never lets the facts get in the way of a good bit of spin. He knows that we supported that legislation, and that we voted in favour of the confiscation of assets from criminals, particularly drug dealers. So instead of pretending the other case at the Dispatch Box, would he like to apologise and say that he was wrong?
    The Prime Minister was asked a direct question. The answer to the question of whether the number of recorded robberies has risen is that it has increased by more than a quarter in the past year, so he is failing on that measure as well. He then referred to the pledge that he says he made in September. I have checked through the public service agreements and the comprehensive spending review, and I cannot find a single reference to the pledge that the Prime Minister made in April to reduce street crime to below its April levels by the end of September. Will he make that pledge again today?
    The Prime Minister: I have just made it a moment ago, in the answer that I gave. [Interruption.] I did: I said that, as I indicated before, by the end of September we must have street crime under control. That is precisely why we are taking the initiatives that are necessary. That is why, for example, we are tightening up on bail, making sure that more police are on the streets and that magistrates courts work more effectively, and getting cases to court quicker. Let him now deal with this point. Each and every one of those initiatives—more police, better working of magistrates courts, better working of the criminal justice system—requires extra investment. Let the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box and commit himself to supporting that investment.
    Mr. Duncan Smith:
    "The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government".
    That is what the Prime Minister said in 1997, so every time his figures go wrong, there is failure on the streets, and violent crime and robberies rise, it is no good his saying, "We're just going to spend a bit more money and it's all going to be all right." That is his problem.
    Back in April, the Prime Minister said not just that street crime would be under control; in an interview with Mr. Paxman on "Newsnight", he said that he would reduce the levels of street crime to below the April level. Instead of fiddling figures that he does not even include in his publications, will he now pledge to do just that?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly repeat exactly what I said to Mr. Paxman. What is more, I agree that street crime has gone up—I admitted that in my first answer to the question. However, I then described what we were doing to get it back down again, and exactly
    280
    those measures—particularly the extra money that we are putting into the police—are essential to that. Whether it is the police, education, health or transport, how on earth can it be that we make the problems in our public services better by cutting the vital investment that they depend on?
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will recall that, following the Fairchild decision—and while we were awaiting the House of Lords judgment—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions initiated the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme to allow payments to be made to mesothelioma sufferers who had made claims against the company. Will he consider reopening or extending the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme to cover claimants who have made claims against Turner and Newall because the parent company, Federal Mogul, has gone to court in America to file for administration and it could be several years before the case is resolved? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider advising that the scheme be extended to cover those claims?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend knows that we are considering representations that he and others have made. I know that he and other hon. Members have met the company's administrators and a meeting with representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry and others has been arranged. The Government have also been in discussion with the administrators, and understand that they are actively looking at ways in which urgent claims can be dealt with prior to the conclusion of the administration of Turner and Newall.
    The best that I can tell my hon. Friend at this moment in time is that we are listening carefully to what he says. He knows about the technical and legal problems involved in extending coverage of the scheme, but we are taking an active interest in negotiations, and I hope that they can be brought to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The United States Administration are taking the view that further military action against Iraq would not require new United Nations security resolutions. Does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: We must certainly take any action in accordance with international law, but as the Foreign Secretary made clear when he spoke about this is the House a few months ago, that does not necessarily mean that there will be a new United Nations resolution. However, we will make sure that whatever we do—as I say constantly, no decisions have yet been taken—should be in accordance with international law.
    Mr. Kennedy: Turning to the role of the House, if in due course further military action is considered appropriate against Iraq and if British forces were involved, would that be subject both to the debate that the Prime Minister has pledged and to an affirmative supportive vote in the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: As I said when I appeared before the Liaison Committee yesterday, at present we have no proposals to put before the House, but we will obviously consider how best to consult the House properly should

    281
    any such action arise. However, I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman and others that no decisions have yet been taken. I emphasise, too, that we have to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq—it will not go away. There are many different ways of dealing with it, but we do have to deal with it.
    Mr. Frank Cook: The Prime Minister will know that conditions such as leprosy and polio are generally treatable in a day clinic. The incidence of those diseases in south-east Asia, especially Laos, is increasing at an alarming rate due to the lack of power for vaccine fridges and medicine chests. Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence in international organisations to support a programme of supplying power from small-scale renewable energy to tackle that problem in certain locations?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand and share my hon. Friend's concern about the issue, which, as he rightly points out, is a significant one in Asia. The global health fund of about $1.8 billion is available for use not just in Africa but elsewhere. I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend made in the concluding part of his question.
    Q3. [67904] Mr. Julian Brazier: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Prime Minister admitted that robberies have increased substantially—they have actually gone up by about a quarter. He said that by September they would be under control. Could he tell the House by how much he expects robberies to have fallen by September?
    The Prime Minister: Yes: instead of the trend being up, it should be down, with numbers coming down.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The Prime Minister will be aware of the success of URCs—urban regeneration companies—which have been set up in towns and cities throughout the land and are helping to encourage regeneration. Will he join me in calling for a URC to be set up in my constituency of Gloucester, where we are trying to push through £0.5 billion of regeneration and where a URC could make all the difference?
    The Prime Minister: URCs have certainly been very successful, but I think I should take some advice before giving my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister rightly told the House that one of the biggest challenges facing the G8 countries was conflict resolution in Africa. Is it not unfortunate that his Government continue to sell arms to African states? In particular, does he regret the fact that his Government sanctioned the sale of arms to all five combatants in the Congo?
    The Prime Minister: We actually have very strict rules on the sale of weapons to conflict areas, but I take exception to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think it important for this to be said clearly, and to be clearly on the record. The arms industry and related industries in this country employ about 100,000
    282
    people. There is nothing wrong with that industry's being successful and making sales to overseas Governments. What we must do, however, is ensure that they are not involved in the type of serious conflict that is happening in parts of Africa. That is precisely why we have such strict rules governing the export of arms. But if we were to do what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want and halt all arms sales by British companies around the world, that would have a devastating effect on many people's jobs.
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and all other Members will want to join me in expressing sadness at yesterday evening's tragic helicopter crash off Great Yarmouth. Our thoughts are certainly with the families and friends of those involved. The oil and gas industry today is a much safer environment in which to work, but tragedies of this kind always bring home to us the danger faced by the many hundreds of thousands of men and women who try to bring our gas and oil reserves ashore.
    Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the emergency services, which responded immediately, and to the rig and ship workers, which did so as well? Will he also ensure that during the investigation no stone is left unturned to find the reason for the crash?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am sure that the whole House would want to express deep sympathy and condolences to the families of those who died in the helicopter crash. Secondly, I pay fulsome tribute to the emergency services, which responded—as they always do—in magnificent fashion. Thirdly, I know that an air accident investigation branch is looking carefully into the reasons for the accident. At present, obviously, we cannot speculate on the cause, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will leave no stone unturned.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: The number of recorded robberies in Hertfordshire has risen by 34 per cent.—by a third—in just one year. If the Prime Minister will not try to give a straight answer to my parliamentary colleagues, will he at least give a straight answer in response to the fears of my constituents? Will he tell them why crime is rising for them?
    The Prime Minister: I can do that. First, let us be quite clear: crime overall has fallen, not risen. It is true that there is a particular problem with street crime and violent crime, which is precisely why we have been working on it for the past few months. We have been hiring more police officers, which is important. We have been ensuring that we tighten the conditions relating to bail. We have also been ensuring that we make extra investment in such things as CCTV—and, of course, there is the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The only unfortunate thing is that the Conservative party opposes each of the measures we take.
    Andy Burnham: According to the chief medical officer, death rates in some communities in the north-west and north-east have not improved since the 1950s. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shocking statistic results from underfunding over decades, not just of the health service but of all our public services? Will

    283
    he also assure me that the new formula now being developed for the sharing out of the welcome new resources will take full account of health needs in communities such as Leigh?
    The Prime Minister: The review of the formula used in the allocation of resources in the national health service will indeed take account of the need to reduce health inequalities. My hon. Friend's constituency has obviously accumulated severe problems over a long period. That is precisely why it is important for investment in the health service not to be taken out, but to be kept going year upon year upon year. As my hon. Friend knows, by 2007–08 health spending in this country will be above the EU average. It is important for us to ensure that the investment continues, because it is the only way in which to make a defined and sustainable difference to people's health.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Last month, the Prime Minister told the House that the stock market was "massively up" since the pensions tax was imposed in 1997. Will he tell the House how massively up it is now?
    The Prime Minister: It will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice, nor anyone else's, that our stock market has fallen, as has every stock market around the world, including in America and Europe. The idea that that fall is unique to Britain is an indication only of the total opportunism of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Early on, when he was first elected, the Prime Minister loved to take responsibility for a rising stock market. Strangely enough, it is now somebody else's fault—as ever. I notice that the Prime Minister has not turned to the Chancellor for advice this time, but perhaps he ought to. Since that period in 1997, stock markets in Europe and the US have risen by 8 per cent., whereas ours is now down by 15 per cent.
    Not only did the Prime Minister get the matter wrong, he also said at the time that the pensions tax was justified because of
    "the buoyancy of the stock market."—[0fficial Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 285.]
    Does he believe that the pensions tax is still justified by the buoyancy of the stock market?
    The Prime Minister: I do believe that it is justified. What is more, when I read the debate on the subject the other day, I noted that the spokesman for the Conservative party was asked whether he would reverse the measure. He said that he would not, which renders the right hon. Gentleman's question slightly absurd. The idea that the stock market has fallen because of something to do with the British economy is incorrect, as stock markets all around Europe and America have fallen.
    However, there are differences between the state of the UK economy now and a few years ago: we now have the lowest interest rates for about 30 years, the lowest unemployment for 25 years, and the lowest inflation rate in Europe. Another difference is the absence of that old Tory theme of boom and bust—and thank goodness for that.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that there was a rocket
    284
    attack in my constituency early this morning in an attempt to kill two officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? I am sure that he and the whole House will join me in condemning such a cowardly and dastardly attack, and in wishing those two officers a speedy recovery. Thankfully, they were not seriously injured.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that this morning's attack was an attack on the peace process in Northern Ireland? In this very difficult week, will he guarantee to use his best endeavours to ensure that all parties to the peace process make the necessary sacrifices to sustain peace and our democratic institutions?
    The Prime Minister: My sympathy goes to the officers involved, of course, and I join my hon. Friend in wishing them a speedy recovery. He is entirely right: the attack's purpose was to undermine the peace process. There is no doubt that, as the process moves forward—whatever the difficulties involved—the people who want to return to the sectarianism and brutality of the past want to try to disrupt it. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, for all the difficulties, marks a new approach to policing in Northern Ireland. I hope that, in time, it will be supported by all the main political parties there. When people attack officers of that police force, they are attacking the agreement itself. They are also attacking a future for Northern Ireland that is based on mutual respect and prosperity. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to sustain the peace process, as it is right for the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on 15 October 1996 that the shortage of beds in the NHS was a "disgrace"? What word from his extensive repertoire would he now use to describe the fact that 131 beds in my local hospitals are currently affected by bed blocking?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I am not familiar with the details of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, in the past year, there has been an increase in the number of NHS beds. Overall, the national figures show that bed blocking has fallen since 1997, and that is because last winter we put additional investment into the NHS. Whatever the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—whether they are to do with the number of beds, nurses and doctors, or with local primary care—the answer, surely, is not to cut the investment going into his health care service. I suggest that he joins us in addressing those problems with the investment and reform programme and, in particular, supports the measures that the Chancellor announced on Monday. That might be a good idea not only for his constituents but for him.
    Helen Jones: There are parts of my constituency where people cannot sit in their own home in peace because of crime and antisocial behaviour, which is fuelled by the illegal sale of alcohol to young people. What will the Prime Minister do to clamp down on the irresponsible retailers who sell alcohol to children

    285
    who are clearly underage? Will he put pressure on the drinks industry to end the iniquitous practice of marketing alcoholic drinks that are clearly aimed at young people?
    The Prime Minister: We are toughening the penalties on the sale of alcohol to young people. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problems of antisocial behaviour. That is one of the reasons that we introduced measures such as antisocial behaviour orders. It is unfortunate that the Conservative party is still apparently opposed to them. My hon. Friend will know that one of the things that is most important in dealing with antisocial behaviour is having extra numbers of police on the street, and the Conservative party is opposed to that as well.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Prime Minister will know that the take-up of the MMR vaccination in London has now reached a record low, as instanced in my borough by the fact that only 70 per cent. of parents have given their children the jab. Is he aware that the number of cases of measles in our capital city has quadrupled over the past year? As those two events are not unconnected, will he take this opportunity of publicly dissociating himself from the remarks of the Mayor of London, who is advising London parents not to give their children the jab?
    The Prime Minister: First, I do not agree with what was said by the Mayor and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with some of what has been said by his hon. Friends. It should be made very clear that there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that the MMR jab is anything other than the right course to take. It is employed in 90 countries around the world—in America, in Europe and everywhere—and it is essential that we retain it, and retain it in its present form, since that is the best way to get the coverage to deal with these diseases. I take that view very strongly; I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does too and perhaps, jointly, we can make those views clear to everyone.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister will be aware that my constituency has seen a rising number of gunshot incidents, some of which have led to the murder of mainly young men. He is right to say that we need more police on the streets.
    286
    However, will he join me in applauding the actions of Mothers Against Violence? Women whose children have been shot and killed have taken the very brave step of publicly standing up to condemn the violence in their communities; they are trying to change the culture where young men are prepared to use firearms. When my right hon. Friend is next in the city of Manchester, will he agree to meet that group of women to give them his support and that of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I would certainly be happy to do that. I congratulate Mothers Against Violence in Manchester on the work that they are doing. I hope, too, that they will see from the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make shortly that it is necessary to strengthen the protection for victims and witnesses. One of the problems with this type of violent crime, and gun crime in particular, is people's reluctance to come forward and give evidence. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly be announcing measures to strengthen our criminal justice system.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether there are any circumstances in which he would consider sharing sovereignty over his own constituents in Sedgefield? If, as I suspect, the answer is no, why does he seek to do so over the people of Gibraltar, whose only crime is loyalty to the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: As usual, that is a typical piece of opportunism by the Conservative party. The process began—[Interruption.] The Brussels process was launched by the Conservative Government in 1984. The last time I was answering such a question, I did not have before me the full text of the 1984 communiqué, but I do now. This is what was signed up to by Mrs. Thatcher and the last Conservative Government:
    "Both sides accept that the issues of sovereignty will be discussed in that process."
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There will now be a statement by the Home Secretary. [Interruption.] Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

Criminal Justice White Paper
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): For the third week running, Mr. Speaker, if it is Sheffield it is Wednesday and if it is Wednesday it is Sheffield. With permission, sir, I wish to make a statement on the reform of the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
Today, we are publishing a White Paper outlining an end-to-end reform of the service.
First, however, may I pay tribute to all those who have assisted in this tripartite paper, including the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, and thank in particular Sir Robin Auld for his review of the criminal courts, and John Halliday for his sentencing review.
The people of this country deserve a criminal justice service that works in the interests of justice and puts the victim first. The White Paper is designed to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim and the delivery of justice for all. We are sending the strongest possible message to those who commit crime that action will be effective in detecting, convicting and properly punishing the perpetrator.
We have a tradition of justice in this country going back centuries. We have already embarked on reform of the police and an overhaul of youth justice, including a dramatic drop in the time it takes to bring young offenders to justice. The street crime initiative has already made a difference by bringing together the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the court administration.
I can announce today, following the Chancellor's statement on Monday, that over the next three years we will invest more than £600 million in information technology. That will help us in joining up the criminal justice service.
But root-and-branch reform across the board is still required. Delay, inefficiency and repeated adjournments are costing us dear. Through improved police investigation, case management and presentation, conviction of the guilty must be secured and acquittal of the innocent ensured. What we seek is not simply the process of justice but visible evidence that justice has been done.
Every time someone on bail offends, or a case collapses, or the wrong verdict is revealed, we compound the harm done to victims and to society as a whole. We will ensure that both victims and witnesses are protected. We will provide them with separate facilities from the accused. To ensure that their voice is heard. we will establish a victims' commissioner supported by a new advisory panel. Above all, we will deliver faster, more effective justice.
Our actions will be underpinned by the fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the one in eight defendants who fail to appear at court will be dealt with swiftly and summarily. We will bring in incentives for early guilty pleas, deal decisively with delays and improve the use and availability of forensic and technological expertise.
As soon as practicable, the Crown Prosecution Service will take over responsibility for determining the charge in the most serious cases, except where the police need to
288
make a holding charge. We will allow the police to impose conditions on bail before charge to limit the chances of offending.
Disclosure of information is currently a battleground between defence and the prosecution. That leads to delay and to considerable cost. We will rebalance the rules of disclosure. Both prosecution and defence will be obliged to disclose all the material necessary. We will make the rules of evidence simpler and clearer. Relevant previous convictions will be admissible where the judge believes that that would be helpful to the jury, without prejudicing the defendant's right to a fair trial.
In time, we will integrate the management of the courts into a single organisation. We will extend the sentencing power of magistrates from six months to 12, and legislate to allow Parliament to extend this to 18 months.
I can tell the House today that the right of defendants to elect for jury trial will remain. However, in order to deliver justice in serious and complex fraud trials, we will seek Parliament's consent that such cases can be tried by a judge sitting alone. We will consult on whether a judge sitting alone should deal with trials where the danger of intimidation makes justice difficult to achieve. In addition, we will explore a similar option for complex financial or organised criminal cases.
We have a real problem when, in some parts of the country, around three quarters of jury trials result in acquittal. The Government will produce in the months ahead a joint paper on long-term prevention for children at risk. We will legislate in the next Session to increase the powers of youth courts to hear more serious offences.
Currently, no one can be tried more than once for the same offence. This is known as double jeopardy. We will allow for a retrial in cases where compelling new evidence such as DNA has come to light. This will cover murder and very serious offences such as rape.
As I said last year, we must put the sense back into sentencing. For the first time, we will set out in legislation the purpose of sentencing: to protect the public, punish the perpetrator and prevent reoffending.
We will establish a guidelines council to ensure greater consistency in sentencing and to ensure that Parliament has a role in considering and scrutinising draft guidelines.
We will introduce a new suspended sentence of "custody minus", which will provide automatic imprisonment for offenders who breach their sentence. We will reform short custodial sentences and introduce, once piloted, "custody plus", requiring offenders to serve the whole of their sentence, partly in custody and the remainder under strict supervision.
A new intermittent custodial sentence will mean that offenders spend part of the week in custody. Reparation and drug and alcohol treatment will help address offending behaviour. But in protecting the public, we are placing emphasis on dealing with dangerous violent and sexual offenders. Those not sentenced to life imprisonment but who are nevertheless a danger to society will remain in custody until they are considered safe for release. An indeterminate sentence will ensure that they will only be released under strict supervision when they are no longer assessed to be a threat to the public.
The House takes seriously its duty to protect the public, and we wish to ensure that democratically elected representatives retain the right to protect those whom we serve. A whole-life tariff should mean life.

289
The proposals that we have set out are far-reaching, radical and require a culture change. To achieve that, we will need to gain the support of those in the service and, of course, the wider public. We will also need a balanced and sensible debate, which, I hope, will be led by the House today. We need to reinforce trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as we seek to deliver justice for all our people.
I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I thank the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues not only for their courtesy in providing, as usual, an early copy of the statement, but for briefing me on the White Paper itself.
There have been 12 Criminal Justice Bills since the inception of the present Government. That is quite a large number of pieces of legislation, but the Home Secretary feels, and we entirely agree, that that legislation has not given us an effective criminal justice system. The system needs reform. That is common ground. As the Lord Chief Justice recently and rightly said, there is much need for the codification of offences, sentencing, procedures and the rules of evidence. That is recommended by Lord Justice Auld, requested by judges and magistrates throughout England and Wales and supported by all parties in the House. Let us by all means get down to the job.
Let us find ways to enable the judiciary better to manage trials. Let us find ways to make the co-operation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service more effective. The electronic exchange of case files between them, rather than paper in the post, would be a good start. Let us find ways to reduce the number of trials that crack late in the day, disillusioning witnesses and victims. Let us find ways to apply the lessons of the O'Dowd report to reduce the bureaucracy that massively impedes our front-line police officers.
On all those aims and more, we are agreed. Some of those aims can be fulfilled only by legislation. We offer our full co-operation in framing that legislation. Other aims will require administrative action. We wish the Home Secretary well in taking that action, but there is in all this a danger. The result of the last 12 Criminal Justice Bill and the other steps taken by the Government in the past five years has not been a success; it has been a failure.
The aim of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime. Crime in this country, and street crime in particular, remains at wholly unacceptable levels. No amount of statistical manipulation can mask the fact that we face a crisis of criminality in some of our inner cities. To tackle that crisis, we need better crime prevention. We need the police to be back in charge of our streets and neighbourhoods. We need to give serious attention to young people who are the casualties of dysfunctional families. We need thorough reform of the sentencing of persistent young offenders. And we need clear-minded effective measures to undermine the drug culture.
The danger is that in the absence of coherent and effectively implemented strategies of that kind, the Government may be tempted instead to convey the impression of effective action by changing features and principles of our criminal justice system in a way that will, in the long run, undermine, rather than strengthen, public confidence in that system.
290
The single most important phrase in the Auld report is the statement that justice is not a game. The purpose of a criminal trial is twofold: to convict the guilty and to acquit the innocent. Each of those is as important as the other. No one is more committed than the Conservative party to the detection, prosecution and conviction of the guilty, but we have in this country a precious inheritance in the widely held confidence that British justice is just, that British trials are fair and that the innocent will be acquitted.
In seeking rightly to enhance the likelihood of convicting the guilty, we must be sure that we do not decrease the likelihood of acquitting the innocent. I imagine that those twin aims are, in fact, common ground between myself and the Home Secretary. The issue that we face is one not of aim, but of practical result.
The Opposition will want to consider carefully the fine details of the proposals to adjust the rules on double jeopardy, on trial by jury and on the release of information about previous convictions to ensure that any such adjustments will both materially increase the chances of convicting the guilty and contain safeguards to protect the innocent. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are a precious part of our birthright. In designing a system, as we must, that more effectively convicts the criminal, we must not abandon that birthright.
Mr. Blunkett: I appreciate the warm welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has given the White Paper this afternoon. We appear to disagree on only two things. The first is that crime rose by more than 100 per cent. while the Conservatives were in office, and it has fallen by more than 22 per cent. since we came into office. The second is that we need more money to achieve the process of case management and electronic interchange that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The £600 million that we are devoting to that would be cut by the Conservative party.
On everything else, we appear to be in agreement. A large number of reforms have been introduced but they have not yet achieved everything that we need. We are agreed on that. Codification over time is a valuable objective. We need to ensure that we overcome failure at every point in the system to reduce crime further, which, of course, involves the 4,500 extra police officers brought in during the last two years, who again had to be paid for by investment from public funds. We are all agreed that where the system breaks down, there is a crisis of criminality, particularly for the most disadvantaged. That affects many of the people whom we represent. That is why we are announcing end-to-end radical action this afternoon.
We also agree that the measures must have coherence, from detection and good policing all the way through to sensible correctional policies to avoid reoffending. That is precisely why we recognise another issue on which we may have a slight disagreement. We agree that the system must protect the innocent, and we also believe that it should more effectively convict the guilty. We must also recognise, however, that, whatever the view held in the past by the rest of the world—and by the population of Britain—of our criminal justice system, it is no longer held in the high esteem in which all of us would wish to see it being held in the future. It is no longer held in high esteem because the credibility of the system has been undermined as witnesses have been deterred from coming

291
forward; as those who have perpetrated crime do not even turn up to court; as 25 per cent. of those on bail reoffend; and as two out of five of under-18s reoffend.
We are introducing this radical reform riot simply because we have dreamt it up, but because Lord Justice Auld, the Law Commission, and the reports over the last decade have told us that radical reform is required. If the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are going to join us, I welcome that. I would also welcome further consultation with them to ensure that the system commands consensus and that it holds for decades to come, rather than being subject to change on change, which disrupts the system rather than putting it right. That is my offer to the Opposition this afternoon.
Simon Hughes: First, I welcome the Home Secretary's offer, which we accept unreservedly. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the breadth of the White Paper and much of the specific detail. I hope that the Home Secretary will see that there are only a small number of matters on which we start from a different position.
We share with the Home Secretary the view that the victim must be much more at the centre of the whole criminal justice process, and that witnesses need much more support and protection. It is very welcome that the Government have returned to the position that the Labour party held before 1997, which many of us have held all along—that in serious cases people on trial should always have the right to choose to be tried by their peers.
However, if, like the Home Secretary, we are to be honest about the failures of the system, we must recognise the two biggest failures. They are not that a huge percentage of people plead not guilty when they get to court—most plead guilty—or that a huge percentage of trials do not result in a guilty verdict, because most of them do. Instead, the first failure is the terrible figures that the right hon. Gentleman had to report last week—I do not blame him for them historically—that only one in four of all crimes result in someone being arrested and proceeded against. In some areas of London, the figure is one in eight. Unless we improve the catching and clear-up rates, the rest of the system will have relatively very much less to do. Secondly, unless we allow witnesses to be so supported that they continue to give evidence and stay throughout a trial, we will never get many of the most serious cases to the point of conviction, which is where we all want them to be.
We disagree on only three main matters. First, many of us are far from persuaded that it is possible to have a fair trial if, in the normal course of events, previous convictions are known to the court before the verdict. I hope that the Home Secretary will be prepared to reconsider that issue. Secondly, on double jeopardy although I understand his argument, the case for keeping the rule against double jeopardy even in the most serious cases is this: if we were to legislate retrospectively, as a result of the proposals passing into law, every person alive acquitted after a full trial for a very serious offence would have that definitive decision turned into a provisional verdict that would be always open to challenge.
Thirdly, although it is of course right for Parliament to set a maximum sentence, including life imprisonment, I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether it is not always
292
wrong for Parliament to set a mandatory sentence. Every case demands a specific and different consideration. Will he consider whether it is not always wrong for Ministers to decide the tariff at the end of a serious case? However much integrity they have, it is must be better that an independent judge makes that decision rather than someone who is seen as a party politician.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's tone and approach. We agree about putting victims at the centre, and about the critical aim of protecting, encouraging and supporting witnesses.
We have a slight disagreement about the statistics on people pleading guilty. Some 57 per cent. of those who opted to go to Crown court instead of being heard in a magistrates court eventually pleaded guilty, so the decision was clearly a delaying tactic. There are very real issues here. [Interruption.] To plead guilty after months of prevarication—[Interruption.] The barracking can continue from the barrack-room lawyers, but it is simple fact that 57 per cent.—[Interruption.] Real lawyers represent real people, just as we represent the victims of crime and not those who earn their living out of crime. That is the point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman, who made some very sensible points in his contribution.
The prevention of wrongful convictions must be a key task, but the presentation of previous convictions in very limited circumstances can often be crucial. Let us take the issue of domestic violence. In such cases, a judge may well feel that someone who claimed vehemently that they had never been involved before in battering and destroying the life of a woman should have revealed to the court the fact that, three, four or more times in their relationship, they had done exactly the same. It is right that the jury should know that, especially as the defence lawyer knows it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of double jeopardy. I simply put it to him that the transformation of science and the use of DNA has now made it possible for us to have some not simply evidence but compelling evidence that someone was guilty of a crime. For that person to walk around in our community, capable of murder and rape, is a disgrace. In limited circumstances, the Director of Public Prosecutions will authorise, first, the investigation and, secondly, the submission to the Appeal Court. The Court of Appeal will then decide whether there is sufficient evidence to take the matter further, to protect us all from those who escaped justice in the first place.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Anything that makes our courts more efficient, effective and victim-friendly will be welcomed by most sensible people, as most of the proposed measures will no doubt be. However, I remain to be persuaded that the disclosure of previous convictions will not merely encourage the rounding up of the usual suspects. The Home Secretary gave an example of circumstances in which disclosure might be permitted, but surely there is a danger that the judge will allow disclosure when the Crown case is so weak that it might otherwise collapse.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, there is a danger. There will be a right of appeal in such circumstances, to ensure that the defence can challenge that basis of presumption, which will be the responsibility of the judiciary.
Mr. Edward Gamier: To want to protect victims and witnesses is not controversial. To require both parties to define the factual and legal issues should be as commonplace in the criminal process as it is in the civil process. That is accepted. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, to introduce legislation to codify the criminal law as quickly as possible. Had the law been codified, there would have been no need for the 12 criminal justice statutes introduced by this Government. We might have needed some of them, but not as many. We pass too many unnecessary laws dealing with criminal justice and I fear that the Home Secretary's statement will require us to pass more.
Does the Home Secretary accept that admitting previous convictions into evidence is likely to be more prejudicial than probative? Does he also accept that abolishing the double jeopardy rule is likely to lead to more miscarriages of justice rather than to an increase in public confidence in our justice system? I am not going to get hysterical about what the Home Secretary said because I, too, want to participate in the debate in a sensible and rational way. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will listen. Once he has done that, will he also perhaps change his mind?
Mr. Blunkett: Again, I welcome the tone of the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution. I am prepared to listen to people's views on the safeguards that hon. Members and the public will require on the disclosure of previous convictions and in cases of double jeopardy. New compelling evidence will have to go through the triple locks that I described before a new case can be made and the previous verdict cancelled. Those provide a real safeguard for double jeopardy cases. We must take account of the knowledge that we now have, and we have the ability to convict the guilty, not the innocent. Justice is not only about protecting people from perpetrators, but about ensuring that those who we come to know are guilty are convicted as guilty.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: There has been a great deal of sound and fury in the media about the White Paper, signifying not very much. There is much in the document that hon. Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the criminal justice system will welcome. Before I ask three specific questions, may I point out that the test that my right hon. Friend adduced in deciding which criminal convictions should be relevant to the case and of assistance to the court is the test that we already have? It is not a new test. On the example that he gave, the previous convictions of a person who says that he has never violated a woman before would be considered relevant in any event. To enshrine the test in statute would not cause a great problem.
There are three matters that do and, I anticipate, will cause problems, and I ask for my right hon. Friend's assistance. The first is double jeopardy. He gave the example of DNA evidence, and I certainly would not be against a specific provision relating to that.
Hon. Members: This is a speech.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not in a courtroom. He asks only one question.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I therefore come to one question—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please have a seat. [Interruption.] Sit down. Secretary Blunkett, will you respond to the matters that have been put before you?
Mr. Blunkett: First, I can confirm that I am aware of the Law Commission's work on previous convictions and I know that some of the practice, which is variable across the country, is insecure. That requires us to refine and extend provision so that people are very clear about what previous convictions apply and in which circumstances they can be used. Secondly, I am aware that there is concern among all hon. Members about double jeopardy. I seek to make my case this afternoon, and I shall seek to do so when we bring legislation before the House.
Lady Hermon: On behalf of my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement. He will be aware that, in the past two years, there has been a review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, culminating in the final stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill in the House last night. Can he ensure, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that the good changes that he recommends in his statement are also introduced in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Blunkett: I would be very happy to talk to my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for the warm welcome that the hon. Lady has given my statement.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: As a non-lawyer, but as somebody who has supported a child victim through the criminal justice system, I believe that the most dreadful thing is that the process destroys any concept of justice at such a young age. The proposals should enshrine changes to the process which instil in young people the courage to pursue the high principles of justice.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the process makes as much common sense for ordinary non-legal people as possible? The process, rather than the end result, brutalises people—they understand the court system to a degree. It is often a matter of simple things such as prosecutors not being willing to talk to victims because they believe that victims play a minor role in the court process, rather than acknowledging that they play a central role, given that the crime happened to them.
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that a previous statement to the House addressed the issue of tailoring the youth justice system and the handling of youth witnesses in a way that lessened the adversarial nature of the court system in England and Wales. We learned a great deal from the Scottish experience, and have tried to ensure that young people's experience of the court system will encourage them to come forward as witnesses and to play a part in the system in future. All too often, that does not happen.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I practise in the criminal courts, and, if that is an interest,

295
then I declare it. While it is true that it is highly objectionable when a guilty person is acquitted, it is much worse when an innocent person is convicted. Against that background, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the real concern is that the reduction in the right to jury trial and increased disclosure of previous convictions could lead to more miscarriages of justice? Will he reflect further on those proposals? I also suggest that in murder cases the trial judge should have the option of imposing a determinate sentence.
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, we may well be close. However, the problem is that the judiciary and ourselves take slightly different views as to who is in charge of sentencing.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier question, I have already made my position on previous convictions clear. I want to make clear my position on mode of trial. We are dealing with serious complex fraud cases, of which we believe there will be about 15 to 20 every year. There may well be more in terms of detailed network organised crime and intimidation. The right to opt for jury trial will remain in all the cases that are currently outside the parameters that I described, including the extension of magistrates courts' sentencing powers. The leak of the document that was handed to The Independent may have misled people into believing something different.
David Winnick: In the light of what the Select Committee on Home Affairs said two years ago and what my right hon. Friend said today, is it not right that someone who has been acquitted of murder or another very serious offence should, if compelling evidence is produced, and if all the triple lock safeguards show that it should happen, be brought before the court again on the same charge? I ask my right hon. Friend this question. What sort of respect would it be to the memory of a loved one who has been murdered if a person has been acquitted, compelling evidence is found, and no further case can be brought, as is the position now? Surely justice demands, if only for the sake of the memory of that murdered person, that if there is such compelling evidence, and despite the earlier acquittal, the person concerned should be able to be charged accordingly.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely wrong that such people should be allowed to go free while those whose lives were ruined by their child or other loved one being killed cannot get justice. It is a strange judicial system that can protect us from someone by putting them away for perjury, but not for the offence that they actually carried out.
Mr. Peter Lilley: In view of the Home Secretary's proposal that the right to jury trial be ended in the case of serious fraud cases—in the apparent belief that juries are too bewildered by the complexity of fraud trials to convict, and that fraudsters exploit that—is he aware that over the past four years the Serious Fraud Office has had a 92 per cent. conviction rate in cases that it has brought? Does he expect the
296
changes that he announced to result in an even higher conviction rate, a lower conviction rate or no change, and, if the latter, why bother?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's question through this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I adhere to three of his four principles, but I fall short on double jeopardy—we simply disagree on that. Yes, I do expect more fraud cases to be brought and to be successful, because the current enormous difficulties arising from persuading people to take up jury service for prolonged, complex fraud cases lasting up to a year and dealing with them under the current arrangements will be overcome. A very large body of information now backs up our proposals.
Mr. Kevin Barron: On sentencing, my right hon. Friend may be aware of the conviction last year of a constituent of mine for causing six deaths in a road traffic accident while under the influence of drink. Recently, on appeal, his sentence was cut by one third. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the hurt that is felt not only by the families of the victims, but by many other people in my constituency who have had not only to suffer such an awful, terrible thing happening, but the reduction of the sentence on appeal?
Mr. Blunkett: I share the frustration and anger that is felt by my hon. Friend and by many people who have spoken and written about the case. Home Secretaries are not supposed to comment on individual cases, but I intend to say this: when the technicalities of justice override the imperative of justice, we must do something about it. This was not a hit and run or someone simply knocking down other people or running into a car—it was the most abominable disgrace imaginable. If murder is not the appropriate designation for such an incident, the House needs to examine what is. The case was and is a disgrace.
Dr. John Pugh: The Home Office proposes to spend £600 million on computers; that is a lot of money. Given the dismal history of Home Office computer procurement—few of us would trust its representatives on a trip to PC World—what steps are being taken to ensure that the Government get value for money this time?
Mr. Blunkett: I am always willing to accompany the hon. Gentleman to PC World because I need a bit of expertise on such occasions, as hon. Members probably clocked about a month ago.
We have appointed an expert from the private sector as head of the division that is in charge of information technology in the criminal justice service. She is respected inside and outside government and will be able to lead us to better times and clearer waters.
Margaret Moran: May I metaphorically hug my right hon. Friend for the excellent references in the White Paper to domestic violence, especially in view of repeat victimisation? I especially welcome proposals to place on a statutory basis reviews of deaths in circumstances involving domestic violence. The all-party group on domestic violence called for that. We have campaigned on the fact that 15 children—possibly many

297
more—have been murdered in such circumstances. It is about time that we learned the lessons about prevention and minimising risks.
I welcome the proposal to make a breach of non-molestation orders a criminal rather than a civil offence to afford survivors the protection that they desperately need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need specific legislation on domestic violence, given that the current legislation is 26 years old, to progress with some of the worthy measures in the consultation document?
Mr. Blunkett: I am tickled by the offer of a hug, which I shall have to consider.
This country has an enormous problem of domestic violence. I pay tribute to the Solicitor-General, who is working closely with the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety on that to enable us to get our act together. Breaching non-molestation orders will be made a criminal offence, and we will extend the restraining order to ensure that victims are protected in circumstances in which it is currently possible for further attacks to occur. As part of extending the police power on bail, we will also ensure that people cannot return to the immediate area where they are threatening their former partners or wives. It is important to remind ourselves that a third of all murdered women are killed in a domestic situation.
Mr. George Osborne: I agree with the Home Secretary's comments about justice not only being done but being seen to be done. A local criminal justice system has historically been one method of achieving that. Yet in my constituency and many others, under Governments of all persuasions, magistrates courts have closed. My Crown court now faces closure. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is counter-productive and that an effective criminal justice system is rooted in the local community?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree that access to justice is important, and that that means that people can reach it reasonably and easily. The Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and I need to examine the best method of ensuring that combining the relevant parts of the court system facilitates that rather than makes matters worse.
Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's statement has reassured many hon. Members of all parties about some of the controversial elements of the debate that will ensue. However, I declare an interest as a non-lawyer. Will he ensure that he gives equal weight to the voices of victims and those at the sharp end of the criminal justice system and the lawyers inside and outside this place, and not simply listen to the latter?
Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will. I want to make it clear that I am genuinely very fond of lawyers; I even have friends who are lawyers.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): Does the Home Secretary agree that today public confidence in the criminal justice system is so dangerously low that this House needs to act urgently? To that end, does he understand that, providing that there are proper safeguards, the House should support his proposals first
298
to end the double jeopardy rule, secondly in very special circumstances to allow previous convictions to be mentioned in court, and thirdly in very special cases—serious fraud and where there is gross intimidation—to have, rightly and properly, not a jury but a judge?
Mr. Blunkett: I strongly welcome those comments. I want to make it clear again that there are differing views among members of all parties in the House, and if we can accept that, we can consult and work together. The example of support given today reinforces the need for us to gain consensus and to find a lasting way forward—rather than, as we say in the White Paper and for which the shadow Home Secretary chided us, having layer on layer of legislation that ends up having to be re-amended.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Home Secretary accept from me the assurance that the vast majority of my constituents and much of the population on Teesside will greet his announcement with the beginnings of relief and gratitude—not least Ann and Charlie Ming, the parents of Julie Hogg, who was brutally murdered some years ago and stuffed behind a panel at her home?
In pursuing the course of double jeopardy, I assure the Home Secretary of my continuing support, but I ask him to respond to one anxiety that I feel. If we make compelling new evidence a condition of a new trial—and we must do so; I understand that—how can we be certain that, in following the trial, the jury considering it will not find the fact that that evidence has been assessed as compelling new evidence some pre-judicial circumstance?
Mr. Blunkett: There is a genuine question about what assumptions may be made about the Appeal Court deciding to go ahead and about the information in relation to the case that is already in the public arena. There are genuine problems, but I think that we can overcome them; the parents of Julie Hogg would want all of us to find a way round them.
Mr. John Burnett: Will the Home Secretary please pass my thanks to the Attorney-General for having the courtesy to meet me and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) yesterday to discuss the White Paper, and for sending me an early copy of it? I welcome the earlier Crown Prosecution Service involvement in the criminal process. It is for the Government to ensure that the CPS has sufficient personnel with expertise and sufficient equipment adequately to discharge that function. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will discuss with the Attorney-General the unacceptably high de minimis levels set for the Serious Fraud Office before it may investigate a matter.
Mr. Blunkett: Those welcome comments illustrate the difficulty raised in my reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the number of convictions achieved at the moment owing to the difficulties experienced by the Serious Fraud Office in reaching a position where it can take cases to trial. Any sensible suggestions from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will be welcome.
Fiona Mactaggart: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on resisting the siren voices who

299
suggested that the best way to create an effective justice system was to withdraw rights from the accused, and on instead emphasising the protection of the rights of witnesses and improving efficiency and effectiveness through, for example, the proposals on domestic violence, which could save the lives of two women a week, as at present two women each week are murdered by their partner or ex-partner?
Will this House have an opportunity to discuss the guidance that will be given to judges about when they can decide whether prior convictions are relevant and will not prejudice a trial? Politicians may have a particular view to express to judges—who are the right people to take such decisions—about the circumstances in which they can allow previous convictions to be considered.
Mr. Blunkett: I hope that we will be able to debate that in a sensible and open fashion when the legislation is introduced. I also hope that we will be able to do so as part of a broader debate about sentencing guidelines, counsel, and the role of Parliament vis-à-vis the sentencing system, without interfering with or in any way undermining the role of the judiciary and its independence on these matters. It is a matter of great frustration to members of the public whom I meet that they expect us to have some influence and direction over policy, only to find that we really do not. If we can get the balance right without interfering with judicial independence, we will achieve a great deal more credibility for democracy as well as for the criminal justice system.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May I join in the general welcome for the statement that we have just received, while echoing the concern of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) in saying that there seems to be very little here for child witnesses in court? I urge the Home Secretary to look at the Scottish experience, and to consider introducing more training for judges in trials involving child witnesses, to discourage defence barristers from bullying the children, from confusing them by using double negatives in cross-examination, and from trying to undermine them by using points of order to create delays before the interrogation starts.
Mr. Blunkett: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we need to look at those issues, together with the way in which evidence can be presented. Although we cannot avoid cross-examination taking place in alternative ways, we can use simple technology to enable the presentation of the witness's case by very young children to be undertaken more effectively.
David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association, and a supplemental magistrate on the Ashby-de-la-Zouch petty sessional division in Leicestershire, may I give a warm welcome to the White Paper? It has taken the first non-lawyer Home Secretary for two decades to bring some sense to the judicial system, particularly in relation to the extension of the sentencing powers of magistrates courts from six to 12 months—and, perhaps, ultimately, 18 months. I also welcome the rejection of the Auld proposal for an intermediate tier of court. May I express a note of concern, however? In his statement, my right hon. Friend said
300
"In time, we will integrate the management of the courts into a single organisation." Is there not a risk that that single organisation might see greater attractions in fewer, more remote and centralised courts? Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that local magistrates courts are going to be safer under that new, integrated organisation?
Mr. Blunkett: As part of the integration, and as a result of the way in which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have been working with us to ensure that access to justice is sealed, we are considering the development of a new local board, which will integrate the work and also have a more powerful local voice to draw together the needs of a local community as well as improve the efficiency of the system.
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about being a magistrate. When I consulted on the Halliday sentencing proposals, there was great scepticism among the magistrates I met as to whether the Government would listen to them, or whether this was a fait accompli. We insisted, on these proposals and on Auld, that there would not be a fait accompli, and I think that we can now reassure those magistrates that we have genuinely listened and responded.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I also give a warm welcome to the Home Secretary's sensible proposals today? In particular, many of my constituents will be pleased to learn that he intends to ensure that some prisoners serving a life sentence will actually serve a whole life tariff, and that, in some circumstances in which prisoners would be a danger to the community, they will remain behind bars. There is concern, however, that the powers that he intends to take will be anathema to the European Court of Human Rights, which has so far shown a remarkable determination to remove from his office the right to determine the tariff served by prisoners serving life sentences. Will he explain to the House how he intends to make the proposals robust in those circumstances?
Mr. Blunkett: Let me be uncharacteristically cautious on this matter. There are cases, including Anderson and Taylor, on which considerable public comment has been made, including comment by people who have responsibility in this area, and I do not wish to match that. However, I think it very important that everyone should know that there will be, and I am determined that we find, ways around any blockage—whether a case is taken to Strasbourg or not—that precludes this Parliament from determining that those who have committed the most horrendous crimes should be locked away for ever, given that the sentence was seen as an alternative to putting people to death. I remind those who debate these issues—often, they are rather contemptuous of the more common language that some of us use—that we in this country are in a position not to put people to death, but to demand a punishment that is clear and decisive, and which protects us from the most horrendous murderers. In that respect, I agree entirely with the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend and his team for the attention devoted in his comments and in the White Paper to the horrendous issue of domestic violence. At the moment, I am dealing with one domestic violence case every two or three weeks.

301
Those women have had an horrendous time, and if it were not for the help of the Keighley Domestic Violence Service—a voluntary organisation—they would remain in a violent relationship or simply be dumped with no help. Thanks to the service, they are brought to my office for help, and brought to the attention of the police and the social services. I want to put on the record my grateful thanks to that service, which is doubtless replicated in other constituencies. The people who run it do a wonderful job, but they do not receive much thanks.
Mr. Blunkett: Those people deserve every thanks. I have been persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—I give her credit this afternoon—that we should return to this issue with vigour in the autumn. We have already taken steps, such as changing attitudes. Moreover, police throughout the country make the presumption of pro-arrest in relation to domestic violence. Those steps have already begun to make a difference, but voluntary groups and people who give of their time are a godsend to those who face horrendous attack.
Andrew Selous: Can the Home Secretary tell the House what he intends to do about the problem of retaining police officers in forces around London who transfer to the Metropolitan police? Anyone in Bedfordshire who joins the Metropolitan police is between £5,000 to £7,000 a year better off because of London housing allowances and the free travel provided within 70 miles of Charing Cross. This is a question of the allocation of the cake, not of its size.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it is a real issue—one that the White Paper does not address—for places such as Bedfordshire and the Thames valley. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety and I will discuss with chief constables ways to avoid the problem spreading still further, with ring after ring facing a similar situation as we gradually alter the balance. Having put right the massive recruitment problem in the Met, we need to balance that through retention in the immediate non-Met areas.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend will know that I have deep reservations about the prospect of changing the double jeopardy rule, but in the spirit of today's statement, I am prepared to engage in the consultation and give him a chance to convince me otherwise. To start that process, I would like him to expand on two issues. First, how will we ensure that the trial jury at the second trial has not been prejudiced by the pre-trial process of deciding that the evidence is new and compelling? Secondly, what does he mean by new? Does he mean evidence that could not possibly have been submitted at the first trial, or evidence that would have come to light at that trial, had the investigation been extended for long enough?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend raises very reasonable questions, the first of which I referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). On the second question, I believe sincerely that we are, and should be, talking about new evidence that was not available originally. I gave the example of DNA because it has extended our ability to ascertain guilt
302
in a way that was never envisaged 10 or 15 years ago. There are also people—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North will be aware of this—who have written about their guilt afterwards and explained what they did. Changing the double jeopardy law makes all the difference to our capacity to follow through on that.
Mr. David Borrow: May I raise with my right hon. Friend the problem of the high reoffending rates of young offenders when they leave prison or a young offenders institution? I have seen work done by the YMCA both in young offenders institutions and prisons and on release, and am convinced that a lot of the good work done in those institutions is wasted when young people leave them and return to the environment that put them in prison in the first place. There are schemes that can provide assistance, but unless we remove the need for young people to go back on release to the very environment that created the problems in the first place, we are simply not tackling the root of the problem. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would introduce measures to improve the schemes already in place to help young offenders on release.
Mr. Blunkett: We are publishing today a second paper in response to a consultation on rehabilitation. There is a real need to join up prison and probation, rehabilitative and reparation services, and tackle the follow-through on things like drugs—work taking place in prison must continue on release. Alongside an independent review of all correctional services, the pressures on them and requirements for the future, we should take seriously the need to create a genuinely seamless service.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Without a shadow of a doubt, the White Paper will be welcomed throughout my constituency. However, will my right hon. Friend comment on a narrow point about the commissioner for victims, and confirm that his remit will include dealing with victims of death and serious injury on the road? May I tell my right hon. Friend how refreshing it has been to deal with Ministers and officials in all three arms of the criminal justice system who have taken a fresh look at that important area of crime?
Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. The White Paper engages specifically with the support required for trauma involved in major catastrophes, but not catastrophes that affect just one family.
Vera Baird: There is much to welcome in my right hon. Friend's statement. I note that many contentious issues are couched in conditional terms about consulting and so on, and I applaud that open-mindedness. I join colleagues who have praised the attention that will now be given to domestic violence. I hope that that will spell an end to the old notion that crime committed against the family at home is a private matter in which the state must not intervene.
May I ask three short questions? First, forgive me if this is my error, but I am unclear as to whether the abolition of the double jeopardy rule will be retrospective, and thus capable of giving satisfaction to the family close to the hearts of Teessiders to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has referred. Secondly, what does my right hon. Friend mean in the White Paper

303
when he talks about people accused of organised and serious crime not having the right to jury trial? It sounds as if the more serious the crime, the less the chance of a jury trial. Surely, trial by one's peers is the most important principle when the consequences are grave. Finally, will my right hon. Friend's review of the rules of evidence include a fresh look at the admission of previous sexual history in rape trials?
Mr. Blunkett: On the first question, yes, it will be retrospective. On the second question, it is critical that we get the definitions right, and once more I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's contribution to the debate. We are talking about networks of organised criminals, often with international links, who are engaged in subterranean financial activities. Our advice is that there are major problems with the present system. On the final question, the answer is yes.
Gareth Thomas: I too warmly welcome the statement and, as one who has practised in the criminal courts, I agree about the need to rebalance the criminal justice system. May I, however, press my right hon. Friend on the question of disclosure of previous convictions? What criteria will be applied before such convictions are adduced in evidence?
Mr. Blunkett: We have deliberately made it clear not just that we need discussion about that, but that we need to provide some discretion for the judiciary. We cannot say that we need to respect the independence and professionalism of the judiciary, and in the next breath say that we are taking it away. I am mindful of the need
304
to get the definition right, but we also need to ensure that there is enough leeway for account to be taken of individual circumstances.
Roger Casale: I welcome the statement. I know from my contact with Dru Sharpling, the new head of the Crown Prosecution Service in London, and with Eric Packer, the clerk of Wimbledon magistrates court, that the reforms will be particularly welcome in London. People throughout London want to see a step change in the quality of the criminal justice system, and to have confidence in it. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that if the reforms are to be effective, appropriate financial commitments will be needed to back them up? Is it not the case that when we all come to be judged by the jury that is the electorate, this Government will not be accused of having willed the ends without willing the means, whereas the Conservative party is likely to be found guilty of that charge?
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree, but I am always circumspect when, as happened earlier, the Chancellor is present and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is at my elbow. It is important to recognise that this is a blueprint for the years ahead, not just for two years ahead.
As for my hon. Friend's main point, there is a real challenge for the criminal justice system, from the police through the Crown Prosecution Service through the courts to restorative justice in London. London is materially different from other parts of the country in this regard. We really do need the step change to which my hon. Friend referred if we are to deliver something materially different to Londoners who feel let down by the present system.

Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mr. Tom Harris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister's Question Time, when discussing the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a position not actually held by the Conservative party. He suggested that, during the passage of that Bill, his party had supported measures for the confiscation of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. This cannot be an extension of Question Time.
Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 8 pm today, a 24-hour strike will begin on London Underground. It will close the network, causing travel chaos across London and havoc for the tube's 3 million users. Yet so far there has been a deafening silence on the issue from the Secretary of State for Transport.
Given that the Government's botched public-private partnership for London Underground has now been further delayed by legal challenge and by the wait for the European Commission's decision on state aid, the Government have an opportunity to try to introduce a no-strike deal. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had any indication from the Secretary of State that he intends to make a statement to the House condemning tomorrow's strike and saying what action the Government will take to prevent further such disruption?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have had no indication from any Minister that he or she intends to come to the House.
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned about the possibility that the Secretary of State for Defence has inadvertently misled the House, and I want to give him an opportunity to correct the wrong impression that he gave us.
On 9 July, the Secretary of State answered two questions—one from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and one from me—simultaneously.
306
Both concerned aspects of the sale of ships, in particular to the Government of Thailand. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), told my hon. Friend that he had
"received no formal expressions of interest from the Government of Thailand about the purchase of Royal Naval warships".—[Official Report, 9 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 852W.]
On the same day the Minister told me that the Secretary of State for Defence had discussions,
"during his recent visit to Thailand, with his Thai counterpart and other senior Thai officials in support of proposals put forward"
to sell warships. It seems to me that those two answers are incompatible. One or the other must be inadvertently misleading to the House. Would not it be right for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box to correct the misinformation?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The main business before the House today is a debate on defence procurement. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter then.
Mr. Mark Francois: Further to the original point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The operation of the underground is important to my constituents, many of whom use it—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled already that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

BILL PRESENTED
  CHILD ABUSE DEATHS
  Mr. Paul Burstow presented a Bill to place Area Child Protection Committees on a statutory footing; to make provision for appropriate resources to establish Child Death Review Teams; to provide child protection training for all professionals in contact with children; to provide independent counselling schemes; and to appoint a Children's Commissioner in all parts of the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 183].

Respite Care (Children)
4.40 pm
Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 to make it mandatory for local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need and to ensure that children with severe disabilities receive similar levels of respite care from local authorities as other vulnerable members of the community.
This Bill would substitute the word "may" with "must" in subsections (3) and (6) of clause 17 of the Children Act 1989, part III. The change would make it mandatory for local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their areas who are in need, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, and to facilitate the provision of these services by voluntary organisations to ensure that children with severe disabilities receive the same levels of respite care from local authorities as other vulnerable members of the community.
If hon. Members were asked whether their local authority was suffering a social services crisis, at least eight out of 10 should answer yes. Eight out of ten is not some random statistic: it is the number of local authorities where, as is the case with Oxfordshire county council, the demand for social services is clearly outstripping resources.
That shortfall of funding is no more evident than with respite care services for children with severe disabilities. Currently, the responsibility for local authorities to provide such discretionary services is a matter of "may" rather than "must". Thus, in the pecking order, those discretionary services come after statutory provision. Where money is tight, they simply fall off the edge.
I am sure that local authorities would welcome a Bill ensuring that the provision of respite care for children was a statutory responsibility that should be properly funded by the Government. In Oxfordshire, the number of respite care centres is likely to be reduced this year from five to three. Parents have managed to save Sycamore house in my constituency, but Chilterns house in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), a sponsor of the Bill, has been lost.
The Bill would simply amend subsections (3) and (6) of section 17 of part III of the Children's Act 1989 by changing the word "may" in both subsections to "must". Of course, that would mean much more than simply a change of words for parents whose children have complex needs. It would help transform their lives by making the respite care arrangements for their children more secure and stable.
Stability is paramount. Initially, Oxfordshire county council thought that it would have to abandon children's respite care provision altogether. After a lot of heartache and lobbying, it has managed to put together a compromise scheme with the local health authority.
The law at present states:
"any service provided by an authority…may be provided for the family of a particular child in need or for any member of his family".
The House will note that the word "may" is used, not "must". I am not sure that every social services provider has such vocal and committed parent groups as Oxfordshire's Friends of Oxfordshire Respite Centres,
308
known as FORCE, nor such a pragmatic county council. The Bill would ensure that all local authorities would have an obligation, not the discretion, to provide the stability of respite care centres that children with severe disabilities, and their parents, need.
Barnardos, which has helped fund respite care in Oxfordshire, has indicated that it will consider its financial contribution to the partnership in Oxfordshire further. It may at some stage be able to revise and enhance its contribution to the partnership, but that will depend on achieving the partnership that I have described. The proposed partnership to save the respite care centres can happen only if Oxfordshire county council has the funds in the future. Barnardos needs financial stability, which should come from the county council's own financial stability, to stabilise respite care provision for parents whose children have learning difficulties.
All too often, voluntary or charitable organisations commit money only to see the statutory foundation funding from social services withdrawn. The stability on which parents depend is dependent on the stability of social services spending and the money received from central Government for social services.
A letter that I recently received from a parent whose child benefits from Sycamore house said:
"I am asking for your help…surely the government can see the need of parents such as ours and sort out the financial situation so social services can help Barnardo's keep such a vital service for our disabled children and families, not only for the coming year, but for future children and families of disabled children".
The provision of such critical services depends on proper central Government funding, which offers stability for local authority social services budgets. Of course, county councils can raise council tax to cover shortfalls, as Oxfordshire did. It involved a hike this year of £86 on a band D council tax bill, and still left a proposal to close these homes.
The reason why Oxfordshire's social services have deteriorated to their current extent is that Oxfordshire receives considerably less funding than other neighbouring counties and unitary authorities. Nearby Milton Keynes, for example, gets nearly a fifth more investment than Oxfordshire from central Government. Hampshire and Hertfordshire, moreover, get twice the budget specific to respite care centres than Oxfordshire. Yet clearly the cost of living, the cost of staff and the cost of care are the same in all three areas. I am at a loss to understand why the Government believe that Oxfordshire should have the lowest allocation of funds under the grant system when its cost of living is among the highest in the country.
I am concerned that although several Departments recognise the problem, apparently the Department of Health does not. I and other Oxfordshire Members tabled an early-day motion on the issue before the last standard spending assessment round was allocated last year but, unfortunately, our warnings clearly fell on deaf ears.
If Oxfordshire's social services have to survive with less funding than they need until 2004, more vital services will almost certainly be withdrawn, so imagine my concern last week when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of local authority funding. The review will, we are promised, want new formulae that are fairer, simpler, more intelligible and more stable.

309
It sounds good, but then we get to the detail. Buried away in the Government's document is a sentence that rather alarmingly admits:
"any system based on formulae cannot reflect all possible circumstances, so there will inevitably be an element of rough justice".
Then there is the caveat that such rough justice
"tends to be increased as formulae are made simpler".
I have done some back-of-an-envelope calculations of what fairer and simpler funding will mean for Oxfordshire in the light of my Bill's proposals. Rough justice is an underestimate if ever there were one. Of the four basic options for an alternative to the present SSA advanced by the Government, the worst for Oxfordshire could leave a £43 million hole in the county council's budget. That is equivalent to 10 per cent. of the county council's resources. It would add a further £192 to council tax—a 25 per cent. increase—which is simply not sustainable.
Education would he the biggest loser for Oxfordshire. Education is an important part of the county council's plans for Oxfordshire's respite care centres with after school, play and leisure clubs for children with complex needs. How could those services continue under the Government's funding options?
Ministers have said that Oxfordshire local education authority has a good record on finding places in schools for children with severe disabilities. How will that be maintained? Although I might have more chance of developing post-Einsteinian unified theory than fully understanding the Government's proposal for local authority finance, my figures are supported by the Local Government Association.
No one should doubt the need for respite care centres. I, along with Oxfordshire parliamentary colleagues sponsoring the Bill, have spent a lot of time listening to parents with disabled children in need of respite care in the county. I close my comments by reading a letter, not from a councillor or a parent, but the 12-year-old sister of a child receiving respite care. She says:
"I spend a lot of time on my own, upstairs in my room, even my friends won't come around because of my sister and only about twice a month for one night I get to do what a lot of regular young teens take for granted".
Further slashing of central Government funding for counties such as Oxfordshire will mean further cuts in social services, including respite care. Children with
310
severe disabilities deserve protection; they deserve opportunities for respite care. This should be a "must" obligation for local authorities and the Government should ensure the funds for respite care services. That is what the Bill intends to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, Mr. David Cameron, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Robert Jackson, and Mr. Boris Johnson.

Respite Care (Children)
  RESPITE CARE (CHILDREN)
  Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 to make it mandatory for local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need and to ensure that children with severe disabilities receive similar levels of respite care from local authorities as other vulnerable members of the community: 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 184].
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 5th July 2002 relating to the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2003; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  TERRORISM
  That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Cessation of Effect of section 76) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

Defence Procurement
[Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 779, on Major Procurement Projects.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
4.51 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I welcome the official Opposition's support for the Government's announcement on defence spending. Monday's announcement by the Chancellor represents the biggest sustained real increase in defence spending plans for 20 years.
That is excellent news for defence. The 2000 spending review provided the first sustained growth in the defence budget since the end of the cold war: an annual average of about 0.3 per cent. over the three years. This year's spending review has gone further, providing for real annual growth of 1.2 per cent. over the next three years. In real terms, it represents new money: in year one—
Mr. David Laws: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ingram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me give the figures—he may not have heard them yet.
In year one, the amount will be £725 million. In year two, it will be £798 million and in year three, £1.047 billion. Unlike the years of Tory decline, when it comes to defence, Labour means business.
Mr. Laws: Is the Minister aware that Treasury officials, in evidence this morning to the Select Committee on Defence, confirmed that defence expenditure in real terms would be lower in every year of the spending review than it was last year?
Mr. Ingram: I should like to see the transcript of the evidence. It is certainly worth examining any advice given by Treasury officials, but we have to be cautious in interpreting it. I should rather take advice from Departments than from the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Opposition's support for our new budget extends to our programme of radical, realistic reform that underpins it. Based on our approach of maximising support to the front line, that has meant an extensive and ongoing overhaul of our delivery of support services to our Navy, Army and Air Force. Difficult decisions have had to be made, and there are more in the pipeline.
I want to make it clear from the outset that we will not flinch from those decisions, because it is important that we get it right. We must make best and efficient use of our newly increased budget; more money to spend does not mean less focus on effective delivery. Indeed, the very opposite applies. We need to get real value for our defence pound.
Against that background, I welcome this opportunity to outline our progress in delivering the programme of equipment modernisation set in hand after the strategic defence review to ensure that we have capable and effective armed forces, properly equipped for the tasks that we ask our service men and women to undertake.
312
The SDR set us firmly on the right track for making sure that our armed forces can meet the demands of today's and tomorrow's operations. It identified a range of improvements to our capabilities, especially to enhance the ability of the armed forces to conduct expeditionary operations.
Of course a great deal has happened since the SDR and since we last debated defence procurement in October 2000. The events of 11 September last year shocked us all. In response, we have looked afresh at our defence posture and plans. In doing that, we have not set aside the conclusions of the strategic defence review; rather. we have described this work as a new chapter building on the assumptions that we made and the conclusions that we reached during the SDR.
The new chapter work has considered the extent to which the strategic context has changed and how we might best engage in tackling both the symptoms and causes of terrorism. It has also focused on the balance between home defence and countering threats abroad, and on how to enhance the effectiveness of our military contribution to both.
Further conclusions on the wider aspects of the new chapter review will be published in a White Paper tomorrow and, clearly, I do not want to anticipate that now. But I can give some broad indications of the likely consequences for our forward equipment programme. It will not surprise the House that we are likely to see a continued emphasis on rapid deployment, intelligence gathering and precision strike capabilities. That is consistent with the conclusions of the SDR, although some further enhancements in those areas will be needed.
In particular, we are moving in the direction of what is called "network-centric capability", bringing together sensors and strike assets to enable the controlled, precise and rapid delivery of military effect. We will therefore want to look at enhancements to our capability to acquire and analyse information, get the information to those who need it and the precision strike capabilities to turn it into results. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a full statement tomorrow, setting out our conclusions on the new chapter work and the implications for defence capability.
Llew Smith: In the past, we have purchased nuclear weapons from the United States. In what situations would the Government be willing to use those weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend should be aware that we never set out the scenarios in which those weapons would be put to use, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear time and time again, at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, that, in the right circumstances, the weapons would be used. That is the purpose for their existence as part of our force capabilities.
Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No, I have dealt with that point. The issue concerns the use of equipment rather than its capabilities. My hon. Friend has had the opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explaining time and time again about that part of our equipment capability.

313
The settlement for defence agreed as part of the 2002 spending review, and announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Monday, will provide a firm foundation for moving forward with the new chapter. It will offer in particular an opportunity to make the further investment necessary to deliver the enhanced capabilities that the new chapter work tells us we need. The Government have made available £1 billion of new capital investment and £500 million of new resources to take the work forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will provide more details on this tomorrow, but it is clear that the settlement is very good news for defence.
Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: Given the sparse presence on the Conservative Benches behind him, the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to take all the time that he wants to set forth his arguments. But I shall certainly give way to him.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. He is right that I may have a few moments to speak later, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has talked about the switch to resource accounting and, particularly, on 1 April 2003, he will have to take account of depreciation and carry-over costs of some £12.2 billion, in addition to current costs. Has he taken those figures into consideration in coming up with the figure of £3.5 billion to which he has referred?
Mr. Ingram: The answer is yes. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the make-up of the figures for the three-year programme, which have been published by the Treasury, and the way in which those figures are affected by taking account of depreciation. It is important to take account of those non-cash items; doing otherwise would, in a sense, be false accounting. Those realistic aspects of the Budget settlement have to be taken into account.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: The debate is about procurement issues, and we should deal with them. Some hon. Members may have doubts about whether the settlement can meet the demands, but they have not yet heard what I have to say about our procurement programme. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to rush away to get home, but if he cares to hold on, I may give way to him when he has, I hope, absorbed some of the other information that I will impart to him and his hon. Friends.
Since 11 September, British armed forces have been actively engaged in the war against terrorism in operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The challenges of mounting and sustaining operations at that range and in such a harsh environment should not be underestimated. It is a credit to our service men and women and their equipment that United Kingdom forces were able to make the contribution that they did, alongside American and other allies.
Some £155 million was made available to the Ministry of Defence to fund additional equipment and other urgent operational requirements. A number of significantly
314
enhanced capabilities specifically needed for that campaign, such as lightweight hand-held thermal imagers, night vision goggles and additional secure communications equipment, were brought into service rapidly and deployed to good and powerful effect. I acknowledge, however, that all that has not been trouble-free. In the extreme conditions in Afghanistan, all weapon systems are at risk of developing problems. Hon. Members will be aware that, in particular, there have been reports of stoppages with the upgraded SA80 weapon.
Let me assure the House that Ministers take any reported shortcomings in the SA80 very seriously indeed. We attach considerable importance to making sure that our service personnel have reliable and effective equipment that is up to the job. Indeed, that was one reason why I insisted that troops deploying to Afghanistan should take the modified SA80 with them. Notwithstanding the problems encountered there, the SA80 A2 is a more capable and much more reliable weapon than its predecessor. The question is whether it is good enough.
The modified SA80 performed very well during the trials in highly demanding conditions, but, given the new reports, a full and thorough investigation has been set in hand. Specialists have been sent to Afghanistan to assess the problems at first hand with the Royal Marines and to conduct test firings under typical operational conditions. That team has now completed its work and is preparing, as a matter of urgency, a full report on its findings. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until the investigation team's report has been received and its findings assessed.
Mr. John Smith: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's comments on the SA80's performance, but is that not a typical example of why we must get our procurement right? We inherited that gun from the previous Government with very severe problems, and we have had to invest a lot of money to get it absolutely right now. We need to avoid such problems in future.
Mr. Ingram: It is easy to apportion blame. It is true that the SA80 was procured under the previous Government. Notwithstanding the extensive upgrade programme—£90 million was spent on it—and the intensive testing, we must now analyse the concerns that have been raised and find a way forward. I take my hon. Friend's point, and hon. Members know that he makes his point well. He is apportioning blame, but I want to ensure that we get this right.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister is right, and I welcome the news that he has just given. Will he assure the House and, more importantly, the men and women who carry the SA80 that, if that report shows any doubt at all about that weapons's serviceability and record, the Government will be prepared to procure a different rifle, if not for the entire British armed forces, at least for those infantry, special forces, paratroops, Marines and so on who might use it in battle?
Mr. Ingram: That is perhaps a step too far. The hon. Gentleman should not use language that could somehow lead to a lack of confidence in what is a very sophisticated

315
rifle, which, unfortunately, in some reports, has been shown not to have performed as well as we anticipated that it would in the extreme circumstances of Afghanistan.
David Burnside: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: Let me answer this question first. We must assess the problem, analyse it, and test the rifle against other potential rifles while remembering that not all of them may have been tested in those extreme conditions. It is easy to jump from one rifle to another, saying that the other is better, but all that testing must take place. Let me therefore judge the options once I have the analysis.
David Burnside: Will the Minister confirm that other weapons are already used by special forces, including in Afghanistan? The problem being raised is not relevant to many operational forces, at present, who are using a Heckler and Koch.
Mr. Ingram: I shall not comment on what special forces may or may not use in theatre. Clearly, as I said in my earlier response, we must carry out that detailed analysis. We must consider that rifle in connection with other equivalent weapon systems.
Mr. Hancock: I hope that I shall have the chance later to make the point on which I wanted to intervene earlier.
On this point, the Minister referred to the extensive testing of the weapon prior to and after its modification. What were the extreme conditions in Afghanistan that were not tested during the extensive testing and after the £92 million had been spent? Having spoken to troops who have recently returned from Afghanistan, they would say that the performance of the weapon was no better than it had been previously.
Mr. Ingram: Extensive testing was carried out in the whole range of extreme weather conditions—cold, hot and dusty. The weapon was tested not by politicians or civil servants, but by soldiers, in all those conditions. The hon. Gentleman may recollect the announcement at the conclusion of that extensive test programme and the launch of the SA80 A2. Evidence was adduced that showed the mean time in relation to failure of that rifle, which unquestionably showed a big improvement on what had occurred previously.
Part of the analysis that is now taking place must, of course, take into account the maintenance regime. Are orders and advice properly given so that they are well understood, or are there factors that come into play that take the rifle into a more extreme environment than all the other testing environments? I am not in a position at this point in time to say what the conclusion is. I must wait for the expert advice before I can respond. I ask hon. Gentlemen, however, not to be quick to make judgments and decisions, and not to make them on the back of speaking to one or two service men or women. They should take balanced advice on this matter.
I have set out the serious way in which we are dealing with this matter. I do not want any language to be used—obviously, hon. Gentlemen can use whatever language
316
they want—that could somehow put uncertainty in the minds of soldiers. They must use this rifle, which is a substantial improvement on that which they had before, which was already a very sophisticated weapon that had been purchased and designed for specific sets of circumstances. It was found to have faults, modifications were made, and we are now dealing with and trying to analyse the reports on the failures. Caution should be our watchword in dealing with these matters.
I want to turn in more detail to the progress that we have made since the last procurement debate nearly two years ago in delivering some of the key projects that make up the defence equipment programme. Decisions taken during the strategic defence review have led to a broad range of powerful new equipment, some already in service with the armed forces and some in the pipeline to enhance our future capabilities.
The House will be aware that we have embarked on the most extensive warship-building programme for a generation. On 2 July, I announced the findings of the RAND study into alternative procurement strategies for our future warship programme over the next 15 to 20 years and it dealt, in particular, with acquisition options for the Type 45 destroyer. The initial results from the study were used last year to help to inform our decision to proceed with a revised procurement strategy for that ship. To increase productivity and to retain the potential for future competition, we have decided that blocks or modules of each ship will be built by BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft. Final assembly will be carried out by BAE Systems Marine. We now have a total of six Type 45s on contract, and they are due to enter service from 2007. All that demonstrates our clear commitment to a modern and powerful Royal Navy while guaranteeing work for UK industry and providing better value for money.
The Royal Navy's ability to respond rapidly and flexibly to crises around the world will also be enhanced with the acquisition of the two next-generation aircraft carriers. Good progress is being made on their development. We expect to advise the potential prime contractors this autumn about the type of carrier design to take forward. We plan to announce the selection of our preferred prime contractor early in 2003, with the award of a build contract planned for early in 2004. The construction of the carriers will offer tremendous opportunities for UK shipyards—and I stress "UK shipyards".
An important element of that programme is the decision that I announced on 2 July that the future carriers will be base-ported at Portsmouth. As well as being good news for Portsmouth, that allows the relevant companies to construct their bids with that certainty in mind.
Work continues on the new Astute class of attack submarine and on the replacement landing platform dock ships. Progress on these projects has been too slow, largely owing to a range of design and project management difficulties on the part of the contractor. That is very disappointing, but the Ministry of Defence is actively engaged with BAE Systems on all these projects to ensure that the vessels are brought into service as quickly as practicable. The company is in no doubt about our expectations.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am very reassured by my hon. Friend's comment that the aircraft carriers

317
will be built in the UK and will support UK shipyards. However, is he aware of what has recently occurred on Tyneside? Swan Hunter shipbuilders sub-contracted work on its alternative landing ship logistics to Dutch yards while the yards on Teesside and elsewhere remained empty. Work that could be done in this country is not being done here. Will he therefore assure me that work that is given to a prime contractor will not be sub-contracted to Dutch or other European yards?
Mr. Ingram: We became aware of that development when my colleague in the other place was questioned by, and gave evidence to, the Scottish Affairs Committee. It was news to the Department, but it acted very quickly. It made clear to Swan Hunter our view of the build strategy. On the work that has been put out to tender, I understand that progress has been made to seek to have it done in the UK. However, we must recognise that there may be occasions when there is no capability for elements of a new build ship. It is not just a case of saying we have the skills base and the work should be done here. Sometimes sophisticated judgments have to be made and, when the work goes out to tender, European procurement rules may come into play.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that answer, but I raised the matter with the Ministry of Defence in a written question that I tabled last November. The Department assured me that it would keep a close eye on the sub-contracting work at Swan Hunter. Some sub-contractors in the region suspected in November that the problem would arise. If people in the north-east knew about it then, surely the Ministry should have known about it, too.
Mr. Ingram: I do not understand the allegation. Is my hon. Friend saying that we have let down the north-east? If so, the opposite is true. I have given a commitment to UK shipyards which he should welcome. I said that the specifics relating to that section of the hull, which involved specialist steel cutting, were made known when evidence was given to the Select Committee. We acted immediately and the company was left in no doubt about its approach to procurement. Rather than being negative about what we are doing for UK shipbuilding, my hon. Friend should rejoice in the fact that we have given a tremendous commitment to UK shipyards. There is an old saying in Glasgow: it was tears that made the Clyde. It seems to me that the Ministry of Defence saved the Clyde, and that would probably be reflected in shipyard footprints throughout the UK.
Mr. Ian Davidson: As a Member who represents a Clydeside constituency, may I say how grateful we all are to the Minister and his colleagues for awarding the Type 45 and aircraft carrier contracts, which will require a tremendous amount of metal work, to our area? However, will he bear it in mind that competition and capacity for the future are also important, not only in terms of metal shaping, but in terms of the systems? The key to having future capacity to bid for major orders such as aircraft carriers will be the retention of a systems capacity. Given that one of the major bidders for the aircraft carrier is not British owned, is the Minister satisfied that if that company is awarded the status of prime contractor, the capacity for systems construction will remain in this country?
Mr. Ingram: If my hon. Friend holds on, I will set out a review of industrial policy as it relates to procurement
318
policy. However, he makes an interesting point. He claims that one bidder is not British, but if both bidders are non-UK owned, what would that mean for his argument? Will we be unable to place the order with the other company if it is taken over by a foreign competitor? We have to he clear that our drive and intention is to get such vessels built within UK shipyards where there is capacity to do so. However, we may get better value for money elsewhere in many cases that involve specialist equipment. The important consideration is not necessarily that we get British equipment, but that we get the best equipment.
Jim Knight: My right hon. Friend mentioned the decision on basing the aircraft carriers. I read his statement and letter to me with great care and was disappointed that the Department could not make the brave decision to return the basing of the aircraft carriers to Portland. I was interested to read his comments on a temporary berthing for the carrier. Is the Department thinking exclusively of Southampton for that role, or will it consider other prime locations on the south coast?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend, who always approaches such matters with great care and diligence, is right about his area not benefiting from that particular announcement. The announcement that applied to Southampton related to the unusual circumstances in which both aircraft carriers are in port at the same time. At some point in the future we will have to cater for those circumstances by providing additional berthing facilities. On the basis of an intensive study, I can say that Southampton offers the best facilities with the minimum investment. Depending on what facilities were provided, it could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to invest in a support berthing capability, and it might then never be used, so we have to exercise judgment in determining where to base ancillary support.
My hon. Friend is very active both as a member of the Defence Committee and in representing his area, and I know that he will continue to raise these matters with me, but I hope that he understands the background to this decision.
Before that exchange, I was commenting on specific matters relating to the aircraft carrier and the Astute class of submarine. I pointed out the delays to that programme and to the landing platform dock ship programme. It is worth repeating that the company is in no doubt as to our expectations for its performance on those ships.
Although new warship platforms are important, we must be able to support them as part of our overall capability to deploy world wide. We need to determine the best way of supplying and replenishing the modern Navy, following the retirement of our ageing Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels. It is vital that we get those crucial capabilities right.
Looking to the future, I can announce that we are establishing the military afloat reach and sustainability project team—or MARS, in MOD-speak—at the Defence Procurement Agency in Abbey Wood to determine the best way to meet those needs. That could include more new build, new design ships, more flexible than our current single-role support shipping, faster, and able to adapt to a number of different roles. I expect to see the solution being phased in over the latter half of the decade. As a first step, industry will shortly be briefed on that.

319
We will welcome innovative proposals, which might include public-private partnership arrangements. I hope for an imaginative and enthusiastic response from British industry. The spending review has given us the scope to launch that important renewal of these key capabilities.
I have already set out where we are on the future aircraft carrier project. The aircraft selected as having the best potential to carry out strike, air defence and reconnaissance missions from the new carriers is the joint strike fighter. The JSF will be a supersonic aircraft, incorporating advanced stealth technology and capable of conducting multi-role operations from carriers and from land. It will be able to locate, monitor and attack targets with precision weapons while protecting itself from air or surface threats.
The project will bring major benefits to UK companies, including BAE and Rolls-Royce, which could gain work valued at £3 billion during the current phase of the programme, and at £24 billion for downstream production and support activities. That could sustain or create some 3,500 jobs in UK companies, rising to 8,500 or more for production and support work.
A detailed evaluation of the short take-off/vertical landing and carrier variant of the JSF is currently under way to establish which would best meet our needs. The House will, of course, be advised accordingly once we have reached a decision on that.
The JSF will replace the capabilities offered by the joint force Harrier. The decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier earlier than previously planned reflects, the age of that aircraft—it is 20 years since the Falklands war. The major upgrade required to keep it viable would have been technically very risky and expensive, and the world has moved on. Our focus is now on expeditionary warfare, with carrier-based aircraft principally used for land attack operations. The Sea Harrier makes little contribution to that.
We will instead significantly increase our land attack offensive capability by upgrading the Harrier GR7 to GR9 standard, enabling it to use smart and precision weapons. The recent Defence Committee report on major procurement projects acknowledged the rationale behind that decision, and will no doubt make a further contribution on that.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I was expecting some response to this point, but may I just finish it?
The Sea Harrier also lacks utility in countering the threat from sea-skimming missiles, whereas modern ship-borne systems have been designed for that purpose. I recognise that its drawdown removes a layer of air defence in the short term—there is no question about that. However, it is important to remember that there are other layers of defence—for example, Type 42 anti-air warfare destroyers armed with Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles and Type 22 and 23 frigates with their point defence missile systems and close-in weapon systems.
Mr. Francois: I am glad not to have disappointed the Minister, and thank him for giving way. Can he confirm
320
that when JSF comes into service on the new carrier in 2012, part of its mission will be air defence, including the air defence of the fleet?
Mr. Ingram: Part of it will be, but that is not its prime purpose. We have not walked away from or tried to hide the aspect of managed risk. It is interesting that the qualitative assessment in the Defence Committee's report recognised that it had been alleged that the decision was driven by a cost imperative and that it was about saving money. One of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen signed up to that report, so at least the official Opposition accepts that the decision was not driven by that, and that other factors come into play.
Mr. Francois: I see that the Chairman of the Defence Committee is in his place, and no doubt he, too, will want to comment. I have read the Committee's report, and there is no way in which the Minister can spin it into an endorsement of the Government's decision. The Committee expressed reservations about it, and he should be accurate about that to the House.
Mr. Ingram: I know that Opposition Members are told to use the word "spin" every time they speak to a Minister, so that eventually it will stick to us. There is no spin involved—it is an open explanation of the basis of the decision. The Committee accepted—or, to use a better word, acknowledged—the rationale behind the decision. It may have doubts, but ultimately the decision rests with the Ministry of Defence, not the Committee, and we have to take responsibility for any misjudgments. We welcome all reports on the Department, but we have to balance our original decisions against any questions that arise.
This was a sizeable, expensive, and indeed risky programme, and I have described the ingredients that had to come into play. The best advice came from those who were considering the issue of capability, not from civil servants and Ministers, who took advice on the military aspects. They asked two questions. Can the risk be managed? Is it the best way forward in terms of the spending profile both then and currently? The answer was yes.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister be kind enough to explain the judgment that he made, given that his chief military adviser, Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said on 1 May in evidence to the Defence Committee:
"No, forgive me, but I made clear that if I could I would have preferred to have retained a viable Sea Harrier in service because we will be without one of the layers of air defence".
The chief adviser to the Ministry of Defence and to the Minister was advising that he would have chosen to retain the Sea Harrier. What judgment did the Minister make in overruling that advice?
Mr. Ingram: There was no overruling of that advice: it was part of the advice that we were given. One side of the equation was based on taking an approach that could have retained it, but that would have had certain consequences, including the risky element of upgrading the engine and issues relating to the management of resources. Military people would probably say. as now seems to be the case with the Liberals, "Just give us everything that we ask for." Then they must step back and accept that we have to live in the real world. The advice

321
was that there would be a reduction for a time in the layer of defences for any taskforce. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) should read all the evidence.
We are upgrading the support mechanisms on the ships. The Type 45 destroyers provided even more capability and that led to the position that we subsequently adopted.
Mr. Laws rose—
Mr. Ingram: The world has moved on, and we are not fighting the war of 20 years ago. We are fighting in a completely new context and in coalition. That is a new way forward; it is what interoperability means.
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
Mr. Ingram: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) first. I assume that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will repudiate our position. I shall be interested to find out.
Mr. Laws: Does the Minister accept that he is replacing the technical risks in the upgrade project with actual military risks, which our forces will face without the Sea Harrier? Does he recall paragraph 93 of the Select Committee's recent report? It states:
"There are, then, a lot of pieces that must all fall into place before the Sea Harrier's demise can be regarded with at least some confidence."
Is he not worried about that?
Mr. Ingram: Of course, we have a measure of anxiety about the programme's delivery. I have set out a range of other decisions. After the short period that I mentioned, the new Type 45s will be in service and the other support mechanisms on existing ships will be upgraded. We will thus have the capability. Hon. Members will understand that the probability of a single Royal Navy taskforce going to sea is not high.
International coalition of effort leads us to the conclusion that if we were deploying against a threat, we would have partners. [Interruption.] Where is the threat coming from? Perhaps the hon. Member for Yeovil can tell us the location of the new threat. Could the Sea Harriers tackle it? They cannot deal effectively with sea-skimming missiles. We have to equip ships to deal with them.
There is risk management in everything that we do in defence. We have to balance resources and capabilities and the technical implications of an upgrade. Opposition Members do not appear to understand that there are risks in the technical aspects of the upgrade. They must resolve the conundrum, as we have done. That is why we made the decision.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister makes a great deal of the cost and technical difficulties of an upgrade of the
322
Sea Harrier F/A2. He is right; I have spoken extensively to Rolls-Royce about the matter, and an upgrade would be expensive.
Mr. Ingram: What about risk?
Mr. Howarth: There would be some risk attached to the technical fit of the engine. However, if an aircraft that was introduced into service as recently as 1999 is so deficient, why not scrap it and save the money now?
Mr. Ingram: That is a ludicrous position. We have capability; the aircraft is not useless. However, it is not all-singing, all-dancing in the way in which Opposition Members appear to believe. As we move towards the expeditionary purpose, we need the capability to match. That is not compatible with Sea Harrier capabilities. Such judgments have to be made. Do we spend a lot of money, and risk not delivering the programme? The risk is not small. Indeed, we are considering a significant technical risk. The Sea Harrier is not designed to take the new engine. Conservative Members shake their heads. Have they got better advisers than the Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Gray: Rolls-Royce.
Mr. Ingram: Well, okay. Since Rolls-Royce is in my constituency, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman get the company to put that in writing and send it to me. Has Rolls-Royce put it in writing to the hon. Gentleman? I hear silence.
Mr. Keetch: The Minister is a great student of history and will know that he is not the first Minister for the Armed Forces to say in the House that, effectively, we will never go to war by ourselves. Denis Healey said that in defence of the cancellation of CVA1; Sir John Nott said so in the 1980 defence review when he was planning to sell off HMS Invincible, which gave the wrong signal to the Argentines and led to the Falklands war, to which the Minister referred. If the Minister is saying that Britain will never need an air defence capability for the fleet again, why will the JSF have such an element? He cannot have it both ways. We either need an air defence capability—in which case it should be continued—or we do not.
Mr. Ingram: I do not think that I used the word "never"; I said "probability" and "slim". We would all love the benefit of hindsight or to be able to project ourselves months or years before making such decisions in order to meet the unknown, but that is simply not possible. No Minister or Government have had that wisdom. It has been a long time since there has been a Liberal Government, and although I am an amateur student of history, I do not recollect their getting everything right.
There must be a balanced judgment. We have made that judgment on the best advice and after considering all related elements. With the upgrade to the GR9 variant, we will have a tremendous force projection capability, which will enhance our strength and our ability to tackle what we believe on the probability of assessment to be the enemies of the future.
The word "never" never appeared in my explanation. At some point, I will be able to rely on the fact that I never said that. I would be able to take some solace from

323
that, although I hope that I shall never have to do so. The probability of assessment and the management of risk are undoubtedly right. We have had a useful and informative debate on that rumbling issue. I have again tried to educate from the Dispatch Box and to point Opposition Members towards the right decision, but we will see what happens as the debate develops.
Operating alongside the JSF and complementing its capabilities will be Eurofighter. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 10 July, there has been no change in the Government's commitment to Eurofighter. The aircraft will serve as the cornerstone of the RAF's fighting capability from the second half of this decade. It will be a "state of the art" fighter aircraft with a formidable weapons suite, including the advanced short-range air-to-air missile, Meteor, Storm Shadow and Brimstone, and provide a true, adverse-weather, multi-role capability.
The programme remains important not only to the RAF but to the UK's defence industry and those working in it. The UK has made a contractual commitment to purchase 55 Eurofighter aircraft in the first of three envisaged production tranches. A memorandum of understanding with the partner nations covers the first tranche, and the balance of 232 aircraft to be purchased in two further tranches—89 in tranche 2 and 88 in tranche 3.
Mr. Gray: The Minister referred to the Prime Minister committing himself to the Eurofighter as is. Can we be plain about this? Is the Minister giving an undertaking that the Government will definitely purchase 232 airframes—and if so, how do they intend to pay for them?
Mr. Ingram: That is predicated on Labour remaining in power; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conceding that. His point is not silly. Clearly, we can make commitments only from where we stand at this point. Under most circumstances, it has never been possible for Governments to commit future Governments—certainly not those of a different hue.
I have set out our commitment in the memorandum of understanding, and there are many commitments associated with that. There will be a tremendous payback in UK industry terms; all those benefits will flow from this. I have set out the three tranches of purchasing, and the Prime Minister made all this clear on 10 July. Who am I to say anything different? I welcome his statement because it is consistent with what we have been saying all along.
Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can clarify the position. When the Conservatives return to power in three or four years' time, we shall be firmly committed to purchasing all 232 Eurofighter aircraft. Will the Government now match that commitment?
Mr. Ingram: Well, okay, let us match commitments. Let us go down the list. When I get to the end of my speech, I would like the hon. Gentleman to say that he will stand by every one of our commitments—[Interruption.] I have given the assurance, as has the Prime Minister. I do not think that that is at variance with
324
what the hon. Gentleman has said on this. The words stand, and they are very clear. That commitment remains the same, and I have set out the tranche purchasing approach on this.
I mentioned the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile. Good progress has been made on resolving complex technical and commercial issues, and a draft contract has been circulated to partners. The UK and partner nations remain committed to the project, but the contract is unlikely to be signed before the summer. The project still needs to gain the necessary approvals in the German system. The next opportunity for the Bundestag committees to discuss Meteor—and indeed A400M—will be in September. I very much hope that they will grasp this opportunity. Officials are discussing with partners and industry the implications of a delay until September. This delay is disappointing, but we continue to do all that we can to place the contract as soon as possible. As I have just said, the same time frame applies to decisions on A400M. We are working hard to ensure that this contract can also come into effect.
Having dealt with specific sea and air capabilities, let me now highlight three particular capability achievements that contribute directly to our forces' ability to deploy, engage and win on the battlefield. The first is the delivery of the Westland Apache attack helicopter, which entered service in January last year. The arrival of Apache illustrates how we are meeting our strategic defence review commitment to deliver world-class, highly capable equipment to the armed forces, which will help to transform the battlefield. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Hereford and I are on side on this one.
The second achievement involves the Maverick anti-armour missile, which entered service with the RAF in February 2001. Lessons learned from operations in Kosovo identified the need for improvements to our capability to attack armoured targets with precision and speed. We have acted quickly to fill that gap. Thirdly, I want to highlight the delivery of the Viking all-terrain vehicle platform to the Royal Marines, which has proved a great success. Looking forward to future equipment capabilities, the MOD has signed several key contracts, including that for the delivery of a heavy equipment transporter service, and one for the next generation light anti-armour weapon.
I am also pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Defence has today announced its intention, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of final contract negotiations, to award a contract worth some £350 million to RO Defence for the demonstration, manufacture and support of 65 Terrier armoured engineer vehicles. Terrier will replace the in-service combat engineer tractor, enabling the British Army to retain and enhance a vital operational capability provided by the Royal Engineers. This new order is very welcome news for the company and for Alvis, which will have a significant role in manufacturing the vehicles. I am sure that the management and work force at both locations will be delighted with this news.
I have already mentioned that the development of a network-centric capability will transform the way in which the United Kingdom's armed forces are able to operate. This forms a key part of the work that we have been undertaking on the new chapter to the strategic defence review. This is not just an aspiration; things are happening now to deliver the reality, providing an essential foundation on which the new chapter will build.

325
The need for reliable, global military communications has been demonstrated in all recent conflicts, but especially in Afghanistan. The Skynet 5 satellite programme will ensure that we continue to have this important capability. We announced the Paradigm consortium as the preferred bidder in February and, subject to successful negotiation, we expect to place a private finance initiative contract by the end of the year.
Over the coming years, we will see great improvements in our ability to communicate, and to exchange information securely wherever we operate. A number of complementary systems will ensure that we continue to have effective command and control, whether operating independently or with our allies. Bowman will provide a secure communication and data transfer system, as well as the basis for the wider digitisation of land operations. We expect it to enter service in 2004.
We recognised the early need to improve communications, and we have introduced the personal role radio, which has proved extremely useful in Afghanistan. I can announce today that BAE Systems, in Christchurch, and Marconi Mobile, in Chelmsford, have been chosen as preferred bidders for the assessment phase of the first stage of the Falcon programme, which will provide a communication system at formation level. These two British companies have been chosen to enter the final stage of the competition for the armed forces' new, £430 million secure communication system. Successful communications are the key to success on the battlefield, and to our ability to deliver precision weapons rapidly and accurately—what we are calling network-centric capability.
Falcon's role in drawing this together, and connecting systems such as Skynet and Bowman, is key, giving senior commanders the ability to direct operations effectively on the battlefields of the future. Falcon will be able to carry a greater volume of voice and data traffic more effectively than existing equipment. It can be deployed on or off-vehicle, and moved rapidly by air into the operational theatre. It will also need less manpower to operate and to support.
Finally, Cormorant will provide a state-of-the-art, theatre-wide area communications network, and will enter service shortly.
Hugh Robertson: On talking to anybody involved in recent armed forces operations, it is clear that the key word is inter-operability—the ability to operate not only within our services, but with service men from other countries. Can the Minister guarantee today that, as the new equipment programmes come on-stream, they will be tested to ensure that they are fully inter-operable with American systems, given that, these days, we spend much more time operating with the Americans and, indeed, with our continental allies? Surely that is a key part of the programme.
Mr. Ingram: That is a very important point. Although inter-operability has been a watchword for some time, it has become the key approach in terms not only of our enhanced capabilities, but of how we encourage our European allies and aspirant NATO nations to improve their capabilities as well. We have very good relations with the United States, and if that interface is genuinely
326
to deliver what we want in respect of NATO or any other partnership between allied nations, we must ensure that such inter-operability and compatibility exists. Otherwise, certain procurement decisions, such as those made by previous Governments, could well have to be scrapped.
On the projects that I have just outlined, performance in many key capability areas has been, and continues to be, impressive. However, in certain areas the rate of progress has been disappointing. Let me make it clear that, when contractors are unable to deliver equipment to agreed time frames, we do not just sit back in resignation. We are getting much smarter at dealing with the consequences of slippage.
The overall rate of slippage has reduced, as has the number of projects experiencing delay. New slippage during 2001—some 29 months across four projects—was less than half that in 2000. We are also much better at working with contractors to ensure that we get a useful capability into service at the earliest possible date, building on that initial operating capability through incremental acquisition to reach the full levels of required performance. Our approach to acceptance of the ASRAAM missile is a good example of this smart behaviour. The Ministry of Defence has taken delivery of a first batch of interim standard missiles, which offer a significant improvement over existing capability.
The Public Accounts Committee's recent report, "Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2001", provides further evidence that the Department is continuing to improve cost control, that we have slowed the rate of slippage on projects, and that new equipment continues to meet the vast majority of specified technical requirements. According to the Committee:
"The Major Projects Report for 2001 shows encouraging signs that the Department's performance is improving under Smart Acquisition".
In an earlier report, published on 23 November 2001, the NAO welcomed
"the signs that the Ministry of Defence is beginning to bring delays on major projects under control, and is continuing to control costs on major projects and to meet the vast majority of the technical requirements of the Armed Services."
We will respond formally to the PAC report—and to the Defence Committee's survey of major procurement projects—in the early autumn. It would be wrong to reply before the formal response process. [Interruption.] The Opposition complain that I have now been speaking for an hour, but I have tried to take all the interventions that would add value to the debate. We have an extensive debate on a key issue. [Interruption.] I am conscious that representation is sparse on the Benches behind the Opposition Whip—
Mr. David Wilshire: And behind you.
Mr. Ingram: We are comfortable with our solution, but it is the Opposition's job to try to knock us down. I do not need a lot of allies behind me, although I welcome every contribution that will be made.
Smart acquisition is not just about buying new equipment; it is also about how we manage the equipment we own to maximise the capability available to front-line forces in a cost-effective manner. That means looking not only at how we acquire the equipment in the first place, but at how we support equipment through its in-service life and how we undertake its disposal.

327
Being smarter in how we support equipment falls to the Defence Logistics Organisation, which as part of its drive to reduce costs and improve effectiveness is reviewing stock holdings and using innovative techniques to identify further reductions.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: Well, I hope that I will not get into trouble with Opposition Front Benchers for extending the debate.
Mr. Hancock: I congratulate the Minister on the robust way in which he has defended his position and thank him for his generosity in taking interventions. I sense that the Minister is easing to a conclusion, but before he does can he tell the House whether he is satisfied that the procurement that will be required under the new chapter can be achieved within the new money that has been allocated to the Ministry, or will some of the existing procurement schemes—those in the planning or development stage—be cut?
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he must not have heard my earlier remarks. I said that a White Paper will be published tomorrow and the Secretary of State will then elaborate on its contents. I have pointed out the £1 billion of new capital investment and the £500 million of other money, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seek to explore his specific questions after the White Paper is published.
The Defence Logistic Organisation's non-project procurement office was set up on 1 April 2000 to manage general stores and has already generated significant savings. In its first year of operations, it rationalised the supplier base, making savings of some £40 million on new contracts valued at £350 million. Other partnering agreements with industry are helping the Department to manage its stocks more effectively, transferring stock-holding activities and risks to contractors. [Interruption.] I have a couple more points to make. We have had a good debate so far, and I look forward to further contributions.
Another important plank of our overall smart acquisition programme has been the drive to extend its benefits—previously confined mainly to the equipment programme—more vigorously into the acquisition of services, especially through private finance and new commercial partnering arrangements. Our public-private partnership and private finance initiative programmes continue to have an important role to play in making best use of defence resources and delivering improved services. We have the richest, most diverse and one of the most successful PFI programmes in Whitehall. PFI has enabled us to obtain new aircrew training simulators and other equipment-based services, but such schemes could go much further and that is the approach that we are taking.
The last issue that I wish to address is industrial policy and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) who intervened earlier on that point is still in his place. I am happy to exchange views with him if he has any further thoughts on the issue. All of the
328
issues that I have set out are important in their own right, but clearly they have an impact on industry generally. The United Kingdom benefits from a strong and innovative defence industry that contributes to our overall economic wealth, science and technology base, and—importantly—to regional economies.
Competition remains the bedrock of our acquisition policy—when sensibly applied it consistently gives the taxpayer value for money. Competition works to encourage innovation. As our procurement requirements change, innovation will increasingly be the key to winning many contracts, something that I hope will benefit many of our smaller and medium-sized firms. Competition should be seen not as a threat but as an opportunity.
I would not suggest, however, that there is a single standard approach to that opportunity. We will use alternative procurement routes, such as partnering, where industry and Government can benefit from stable long-term relationships. Suggestions from some parts of industry that we should look only to privileged or monopoly suppliers are shortsighted: to do so would stifle innovation and we would end up paying inflated prices for probably inferior equipment.
Let there be no doubt. We want to buy the best. We want to buy British. So we must constantly look for ways to help British industry to be the best, but industry has to play its part. My Department's first responsibility is to spend the defence pound to achieve best value for money. That applies more widely than simply purchasing equipment. It has broadened from equipment acquisition to the purchase of services, and many defence companies now cross national borders. It is where the technology is created that is important and that means looking to see where the skills and the intellectual property reside, where the investment is made, and where the jobs are sustained and created.
We also support the UK defence industry with our efforts to improve access to foreign markets and through our research and technology strategy. Increased access to foreign defence markets will improve technology transfer across national boundaries and increase the opportunities for our companies to compete for export orders. That is important: UK defence companies cannot rely on MOD orders alone to keep them in business. That is not the MOD's job.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is the Minister aware that there should be much support for the Government's decision on head-up displays being sold on US aircraft? If we were to withdraw the right for manufactured equipment from this country to be sold abroad by our allies, we would never be able to enter partnership agreements for valuable equipment that will win markets all around the world.
Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely, and that has certainly been the Government's view in the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
Jim Knight: My right hon. Friend mentioned research and development. Does he agree that having a geographical concentration of expertise, especially in research and development, is a good thing? In my area, we have expertise in sea systems technology, two QinetiQ operations that are based in the area, and many other

329
private sector operations. However, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory proposes to remove its discrete sea systems expertise and place it elsewhere—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now bring his intervention to a close?
Jim Knight: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Ingram: The concentration of science and technology cannot be a good thing, because we want to see a spread over the UK. However, industry has to stand by the decisions that it takes. We cannot second-guess companies or force them to do something else. However, we can encourage them and discuss the Government's future relationships with them. I have tried to set out what the Government can do, what we expect of industry and the possibilities for a partnership approach. That does not rest just with the MOD: it applies across Government deli very.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman must have been given leeway by his Whip to intervene. Only a few moments ago, the Opposition were complaining that I was speaking for too long.
Mr. Howarth: I regard the Minister as an extremely courteous man, and, along with others today, I am very grateful to him for giving way.
The point made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is important, and it has come to light only in the last week. I had a letter from the Under-Secretary of State about the concentration of DSTL employees on three sites. The point made by the hon. Gentleman relates not to company decisions, but to a decision by the Government. I suspect that it is a very good point. Can the Minister—or perhaps the Under-Secretary of State when he winds up the debate—explain the rationale behind that concentration?
Mr. Ingram: As the hon. Gentleman says, the decision rests outside the Department, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may explain the rationale later. Let me, however, say something about the near-company status conferred by some of our activities. Trading funds are one example. We must operate on the basis of best principle rather than mere dissemination for the sake of it. Quality decisions must be made to secure the maximum return on investment. We are no different from industry in that respect. As I have said, we expect a great deal from industry. We must deliver a great deal in return, and we must find solutions. Emotive decision-making is not the best way of delivering on any Government policy, but that applies particularly to the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Davidson: The Minister urged me earlier to await his utterances on industrial policy. I did so, but they were a trifle too delphic for me. In other words, I did'nae understand them completely.
I did of course understand what the Minister said about the merits of competition, and about the advantages of partnership and the disadvantages of monopoly supply.
330
Perhaps, though, I can take him into the fourth dimension. Many of these matters cannot be seen in isolation here and now, because some of the decisions we make here and now have implications for our future capacity to tender for orders. What is the Government's industrial policy in relation to, in particular, the aircraft carrier, in the context of retaining intellectual property associated with systems design in this country so that we can bid for future orders?
Mr. Ingram: I am sorry if I was delphic. I did not intend to be. I thought I was being very clear about what we require from industry, what we will not accept from industry—which my hon. Friend now accepts—and how we can move forward together.
I spent some time talking about shipbuilding capacity. The MOD alone cannot save the shipbuilding industry. We can do a lot, but the industry must be much more forward-looking and much more commercially intensive. It must look for the opportunities that are out there so that it can spread its workload to secure the broad capacity and skills base that we need.
We must seek at all times to purchase the best possible equipment for our front line. That means that we cannot be a patsy to Government. There is no longer any sacred cow. It cannot be thought that we will roll over and accept things because of political pressure from one quarter or another.
I know that my hon. Friend engages with the company in his constituency. No doubt he will make its members aware of what is being said now, and has been said consistently, by defence Ministers, if they are not already aware of it. We want a lot from industry, and we are prepared to give a lot, but industry must produce the best equipment, and it must produce it at a good price. That must be the core of our approach.
Overall, I consider that we have the right resources, the right industrial policies, the right approach to smart acquisition, and a wide range of impressive equipment projects to help ensure that our armed forces have the capabilities that they need in order to deal with the complex challenges of the future. We ask a lot from the men and women in our armed forces, and they have the right to expect the best from us in return. That is this Government's objective, and I think we are on course to achieve it.
6.5 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I think the Minister has received general acclamation for what must be described as a marathon. He entered into the spirit that the House wanted by giving way and engaging in debate—a debate that will continue this evening.
This is a timely debate, occurring as it does on the eve of the Farnborough air show in my constituency. I hope the Minister and others will go to that: it is the greatest air show in the world, and the greatest showcase for an important component of British manufacturing industry. I am bound to add that it might have been better to hold the debate after the publication of the new chapter tomorrow, when we could have had the benefit of seeing it. No doubt its publication will give us another opportunity to question the Minister. I hope he will ensure that we have a proper debate about the new chapter.
I too pay tribute to the United Kingdom's defence industry. Notwithstanding the occasional criticism, British industry delivers some first-class equipment to Her

331
Majesty's forces. It gives employment to 345,000 people throughout the United Kingdom, and contributes significantly to our national prosperity. The British aerospace industry alone has earned the United Kingdom £100,000 million in exports in the past 10 years, with defence exports playing their part.
The Minister made an important point when he said that British companies must look overseas to ensure that they are not wholly dependent on the United. Kingdom defence market. That means, however, that those companies must have the support of the British Government and of Parliament for their efforts to provide defence equipment to defend our allies overseas.
I welcome the Minister's announcement about the Terrier, and the £350 million order for Royal Ordnance. We are talking about a British company and a British order for the benefit of some first-class British Royal Engineers. I am particularly pleased because the Royal Engineers have a major base at Gibraltar barracks in my constituency, and I think they have demonstrated that when others are on exercise they are doing it for real. Exercise Saif Sareea proved that last November.
As we expected, the Minister made much of the Chancellor's financial largesse—although deli very of the largesse announced on Monday is not scheduled to start for nine months. Before the Minister gets too excited, let us examine the figures. On Monday the Chancellor told us that defence spending would increase by £3.5 billion over the next three years from today's base of £29.3 billion; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) implied, that figure refers to the new resource accounting standards recently introduced in all Departments, to which we shall all have to become accustomed.
On the old cash accounting basis, this year's figure would be £24.2 billion. Under that convention, and allowing for annual inflation of 2.5 per cent., the increase in spending over the next three years will amount to just £1.2 billion—about £400 million a year. Even on the Government's figures, there will only be a 1.2 per cent. real annual increase.
The Minister trumpeted the marvellous settlement that his Department had secured. I do not want to be too churlish, but I think it only fair to point out that his 1.2 per cent. compares with a three times greater increase for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which received 3.5 per cent. for each of the next three years. Some may of course regard sport as an extension of war, but I am afraid the fact remains that the Minister's Department did not do quite as well, in comparison with other Departments, as he tried to pretend to the House.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The Tory Government cut the defence budget by one third. although I accept that times were different then. It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman go through the figures, but can he give a commitment that a future Conservative Government would at least match the increase that has been announced? If not, will he say what increase such a Government would provide?
Mr. Howarth: That was a good try by the hon. Gentleman, who anticipates part of my speech. I had expected that he would ask that question, and he may rest assured that I will come back to it.
332
As a percentage of gross domestic product—a yardstick constantly applied to NATO applicant states—UK defence spending will fall to a post-1979 low of 2.2 per cent. That compares with 2.9 per cent. of GDP when the Conservative Government left office in 1997.
When the threat was high and real, as in 1982–83, the then Conservative Government found the resources to match it, and spending rose by 6.6 per cent. in that period. Even when that Government cut defence expenditure after the fall of the Berlin wall—I am sure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is old enough to remember that there was a great clamour then for a peace dividend—I do not recall that any member of the then Opposition said that the cuts were too great.
Mr. Bruce George rose—
Mr. Howarth: All the argument was the other way—except, I suspect, from the right hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that his highfalutin statistics were not the ones provided for him by the Defence Committee this morning, or we would get very angry. Does he accept that much of the increase in defence expenditure after the Falklands war was used to replace the ships that were sunk, of which there were too many? Also, in 1985 the Conservative Government broke the commitment given by Fred Mulley in response to a NATO request that the UK, like all NATO members, would increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms. The decline in defence expenditure began in 1985. well into the cold war. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look again at his brief, and be more careful. It is true that the Conservative Government left office with defence expenditure of around 2.8 or 2.9 per cent. of GDP, but it was 5.3 per cent. when—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House, and he must know that his remarks have gone well beyond the bounds of an intervention.
Mr. Howarth: I can safely conclude that, whichever party was in government, its defence expenditure would not be sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman, who has long been a stalwart supporter of defence expenditure.
The figures that I have came from the House of Commons Library, not the Defence Committee or the Government. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is right that there was subsequently a reduction in expenditure, but in the years 1982–83, 1983–84 and 1984–85 there were increases of 6.6 per cent., 2.9 per cent. and 5.3 per cent. respectively. That shows that there were substantial increases, not just post-Falklands, but at a time when the UK faced a threat.
As I said, I doubt whether any Opposition Member at the time said that the then Conservative Government were cutting defence expenditure too much. Indeed, when I was resting between engagements in the period 1992–97, one Labour Member whose name I shall not reveal told me that a Labour Government on taking power would not have to worry about making cuts, as the Tories would have done all that for them.

333
Does the Minister of State wish to intervene?
Mr. Ingram: No.
Mr. Howarth: Fine.
I do not want to be churlish about the increase in defence expenditure. I assure the House that the Opposition welcome it—unlike the Labour Opposition in the 1980s, who rejected the Conservative Government's increase in defence expenditure. Given the range of military commitments that the Government have entered into, it was imperative that real increases were made.
Everyone—from previous Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Guthrie to Back-Bench Labour Members—has called for an increase in defence expenditure, but that has to be viewed in the perspective of the massive increase made in the US. This year alone, expenditure there has risen by $48 billion, as many hon. Members will know. The expenditure gap between European nations such as Britain and the US is widening. We understand that we cannot match US expenditure, so I shall say no more on the point, other than that we welcome the increase that has been announced.
I can tell the hon. Member for North Durham that the Opposition position on spending was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, at the Royal United Services Institute meeting last week. He said:
"It is still three years before the likely date of the next general election. We shall only be able to decide on the proper level of defence spending after consultation in Government with the Chiefs of Staff and our allies. We will fully fund the defence capabilities that are essential to safeguard national security and to fulfil our international obligations."
I suggest that that is a stronger commitment than any given by any Opposition in the post-war period. It is a very strong commitment and reflects the priority that the Conservative party accords to defence under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The statement that he has just made may have been all-encompassing but as an explanation it was as clear as mud. If we are to enter into the expenditure that the Opposition clearly want, what other services such as education or health does the hon Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) think we should cut? Or does he think that the Government have an endless, elastic budget that fits all demands?
Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, whom I happen to like, should choose to digress down the route of expenditure on other things. This debate is about defence, on which I have set out the Opposition's position. I have heard the hon. Gentleman question visitors to the Defence Committee, and I know that he often says that their perfectly clear assertions are "as clear as mud." So I do not consider that his remark amounts to a serious criticism of my explanation of the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, the shadow Secretary of State.
It is the Opposition's duty to hold the Government to account over their strategic defence review commitments. This is not a game: we have a duty to question the Government and to ensure that they are doing the right thing.
334
If the Chancellor's settlement is as generous as the Minister of State suggested, why did he not say that recent cuts would be restored? What about returning 5 Squadron Royal Air Force Tornadoes from mothballs? What about reinstating the three cancelled Nimrod MRA4s? What about engaging the 5,600 recruits needed to bring Britain's smallest Army since the time of Wellington to the Government's own target strength, and to restore the Territorial Army to its Tory strength of 59,000? Why do not the Government reverse their decision to scrap the Royal Navy's fleet protection force of Sea Harriers, which they said they could not afford to keep after 2004? Of that we heard nothing in the Minister's speech.
Mr. Ingram: I talked about Sea Harriers.
Mr. Howarth: The Minister did talk about Sea Harriers, but he said nothing about the cuts that we were told had to be made to save money. We did not hear that those Sea Harriers were to be restored as a result of what the Government call the substantial increase in defence expenditure accorded by the Chancellor.
What provision have the Government made for the cost of putting a division of up to 25,000 men into full battle order? The Secretary of State told us on Monday that "absolutely no decisions have been taken by the British Government in relation to operations in Iraq".—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389. c. 10.]
The right hon. Gentleman was right to make that clear. Yet the Prime Minister also made it clear in his cosy fireside chat yesterday that military action might be required because the threat posed by Iraq's weapons programme was growing, not diminishing. Either sensible and prudent preparations are now being made or our armed forces risk being called into action with inadequate preparation. Which is it? The Minister must answer that when he comes to the Dispatch Box—unless he would like to answer now, in which case I will give way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Carry on.
Mr. Howarth: That says it all. There is a big hole in the Government's strategy on the issue.
Mr. John Smith: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that force planning and preparations for various scenarios take place all the time. It would not be appropriate for a Minister to declare what planning is currently taking place inside our armed forces should we enter into military action, when the enemy would like to know what the hon. Gentleman wants to know.
Mr. Howarth: Of course the House should not be informed of every detail, but there is a policy issue here. If an operation is mounted, there will be a cost attributable thereto, and it is right for us to ask whether Ministers are putting that into their budget and making the necessary provisions.
Mr. Ingram: Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman is asking about commitments to any future deployment and the costs associated with that, not just about a specific deployment?
Mr. Howarth indicated dissent.
Mr. Ingram: I see that the hon. Gentleman is asking only about the specific. Whether specific or general,

335
when the unplanned-for demand comes, the cost is then met, as happened under previous Governments. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the budget outturns on which he claims to be an expert, he will realise that the commitments that we have had to meet recently in Macedonia, Sierra Leone and, more important, in large-scale terms, Afghanistan, have all been met. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not asserting that we do not do that.
Mr. Howarth: No, I was not asserting that. I do not regard myself as an expert, but the House of Commons Library is reasonably expert in these matters, and I do not think that the Minister of State should query its integrity.
The point that I am making is clear: the Secretary of State said that absolutely no decisions have been made, but the Prime Minister is making it clear that there is a prospect of the Government undertaking some kind of operation. As yet, no decisions have been made, and we understand that. However, I repeat that either sensible and prudent preparations are being made or our armed forces risk being called into action without proper preparation.
Mr. Ingram: So that there is no doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, will he take it from me that all operational costs are met from contingency funds and not from planned expenditure? Does he understand that part of the process? To ask that is to call into question not anyone's analysis but the hon. Gentleman's capability of understanding the complexity of these issues.
Mr. Howarth: Of course not all expenditure comes from the contingency fund. Some will inevitably come from the Ministry of Defence, and we have not yet seen the full accounts relating to Afghanistan.
I should like to press the Minister on the SA80 rifle, which is causing so much concern. The SA80 would be the standard infantry weapon in any major ground operation in the middle east or elsewhere. I am not sure whether the House properly noted the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence on Monday, when he asked the Secretary of State to confirm that in a test of the weapon in Afghanistan, out of 30 rifles firing 90 rounds each, 20 jammed. We are pleased that the tests to which the Minister of State referred took place, but the House needs to know the outcome. We entirely accept that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet received the report, but the House is entitled to know the outcome of those tests and his response to the report. If the report fails to give the SA80 a clean bill of health, are the Government prepared to replace that weapon altogether, as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is no longer in his place, asked? Can the Under-Secretary confirm that comparative tests are under way in Bagram, involving the SA80 and other comparable weapons such as the M16—which, incidentally, is the standard weapon for the United States army, and the weapon of choice for certain key elements of the British Army?
On some of the major procurement programmes, we welcome many of the projects under way. The Minister of State referred to the two substantial new 50,000 tonne aircraft carriers, which will provide the United Kingdom with a vital independent capability to launch operations without recourse to land bases. However, the project is
336
inextricably bound up with the new joint strike fighter being built by Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. The JSF, with its offensive and air defence capability, will be the vessels' essential partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) was right to point out that the JSF is not simply an offensive weapon with an air-to-ground capability but has an air defence capability. That is an important factor. However, the project is not yet assured, nor can anyone at this stage of the aircraft's development programme be entirely confident of an in-service target date of 2012 being met. The House will want to know exactly how the Government see the timetable for these two linked programmes working out. The two carriers and the joint strike fighter must both come on stream at the same time, which is quite a risk. We wish the Government well and hope that the projects will be achieved on time and together.
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us soon when we can expect a decision on the joint strike fighter type to be procured. He said that he was not in a position to make a decision yet, but it is important to the whole design concept of the aircraft carrier whether the aircraft to be deployed from that carrier will be a short take-off vertical landing aircraft—STOVL—or whether it will be the carrier variant, which will be a steam catapult-launched variant. The design of the aircraft carrier depends on that decision. My personal preference, to which I know the Minister will attach enormous weight, is to find in favour of the STOVL variant rather than the catapult-launched carrier variant, as I believe that the STOVL variant will provide versatility as well as maintaining Britain's lead in this very important field of technology. There is an added advantage in that pilots operating off aircraft carriers using a STOVL aircraft need a lot less training than pilots on a catapult-launched system, which I am told takes up to six months to convert from a STOVL aircraft.
We have discussed the Sea Harrier already, but I wish to say a little more. With the F/A2 Sea Harrier being withdrawn from 2004, our existing carriers will be without an outer layer of air defence cover, as the Minister of State acknowledged. In our view, that will severely limit the UK's ability to deploy an expeditionary force.
Indeed, as Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Equipment Capability, told the Defence Committee on 1 May, official thinking was that
"we envisage in most cases high intensity combat operations being with allies and partners".
That is entirely consistent with what the Minister said, but it means that we shall not have that independent capability should the need arise.
We hope that the need will not arise, but it may. My remarks are slightly tongue in cheek, but currently there are arguments relating to Gibraltar and we have just seen Spain reclaim an island that the Moroccans had claimed—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting that Spain is about to invade Gibraltar, and the Minister need not assume that I am. However, the important point is that no one predicted the Falklands. Being prepared for the unexpected is one of the key duties of the Government.
In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, the Government conceded that although they anticipate that they will not have to operate other than with the support of allies and partners, no consultations

337
have taken place with allies and partners who could provide air defence cover. We are talking principally about the United States. The policy was not as well thought through as the Government suggested.
Mr. Kevan Jones: May I try to extract a commitment from the hon. Gentleman? The Conservative party's approach to defence expenditure seems to rely on an elastic cheque book. If we were in the nightmare situation that there was a Tory Government, would they take a gamble with money and technology and actually upgrade the Sea Harrier?
Mr. Howarth: There is no technical gamble in operating the Sea Harrier at present. As we speak, the Sea Harrier is on duty with Her Majesty's forces, performing the role for which it was designed—to defend the fleet and act as an interceptor. The aircraft is doing that at the moment, so there is no technical gamble to take.
The Government should acknowledge that the Select Committee, by consensus, was unhappy with their decision to scrap the Sea Harrier. Even Sir Jock conceded:
"It is not…something that I would have chosen to do were it not for the fact that we have to make some hard choices in terms of balance of investment."
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) also referred to that point. In effect, Sir Jock was saying—he made no secret of it—"If we had the money, we'd like to keep the Sea Harriers". I have heard that from even higher authorities.
Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he still shares my opinion that no sustainable argument was made by anyone who gave evidence to the Committee for the early phasing out of the Sea Harrier? The life of the aircraft could be extended until the gap could be fully covered by the Type 45 and the upgraded equipment on the Type 42.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. If the joint strike fighter is to have its air defence capability, it is conceded that that would be valuable for a maritime expeditionary force, but that is what will be removed.
The Government are relying on the Type 45 destroyer with its improved phased-array radar and new principal anti-air missile system to make up some of the air defence capability lost with the demise of the Sea Harrier. However, the first Type 45 is not due in service until at least 2007—as the Minister acknowledged—but we do not know whether that target in-service date will be achieved. Even that is a full 18 months after the last Sea Harrier will have disappeared—assuming that the programme will be on time and that its weapons system meets the specification.
Will the Minister confirm the Defence Procurement Agency's statement that the ship will have a potential ballistic missile defence capability, using the Sampson radar? In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence denied that any Ministry of Defence studies had been made to assess the specific suitability of the Type 45 for a ballistic missile defence role. He also acknowledged:
"As the design of the type 45 progresses, opportunities to upgrade the ship's capability are being identified and acted upon".—[Official Report, 16 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 158W.]
338
Will the Minister tell us what those opportunities are and whether studies will be carried out to assess the vessel's adaptability to a BMD role? However shy the Government may be on that point, we know that the capability exists, and Labour Members should reflect on the assurances—false or otherwise—that they may have been given.
Mr. Francois: Although the official in-service date for the Type 45 is late 2007, the vessel is a first of class. With such vessels there are often extra trials, so realistically the in-service date will be 2008 or even 2009. Can my hon. Friend therefore confirm that the gap between the Sea Harrier coming out and PAAMS—the principal anti-air missie systems—being available on the Type 45 could be two or even three years?
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Type 45 is due at the end of 2007. Once it has been to sea, it will be withdrawn—as my hon. Friend rightly says—to—the principal anti-air missile systems—undergo further trials. It will thus not be available.
The Minister referred to the Eurofighter Typhoon. Obviously, we all welcome that aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely right to describe its virtues, although he forgot to remind the House that the Conservative Government were responsible for defining the aircraft in the first place. However, there is cross-party agreement; we are all in favour of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which will perform a valuable role.
The aircraft is costly, and there has been a delay in the programme, caused in part by collaboration with our European partners. There is a price to pay for such collaboration in terms of the difficulty of achieving partner agreements for complicated projects. However, the benefit of collaboration is that it makes it much more difficult to cancel the programme.
It is disappointing that the delivery of the first twin-seat aircraft to the Royal Air Force will I understand be in December this year and that the delivery of the first single-seat aircraft is not planned until the second half of next year. One of the problems that that creates is that those dates will run up against the introduction of the joint strike fighter.
Another example of the delays attributable to European collaboration is the A400M medium-lift transport. It is 10 years since I saw a wooden mock-up proudly displayed at the Farnborough international air show, yet we are currently little further forward. We are still in limbo as regards the engine. When will Airbus make a decision? It was due to do so at the end of this month, but our understanding from Rolls-Royce is that that is unlikely. There are technical difficulties with the 18-ft diameter propellers. The Minister will know of the difficulties encountered with the C-130J and the effects of the new propellers and engines on the aircraft's aerodynamics. What support are the Government giving for the TP400D6 engine that Rolls-Royce is developing with its European partners?
We await the outcome of a German election to know whether that project, too, will proceed. If Germany decides to pull out of the project, will it be rendered unviable? I think that the Germans are to order about 40 of the aircraft. What happens if they pull out? Will the project continue to stagger from one crisis to the next?

339
It is just as well that the Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley has, as he put it,
"in my back pocket a financial proposal that we could quickly convert at a known price for two C-17s".
Presumably, if the A400M project collapses the RAF will require more than an extra two C-17s. Although I accept that the Minister is reluctant to give a deadline for the A400M to proceed, will he tell us whether he is in negotiation with the United States to procure an adequate supply of C-17s? Is he looking to have part of the aircraft built in the United Kingdom, apart from the head-up display that is already standard equipment on every C-17 produced by the US, as it is also standard equipment on every F-16 and F-22 produced? More than 5,000 have been produced for the United States by the United Kingdom.
We welcome the decision to order Bowman, which was a good example of the Government making a hard decision when a procurement programme had run into difficulties. The Government cut their losses, demonstrating the value of not reinventing the wheel and. where appropriate, of buying something off the shelf that does the job. Bowman is a vital part of the communications system, replacing Clansman. Its secure voice service, secure data messaging and automatic position location navigation recording system should add significantly to command and control operations. As Sir Jock said to the Committee on 1 May, the prospects of getting it in service in 2004 are reasonable. The Minister is holding to that in-service date of 2004, which is good news.
On communications, the Minister referred to "network-centric" activities. I am not entirely clear what that is about, although the Minister gave a good explanation. Much has been made of that philosophy applying to modern military activity. In so far as I understand the term, it is right that proper weight should be applied to developing systems that will enhance the dissemination of information, enabling commanders to acquire information quickly, to make better-informed decisions equally speedily and to strike surgically.
The Ministry of Defence is looking at the application of unmanned aerial vehicles to contribute to that development under the Watchkeeper programme. We welcome that and urge the Government to move swiftly, and not repeat the long-drawn-out process by which its predecessor, Phoenix, arrived. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said, we believe that it is imperative that the equipment is entirely compatible and interoperable with our partner nations, particularly the United States.
The Minister referred to the need to buy the best, and not necessarily British. All of us believe that we can buy British and best in nearly every case, but that will not always be so. [Interruption.] I am agreeing with the Minister: he does not need to worry. Actually, he probably does need to worry if I am agreeing with him. The Spike missile system—the new light forces anti-tank guided weapons system—is produced by Israel. If the British Government feel that that is the best system on offer, they should not withhold it from British troops.
Concern was expressed about sponsored reserves, a subject referred to in the Committee's Report. The Government need to take the good points made there into
340
account. As a Conservative, I never cease to be staggered by the extent to which some Labour Ministers have embraced a philosophy that they have spent their entire political lives until now trying to destroy. We heard the Minister talking with enthusiasm about the private finance initiative. I remind him that we invented the PFI and it has delivered good results across the public sector. However, I would like the Minister to respond to the issue of sponsored reserves rather than wait for a reply to the Committee's report, which will not be forthcoming before the House rises.
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have spoken for a long time, although not for as long as his right hon. Friend the Minister.
There are some good programmes in the Government's procurement plans. It is very important that we do not analyse projects to death. We must try to get equipment that is more readily available, and not necessarily equipment that meets requirements down to the last and finest detail. We need equipment to be robust and cost-effective. That is the better way to go. A company in Hampshire has told me that it would like the Government to introduce more technology demonstrators rather than trying to get everything right on paper, as technology demonstrators would allow us to see the technology in action.
Finally, the real question will be the extent to which this substantial bow-wave of procurement programmes is financed. The carriers, the joint strike fighter, the future strategic tanker aircraft and the various other projects that the Minister and I have mentioned will all have a substantial price tag attached. I hope that the Government are confident that they will be able to persuade the Chancellor to part with the money when the going gets tough—as it inevitably will—so that many of these worthwhile projects are not axed because of insufficient financial provision.
6.45 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will continue the remarks that I began to make earlier. I usually approach these debates wearing a Defence Committee hat and by being consensual. However, an Opposition Member will always deliberately provoke me into taking that hat off and being partisan. I will try hard to put that consensual hat back on.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I do not know how he manages to combine the two onerous tasks of being a senior member of the Defence Committee and a member of the Conservative defence team. If he finds the tasks too difficult to bear, we will reluctantly wave him goodbye. I promise him a champagne reception, which the Minister will pay for—[Interruption.] Not out of the defence budget, but out of his own pocket.
The hon. Member for Aldershot's speech contained a few lapses about the SA80, for which his party must accept a degree of responsibility, and the famous Phoenix, which began its life in about 1977. Two decades later, it came into operation and is now effective. I shall not give my A to Z of Tory procurement failures.

341
This Government have not had time to rack up the failures of the Conservative party. After 17 years, we will be able to evaluate exactly how effective their procurement policies have been. I hope to be around long enough to say that the Government have done substantially better.
Unless provoked. I will not refer to the defence budget, but I can promise the hon. Member for Aldershot that the decline began in 1985. The Tories' great success was to achieve the Frank Allaun goal of bringing defence expenditure down almost to the average of our European partners. If Mr. Allaun knew that, he might have rushed out to vote Conservative because—here I go again, being partisan—the Tories delivered one of the principal policies of the left wing of the Labour party. Having got that out of the way, I will now get back to serious consensual politics.
Anyone listening tonight might have imagined that the debate would be fierce and the difference between the parties unbridgeable. In reality, it is not; the difference between the parties now is narrower than it has been in my many years here. Everyone hopes that it will remain that way.
Procurement is critically important. I have served on the Defence Committee since 1979, and those who have served on that Committee over the years have monitored the MOD's performance in procuring equipment and weapons systems. We have produced dozens and dozens of reports that, over the years, have been fairly consistent in indicating frequent delays, cost escalation and, in many cases, gross under-performance.
All Governments have tried to introduce a system in which the procurement of weapons systems is efficient and the equipment is produced to time and at a cost relatively close to the original estimate, so that our military personnel achieve most of their objectives when they fire the weapons or drive the vehicles. Smart procurement, or smart acquisition, is the latest in a long saga of attempts to do that, and I shall discuss later whether it has been successful so far or, indeed, whether there are signs of success.
When annual defence procurement debates were introduced in 1998, our predecessor members of the Defence Committee monitored equipment issues more systematically. The Committee instituted annual inquiries based on a survey of major procurement projects. The goal was to monitor and report progress on a selection of the operationally more significant procurement programmes. Those programmes were on what I call the at-risk register because they were most at risk from predators in the Treasury, trying to play silly games by elongating the procurement process.
We wanted to report regularly to the House on whether there were any signs of Treasury interference in programmes that were proceeding reasonably successfully. We also wanted to find out whether there were signs of cost escalation. I am grateful to the MOD for responding annually to our requests for all sorts of information. We have 14 separate procurement items on the list, from the future aircraft carrier to the Swiftsure and Trafalgar submarine updates and the private finance initiative projects. The MOD provides us with a great deal of information.
However, unlike previous Defence Committee reports on procurement, we have a rather different focus. In our first report in 1999, we evaluated the then recent, thankful
342
withdrawal from the Horizon frigate programme and its replacement by the Type 45 destroyer programme. We considered PAAMS—the principal anti-air missile system—which is an integral part of the common new generation frigate, as the Type 45 destroyer was then called. In our second inquiry, we considered BVRAAM—the beyond visual range air-to-air missile—for the Eurofighter and the strategic lift programmes. In our third report, we considered the future aircraft carrier and the future joint combat aircraft programmes and all sorts of other things.
As I have said, our approach has been slightly different in this Parliament, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have read our report, so it would be superfluous to go into any detail. We did not duck the contentious subjects, such as the warship-building strategies, the warship support modernisation initiative, PFI schemes, the decommissioning of the Sea Harrier and information superiority capability. We followed up several of our earlier inquiries on ammunition supply, ASRAAM—the advanced short-range air-to-air missile—BVRAAM and the A400M. We made a list of other recommendations, and it is a very good report.
We have considered some quite contentious issues in the report, and I shall begin with warship procurement. The MOD has had to use the division of work on the Type 45 programme as the basis for steering the future of warship procurement in the United Kingdom more generally, because decisions on the Type 45 programme will have implications for future shipbuilding capacity and the extent of competition for other programmes.
I sympathise with the MOD; it had to find a solution in very difficult circumstances. We are all aware of those circumstances: too much capacity chasing too little naval work. The MOD commissioned a study by RAND Europe, which showed that there is an uncertain balance between the benefits of maintaining competition in the market and placing all the work with one shipyard to produce economies of scale. A compromise on the Type 45 programme is probably the best that can be achieved in what is a difficult balancing act.
BAE Systems's yards will assemble the vessels from blocks built by its yards at Barrow and on the Clyde and by Vosper Thornycroft. That will help to keep those yards in business, while allowing economies of scale because of the larger production runs of the same block for each vessel. However, I wish to highlight the risks in that approach. As RAND said, that approach might not stop BAE Systems becoming the only United Kingdom yard able to project manage and assemble warships, reducing the scope for future competition.
Another possible risk is that the MOD will have to play its part in ensuring that sufficient capacity remains to gear up for an unexpected increase in warship procurement activity, possibly at the end of the decade, as the future carrier and future surface combatants come on stream.
The MOD rejected the unsolicited bid from BAE Systems to build all the Type 45s because of concerns about, inter alia, the Astute submarine and Type 45 blocks tripping over each other in Barrow's Devonshire dock hall. However, RAND noted that there were similar dangers with the current plan in which it is envisaged that the second and subsequent Type 45s will be assembled at Barrow. Since our report was published, the MOD has announced that the construction of the Astute submarine

343
has been delayed by a year, and I would welcome the Minister's assurance that that will not threaten the Type 45 construction programme.
I shall refer to a further risk. Having decided on long production runs for the Type 45, there are sound financial reasons why the MOD should order all 12 vessels. I repeat that the Government should commit themselves to ordering all 12 vessels. Until they do so, they will not be able to suppress suspicion that the Treasury will sink some of them. None of that detracts from the fact that, at last, the MOD has begun to tackle a long-running problem in that sector. I should like such work and RAND's analysis to form the basis of a fundamental review of warship procurement strategies.
We also considered the warship support modernisation initiative—a highly contentious issue even on our Committee. As with warship construction. warship support and maintenance has long been beset with fundamental imbalances and ever-falling naval work loads as a result of new maintenance technologies and a shrinking fleet. I recall that, in the mid-1980s, there was a wonderful philosophical debate in the Defence Committee about whether 44 frigates and destroyers was "about 50", as the then Government said, or "about 40", as the Committee said. I can even remember back to the time when we had 75 frigates and destroyers. I am not quite certain exactly how many frigates and destroyers we now have available because of some directional difficulties that were encountered in the antipodes.
The warship support modernisation initiative is at least a positive step towards tackling the structural problems. I hope that it will produce the estimated savings of £327 million over five years and £48 million a year thereafter. Some of those savings will come from greater competition for refits negotiated as part of the initiative, and some from rationalising activities across dockyards and neighbouring naval bases.
Although much of that can and deserves to be applauded, regrettably, as the Minister knows, it comes at a cost. The MOD will have to be very prudent to minimise the adverse aspects of this policy and its impact. Some 1,000 jobs—some would say 750—will go. We have welcomed assurances during our inquiry that all three naval bases have a secure future. It remains a concern, however, that all of the current naval dockyards may not have a secure future as a result of the warship support modernisation initiative. It seems that Rosyth may have a difficult time without the existence of a co-located dockyard and naval base. What I—and, I suspect, most members of the Committee—want is a sensitive handling of job losses with minimum compulsory redundancies, the protection of essential facilities in the dockyards and naval bases, and care taken to avoid, as far as possible, disruption to sailors and sailors' families as refits are placed according to competition.
We are told that Sea Harrier is to be withdrawn between 2004 and 2006, six to eight years earlier than planned. First, that has not been an example of good forward planning because some aircraft will be less than 10 years old when phased out. Although part of the decision to withdraw them was based on a new post-cold war security environment, we should note that the latest aircraft were ordered in 1993. It seems fairly clear to me and the Committee that the upgrading of the Sea Harrier to make
344
it effective flying off carriers in hot conditions has presented and will present real technical challenges. In a similar vein, its air defence system—its Blue Vixen radar and ASRAAM missiles—could not sensibly be shoehorned into the offensive support RAF Harriers.
The real question is whether the MOD should keep the Sea Harriers as they are with their imperfections. That, in turn, raises two other questions that our report examined: what other systems could cover Sea Harriers' air defence capability, and do we still need that capability anyway? We highlighted the things that would have to be done—or the assumptions that would have to be made—if a rationale for withdrawing the Sea Harrier were put forward. The Type 45 destroyer and its PAAMS would have to be delivered without delays to its 2007 in-service date. I have already spoken of my concerns in that regard. In the meantime, the improvements planned for the existing Type 42s and their Sea Dart missiles must be similarly pursued with the utmost vigour. The eight years of delays in putting an infrared fuse on Sea Dart must be a thing of the past.
More fundamentally, the rationale for withdrawing Sea Harrier depends on two all-important foundations. Future naval operations will be for the most part in the littoral environment, supporting land forces, for example, where hostile aircraft will not have to undertake the long run-in towards our ships, which makes them vulnerable to our air defence aircraft—missiles could be fired at us from ground-based launchers with little warning. In those littoral environments, effective air missile defences will be essential, and the Sea Harrier does not provide that. We will have to rely on allies for airborne air defence cover for our ships—that means the United States. If and when we do fight in the open ocean, for some as yet unforeseen reason, we will have to have the United States alongside us.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a point that I made. Is he aware of other armed forces that have a significant capability in that sphere? He singled out the United States; is he aware of anybody else with that capability who could protect our carrier force?
Mr. George: If we look at the Russians, I am not certain about the extent to which they will be alongside us, although progress and reconciliation has been spectacular. When I think of the significant navies, I am not certain about the equipment or reliability even of some of our allies. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a point that we need to consider.
At paragraph 93 of the Committee's report, we stated:
"We recognise that there is a rationale for not upgrading the Sea Harrier, and withdrawing it early from service."
We talked about the caveats, and concluded:
"There are, then, a lot of pieces that must all fall into place before the Sea Harrier's demise can be regarded with at least some confidence. The MoD must ensure that none are missing. We will be following this process very closely."
The House can draw its own conclusions from that.
Our report touched on all sorts of things, including the A400M, about which we all know the details. We concluded:
"Currently, therefore, the MoD finds itself in an enviable position. But if the A400M continues to struggle the secret will be to know when it would be better to deal with someone else."

345
That is not elegant language, but it is very clear. I hope that everything will come right, but there are technical problems. Our allies will deliver their financial and technical support and expertise, but a point may be reached—although I hope that it is not reached—at which the MOD will have to take some very difficult decisions. Ultimately, it is in the business of delivering to our armed forces that which they want, and that which is affordable in the right numbers. The warning must be made clearly to our European partners that they must deliver or there are clear alternatives.
We talked about the MOD being beset with collaboration difficulties with both the BVRAAM and the A400M programme. We said:
"It must continue to push its partners on both to show a stronger commitment and remind them that there are other options for the UK if the contract negotiations for these programmes continue to struggle."
I will not go into the debate about how much our defence budget is increasing. I have seen the briefing, and, although I am not particularly numerate—like my colleague the hon. Member for Aldershot, who is grinning at me as he knows that we are similarly bedevilled by lack of statistical competence—there is, of course, a rise in expenditure, the extent of which we will be anxious to evaluate when the time comes. The fact that there have been two increases in the last three years, after a period of unrelieved and stark decline, is very welcome. I hope that the evaluation that the Defence Committee will make will bear out more or less what the Government are arguing—that the increase has been reasonably substantial.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that, since the second world war, and, I am sure, since the days of procuring bows and arrows—[Interruption.] We procured very good bows and arrows to fight the French, and very good archers to fire them. That was one of the successes. As a fellow Welshman, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) knows exactly what I am saying. Even the supply of swords in the 18th century was a disaster because they snapped. Procurement has persistently been a problem, so the strategic defence review of 1998 made another attempt to try to achieve what has hitherto eluded Governments—efficient procurement.
The Select Committee on Defence evaluated the smart procurement initiative and we said that the fact that there was such an initiative was a
"tacit recognition of the failure of some of the past attempts to secure improvement through similar means."
We were reasonably sympathetic to the initiative, but we said:
"The MoD will need to take deliberate steps to ensure its ability to detect in good time those projects going badly wrong under the more flexible and delegated regime envisaged under smart procurement."
We recognised that the initiative was designed to bring about improvements and reforms, and we wished the MOD well.
In 1999, in a report on the common new generation frigate programme, we commented on the problems of European collaboration. With an incredible lack of drama, we said of the Horizon programme that the
"story of European collaborative ventures is not particularly inspiring".
346
We could have put it much more strongly.
In 2000, in our report entitled "Major Procurement Projects", we considered procurement equipment programmes and concluded:
"There are…some early signs of a more imaginative and robust approach emerging, and these offer a glimpse of what improvements the initiative may be able to provide."
In 2001, our report on the MOD's annual reporting cycle said:
"Despite the difficulty in reconciling the MoD's performance data, the results do indicate satisfactory performance against targets for cost overruns, if not on delays."
So there was some progress there.
The National Audit Office's "Major Projects Report 2001" was mentioned earlier. Paragraph 4 on page 2 states:
"Our overall conclusions are that, there is evidence of continued improved cost control, that delays are beginning to be brought under control, and although the proportion has fallen slightly (from 98 per cent. to 93 per cent.), the Department is still expecting to meet the majority of the technical requirements of customers."
Therefore, there are early signs that progress is being made, but it is far too early to be absolutely certain that the system is becoming much more efficient. If that happens, it will take place over the next five to 10 years.
The debate has suggested that there is not much between us. A budget of 2.5 or 2.6 per cent. is realistic in the circumstances, and some welcome increases have been wrung out of the Treasury. Should the security environment deteriorate, I hope that the budget would increase in response. However, we must recognise that, among many other problems, it is difficult to procure anything in less than 15 years unless we are prepared to buy off the shelf. Even the United States does not have a limitless capacity to crank out aircraft and other equipment simply because its strongest ally wants that equipment suddenly because of a deteriorating environment.
The budget increase is welcome, and we will reflect on it. We should give a partial pat on the back to Ministers, the Defence Procurement Agency, the MOD and all concerned. A hearty pat on the back is better than the knife between the shoulder blades with which they are more cognisant. I hope that progress will continue, because the taxpayers requires weapons that are necessary and that can be delivered while the services want systems that work. There are good signs that the interests of Parliament, the taxpayer and the military can be reconciled. We must work towards that end.
We on the Defence Committee will continue to be frank and critical when necessary and supportive when we can. We hope that some of our recommendations will find their way through the labyrinth towards effective decision making. Perhaps the Select Committee system will come of age and will be seen not as a reluctant partner that must be tolerated but more constructively as something that can assist the MOD to undertake its tasks more effectively. As a former permanent secretary in the MOD and now, I am delighted to say, an adviser to the Committee has said, "The better you are as a Committee, the better we have to be." I hope that the Committee can improve its performance and that that, directly or indirectly, will help the MOD to improve its performance, so that people outside shout "Hallelujah".
7.16 pm
Mr. David Laws: I begin with the issue that the Minister first mentioned—the MOD budget and the change that the spending review has made. Without that budget, there is no procurement. The tensions in the budget over the past 10 or 15 years have been behind the pressures on the procurement budget that have been experienced in that time and over the life of this Government.
We were led to believe by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Monday that the MOD had received a rather generous settlement. Indeed, the MOD had an unusually early mention in his statement as if to flag up the priority that it had received in the spending review. Then we received confirmation of the importance that the Government put on the issue in the joint press release that was issued by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence. It was headed, "Gordon Brown announces billions extra for defence", and it quoted the Secretary of State for Defence as saying:
"This is an excellent settlement for defence."
I will not use the word "spin", because I do not identify the Minister as a spinner. However, the Chancellor has a reputation in his Budget and spending statements of not needing always to be taken at face value. We therefore need to compare the reality of the Government's announcement on Monday with the figures that have been released.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that the Defence Committee would consider this issue, so perhaps I should draw his attention to the Government's document on the spending review that was published on Monday. Table 1.3 helpfully gives all the annual growth rates in real terms of every single Department over the period of the spending review. We would, of course, expect the big public service Departments—the Departments responsible for education, health, crime and transport—to be at the top. We would not necessarily expect the MOD to have a comparable budget increase. However, we discover that not only are those Departments doing better than the MOD but, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, other Departments surprisingly outshine the MOD by a long way. They include the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor's Department itself. In fact, only one of the Departments listed in the table—the Department for Work and Pensions—has an annual growth rate of expenditure less than that of the Ministry of Defence. If we add the changes to annually managed expenditure, which are not reflected in the table but will form part of the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions, we discover that the Ministry of Defence has had the smallest real increase in the spending review.
I do not ignore the fact that the background to the problem is a 15-year period in which we saw a sharp contraction of the defence budget. I do not fail to acknowledge that the Secretary of State has halted that decline in this and the last spending review. However, no one should be under any illusions, and the Government should not create the illusion, that that will create slack in the budget or that pressure on the procurement budget will ease. The settlement will lock in the decline in the defence
348
budget and the decline in capability that went with it. Expenditure this year and over the period of the spending review will increase by 1.2 per cent. in real terms, but much of the Minister's budget is for pay as well as procurement. As those tend to increase above inflation, the extent of the challenge that the Ministry faces becomes clear.
When I intervened on the Minister, he was not surefooted in his response. I asked what he thought about today's evidence to the Treasury Committee from two distinguished Treasury officials, Mr. Sharples, a friend of the Prime Minister and head of public expenditure at the Treasury, and his colleague, Mr. Macpherson. They confirmed something that is clear if we flick to page 167 of the spending review document: expenditure by the Ministry of Defence will be less in real terms in every year of the spending review than its expenditure last year. I hope that that puts into context the nature of the budget challenges that face the Ministry and the fact that we still have difficult procurement issues to address.
I am not asking the Minister to rely only on the spending statement or on the Treasury officials to support my case. I have the same briefing document on expenditure as the hon. Member for Aldershot, which confirms the figures to which he drew our attention. It also shows that if we use the base year of 2001–02, the budget falls over the following four years by just over £300 million. The average annual real change is, therefore, a fall of 0.3 per cent.
Dr. Moonie: To save me from having to spend too long on that in my winding-up speech, there is a vast difference between outturn figures and budgets. The hon. Gentleman is comparing an outturn figure, which includes contingencies that are always paid by the Treasury, with the forecast budget figure, which underpins our regular spending. He is 100 per cent. wrong.
Mr. Laws: Although the Minister says that I am 100 per cent. wrong, I am, in fact, 100 per cent. right because the figures in the document bear out the claim that in every year of the spending review real expenditure will be lower than it was last year. Regardless of the contingency claims, that demonstrates that the Ministry of Defence budget remains under pressure.
I notice that the Minister did not challenge what I said about the Ministry having the lowest increase in real terms of any Department other than the Department for Work and Pensions and, when we include the change in annually managed expenditure, that it comes bottom of the list. I am sorry if the Minister does not like those comments, but he should look at the documents. Perhaps he is irritated and upset because the Chancellor managed to pull the wool over his Department's eyes. Perhaps he does not like the reality of the figures, which do not live up to the Chancellor's spin, but they are in his Department's documents.
We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South for the excellent report that his Committee produced last week on major procurement projects. I shall focus on the four or five projects on which there are the most substantive concerns or the greatest differences of opinion. I accept his general point that there is, thank goodness, a great deal of unity among hon. Members on the overall approach taken by the Ministry of Defence, but we must concentrate on the matters that concern us.

349
The Minister gave the impression that the Select Committee's report was mildly supportive of the decision on the Sea Harrier. Having read the report and listened to the comments of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, the Chairman of the Select Committee, I must say that they are a strange endorsement indeed. In paragraph 92 of the report, the Committee notes:
"We are forced to conclude that…the UK has already decided that in another five years it will rely on others"—
other nations, that is—
"for air-defence patrols for our naval task forces."
The hon. Member for Aldershot asked on whom we might rely to take over the vital role of air patrols at sea. The right hon. Gentleman said that the only alternative to the United States of America is Russia, a country on which no one would want to rely to secure our future defence needs.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that we must ensure that the strategy for the future of our defence is sufficiently flexible so that we can fight any reasonable campaign. We cannot be sure that the campaigns that we might have to fight over the next five to 10 years, when we might have no proper air cover for our fleet, will receive the support of the USA. If we cannot be sure of that, we cannot be sure of the support of any other nation either.
The Minister said that he is taking a decision on the balance of risks and that the technical upgrade of the Sea Harrier is risky. However, he should acknowledge that he is transferring one risk for another. He does not want to risk upgrading the Sea Harrier but, as a consequence, he is taking the risk either that our armed forces will not be able to engage in operations requiring that layer of air cover or that we will engage in those operations in circumstances that endanger our armed forces, which would be even worse.
There is deep non-party political concern among hon. Members—I certainly detected it in the Select Committee—about the Government's decision. I urge the Minister to reconsider it because, in a world of second best, it might be better to spend money prolonging the life of the Sea Harriers rather than losing the significant capability that allows us to deploy the Royal Navy with air cover. The experience of the Falklands war reinforced the fact that we cannot rely on ship-based missiles to defend our forces, especially at sea, because the ability of our enemies to deploy missile technology against us is changing and improving all the time. Defence Ministers and generals used to be criticised for always wanting to prepare to fight the last war. My concern is that we seem to be unable to fight even the last war, let alone the next one. I hope that the Government will re-examine that matter.
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Falklands. I am an Atlanticist by instinct. If anybody is likely to support us, it would probably be the United States. We now know that the United States provided us with assistance in the Falklands, but even they did not send us the USS Nimitz. That was a real scenario in which we could not rely even on the US for carrier-based air power. It is not fantasy to say that a problem exists.
Mr. Laws: I entirely agree. We simply cannot predict the type of environment that we will be in or the defence choices that we will have to make. We cannot be sure of
350
future circumstances and the level of support that we will receive from our potential allies, even the United States. Over the next five to 10 years, the Government risk putting us in a position in which we cannot pursue our defence interests or have to take unacceptable risks to do so. I hope that the Minister and the Department will reconsider the issue.
Mr. Ingram: It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to throw around scenarios that have no bearing on reality. Will he accept that the period from the non-availability of the Harriers to the availability of the new fleet is about 18 months, not the five to 10 years that he has just quoted?
Mr. Laws: There are two points. First, if we are to rely on aircraft rather than simply on ship-based missiles, that period would be longer than the Minister has indicated. We all—not least the Minister and his Department—know about the potential for new orders to slip. What could start off as a two, three or five-year gap could easily slip into a much longer one. We would not only risk our flexibility in defence policy and our armed forces during that period, but run down the skills and abilities of the air crew who are currently involved in such operations. They are specialised and skilled and would be difficult to maintain without Sea Harriers.
Secondly, in responding to the hon. Member for Aldershot, the Minister said that, at the moment, the Government do not intend to change the number of Eurofighters to be ordered. We know how these things can change and that current Government policy is to order 232 Eurofighters. Are the Government considering not taking the later tranche of Eurofighters because of slippage of the programme, the pressures on the procurement budget and on the defence budget in general and the fact that the arrival of later tranches of Eurofighters will be close to the arrival of the joint strike fighter?
That matter is slightly unclear and I look forward to gaining some insight into it when the Under-Secretary replies. Are the Government considering transferring orders between the Eurofighter and the joint strike fighter? The Minister will know that regardless of what is said in the House, many people, including defence experts, those who have recent experience of such matters and perhaps those on the Defence Committee, are sceptical about the Government's willingness to deliver on the 232 Eurofighters and believe that, eventually, they will order a much lower number—perhaps even fewer than 150.
The third issue is lift capability, which has not been much discussed today. However, it is an extremely important issue in light of the fact that the Minister and his Department envisage that we will be engaged, not in the static warfare that we might have fought in western or eastern Europe, where we would be able to reinforce from Germany or our own shores, but in operations in which, typically, we might have to deploy all over the world. Has he evaluated our lift capability, including the capability of our helicopter fleet? He would be disappointed if I did not mention helicopters. Has he calculated whether our current lift capability matches the requirements that he and his Department believe we should have?

351
Does the Minister believe that we should consider bringing forward the Sabre project, which would look at a replacement for Puma and Sea King? Obviously, I am not going to try to influence the Minister by suggesting an ideal replacement. He knows that many excellent products come out of the west country, and this matter must be considered in the normal, rigorously competitive way. Without mentioning specific products, can he say whether lift capability has been evaluated and whether it is considered a problem?
My fourth point has been aired by a number of hon. Members: the SA80. Today, The Sun has a cartoon showing a typical battlefield of the future, with new unmanned aircraft using all sorts of sophisticated technology to scan information and pick up what is happening. It ends with a picture of the Prime Minister in Downing street following all the information as it comes in. All that sounds wonderful, and if we can get the technology right, it may be the way of the future.
While we are waiting for that fantastic new technology, however, there remains concern, as the Minister has acknowledged, over the most basic product on which our armed forces rely—the rifle. He said that he does not want to make irresponsible statements or raise fears unnecessarily and that he is conducting an investigation into the product to find out whether it is good enough. We understand all that, but he will understand that there is already great concern about that equipment which extends into the armed forces.
When the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, will he go a little further and say more about the time scale for the decision that will be made? Can he give us a firm commitment that if the Department concludes that the product is not reliable enough in the extreme conditions in which we may deploy our forces, it will be willing to make a potentially large investment to find a new piece of equipment to do the job? Does he agree that the issue is too important and basic to be subject to budgetary constraints and to be offset against other items in the procurement budget?
Finally, will the Under-Secretary shed some light on the matter of unmanned aerial vehicles, to which I just referred? The other day, the Minister of State answered several questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) about the Phoenix system and its possible replacement. That project has been long delayed and there has been much comment about the effectiveness, or potentially the ineffectiveness, of Phoenix. Does that project still have some life in it, or do Ministers consider it dead? Will it be replaced by the new Watchkeeper system that is being considered?
Those are some of the major issues on which we need answers today. I see from the Minister of State's reaction that I have hit on some of the right issues; I seem to have enlivened him. I look forward to enlightenment in the wind-up not only on the salient procurement issues but on the budgetary issues about which all hon. Members have expressed concern today.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
352
On the Question on Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 275, the Noes 179, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Defence Procurement
7.39 pm
Rachel Squire: I shall touch on several issues. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) anticipated, I want to talk about defence procurement as it affects my constituency—namely, Rosyth dockyard—and secondly, I want to deal with some of the wider issues affecting defence procurement, British defence manufacturing and the interoperability of our forces with our United States and European allies, especially post-11 September.
I begin by saying how much I disagreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) as regards the budget and the comprehensive spending review, and how much I welcomed the announcements on defence spending made earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The debate has been given additional importance by the announcement of the largest increase in defence spending for 20 years, representing 1.2 per cent. growth per year in real terms for the next three years. I trust the Government to deliver, and I trust that in three years' time the hon. Member for Yeovil may be willing to acknowledge that his figures were not correct.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's patience, given that she has only just started her speech. Surely she is aware that the figures that I quoted are from the Government's own document. Which of those figures does she disagree with?
Rachel Squire: I was aware that they were in the Government's own document but, as became clear during the Minister's speech, in this House the interpretation of any quoted figures is often very much subject to—shall we say?—political bias.
I trust that the extra defence spending that was announced on Monday will be delivered. The Government have already shown their commitment to, and acknowledged the importance of, additional defence expenditure post-11 September. The events of the past few months make it even more vital that we provide our armed forces with the equipment and technology that they need for effective operations anywhere in the world. I pay tribute to the British armed forces, who have excelled themselves, especially in the past 12 months. Whether they are engaged in war fighting or peacekeeping, there are none better. We owe it to them to provide the equipment, support and logistics that they need, when they need them. We also owe it to their families to give the troops guns that fire and communications systems that work. When we talk about procurement, we must recognise that the core ingredient of any decision is people, whether they are members of the armed forces, employees in our defence manufacturing base, or those providing the vital support services that are needed to keep our planes flying and our ships afloat.

353
That brings me to Rosyth dockyard. I want the Minister and hon. Members to recognise the major changes and challenges that Rosyth dockyard has dealt with in the past 10 years. Its core and secure area of work—submarine refitting—was removed by the disastrous, costly, and politically motivated decision of the previous Conservative Government. Rosyth naval base was closed, the entire dockyard was removed from the Ministry of Defence and sold to a private company, and the dockyard work force had to deal with thousands of redundancies and major changes to pay, conditions and working practices. I pay tribute to the dockyard work force not only for surviving the equivalent of a hurricane, but for achieving so much and looking to their future rather than the past.
A very effective partnership has been developed between Babcock Rosyth and the work force, and in recent years the dockyard has won additional work against fierce competition. It has reduced its costs and has delivered on cost and on time, and there has been high praise from the Navy, the Government and many parts of the MOD for Rosyth's skills and expertise, particularly as demonstrated by its recent refit of Ark Royal. It has delivered, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister, real value for the defence pound. Given the recent unfortunate incident involving HMS Nottingham and the damage that she incurred, I would put in a bid for Rosyth dockyard being well equipped to help to mend that ship and to deliver her to full operational value. I should add that Babcock Rosyth has contacts in Australia and Babcock owns a dockyard in New Zealand.
As regards future procurement decisions, the reality for Rosyth is that, despite its present work load, in two years' time that allocated programme of work will have been reduced to virtually nothing. My right hon. Friend the Minister said today that industry must seek new work and not always rely on the Government to deliver it. I would make three points in response to that. First, Rosyth dockyard is providing the best, and at a good price. Secondly, it has vigorously sought other work and ventures elsewhere, with some success, but it is not sufficient to maintain a work force of 2,000. Thirdly, it is not competing with other dockyards on a level playing field, because the other two dockyards concerned have between them a guarantee of 10 to 20 years' work on submarines and the Type 45. Moreover, they have naval bases attached to them, with the admirals no doubt occasionally expressing their point of view.
I am worried by the trend in the thinking of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Ministry of Defence whereby all refit and maintenance work is to be located at the base port, because that would severely disadvantage the Rosyth dockyard work force. Given what Rosyth has delivered in cost savings and efficiency, combined with high standards of workmanship, I hope for a commitment from the Minister that it will have the same opportunities as the other two dockyards in obtaining naval work and competing on a level playing field. As the workers of Rosyth have told me, they have delivered on the demands made of them by Babcock and the MOD, and they would now like their efforts to be recognised and rewarded with some kind of secure future.
That brings me to one of the major procurement issues—the future aircraft carrier. Whichever company it is decided will be the prime contractor—Thales or BAE
354
Systems—I urge it, the MOD and the Government seriously to consider bringing the assembly work to Rosyth. They would not regret it.
Rosyth has unrivalled experience in refitting and supporting the current aircraft carrier fleet and other types of warship. It has a deep water channel with unrivalled access to the sea. The Forth is not congested with a large volume of commercial shipping and leisure craft. Rosyth is adjacent to Royal Naval Armaments Depot Crombie, the only suitable deep-water berth in the UK for rearming a ship. It continues to have HMS Caledonia to support naval personnel and their families.
Rosyth has the largest non-tidal basin for ship repair in the UK—an ideal environment for assembly, outfitting and maintenance activities. By widening an existing dry dock and other modifications through a single investment, it could provide a facility suitable for assembly, outfitting, commissioning and maintenance as well as sufficient labour to undertake the work, drawing on a highly skilled work force from throughout Scotland and the north of England.
Before I conclude my comments on Rosyth dockyard and the possibility of a major share of the aircraft carrier work of the future, I want to emphasise that the dockyard work force acknowledges that work has been provided, and that without a change of Government in 1997, the yard would probably have closed by now. It welcomed the commitment that the Labour Government demonstrated to the biggest warship-building programme in more than 30 years.
I believe that the dockyard work force is also well aware that the defence procurement proposals of those who promote independence for Scotland, who are again notably absent, would mean, at best, a single, small warship. That is hardly sufficient to keep Rosyth, Faslane or the Clyde shipyards in operation.
Procurement is about delivering on cost and on time the equipment that our armed forces need to do the job that we ask of them to maximum effect. I want to make three points about that.
First, it is important to give all ranks, not only the most senior, the opportunity to comment on the design and type of equipment that they need to do the job. I understand from the Defence Procurement Agency and the integrated project teams that that is being done now. I hope that the opportunity to comment and influence will be increased.
Secondly, it is vital to have a quick fix process for pieces of equipment that clearly do not work. We have heard a great deal about the SA80s, so I shall not go over ground that has already been covered. I welcome the measures that the Government have put in place to try to ensure that we never repeat the saga of years of failure of equipment and of failure to tackle the problem properly. I look forward to ensuring that our armed forces have the equipment that gives them what they need when they need it.
Thirdly, we accept, especially after 11 September, that no nation's forces are likely to operate alone. It is therefore even more important to consider the interoperability of new equipment, especially with our NATO allies. However, although we try to achieve that, we do not want to rely totally on one other country—the United States—for our defence procurement and equipment. In defence procurement, like other aspects of defence policy, Britain must balance its European and its

355
US interests. The rationalisation of the defence industry in Britain, in the US and throughout Europe requires us to perform a tough balancing act.
Although our alliance with the US is close and important, it is not an equal partnership in defence manufacturing. The US admits that it should remove some of the needless bureaucratic and lengthy delays that its system currently imposes on British firms that are trying to compete in its market. However, there is little evidence of its acting on that yet. I would welcome hearing from the Minister whether any recent discussions have taken place between the MOD or the Department of Trade and Industry and the US on providing a more level playing field for British firms.
We cannot and do not want to go it alone in producing all the defence equipment we need or in tackling all the conflicts and challenges with which the world presents us. Britain is rightfully proud of its engineering skills and the reputation of the British armed forces. We must aim to ensure that our defence policy, especially our procurement policy, allows us to build on and maintain that reputation and to be described as "simply the best".
7.56 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and to contribute to the debate. I acknowledge the Minister's courtesy in giving way on numerous occasions, including to me more than once. He or the Under-Secretary may want to return the compliment before I sit down because I shall focus on the proposed procurement and disposal of aircraft.
The Government's 1998 strategic defence review reoriented Britain's armed forces towards an essentially expeditionary strategy. In a press conference shortly after SDR was announced, the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, summed up the change:
"If the war is no longer going to come to us, then we may have to go to the war."
That realignment of Britain's armed forces had important implications for their associated equipment programme, with a renewed emphasis on equipment to facilitate expeditionary warfare such as transport aircraft, helicopters and amphibious shipping.
A centrepiece of the new force structure was the decision to replace the Royal Navy's three existing aircraft carriers of the Invincible class with two new, larger aircraft carriers, which would allow for a far larger complement of aircraft, including what has become the F-35 joint strike fighter. The new carriers are intended to enter service in 2012 and 2015. They will be escorted by the new Type 45 destroyer, equipped with the equally new principal anti-air missile system or PAAMS.
The first new ship is due to enter service in late 2007 to replace the Type 42 destroyers, which are armed with the increasingly obsolescent Sea Dart anti-air missile system. As I said earlier, the first Type 45 will be a first of class. That means a prolonged trials process. From past experience, that could extend the in-service date until the ship is declared operational into the fleet in 2008 or even 2009, especially if PAAMS does not perform as advertised, straight out of the box, first time around.
356
Those points are important because air superiority is crucial to 21st century military operations. As the strategic defence review White Paper pointed out in paragraph 87 on page 22:
"Air power will be a crucial factor in maritime operations, on most battlefields and as part of the most demanding peace support operations, as in Bosnia in 1995. Air superiority and air defence will be essential for a wide range of deployed operations."
We should ask, therefore, what the implications are for our expeditionary warfare capability in the decade ahead before the first of the proposed new carriers becomes available. To begin with, there has been considerable speculation about whether the two new ships will still be delivered according to the original schedule. I hope that they will be, but even if they are, the Royal Navy will still in the meantime have to provide support for expeditionary operations with its existing assets, which would have to be run on until the carriers and their new aircraft join the fleet.
However, the Government have since taken the controversial decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier from Royal Navy service between 2004 and 2006. The Government allege that they have to do so because the aircraft suffers performance limitations in certain hot climates and they cannot afford an engine upgrade to address that. In seeking to justify this, the Government have also sought to stress that the carriers will still carry the GR7/9 variant, which is optimised for ground attack rather than for air defence.
As Ministers will recall, there was a very lively debate about the decision on 8 May in Westminster Hall. It would be charitable to say that the Government did not exactly win the argument that morning in seeking to justify their decision. We were told, for instance, that the Sea Harrier, which was combat-proven in the Falklands campaign, has to go because it is an old aircraft, being more than 20 years old. However, the Jaguar is nearly 30 years old and the Canberra has been in service for virtually half a century and is still going strong.
Moreover, the Sea Harriers have been significantly upgraded. Beginning in 1994, the then Government invested £466 million in upgrading the aircraft to the new F/A2 standard, with a more capable radar and associated electronics, and medium range air-to-air missiles—making the F/A2 one of the best air defence aircraft in Europe and considerably more capable than the aircraft that fought in the Falklands.
Jim Knight: I acknowledge comments in the Defence Committee's report about the weaknesses of abolishing the aircraft so quickly following the last upgrade, but does the right hon. Gentleman—sorry, the hon. Gentleman—acknowledge that even following that upgrade the aircraft is still no defence against sea-skimming missiles? Given that many of the savings from getting rid of the Sea Harriers are going into the upgrade of GR7s and GR9s, does he agree that on balance and on the cost-benefit analysis, the MOD's decision has considerable merit?
Mr. Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for inadvertently promoting me: it is a burden that I shall live with. Exocet, which hit the Sheffield in 1982, was a sea-skimmer, but it was launched from an aircraft. Therefore, it is important that we keep any threat aircraft that can be armed with missiles designed to sea skim in the terminal phase as far away from friendly shipping as possible.

357
The last of the upgrades begun in 1994 was completed just a few years ago, so the considerable investment of almost £500 million of taxpayers' money will, effectively, be largely foregone if the aircraft are scrapped early before the new JSF is available. It makes very little sense to upgrade those aircraft and then scrap them just a few years later.
I believe that there are still powerful reasons why the Sea Harriers should not be retired early, as the Government envisage. First, doing so will seriously weaken the defence of our expeditionary forces. As Ministers have pointed out in this debate, the theory of naval air defence is based on a concept of layered defence—addressing the threat from as far out as possible. Sea Harrier, with its look-down, shoot-down radar and medium-range missiles, allows a fleet commander to do that considerably beyond the horizon. Without the Sea Harrier, that critical outer layer is removed, thus allowing threat aircraft that carry certain classes of air-to-surface missiles to get much closer to the target shipping and to threaten to saturate the ship-based defences—in other words to overwhelm the defence by getting close enough.
Jim Knight: I would be interested to know which potential adversaries the hon. Gentleman thinks have such technology, which would be a threat to us if we did not have the Sea Harrier.
Mr. Francois: First, as I understand it, a number of middle eastern states have air-to-surface missile technology, as indeed does China. I cite those two examples off the top of my head, but I am sure that I could come up with others.
Secondly, Sea Harriers should not be retired early because doing so threatens to denude offensive operations. In littoral operations of the kind often envisaged in the strategic defence review, the Sea Harriers might be needed to provide "top cover" for the GR7s against intercepting enemy aircraft—a role the land-attack Harriers are effectively unable to carry out for themselves.
In the debate on 8 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) used the good analogy of a shield, the Sea Harriers, and a spear, the GR7s. By this decision, we would not only remove the shield but blunt the spear wherever the enemy has air defence aircraft of its own that could threaten the GR7 Harriers as they went into attack.
Jim Knight: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. He talks of shields and spears, and he will be aware that occasionally people use a two-handed sword rather than a sword and a shield. He mentioned some possible adversaries who have the technology to threaten us if we do not have Sea Harriers. Does he envisage that we would ever go into combat with such nations on our own?
Mr. Francois: In early 1982, no one envisaged that we would go into combat to defend the Falkland Islands. History shows again and again that we must prepare as far as we practically can for the unexpected. The great problem with this decision is that it assumes that we will fight only in certain given scenarios. History shows that that is probably a mistake.
Thirdly, Sea Harriers should not be retired early because there are important implications for rules of engagement. I do not think that that has been mentioned.
358
The Sea Harrier allows a fleet commander to identify visually a potential threat—that could turn out to be a civilian airliner—rather than rely just on the interpretation of a radar image. Without that capability, and even allowing for helicopter-borne airborne early warning, the fleet commander is partially blinded and can only take a "launch/don't launch" decision about his missiles when the contact is much closer in and he is under much greater time pressure to do so. Crucially, he cannot visually check until it is perhaps too late. All those important operational constraints could put a naval task force heading into harm's way at serious risk if it were attacked from the air.
Ministers have already conceded that the decision involves an element of risk. On 29 April the Minister told the House:
"There is an associated risk attached to all of this, but it is without question a decision based on the balance of investment."—[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 660.]
My contention is that it is a greater risk than Ministers have been prepared to acknowledge, perhaps even to themselves. In short, it is not possible to maintain a credible commitment to an expeditionary strategy that lies at the heart of the SDR, and then to announce the abolition of carrier-based air defence for six years. If the Government wish to press ahead with the decision, they should acknowledge that the expeditionary strategy envisaged in the SDR will be largely in abeyance for six years between 2006 and 2012.
All that being so, the Sea Harriers should still be run on. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) argued from the Front Bench in Westminster Hall:
"We can all agree that it is desirable to upgrade the Sea Harriers' engine and we know that it will be expensive. Even if the Government cannot afford the engine upgrade, I submit that Sea Harriers with the existing engine remaining in service as long as possible is much better than no Sea Harriers at all."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 86WH.]
That sums up the situation in a nutshell. Moreover, in cold climates, there are few constraints, and even in tropical conditions the aircraft could still be deployed—perhaps operating with lighter loads if necessary in order still to provide some capability.
Ministers have already conceded that the decision was partly due to financial reasons—it was a balance of investment decision. Given the extra resources apparently announced for defence in the comprehensive spending review, is this not a suitable opportunity for the Government to concede that they have got this one wrong and that some of the additional resources could be directed to rectifying the mistake? That would maintain integral air defence cover for the Royal Navy until the new carriers and their associated aircraft were available. Furthermore, it would not expose the fleet and whomever it was assigned to protect to unacceptable risk for six years or more.
Ministers have been unable to carry the House on this subject today. I do not believe that they have won the argument. If they want to repent, this would be a very good time for them to do so, and I sincerely urge them to reconsider this dangerous decision while there is still time.
8.10 pm
Mark Tami: I would like to begin by joining other hon. Members in warmly welcoming the extra money for defence pledged by the Chancellor in the

359
latest round of the comprehensive spending review. I am sure that Conservative Members will get tired of hearing that it is the Labour Government who have provided the largest increase in defence spending for more than 20 years, with resources growing by more than 1.2 per cent. a year in real terms to 2005–06. We should also remember that the Conservatives cut defence spending by a third in their last 10 years in government.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman is clearly critical of the last Conservative Government and the extent to which they cut defence spending, will he tell us by how much we should have cut it and how much more money we should have spent on defence than we did?
Mark Tami: I am not going to enter into a debate about how much the Conservatives should have cut. They talk a good fight on defence, but it is the Labour Government who are putting the investment in, when and where it is actually needed.
Jim Knight: We should talk about real spending.
Mark Tami: That is right. The Labour Government, in marked contrast to the Conservatives, have put the finances of this country on a sound footing and delivered a stable economy, low interest rates, low inflation and low business taxes, and that has enabled us to invest in the security that the people of the nation deserve.
The cold war is now something that is taught in history lessons at school, rather like the second world war was in my time at school. We now see more of the cold war in James Bond films than anywhere else in the media, and many teenagers have probably never heard of the Soviet Union. The world is vastly different from when the Berlin wall came down. The old days, when we planned for nuclear and conventional conflict in mainland Europe, with tanks rolling across the plains, have gone from our thinking.
The world is different now; it is far more complex and unpredictable and, therefore, potentially more insecure. In the United Kingdom, we are right to recognise, especially through NATO, that these new insecurities bring new responsibilities and a new role. Rapid reaction, conflict resolution, and maintaining a strong deterrent are the order of the day. Our commitments are as many as they are diverse. The Government were, therefore, right to recognise that our defence policy had to be brought up to date by the strategic defence review, on both procurement and equipment issues.
Nothing should compromise this country's ability to honour its international commitments and maintain its national security. That is why we must have value for money and, equally, a framework that can deliver what we really need. Value for money alone can never be a sufficient criterion. When we look at procurement policy, we should look at the whole picture. We should consider not only the purchasing of the equipment, but the way in which we maintain it once it is in service.
There is a growing trend in linking maintenance with a supplier as part of the purchase arrangements. In some cases, that clearly makes sense, but we must also consider
360
the effect of such a policy on our in-house capability at the Ministry of Defence, and in particular, at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency—DARA. In my constituency, DARA, at RAF Sealand, provides vital support to our armed services. It has dramatically improved its efficiency and flexibility and is now gaining new contracts through greater commercial freedom.
We should not, however, lose sight of the principal role of the agency, which is to keep our defence forces in prime operating condition. This vital role was perfectly illustrated during the recent conflicts in Bosnia and, before that, in the Gulf, when the agency worked flat out to keep our front-line services at full fighting strength. If we had not had that capability, or that flexibility, I doubt that we would have achieved the success that we did. I certainly question whether normal contract arrangements would have delivered the level of support that was needed, or that was achieved. We cannot simply contract everything out. It is vital, now more than ever, that we maintain and expand this viable in-house capability.
No one would have predicted the events of 11 September or the international war on terrorism that has followed. But no one predicted the conflicts in the Falklands, in the Gulf or in Bosnia. We are not able to predict, but we must always do our level best to prepare and to plan for future challenges and changes in our global environment. We need to be smart in our buying, but also smart in our planning. That is why we need to place a strong emphasis on supporting British manufacturing.
If I may, I would like to pay tribute to those in the trade union movement, including those in my own union, Amicus, who have done so much to support British manufacturing and the immense contribution that it makes to the prosperity and success of our whole economy. Britain has long been one of the world's leading defence manufacturers, employing well over 100,000 people in good quality jobs. While we have a highly successful export market, the industry clearly also relies on domestic orders. Whenever it is possible and viable to do so, the MOD should look to British manufacturers—and certainly British-based manufacturers—when it is making its purchases.
I welcome and fully support the MOD's decision to purchase 25 A400M transport aircraft. I think that it should have bought more, but that is a start, and I hope, along with our European partners, that the project will be allowed to go ahead. The A400M demonstrates the difficulties often faced by British and European manufacturers in competing with America. The amount of research and development expenditure available in the US often results in American companies being in a better position to bring a finished product to the table.
Opting for American companies will often deliver jobs to this country. Indeed, Raytheon has brought many jobs to my own constituency through the Astor project, and they are certainly welcome. However, if we had opted for the C-17 transport aircraft, or an uprated Hercules, we would have had none of the associated intellectual property rights. So, while that would have created jobs in this country, we would not have been in a position to grow those jobs. The A400M, on the other hand, has great export potential, and we should be able to expect an expansion of jobs as orders for it increase. Intellectual property is therefore the key, and we must take that fully into account in our procurement policy.

361
Although we have, I hope, decided on a transport aircraft for the future, we have yet to decide on a replacement for our ageing air tanker fleet. The options are either to convert second-hand Boeing aircraft or to opt for the Airbus air tanker. As the wings for the Airbus would be built in Broughton in my constituency, I could be accused of being somewhat biased in relation to that choice. I would contend that the Airbus is a far better long-term choice and offers a good possibility of further export orders. It is therefore the smart choice.
We have a major job to do in promoting our own industry. The French Ministry of Defence rightly comes down on the side of the French defence industry. The French equivalent of the Department of Trade Industry believes that its role is to champion French industry, and our Government, Ministers and Whitehall officials must follow their example. We must support British manufacturing, the British defence industry and British jobs.
The strength of competition from the United States defence industry makes it vital that British companies continue to play a leading role in defence manufacturing exports. In particular, they must play the leading role in making essential projects a reality through European partnership. We must also ensure that this country's skills and intellectual property are valued and invested in. Our defence industries are often the most highly skilled and high-tech in the whole of manufacturing industry. The skills, knowledge and intellectual property that we have built into our defence and aerospace industries have proven time and again to benefit our entire manufacturing base.
In defence, we must not try to prop up lame ducks, but actively to support and encourage what are world-beating industries. Let us support smart procurement, but let us ensure also that we make the smart choice by supporting British manufacturers.
8.21 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). I cannot claim that I agreed with everything that he said, but I agreed with the greater part of it. He argued his case very cogently, and his defence of his constituency interests was a model for us all. I should at this point draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
The sixth report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was published last November, recognised the impressive achievements of our armed forces. However, it also observed that:
"Despite the considerable sums of money spent on defence equipment",
our armed forces are
"still faced with using out-dated equipment and relying on other nations to provide elements of capability which should by now have been available to them."
The report continued by expressing the hope that the equipment capability customer organisation—which is responsible for deciding what is required, and for controlling the funding to deliver that capability—will offer a potentially significant step forward in providing the armed forces with the equipment that they need at the time that they need it.
362
However, the conclusion to the report observes that there was considerable confusion
"between the Capability Customer and the Defence Procurement Agency over the fitting of a sonar to the first three Type 45 destroyers… The Committee finds it difficult to understand how the planning for these ships could exclude such vital pieces of kit and views with concern that such a possibility could have been seriously considered. The Committee therefore recommends that the Department should review the arrangements for communication between the Equipment Capability Customer and the Defence Procurement Agency to ensure that those arrangements can be relied on to convey exactly what is required."
I wonder whether the Minister can say in his winding-up speech what progress has been made in implementing that recommendation for much better communication between the capability customer and the Defence Procurement Agency. If he is unable to do so, perhaps he might write to me on the matter.
The report also states that, in the evidence presented to the Committee in compiling the report:
"The Chief of Defence Procurement said that the sonar was being procured because of the headroom provided"
by achieving a rather better price on the prime contract. That seems to imply that the sonar would not have been acquired, had such headroom not appeared in the main contract. I find that rather odd, and it stretches credulity somewhat.
The Department has not always undertaken the right analyses at the right time. For example, it is generally agreed that the study on anti-armour weapons should have been carried out before committing the medium-range Trigat project to production, rather than after the project was withdrawn. In future, we would expect the equipment capability customer organisation to specify at the outset of such projects precisely when such studies should be undertaken.
The Department's strategy for meeting anti-armour weapons requirements seems to have evolved over time with a general lack of coherence, and as a result a certain cost penalty has been incurred. For example, in the second order to upgrade additional BL755 cluster bombs for the Kosovo campaign, the unit costs were almost double that of the first order. Also, although the order for Brimstone missiles was reduced, that reduction failed to secure a commensurate reduction in the total spend. Additional Maverick missiles were purchased, at a significantly greater cost. I would expect the equipment capability customer organisation to provide a more timely forecast of the mix of weapons required, so that such cost penalties can be avoided.
I have what the Minister might consider a dumb question about Eurofighter. It is perhaps dumb simply because I have no experience in these matters, but someone who lacks expertise in aviation matters should have such a question—which concerns the decision to remove the gun from Eurofighter, at a saving of £32 million—answered for him. I am sure that a plausible scenario exists as to why we do not need that capability, but it gives rise to the question of why our partners in the Eurofighter project are persisting with arming the aircraft with that weapon. It also gives rise to the further question of why other countries continue to arm their aircraft with such weapons. In order to allay the fear that this is simply a cost-cutting exercise, it would be interesting to hear the Minister rehearse precisely why we have decided to do without that capability, given that other countries have decided to persist with it.

363
I was always a fan of the SA80 weapon and a supporter of that project. As far as I was concerned, the greatest disappointment arising from it was the failure to deliver the weapon anywhere near the 1980 deadline that gave rise to its name. I have always regarded it as a sophisticated weapon and an amazing piece of engineering which, had we got it right at the start—it is interesting to note that much of the recent upgrade consists merely of the production of the original parts using better materials—would have sold in large numbers throughout the world.
I am concerned about the study that has just concluded of failures in Afghanistan. The Minister said that although the study has been concluded, he is awaiting the report. If the commercial organisation for which I worked before becoming a Member of Parliament had had a problem and dispatched a team to look into it, and if that team had returned and had a board meeting coming up, we would not have sat back twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the team to digest its findings and write its report; we would have ensured that we had a swift briefing, even if the report had yet to be written. The defence procurement debate is being held today and it would have been interesting to hear Ministers' comments about the problems in Afghanistan on the basis of their initial briefing on the issue.
Dr. Moonie: We do not have the information yet—otherwise I am sure we would have been able to share it with the hon. Gentleman and others.
Mr. Swayne: I accept that point, but had I been the Minister I would have taken steps to ensure that I had the information before the debate. I would not have waited for the gestation of the report but would have insisted on a verbal briefing straight away.
When the Minister winds up, will he address longer-term procurement and do a bit of blue-sky thinking? We know that our American allies are moving towards a capability for rapid deployment, which will involve very light, air-transportable armaments and armour. Are we intending to follow that lead? I understand that the rapid effects project was supposed to consider aspects of that technology. How is that requirement evolving? It seems to me that in any future conflict we will have to strike a balance between protection and deployability. That balance at the moment comes out at about 70 tonnes for armour. New technology will bring that down and enable a much more deployable armament that provides sufficient protection. Our American allies are considering that issue, but are we following their lead? Will we develop a procurement project along those lines in the future?
8.32 pm
Mr. John Smith: I wish to raise a specific point relating to defence procurement that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and briefly mentioned in the two opening speeches. I was surprised that the mentions were so brief, because the area of procurement in question commands the biggest slice of the defence budget—almost £6 billion in procurement and procurement support. It is surprising that it has hardly been mentioned this evening.
364
As in all good debates among people who are passionate about and committed to defence, several points have been raised in this debate, and I shall respond generally to some of those before I turn to the main issue of my speech. The House may be surprised to learn that I think that tonight's debate is an historic one. Defence procurement does not excite everybody—it is not the sexiest subject for debate—but it has been proved tonight for the first time ever that the Labour party is the party of defence. If anyone was in any doubt about that, they can be sure of it after tonight's debate.
We have had an admission from both sides of the House that this week has seen the announcement of a substantial real-terms increase in defence expenditure that will help our procurement programme no end in the near future. It is the biggest increase in defence spending in 20 years, and it comes on top of at least three successive years' worth of increases in defence expenditure, after the haemorrhaging that we saw in the last 10 years of the Tory Government.
I remind the House that although the Tories cut the budget by a third in real terms, the way in which that was done is the real issue. There was a peace dividend after the cold war; but the way in which the Tory Government cut the defence budget left the country with enormous capability gaps. That is why I was a little worried when I heard the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) say that if—God forbid—the Tories ever returned to power, they would commit themselves to capabilities enabling us to fulfil our international responsibilities and defend the homeland. I would prefer to consider what they did, rather than what they say they are going to do. There were huge gaps. Heavy lift, for instance, was virtually non-existent by 1997—as were the provision of medical support for our service personnel in the front line, and second-line defence logistics.
Mr. Francois: Let me give the hon. Gentleman a chance to take a quick breather. I think it fair to say that because we are moving to a different system of MOD resource accounting and budgeting, we are to some extent comparing apples with pears. According to the analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the figures are not as impressive as the Government suggest. I think we should wait for the Defence Committee to conduct a forensic analysis, as it does best. We shall then see whether the claims of the hon. Gentleman and his party are as impressive as they would have us all believe.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman would want to wait, wouldn't he? Anyone looking at the Conservatives' record would say, "You bet they want to dilute and undermine this Government's achievements in any way they can, because they contrast so well with their disastrous performance during their last 10 years in office". In those days, we were dangerously lacking in capability. We could not have met our NATO capability requirements by 1997 had we been called on to do so. If article 5 had been invoked, this country could not have delivered on that invocation. It was indeed a disastrous situation in which we found ourselves in 1997—which is why Labour, beyond any doubt, is now the party of defence.
As others will know, whenever Labour Members visit the officers mess, an officer will sidle up—in general, the more senior the military brass the more likely the

365
occurrence—and say, "Of course you know, Mr. Smith, Labour has always been a great friend of defence. We will never forget what a brilliant Defence Secretary Denis Healey was." They always say that, even if they are 21 years old, and we sometimes wonder where they have got it from.
To be honest, in the past I have never been particularly convinced by all that. But since the publication of the strategic defence review a year after the election of a Labour Government in 1997, there has been no doubt about it. That document has stood the test of time. It has given us the increase that defence deserves and needs this year.
Mr. Gray: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when we are all enjoying his speech so much, but the strategic defence review happened some five years ago. Even if he is right in his assertion, it has taken his party five years to fund that review properly. Can he explain why?
Mr. Smith: I do not think it has taken five years. There has been a year-on-year increase, albeit small, and there is a substantial increase for the next three years. That must be compared with the massive and dangerous cuts that were made previously. We were able to do what we did because not only was the review inclusive and transparent, but—Conservative Members may not like hearing this—by and large, it garnered, bipartisan support. The books were opened. We were told to look at the current defence resources and at the change in the security environment and decide what action was needed. The fact is that most Members of Parliament agreed with the conclusions.
I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly: I represent this Parliament in that august organisation. I am also a member of a sub-committee considering the future military capabilities of NATO members and aspirant members. The British strategic defence review is used as a model throughout those countries. I happened to be present at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly summit in Edinburgh when General Wesley Clark, then Supreme Allied Commander Europe, held up the review as a future model for defence forces throughout the NATO countries.
We must not underestimate the strength and achievement of the SDR. Britain has put forward the money in the past, and we are still doing so. Tonight's debate is on procurement, and its emphasis in connection with the success of the SDR has focused on the reconfiguration of our forces to meet the changed security environment. Under the Tories, Britain was still defending itself against a non-existent enemy in the east, and we protected the plains of Germany with thousands of military personnel.
The Territorial Army was mentioned earlier. The previous Tory Government cut its numbers by some 20,000, but those who were left were given a job that they would never have to do in the foreseeable future. That was not good for them or for British defence, and it was a waste of taxpayers' money.
One of the most radical elements of the SDR often gets overlooked, and that has happened again even in this debate. That element is the review's proposals to improve procurement and defence logistics. As it happens, logistics takes up a bigger proportion of the defence budget than
366
procurement. We tend to think of procurement in terms of fast jets, tanks and warships, but the real expenditure is devoted to lines of supply, servicing and keeping the bellies of soldiers on the front line full. I am not sure that the House spends enough time discussing that important matter.
The changes in procurement have been extremely radical. In some respects, they are more radical than the changes in our force structures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, was right to say that nothing will happen overnight. We will be lucky if the task is completed in a decade, but the Government have attempted to tackle it and at least the oil tanker is starting to move in the right direction.
The bureaucracy needed to cope with procurement and logistics is gigantic, as is the amount of money involved. The vested bureaucratic and military interests will take quite some time to change, but the indications are that things are changing. Reports from the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and elsewhere show that we are starting to move in the right direction.
The Government have created the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation, and have brought logistics together in tri-service provision. That may sound easy to do, but it is a different matter when one tries to tell the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the rest that they will not act alone any more. That is a huge task even to consider taking on, which is why this important programme has been so radical.
The savings, in terms of the reduction of waste, inefficiency and duplication, should be astronomical. We have heard of the cost over-runs with previous defence projects. I would like to be able to blame all that on the previous Tory Government, but such things have gone on for a long time. Projects can take eight, 10 or even 15 years to complete. It is very difficult to keep them under control, which is why the new agencies have been created.
Smart procurement was introduced to speed up decision making, and that approach has now been extended to smart acquisition. The integrated project teams were introduced for the same reason. A concept borrowed from the Americans, they have proved very successful, not merely keeping an eye on a project as it comes on-stream, but throughout its entire life. The potential savings in that regard are huge.
The Government have introduced a series of radical changes whose benefits will become clear to hon. Members of all parties. All the money saved and resources released will be devoted to front-line services. Our soldiers are the best in the world, and they will have the best equipment and resources to do whatever job they are given, be it in Sierra Leone, Kosovo or Afghanistan. That was the challenge set up by the SDR, and we must take it forward.
The fact that we have only to write a new chapter to the SDR in the aftermath of what happened on 11 September last year shows how far-sighted the review was. Obviously, no one anticipated that there would be an international terrorist attack on that scale, and the tragedy will have to change our thinking. It is clear that we will have to be able to deploy rapidly and to carry out a

367
multiplicity of different missions, from peacekeeping to war fighting. We will also, probably, have to be able to deploy forces at much greater distances.
We must look once again at our homeland defence, because the threat could come from anywhere. It could come from an unstable country, rogue state or terrorist gang and could strike right at the heart of this country. We must be able to adjust to meet that challenge.
Jim Knight: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that such is the strength of the SDR process that our armed forces are very well placed in terms of projection overseas and certainly in comparison with most of our NATO partners? In many ways it is a shame that our homeland security and our civil response to the new security threat are not as well placed as our armed forces are following the SDR process.
Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that we will revisit that issue during tomorrow's statement. I have to hand it to the Defence Committee, which warned of such an attack happening long before 11 September. However, we must be careful and distinguish between what we can realistically do to prevent such attacks and what we can do to manage their consequences. There is a difference between what we can realistically do and what we are seen to be doing. I am more interested in reshaping the footprint of British defence forces so that they can more readily identify with regions, local authorities and civil authorities—the police and fire services—and prevent something from happening or respond after it has happened. We would do far better to look at that use of our resources than to create a huge new force like the Territorial Army. Frankly, between 1989 and 1997, the territorials were not quite sure what job they had to do.
Mr. Francois: As a former Territorial Army officer, I should like to respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Rather a lot of Territorial Army soldiers knew exactly what they had to do. They did not need their numbers slashed and the infantry battalions did not need their back broken by a Labour Government.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman refers to the infantry battalions, the cap badges and the tradition. By and large, it is harder for Tories to take those tough decisions about reforming our military.
The hon. Gentleman is right—it was an error on my part to say that all the territorials had nothing to do. That was nonsense. They occupied key positions in some of the world's trouble spots, including Bosnia. However, the majority were effectively cannon fodder for a non-existent enemy. That was the reality.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am also a former officer in the Territorial Army. I was in the Fusiliers, a northern regiment. I sat on a bridge on the River Weser month after month watching for Russian tanks. They may or may not have come, but we knew precisely what we were there to do and we knew how to do it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that
368
Territorial Army soldiers did a job for all those years and that they continue to do a job by serving around the world with the regulars.
Mr. Smith: When the red army existed intact, that was an incredibly important and worthwhile job. Now that the red army has collapsed and could not possibly present a realistic threat in the next two or three decades, even if they started building up now, the job no longer exists. I am not casting aspersions on the role played by the territorials. However, the challenge in the SDR was to find them a realistic role for the future. Nobody wanted the territorials to have a valued and important role in the new defence structures, facing new and unpredictable enemies, more than they did.
Mr. Francois: We have to thank the hon. Gentleman for recanting part of what he said earlier.
Mr. Smith: If I gave that impression.
Mr. Francois: He did, and we have acknowledged that. However, part of the debate about the Territorial Army is how it could carry out an operational role in home defence in the aftermath of 11 September. We hope that that will be addressed in the new chapter of the SDR. These are very important issues. I thank the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing his remarks but ask him to think more carefully about what he says.
Mr. Smith: I am not withdrawing what I said—I want that on the record. My point did not appear to be made clearly enough. I am making exactly the same point, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman on future homeland defence requirements. However, there is no doubt that the traditional role of the Territorial Army has changed. There may be slight disagreement between the hon. Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and me because I am an ex-regular and they are ex-territorials. That could account for our differences.
I want to focus on the Government's extremely innovative policies in the Defence Logistics Organisation. As I said earlier, that represents one of the biggest challenges because it has the biggest budget and the greatest potential for cost savings so that money can he spent where we need it—on the front line.
In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence referred to private finance initiatives and partnership agreements. That is exactly the right way to go forward. The difference between the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government is that we are not Treasury-led and, most important, we are not ideologically led. We are looking for the most efficient output and the best way of delivering services—whether public, private or a combination of both. That is exactly what we should be doing. Other countries are doing that, especially the United States. We can learn lessons from their experience.
My right hon. Friend did not refer to the creation of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, an innovative concept which was set up in 1999 to be given trading fund status as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Defence Logistics Organisation. The agency received that status on 1 April last year and by 1 April 2004 it will have a turnover of

369
about £500,000 million. It will have a huge work force and will provide a one-stop shop for the entire deep repair and maintenance of almost all our military aircraft. In about two years, the agency will be a commercial organisation. It will receive money not from the defence vote but from clients who buy in its services. That was a courageous move for the Government and it is one of the ways forward.
The project provides the surge capacity referred to earlier, but without complete dependency on the private sector. It also gives the Ministry of Defence another option if it wants to buy in services other than from private companies. God forbid that a private company should have the monopoly for the supply of those services. If that were so, I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should be in serious trouble.
The agency offers several advantages. Although I have not offered uncritical support for some of the developments in that organisation, it has made enormous progress during the past two years. It has completely restructured the work force and removed whole tiers of management. It has changed the terms and conditions of employment and working practices. It has had to deal with unexpected reductions in demand, when it was not awarded contracts that it expected to receive. There have been unexpected cuts in DLO expenditure of which there was little or no notice.
We have already discussed the Sea Harrier, but one aspect of that debate was not covered: the impact of withdrawing the aircraft earlier than planned on the supply line that services them and on the jobs and skills base that are dependent on such work and that are vital to our future military provision. The agency is preparing to adjust to that.
As I noted, the agency was set up in April 1999; it was awarded trading fund status in April 2001 and will be a fully commercial organisation by April 2004, although it will still be owned by the Ministry of Defence. There are four sites in the United Kingdom, one of which is in my constituency at RAF St. Athan. It is vital to their success that the agency gets the go-ahead for a new purpose-built hangar at St. Athan, as part of one of the biggest aerospace projects in Wales—the red dragon project. The new hangar must be built before the organisation achieves full trading fund status in 2004 to allow it to compete on the open market with other private sector companies not only providing military service and repair but also offering a commercial service to civilian aircraft when possible. My concern is that if the go-ahead for the red dragon project is not given in time, we will not have the facilities to provide a modern manufacturing plant to compete with other players in the market.
I understand that there was a meeting of the ministerial advisory board a week ago, and the expectation was that the go-ahead would be given for the red dragon project. That would have given permission to raise the money; it will be a private sector initiative to provide a purpose-built hangar that will take 47 fighter jets, and multiples of other aircraft, under one roof. There are hundreds of buildings spread over miles of land, most of which were built during the second world war. We cannot expect people to compete in those circumstances. The decision was not taken and there was enormous dismay and anxiety in my constituency, especially among the
370
work force, who have worked so hard to support Government policy. There is anger and uncertainty about the future.
If that hangar is not started by the end of this year, it will not be complete for April 2004, and the organisation that we created under a progressive procurement policy will not be able to compete in the open market; it will have one hand tied behind its back.
Another reason why the Minister should consider this matter carefully is that by unnecessarily delaying the project—if it is delayed; I hope that my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary will say something tonight to convince me and the people who run the Defence Aviation Repair Agency that that is not the decision—there is a danger of playing into the hands of those people within defence procurement, the Ministry of Defence and the military who do not want that solution. They do not like to see so much use of PFI or private partnering, or the creation of new commercial agencies. Naturally, they want to retain their empires and, where they can, build on them.
The British military are the best in the world at fighting wars, but they are not very good at providing the back-up services, stores and support facilities—I speak as an ex-service man—that, frankly, can be provided more efficiently and more cost-effectively in other ways. There are no military benefits from the work reverting back to the military, but there would be a lot of extra resources to go to the front line. Ministers must beware that they do not play into the hands of those who do not want to see agencies such as DARA, or private partnering, succeed. They want to revert to a failed policy.
In many respects, the United States has led the world in new thinking and innovation in logistical support and procurement, but what the Americans say and what they do are often very different. The fact is that we have seen very little shift from military supply and support to private sector innovative provision in the US. The reason is that the lobby on Capitol Hill is so enormous that every time a President—whether Clinton or Bush—had to sign something off, he would not do it. We do not want a parallel situation in this country, caused by a possible delay in a decision that should be taken now to allow the organisation to improve its quality of service, reduce its costs and compete on the open market by 2004.
Red dragon will be one of the biggest aerospace projects in Wales, with an initial investment in excess of £100 million. The Minister may or may not be aware that the decision to delay the go-ahead for the red dragon project could blight that development and that site.
DARA tells me that it has people ready to enter into partnership agreements. Perhaps more importantly, the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency tells me that he has a number of clients queueing up to move on to the aerospace park. They are ready to make the project work, but they will not wait indefinitely and they may be lost. My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the change that is taking place at RAF St. Athan. All the staff are worried and waiting for the decision.
Mr. Ingram: It is difficult in an intervention to deal with all the points that my hon. Friend makes, but I shall try to give him some assurance. He has been a very fierce campaigner for that project and has criticised some of the ways forward, and rightly so. The letter of intent has been signed. As the sole owner of DARA, I remain positive

371
about the way forward. This is a question not of dithering, but of trying to obtain certainty. We are examining the best solutions. Rather than moving forward on the heads of agreement at the meeting last week, I thought it better to complete the internal examination, which is also taking place, of end-to-end support for the RAF, so that it can better advise me on my ultimate decision. I well understand the anxiety; it is a matter of regret, but I hope to be able to give an early answer, and the solution will not be long delayed.
Mr. Smith: I am absolutely delighted with my right hon. Friend's intervention. What he says not only reassures me, but, more importantly, it will reassure the work force at RAF St. Athan and, indeed, the people of Wales, who look forward to the success of the project.
This has been a good debate, and we have covered many procurement issues. I believe that the Government are moving in the right direction. In reality, if people scrape away at the surface, they will find that there is much more bipartisan support for what the Government are doing than Opposition Members will let on.
I am sure that we are on the right path in trying to improve our procurement and logistics because of my experience some years ago., when it was decided that Defence Estates would simply carry out an audit of what the MOD owned in this country. No one had ever done that before. No one had ever sat back and asked, "What exactly do we own and what is it worth? The audit was fascinating. I understand that it found 600 horses, but no one quite knew what they had been used for since the abolition of the cavalry. It found a string of diesel locomotives, rolling stock and land worth millions of pounds. All that money could be saved by a simple auditing initiative. I tell the Government to keep up the good work.
9.3 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: First, I must apologise to the House for my slight, forced absence in the middle of this debate.
I should like to talk about a very particular part of defence procurement—the procurement of explosives. There is one plant in this country that makes explosives to the standard and level that the British military needs—the old Royal Ordnance factory at Puriton in Bridgwater. It is important to consider this issue because procurement has not just begun but goes back over the ages. The point has been eloquently made that we are not very good at achieving some of our procurement aims.
The factory began work in 1939, and it was located in Bridgwater because there is lots of water—it happens to be below sea level. By the end of 1941, it had produced 20,000 tons of high explosive. It is best known for the bouncing bomb and many of the other explosives produced in the early part of the war. Since then, it has created some of the best quality explosives in the world. It cannot be beaten by anyone. Those explosives are required for our bombs, shells, missiles and so on.
The factory has been an exemplary employer and has done a phenomenal job. After privatisation in 1987 and because of the shrinkage in this country's defence capacity after the fall of the red army—the red peril—it
372
had to change. However, it is now under threat, but not because of what the Government are doing—it was taken over by BAE Systems. If hon. Members want to boo and hiss now, they may. That is a company that has one aim: to maximise profits. It may sound as if I am speaking for the wrong side, but I agree that a company whose activities put the interests of a country at stake should not just aim for the largest profit that it can make. It is, so far, a British company, and the nation matters more.
Royal Ordnance has a 400-acre production site. It is a large factory capable of producing high-quality explosives on a site that could be a world-beater. It is a site that is out of the range of people. It is in a safe place: that is why it was put there. It is also away from prying eyes. As anyone who has been involved in the chemical industry knows, it is easier to mothball a chemical plant than to shut it down. If one shuts it down, the land clearing and sterilisation of the soil is a massive expense. I hope that Ministers will take that on board.
Puriton is now making RDX, TNT and HMX, which are explosives that we depend on for our military capacity. It also looks after other material that is vital to the defence of the nation, and that we cannot depend on the Americans to supply. Will the Minister address that point? Where will we get that extra material from if Puriton disappears? The United States Government have never said how we will obtain such material if it cannot be supplied from across the pond—I felt that I ought to repeat that to the House.
In terms of supply, from where will we get explosives for Sea Wolf, Spearfish, Sting Ray, BVRAAM and CASOM—I do not know what they stand for, but they all need a warhead that has something in the end that goes "Bang!"—[Interruption.] I am a Territorial Army soldier; I know what "out-of-date" means. We are here to try to save a plant that has done a great job over 60 years.
I received a letter from the Royal Ordnance trade unions—or from the Transport and General under Jack Dromey—which stated that the Defence Committee pointed out that
"a long-term Partnering Agreement was concluded two years ago, which it hoped would provide the stability for Britain's Royal Ordnance factories"—
but—
"the Agreement 'has only served to give the firm the foundation it needed to close further plants'".
That means all three remaining plants. It continued:
"The Defence Committee then calls on the MOD to act, saying that Defence Ministers 'must continue to monitor more robustly the implications of ammunition plant closures, and indeed other Defence Industry rationalisation to be ready to protect re-supply routes for such essential support for our Armed Forces—."
It went on to refer to
"the closure of the remaining factory manufacturing high explosives here in Britain…That vital and strategic capability should be preserved."
What is at issue? We are talking about the ability of our country to survive with our war stocks for up to 30 days—we need to be able to keep a division operational for 30 days. If the war stocks are not there, and they have to be bought from elsewhere, the defensive and offensive capacity of the nation—its ability to go to war and to protect itself or its citizens—is potentially undermined.

373
One of the biggest problems over the last few years has been the moving of explosive production out of this country to Germany, America and elsewhere. I shall deal with the American situation in a moment. One of our ammunition plants was closed to remove production to Germany. The Select Committee said that, unless we ensure that our war stocks are safely maintained at the necessary height, we will not be able to resupply in the short term. One can never set out what an emergency will be, as has been eloquently explained in the House by hon. Members. One can never foresee the unexpected—that goes without saying.
The three remaining plants are at Chorley, which does mostly civil work but makes the detonators and initiators, at Bridgwater, which produces high explosives, and at Birtley in the north-east, which assembles the shells and shell cases. We will lose all three plants if BAE Systems has its way.
One of the problems of the Bridgwater plant is that it has never had its own cost base. That may sound strange, but BAE Systems has always made it a part of other loss-making plants in this country. I refer not only to the ones that we know about, but to Glascoed and others. If a plant cannot prove to BAE Systems that it will make money, BAE will view it in a different way. If the plant was given the chance to be a cost-effective unit in its own right, it could prove that it could make money, as it continuously did when it stood on its own two feet for many years.
I asked the Under-Secretary what the Government's policy for ordnance production in the United Kingdom was. I was told that the MOD had
"entered into a 10-year Framework Partnering Agreement with Royal Ordnance Defence, the United Kingdom's major producer of munitions. This agreement provides the company with a schedule of business and visibility of MOD's potential future requirements such that the company can provide the MOD with munitions at world benchmark prices."—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 20W.]
I do not think that that is correct. If BAE Systems uses that benchmark, it can move production of ammunition to anywhere in the world. There would then be no guarantee that we could obtain ammunition from where we want it or when we want it in an emergency.
Lord Bach said that, if Royal Ordnance had not entered into such an agreement towards the end of 1999, the position would have been so bad that the future of the plants would have been under serious threat. I have raised this matter with the Under-Secretary before, and he rightly raises his eyebrows. However, I shall bang on about it until we go blue in the face.
The Holston military ammunition plant in Tennessee is on a site of 6,000 acres and it is the largest bomb-making factory in the world that is run by the British. It is now controlled by BAE Systems. Royal Ordnance has just been granted $163 million to run the plant, and it is looking to bring in world-beating products from all round the world. It has been given a 25-year extension to the contract to be able to do that, so this is its chance to use its muscle and the framework agreement set up with the MOD to move the production of ammunition to an American army plant in Tennessee.
The plant now has contracts worth $88 million for the production of the RDX and HMX explosives. That is strange, because those explosives are produced in this
374
country. The different types produced at the American plant are now being used in British warheads. A further $75 million contract will give Royal Ordnance the right to a 25-year exclusive contract to bring in production from around the world.
Because we have signed the Ottawa convention, we have signed away our right to produce land mines. That is fine, but the American plant makes land mines. Does the Under-Secretary think that there is a contradiction if we buy ammunition, stores and facilities from a place that produces land mines? Are we not in breach of the convention that we signed? I ask the question, because I do not know the answer. I saw the effect of laying land mines when I sat by the Weser looking for the red peril.
I was a member of the Territorial Army. but now look at it from another point of view. It provides, and still provides, a battlefield replacement ability. It has been involved in the Gulf, Bosnia and most other places where the Regular Army has been. It will continue to do that. However, it has always faced the problem of obtaining the same equipment, training and hack-up as the Regular Army. That creates problems, because the Territorial Army does not have the time to train soldiers unless there is a long run-in to an emergency. Emergencies tend to happen quickly these days and there is little or no preparation time to get our territorial soldiers up to a standard that allows them to replace units or participate as battlefield replacements. The same goes for replacements for engineers, doctors, nurses and any specialist. The majority of TA specialists look after 155 mm guns and many other things that the Army does not keep a corps to do. If we lose that capacity because people are not trained, that procurement system will disappear. We should encourage members of the TA to continue to perform that role.
I have just finished a book by Peter Hennessey, an academic, on the role of Whitehall from world war two to the end of the cold war. He argued eloquently that it is not possible to be over-prepared for civil defence. I suspect that we did not get it right in this country, but we never had to find out. We need to examine the future of home security much more closely. That means knowing about procurement and security and understanding where, say, ammunition comes from because we have only one chance to get it right.
I urge the Minister to defend the factory at Puriton. It is important to have a secure supply of ammunition. We must learn the lessons from the Gulf war when the Belgians would not give us ammunition. Those problems have not gone away. It only takes America to disapprove once and we will not get what we need to do the job of defending this nation.
9.16 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I declare my membership of the GMB trade union and draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests on the support that it gives to my constituency party. Some of its members work in the defence industry.
I am proud of this country's defence industry and the number of jobs that it creates, not just in the north-east of England, but throughout the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, those are high-quality jobs. The defence industry helps to ensure that technology is at the forefront of developments.

375
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside and for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), I welcome last week's increase in defence expenditure. It will have a major impact on procurement by the Ministry of Defence. That is important to our defence industry, which is right to be proud of its exports record. We need to defend those exports because they are key to a vibrant and important sector.
Ministry of Defence procurement is crucial because it provides the bedrock business for a range of defence manufacturers. Defence manufacturing now operates across nations, as the Minister said. There are few sole suppliers from one country. Manufacturers work together to put sophisticated programmes in place which are important to us and our European allies. However, it is important to defend UK jobs, and the Ministry of Defence should ensure that jobs are retained within the UK defence industry. It is a matter not just of the number of jobs, but of the skills that they require. Skills cannot be turned on and off like a tap they need to be nurtured over a long time. The defence industry needs a continuous supply of work so that skills can be retained and nurtured.
On the procurement of warships, the Minister said that competition is a key part of defence procurement, including naval procurement, which I accept. It is also about getting value for money.
I refer to comments that Lord Bach made to the Scottish Affairs Committee during its investigation of employment in the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. He stated:
"All fighting vessels are built in the UK."
He continued:
"it remains the policy of this Government that all warship construction will continue to be carried out in this country."
Therefore it gives me no pleasure to raise the issue of the advanced landing ship logistics at Swan Hunter, where a large amount of work that could have been carried out in this country has been subcontracted to Holland. Again, in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, an MSF full-time official said that he believed that up to 40 per cent. of the work on the ALSLs has been contracted abroad to Holland.
I raised the issue last November in a parliamentary question for written answer after defence contractors in the north-east told me about their difficulties in getting on tender lists for Swan Hunter. The Scottish Affairs Committee report states:
"Lord Bach admitted that whilst there was no intention to contravene the Government's military shipbuilding policy, in this case the overseas fabrication of the hulls did raise questions about compliance. Following an agreement with Swan Hunter (Tyneside), a clause has now been placed in the ALSL contract which requires MoD sanction before fabrication or assembly can be sub-contracted overseas."
I would like to know why that was allowed to happen, given that there was a clear concern in the north-east, which I raised with the Ministry of Defence in November. Shipyard workers in the north-east who could have done that work to a high specification are very angry that they have not been given the opportunity to do so.
Mr. John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman makes a brave and compelling point. Does he agree that the issue is not only subcontracting to
376
companies in Holland, but the fact that those companies further "sub-subcontract" to countries such as Ukraine, which have no regulations on health and safety in the workplace and which, unlike our shipyards, have significant subsidies available to them?
Mr. Jones: I am not aware of such arrangements, but I view them with great concern. It is clear that when Mr. Yap Kroese tendered for the contract in the first place, he fully intended to subcontract the work to Holland. I feel that we in the north-east have been let down. I, and many others, have argued for procurement of warships in the north-east, but I am sorry to say that people will be left with a bitter taste in their mouths if every time we successfully persuade the Government to procure contracts for Swan Hunter shipbuilders, that work is subcontracted to Holland. The MOD and the north-east shipbuilding community must make a clear commitment to ensure that work that can be carried out in the north-east is carried out there. I understand that time is limited, so I shall finish. I look forward to the Minister's response.
9.23 am
Jim Knight: I gather that I have only a brief period in which to speak, so I shall keep my remarks exceptionally short. I shall pass over my strong support for the increase in defence spending that was announced on Monday and go straight to key issues for my constituency.
As I mentioned in an intervention, those issues include the consolidation of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in Hampshire, with a move away from its current site in Windfrith, where sea-systems expertise sits alongside a great concentration of expertise in the commercial sector. Although I appreciate that DSTL wants to keep some distance between itself and the other half of what used to be the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the discrete nature of sea-systems expertise means that the DSTL's continued presence in Windfrith would be a gain for the country as a whole.
While I am talking about my constituency interests, I should say how enthusiastic people in Dorset are about the idea that when the next set of Type 45s are named, HMS Dorsetshire might be revived, following its excellent record over many incarnations. Last time we lost HMS Dorsetshire, the public in Dorset raised the money for its replacement, but unfortunately it was not built and the money had to be returned.
The other point that I want to make relates to international partnerships in procurement. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the A400M, and I have been privileged to visit the factory in Filton to discuss its importance with the trade union and management sides. I am therefore less than impressed by the fact that our colleagues in the Bundestag are delaying the procurement of the A400M and the Meteor, and I should be interested to learn what efforts the Government are making to put pressure on the German Parliament to make that decision. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) that we should not rely solely on the United States as regards the future of our defence industry. It is very important that we have a successful European industry.

377
so we have to make such projects work. We must also encourage our partners in Europe to give us the same access to their markets as we allow them to ours. I am sure that Ministers will do that.
I support a strong defence industry with properly regulated exports. I look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Quadripartite Committee in its report to be published tomorrow, but I am confident that a strong defence industry is getting stronger thanks to the policies of the Government.
9.26 pm
Mr. James Gray: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is very understanding towards one or two hon. Members who squeezed his time. I agree that it would be nice for an HMS Dorsetshire to be reinvented—and an HMS Wiltshire come to that. Perhaps he and I will live to see it. That said, Wiltshire is one of the most inland counties, so HMS Wiltshire is less likely than HMS Dorsetshire.
We all welcome this annual opportunity to examine in detail Defence Ministers' brave efforts to demonstrate that they have won the battle with their colleagues at the Treasury and their brazen claims that they are ready to supply, in plentiful quantity, the materiel necessary to carry out their ever more grandiose military ambitions. Unfortunately, they have once again singularly failed to persuade us that they are ready and able to do so. It is true that this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to correct the impression that defence is the lowest of his personal priorities. In six years of speeches—one can check it on the internet—he has rarely mentioned the word "defence", and he gave it no priority until now. He says that he has made a generous contribution towards defence, and we welcome that gesture.
As the Chancellor's neighbour, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), rightly and memorably said, however, figures are subject to political bias. We fear that in this case the figures may well be biased against defence, and we will examine them very carefully indeed. It has been said that only one person understands defence budgets, and he died some years ago, and it will take us some time to determine exactly what they mean. In his contribution, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) amply demonstrated that he does not know what they mean at all. We will look carefully at the figures and examine the bold claims that the Chancellor made, which were echoed by many hon. Members this evening. As is so often the case with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid that the outcome will prove to be a great deal less beneficial to defence than he would have us believe.
The Minister may like to clarify an important point that was touched on earlier—namely, that as of April 2003 he will have to include in the budgets figures of £6 billion for depreciation and of £4 billion for carrying costs. He must tell us which Ministry of Defence budget that will come from and how it was taken account of in the comprehensive spending review. I understand from several people who know about such matters that that detail has not been thought through at all carefully. I challenge the Minister to explain, in very simple terms so that even I can understand them, exactly how depreciation and carrying costs were taken account of in the CSR. Defence accounting is a murky area, but we can
378
be pretty certain that the Chancellor has been less generous than he would have us believe. The reality remains that the procurement bow wave is bearing down on us even more threateningly, and the CSR has done nothing whatsoever to reassure us about that.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) made the bold assertion that Labour is now the party of defence. I fear he may have undermined that by his absurd and ignorant attack on the Territorial Army. I suspect that the TA will not accept his assertion; we shall ensure that Territorial Army volunteer reserves throughout the nation are aware of his precise words.
Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman had 40 minutes, which meant that several Labour Members could not contribute to the debate. I shall not therefore take an intervention from him.
A well-known company of Scottish lawyers, McLay, Murray and Spens, who have offices down here, are known colloquially in Scotland as "Delay, Worry and Expense". I fear that that epithet characterises the Government's defence procurement programmes. That is shown in a variety of current programmes for the Navy, the Air Force and the Army.
Let me begin with some of the RAF procurement programmes. Several anxieties were expressed—for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). We are disappointed by the delay in Eurofighter and concerned that the Government cannot manage more than a general commitment to it. As the hon. Member for Yeovil pointed out, we need to be sure about the third tranche of Eurofighter if we are to maintain our reputation as worthwhile designers and a leading force in fighter aircraft development. The third tranche will be different from the first tranche, and we need to be sure of the former.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, the other great European project, the A400M, may be in difficulties if German constitutional law means that Germany cannot sign up to the 73 aircraft at least until after the general election. How long will Ministers stick with the deal? Seven thousand jobs depend on it. Many are in the west of England, and my constituency is affected.
Perhaps more importantly, what thought have the Government given to an alternative stratagem if the A400M fails? Have they considered, for example, a C-17 with British engines? It would be interesting to know about discussions that Ministers have held with manufacturers about an alternative to the A400M. My constituents in Lyneham need to know urgently where the A400M or its replacement will be based, and what constitutes the future for Lyneham. Two thousand five hundred military jobs, 750 civilian jobs and £75 million depend on it. We look forward to the Minister's early response to the current studies.
The future of strategic air tankers is also the subject of delay, worry and expense. When will the Minister announce which of the two remaining tenderers will be given the contract? Will he make a commitment about the in-service date? We are excellent at air-to-air refuelling, as the Afghanistan experience showed. We need to know that we can continue to offer that capability to the world. We cannot afford further slippage.

379
Delay, worry and expense apply to the Royal Navy in the context of procurement. It would be useful if the Minister scotched the rumours that the operational fleet is to be cut further. He could begin by allaying our fears about Astute class submarines. In a reply on 9 July to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the Under-Secretary said that HMS Astute was not scheduled until late 2006 instead of the original date of 2005, and that that would be followed by extensive work-ups.
When the programme was set out in 2001, the MOD said that the Astute class would be built in 69 months. Does the Under-Secretary's reply mean that the target will not be achieved for the other boats? If so, does the Minister accept that Artful and Ambush are likely to be similarly delayed? Will he therefore reconsider the decommissioning date for S and T class boats, which they replace? If not, we will face a cut in our submarine fleet, from 12 to six boats. That is unacceptable, and would prove devastating for our defence capabilities.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for New Forest, West, and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), said that there was genuine anxiety about the Type 45 programme, which is showing signs of slippage. Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that there will be no further slippage in the programme, and that the six vessels will meet the in-service date of 2007? If not, will he accept that he leaves the fleet bare of air defence for an unreasonable time because of the Government's demonstrably foolish decision to withdraw the Sea Harriers prematurely—a decision to which so many hon. Members referred?
Incidentally, we hear that an American committee is to visit the UK shortly to assess what help we are to give the Americans with regard to ballistic missile defence. They view the Type 45 as a possibly suitable platform for our contribution to BMD. I know that that would not be popular on the Government Benches, but none the less it sounds as if it is being talked about.
I asked the Minister about the matter in a written question, and the reply that he gave was quite interesting:
"The type 45 destroyer has been designed with substantial weight and space margins to enable its capability to be upgraded through life."—[Official Report. 16 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 158W.]
I asked whether the Government were thinking about it for BMD, and he signally refused to say that they were not doing so. I therefore ask the Minister today to tell us if he is discussing with his American counterparts whether Type 45s might be used for BMD.
Before the Minister says that no decisions have been taken on BMD, I draw his attention to an interesting brochure that I received this week for a conference about ballistic missile defence. The first speaker is to be none other than Group Captain Adrian Parrish, the ballistic missile defence capability working party chairman in the MOD. He is to be helped by a Mr. Philip Price, the BMD capability working group secretary in the MOD. So there is plainly a substantial part of the Department working on BMD. We need to know whether the Type 45s will be used for that defence programme.
A further programme that it seems is to be delayed—possibly damagingly—is the one for the landing platform docks. I have even heard rumours—I am sure that they
380
are incorrect—that Fearless may have to be brought back into service in order to make up for the delay. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure us about the future of Fearless?
Dr. Moonie: Scrap.
Mr. Gray: I think that the Minister will find that he is quite incorrect in saying that. I have it on very good authority that the Brazilians have been crawling all over the ship for some time with a view to buying it for the Brazilian fleet. It is widely rumoured that the Brazilians do not need any LPDs and that the nation that does is Argentina. Will the Minister make plain today that he will put into any contract with the Brazilians a clause that states that the ship may under no circumstances, and at no time ever, be sold to Argentina? It would be an insult to the memory of the 225 service men who died in the Falklands campaign if Fearless were to land up in Argentina. We demand of the Minister an absolute assurance that he will take steps to ensure that that does not happen.
We could go on endlessly about the threats to our naval capabilities, but I would rather rest my case on a quotation from none other than Warship World, an outstanding magazine which most Members present will know well. This week's editorial states that the Royal Navy
"stands poised on the brink of fundamental change. which if embraced, we feel will be the beginning of the end of the RN—as we all know it…How many old salts turned in their graves to see Her Majesty sail in a Minehunter from Whale Island to the Old Vernon site (now a shopping centre) reviewing the handful of available ships? Does anyone really believe that no Fleet Review was planned as HM 'didn't want a fuss'. Let's be clear about it—there were insufficient ships to review…The writing is on the wall. The equation of commitments, assets, cash and manpower is always hard to juggle but it must be addressed if this island nation is to continue to operate an independent navy."
It has been interesting to hear several Members trying in this debate to justify the withdrawal of Sea Harriers by saying that we will never go to war on our own. That argument could be used for any capability or any procurement programme. One could say, "Don't worry, chaps. We'll rely on the Americans." We on the Opposition Benches believe that the Falklands and a number of other wars demonstrate that we need to be ready and able to go to war if necessary. The withdrawal of the Sea Harriers makes it extraordinarily difficult to be so. Warship World seems to be saying that unless this Government get their procurement act in order, we will not have a Royal Navy as we have come to know it and love it.
The same problems of delay, worry and expense apply to the Army. We have heard a lot about the SA80 that is disturbing. Will the Minister clarify the tests conducted recently in Bagram on other rifles, and say whether, if they show that they are better, he will undertake to scrap the SA80 and replace it with something else? He is right to say that we must not allow our rhetoric to undermine the reliability of the main weapon that our soldiers use.
Mr. Ingram: You have done a good job of that.
Mr. Gray: The Secretary of State is quite wrong. I have always been a great supporter of the SA80; I have used it quite extensively. None the less, if his Government

381
choose to take us into Iraq—it appears that they are talking about 20,000 or 25,000 soldiers—we need to be certain that the tests conducted in Bagram have demonstrated that the SA80 is a serviceable and useful weapon. The Minister must come to the Dispatch Box this evening and tell us what he is going to do about the outcome of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) highlighted some very worrying issues relating to the rundown of the Royal Ordnance factories, and to the problem with the accounting systems which means that we cannot now keep as large ammunition stocks as we used to. If we are to face any kind of major conflict—I have mentioned Iraq, but there could he all sorts of others—we ought, at the very least, to have a decent quantity of usable ammunition in this country, and to be able to keep some kind of capability to manufacture the stuff here. We have handed that capability over predominantly to Belgium and South Africa, and that is a disgrace. What are the Government going to do to ensure that Royal Ordnance is able to continue to manufacture ammunition, against the eventuality that we may go to war against somebody with whom Belgium and South Africa do not agree that we should go to war? It is important that we should be able to say to our people, "You can have the ammunition that you need."
Delay, worry and expense seem to typify the Government's occasionally haphazard and sometimes incompetent approach to some aspects of the procurement of the matériel that our service men need to carry out the ever more demanding tasks being asked of them. Like the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I pay tribute to the superb engineering skills that we have in this country, and to the great ability that we have to produce the matériel that we need. I suspect, however, that the Government are not taking the best advantage of those skills and abilities, or doing what they could be doing to promote them or to ensure that we keep them. Indeed, in some areas—we have mentioned ammunition—they are allowing them to be run down.
Despite the Government's brave words about the comprehensive spending review, the fact remains that they are not spending enough money to avoid the awful procurement bow wave that is approaching us. This week's announcement, although welcome, will do little to address the problem if, as is widely predicted, the Prime Minister moves inexorably, despite his own party, towards some kind of conflict with Iraq. The truth is that it is the Treasury that is running the defence of the realm, not Ministry of Defence Ministers. They are not even clever enough to make a decent fist of the inadequate resources with which they are provided. That is not a sensible way of running the nation. There is an eerie echo of the 1930s here, in that the Government are ostrich-like in their determination to do little about our defence capabilities, despite the ever-gathering clouds of war. Let us hope that that is where the similarities end.
9.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Just before the start of this debate, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, presumably unintentionally, of having misled the House. I would like to set the record straight. There was no
382
contradiction between the two answers that my right hon. Friend gave. The first referred to his support for company proposals to supply new warships to Thailand. The second quite rightly stated that the Government of Thailand had expressed no formal interest in the purchase of ex-Royal Navy warships. Those two answers, while difficult to understand for a bear of very small brain, are not incompatible at all.
I shall try, in the time remaining to me, to get through as many of the points that have been raised tonight, some of which are, I have to say, rather old chestnuts. Let me start with the budget. I accept that budget figures are difficult for people to understand. I find them difficult to understand myself, but I was helped by spending two and a half years running the finances of the House of Commons, when I was Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, during which time I learned to read a budget.
The spokesmen for the Liberals and for the Conservatives both made the mistake of comparing outturn figures with budget figures; the two are quite different. They are different in defence—as opposed to virtually any other Department—for one special reason, namely the operational requirements that the Ministry of Defence has, over and above the fixed costs that we have to bear anyway in terms of paying our people their normal income.
Operational needs are paid for out of the contingency fund, so the outturn figure rightly indicates what we have spent during the year. It does not express what our budget was. For example, last year, something over £1 billion was added into our budget figure. I cannot remember the exact figure, but if any hon. Members wish to know it, I would be happy to write to them. That figure must be stripped out before comparing last year's budget with a future budget. I am not trying to make an "I'm clever and you're dumb" point; indeed, I did not understand the matter myself until it was properly explained to me. However, the fact is that the money in question is real money that will be coming into the budget over the next three years.
I should point out in passing that it is also important to recognise that, because so much of our budget is spent on capital requirement—on procurement, the subject of today's debate—the sum is a real sum that is available each year. Obviously, if something is bought in one year, it has been paid for; it is not necessary to pay for it in the second year as well.
Mr. Laws: I accept entirely the point that the Under-Secretary makes. He was correct in saying that the 2001–02 figure was inflated by a transfer from the reserve. However, he seemed also to accept the simple statistical point that I was making, and which emphasises how tight his budget is: it remains true that, in real terms, his Department's planned spending figures for the whole of the period of the spending review are lower than his Department's spending for last year. Is that correct?
Dr. Moonie: The planned total does not include unforseen items. [Interruption.] Of course it does not. If one strips out the £1 billion, a fair comparison can be made.
It is an old trick on the part of people who think that they know a wee bit about statistics to use percentage terms when it suits them, instead of real figures. Speaking

383
as a statistician of some merit, I should point out that using percentage figures to argue that the Department of Trade and Industry is getting more money than us is of course incorrect, given that its relatively small budget is some 5 per cent. of ours. I have not got the figures in front of me, but from memory the DTI's real increase is about £175 million a year. Our real increase, however, is £725 million for the first year. In real terms, that is four times as much, and of course, it buys four times as much.
Mr. Laws: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, sorry, there is no time; I have given the hon. Gentleman his chance. We will see how much that money can buy as we develop our spending plans over the next few years. In his statement tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may well give some indication of the direction in which we will go.
I shall try to dispose of a couple of old chestnuts, the first of which concerns the SA80. Let us be clear: every rifle misfires at one time or another, and in difficult conditions all rifles misfire more often than they would otherwise. I happily admit that the SA80 took a long time to introduce. There is no doubt that it is a very high-tech, excellent rifle. Any decent marksman will say that they would as soon use the SA80 as any other rifle in service, because they know what the result will be when they fire it. Those who are not interested in achieving a specific effect can use any rifle, no matter how poor its tolerances, to spray bullets all over the place. However, that is not what we use the SA80 for.
As anybody who has served in our armed forces knows only too well, the SA80 is an extremely accurate rifle that is reliable in all conditions. The modifications were tested in Kuwait, which has very similar—if not identical—conditions of heat and dust as those in Afghanistan. The rifle performed admirably under those conditions, which is why we have such difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that it failed to work in Afghanistan. For that reason, I will not make a premature announcement about the findings; we must wait until we have them at our disposal, and until a full and proper examination has taken place. We want to get to the bottom of the matter—after all, we have spent extra money on the SA80. We have what appears to be an excellent weapon at our disposal, and we hope that that will continue to be the case. However, I cannot make any predictions as to its future. Let us wait and see.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, I really do not have time to give way.
The question of the Sea Harrier comes up time and again, so let me deal with it briefly. We must remember that the risk involved in upgrading the Sea Harrier is high, by which I mean that the risk of not being able to upgrade it is high. We must remember the need, under the strategic defence review, to retain an offensive capability. Nowadays, carriers are used for projecting force. We must also remember that every spending decision involves an opportunity cost: if the money is spent on one thing, it cannot be spent on another. We must further consider the
384
very wide range of threats to which a carrier and any other surface vessel is subjected, only one of which is air attack. As has been pointed out, the Sea Harrier is of absolutely no use against sea-skimming missiles, which are the main threat to a ship. Of course, the Phalanx system with which carriers are equipped is specifically designed to allow for that threat.
Mr. Howarth: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Dr. Moonie: I am afraid that I have no time to do so—I am trying to cover all the points.
We are concentrating on force projections and the advice from the services has been that, on balance, we should phase out the Sea Harrier. We must remember that the choice is not between upgrading the Sea Harrier successfully or getting rid of it. The chances are that any upgrade would fail. Not only would we then have to phase out the Sea Harrier anyway, but we would also have wasted money on the upgrade. The services are right in their advice that, on balance, it was better to carry the small additional risk of operating without the Sea Harrier for whatever period that was necessary. That was their advice: they are the professionals. I am more inclined to take their advice than that of Opposition Members or, for that matter, of my hon. Friends.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr. Moonie: I really cannot give way. I do not have time. [Interruption.] That is a silly thing to say.
Let us dispose of the argument about the cannon once and for all. The minimal operational utility of the Eurofighter gun is outweighed by its support, fatigue and training cost implications, especially bearing in mind the historical pattern of operations over the last decade and the improved capability of the advanced short-range air-to-air missile with which the aircraft will be armed. There is no need for a cannon. The ASRAAM will perform adequately in close combat.
On the issue of sonar, it is true that in 2001 the PAC questioned the chief of defence procurement and the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff about the logic of sending the first Type 45 to sea without a sonar, as that would limit the deployability of ships. At that hearing, they stated that it had already been decided shortly before that the sonar would be fitted on build to all Type 45s. The prime contractor announced on 18 January this year that it had selected Ultra UK as the preferred supplier of the medium frequency sonar. Ultra will build the sonar and take full responsibility for integrating it on to Type 45s. The contract has been let and the sonar will be fitted to the ships.
The issue of Swan Hunter was raised on a couple of occasions. Our policy that warship building should be conducted in the UK remains in place. It follows that we would have preferred Swan Hunter not to subcontract the build of the bow sections abroad, but we should put that into context. The work constitutes some 4.5 per cent. by weight of the hull. We have now incorporated a clause into the ALSL contract that prohibits the company from awarding subcontracts for fabrication or assembly work on the hulls without the prior consent of the MOD. That clause will also be incorporated into all future shipbuilding contracts. We would allow fabrication or

385
assembly work on hulls to be subcontracted abroad only in exceptional circumstances—for example, if no domestic supplier were physically able to carry out the work.
The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory rationalisation is an important issue, and the organisation forms part of my departmental responsibilities. It is an MOD-owned agency whose purpose is to provide world-class scientific and technical advice to us. I have accepted the arguments from management at DSTL that considerable benefits will accrue, both in the quality of research done and in cost—that is important, because if we spend money on maintaining more sites we have less to spend on research. If we concentrate on three main sites, clear benefits will be felt from bringing our scientists together, in terms of creating new synergies, and from operating efficiency. The proposals have been the subject of consultation with staff at all stages and are now under consideration by the trade unions. We believe that the proposals will ensure the long-term future of DSTL and the best value for defence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) suggested that the Conservatives were following Frank Allaun's defence policy, and I found that amusing. To be honest, on probably every occasion that they cut the defence budget a Labour Member could be found to say that it had not been cut enough, so we should not go too far down that road. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) made the point that some of the Tory cuts might have been made more cleverly.
Hon. Members mentioned delays with Astute. We are deeply concerned about those. We have continually moved from one pattern of submarine design to another, and design problems have caused these delays. We will do all that we can to return the programme to schedule, but it is only fair to say at this stage that Astute's entry into service may well take place later than the time indicated. We have left the manufacturers in no doubt about our concern, and I know that they are working hard to remedy some of the damage. Presumably if there is a gap in capability, we will have to see what can be kept going. It is difficult to envisage keeping the S class of submarines going much beyond their present lifetime, but there is capacity in the T class.
Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: Very briefly.
Mr. Francois: The Minister said that if there was a gap in capability, we would keep capability running. If that applies to submarines, why does it not apply to Sea Harriers?
Dr. Moonie: Again, I suppose that the reason is the balance of risk, and we must consider the balance of risk when making decisions such as this. We three Ministers—four if I include Lord Bach—are not perverse people who sit down and say "Just how are we going to cock up the armed forces today?". I apologise for the language, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, we act on the advice of some very senior people, and I have yet to leave a meeting with the feeling that that advice has been wrong. We must not assume that upgrades will succeed; they may fail, and
386
that is the great problem with the Sea Harrier. We might end up spending a great deal of extra money without having an aircraft available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) rightly pointed out that we need equipment that works. I assure her that any defence Minister would heartily agree. She gave the example of Bowman. which, as everyone knows, has a long and sorry history but now appears to be on target—a very challenging target. I acknowledge that that was welcomed by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). We have introduced personal role radios. We have shown that we can be flexible and make very little of procurement of this kind, provided that we are sensible and seek upgrades in the future. That will enable all capability requirements to be met very satisfactorily.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the first-class facilities at Rosyth. Let me say in passing that a branch of the Defence Diversification Agency is located there, and is paying off very well in terms of interaction with local companies, technology exchange being its function.
I was interested by what my hon. Friend said about the Babcock facilities in Australia and New Zealand for the repair of HMS Nottingham. We have not yet reached a decision, but I am sure that we are keeping Babcock in mind. I noted her concern about the future of the yard. Let me stress that it has proved itself to be extremely competitive, which should stand it in good stead when it is competing for work.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the particular difficulties of making quick decisions about the cancelling of equipment that does not work and will not work. Long lead times apply to much of the equipment that we need. When a lot of capital has been invested and a project has been worked on for a long time, cancellation is very difficult to stop. I know that, because I had to cancel projects myself when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry.
I do not need to spend much time on the A400M. As Members know, the problem is having to wait for a signature from the Germans, but we are convinced that it will come and that the programme will be finished on time. The German election is in September, and I do not think it will be delayed much beyond that.
I think the points made about St. Athan by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) were answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. If they were not, I shall be happy to deal with them.
I have answered questions about Royal Ordnance in some detail in other Adjournment debates. We cannot discuss such matters as the level of stocks that we keep, because that is an operational matter, but I can say that we keep adequate levels to maintain any foreseeable operation. We are convinced that in different circumstances British Aerospace would be able to resupply.
There is also the matter of developing insensitive munitions. New products are more difficult to introduce, but I pay tribute to the concern—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): 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
  TAX CREDITS
  That the draft Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  TAX CREDITS
  That the draft Child Tax Credit Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  TAX CREDITS
  That the draft Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  TAX CREDITS
  That the draft Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions, etc.) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
  That the draft Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

  TREASURE
  That the revised Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (England and Wales), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Endometriosis
  10 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I beg leave to present a petition organised by the Simply Holistic Endometriosis trust, a charity working to help women who suffer from endometriosis. It has been signed by more than 3,000 people.
  The petition was presented to me, in my role as chair of the all-party endometriosis group, by Diane Carlton, the chair of the SHE trust, during the recent lobby of Parliament held to raise awareness of endometriosis, which affects 2 million women in the UK. At present, there is very little public awareness of this devastating disease, and there is not enough funding available to raise knowledge among the medical community to improve early diagnosis.
  The petition states:
  "The petition of the SHE trust, and others, declares
  That endometriosis is the only long-term chronic cyclical condition suffered by women, and that this devastating disease should receive higher priority for funding and treatment.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to review the Government's policy on the care and treatment of endometriosis sufferers."
  To lie upon the Table.

National Childcare Strategy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
10.1 pm
Caroline Flint: I begin by declaring an interest, as I am chair of the all-party childcare group. Before I entered Parliament, I was chair of the national campaign Working for Childcare, which used to he known as the workplace nurseries campaign. I was involved in that for 10 years.
I have been trying to secure this Adjournment debate for some months. and I wondered whether my pitch had been spoiled by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's wonderful statement this week on the comprehensive spending review. My scream of delight was apparently audible to a number of people when my right hon. Friend spoke of a radical extension of the national child care strategy in England.
Why is child care important? It has a key role to play in the delivery of wider Government policy ends. The child care issue is about giving children a good start in life, helping to tackle child poverty, raising educational attainment and promoting better health. It is about helping parents into work, study and training. It is about meeting our welfare-to-work targets and helping with the family-friendly issue of work-life balance, which will increasingly become crucial to this country's economy and social life. The issue is also about raising qualifications and—importantly—raising family income.
The question of child care goes wider than the family unit, however that unit is comprised. Whether two parents are involved or one, the child care issue is about supporting neighbourhood renewal and community development. It is also about tackling crime and creating healthy communities. Without child care, policies in those areas will not succeed.
The national child care strategy was launched in 1998. It is the first such strategy ever to be undertaken by any Government, and I am proud, as a Labour MP, that it was a Labour Government who delivered on that. The aim was to create more affordable, quality child care, backed by significant new investment.
There is no doubt that investment was put in, but some of the progress has been mixed. In terms of accessibility, there are now part-time nursery education places for all four-year-olds and, by 2004, there will be such places for all three-year-olds. However, they are part time, whereas working parents need the help provided by wrap-around care.
The neighbourhood child care initiative aims to create 900 new nurseries in the most disadvantaged areas by 2004, along with more child minding and out-of-school places. However, progress in developing new nurseries that will be sustainable once funding runs out has been slow. There has been a growth in private day nurseries in response to a growing demand—58 per cent. of women with children under five now work—and out-of-school clubs, funded by the new opportunities fund, but there has been a fall in the number of child minders and pre-school playgroups. There are still significant gaps for parents with children under three.
In terms of affordability, the child care tax credit is providing help with the cost of child care to 160,000 families. The average award is about £39 a week, and
390
eligible families must find at least 30 per cent. of child care costs. Childcare fees went up by 10 per cent. in the last year, and a typical nursery place costs £6,200 a year. Some families, particularly lone parents who work less than 16 hours a week or use informal child care such as a grandmother or other family member, are not eligible.
Ofsted took over the regulation of child care in September 2001 to provide consistent national standards. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. However, the transition has held up registration and inspection of new providers at a time of growth.
The inter-departmental review of the national child care strategy that the Government started at Christmas was both wise and warranted. We have seen some of the results this week. The review recognised that although so much has been achieved, it is sensible of any Government to review their policies to see where the gaps are and how they could be filled.
The child care market is failing families and society. The market alone will not deliver affordable services to the majority of families without significant new investment on the supply side. Demand-side measures have not succeeded in creating new child care services. Funding and delivery mechanisms have often been criticised as too complex. There are too many unco-ordinated programmes with too many different short-term funding streams and, despite all the wonderful work that they do, expectations of what can be delivered by early-years development and child care partnerships are often unrealistic. Some 150,000 new staff are needed to expand services by 2004. but recruitment and retention are hampered by low pay, poor training and limited opportunities.
The review of child care has been addressing some of these problems. I have included some of them in the review, as have other organisations. I am sure that Ministers involved in these issues have raised these problems as well. I am pleased and proud to say that the Chancellor's statement this week—much of which I am sure was linked to that review—was another step forward in the nation's child care and family agenda. This Government are the first ever to have a national child care strategy. It was particularly welcome after 18 barren years of Tory rule.
This week the Chancellor announced the doubling of the child care budget to £1.5 billion by 2006, guaranteeing a nursery place for every three and four-year-old; 400,000 new sure start places: 250,000 new child care places; greater support for voluntary partnerships, which often underpin much of the growth at a local level; and a £200 million children's fund. In addition. 300,000 children will have access to children's centres. I congratulate the Daycare Trust, which has been pushing forward the agenda of children's centres.
As a Member of Parliament, a child care campaigner and a parent, I believe that one problem is how we make the services that we provide visible and obvious to those who want to access them. If there has been a problem with the growth of services so far, it is how parents find the services they need. Parents do not fall into nice neat categories, all with children under five. They can have a baby, a toddler, an eight-year-old and a teenager. Anything that the Government can do to make it easier for them to know where to go for their child care, advice

391
and health needs is to be welcomed. The children's centres will operate as a catalyst to bring these services together so that parents have greater access.
The Government have listened to the problems faced in driving forward an agenda that has a role in different Departments. That is why I welcome the integrated budget, which will bring together child care, early-years learning and sure start. As a member of the Denaby and Conisbrough sure start, one of the trailblazers, it was obvious to me from the outset that sure start was not merely about health issues. I am proud that my local sure start scheme sees child care as part of the whole shape of its provision. More schemes are coming on-stream in Doncaster. We have a full-time day nursery as well as creche facilities and a pre-school toddlers group.
I know that sure start is meant to cater for pre-school children, but some of the parents have older kids. Furthermore, in our community, unless we can engage some of the older children in what we are doing, they may take against us. They may make the building to which they cannot have access a target for petty vandalism. Our primary aim is to serve families with pre-school children, but we also want to engage with older children and with other young people in the community. I am pleased that those initiatives have come together. That is a sign that the Government are listening.
I am also pleased that a new unit will be established in the civil service to drive forward child care policy. Such a unit is crucial to give advice to Ministers and to give an overview so that it can drive the agenda forward. It is definitely needed.
I am a member of the local Doncaster early-years development and child care partnership which does much good work. During the past few years, I have been happy to speak to partnership groups at conferences organised by the Department for Education and Skills and the Daycare Trust.
I was also glad to hear from the announcement that local authorities will be expected to have a greater role in delivering the targets that we need. That is right. Although there may be local authority representatives in the partnerships, authorities sometimes do not seem to know how to proceed and may leave things to the partnership. They have a key role in the community, not only as one of the largest employers but as an important agent for local change and delivery.
The child care review clearly had some influence on the comprehensive spending review statement this week. I understand that the review will be published in the autumn. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions confirm that? Will we have an opportunity to discuss the review in the House?
I want to raise a few points that we should consider when drawing up future strategy and development. We need to flag up the fact that child care is as much an economic agent as a social provision. For some time, I have been putting questions about the role of regional development agencies and other bodies that have a remit to deliver economic regeneration and employment.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agrees that those agencies should realise that child care is as important a part of the
392
infrastructure for a newly growing economy as the transport that gets people to work. Childcare is as much a part of the supply chain as the providers of materials to factories or businesses or the catering firms who supply the restaurant facilities. It is an important part of the whole picture.
If we want to reinvent ourselves in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside—certainly, in respect of objective 1 in South Yorkshire—what better way is there than to say, "Come to South Yorkshire where you will find one of the best environments to raise your children, with the right services and the right jobs to support your work-life balance"?
I offer two local examples. Finningley is an RAF base in my constituency which we hope will become a regional airport in the future. My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding because Peel Holdings also runs Speke airport, which she knows well. Despite the fact that we do not yet have the go-ahead for the airport, almost 70 companies are working on the brownfield site. I am pleased to say that we also have a full-time day nursery.
However, I am not pleased to say that when the developers of the site sought help from several agencies for start-up for the nursery provider and for refurbishment costs, they were fobbed off and told, "You don't fit into this priority because you are not creating employment".
I do not quite see how providing childcare jobs is not creating employment, or how sustaining people in employment through providing child care cannot count.
Another problem was that because the brownfield site was not in a deprived community—as defined under the heading "deprived communities" in terms of funding—those involved were told that they could not access the funding. That was the case despite the fact that, just down the road, is a defined "deprived community", which would be the obvious source of much of the employment for the brownfield site. That issue must be looked at; brownfield sites sometimes are in deprived communities, but sometimes they are not. However, if jobs can be provided for people from such communities, I do not see why child care cannot be funded.
The problems are not insurmountable. The problem is the mindset of those who work in economic regeneration, who see child care as a rather soft issue, rather than a crucial plank—as I see it—in our regeneration policies.
Another example is the transport interchange for Doncaster, for which we were pleased to get Government support. I have been working for a number of years to get an understanding from the developers and others that if we are bringing together the train and bus stations in Doncaster, it would be a wonderful opportunity to create nursery provision near the site for those parents who might be commuting into Doncaster. That would be just like the facilities at Brighton and at Victoria, and a shoppers' creche could be provided for consumers. I am pleased to say that, only last week, the developers said that they were committed to making that happen.
Is there a possibility that when the Government give the green light to very big infrastructure projects involving communities and creating employment, we could ask how they fit in with providing child care or other support to workers or consumers, whether they are public transport passengers or shoppers at a development? The Government can ask the question to see the answers that flow from it.

393
We must do a lot more in terms of engaging employers. Some employers have done fantastic work; others are not sure how to get involved. That is where the RDAs, the trade unions, employers and chambers of commerce could be encouraged to play more of a role. Only one in 10 employers helps their staff with child care; only 5 per cent. of workplaces offer nursery places; only 5 per cent. of employers help towards child care costs.
I want to raise a problem affecting low-income communities, and lone parents in particular; the use of informal child care. Despite everything, 50 per cent. of child care is informal. It is unregistered and can involve shift parenting, or the use of a family friend or other relative. We should look at the impact of that on the take-up of other services and at whether we should address this by bridging the gap between informal and formal care with some support.
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary look at the scheme in Northern Ireland that is run under the new deal programme for lone parents there—I know that that is a devolved function—in which lone parents on training or a work placement are allowed vouchers or money to be provided for registered child care and informal child care, if that is provided by a very close relative, usually the grandmother?
Another scheme that I would bring to my hon. Friend's attention is run by Nottinghamshire county council where, again, for a limited period and in specific circumstances—I stress that these are targeted schemes—some financial support is provided for families, some lone-parent, some two-parent, to enable them to engage in training or a work placement. Parents, particularly lone parents, who may be working less than 16 hours week and are not covered by the Government tax credits also receive help. It is worth looking into these schemes because some of our most needy families, through no fault of their own, might be missing a trick in terms of the Government not supporting them. I do not see that as a permanent measure, but we could consider it as part of our new deal for lone parents and support for low-income families.
Finally, we have done an awful lot, and we should be proud of it. Given the different ways that we are delivering in England and how the issue is dealt with in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it should be clear to families throughout Britain that a Labour Government have spearheaded this agenda and made it such an exciting part of our work today in rebuilding our communities. In 10 years, I should like our targeted support to spread out like the ripples when a pebble is thrown into a pond, so that every family can recognise in different ways that Labour has delivered for families, whatever their status, background or needs.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this debate. She is well known in the House—not only among Labour Members—for being a tenacious and knowledgeable supporter of improvements in child care, and her speech this evening demonstrates that very well. She has secured the debate at an auspicious moment, given the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. Indeed, she made that point in her speech. Of course I agree with her that the debate is very timely.
394
As my hon. Friend said so eloquently at the beginning of her remarks, child care is an incredibly important part of what the Government are trying to achieve. Quality child care gives parents choice and opportunity. It enables them to work and contribute to the economy confident in the knowledge that their children are in a safe and stimulating environment. So access to affordable child care also helps to reduce poverty and end the cycle of deprivation that we see in too many locations in her constituency and in mine. We know that getting a job is the best route out of poverty, and we need more child care in the most disadvantaged areas to help people to do that. Of course we all know that quality child care also supports children's development, which is equally important.
The Government are therefore making the investment required. Since 1997, we have created nearly 500,000 new child care places, for more than 900,000 children. We have set national standards for the quality of child care provision, and Ofsted is now ensuring that all providers meet those standards. The neighbourhood nurseries programme will create 45,000 new day-care places in up to 900 state of the art nurseries by 2004. That is the biggest single investment in child care provision, and it amounts to £300 million in the three years to 2004.
We have made a good start, but, as my hon. Friend clearly said, we recognise that we are not there yet; more needs to be done. The Government believe quality child care is a basic building block of modern society, so our aim is indeed to create affordable, accessible quality child care for all those who need it.
The Chancellor made it clear in his announcement on Monday that, by 2005–06, the Government will be investing more than £1.5 billion jointly in child care, early-years provision and sure start, so funding for child care alone will more than double in real terms in that period. That will allow at least 250,000 new child care places to be created by 2006, including child care provided directly in new children's centres.
New funding will be directed towards sustaining provision. As my hon. Friend said, provision is all very well, but it needs to be sustained. We want sustained provision in the most disadvantaged areas to support the growth of full day-care and out of school clubs and to provide grants for new child minders.
We are aware that the Government need to make some changes to support this agenda, so we have decided to bring together sure start, child care and early-years provision into a single interdepartmental unit. Linked to that, we will devolve greater responsibility for funding and delivery of child care services to local authorities, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend welcome that. Together, those steps will greatly improve delivery of that crucial agenda, out there on the ground where it matters.
My hon. Friend referred to the child care review, and she is right that the interdepartmental review of child care, chaired by Baroness Ashton, has been working since last October. That clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to taking a longer-term view of child care provision, to assessing our current position, and to examining the direction in which we need to move over the next 10 years. We will make sure that provision will be able to meet the changing needs of families over that period.
The findings of that review were used, as intended, to inform the spending review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday.

395
My hon. Friend is correct that the findings will be published in the autumn. In relation to her points about whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss them, that is not for me to say. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take note of her comments. I am sure, too, that she has many ideas about how she might raise this issue on the Floor of the House and in other ways to give the House an opportunity to discuss it.
One of the key recommendations of the review of child care was that children's centres should be established in all the most disadvantaged areas. Those centres will provide good-quality child care delivered alongside effective early-years education, family support and health services. They will thus be a part of transforming the way in which those services are delivered, to ensure that the needs of children, particularly the most vulnerable and their parents. are better met. They will reflect the early lessons that we have learned from the operation of sure start.
The Government's longer term aim is to establish a children's centre in every one of the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in the country. They will act as hubs within the community for parents and providers of child care services for all ages. The children's centre programme will build, where possible, on sure start facilities that already exist, and on other existing provision such as neighbourhood nurseries, to which I have already referred. By March 2006, we intend that an additional 300,000 children will have this improved access to health, education and other services.
That will complement the greater role that schools will be able to play, following the enactment of the Education Bill, as bases of wider community and family services, including child care for older children. Schools, of course, can make a considerable contribution to child care. That sounds an obvious point, but they have great potential as a community resource, which we want to use more fully. Parents trust schools, and schools are good places to have child care provision. We want to build on the pilots and supported demonstration projects that we have seen in Brighton, Cambridgeshire and Durham.
We want schools to see the contribution that they can make by offering access to services such as child care, family learning programmes and health care and how that can help the school deliver its own education agenda. That is why we are currently amending legislation to give school governors the power to provide those extra services.
The vision is about much more, however, than centres and schools. Parents have a crucial role to play. Working with parents is at the heart of the Government's early-years education and child care policies. We are developing evidence of best practice to help early education and child care providers and their staff work well with parents. We are encouraging, too, the growth of positive links between parents and the professionals to whom they entrust their children.
The Government want to get parents even more actively involved in their children's early education, whether that is volunteering to run after-school clubs, sitting on governing bodies, or attending training at local
396
community centres. We also want to mainstream the acclaimed approach of sure start in actively encouraging parental involvement in all its programmes.
My hon. Friend talked about informal care, and the Government recognise that parents, particularly lone parents, as she said, often have a preference for using informal, family-based child care. The child care review considered whether it might be possible to supplement what can be done within the formal child care sector with measures to support such informal care. I cannot he more specific at the moment, but I can assure my hon. Friend that that is an area that we are considering. Indeed, we have noted with interest the child care voucher scheme in Nottinghamshire, to which she referred, which has been running since 1992, and the support for family-based care provided within the new deal in Northern Ireland. Those provide helpful models when considering policy in this area, but they have not yet provided evidence of the impact of such measures on labour market or child development outcomes.
There is, however, a simple answer to why the Government have not provided funding for informal child care so far. When we introduced the working families tax credit, we decided that assistance would be given for child care that had either been registered under the Children Act 1989 or accredited. That was to safeguard the quality of care.
My hon. Friend made telling points about economic regeneration. We must ensure that child care is firmly on the agenda for all the agencies involved in regeneration. Child care is central to the process. It releases parents to work and to train, benefiting them, their children and their employers.
Many early-years development and child care partnerships are working actively with the regeneration agencies in their areas and regions. There are good examples around the country—in Cambridgeshire, for example, where the local partnerships have been working actively with their regional development agency on the development of neighbourhood nurseries. There is awareness to build on. We are actively spreading good practice and working at a national level to move child care up the agenda.
The Government's vision for child care is one in which every parent can access affordable, good-quality child care. We have made good progress towards that over the past five years. The child care review has allowed us to take stock and to look forward for the next 10 years. I am very pleased, indeed, to be able to confirm to the House that the spending review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer on Monday has secured the resources needed for the next three years to take the process forward. We have charted the way ahead for transforming child care. I know that those hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, who are interested in the subject will be watching and making suggestions about how we proceed. We are determined to go forward, and we are setting out to implement the plans that she mentioned. I congratulate her again on raising this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002–03 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002–03 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 179.

  Division No. 311]

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  David, Wayne

  Allen, Graham

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dobbin. Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Austin, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bailey, Adrian

  Doran, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dowd, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bell. Stuart

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Hilary

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blair. Rt Hon Tony

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flint, Caroline

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flynn, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foulkes, George

  Brennan, Kevin

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Bryant, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burnham, Andy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cairns, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chaytor, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  398

  Illsley, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Perham, Linda

  Jamieson, David

  Picking, Anne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Joyce, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purnell, James

  Kelly, Ruth

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rammell, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roy, Frank

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ruane, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ryan, Joan

  Lammy, David

  Salter, Martin

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Laxton, Bob

  Sawford, Phil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lepper, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Levitt, Tom

  Singh, Marsha

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lucas, Ian

  Southworth, Helen

  Lyons, John

  Squire, Rachel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McCartney. Rt Hon Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McDonnell, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  MacDougall, John

  Stringer, Graham

  McFall, John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Tami, Mark

  McKechin, Ann

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McWalter, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Timms, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mann, John

  Todd, Mark

  Maros, Rob

  Touhig, Don

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Truswell, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Merron, Gillian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Tynan, Bill

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Vis. Dr Rudi

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Ward, Claire

  Mountford, Kali

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watts, David

  Mullin, Chris

  White, Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Winnick, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Olner, Bill

  Wood, Mike

  Organ, Diana

  Woodward, Shaun

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Woolas, Phil

  Owen, Albert

  Worthington, Tony

  399

  Wright, AnthonD (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Allan, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bacon, Richard

  Dodds, Nigel

  Baker, Norman

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Baldry, Tony

  Doughty, Sue

  Barker, Gregory

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Baron, John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Barrett, John

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Nigel

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bercow, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brady, Graham

  Francois, Mark

  Brake, Tom

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Breed, Colin

  Gibb, Nick

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burnett, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Gray, James

  Burnside, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Burstow, Paul

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Butterfill, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Grieve, Dominic

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Cameron, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hammond, Philip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hayes, John

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Heath, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Chidgey, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Chope, Christopher

  Hoban. Mark

  Clappison, James

  Holmes, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  400

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Selous, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian]

  Key, Robert

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lamb, Norman

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lansley, Andrew

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

  Laws, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Loughton, Tim

  Swayne, Desmond

  Luff, Peter

  Swire, Hugo

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McLoughlin. Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Malin, Humfrey

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyne, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Viggers, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Watersorn, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Ottaway, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Paterson, Owen

  Weir, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Price, Adam

  Wiggin, Bill

  Prisk, Mark

  Willetts, David

  Pugh, Dr John

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Rendel, David

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson. Hugh (Faversham)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robertson. Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wishart, Pete

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Complementary Medicines
Motion made, and Question proposed, that the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least because it is in my name. The debate is on a matter that is crucial for the health of the nation, and I am delighted to see present not an Under-Secretary but the Minister of State, Department of Health. I pay that short compliment to him, because it is good to see him.
While preparing for this debate, I reflected on the fact that 25 years ago I was working in the House of Commons as a research assistant for the then Member for Hastings and Rye, Sir Kenneth Warren. I remember examining issues of police accountability and related matters, and going through Hansard and background papers trying to find definitive moments of change in the political process. It is my belief that, for complementary medicine, today is one of those moments.
There have been three defining moments for complementary medicine in recent years. The first was the publication of the King's fund report. Next was the Lords report. The latest is this morning's debate. It is a defining moment because this is the first time that the official Opposition have got behind this issue and started to consider it from the policy point of view. That should send warning signals to the Government, because it illustrates how the issue has moved up the agenda. I should declare an interest in the matter. Since the 1970s, when I was injured, I have been through the process of learning of just about all the therapies, some of which we shall debate today.
I believe that it is a Conservative issue as much as anything else. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that it is natural Conservative territory, and I am pleased that we have the party with us. It is about choice and self-improvement, as it is about the better use of resources in the national health service and better value for money for Her Majesty's Government. It is also about taking the pressure off doctors and surgeons. It is about using less invasive techniques when possible and about using less toxic treatment when appropriate. In addition, it is about giving doctors new means of treating patients. Further, it is about spreading the burden of health care.
The debate is also about highlighting Conservative achievements in the field and drawing the attention of the House to the woeful shortcomings of the Government's policies. The Conservative Government had three main achievements in this area. The first was in the 1987 Parliament, when a Standing Committee of which I was a member regulated to put osteopaths on a statutory footing, which was hugely beneficial. Secondly, we did the same for chiropractors in the 1992 Parliament; I was a member of that Committee also.
68WH
Thirdly, it was decided to bring GP fundholders into being, which gave doctors new powers to decide how to spend their money, and many GP fundholding practices went on to employ complementary therapists, or to build a link. That came about because of the decision made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), then the Member for Loughborough, when he was Under-Secretary at the Dept of Health, that doctors could channel patients to complementary practitioners provided that they took clinical responsibility. That decision was supported by Tom Sackville, the then hon. Member for Bolton, West, who is sadly no longer in the House. It started the process of introducing complementary medicine into the health service.
I should say as an aside, however, that the person who really got the process going was Aneurin Bevan, who had a homeopathic doctor—the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) is looking quizzically at me, but that is true. Bevan said that homeopathy would be brought into the health service and made available through doctors, and qualified doctors can now prescribe homeopathic medicines on the health service. The only slight problem at the moment is that they cannot get those medicines up on their computers, and the Minister might want to examine that problem. None the less, that was the decision that Bevan made all those years ago.
Whatever shortcomings the Government claim the GP fundholding system had, it gave doctors a certain freedom to take on complementary practitioners in the health service. That was a valuable step in the right direction, which increased supply and choice. Regrettably, the availability of complementary therapies on the health service has declined since primary care groups and primary care trusts came into being. That is because they are under other pressures and do not see integrated health care, complementary therapies and the range of treatments that come under that heading as priorities. It is rare to find a primary care trust that gives priority to such issues, although the Hinckley and Bosworth primary care trust, which is in my constituency and which will cover west Leicestershire, is seriously considering providing acupuncture for pain relief, and a qualified doctor in the constituency wants to use that treatment. The Minister should take that on board, and if he can find a way of encouraging primary care trusts to increase the supply of services rather than reduce it, he will be doing us all a favour. I have written on numerous occasions about the way in which homeopathic services especially have been cut as a result of the introduction of primary care trusts, and we should study the issue.
It is a sad fact that the Government are generally reactive, not proactive, when it comes to complementary therapies, and there is plenty of evidence for that. When the Labour Government came to power, one of the first decisions of the then right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, now Lord Rooker, was to restrict the available dosage of vitamin B6. That was a catastrophic decision, which was blown away in the end. The limits that he wanted to impose were based on flawed research and never came into being. There was a huge wrangle over the issue: the industry mobilised, there was an enormous amount of activity, there were parliamentary motions and much energy was expended. It was important that doses were

69WH
not limited to the lower level, because that would have discriminated against poorer people who would have had to buy more of the vitamins that they wanted. That was nonsensical and did the Government no credit.
Two years later, we had the ghastly MLX249 problems. It was proposed that the Medicines Control Agency should be able, on appeal, to redesignate a vitamin supplement compound as a medicine—I may not have the terminology quite right, but it is along those lines. That decision would have placed huge costs on the industry, because supplements that are reclassified as medicines must go through extensive trials, which can cost £100,000 a shot. To get rid of that ludicrous proposal, we had to march from Marble arch to Trafalgar square, where I spoke from between the lions. I heard a crowd of a thousand chanting, "Tony, we want the right to choose." That could be heard in Downing street, and I am told privately that it sent some tremors through the structure at No. 10. Action was soon taken and the proposal was knocked on the head. Now, in the year of our Lord 2002, we have a double threat—the threat to vitamin supplements and the threat to traditional remedies or medicines. The relevant European directive keeps changing its name so I might change my description of it.
I saw the Under-Secretary of State for Health in Committee the other day and I told her that I was grateful to her for having agreed to talk to me, as treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine, with an industry expert and a couple of other colleagues the day before. However, I had to warn her that if the issue was not taken seriously, there were people I did not use the term lightly, it just came out of my head who were tooling up for war. She looked at me as if to say, "I don't like the sound of that, and I don't like the way in which it has been put across," but when our eyes met, she knew that I was sincere. I was speaking for the vast number of people who see a serious threat to their well-being. Under this European directive, about 160 nutrients, supplements, medical treatments—call them what we might—will be removed once and for all.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire might want to develop the point further, so I shall just say to the Minister that he got it wrong on vitamin B6 and he got it wrong on MLX249. He should be careful this time: it is a big issue.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend take some heart from the fact that, about a week after the discussion in European Standing Committee C during which he made that last point, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the health Minister who deals with such issues, called for a further round of discussions and put back the consultation period on the traditional herbal medicinal products directive until the end of this month?
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend, as ever, is right. The Government have recognised the seriousness of the situation and extended the consultation period. I shall say a word about the industry's view of the meeting that its representatives were granted with the Minister. Generally speaking, the Government are reactive and
70WH
not proactive with regard to complementary medicine and integrated health care. They had to react to the Lords report. Fortunately, they took advice and the response was broadly right. The Secretary of State is very defensive on the issue. When he sees me and thinks that I am about to raise some of these points in the Chamber, I get the feeling that I should have no confidence that he is behind the idea of an integrated health service, which must have an effect on his Department and its officials.
The Lords report, the needling from His Royal Highness Prince Charles and some of the pressures in the Chamber have had an effect. I was touched, just before the last election. when the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is now the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, described me as the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett. It was fun for hon. Members in the Chamber, no doubt, but it played very well on the ground because what I am sure that he did not realise is that I have the headquarters of Holland and Barrett in my constituency. I do not say that the fact that my majority doubled at the last general election was all down to the right hon. Gentleman, but I could have called him a right hon. Friend as I watched the boxes at the count.
I shall move on to the promotion of good health. which is so important. Health care should really start with the promotion of good health. If people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own health, it will prevent many patients from needing access to the NHS. People must be persuaded to change their behaviour, and that cannot be done overnight, but 5 million people each year choose to use complementary therapies. That is a way of taking pressure off the health service and getting people to take responsibility for their own health. People usually have to seek those therapies because they are not widely available, although they are sometimes recommended. One of the great challenges for the Government is to move the focus for those 5 million people to within the remit of the NHS. Surely that would be a vote winner from a political point of view.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate. Does he agree that it is important that when people develop conditions such as MS, they should pay attention to their regime and diet, which, in some instances, may reduce the costs to the health service by keeping people healthy for longer?
An extremely brave woman suffering from MS came to see me at my constituency surgery. She wanted me to pass on to the Minister the regime and diet that she was following because she was convinced that, in addition to beta interferon, it was keeping her healthy. I hope to be able to pass on to the Minister the regime that my constituent is following because that sort of complementary approach could benefit many other people.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is right. That brings into play another ball—the issue of diet and health. Last night, there was a meeting of the new obesity group in the House. The problems of people who are overweight

71WH
largely result from the consumption of far too much fat and, secondly, from the consumption of E additives. There are far too many additives in food, many of which cause dysfunctional behaviour in school children. All the issues are interrelated, but if we are trying to reduce problems in schools, we should pay much more attention to diet and to the strange effects of additives, which can cause costly disruptive behaviour. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
One of the ways in which people can improve their well-being is through taking supplements. Two recent studies point to the need for something specific from the Government. The Oxford study purported to show that certain supplements had no effect on reducing the symptoms of patients with heart problems. It was a limited study and was properly carried out. It did not say that supplements did any harm, just that no benefit could be found. Contrast that with the other survey, which showed that vitamin supplements taken by prisoners were very effective, reduced dysfunctional behaviour and made them easier to manage.
The Minister must commission more research into that because there is surely some confusion there. I take supplements myself—I suppose that is no surprise—and I think that most people who take them believe, and have good reason to believe, that they help. The size of the demand and the size of the industry suggests that not everyone is an idiot, and when people have taken them, they perceive some difference. They understand that they have improved or feel better. That is why they continue buying them, but we need more research on that.
To go back to the traditional medicines directive, as I understand it, the Government's position has completely shifted. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, who was parachuted into the debate on the issue after the last reshuffle, has really tried to get a grip of the issue, but she was not well advised initially. The Department had not consulted the key people in the industry. The decision makers in the Department—the advisers—had not cast their net to ascertain what was happening. It was not until the meeting with the Department and the debate in the European Standing Committee that the Under-Secretary of State understood the sheer weight of opinion and the scale of the problem. That was when she decided to motor on the matter, and it is clear from yesterday's Hansard that things have moved on and that she is trying to get on top of the issue. The message that I got from the meeting with the officials of the Medicines Control Agency and the people who represent the consumer groups and manufacturers was that they feel that the Government have shifted substantially on the matter. The MCA has been pretty much instructed to work with the industry retailers and consumers over the next few weeks to quantify the problems and come up with solutions.
The future of health care is inextricably linked to the integration of complementary therapies in the health service. It is impossible for the Minister's Department to meet public demand and manifesto commitments unless it embraces more fully the integrated health care concept and draws on the 50,000 practitioners who largely practise in the private sector.
72WH
As politicians, we all look for a bit of luck. I believe that it was the Duke of Wellington who was once asked how he chose his generals. He said that he would prefer a lucky general to a good general. I had a bit of luck yesterday while wearing another hat. I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I serve on the Liaison Committee. Colleagues may have noticed that yesterday the Liaison Committee met, and for the first time in 50 years the Prime Minister attended—not for 20 minutes or half an hour, but for two and a half hours. Luck again came to my aid, and I had the chance to ask him a question. I did not ask about statutory instruments, because I did not feel that the Committee needed to ask him about such matters. However, I asked him about complementary medicine.
The Prime Minister waxed lyrical at the meeting about how he personally—ipse, as they say in Latin—had had an influence on the primary care trust system. Yes, his hand had touched the reforms. He also admitted that there were too few doctors, nurses and ancillary nurses. I asked, "Prime Minister, in the course of your deliberations, did you consider making more effective use of the 50,000 complementary practitioners? We know that the Department has already decided to embrace—literally gobble up—all the beds in the private sector. If you are going to do that, why don't you take on the practitioners as well?" I shall be kind and say that I had a holding reply.
The Prime Minister had not been briefed on that issue, but he may want to be because in six months he will come back before the Liaison Committee. Aneurin Bevan said, "Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?" I cannot gaze into the crystal ball and say what will happen during that meeting. The Minister might want to tune into what I am saying because it might help his promotion. I may feel pressed to talk about the problems of statutory instruments, which is my right, but there is an outside chance that I will press him on the issue of complementary medicine.
The hon. Member for Watford is smiling again—she is always smiling, which is always good. I am trying to make a serious point in a flippant way, as it is important to try to lighten proceedings on occasions, especially in this area, which can be very entertaining and enjoyable.
I touched on the question of staff shortages, referring to the Prime Minister's comments in yesterday's sitting of the Liaison Committee. The figures involved are incredible. The Government are spending £300 million a year on agency staff to plug gaps in the health service. Hospital managers frequently tell me that the costs due to paying short-term rates for staff are huge. The Minister could make much better use of qualified herbalists and acupuncturists. He does not have to wait for statutory regulation, as many of them are regulated and properly trained. Not all complementary medicines are regulated, but he could bring some such practitioners into the health service now.
The right hon. Gentleman can help himself by proceeding with regulation at a faster pace. He might say something about that today. It is a key issue in the Lords report, and much good work has been done. Both the acupuncture and herbal medicine practitioners are in favour of such moves, although they are partly regulated under the old regime. The herbal medicine practitioners are starting on an ambitious route towards

73WH
self-regulation. The new independent chairman of the regulatory working group is Professor Michael Pittilo. I had lunch with him, and I thank him for trying to put things in perspective. He is working on a detailed plan for herbal practitioners, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say something about that. The acupuncture profession is following closely behind.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend must not forget aromatherapists. The Aromatherapy Organisations Council has done a great deal of work to move towards regulation of the profession, and would be interested to hear the Minister's remarks on that.
Mr. Tredinnick: I have Shirley Price's international college of aromatherapy in my constituency, which is one of the leading aromatherapy schools. Regulation has been an awful mess, with five or six different regulatory bodies, so I would welcome proper regulation. Aromatherapy is extremely valuable. I was not going to talk about it, but aromatherapists can be of particular help to people before operations. By gentle massage and use of oils, they can change people's moods and reassure them. They are also important in post-operative care.
I first consulted an osteopath in the 1970s, when that was seen as completely beyond the pale. People would never tell their doctor that they were seeing an osteopath, as they would pretty much be taken off the list. Since regulation, osteopaths have become much more involved in the health service, received much more respect and set up better links with surgeons. The process has worked well, although chiropractors are a little way behind.
I have no doubt, however, that if self-regulation can be speeded up—which perhaps means that the Government will have to spend more money on it—integration of the health service can be achieved in a painless way that meets everyone's requirements. Doctors are often nervous about referring, because they are not sure of the legal status. That is becoming more important because of the litigious nature of our nation. We seem to be following in the footsteps of the United States.
A word on cost-effectiveness will illustrate my point. About 5 million prescriptions are issued for painkillers each year, at a cost of £265 million. A further £370 million is spent on painkillers in pharmacies and supermarkets. Treatment of side effects arising from painkillers costs the NHS anything between £170 million and £350 million a year. Complementary therapies often remove the need for further medical investigation or surgical intervention.
According to the CBI, back pain is emerging as the greatest health concern for employers across all sectors, causing at least 5 million adults to consult their general practitioners annually. That costs a staggering £140 million in primary care. It is estimated that the Government spend more than £480 million a year on services used by sufferers of back pain alone. That includes about 14 million GP consultations, 7 million physical therapy sessions and the use of 800,000 inpatient beds. At any one time, 430,000 people in the UK
74WH
are receiving social security payments primarily as a consequence of back pain. Industry pays the bill in lost work force days, then it pays again through the money needed to fund the health service to rectify the problem. Timely and appropriate preventive care could save Britain's economy millions.
That illustration could easily be applied to many of the other complementary therapies. The Public Accounts Committee ought to examine the relationship between the costs of complementary care and those of modern medicines. Complementary therapies are often much less expensive.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. Would he be happy for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to investigate complementary therapies in the context of current technologies?
Mr. Tredinnick: I would not disagree with the hon. Lady's point. NICE could examine the matter, but I was looking for a bigger weapon in the Public Accounts Committee, which is supposed to monitor the nation's books. It launches inquiries to establish whether the Government's spending is cost-effective. I was suggesting that that might be a way forward, but I do not disagree with what the hon. Lady said.
The health service performs more than 300,000 hip replacements each year, mainly on the elderly. Waiting times can be long, and I have received a number of complaints about waiting lists for that operation. Referral to an osteopath can help to keep patients active and mobile while they await the surgery and help to return them to health when they come out of the theatre. It takes the pressure off surgeons and the orthopaedic department. The Minister should consider the self-evident knock-on advantages in terms of reducing bed blocking in hospitals and care homes and for patients and their families.
Bob Spink: My hon. Friend has secured a debate on an important matter on which I have received many letters, as no doubt many other hon. Members have. He mentioned osteopaths and back pain. Is he aware of the Alexander technique and the great benefits that that can bring in prevention and in giving relief, taking the burden off the osteopathic departments in our hospitals by teaching people to use posture and to use their bodies effectively so that they avoid back troubles or minimise their consequences if they already have them?
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend raises a point that is valuable in two ways. First, he talks about a treatment and its effectiveness and secondly, he illustrates that in the complementary debate we have not really discussed many of the therapies, certainly not those in category 2 or 3 of the Lords report.
Alexander was a remarkable man. He was an opera singer who could not sing. He realised that he had a major problem and he developed a technique of breathing and relaxation particularly involving stretching the shoulders and the spine, which enables the lungs to open up. There is a fair number of Alexander technique practitioners in London and the home counties.

75WH
One of Alexander's discoveries was that, generally speaking, we do not stand properly. Most of us stand in such a way that our hips are dislocated from our back. He found that if one repositions oneself with a slight bend in the knees, one is better balanced. It takes the pressure off the spine and releases the muscles, which in turn releases the constriction across the chest and enables people to sing if they want to.
That technique, which I have studied and occasionally used, is very effective. Sometimes when I hear constriction in voices in the Chamber, I wonder whether some hon. Members would not benefit from the Alexander technique, which was intended as a solution for that specific problem. It can also release many tensions for those at work. A common problem is shoulder tension, which comes from modern working conditions and working long hours. Alexander's idea is suited to tackling that.
I cross-examined the Prime Minister yesterday—that sounds great, but is not entirely accurate. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I am a member of the Liaison Committee, and yesterday I had a chance to question the Prime Minister about health care. He told us that 75 per cent. of the health budget now goes through the primary care trusts. He also said that his hand had touched the decision-making process, so I was happy to ask him about that. As I said to him yesterday, if 75 per cent. of the budget is devolved to primary care trusts, surely advice should also be devolved and that advice should be to consider different therapies.
In the west country around Devon, many herbal practitioners are considering giving up because they cannot make ends meet in the private sector. I represent part of Leicestershire, but Ottery St. Mary has always been a centre for herbal practitioners, as hon. Members who represent constituencies down there know. Some practitioners are thinking of giving up because they cannot support themselves, yet they have had extensive training in herbal therapy. I can think of one practitioner whose is qualified in phytotherapy, English herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. It is a great tragedy. Those people are out there waiting to be taken on board and it would free up so many doctors and surgeons if complementary therapy was embraced more thoroughly.
Other groups have been working hard to bring complementary therapy online. The Prince of Wales set up the Foundation For Integrated Medicine and one of the programmes it set up is a primary care collaborative. The Government would do well to mark what has happened there. For some years, doctors and health care professionals have worked alongside complementary therapists and the scheme allows evaluation of the effectiveness of working together. The resultant savings shown by the survey prove my point. There are fewer demands on GP time and fewer referrals for secondary care. However, recent research shows that only one in 10 primary care trusts is seeking to establish PCT-wide complementary health care services. Many integrated services are also being established in health centres, and other initiatives are being set up to combat health inequalities. The message is twofold. First, valuable research has been carried out by the collaborative initiative, and secondly, not enough has been done to make use of that research in the health service.
76WH
The Government should introduce statutory regulation. Some work is taking place—I refer to Professor Michael Pitillo—and an easy bull for the Minister to hit is the one that moves statutory regulation along. The Foundation For Integrated Medicine has run seminars. I have attended some of them and they have been an effective force. More doctors must be trained, with courses for older doctors so that they at least know to whom to refer patients. They do not need to train in the discipline, but they should have better awareness of what is available and where to refer.
The Government must make it easier for complementary practitioners to practise in the NHS. Now that the primary care trust system is up and running, the very least the Minister should do is to send a memorandum to primary care trusts instructing them to look carefully at complementary therapies.
Finally, more research is necessary into complementary medicine generally. There was the Oxford survey on the use of vitamins and another conducted on prisoners, but if we are receiving conflicting messages, we need more research into how and where different supplements are effective. The Lords report came up with three categories, but we are really discussing only the first category here. There are many other disciplines. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to the Alexander technique. I think that kinesiology, a form of muscle testing, is very valuable in establishing what the problems are. Another discipline that has not really been looked at seriously is iridology. That is about looking in the eyes in order to spot problems with various organs. I attended a demonstration at which 40 people were chosen to be studied. After a two-minute appraisal, about 70 per cent. of them said that the diagnosis was accurate.
We sometimes talk about loose cannons in the House. The origin of that phrase is 19th-century warships. A first-rate ship had 100 guns: on one side on the top deck were the 16-pounders, underneath were the 32-pounders and on the bottom deck were the 64-pounders, so called because they could throw a spherical ball of 64 lb in weight. The one thing that the ratings on those ships feared more than the French was a loose gun on the bottom deck. A gun that could fire 64 lb and that got loose—as you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the guns had to be run with ropes—was a terrifying thing, which could kill a lot of people. The directives that the Minister's Department are considering at the moment are 64-pounders. They are not secured on the bottom deck, and if he is not careful they will cause a lot of damage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr John McWilliam): I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that I served in Nelson's day.
10.11 am
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing this debate. When we saw his name, the subject was of no surprise, but I have to admire his tenacity on the topic. I want to talk about the place of complementary therapies in medicine and briefly mention the EU directives that are coming down the tracks.

77WH
We cannot get away from the fact that there has been a growing interest in the subject during recent years. Travel broadens the mind, but the biggest contributory factor has been the emerging mindset, which I welcome, that doctors are no longer regarded as gods. Patients have been helped by an explosion of lifestyle magazines, and there is also the internet, although that is a double-edged sword, because there is much rubbish on it. We question things much more nowadays and expect to have answers, and to have more involvement in our treatment.
I used to work as a community pharmacist. In the 20 or so years since I first qualified, there has been an absolute explosion of new products in the vitamins, minerals and herbal sector. I could be cynical and say that such things are sold not because they do any good but because people think that they do, but what is the harm in that? Pharmacists make a lot of money from those products. More and more, however, are also selling homeopathic products. I have taken some interest in complementary therapies, and it annoys me that homeopathic products are often sold completely wrongly in pharmacies. If one takes the time to study what homeopathy is about, one realises that it involves treating a person as an individual rather than as a case of indigestion, or whatever it might be. There must be training if those therapies are to be used properly.
If one walks into a pharmacy now, one finds aromatherapy oils and even devices based on the age-old practice of acupressure, to cure seasickness. I used to do a lot of work with pregnant women. One problem is that such women cannot take any drugs any more. Manufacturers have often not been able to trial their drugs, for very good reasons. That sector of the public increasingly looks to complementary therapies. Morning sickness is dreadful and many women try acupressure bands, ginger and raspberry leaf tea when they are approaching giving birth, and use homeopathy.
Many pregnant women enjoy aromatherapy. A good aromatherapist will not use certain oils on a pregnant woman, which is fundamental. Unfortunately, some people have the mindset that something natural must always be good and should not be questioned. The scientist in me says that if something can do good it also has the potential to do harm. In 1999, a survey of British adults showed that herbal medicines were the most commonly used form of complementary medicine. I am concerned that about one third of adults have accessed herbal medicines, because there is a large amount of ignorance. As a pharmacist, I know that herbal products can be of great benefit and much of the modern pharmacopoeia derives from them. I spent far too many hours during my three years at university doing strange things with bits of leaf.
Many members of the public are labouring under the mistaken belief that herbal medicines are safe and are without side effects. In many cases the effects of herbal medicines are more unpredictable because the amount of active ingredient in herbal material varies. Although there is some quality control, the amount of active ingredient in any particular product varies. Somebody taking herbal medicine does not always get a consistent effect and the pharmaceutical sector controls the amount of a drug more stringently than the herbal
78WH
sector. That is bad enough, but there is also the mindset that natural products are without side effects, which is clearly rubbish. If a preparation has a physiological effect and has the power to cure, by definition there must be the potential for adverse effects. We have to get away from the idea that healthy products are natural. There is a huge place for complementary medicines, but we have to make sure that the public are protected.
The situation is changing. Over the past 20 years many therapies have gained a professional respect that was previously absent. Nowadays it is commonplace for pain clinics to use acupuncture whereas 20 years ago it was regarded as strange and quirky. Chiropractors now have a useful place and even homeopathy and osteopathy have gained a professional respect. That is acknowledged in the Lords Select Committee report, which is a good piece of work although some of my hon. Friends think that the Lords have been too kind in giving credence to some therapies.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth that more research needs to be done. Much of the available research is conflicting and—we all do this; politicians love to do this so why should the complementary medicines lobby not do this?—people cherry pick the studies that prove their particular point. Many complementary medicines can be used as an adjunct to traditional therapy. The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned aromatherapy, which I use. It can be used to relax patients and a strong case could be made that fewer drugs would be prescribed because if patients feel relaxed they may not need tranquillisers. There is no evidence to prove that that happens; it is just a gut feeling that I have. It would be nice to see someone carry out a trial to study the difference between two groups of people, one treated by aromatherapists and the other treated by conventional pharmaceuticals. If patients are terminally ill, why should they not be allowed to access the alternative treatment of their choice on the NHS, if they think that is going to help them? There is often little hope for some people. They may not want to go down the route of chemotherapy which, although useful, can be very traumatic. Some people do not want to do that, so the alternative route could be worth looking at.
I briefly want to consider the medicines directive. I was reassured by the approach of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), during yesterday's health questions. The directive as it stood was overbearing. There has been quite an effective lobbying campaign organised by Consumers for Health Choice. I was taken in by this group because I thought that it was a consumer organisation. However, close examination shows that it is largely a lobbying group on behalf of the health food industry. I am not sure whether many of my colleagues who have been lobbied are fully aware of that. Even bearing in mind the fact that there are quite significant vested interests involved, the directive is a classic example of a case where some compromise should be reached. We need good evidence that some of the larger doses of vitamins are safe.
The hon. Member for Bosworth mentioned vitamin B6. I agree that we did get it wrong on that, but many people were unaware that vitamin B6 has significant side effects in large doses. Often, women were taking quite hefty doses. They thought that because it was a vitamin, it must be safe and have no side effects. They could not

79WH
understand why their pre-menstrual tension or postnatal depression had eased, but they were still feeling grotty for some other reason. We must not fall into the trap of believing that vitamins are safe at all doses, at all levels. Once we have an evidence base, it would be clearly ludicrous if every individual or small manufacturer had to go through the licensing procedure separately.
I now start to disagree with the hon. Member for Bosworth. He said that better use of resources for the NHS could be achieved by using such therapies. I would like to support him, but there is a limited pot of money in the NHS, and we have to have a firmer evidence base for some of the technologies. Where there is a proof that a technology is useful, it is already being used—for example, acupuncture.
Mr. Heald: A few years ago there was a growing use by GPs of acupuncture and other complementary therapies because they had the freedom to do so. It is a matter of concern that since we have had primary care groups, and now primary care trusts, that trend has reversed, so we are now losing the use of those therapies in the NHS, which doctors find useful.
Sandra Gidley: I was coming on to primary care trusts. There is nothing to stop doctors using such therapies if they want to. A small group of local surgeries in my constituency took part in the total purchasing projects—a Conservative idea. That local group had won awards for the way in which they approached the matter. One of the innovative things that it did was to provide exercise on prescription. At the time, the group found that that led to real benefits. Having been given a free course, people very often completely changed their lifestyle and carried it on of their own volition because they realised the difference that it made to their lives. They were very upset when they were told that the TPPs were not to continue. They have been shackled in recent years, and have had to concentrate on what could be called core Government priorities. Recently, I spoke to some of those doctors and they were looking forward to 75 per cent. of the budget being devolved. They were keeping their fingers crossed that that money would not be earmarked. They want to return to having more freedom and to try prescribing some of these therapies.
We must not forget that the GP contract is being changed. It is likely that soon people will register with a surgery instead of an individual GP. That change could increase the use of complementary therapies. In the past, I worked alongside a surgery that had one doctor who was keen on homeopathy. Patients were queueing to see him because they wanted to access homeopathy first. They often found that the medicine was beneficial. I do not know whether those patients experienced a placebo effect, but they certainly did not return to that surgery for drugs of the traditional kind.
I welcome greater use of complementary therapies, but if primary care trusts and health professionals are to embrace them, it would be useful to establish a larger evidence base. I was disappointed after an earlier debate when I did not receive the evidence that the hon. Member for Bosworth promised to send me. I hope that he will put that right, because I have a genuine interest.
80WH
The hon. Gentleman mentioned supplements for prisoners. However, prisoners have an appalling diet, so perhaps it would be better to scrap supplements and ensure that they get enough fresh fruit and vegetables. There is more than one way to look at a problem. The hon. Gentleman may remember that a few years ago there was a survey of school children that showed that giving children certain blends of vitamins improved their IQ. I could say that giving them a proper diet, rather than Big Macs, would have achieved the same result. It will be difficult to find evidence, but if we want to offer choice to the public, it is well worth investing in research to establish the true place of such therapies in the NHS.
10.28 am
Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow two hon. Members who spoke with great knowledge and fluidity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing the debate.
I apologise for starting on what may seem to be a discordant note, given that the two previous speakers dealt with the subject with a laudable lightness of touch. The debate is about choice and the freedom to act for one's individual needs and to make decisions about how one treats oneself, especially one's body. There is a growing and regrettable tendency for Governments to over-regulate every aspect of our lives; they want to control what people do, eat, where they go and whether they can sing in pubs. Generally, they want to dominate people's lives. The tendency is to swamp society with controls and over-burdensome bureaucracy. The present Government are one of the worst in history for doing that, and they are driven by the European Union to push forward directive after directive. They swallow them all whole. I would say, why fix it if it ain't broke? Complementary medicines and therapies are not broke. The Minister is scribbling, no doubt preparing his riposte to my attack, but I do not include him in my comments. I know him of old, and he is a good man. He is not an over-regulator by instinct, and I hope, therefore, that he will take the message to the Government.
Many doctors know how important complementary medicines can be in building a patient's confidence and self-esteem. Patients get not just choice but the important element of ownership of their treatment—they have a degree of control and choice. If such medicines are safe, use of them should not in any way be stymied, as they are very good and can help in many ways in building feelings of well-being in patients. There is much more to the treatment of disease and symptoms than any of us knows. At present, we do not understand the processes very well. Although we do not understand how, we know that the psychological effect is enormously important in the progress of disease and the effects of symptoms. If complementary medicines and therapies can help to alleviate and control the progress of disease, we should celebrate that and not seek in any way to control the process too much. All that matters is that it works.
Complementary medicines cover many areas of treatment. We have heard that aromatherapy can give relaxation and relief and help in many subtle ways in preoperative situations, in pregnancy and so on. I have never personally used aromatherapy. I do not know whether

81WH
other hon. Members have, but I have not had that pleasure. I was delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is an expert in the area. I would subject myself to some hands-on experience to learn first-hand how important aromatherapy is, were she willing to introduce me to it. Putting humour aside, if people enjoy it and it gives self-esteem or relaxation before an operation, why not use it?
Food supplements can be helpful, providing they are safe. I do not believe that there is any great evidence that food substances are abused. Vitamins are essential. Some people like to use vitamins to supplement their diet or as an aid when they get older. For instance, older people need more calcium to keep the density of their bones intact, and I do not see anything wrong in that. Traditional eastern medicines and therapies have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. We do not know how they work, but we know that they have a significant effect and give great help and relief to patients. I do not understand why we should over-regulate them if it is not necessary. Acupuncture has been used for thousands of years. We do not know how or why it works, but we know that it can have an important effect on some patients. If it works, let it work.
There are several issues to be considered. If we can use medicines, including complementary medicines, in a preventive way, we should do so more. We should seek to prevent rather than to treat disease, and I hope that the health service will grow most in that area in the next 20 to 30 years. Otherwise, we will look back and realise that we did not get on with prevention soon enough or aggressively enough. Complementary medicines can be preventive. We should promote, not inhibit, the use of vitamin and diet supplements. We should also promote self-control and individual control where that is possible and safe.
We need the Government to give us advice and information, but not to over-regulate and control us. They could, for instance, give us more of a lead on diet. Hon. Members will know from my accent that I come from up north, so I feel able to say that diet is a particular problem there. The Government could give a lead on that, but I do not want them to regulate against fish-and-chip shops, or fried Mars bars in Glasgow. I am a great advocate and fan of fish-and-chip shops, although I cannot imagine why anyone would want a fried Mars bar. None the less, why should the Government regulate such things if people want them? Indeed, the Government are not rushing to regulate them, even though they probably damage the population's health much more than complementary medicines do. I do not see, therefore, why the Government should regulate complementary medicines, unless they want to develop a nanny state.
The bottom line is that patient choice should be welcomed and allowed where it is safe, because it will give patients control of their situation and self-esteem.
Sandra Gidley: I take what you said about choice, but it was the Conservative Government who reduced the number of vitamin preparations available on prescription and who put some of them on the black list.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting a bit slack. When the hon. Lady says "you", she is referring to me, and I have not said a word.
Bob Spink: Were you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer the hon. Lady, you would do so far more eloquently than I ever could. However, she makes a good point, and I do not seek to defend what previous Conservative Governments did. I would say, however, that we are listening to what the people say. We all know that our mailbags have been inundated with letters from people who want us not to stop or control complementary medicines and therapies, but to resist the European Union's rather silly directives, because they are unnecessary, smack of the nanny state, prevent choice and will, on balance, harm the health service. I rest my case, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for hearing me.
10.37 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing it and on speaking so comprehensively.
My hon. Friend started—it is perhaps not a bad place for me to start—by noting that the period of Conservative government that started in 1979 was marked by important achievements in complementary medicine, and we do not need to apologise for what Conservative Governments did. As the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, the acceptance of osteopaths and chiropractors was sealed by the Acts that were passed during those years. Equally, GP fundholding, whatever the Minister's criticisms of it, allowed GPs to use complementary therapies in a way that had not been seen before. That is one reason why we now see that wide range of treatments being used in practice.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, it is vital to recognise that we are dealing with an important issue of individual choice. It was not by chance that 1,000 people marched to Trafalgar square shouting, "Tony, we want the right to choose." Those people felt strongly that they should be able to use certain therapies and that the Government should not interfere unnecessarily in a nanny-state way or in an orgy of regulation. My hon. Friend made a valid point when he said that the instincts of the Government are all too often to regulate rather than to allow individual freedom and choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Castle Point, also made the excellent point that there is a need to promote good health, and that diet and the way in which one approaches it are vital.
It is important to regulate professions so that they can be seen to be acceptable. That is how osteopaths and chiropractors were able to make progress. Can the Minister tell us what the proposals are for the other professions that have been mentioned during the course of the debate? I include aromatherapy, which I mentioned earlier. With regard to back pain and the Alexander technique, I know from meeting people who are involved in pain management that back pain is the largest problem of all. If research can help in that area by examining complementary therapies and providing them, that would be an economic use of resources.

83WH
The hon. Member for Romsey said that there has been an explosion in the use of complementary therapies and in the number of products that are available in pharmacies. We must not forget that we need to be careful about their use. I agree that safety is important; she made that point very fully. That does not mean that we should accept everything that is coming from Europe—the food supplements directive, the traditional herbal medicinal products directive and the European Commission's proposals to amend the EC medicines regulatory system. We have been concerned for a long time that the combination of those measures will lead to many products becoming unavailable, which will hit the retail sector. The Government have not yet given a solidly founded explanation of the dangers of these products. When we debated the matter in European Standing Committee C in June, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health whether she could point to solid scientific evidence that traditional herbal medicinal products were dangerous. We were given a few anecdotal examples about Aristolochia in Belgium, but that was not the sort of detailed, scientific report that one would expect from a Government who supported measures that could hugely limit consumer choice and put a number of firms out of business.
Mr. Tredinnick: The Aristolochia case is often quoted, and it is misused. That was a case of the wrong drug being over-prescribed by the wrong people.
Mr. Heald: That is the point that my hon. Friend made very tellingly.
There are some welcome signs. As I mentioned earlier, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has called for a further round of discussions on the traditional herbal medicinal products directive, I understand that the Medicines Control Agency consultation has been extended and we hear that the Health Food Manufacturers Association is to meet the Minister on 24 July.
Can the Minister tell us what is really going on? What meetings have there been with interested groups, what meetings are planned, and is there emerging thinking from the Government that is more conciliatory on the issue? Will we see sound statistical medical evidence produced in this area? The principle should be that it is reasonable to request hard evidence if one is to outlaw products that are currently on sale; the burden should not be the other way. If something is being sold, and there is no evidence that it is doing harm, it is hard of a Government to say that they will introduce heavy-handed regulations without any sound basis. The Minister should be aware that a huge body of people are against the Government on these issues. They include the National Association of Health Stores, Consumers for Health Choice and people in the industry, as well as numerous consumers who write to Members of Parliament. The issue currently forms the largest postbag. One cannot merely say that those people have vested interests; they are the millions of people who use the products and who feel strongly about the issue. There is a burden on the Government to prove their case, which they have not yet done.
84WH
The European Commission proposes to amend the EC medicines regulatory system. The whole system seems to be becoming more centralised and the definition of a medicine is being expanded, so that it might include products from the arena of complementary medicines. I should be grateful if the Minister were to tell us whether the Government have made any progress in their opposition to the process. The Under-Secretary of State for Health told us that the Government had some concerns about the process, and I should like to know what progress has been made.
On the EU directive, will the Minister tell us the Government's view of the provisional findings of the European Union Scientific Committee on Food? The Government promised to tell us their view during the summer, once the expert group on vitamins and minerals had given its advice. We are getting into the dog days of summer in terms of parliamentary time, with only five days left, so we need to know the answer.
On the cosmetics directive, there are concerns about essential oils not being available because of new regulations on allergens. I wrote to the Secretary of State about that in June, but will the Minister tell us the Government's view of that directive?
Overall, will the Minister give us a commitment that the Government are reflecting on their strategy in this area, and will he commit himself to moving the Government's agenda towards choice and away from regulation? This is an important issue about choice and individual freedom, and unless the Government do something, they are likely to find more people marching through London shouting, "Tony, we want the choice." I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want that.
10.48 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, I join in the warm, generous and entirely appropriate remarks that have been made by hon. Members towards the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), not only for raising the debate today and on many previous occasions but, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, for doing so with a tenacity and perseverance that is a credit to him. People often challenge the efficacy of Members and the contribution that individual Members play. The hon. Gentleman's campaign on complementary and alternative medicine provides evidence of how wrong those people are.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) drew attention to what they described as the achievements of the previous Conservative Administration in this area. I shall not quibble with the substance of that analysis, particularly in relation to the regulation of osteopathy and chiropractic. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, measures on both were introduced by private Member's Bills, so we need to proceed with some caution in claiming them as successes of the Conservative Administration. I am sure that they enjoyed the support of Ministers, but we need to put that on the record.
I take a slightly different view of the contribution of GP fundholding, which will not be a surprise either to the hon. Gentleman or to his hon. Friends. Rather than re-run the argument about fundholding and its merits or otherwise, I should put on the record that there were

85WH
significant disagreements among general practitioners about the direction of that policy and whether it was beneficial to general practice or primary care. I shall touch on the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised on the accessibility and availability of complementary medicine within the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman referred to our approach to what he called integrated health care, and I agree with him in many respects on that. He will be aware that the Department now co-sponsors an award scheme on integrated health care. There have been a number of noticeable NHS achievements in that regard, of which the hon. Gentleman is perhaps unaware.
Last year, there were two winners of the award. One was the Blackthorn medical centre in Kent, which offers an anthroposophic approach to treatment, rehab and support employment for patients suffering from chronic illness. The other winner was the maternity acupuncture service provided at the maternity unit at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, where acupuncture was originally offered to provide greater choice of pain relief for women but was extended to a popular out and in-patient service for ante and post-natal problems. More than 4,000 women have been treated by that service, so there is evidence of progress.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention also to the need for more research, and I agree with him on that. I shall touch on what the Government are doing to encourage that. He stressed the importance of effective regulation, and I strongly agree with him on that.
I might have been a little unkind to the hon. Member for Romsey in our previous debate on the role of the private sector in the NHS. This time. I am happy to say that I agreed with almost all her comments. I hope that our relationship is now on a stronger footing, although if I were her I would be more worried about a relationship with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).
The hon. Gentleman took a perfectly reasonable position on regulation. He is against it, almost as a matter of ideology. He prefers the freedom of the market and the freedom of consumers to choose. That is a perfectly defensible ideological position, but events over the past 200 years might have provided some evidence that that is not always the best way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Bosworth, in his support for statutory regulation of some of the key therapists, takes a very different view from that of the hon. Member for Castle Point, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth. The important point is that if we are to regulate, we should always do so proportionately. We should always try strongly to support the basic principles of choice and consumer freedom. Everyone would want to sign up to those basic principles, whatever side of the House they sit on.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Castle Point, but I do not think that the positions in this instance are absolutely fixed. We need to approach this subject with a degree of pragmatism. We should be clear about our overall objectives but be prepared to regulate, to intervene and to use our powers to establish proper minimum national standards, where that is in the interests of consumers and will support the exercise of
86WH
effective choice rather than undermine it. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, however, that we have no plans to regulate the sale of fried Mars bars, if that was of concern to him.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to several developments at European Union level, which I shall deal with in a few minutes. He was concerned about the Government's evidence on the safety of herbal medicines. He will remember, because he was present at the European Standing Committee debate, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health pledged to place a summary of safety information relating to herbal medicines in the Libraries of both Houses. The Medicines Control Agency intends to provide that information by the end of this month, so I hope that that will clear up some of his concerns.
I am not sure that I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman today on cosmetics, as I know diddly squat about that subject.
Mr. Heald: Will the Minister inquire into what happened to the correspondence I had with the Secretary of State in June and give it a push, so that I get a quick reply?
Mr. Hutton: I will certainly do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about the regulation of aromatherapists. They have set up a working group with an independent chairman. The first objective is to work together to create a system of voluntary regulation. If that can be done, we shall consider the case for any further form of regulation. Any scheme that they put in place themselves as an initial first step would form the basis of further progress.
Unfortunately, I have only five more minutes in which to respond to this important debate. First, I should say that there is no question in my mind but that evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine treatments provided by properly qualified and regulated practitioners can make a positive contribution to improving the health and well-being of people in this country. That is the Government's view. There is also no doubt that patients should always have the maximum possible choice of the range and types of treatments available; that is not only a Conservative set of principles but a Labour set of principles.
Our goal should be to support choice, diversity and safety in health care provision. As hon. Members know, primary care trusts have the primary responsibility for ensuring that that happens at a local level. It is widely accepted that people with cancer often find that complementary and alternative medicine treatments such as aromatherapy and reflexology, from which I have personally benefited and rate highly, help them to cope better with the trauma and anxiety that follow the diagnosis of that terrible disease, as well as easing the debilitating effect of the treatment that they undergo.
For that reason, the guidelines on supportive and palliative care for cancer patients that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish next year will include a section on complementary and alternative medicine. I hope that the guidelines will clarify the roles that various complementary and alternative medicine therapies can usefully play in the supportive and

87WH
palliative care not only of cancer patients but of those afflicted by other chronic illnesses that are difficult to treat.
The hon. Member for Bosworth was concerned about the availability of complementary and alternative medicine provision throughout the NHS. He will be interested to know that we have commissioned research from Sheffield university on the subject that shows that a small increase has taken place in the provision of those therapies. It suggests that about half of general practitioners provide access to some form of complementary and alternative medicine. The hon. Gentleman will probably say that that is not enough, but I hope that he takes some reassurance that the indicators are pointing in a more favourable direction from his point of view. When the research information becomes available later in the summer, I shall ensure that he sees it.
It is not only what we are doing within the NHS that is important. The Department is working with the King's fund on a collaborative project led by Westminster university to create a network of primary care trusts that will identify and share good practice in the clinical governance of complementary and alternative medicine as a major contributor to NHS primary care. The two-year project began earlier this year and its results are expected next year. Other organisations such as the NHS Alliance and the Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Health are working in partnership on the project.
Much concern was expressed about the regulation of practitioners. No debate on the subject would be complete without a proper analysis of the pros and cons of that matter. We continue to regard regulation of complementary and alternative medicine professions as an important objective, so I am pleased to be able to describe the progress being made towards statutory regulation of herbalists and acupuncturists.
88WH
The independent herbal medicine regulatory working group has been in existence since January. There are important and sensitive issues to be resolved, especially in relation to relationships between the different traditions of herbal medicine. However, I hope that all traditions represented on the working group will continue to work together to achieve a sensible conclusion. If possible, the Government would like a statutory scheme to be established that encompasses and retains the unique characteristics of all traditions of herbal medicine, including the practice of traditional Chinese medicine. With good will and constructive participation all round, we can achieve something to provide much greater protection for patients and the public generally.
On the subject of acupuncture, a new regulatory working group is being assembled and will hold an initial meeting soon. I am pleased that both working groups are led by experienced independent chairmen, and I am confident that they will lead the professions involved to a position on which we can build. Once the working groups have made their recommendations, we will use them as a basis for wider consultation before preparing a suitable legislative vehicle to put before Parliament.
There is also the important subject of product regulation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health made it clear yesterday on the Floor of the House that our overall aim on herbal remedies is to achieve an effective balance between public health and consumer choice. They are not exclusive options, as the hon. Member for Castle Point tried to assert.
I accept that the balancing act is difficult. There are many effective advocates of consumer choice, and we acknowledge that many people have strong feelings on the issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Christian Communities (Asia)
11 am
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise such an important issue. Why do I bring the subject to this forum at this time? Our debate is one of several that avowedly Christian Members of Parliament have brought before the House to highlight the persecution and other such treatment of Christians. I declare an interest as a Christian, and make no apology for raising the subject. I do not pretend to be an expert on Asia—I have taken a greater interest in Africa—but anyone who has seen the number of parliamentary questions on the subject and talked to any of the relevant organisations will know that the Christian community and those of other faiths have expressed concern about what is going on in Asia.
As I said, other hon. Members have secured debates on similar subjects. They include a debate on the Moluccas introduced by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in December 2000; and one on Sudan introduced by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in March 2002. I want to build on those debates about the way in which the Christian community is treated around the world, but I do not intend to blame other religious faiths or those of no religion. I shall talk about why Christians are under attack—and some of the figures that I shall give make the fact that they are under attack only too clear.
I give thanks to those who have helped me to ensure that the subject is brought to the attention of Parliament. It is good to see present several hon. Members whom I know will talk about different parts of Asia. I intend to speak generally, albeit with some specific references to North Korea, about which I am especially concerned. I thank Christian Solidarity Worldwide, especially Dr. Alan Hobson; he and I have discussed the repercussions of what has happened over several months.
It is opportune that we now have time to debate this important issue. I shall cast no aspersions, but instead explore ways in which the Government can by active involvement ensure that they protect the Christian faith and Christians., That is what we, as a Christian country, want to do. In addition, the issue is true to the spirit of the United Nations. We in this country try to be religiously tolerant, although perhaps less successfully than some of us want, and the same should happen in other parts of the world.
There are good reasons to consider the plight of Christian communities. A report written in America a few years ago concluded that Christians suffered more persecution than any other religious group. That view is echoed in another report published last year, which estimates that between 200 million and 250 million Christians worldwide are persecuted for their faith, with a further 400 million living under threat of persecution and non-trivial restrictions on their religious liberty.
Statistician David Barrett estimates in the World Christian Encyclopaedia, which was updated in 1996, that each year as many as 160,000 Christians are killed for their faith. Furthermore, more Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries. If we pause to consider that those centuries encompassed the frequent bouts of persecution that
90WH
took place under the Roman empire, it helps to bring home the magnitude of what has happened in the past hundred years.
Although Christians are heavily persecuted in many parts of the world, a great deal of the persecution is taking place in Asia. Asia contains a wealth of cultures and histories; it has landscapes of spectacular beauty, and much else to admire. Many of the world's great inventions and advances in civilisation have emanated from that great continent, and it has been home to some of the greatest empires and civilisations that the world has ever seen. However, despite the vast differences between the cultures, languages, histories and systems of government of the different countries of Asia, it remains true today that Christians are severely persecuted in many of them. The problem covers a wide geographical area: even if we discount the persecution of Christians in the middle east, which is technically in western Asia, there is still a wide arc of persecution, stretching from the central Asian republics such as Turkmenistan, through the Indian sub-continent, and on to southeast Asia.
The position of Christians is precarious in most of the former Soviet republics of central Asia, where Governments tend to follow an aggressive form of Islam. The worst in terms of its treatment of Christians is Turkmenistan. Last year, for example, the Turkmen authorities badly mistreated Shageldy Atakov, an imprisoned Christian. He was tortured and physically abused and, in a sinister throwback to the worst excesses of the old communist era, he was forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs. Other Christians, especially Baptists, have been targeted; if they fled because they had found out that the authorities were about to swoop, they were subjected to a manhunt.
In India, although the Government profess their allegiance to religious tolerance, Hindu militant organisations have been targeting Christians for some years. According to the Indian Government's figures, Hindu militants killed 33 Christians in just two years—1999 and 2000. In Pakistan, it is Muslim extremists who target Christians. Their attacks last year on two churches in which more than twenty people were killed hit the headlines, but many other cases of Christians facing violence and discrimination in Pakistan are less well known. Several hon. Members, including myself, have raised individual cases, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to those cases and others to show that it is a matter of ongoing concern.
In Burma, the State Peace And Development Council regime is notorious for the vicious attacks it perpetrates upon its own ethnic minorities, who include Christians as well as many other religious groups. However, some Christian churches and pastors in the capital, Rangoon, are specifically targeted by the regime.
In south-east Asia, a number of different systems of government are engaged in the persecution of Christians. Those include atheist communist countries such as Laos, Vietnam and North Korea. In Laos, many churches have been closed down, many Christians have been imprisoned in the past few years, and Christians are killed from time to time. In November last year, a Christian pastor in northern Laos was shot dead. It was unclear whether the authorities were behind the killing or whether it was the work of a relative angry at the fact

91WH
that the man was a Christian—both parties had made threats. Whatever the case, the man was killed because of his Christian faith.
In Vietnam, many Christians, especially Christian leaders, have been imprisoned, and a large number languish in prison today. While we debate the issue in the comfort of our liberal democracy, churches in Vietnam have been destroyed and a number of Christians are believed to have been killed.
Highlighting one country might help to illustrate the point. North Korea is a good example of wrong, and of why this country and the Government need to do something. North Korea operates a system of absolute and brutal control over its population; even the slightest aberration from the Government line is punished with severe, sometimes fatal, reprisal, and torture, imprisonment in conditions of severe deprivation and execution are routinely used to control the population. Political prison camps are one of the key means used to deal with dissent.
Christians in North Korea are specifically targeted. That can be traced back to the 1950s, when Kim II Sung implemented the juche philosophy in the country. The main purpose of that philosophy, which was designed to impact on every area of North Korean society and Government, was to cement the hold on absolute power of Kim II Sung, and, later, his son, Kim Jong II. The central teaching of juche is that there is no power greater than that of Kim II Sung, "the great leader", and Kim Jong II, "dear leader". Christians are a particular target of the regime because they believe in God and refuse to acknowledge that their country's leaders represent the ultimate power. Christians are the most targeted group in North Korea, apart from suspected South Korean spies, who occupy a place of comparable suspicion in the eyes of the regime.
For decades the rulers of North Korea have tried to eradicate Christianity from the country. If someone is suspected of being a Christian they are arrested, and possessing a Bible is an arrestable offence. Often when someone is arrested for being a Christian, three generations of the family are arrested at the same time, because the grandparents, parents and children within that family are just as liable as the original person. That is an attempt to prevent the spread of what is seen as the insidious influence of Christianity. Once Christians have been arrested, they are either executed immediately, or sent to political prison camps.
Those prison camps are often known—with good reason as concentration camps. The human rights non-governmental organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide has sent several fact-finding missions to the region in the past two years, and it has heard first-hand accounts of the treatment of Christian prisoners in the camps. The treatment of all prisoners in the camps is dire, but because Christians are seen as such a threat to the regime, they are singled out for particularly harsh treatment. Prison guards are rewarded if they manage to force a Christian to recant his or her faith, which gives them a particular incentive to target them for beatings, torture, harsh labour, rape and other such treatment. One former prisoner reported that she saw a guard pour molten iron over living Christians because they refused to renounce their faith.
92WH
Christians in the camps are also subject to a decree that their faces must permanently face the ground. Because they believe in God and would look to heaven, they are not allowed to look up. A former prisoner reports that after years of keeping that position, many Christian's necks are permanently deformed. When Christians die guards break their necks and bury them face down to prevent them from seeing heaven.
Many Christians in the camps are worked to death. According to reports from former prisoners, they are singled out for the worst and most dangerous jobs. Men are sent to work in iron foundries and other factories in which the mortality rate is high because of the dangerous conditions and exposure to extreme temperatures. Women are subjected to intense labour such as making shoes in primitive conditions, or are made to clean cesspits where they are often overcome by toxic fumes. Men and women work for 16 to 20 hours a day, seven days a week. It is not surprising that of all the prisoners in the camps, Christians tend to have the shortest life expectancy.
Much of that is not widely known because North Korea is one of the most closed countries in the world. Because the media are selective about which reports they present, we do not know as much as we could or should know. I hope that today's debate will redress the balance to some extent. Hon. Members will note that early-day motion 345 draws attention to the political prison camps in North Korea. I was happy to sign it, and was pleased to see the signatures of more than 100 other MPs. I hope that we will get further signatories as a result of today's debate.
Another aspect to the persecution of Christians in North Korea is the treatment of those who attempt to escape over the border into China. Some are captured and punished by the North Koreans. but even if they succeed in reaching China, that is far from the end of their troubles, because the Chinese do not recognise them as legitimate refugees and their position is therefore precarious. Although in the past China often turned a blind eye to such people's presence, a recent crackdown has led to many being repatriated to North Korea, where some have been executed and others brutally punished.
Even those who avoid detection are not always safe. Women are especially vulnerable to abuse. After fleeing from North Korea, women are often taken by men posing as guides to an area of supposed safety; once there, they find themselves escorted to a home where they find that unwittingly they have been sold to Chinese men as brides. Such a woman is viewed as a man's property: he can keep her locked up or even shackled, sexually abuse her, rent her out to other men as a prostitute, physically attack her, or even sell her on to another man. The woman is unable to take any action, because she can be threatened with being handed over to the authorities and repatriated. Such women often suffer enormous physical and emotional harm.
Many other North Koreans, driven either by hunger or by a desire to escape the repressive regime, attempt to flee their country, but Christians face special dangers if they are caught and repatriated, because not only have they committed the serious crime of escaping from the mother country, but they adhere to a detested and feared faith. Those are very serious issues.

93WH
I turn to what I believe the Government should be doing to highlight those issues and to promote religious tolerance. On 22 January 2002, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe declared in an answer to a written question:
"Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy…Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy"—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 770W.]
That echoes statements made by other Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) when he was at the Foreign Office. He said:
"Promotion of human rights is at the heart of our foreign policy and we regard religious freedom as a fundamental human right"—[Official Report, 27 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 422W.]
That is commendable, but it needs to be backed up with action. North Korea is a good example of a country in respect of which action could be taken.
It is possible to envisage links between our country and North Korea growing during the next decade or so. We should be careful not to let the matter rest, but instead to push for aspects of religious liberty to be upheld. The North Korean regime needs to be made aware that Governments, including ours, uphold and believe in human rights and religious tolerance. In particular, I ask the Government to press the North Korean regime to allow human rights monitors unrestricted access to political prison camps. I draw the Minister's attention to the Chongjin and Khechen camps, which are two of the most notorious.
Will the Government allow us to include details of religious persecution in the next annual human rights report? While there was much to commend in the most recent report, it was disappointing that it reflected no real awareness of the issue, which needs to be emphasised. We must also deal with organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has produced accurate witness statements and a great deal of evidence to show what is going on.
I would argue that if we are to come to terms with regimes such as North Korea's and bring such countries back into the family of civilisations, we must ensure that that does not happen at any cost. We must make sure that people's human rights are defended, which involves dealing with the Chinese as well as with the North Koreans. Such regimes employ many tactics that must be highlighted. As the North Korean example shows, by holding up such regimes as examples to the world, we can do a great deal to shame them into behaving in a more reasonable way. North Korea ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1981, yet among the many articles of that covenant that it blatantly ignores is article 18, which guarantees the right to choose one's religion or belief, the right to freedom of conscience in religion and the right to practise that religion in public and in private. It is about time that that issue is tackled in the North Koreas of this world.
I know that other hon. Members want to talk about similar abuses and use their chance to highlight some of the world's wrongs. I have focused on North Korea because to my mind it is the worst example of what is
94WH
happening in Asia, but there are, unfortunately, many other places that could be used in evidence. I urge the Government to look for fresh ways to ensure that human rights become a reality.
I hope that the desk officers and heads of section in the Foreign Office and the ambassadors in the countries concerned make religious freedom a priority. I hope that they are aware of the mistreatment of Christians and other religious minorities in certain countries and regularly bring that to the attention of those regimes. I ask that the Government work actively to take up such issues. There are many ways in which that can be done, both bilaterally and through the multilateral agencies, specifically the UN. As I mentioned earlier, religious tolerance is a key element of the UN's charter, so will the Government raise the issue with the UN?
In conclusion, the Government should report on issues of religious persecution. Such issues are key to people who are avowedly Christian, and to all people who believe in the rights of which the House of Commons is proud and on which it has a strong record, past and present. The Government should consider regularly reporting back to Parliament, through parliamentary questions and debates such as this. That would show the Government's commitment to ensuring that religious freedom is a key element of an ethical foreign policy—something in which I hope we all believe—rather than just an idea to which lip service is paid.
11.20 am
Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—for the purposes of this debate, he is my hon. Friend—for raising the important issue of religious persecution, in particular persecution of Christians throughout the world.
I start with two preliminary points. First, I have been a member of Amnesty International for many years. I do not agree with everything that the organisation says—that would be too much—but I genuinely believe that it has provided a real light in the darkness and a voice for people in very difficult circumstances who have been unable to speak out. Its stance on human rights and religious freedoms is to be commended. There is sometimes a danger of commentators believing that Christian-based organisations have exaggerated circumstances and examples, so to have a secular-based organisation as a second reference point is often helpful.
Secondly, as an evangelical Christian, I believe that Christians frequently speak out on behalf of others, and many have given their lives for those of other faiths. I believe that religious freedom is absolutely indivisible from other human rights and freedoms. In many countries, laws that might be used to protect Christians are there to protect other minorities as well. That is something that really does bind us together.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's thanks to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and those who have helped us to prepare for the debate. I also commend various Christian organisations for the work that they do on behalf of Christians throughout the world. The statistics quoted by the hon. Gentleman on the persecution of Christians certainly make sober reading. They are a graphic reminder of why we are discussing the plight of

95WH
Christians today. That in no way detracts from the suffering of many other religious groups in many parts of the world, and the policies that we pursue to address the plight of Christians will address their plight as well.
It is fair to say that religious liberty has not been given the same prominence as other basic freedoms that we hold dear. I make one example to illustrate that point. At the UN, a convention, a treaty body, a special rapporteur, a day, a week, three decades and a world conference have all been allocated to the important topic of racial discrimination. However, apart from a special rapporteur, the UN has no such mechanisms in place for the equally important topic of religious discrimination. Such examples help to show the extent of the problem.
Religious liberty is often marginalized in human rights discourses. That is worrying, because it is a vital issue that we need to address. I need not go into detail as to why that is so, as I am sure that hon. Members understand the reasons. As the hon. Member for Stroud has noted, the Government have publicly stated:
"Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy"—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 770W.]
I commend that statement.
In a western world seemingly slavishly devoted to the commercial and the material, understanding that religion and a spiritual dimension form a crucial part of an individual's—and a people's—sense of identity is exceptionally important. Any significant curbing of the freedom to practise religion can therefore have highly detrimental consequences for individuals and for society. If a state will not respect the most intimate beliefs of individuals, it is far less likely to respect other personal rights. Religious liberty can be seen as a benchmark for how well human rights in general are flourishing.
I shall focus my remarks on Asia and the treatment of Christians there. Many of the civilisations that have emanated from the continent of Asia over the centuries have a long and honourable history. It is therefore all the more sad that severe persecution of Christians is taking place in so many countries in that continent. Broadly speaking, three types of ideology are responsible for the persecution of Christians in Asia today. The first is atheistic communism. Despite the fact that the cold war has long since ended, several countries in Asia still cling to that ideology, and all of them actively persecute Christians and other religious minorities. The hon. Member for Stroud gave the example of North Korea. Another is China, where many Christians, as well as other groups such as Falun Gong, are persecuted. Other countries included in that group are Laos and Vietnam.
The second type of hostile ideology is militant Hinduism. In India and, to a lesser extent, Sri Lanka, militant Hindu groups—some of them closely connected to the authorities—actively persecute Christians and Muslims. Many Christians and Muslims have been attacked and several have been killed. Hon. Members will not need to be reminded of the recent slaughter of up to 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat.
The third type of ideology is Islamism, which can be distinguished from Islam. Such a distinction is helpful and necessary to avoid Islamophobia. Islamism is the
96WH
aggressive propagation of Islamist ideology and the attempted vanquishing of other faiths, which are seen as incompatible with Islam. It is often associated with violence and terrorism. Examples of countries in Asia where Islamism is strong include Indonesia and Turkmenistan. Christians face severe persecution in parts of those countries.
It is crucial to distinguish the faith from those who prosecute it so actively that they bring it into disrepute. All too often, we tread on eggshells when discussing religious matters, but sometimes the facts have to be faced. The world is not as nice as we would like it to be, and people are not as tolerant as we want them to be, and nor are the countries from which they come. Unless we face facts honestly, we do the world a disservice.
Amnesty International's report on Pakistan for 2001 states:
"Despite the government's stated commitment to human rights protection, human rights violations including torture and deaths in custody increased during 2000. Minorities were not given adequate protection when religiously motivated violence flared up. Violence against women and children continued at a high level."
The background to the blasphemy law in Pakistan is, I suspect, reasonably well known, but it deserves a further hearing. The law is contained in section 295C of the Pakistan penal code and prescribes the mandatory death penalty for anyone found to have
"by words…or visible representation…or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad".
It neither defines the terms "defilement" nor looks into the criminal intent of the alleged offender. The law has frequently been abused to imprison people on grounds of religious enmity, but it has also proved to be an easy tool to imprison people when the real motives are business rivalry or land issues.
Local human rights groups, minority rights organisations and Amnesty International have called for the introduction of procedural safeguards to protect against abuse. President Musharraf said in April 2000 that procedural changes would be introduced to lessen the possibility of abuse of the blasphemy law. However, the amendment was withdrawn a month later on the grounds that the ulema—the Islamic scholars—and the people had "unanimously" demanded that it be withdrawn.
Violence against Christians in Pakistan is all too frequent, and some of the examples are graphic and not pleasant. One case arose last year. A 14-year-old Christian girl, Naira Nadia, spoke to her friends at school about her faith; as a result, an armed group of Muslim extremists kidnapped her and gang raped her. She is still missing. In an attempt to absolve themselves of their crime, the perpetrators forcibly converted the girl to Islam and sent her parents a certificate of conversion. She has not been returned to her family, who are under intense pressure from local Muslims to drop the case.
In February this year, 16-year-old Shakeela Siddique, a Christian girl, was reportedly raped by her Muslim landlord at gunpoint. Her father attempted to confront the landlord but was badly beaten up. He noted:
"No Christian in our village dares to raise his voice against the Muslim landlords."

97WH
To date, the police and the authorities have refused to investigate the crime properly. In May 2000, eight Christian girls were allegedly gang raped by six men on their way home from work. In spite of corroborating medical and police evidence, the attackers were acquitted. It is widely believed that the judgment was given under pressure and intimidation from militants who packed the courtroom at each stage of the proceedings.
Those are not isolated incidents. Crimes against women from religious minorities, especially Christians, continue to escalate. Many women who are raped are forcibly converted to Islam and married off to their rapists or sold into prostitution. In 1999 the organisation Human Rights Watch issued a report on violence against women in Pakistan, saying that there was a virtual epidemic of crimes of violence against women, with domestic violence and rape being used all too frequently in that society.
Many Christians and other minorities fall foul of the blasphemy laws. Four Christians charged with blasphemy have been killed by Islamic extremists since 1992, and attempts have been made on the lives of at least three others. In 1997, a judge who acquitted two Christians on blasphemy charges was murdered by extremists who were angry at his decision.
The case of Ayub Masih has been reported. In April 1998, he was sentenced to death for speaking favourably about Salman Rushdie during a dispute with a Muslim villager. During the hearing, a witness shot Mr. Masih in the courtroom, but no complaint was made against the assailant, and Mr. Masih was sentenced on 27 April. Protesting against the sentence, Bishop John Joseph of Faisalabad, a long-time activist for religious minorities shot himself—committed suicide—on 6 May. It was widely believed that Ayub Masih's accusers hoped to drive the Christian family from the village and gain control of their land. The Pakistan Minister for Law and Justice at the time, Khalid Anwar, acknowledged the possibility and is reported to have said:
"There is no doubt that for personal reasons people file false claims and judges are under great pressure not to acquit the accused, no progress has been made towards reforming the laws."
The problem in Pakistan remains acute because the state seems unwilling or unable to follow the instincts of some of its leaders to amend the law. My case on behalf of Christians who are being persecuted is that they are not the only ones who stand to gain from change; others, too, would gain. I appreciate that security measures recently implemented by President Musharraf have afforded some further protection for religious minorities, but I hope that the Chamber accepts that more can be done, in view of the cases I have described. To protect against obvious abuse, the blasphemy law needs to be reformed—and, preferably, abolished. Prisoners accused of blasphemy should be housed in separate cells from other inmates. More fundamentally, much greater protection should be afforded to religious minorities throughout Pakistan and, in particular, to women.
In closing, I want briefly to mention two further issues. First, the United States is occasionally vilified over human rights. However, it has both an Office Of
98WH
International Religious Freedom and a Commission On International Religious Freedom, both of which produce regular reports and have a high reputation. It also has a specific religious liberty ambassador, and every United States embassy is required to produce human rights reports in respect of their respective country. We do not have anything comparable to that. Although the annual reports on human rights produced by the Foreign Office are welcome, they lack the thoroughness and systematic sweep of their American equivalents. Can the Minister assure us that our reports will become more detailed and wide-ranging, and will he take on board suggestions to appoint a commission for international religious liberty, or at least something resembling that model?
Secondly, although I gather that some training in human rights is given to staff at the Foreign Office, there is room for improvement. One prominent NGO with which I have some links reported that whereas many desk officers at the Foreign Office are very helpful, some do not appear to make human rights and religious liberties a priority. May I ask that a prominent place is given to both human rights and religious liberty in the training programme for staff? The Minister and his colleagues have asserted that religious liberty is an integral part of their foreign policy. I look forward to renewed initiatives along the lines suggested by myself and the other hon. Members who speak today.
11.33 am
Mr. Andy Reed: I shall keep my comments brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I am grateful for your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to leave at 11.55. As vice-chair of the all-party textiles group, I have a longstanding commitment at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I declare my position as chair of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) declared his Christianity. I congratulate him on that. I declare also that I have formally been asked to join the board of Christian Solidarity Worldwide for some of the work that we have done with it over the years. I hope to promote its work, particularly during the few minutes I have this morning.
In general, I agree with the two previous speakers: religious freedom cannot be considered in isolation from everything else. We have to recognise that it is a fundamental human right, and it must be at the centre of everything that we do as a Government. When we, as Members of Parliament, look at other countries, we must consider what religious freedom means to individuals in those countries and how we can assist them. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, this subject is not about being anti-Islam or against any other religion; we are talking about religious freedom across the board. Anything that promotes Christian religious freedom in Asian countries will, rightly, have an impact on the human rights of minorities in those countries. Freedom of expression and association is fundamental to this debate.
Before it seems as though we are being negative, we should recognise that in some parts of Asia, Christianity is flourishing. Those of us who have seen what is

99WH
happening in South Korea, for example, and the number of churches that are growing, do not want to take a blanket anti-Asia tack on the subject of religious freedoms. We must ensure that we speak positively about the many countries that promote Christian and religious freedom.
The opening up of China over the past two decades has resulted in a lot more freedom in many areas. However, the Chinese Government have cracked down heavily on the underground Church over the past few years. As a country, we must work out the best way to work with each of the Asian countries. With its entry into the World Trade Organisation and its opportunity to host the 2008 Olympics, China wants to be a central part of the world community. We therefore have a great opportunity to engage positively with the Chinese Government, to ensure that some of the things that concern us are rectified.
In the past few years, hundreds of pastors and other Christian leaders have been arrested and imprisoned, with some being given long sentences. Five Christian leaders of the South China Church have been sentenced to death, although, fortunately, their sentences have been suspended for two years to allow for appeals. That demonstrates what we are up against. A number of women from the South China Church were tortured and sexually assaulted by their interrogators in an attempt to force them to testify against the main leader, Pastor Gong. Early this year, more than 50 Catholic clerics were arrested or put under surveillance by their Government. Those people were targeted because of their religious beliefs. We should deplore all such actions.
Directives issued by the Chinese Government and other documents show a targeted campaign against a number of evangelical Christian movements and—as we all know—against the Falun Gong religion. Early-day motion 975. which deals with death sentences on Chinese Christians, covers some of those issues and has been signed by nearly 130 MPs. That shows the depth of feeling in the House, across the political divide.
In the past few years, several Christians have died after being tortured in police custody. The official state Churches, both Protestant and Catholic, are subject to heavy interference from the Government. Their doctrine is widely regarded as very liberal, putting loyalty to Government before loyalty to God. Hence, many believers prefer to attend the underground churches and house churches. That makes the state even more nervous about what is happening. There has to be a balance to ensure that the recognised Church is able to flourish so that it is more open and it is less difficult for the Chinese Government and others to understand what it is about.
China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has ratified various UN conventions. Today, we call on the Government, through their agencies and the United Nations, to ensure that fundamental human rights—in particular, article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights—are observed in China. China's entry into the WTO and its hosting of the 2008 Olympics give us an ideal opportunity to engage positively with it and to demonstrate that Christians are no threat to the current
100WH
status or the current state. We can demonstrate that permitting religious freedom and religious expression will allow problems to be worked out.
As for what our Government can do, I was heartened by the responses that I received to parliamentary questions that I tabled earlier this year. The Government are committed to ensuring that religious freedom is a fundamental part of human rights. However, religious freedom will not at present be included specifically or individually in human rights reports, as we want.
Strangely for me, I think that the Government should follow the United States' example and make religious freedom a specific part of the human rights report on each country. I know that that will entail a little more work, but it will ensure that desk officers and others who monitor what happens in other countries have a much broader understanding of why some freedoms are denied. It is important that they then see the issue in a human rights context, because once a country starts to chip away at the fundamental right of religious freedom, other freedoms will follow.
The plea from most hon. Members present will probably be that we should keep religious freedom as a fundamental right. We must keep it at the heart of our foreign policy, but we must follow up our fine words with a few actions to ensure that reports to Parliament are at the heart of the process. In that way, we will know what is going on not only in Asia, but throughout the world, and we will know where to apply extra pressure so that religious freedom remains genuinely at the heart of our foreign policy.
11.41 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this debate and on the detailed and highly competent manner in which he introduced it. It always strikes me as strange that we congratulate hon. Members who secure debates in Westminster Hall on winning the ballot—in effect, a raffle—but that we do not comment on what they say after achieving the magnificent feat of having their name pulled out of a hat.
Like other hon. Members, I have to declare an interest. Like the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), I am a member of Amnesty International, and, like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I am a practising Christian. The hon. Gentleman described himself as an evangelical Christian; I often wonder what a non-evangelical Christian is, but I am aware that I would risk your wrath if I explored that point at any length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall leave it hanging for another day.
Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental freedom. For a Christian, it must entail not only the freedom to worship, but the freedom to evangelise and proselytise. Without that second element, it is meaningless and sterile; indeed, it is no freedom at all.
Like the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), I shall confine my remarks largely to the Chinese Government's record. I shall be able to keep my speech short because he said much of what I had intended to say. The hon. Member for Stroud said that

101WH
some Christians had fled from North Korea to China. That is ironic—indeed, the expression "out of the frying pan, into the fire" sprang to my mind.
The Chinese Government's record in respect of the Christian community's right to practise is of particular concern to me. It is especially ironic given that article 36 of the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression. The manner in which that article is implemented and the restrictions that the hon. Member for Loughborough mentioned mean that the registered churches are unable to bear true witness. There is great dissatisfaction among many Chinese Christians because they are able to express their Christianity only in underground and house churches.
I understand that the vast majority of Protestant Christians in China have opted to join unregistered churches and that about half the Roman Catholics in China practise and worship in that way. Since 1996, that has led to a sometimes violent campaign to close down and destroy many unregistered house churches. In preparation for today's debate, I discovered that police had forced some 400 house churches to close in Shanghai alone. As a Christian, I almost envy them having 400 lively churches to suffer such persecution, but that is a side issue.
I shall not list all the persecutions that Christians, especially those who practise in house churches, have suffered, but I want to place a few on record. In May 1996, five house churches were demolished by public security bureau officials near the town of Wenzhou in the Zhejiang province. In the same month, three large churches in Yongjia county near Wenzhou city were dynamited to the ground. Two of the churches had congregations of more than 1,000 members. Another church in the suburb of Wenzhou was set upon by public security officials, who tried to dismantle it manually with axes; they gave up and instead posted a banned notice on the front of the church.
There have also been violent attacks on individuals. I think in particular of Zhang Xiuju, a 36-year-old woman from Xinhua county in Hunan and a leader of a Protestant house church, who was dragged from her home by the police during the night and beaten to death the following day. The litany goes on and on, but I do not intend to do so. It is all very well identifying the problem; the solution is inevitably a great deal more complex. To that extent, I do not envy the Minister his task.
There is impatience among Christians in this country who are aware of what is happening. We want more than fine words from the Government. We know that the Government regularly raise these matters—I know that because I have corresponded with the Minister about it. I ask the Government to use the time between now and the 2008 Olympic games to draw attention to the whole panoply of human rights abuses in China, especially the persecution of religious minorities such as the Falun Gong and the Christian community.
If we allow ourselves to be seen as tolerating such abuses, the danger is that the view from inside China will be that we are more than tolerating them—that we accept and agree with them. That would be entirely regrettable.
11.48 am
Bob Spink: I feel quite humble standing to speak after such eloquent, well-informed and passionate speeches. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on bringing this important matter before the House.
Like all the other speakers, the hon. Gentleman called on the Government to promote religious freedom, tolerance and human rights. I accept the Government's sincerity in wishing to promote human rights, good governance and religious freedom, but when I raised the matter in the House on 23 January in proposing new clause 1 to the International Development Bill, the Government opposed linking non-humanitarian development aid to human rights, good governance, religious freedom and the development of democracy. That linkage defines so-called smart aid, which was promoted by the USA in the late 1990s and is now being considered in institutions as strange as the European Union. I hope that the Government will now reconsider those Conservative proposals.
On 23 January, I spoke about the fighters of Laskar Jihad, the militant Islamic group responsible for killing thousands of Christians in the Moluccas and Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia. The conservative estimate is that between 5,000 and 6,000 Christians have been killed so far during the current problems. Laskar Jihad has recently infiltrated the Indonesian province of West Papua. The militants are training local militia who support Indonesian control of that province. The West Papuan-based human rights group, El-sham, reports that currently at least 3,000 Laskar Jihad fighters are there.
The British human rights group, Jubilee Campaign, which I congratulate on its excellent work, has long warned that Laskar Jihad's objective is one of forced Islamicisation and that that strategy is not confined to the Moluccas. It has been implemented through Laskar Jihad's extensive and systematic use of forced conversions against Christians. The militants began by invading the Moluccas in 2000. They then moved to Sulawesi and have now moved to West Papua, where there is a large Christian community. There will be much bloodshed if they are allowed to operate freely there.
Laskar Jihad sent armed fighters into the West Papua district of Fakfak and they are operating military training camps there. Some of the Indonesian authorities support the training that Laskar Jihad has been giving the pro-Jakarta, east Merah Putih militia. Unrest and fear have spread through the Christian community in the Sarong district of West Papua following the recent arrival of Jihad fighters who have been trying to provoke religious tensions there.
In May 2000, Laskar Jihad invaded the Moluccas with about 7,000 fighters to wage a jihad or so-called holy war against the indigenous Christians. That invasion caused unprecedented levels of violence and resulted in the deaths of thousands. In December 2001, the head of Indonesia's national intelligence agency, Lieutenant General Hendropriyono publicly confirmed that members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network were joining Laskar Jihad in fighting against Christians in Sulawesi. Due to pressure from fundamentalist Indonesian politicians, General Hendropriyono later

103WH
retracted the statement. However, he did so only because of political pressure—the facts were totally accurate.
The Malino peace agreement, signed by Muslim and Christian leaders from Sulawesi and the Moluccas indicates that positive steps towards peace are being made. However, it is highly unlikely that there will be any long-term peace until Laskar Jihad is completely removed from that area. A massacre in Soya occurred just a few days after Laskar Jihad publicly rejected the Malino peace agreement. Jafar Umar Talib, the leader of Laskar Jihad, arrived in Ambon on 25 April and his presence added to the religious tensions in that area. During his sermon before a large crowd at the al-Fatah Mosque the next day, just two days before the massacre at Soya village, Jafar said:
"Muslims will destroy all Christians in Ambon."
That is a statement of unbridled hatred, bigotry and incitement. Shortly after the massacre, the Indonesian Government had Jafar arrested and I hope that they keep him arrested, so that no more such massacres take place.
In Central Sulawesi, about 20,000 Christians have fled from their torched villages to Tentena, a village of about 8,000 inhabitants. The Christians in Tentena are cut off and surrounded by thousands of Islamic fighters; if the Indonesian police and military fail to protect Tentena, there will be massive bloodshed. While President Sukarnoputri's dispatch of thousands of additional soldiers to central Sulawesi is welcome, it is deeply disturbing that those troops have already been reduced in number.
Jubilee Campaign reports that the tragic injustice remains of the desperate plight of 5,000 to 7,000 Christians who have been forced by Muslim militants to convert to Islam in the Moluccas—in the Bacan islands, Buru and Seram. However, the Indonesian Government have so far refused to evacuate the forced converts to a place of safety where they can revert to practising their Christian faith if they so wish.
To prevent further violence against Christian communities in the Moluccas, Sulawesi and West Papua, I urge the Government to put strong pressure on Indonesia to remove all Laskar Jihad members and all other non-local combatants from Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua and to prosecute the Laskar Jihad leader, Jafar. The Indonesian Government should close down Laskar Jihad's head office and ban the organisation. That would offer a more permanent and thorough solution.
It is important to note that it is not only Christians who want Laskar Jihad removed from the Moluccas; many moderate Muslims, including the head of the council of Muslim religious teachers, Abdul Wahab Polpoke, have similar views. They do not agree with the violent and extreme interpretation of Islam that Laskar Jihad propagates through intimidation and violence, and they realise that the Jihad wants to restrict the freedom of moderate Muslims as well.
The British Government should pressure the Indonesian authorities to ensure that there are enough police and troops in the Moluccas and Sulawesi to enforce the peace and to ensure that the security forces act neutrally. Jubilee Campaign reports that on numerous occasions Indonesian police and troops have
104WH
sided with Islamic fighters against Christians, causing much bloodshed. The Indonesian authorities should also be pressured to evacuate urgently to a place of safety all forced converts from Christianity. The Indonesian Government should provide adequate funds, military or police personnel and boats for the Moluccan Church to carry out such evacuations. Failure to evacuate the forced converts to Islam is to condemn them to a lifetime of captivity and intimidation, and to give succour to Islamic death squads.
11.57 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: While it is customary to congratulate hon. Members on securing a debate, I have wondered for most of the morning whether this sort of debate helps. I was comforted somewhat by the remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who kept his remarks general and talked a lot about religious freedom generally, as did his colleague, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). However, I am uneasy about singling out a particular religion for protection, and some hon. Members have made reference to that.
We should defend the right of all human beings to religious freedom, as the Government's foreign policy states. Surely that is much more in line with the Christian teaching of loving our neighbour. [Interruption.] I am told that everyone has been saying that, but it would be nice if Christian Solidarity Worldwide protested against persecution of members of other religions, and not only Christians.
The hon. Member for Stroud commented on the numbers persecuted, saying that Christians are persecuted more than any other faith. I would like the Minister to comment on that, as I find it an extraordinary pronouncement. I do not think that it helps to do headcounts but, given the troubles in India between Hindus and Muslims, I wonder whether it is accurate. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about Amnesty International, which does an extraordinary job. I, too, am a lifelong member. Amnesty International does an extraordinary job because it does not adhere to a particular faith; it defends all faiths and all freedoms.
It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman, talking about those responsible for persecution, simplistically listed communism, militant Hindus and Islamism, without mentioning that throughout the centuries Christians themselves have persecuted other people viciously and subjected them to all sorts of horrors and tortures. While we hope that that is not going on now, history is there, and nations and groups remember it. We hope that we do much better now, but the debate calls to mind the recent case of the children going to Holy Cross school in Northern Ireland. People who were supposed to be from one religious group were persecuting little children and terrorising them because they were going to the school of another religious group, yet both groups were within Christianity. Let us not be holier than thou.
The hon. Member for Loughborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke very knowledgeably about China and the Falun Gong, and about the terrible things

105WH
that are going on. We also heard about North Korea. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about Indonesia, which in recent years has become the country about which I hear most and am lobbied most. Laskar Jihad has a lot to answer for, as the hon. Gentleman said. His call for the Indonesian Government to get rid of it is no doubt supported by everybody in the House. The trouble is that that is easier said than done.
In the past three years, there have been increasing reports of persecution and attacks on Christians. I have heard most about incidents in Indonesia, which is a secular country that prides itself on having a secular Government, even though 85 per cent. of the population are Muslim. As the hon. Gentleman said—I will not repeat it all—Indonesia is infested with Islamists and fundamentalists, Laskar Jihad, with its alleged connections with al-Qaeda, being the most troublesome. I must add that it is using the reaction of the United States to 11 September as an excuse to prosecute its war against Christians in Indonesia.
I hear stories of the chaos. I came across one in The Independent that that
"the security forces on Ambon are reported to have given up all pretence of neutrality".
Even when the security forces go in, they divide themselves into Christians and Muslims and start fighting each other, on the pretext that they are defending the population. President Sukarnoputri has been denounced in Indonesia for visiting Hindu temples, and for consorting with Christian America. She has a difficult task to keep her Government together and to do something about the fundamentalists and Islamists, but she is afraid to take a strong line because a terrible hatred of the west, and of America in particular, is strongly linked with Christianity. That is a sad reflection on what has happened in recent years.
Mr. Carmichael: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that while there is profound hatred, and certainly distrust, of America in many eastern and middle eastern countries, that might have as much to do with America's foreign policy and that policy's double standards as with the fact that it is a majority Christian country?
Dr. Tonge: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He knows that I entirely agree with him. America has a lot to answer for. The ramifications of its foreign policies go much further than simple military action.
There are other factors in Indonesia, such as economic and educational differences, and we should not neglect them. I do not know enough about Indonesia, and I cannot go on the visit that is being arranged, but I wonder whether the Christian communities are perceived as superior or better off, with a better standard of living than the rest of the population. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Various independence movements have been dotted all over Indonesia since the independence of East Timor. Is that something to do with the movement? Is that yet another excuse for persecution? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that.
106WH
Of course, it is not only Christians who are being persecuted. Indeed, I have heard reports of Christians destroying mosques. The International Crisis Group report said last year that the conflict can be understood only in the context of entrenched rivalries between two communities, in which both sides commit atrocities against the other. We need to take a balanced view. The problem is to know what to do about that persecution, both worldwide and, for me, especially in Indonesia. I wish that the European Union would intervene more often. We cannot expect America to help—on the diplomatic front, it would be an embarrassment to many Governments in the present circumstances—but the EU could do an awful lot more. In addition, United Nations human rights monitors need to be more widespread in China, Indonesia and North Korea. They need to get in there and see what is going on. Above all, they need to look for underlying causes other than religion that might be stirring up such hatred against Christians.
What are the churches doing about the problem? Where are the bishops and mullahs, and the leaders of the Hindu faiths? What about international, interfaith meetings? Cannot people of different faiths try to put pressure on their Governments to do something about this issue? It is not a matter for Governments alone; it is a matter also for the leaders of the faiths.
In conclusion, I still wish that the debate had been about the persecution of religious communities worldwide and not only Christian communities in Asia.
12.7 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate. The subject is on the mind of all of us and, judging from the many letters that we receive, it is also on the minds of our constituents.
We live in a fast-changing world, an ever more interconnected world in which the free movement of people and ideas is a fact of everyday life. In such a world, it is ever more important that tolerance and the rights of individuals are respected, including the right to freedom of religion. Although the debate concentrates on Christianity, I mean any religion. Not only is religious freedom a basic tenet of our way of life, it is necessary for interracial and interfaith harmony in the modern world.
We should be clear from the outset that violence against Christian communities in Asia is totally unacceptable. Indeed, all violence against any people on the basis of their religious faith should be utterly condemned. That is certainly what every speaker has said today. We fully support the right of individuals to enjoy life's freedoms without fear of persecution or violation of their most basic human rights.
Since September 11, we have witnessed an unprecedented degree of international co-operation. We should use that co-operation to condemn violations of human rights, and to raise the profile of issues such as religious freedom and put them firmly on the international agenda. It is worth noting that the terrorist attacks on 11 September cost the lives of peoples from every religion, and that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam but a war on those who would deny people not merely the right to practise their own religion, but the right to live in peace. It is important, in a debate on

107WH
religious freedom, that we should reinforce the message that war on terrorism is not a war on a religion, but on terror.
In Asia, as across the world, there are far too many examples that I could choose to illustrate the points being discussed here, so I shall be selective. It is instructive that the hon. Member for Stroud said that according to a recent report Christians suffer more persecution than any other religious group. Much of that persecution occurs in Asia. He rightly pointed out the condition of Christian groups in the central Asian republics, but I shall focus briefly on Iran, Indonesia, Burma, North Korea and India and Pakistan.
Iran has not been mentioned this morning. We warmly welcome the moves towards reform and economic and political liberalisation being undertaken by President Khatami's Government, but we should not shirk from criticism where it is appropriate. The human rights record of the Iranian Government, including on religious freedom, is depressing. A recent petition circulated among MPs points out that vast numbers of executions and violent punishments have been meted out to Iranian citizens, and calls for an end to that situation. I hope that I will be forgiven for a brief digression into human rights in general, but religious freedom is one of those. The two issues are totally interlinked. We must be firm, but fair, in criticising a record that we believe to be unacceptable.
In Indonesia, there is widespread religious strife, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) illustrated in such detail. Lately, many had hoped that the different communities, especially those in the Moluccas, Maluku and Sulawesi, had tired of that violence and were prepared to live together. Recently, moderate groups on both sides sought to bring the communities together again to live in peace. We also hoped that the attacks—not only those by one side against the other, but those on all moderates who talked of reconciliation—would cease. However, the attacks did not simply involve Muslims attacking Christians; the Hindu community, too, was vulnerable to violence.
Laskar Jihad, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has argued, is a group that is frequently mentioned in the context of interfaith violence in Indonesia. Although it has been suggested that that group has done some social good in some areas, perhaps improving the economic position of some impoverished groups, it has also been a driving force in communal violence, intent on carrying out jihad in a violent manner that is in no way consistent with authentic Islamic conduct. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) drew the crucial distinction between Islam, which we defend, and Islamism, which he defined as the violent assertion of Islam, holding the objective of vanquishing other faiths. The latter we condemn.
In Burma, we welcome the release of Aung Sung Suu Kyi as a step towards democracy and greater freedom, but it is only a small step, and we should be clear about the deplorable human rights situation in that country today. A lack of basic human rights tends to be reflected in the treatment of and attitude toward religious freedoms. Will the Minister elaborate on his Government's policy towards Burma and say what
108WH
further steps might be taken to put pressure on the military regime and leadership there, and whether some targeted sanctions might yet be implemented?
I pay tribute to the valuable work done by NGOs such as the Burma Campaign UK and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has been mentioned this morning, in keeping the terrible situation in Burma and elsewhere in the public eye.
Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend please add Jubilee Campaign to his list?
Mr. Duncan: I am very happy to add Jubilee Campaign, which does much good work, to my list. That was a grave omission on my part, for which I apologise.
As the hon. Member for Stroud said in his opening comments, it is in North Korea that we see some of the worst persecution of Christian groups. The system there is brutal and oppressive and violence is routinely used to enforce the Government line. As he pointed out, Kim II Sung established a cult of personality. He attempted to deify himself, so adherence to any religion, but in particular to Christianity, is viewed as an overt challenge to the regime. Arrest and execution or imprisonment await Christians when discovered. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, whose work I wholeheartedly commend to the House, has done a lot of work and research in North Korea.
The tales of camps are chillingly resonant of what happened in Europe in the late 1930s. Christians are incarcerated, routinely beaten or worked to death. Recantation of their Christian faith or death appear to be the only forms of release from the ordeal. I hope that today's debate will bring attention to bear on this oft-forgotten situation. I shall not dwell upon North Korea any longer, as the hon. Member for Stroud focused on it in detail and told us, and a wider audience, what is going on there.
The communal violence recently witnessed in India and Pakistan has been horrific. There has been appalling violence not only in Gujarat, but by Muslims against Christians in Pakistan, and by Hindus against Christians in India, but we should not forget that the worst violence has been between Hindus and Muslims. The crux of the issue is not simply violence against Christians, but interfaith violence of any sort. We welcome the assurances offered by President Musharraf of Pakistan last year: he said that Christians would receive state protection for themselves and their property. However, attacks such as that by extremists on the Christian community in Quetta remain a threat, and we hope that the President's offers are backed up with firm action.
In Tibet, the same basic principles apply. We believe that the people of Tibet have the right to live their lives in peace and to enjoy the freedom to practise their religion free from unwarranted persecution. We must be clear that violence against any group on the basis of their religion is unacceptable, as are blatant abuses of human rights.
We are not advocating a missionary approach: it is not our role to encourage those who attempt to convert people, or break laws on such matters in the countries in which they live. However, where violence is used or

109WH
tolerated against people practising their beliefs peacefully, we will and must take a stand against it. We welcome the moves in countries such as Indonesia to clamp down on such violence and to promote better interfaith relations, and we hope that that course will be pursued with renewed vigour. We must make it clear to countries and regimes that are not prepared to clamp down on the oppression of or violence against Christians or any religious group on the basis of their faith that that is wholly unacceptable.
I have touched on a number of examples, and we could all produce many more. I will conclude however with a quote from Steven McFarland, Executive Director of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred. On 11 October last year, he said:
"When the world changed on September 11, the background against which we struggle for religious freedom changed with it. In a war on terrorism, many democratic governments may be tempted to forego the pursuit of human rights and religious freedom …Demoting human rights, especially religious freedom, from our foreign policy priorities would be a serious mistake, because religious freedom, tolerance, interfaith understanding, the rule of law, and due process aren't luxuries—they are absolutely necessary to combat terror and the conditions that incubate terrorism".
I wholeheartedly endorse that view.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): We have had an excellent debate with some thoughtful, passionate and detailed speeches. I am conscious of the issue of religious persecution because the church in my Rotherham constituency that I attend for midnight mass is called the Forty Martyrs. Anybody who has been brought up as a Catholic is well aware of the assaults that one faith can bring to bear on another.
I welcomed the comment by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about Amnesty International. Religious freedom is one with and indivisible from other human freedoms. Therein lies the importance of today's debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in a powerful and convincing speech. I shall try to address all hon. Members' points, but if I do not cover everything, hon. Members are free to write to me and I shall go into further detail.
The 1948 universal declaration on human rights is our starting point. Article 18 is unambiguous:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observation."
That is at the heart of Government policy. However, article 18 is qualified by an appeal to all religions not to demand that their particular perspective dominates public policy to the exclusion of others. That relates to the positions taken by different religions on issues such as gay rights, women being allowed to control their own bodies, and even the demand that religious perspectives are put into governmental or international state policy.
110WH
In that sense, my fundamental belief as a man of belief is that international relations must be secular. Religious freedom, like the freedom to say what one wants, to travel where one wants and to assemble and organise as one wants, is a common and fundamental human freedom.
The Government unreservedly condemn the persecution of individuals because of their faith, wherever they are and whatever religion they practise. Our EU partners, the United States and the UK urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. Wherever possible, we aim to work with officials, religious leaders and non-governmental organisations both internationally and locally to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. For example, we cosponsored a resolution at this year's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva to work towards eliminating all forms of religious intolerance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to Geneva to deliver the UK statement to the commission, which is the primary world forum for standard setting and discussion on human rights. He is the first Foreign Secretary to take the human rights work at the UN Commission so seriously that he went himself rather than dispatch one of his junior minion Ministers.
We work closely not only with fellow Governments, the EU and the UN, but with NGOs. The UK is home to some of the world's most renowned human rights NGOs such as Anti-Slavery International, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, and Oxfam, and we have seen great movements such as the "drop the debt" campaign and the trade justice movement, which recently lobbied Parliament. Under the Labour Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeks to open its doors, share information and draw upon the expertise and commitment of NGOs in the policy-making process.
The FCO has a religious freedom panel that represents nearly all faiths. I had the honour of opening its last discussion, to which representatives of UK-based NGOs including Christian Solidarity Worldwide and representatives of different religions came to share information, discuss strategies and promote international religious freedom.
We support practical projects to promote human rights and religious freedom around the world. This year, for example, the FCO funded a project in west bank universities to incorporate human rights into religious education. We support the work of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe through its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which offers technical assistance on legislation to help guarantee freedom of religion. The OSCE's advisory panel of experts on freedom of religion helped to develop a package for Armenian schools on religious tolerance, to prepare a draft law on the status of religious associations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to expand a website to identify and gather examples of legislative best practice on freedom of religion.
Those are small, step-by-step practical bricks in constructing the edifice of human rights around the world, and they will be discussed in the next issue of the

111WH
human rights report, which I have in draft form on my desk at the moment. For me, the US State Department's human rights report has long been a green bible—I refer to its covers, not its content—but I do not think that it makes sense for Britain to duplicate page by page what the United States, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch currently do so well.
Our ambassadors, I as a Minister, and other Ministers take up key cases. In particular, we have raised with the Chinese authorities the question of allowing their people the right to freedom of religious belief. We have raised individual cases, such as that of Su Zhimin, an unofficial Catholic bishop, Li Dexian, a Protestant house church leader, and Pastor Gong Shengliang, leader of the South China Church. This week in Beijing. my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised issues of religious freedom with the Chinese Foreign Minister. We have a similar perspective on the Philippines. We welcome the action taken by the Indonesian Government against Laskar Jihad, in particular, the arrest of its leader, Jafar Umar Talib.
On North Korea, which is of particular interest to me as the Minister responsible, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who spoke very eloquently about it, that that country will feature more prominently in this year's human rights report. The reason is that we now have an embassy in Pyongyang and can report directly from the country. Those who want to impose sanctions, or tie aid to particular conditions, must reflect that only through engagement can British Government officials. NGOs, British Council officials and others start to build networks to support human rights issues, in particular, religious freedom.
I can assure hon. Members that in all my meetings with North Korean officials and in written communications with the North Korean Government, it is made clear that we expect human rights issues to be addressed, as well as wider problems of terrorism, missile proliferation and the deployment of long-range ballistic missiles. Such matters are an essential part of our new dialogue with the North Korean Government. We will continue to ask the North Korean authorities to allow human rights monitors open access to different parts of the country so that they can seek out information on the camps to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred.
112WH
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the use of the blasphemy law in Pakistan. We must examine that issue a little closer to home, because I do not see how any modern country can keep blasphemy legislation on its statute books. I completely agree with his point that crimes against women take place under the guise of asserting religious supremacy.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Is it now Government policy to wish to remove the blasphemy laws in Britain?
Mr. MacShane: Lord Avebury has a Committee working on that matter. We need to look at it, because it is very hard to condemn one country for using or keeping on its statute book laws that allow the persecution or prosecution of any one religion, when we have not looked at the beams and motes in our own eye—as the hon. Gentleman could read in the Bible. There is no Government policy position on that matter as yet, but if it is our intention to be consistent, we should remember that consistency, like charity, begins at home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned the need for more reporting back to Parliament. I agree with him. I think that I heard him describe Falun Gong as a religion, but my understanding is that Falun Gong explicitly says that it is not a religion. There is a very difficult question of interpretation for Governments to consider when getting into the field of Scientologists, Moonies and some of the odd cults in the United States.
I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about the need to use the period between now and the 2008 Olympic games to raise these issues with China. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that we should not be holier than thou. As a Liberal Democrat, she is an expert on that. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) talked about Iran and referred to Christians, but we should also remember the persecution of Jews and the Ba'hai faith in that country. He referred to Burma—or Myanmar, because Burma is part of Myanmar in the same way that Holland is part of the Netherlands—and we will take that matter up as well—
Mr. James Cran (in the Chair): Order.

Further Education Colleges
12.30 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: The Minister will be aware that I take a close interest in the fortunes of further education colleges in and around Eastleigh, my constituency. I am sure that his assiduous advisers will have briefed him that I have been a governor of Eastleigh college for about eight years. I have seen the college go through the trials and tribulations of incorporation, and pass through difficult times to achieve a much improved performance.
The Minister will know that the Further Education Funding Council 1997 inspection found that three aspects of provision were less than satisfactory, but by 1999 all had been brought up to a satisfactory standard. In May 2002, the provider performance review by the Learning and Skills Council rated the college as good. In that regard, we are almost looking forward to the imminent Ofsted inspection.
However, I want to use the debate to highlight issues throughout the sector, rather than in the particular college with which I am involved. Too often, the FE college sector has been overlooked—it has been treated as the poor relation in education—but more under-19s attend FE colleges than the combined total at sixth-form colleges and universities. FECs have traditionally been the training and education resource of the community, for the community. Traditionally, as many as 60 per cent. of students at an FE college are from the local area and remain settled in that community, becoming skilled craftsmen and technicians, who are essential to driving the local economy.
FECs often provide a second chance for mature students to gain skills that keep them off benefits and take them into work. FECs also provide opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds to gain the skills that will take them out of poverty and into well-paid jobs. More than a quarter of FE college students come from the 15 per cent. of local authority wards that are the most deprived. FECs provide opportunities for workers to update their skills and to gain new skills in our increasingly technology-driven commerce and industry.
Such colleges are the vital conduit through which the expression "learning is for life" can move from mere soundbite to approaching reality, so why is the sector in such disarray and all too often adrift and despondent? Why is it that, only last week, the chairman of the General Teaching Council, Lord Puttnam, wrote in The Guardian that further education
"is in a potentially catastrophic state. The present situation in FE is completely unsustainable"?
I put to the Minister some issues that he might dwell on in his response: staff pay and conditions, the inadequacy and uncertainty of core and standards funding, the impact of curriculum changes, lack of direction between local and national learning and skills councils, and student funding. First, pay and conditions. To quote Lord Puttnam, FE salaries are an "embarrassing joke". The facts are plain: some 80 per cent. of FECs were unable to fund at least one of the pay awards granted since 1993. The average salary of full-time FE lecturers is some £2,600 less than it would be had the national recommendations been implemented since 1993.
114WH
Since then, FE lecturers' pay has fallen by 7 per cent. compared with that of teachers, and by 20 per cent. compared with the equivalent private sector post. Teachers' starting salaries are some £1,600 higher than those of FE college lecturers. During that same period, more than 22,000 lecturers have been made redundant and today some 44 per cent. of lecturers are on temporary contracts. The college working year has increased by two weeks, and the working week by 20 per cent. No wonder staff turnover in FE colleges has risen to almost 20 per cent. per annum, and no wonder 60 per cent. of lecturers are over 45, compared with some 45 per cent. of secondary school teachers.
There is an urgent and desperate need for new initiatives to reverse the negative impact of insecurity and fragmentation that is putting the structure of further education at risk. Without new incentives to attract new recruits to replace an ageing staff, we shall face a growing deficit of skilled and committed FE lecturers in the very near future.
Turning to the inadequacy and uncertainty of FE funding, the Minister will be familiar with the Government's figures: FE funding increased by some 10 per cent. between 1996–67 and 2001–02, with further increases of some 2 per cent. per year planned to 2003–04. However, those figures are the total core funding and standards funding. Those are the funds that FE colleges must bid for at some expense, which is a bitter pill if the bid is unsuccessful. Core funding per student—the bread and butter for FE colleges—has fallen since 1997, and the add-on element, which is standards funding, will soon make up 12 per cent. of all FE college funding. However, as we all know, what the Government giveth, the Government taketh away.
I give just two examples for the Minister to contemplate. During this financial year, Amersham and Wycombe college in Buckinghamshire was awarded about £209,000 in standards fund allocation, but next year the LSC will award it just £32,000. During this financial year, Tower Hamlets college will receive some £500,000 in standards fund allocation, but next year that will fall to about £220,000.
That uncertainty and changes in funding will result in more staff redundancies, more short-term contracts and more uncertainty for colleges. No wonder there were some 6,000 unfilled staff vacancies in FE colleges last year. Added to the dilemma is the uncertainty and delay in core funding approval. The financial year for FE colleges starts on 1 August. Colleges are incorporated bodies and bound by law to operate responsible financial planning and budgeting procedures, which must be approved by their governors.
As late as the end of June 2002, the 2002–03 core funding allocation for Eastleigh FE college had not been confirmed and, today, it is still unclear precisely what standards fund allocation it can expect to receive. There has been dialogue between the college and the local LSC since March on the provisional allocation that the college can expect to receive next year. It needs to know that to prepare its budget. To be fair, it was never guaranteed that the figures would be finalised before June, but we understand that the provisional allocations that have been discussed and agreed for Eastleigh may not be met in full. Any significant deviation in allocation will invalidate the budgeting process and could even leave the college open to a charge of mismanagement. It

115WH
cannot be right to expect FE colleges to fulfil their corporate responsibilities when financial planning data, which are essential to the process, are not available only five weeks before the start of their financial year.
Turning to curriculum changes, FE colleges have made a great success of the curriculum 2000 initiative and I am sure the Minister agrees that college staff have worked hard to deliver the model's broader curriculum. However, there are wide concerns that any backtracking from the model could be greatly detrimental to the 16 to 18-year-old students. Colleges are concerned that the new initiative might be abandoned or diluted, which will only further demoralise the hard-pressed staff who worked to make it a success.
There is a separate curriculum issue. Paragraph 23 on page 12 of the Government's discussion document "Success for All" is on meeting the skills need. It sets out the importance of recognising employers' needs, and I agree. Employers are stakeholders in the process, along with the taxpayer and the student, but the bodies charged with setting the national qualifications curriculum have been inflexible too often. They have failed to recognise changes in technology and skills, and changes in the marketplace involving employers' demands for new and different skills. That can be only to the detriment of student and employer alike. I would be grateful if the Minister were more specific, as "Success for All" refers to
"reforming the qualification system…exploring opportunities for opening up unit achievement, the feasibility of a credit based approach and the funding implications".
I do not see where the Government are going, and I would like that clarified.
Next, the lack of a single direction for both local and national LSCs. Most FE colleges are developing positive and constructive relationships with their local councils and there is high regard between them, but it remains unclear how much authority is exercised locally. Funding decisions in particular seem to be taken nationally, sometimes overturning previous local agreements. The one-size-fits-all approach in further education is clearly not working and the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education would surely agree that we need more local decisions on local funding issues.
There is general concern that the advent of LSCs has increased the scrutiny burden without increasing effectiveness, or adding any value to the student. Many are concerned at the lack of representation of people with FE knowledge on some local LSCs. The satisfaction rating of local LSCs is highest among colleges that feel that local learning and skills council staff understand the nature of further education.
A recent Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education survey found that two thirds of the colleges feel that there are clear tensions between local and national LSCs. As many as 90 per cent. feel that their LSCs have not reduced the burden of bureaucracy, and less than 3 per cent. think that they offer good value for money.
My final point is on student funding. There has been good news from the Chancellor, as education maintenance allowances are to be rolled out nationally. I welcome that, but why wait until 2004 and why set them at the reduced figure of £30 a week rather than the
116WH
more attractive £40? We need to put in place initiatives to make young people stay in education now, rather than abandon a further two years' potential intakes while we wait for the scheme to be rolled out. We certainly must end the postcode lottery of allowances at the edges of the pilot areas, as is the case in the Southampton borders of my constituency.
Other funding issues for FE students are not addressed by the EMAs, and we must tackle them if we are to end FE's status as poor relation to HE. Funding for the over-19s in the system is discretionary—it is not guaranteed for the duration of the course, and two years is the maximum. When will that change? Real-terms expenditure on FE student support has hardly increased in more than a decade. In real terms, adult FE student support has almost halved during the past decade, and is little more than £82 million a year. No wonder the Library confirms that nearly a quarter of FE students are considering dropping out because of financial pressures and that three quarters of those who suffer financial hardships are single parents—the very group that we want to have more skills so that they are more employable and leave the benefits system.
If we compare the plight of FE students with the position of HE students, we see how unfair the situation is. However invidious comparisons may be, the £1.8 billion available in HE student loans, together with access funds of £91 million last year alone, show just how big the disparity is, although the HE student population is only slightly larger in full-time equivalent terms than that in FE. To underline the extent of the yawning funding gap, I might add that average funding per student taking three A-levels is £3,530 a year in a sixth-form school, but only £2,520 a year in an FE college—a difference of almost 40 per cent.
The increased education funding announced in the comprehensive spending review is welcome, but, depressingly, it serves only to reinforce the disparity between further education and education in general. Education spending is set to increase by 6 per cent., but FE is allocated a mere 1 per cent. the same old sad and sorry story. I look forward to the Minister's response.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on securing a debate on this important issue. To a tremendous extent, we make common cause on the direction that further education should take.
I should confirm that the local community regards Eastleigh college as an excellent institution that does incredibly well, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who serves as a governor. It is important for Members of Parliament to experience the real world from time to time, and close contact with our schools and colleges is an important way of doing that.
The Government are clear about the need to reassert the status and value of further education, which must be central to the lifelong learning opportunities that we seek to create. For many, further education is the bridge to higher education; for others, it is the bridge to skilled employment. For many adult learners, it is also a way back into learning, and it plays an important role in delivering access to basic skill opportunities. It is

117WH
important, too, for work force development, and if we want our economy to be successful, competitive and productive, it is important that we ensure that colleges support employers and provide them with appropriately skilled and trained staff.
It is also important to put further education at the heart of the society that we seek to create—one that is fair and socially just as well as economically successful and prosperous. Further education has an impressive track record on encouraging and supporting access to learning among those who have been denied such opportunities. It gives them the chance to fulfil their potential, which may have been denied them because school was not a success or because they lived in communities with relatively low educational aspirations. Further education therefore plays an incredibly important role in the social justice agenda. It plays an equally important role in creating the strong and successful economy that we need by ensuring that employers have access to proper training that upskills their work forces.
Perhaps the only issue on which I differ from the hon. Gentleman is the Government's record on FE funding. It does not surprise me when Liberal Democrats ask for yet more money without referring to the taxation requirement or to the fact that all Governments have finite resources and must make difficult decisions about priorities. As politicians, we should not mislead any sector or the general public by suggesting that there is an infinite amount of money and that the Government do not need to make hard choices about their priorities.
Our investment record is quite good. By next year, total FE funding will have increased by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997 and funding for full-time equivalent students will have increased by 16 per cent. The teaching pay initiative is providing £110 million this year to reward high-quality teaching, which is £45 million more than last year. I believe that Eastleigh college will receive a 25 per cent. increase on last year's TPI allocation. During the four years before the general election—1993 to 1997—the previous Government cut FE unit funding by 12 per cent. in real terms, so we started from a very low base.
We have the opportunity to bring together an exciting and dynamic reform agenda with, for the first time, sustainable long-term investment. The sector is crying out for some sense of security about its status, value and worth in the world of education, as well as a strong sense of stability, viability and a long-term vision for institutions and area planning. The 1 per cent. real-terms core funding increase from the spending review settlement is good news for the FE sector. Along with the TPI, it will have implications for pay. It is too early to say what the outcome will be, but we will be in a much better position in the autumn to be clear about terms and conditions and plans for pay for people in the FE sector over the next three or four years.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the difficulties experienced by people in institutions who are expected to make decisions year by year when they are not sure what budget they will have at any time. That is one reason for us making it clear, as part of the spending review announcement, that we intend to move
118WH
towards three-year budgetary planning cycles. That will provide clarity for the local LSCs and for each college on what the three-year programme entails.
In referring to investment, it is worth dwelling on the role of education maintenance allowances. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants them to start earlier and to be more generous. I would expect a Liberal Democrat to say that, but we must manage finite resources. The education maintenance allowance is universally popular, other than among Conservative Members, who, interestingly, have no FE representative present. For the first time, we will have a universal mechanism to support young people who stay in education post-16.
A major challenge facing the education system is that far too many young people drop out. Some drop out at 16 simply because they have a negative experience in the education system, but, traditionally, many have dropped out because of lack of financial support to enable them to continue. Therefore, the introduction of education maintenance allowances is an important step forward. Evidence from the pilots shows that it leads directly to improved participation. Equally important is the fact that the allowances are linked to individual student performance and attendance. There is no automatic payment. Students must be studying and cooperating to receive an allowance, so it is a good incentive for young people to stay in education. It is important, however, that they not only stay in education, but attain as a consequence of participating beyond 16 and progress to either a modern apprenticeship or higher education.
Alongside the new commitment to investment, within the past two or three weeks we have published the document "Success for All", which sets out our vision for the future of further education and the reform that must accompany the investment. We are consulting widely on the document. The consultation will conclude at the end of September, when we will be clear about our investment and reform agendas for FE in the medium and long terms. Having consulted people in the sector and others, we shall make clear statements in the autumn.
There are several elements to FE reform. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, although the social inclusion role of FE colleges is vital, we should focus on achievement and attainment as well. It is okay to say that it is good to get into education people who have been denied such opportunities, but it is equally important that we support them and enable them to succeed, achieve and attain when we hook them back in. There are real issues on achievement and attainment rates as opposed to participation rates.
Part of the reform and investment deal is that improvement targets will be negotiated between local LSCs and FE colleges. That should result in not only a three-year clarity on funding, but clear expectations on the quality and level of provision and the improvements expected.
Mr. Chidgey: As part of that programme, will the Minister recognise the difficulties that colleges have in recruiting and retaining well-qualified and able lecturers, who are obviously essential to the process, given the salary disparity between lecturers and schoolteachers?
Mr. Lewis: We recognise that. I referred to the extra money that will be granted through the comprehensive spending review. Later this year, we shall announce what that means for investment in FE, including the implications for pay and conditions. We accept that recruitment and retention is a real issue, and there is a commitment to levelling the investment in FE and schools. However, there is no commitment to a time scale, so we must see what we can realistically achieve with the settlement we have been given.
We intend to create a situation involving minimum performance, such as applies to schools and LEAs, and we shall have floor targets for FE colleges. We must develop excellence in the approach to teaching and learning in further education, which we may not have focused on as clearly as we have in schools in recent years. As well as pay and conditions, we must be clear about our commitment to training and development for FE staff and ensure that the infrastructure is there to support that.
We must also ensure that what happens in FE colleges responds to the needs of local employers and the local labour market. The criticism is sometimes made that a disparity exists between what is happening in the classroom and the rapidly changing economic profile of an area or the skills shortages identified by business and employers. There must be a much closer synergy between the world of work and the world of education, and FE colleges are vital in that regard. There is a direct relationship.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of qualifications. The Government have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the LSC to work together to draw up plans to move towards a unitised qualification
120WH
framework and to set out advice on a credits-based framework. We accept the need for change, but we believe that change must be managed carefully over time so that it does not simply reverse reforms that have been introduced only recently.
We also accept the need for well-designed vocational qualifications. Although vocational experiences must be as stretching for a student as other learning experiences and although vocational qualifications must have a similarly high status as other qualifications, the learning experience for vocational qualifications must not be the same as for the academic route. Otherwise, the object is defeated. We must ensure that the design, content and assessment of qualifications are right for the student.
We have introduced centres of vocational excellence in many colleges. That programme will accelerate, which feeds into the view that many more colleges should develop a specialist role in their communities. That again must be closely tied to the needs of the local economy and the labour market. However, there must also be far more institutional collaboration area by area. There has been a culture of competition in education over the years, but we are asking providers to come together and take a far more collaborative approach so that the learner has access to the full range of opportunities, recognising that individual institutions are not in a position to provide everything.
The relationship with the LSC is very important, and we are committed to a significant reduction in bureaucracy. The Sweeney taskforce is due to report soon. The LSC is committed to a 25 per cent. reduction in bureaucracy and we shall deliver on that in the months ahead. I accept that there needs to be an emphasis on the skills mix in local LSCs.

Working Time Directive
1 pm
Jim Sheridan: I begin by expressing my delight at securing this important debate, which touches every aspect of people's lives. The Labour Government should be congratulated on implementing the working time directive. Many of us will remember the previous, Conservative Government fighting tooth and nail against it, denying British workers the same rights and protection as those afforded to our colleagues throughout the rest of Europe.
However, having said that, I must add that a recent report by the TUC showed that there are still more people in Britain working for more than 48 hours a week than there were in 1992. Those figures show that 4 million people, representing 16 per cent. of the total UK work force, work for more than the 48-hour maximum. There can be little doubt that working excessive hours can lead to ill health, stress and strains on family relationships.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Confederation of British Industry still maintains that workers should have the right to exercise discretion in relation to their working hours. Although that so-called opt-out sounds fine, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that employees are being pressurised into signing the opt-out clause or risk the possibility of losing their jobs. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the UK is the only European country that has implemented an opt-out clause, and other member states restrict the hours of work even further.
Another area of concern to me is the ambiguity surrounding regulation 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, which deals with the employee's right to paid holidays. Again, there is anecdotal evidence of bad practice by unscrupulous employers, who simply tell employees that part of their hourly rate should be used as holiday pay.
David Hamilton: May I make some observations? The working time directive should not prevent flexible working arrangements from being drawn up in various industries. The industry that comes to mind is that of mining, which has used flexible working for many years. There are few pits left now and it is common practice, because of the sheer distance that the coal has to be moved, for the men to work longer hours but fewer days over the week. Therefore, flexible working arrangements
Mr. James Cran (in the Chair): Order. This is a short debate and interventions should be very short and crisp.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In principle, flexible hours should be just that. However, my point is that there are occasions when employees are pressurised into working excessive hours. I am sure that that is the experience of my hon. Friend in his distinguished career in the mining industry.
Anne Picking: On flexible hours, is my hon. Friend aware of the problem in the health service, where nurses work excessive hours. The trusts and private nursing homes get round the problem by
122WH
ensuring that the nurses do their stint as full-time employees of the trusts and the boards and then do flexi-bank working on top of that. Those nurses can sometimes end up working an enormous number of shifts, creating unsafe situations.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She has had a distinguished career in the health service. While agency workers in the health service are welcome, there is a problem in terms of how many hours they work, who monitors that, and who is accountable for it.
I return to regulation 16, and the matter of unscrupulous employers and holiday pay. I referred to the experience of my constituent, Mr. Jim Hart, of Erskine and the type of sharp practice that undermines the spirit and intent of the directive. I would ask the Minister to consider strengthening regulation 16. I am certain that there is much more anecdotal evidence about people who have been denied appropriate holiday pay entitlement. It is unfortunate that there are still employers who do not make provision for people's holiday pay.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this excellent debate. Is he aware of a recent court ruling to the effect that a worker with long-term sickness who, because an unscrupulous employer will not pay him off, is still on the payroll but not receiving pay, is entitled to statutory holiday of—I believe—20 days a year? That has to be paid, even though he is not receiving a wage.
Jim Sheridan: I was unaware of that ruling, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. The Minister may also be aware of recent reports of the Spanish Government's having taken legal action over the implementation of the working time directive, with specific regard to the inclusion of owner-drivers.
Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous to differentiate between owner-drivers and employee drivers? Surely a driver is a driver, regardless of his or her status, which is entirely irrelevant to the driving. What should be paramount is the safety of the public and of the drivers.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. My understanding is that owner-drivers are exempt until 2009. It is nonsensical for drivers, whether they are self-employed, owner-drivers or employed to be exempt from the regulations. If someone is driving a 20-tonne or 40-tonne lorry and it is involved in a serious accident on a motorway owing to stress or to people falling asleep at the wheel, the last question that we should be concerned about is whether he or she is an owner-driver, self-employed or employed. To leave that kind of risk until 2009 endangers a large number of people.
What concerns me and those who have supported me are reports that some member states, including this country, are sympathetic to the position of the Spanish Government. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the matter.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Obviously, the working time directive is vital to the protection of our

123WH
workers. Does my hon. Friend believe that the application of the directive should be examined closely and, where breaches are taking place, the legislation should be strengthened in order to provide further protection for those who are being mistreated?
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Legislation is fine, but it is making employers accountable for their actions that is important. If necessary, I would be in favour of stiffer penalties for those employers who knowingly disregard or misrepresent the regulations.
Mr. Connarty: I wonder whether there might be something more fundamental in the Government's approach to the working time directive. For example, road hauliers, whether they are owners or work for a firm, are concerned that the cabotage rules now being used in countries outwith the EU allow drivers from non-EU countries to drive much longer hours than the EU directives would allow, which lets let them pick up loads in the UK and thus undercut firms in this country. The Government have given too much weight to the economic impact instead of health and safety. Although they have allowed owner-drivers to compete, in a sense they are inviting people in the UK to break the rules so that they can compete with drivers from non-EU countries.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend raises an important point. At the end of the day, if there is a major road accident, the last question that those concerned will ask is what nationality the driver is and what regulations he is working under. Again, I congratulate the Government on bringing in the working time directive, but it is irrelevant if we are going to allow foreign drivers who are subject to no legislation a free rein on our roads. We should be looking at legislation that covers the country not only the driver.
I began the debate by listing the genuine benefits of the working time directive for British workers. However, some workers are still exempt, and I hope that the Government will consider expediting legislation to include them.
Mr. Michael Weir: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that offshore oil workers are presently exempt, at the Government's insistence, and that they are not due to be included until 2003? I feel that they should be brought in more quickly, along with drivers and the other groups of workers that he has mentioned.
Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not differentiate between workers; this should apply equally to the lorry driver, the oil rig worker and the agency nurse. I have never been on an oil rig, but I am told that they are extremely dangerous places to work. Accidents are caused by stress or lack of sleep—or lack of regulation—and that impacts on us all. If people's lives are being put in danger, something should be done. The Government should ensure that something is done by legislating sooner rather than later.
David Hamilton: Following on from that, trade union recognition is a key element in how best to protect the
124WH
interests of the workers. If we had trade union recognition, it would go a long way to dealing with many of the anomalies on oil rigs—and it would also apply to the protection of holiday and sick pay and so on.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remind the House that the trade union movement was primarily active in making the legislation, and it had a pivotal role in promoting it. When there is trade union recognition, the working time directive is implemented, monitored and taken into account. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) may recall the tremendous resistance of the oil industry to recognising trade unions. The fact that the number of accidents in the oil industry has decreased, particularly in the North sea, is a direct result of trade union recognition. The recognition of health and safety matters in the oil industry was brought about by the introduction of the working time directive.
As I said earlier, there are genuine benefits from the working time directive for Britain's workers. However, we must never forget that should the unthinkable happen and a Conservative Government are returned—unfortunately, no Conservative Members are present at the moment—there is no doubt that they would take us back to the dark days of deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s, when Britain's workers had no protection. There is no doubt that they would be supported by that most pessimistic of organisations, the CBI, which has fought tooth and nail against any regulations for workers, whether the minimum wage, the working time directive, trade union recognition or whatever. It is happy to let market forces determine conditions. We should welcome the working time directive. It needs improvement, and I hope that the Government will make the improvements for which we have asked.
1.15 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. Working time, along with pay, is central to employment relationships. It is a crucial issue, and this is a timely opportunity to debate it.
How working time is organised and utilised is key to maximising how productive workers are and determining the time that they have available to follow their own aspirations outside the workplace. The Government have always been committed to the working time directive. It is right that all workers should expect certain minimum standards in their terms and conditions of employment. Similarly, business should be able to market its products effectively without fear of being undercut by unethical competitors.
Let me briefly review the history of the issue. Working time measures are nothing new in UK law. Statutory limits on working time were first established by the Factories Acts of the 19th century, which restricted the daily and weekly working hours of women and young workers in industrial employment. The limits—12, and later 10, hours a day for a six-day week for women, and six and a half hours for children under 13—seem high now, but they were fiercely opposed at the time by those who felt that the light work undertaken in, say, cotton mills could easily be done for 15 or 16 hours a day.

125WH
Before the end of the 19th century, proposals for general legislation to establish an eight-hour basic working day were rejected in favour of regulating working time through collective bargaining, supplemented by partial statutory regulation for particular sectors. In the 1920s and 1930s, further legislation prevented the employment of children under school leaving age, set a basic nine-hour day and 48-hour week for women and young workers and established minimum holiday rights. The legal framework was consolidated in the Factories Act 1961.
In 1918 the wages councils, which were introduced by Churchill in 1909 for sectors in which collective bargaining had not become well established, were given powers to regulate working hours. The Holidays with Pay Act 1938 gave wages councils the power to make provision for annual paid leave of up to one week. In 1945 they were empowered to regulate all aspects of wages, hours and holidays. It is important to remember that there has always been a need to regulate working hours, particularly for people who are vulnerable in the workplace.
As we seem to have a trade union meeting taking place here I think that most of us here have been through the same mill—may I take my colleagues back to the time when they wore flares and tank tops? They will remember that in the 1970s the British trade union movement opposed the establishment of minimum standards, apart from what the wages councils did, and the protections in the Factories Acts. We did not take the route that other European Union countries did, because the mantra of the 1970s was free collective bargaining, no interference by the state and civil rights at work coming with the union card. I was no different from anyone else.
After that, in the 1980s and most of the 1990s, there was absolutely no chance of any intervention on working time issues by the then Government. When the Labour party was last in government we had not introduced the full protection that existed in other European Union countries, and in the 1980s and 1990s even the minimal protection that I have just described was removed completely. By the time we came into office in 1997, there was no working time protection whatever in this country.
The working time directive as we know it was proposed by the European Commission in July 1990. The previous Government opposed it, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said, on the basis that it was not justifiable on health and safety grounds. They got confused over whether the directive was really about the social chapter, but in fact it was always about health and safety. I am thankful to say that the European Court's view was that that opposition was unfounded. That Government lost their case hands down in Strasbourg, and the directive was finally adopted by the European Union on 23 November 1993. In this country, British workers had to wait until an incoming Labour Government implemented the directive through the Working Time Regulations 1998.
126WH
Workers now have a right to protection from being forced to work more than 48 hours a week on average. They also have a right to protections for night work, a minimum entitlement to four weeks' paid annual leave, and entitlements to daily, weekly and in-work rest. There are additional protections for adolescent workers. At the beginning of the 21st century, workers also achieved the right to a day off a week. Amazingly, 8,000 workers took advantage of that, because they had previously been working a seven-day week by compulsion.
We as a Government believe that those rights and entitlements are wholly appropriate and were long overdue. The regulations were amended in 1999, but the amendments represented a small refinement and did not weaken any of the original protections for workers. An additional amendment last year made the entitlement to paid annual leave available to all workers from their first day of service.
It is important that workers should not feel dissuaded from asserting the rights and entitlements that the regulations offer them. I noted the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire made about his constituent, Mr. Hart. There is every indication that the enforcement measures that we have in place have been successful in achieving that goal. The particular scam practised on that constituent was clearly in breach of the regulations. Of course we have to give people the confidence to know what those regulations are, especially when they are not represented by a trade union.
There is every indication that enforcement is being successfully achieved. Last year we ran a big national television advertising campaign to tell people that they had an entitlement to four weeks' paid holiday, and to promote the use of that. That put the message across effectively, and we followed it up with some user-friendly guidance, produced in consultation with representatives from both sides of industry. That generated a very positive response.
The Working Time Regulations 1998 will continue to evolve during the coming years to incorporate both our domestic requirements and European obligations. A point about the offshore oil industry was made in an intervention, and I can tell hon. Members that this country argued for that industry to be included. I personally argued that case in Europe. Workers in that industry will, as I think the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said in his intervention, be covered from 1 August 2003. That is in line with the requirement in the directive that we successfully secured to extend protections.
Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for his reassurance, but my understanding is that offshore oil workers will still be exempted from the provisions on daily rest, respite, weekly rest and the night work limit, provided that compensatory rest is given. Is that altogether wise? They could still be under pressure offshore to work longer than may be safe.
Alan Johnson: I do not think so. There were problems in the fishing industry and with transport workers, which I will come on to in a second. There were various problems with specific sectors. Hon. Members will

127WH
understand that trawlermen out on a fishing expedition can hardly exercise such rights. The same arguments were made for the oil industry, but we fought very hard to get a consensus that the European Union could sign up to. By 2003 the regulations must cover sectors such as offshore and road transport industries, which are currently excluded.
More immediately, this year we will introduce stricter working time and night work controls for adolescents. I support the view that the long-hours culture must be tackled. Some research was published earlier this week from Japan showing that men—for some reason it concentrated on men—who worked for more than 60 hours a week were twice as likely to have a heart attack as men who worked more than 40 hours a week. Perhaps we should take that lesson into account in this place next time we talk to the Whips. We must change the inherent overtime culture, which has not developed because employers have been bad—although in some instances they undoubtedly have—but because overtime has simply permeated certain industries. I speak as an ex-postman who grew up in a culture of overtime. We had a low basic wage, and every time the unions tried to cut hours and overtime, members would argue against it. I think that many hon. Members here have been through the same mill.
We cannot pretend that addressing the issue through a regulation, or stricture, that states that a person cannot work more than 48 hours will solve every problem. Research that we have recently commissioned clearly shows that in large industry sectors workers want to work long hours; they tell us so. We must change that, and stop using "part-time worker" as a term of abuse—someone is seen reading the newspaper and will be asked, "What are you, a part-timer?"
Such a culture is more of a problem in this country than in other European countries because of the way in which things have been tackled since the war. That problem must be addressed. We are especially aware that women will never receive the practical benefits of equal opportunities legislation if they are obliged to work hours that do not fit with their domestic circumstances. We seek to change that culture. The European Commission is due to review the voluntary working time opt-out by November 2003. Any proposed changes to the directive as a result of the review will require a specific proposal from the Commission.
128WH
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire talked about ambiguity in the regulations on the entitlement to paid annual leave, which I have addressed. There is no legal guarantee of certainty in the UK's interpretation of a directive, and I think that the scam that he referred to is outside the regulations. To best serve the interests of workers and employers, we must ensure that there is no ambiguity in the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire referred to the Spanish Government's legal action relating to the separate road transport sector directive, which is required to be implemented in the UK by 2005. The directive temporarily excludes the self-employed, and is subject to review before 2007. Depending on the outcome of the review, the scope of the directive may be extended to include the self-employed by 2009. It is difficult to comment on the issue without details of the action being taken by the Spanish Government. However, unlike Spain, we voted in favour of the directive covering the self-employed. We are not surprised that Spain might be mounting a legal challenge in connection with the approach that it adopted during debates in Europe.
The working time regulations do not, of course, extend to the genuinely self-employed, but they do apply to workers rather than employees, and therefore to the vast majority of the work force. A review of the distinction between an employee and a worker was launched last week.
We want to tackle the long-hours culture in this country. Curiously, the biggest problem now involves not the kind of workers who have been referred to in today's debate, but middle-ranking managers. Trade unions have certainly done their job in reducing contracted hours, but there are still problems to address. I welcome the debate. Its importance is indicated by the fact that hon. Members from so many constituencies are present, such as my hon. Friends the Members for West Renfrewshire, for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), for Midlothian (David Hamilton), for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and for East Lothian (Anne Picking), and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). There is obviously a concern about the issue, and it is one that we want to address, but perhaps we vary slightly about how we should do that.

Green Belt (Cambridge)
1.29 pm
Mr. James Paice: I am delighted to have this short opportunity to raise an issue of huge importance to my constituents, which is causing them great worry. I am delighted to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who shares with me the periphery of Cambridge city, and therefore the green belt that surrounds it. If there is an opportunity for him to catch your eye, Mr. Cran, I am more than content for that to be the case—although we are both interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
What is the green belt? The phrase is often used, and it is clear from many previous debates that hon. Members from all parties have confused the green belt with green fields. Green fields are an essential part of the green belt, but not all green fields are in the green belt. I am specifically talking about the green belt, which is a designated area. In this case, we are considering the one around Cambridge, which was one of the first designated green belts.
I shall quote from planning policy guidance note land before the Minister chides me, I acknowledge that I know that that dates back to the previous Government. It says:
"The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness."
It then lists five purposes of including land in the green belt:
"to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns"—
obviously that applies particularly to Cambridge—
"and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land."
I would add another factor that is widely recognised. The green belt also protects city centres from becoming derelict as the sprawl spreads forever outwards.
If a green belt is to achieve all that, its integrity has to be largely sacrosanct. We hear a great deal from the Government about increasing the size of the green belt, but in this instance—if I can be forgiven for making this remark—size does not matter. It is not the size of the green belt that matters, but its location. If the inside of a green belt is constantly nibbled away at to allow more housing, but the outside is spread, one can brag about increasing the size of the green belt by so many per cent. or thousands of acres or whatever it may be. However, that protects nothing. The sprawl and the absorption of towns and villages into the city are not stopped, and none of the objectives laid out in PPG2 is achieved. I would contend that any concept of development on green belt land has to be the extreme last resort. Otherwise we might as well pack up, go home and forget the whole idea of green belts.
If we consider the regional planning guidance for east Anglia as it applies to Cambridgeshire, which was published by the Government 18 months ago, we see
130WH
that they decided that some 4,000 houses per annum should be built in the county during the period of the structure plan to 2016. That is a rate roughly twice that put forward by the county council and other local authorities to the regional planning guidance review. Nevertheless, the Government made their decision. Of that 4,000, 2,800 per annum were to be built in the Cambridge sub-region.
The guidance under policy 2, "Meeting development needs", lists the
"effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure…sites within built up areas…development on previously developed sites…and development on previously undeveloped sites."
Policy 4 goes on to identify the location of housing in the cities, in other towns, in towns with good transport and
"exceptionally, and on a small scale, in villages",
but all that is qualified by the phrase:
"Apart from in the Cambridge sub-region".
In other words, all the grand ideas have to be put to one side for the Cambridge sub-region.
The RPG continues:
"Planning policies in the past have sought to restrain development with the objective of protecting Cambridge's historic character and to disperse both housing and employment development. While research and technology based firms have been resistant to locating far from Cambridge, housing development close to Cambridge has been constrained."
It then lists several effects of such policies and states:
"The approach adopted should take account of the strong likelihood of continued employment and population growth after 2016."
I shall return to that point in a moment.
Paragraph 5.14 states:
"A sequential approach to the identification of sites is proposed starting with Cambridge's built up area"—
this is the critical point—
"and followed by urban extensions subject to a Green Belt review, a new settlement and development in market towns, larger villages and existing new settlements."
In publishing the RPG, the Government cast aside all the policies that apply everywhere else in the country, where building on the green belt is the last resort policies followed by successive Governments—and changed building on the green belt from the last resort to the second priority—second only to building in Cambridge's built-up area. That is a matter of huge concern to local people.
Policy 24 refers to the need for a green belt review and says that it
"should be carried out and any proposals for changes to its boundaries included in development plans."
As a result of the RPG, the county council set out on its own consultation as to how to meet the housing obligations imposed on it by the Government. It concluded that the housing distribution for Cambridge city would be 6,500 houses in the built-up part and 6,000 on the edge, subject to review of the green belt boundary. That is a very large number of houses.
For those who are not aware of the fact, I should explain that the area of South Cambridgeshire district council—as opposed to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, which is different —totally surrounds Cambridge city. That area

131WH
is to receive 20,000 new houses, as opposed to 12,500 in the city. Of that 20,000, 6,000 will be in a new settlement, 5,500 will be in market towns and rural centres, 4,100 elsewhere in the sub-region, and 2,400—another indicative figure—will be within the built-up area of Cambridge. Over the years, some of what is actually in the district of South Cambridgeshire has come to be considered part of Cambridge city.
The county says that a
"Green Belt will be maintained around Cambridge"—
everyone would say, "Thank goodness for that"—and that
"Local plans will identify the boundaries of land to be released from the Green Belt to serve the long-term development needs of Cambridge".
That is the nub of the issue. It is a concern of local people and is exacerbated by policy P9/3c, which refers to the location and phasing of development land to be released from the green belt:
"The following locations should be considered for the early commencement of development: North of Newmarket Road North of Cherry Hinton Cambridge Airport (subject to availability",
and two areas in my hon. Friend's constituency: near Addenbrooke's hospital, and Clay farm and Trumpington.
The policy goes on to state:
"Other locations should be reserved for development when required as follows… Between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road",
which is in my hon. Friend's constituency,
"Between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road",
which we share. It also says:
"Land east of Cambridge Airport is to be safeguarded for development after 2016".
That is the area that is of most concern to me.
The document goes on to refer to preparing a master plan for the eastern sector as a whole,
"including land to the north of Newmarket Road, the north of Cherry Hinton, Cambridge Airport and land to its east."
The land to the east of Cambridge airport is agricultural. For the purposes of today's debate we can ignore its value in terms of the current industrial viability of agriculture. There are two villages, Teversham and Fulbourn, and further north the village of Fen Ditton, all of which are separated from Cambridge city by a very short distance. A single field is the green barrier between Teversham and what most people think of as Cambridge.
The eastern side of Cambridge is under a huge threat from the Liberal-controlled city council, which has clearly set out its stall to invade south-east Cambridgeshire with thousands of houses. It has produced a study of housing capacity that suggests 2,500 homes on the North Works, which is not highly controversial; 6,500 homes on the airport, which is certainly controversial; 2,000 homes in Teversham; 2,500 homes in north Fulbourn; and 750 homes in Fulbourn. Those are swingeing increases to relatively small villages.
132WH
More interestingly, because Cambridge airport is a highly commercial, viable business operation, it will be impossible for it to move, although its owners have said that they are prepared to move, for most of the planned period. A development of 6,500 homes on the airport cannot begin until the last two or three years of the structure plan period. In other words, to meet the targets that are being put forward, building in places such as Teversham, Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton will have to start very quickly. In a debate about a year ago, the now Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who was the Minister's predecessor in his present job, said:
"Allowing the potential for reviews of greenbelt boundaries does not in any way diminish our commitment to the principle and actuality of the current scale of greenbelt land."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 82WH.]
I strongly disagree, because once one starts making significant changes to greenbelt boundaries one has seriously impinged on their principal purpose.
The threats to my constituency are clear. They come both from the Liberal-controlled city council, which is determined to build all over land to the east of Cambridge city, and from the policies applied solely to Cambridge and Cambridgeshire by the present Government. Local Labour party members have now decided to oppose the eastward expansion of Cambridge city, but they have only the Government's regional planning guidance to blame.
I want to conclude by trying to be constructive. The numbers proposed for building on the North Works, which is part of the Marshall's airport infrastructure, are largely non-controversial. There is an element of green belt, but in general, that is not controversial. There is land on the northern fringe of Cambridge in my constituency that has already been removed from the green belt. I accept that, having been removed, it has to be built on. There is also a large swathe of land, some of which is in Cambridge city and some in South Cambridgeshire, on the southern side of the A14 Cambridge bypass, such as the largely redundant railway sidings at Chesterton, the sewage works and what was known as the machinery sale ground. Those are vast areas capable of taking many thousands of houses.
There are problems with land assembly when different owners are involved, but that should not be allowed to prevent its development from being given priority. There is outstanding land, but we have inexplicably been told that because land was allocated in the previous plan, it cannot be reallocated in the current plan, despite the fact that it has not been built on. That is absurd. We have been through the previous plan and have managed to survive, one way or another, without houses on the land allocated in that plan. We are planning not for the past, but for the future. I hope that the Government will allow any land that has been scheduled for development but has not yet been developed to be counted as part of the land that can fulfil future need for housing—those 2,800 extra houses a year to which I referred earlier.
I suspect that few people want the airport to be developed, but I believe that most would reluctantly accept that one day that will probably happen. It is one of the least worse options for development. However, that could happen only at the very end of the current structure plan period, so would make little or no

133WH
contribution to satisfying housing need at that time. It would also require a review of the green belt, so I do not stand four-square against any review of the green belt.
However, that is where I part company with the draft structure plan. There should be no review of the green belt east of the airfield. I want to say loudly and clearly on behalf of my constituents that a line in the sand must be drawn on Airport way—the road that runs alongside Cambridge airport. If we can protect Fulbourn and Teversham—only a field protects them—that line in the sand must be drawn and adhered to. That part of the draft structure plan must be rejected. The only reason for that proposal in the plan is the Government's decision to make building on the green belt the second priority to building within the city, in contrast with its policies for the remainder of the country.
Today is not the time to address wider issues concerning the location of the new settlement, nor my belief that many smaller villages that have been excluded from the plan could have been allowed some growth—10 per cent., for example—over the period of the plan. That would have been absorbable and might have allowed some village facilities such as pubs or post offices to keep going. However, not a brick should be laid on the green belt until every piece of brownfield land in Cambridge has not only been allocated but has had houses built on it. It is no use having land effectively frozen out of the system because a developer or owner will not build on it, and then forcing people to accept houses on green fields.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the overall pressures on Cambridge. It is a huge privilege for me, and for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, to represent an area as dynamic as the Cambridge sub-region. It is at the heart of so much of Britain's present and future enterprise, particularly biotechnology—but that brings infrastructure and development problems. Cambridge is a magnet, and there is a danger that it could destroy its own attraction. Many parts of the country would welcome a fraction of the development being attracted to Cambridge and the enterprises that spawn it. Successive Governments have tried financial measures to attract investment elsewhere, but that has been largely unsuccessful.
I shall finish with a suggestion. The principal magnet is Cambridge university, so the Government could encourage the university to develop satellite activities elsewhere in the United Kingdom and shift the magnet, or—to mix my metaphors—create an outer ring of satellite magnets. We know that the Minister for Science has close contacts with Cambridge university and I urge him and the Government to work with the university to try to find new ways of attracting some development away from Cambridge. I fear that if we do not do so, this debate will be repeated until Cambridgeshire is concreted over. None of us wants that.
1.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the timeliness of the debate, and on how he expressed his views. I would not depart from a word of what he said. I share completely
134WH
the view that, by setting out a sequence in RPG6, the Government initiated a search for sites to develop in the green belt that went far beyond the purposes of the green belt. In Cambridge, green belts were primarily intended to preserve the special character of the city and its setting, and to prevent coalescence of settlements.
My hon. Friend and I could talk at length on this subject. He set out the position on Fulbourn and Teversham, and I could do the same in relation to Stapleford, the Shelfords and other villages. However, I want to ensure that the Minister refers not only to the RPG, but specifically to its policy 24 on the greenbelt review. I want him to make it clear that the purposes of the green belt include the special character of Cambridge city, and that the urban extensions and the amount of building proposed in the structure plan that followed the RPG—anything up to 16,000 homes in the green belt—is utterly inconsistent with the maintenance of the special character of Cambridge city.
On that basis, there is everything to be said for the Minister taking the opportunity to set out the Government's commitment to the purposes of the green belt, and especially to policy 24 in the RPG, before the structure plan inquiry in the autumn.
1.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on securing the debate, and I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The green belt is an essential issue and planning tool, for all the reasons given by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, especially in areas as successful as Cambridge. The matter is clearly of concern to both of them.
I am slightly troubled as to why the hon. Gentleman did not afford himself the opportunity to comment on the structure plan at the draft stage. That means that he cannot attend the examination in public of the issues on the draft. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will attend in relation to new settlements, but I exhort the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to put a note in before 30 July so that he, too, can have a word about green belts.
Mr. Lansley: The Minister will know that I made comments on the green belt, and that they were exactly the same as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Therefore I wanted to be invited to the green belt discussion, and wrote to the county council asking to be invited.
Mr. McNulty: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had done that, so my exhortation was unnecessary. I knew that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was to attend in relation to new settlements, but clearly the examination in public is the next step in the process.
I take on board much of what both hon. Gentlemen said. The panel that considered the RPG for the plan in 1994 was concerned about the effect of the green belt on sustainable development patterns, and recommended that a review of the green belt should be initiated as a matter of urgency. From the outset, the essence of PPG2

135WH
has remained the same. I had all the relevant points nicely set out in my speech, but I shall not bother with them, given that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire cited them all. The structure plan and the RPG need to refer back to PPG2. The green belt is vital, not least in this case.
I half accept what the hon. Gentleman said about size not being everything. The green belt has increased since 1997 by about 30,000 hectares. In many cases, that has served to consolidate what is already there. We start from PPG2. It is not for me, a humble graduate of the university of Liverpool, to tell the university of Cambridge what to do in terms of satellites, magnets or anything else, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will pass on the hon. Gentleman's exhortations for the university to branch out further than the city itself.
The tension in a growing urban area, the maintenance of the urban fringe, sustainability, taking on growth and the consolidation of green belt are all part of the review process. Such reviews as are carried out deal in the main with that tension. I do not agree that any review is 100 per cent. bound to be detrimental to the green belt. A review may lead to some adjustment to its boundaries and even some additions—that possibility is not precluded during the process of the examination in public—and will consolidate the green belt around Cambridge for the immediate future and beyond.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right about the sustainable pattern of development. RPG6 sets out a sequential approach to meet Cambridge's development plan, in which the first preference is for development in the built-up area of Cambridge and the second preference for development on the periphery, subject to a review of the green belt. I would not understand that sequential hierarchy so negatively; the urban fringe and the interface between the urban fringe and the green belt and the built-up area are naturally the areas for development.
We need a review so that any infringement beyond the fringe is as little detrimental as possible to the green belt around Cambridge. That is a necessary exercise, and does not question the notion of a green belt for Cambridge. It requires that the review of the green belt should start from a vision of the city and the qualities that need safeguarding and consider how far green belt purposes are being fulfilled. When land meets the purposes of the green belt, including the proposals for use of land consistent with PPG2, it should remain in that context. The review will consider the suitability of sites for development when they could be released without significant detriment to green belt purposes. That is a crucial factor. The aim is not to encroach on to the green belt simply because of Cambridge's glorious success; any encroachment will occur in the least detrimental way, or without significant detriment.
136WH
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will not expect me to cover in detail the locations mentioned in P9/3c, or whatever the specific reference was. That is the purpose of the examination in public.
Mr. Paice: I know that the Minister is short of time, but I want to pick him up on the business of the examination in public. He chided me for not having objected to the draft structure plan. Does that mean that he is saying that remarks made in the House are less significant than those made during the examination in public? Most members of the public would be horrified to think that contributions made by their representatives in Parliament were less significant than something that takes place in a shire hall. I hope that what I have said will be taken into consideration by the inquiry.
Mr. McNulty: I do not doubt that it will. If I chided the hon. Gentleman, I did so gently—no more than that. The EIP is the process through which the issues raised on the draft structure plan are to be discussed in detail. I am sure that those involved in the EIP will see the record of this debate, but it is disingenuous to suggest that anything that an hon. Member says in this Chamber is, all of a sudden, way above any public policy position already established. That thought was at the core of what the hon. Gentleman said.
I am sure that he and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will influence the course of debate at the EIP in whatever way they can, without necessarily being present at it. Given what they have said in today's debate, I do not doubt that they are both serious in their commitment to the green belt and to the development enhancement of south Cambridgeshire and the city of Cambridge.
By definition, a review of the green belt is controversial. However, if it is done in the context of a plans-led review, if an umbilical cord connects it to PPG2 and if it takes into account the statements with which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire began his speech, with which I entirely agreed, I believe that the outcome of the EIP will be beneficial to Cambridgeshire overall. I cannot prejudge that process, of course, but we hope that it will amount to a proper detailed review of the area. I endorse everything that both hon. Gentlemen said about the green belt around Cambridgeshire, except for the bits about specific sites, which I could not comment on even if I wanted to.
I shall write to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about what happens when land already designated has not been built on, because I was not clear about that point on myself, and it is an important issue. If any other issues arise when I read the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard, I shall happily get back to him on them. The issue is important, and I congratulate both hon. Gentlemen on raising it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the life of HMS Fearless.
  [69856]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to extend the life of HMS Fearless.

  Training Costs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding the UK will provide for the staff training course beginning in April 2003 at Liptovsky Mikulas Military Academy in Slovakia; how long the training will last; and if he will make a statement. [70055]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Junior Staff Officers' Course (JSOC) (Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)) project is a joint initiative between the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, together with the Slovak Republic as the host nation. Its purpose is to set up a Regional Training Centre in Central and Eastern Europe similar to the UK initiatives at Vyskov in Czech Republic and Bucharest in Romania. The division of costs, less personnel related funding, is UK 75 per cent. and The Netherlands 25 per cent. The Netherlands will provide and fund 25 per cent. of the personnel. The Slovak Republic will provide the infrastructure, food and accommodation and some locally employed staff.

  The aim of the JSOC is to provide command and staff training in English, based upon British/NATO Defence Doctrine, for Senior Lieutenants, Captains and Majors from the Partnership for Peace partners. This will enable them to participate effectively within a multinational environment in training, exercises, military operations and `operations other than war' (OOTW) operations. OOTW includes Peace Support, Humanitarian and Natural Disaster operations.

  It is intended to run three courses per annum, each for up to 60 students, of approximately 12 weeks' duration. It is intended to begin the first course in late April or early May 2003.

  The JSOC project is an initiative within the Outreach Programme, part of the Defence Diplomacy Mission. This programme of bilateral and multilateral defence co-operation in CEE contributes to international stability by assisting countries in the region to establish democratically accountable, cost effective armed formes capable of contributing both to national and regional security and, increasingly, to international security through participation in peach support operations.

  The UK funding for this project will come from the Global Conflict Prevention Fund (GCPF)(GEE Strategy). The estimated cost to the UK in the Financial Year
  276W
  2002–2003, including personnel, is £1.2 million as setting up costs. Running costs in subsequent years are estimated to be f1.3-£1.4 million.

  Flying Training
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the scope of the Hunting Aviation contract to provide aircraft and crews for routine training. [69995]

  Mr. Ingram
  Hunting Contract Services is now part of the Babcock group. We currently have two contracts with Babcock HCS in support of non-operational flying training. One contract covers support services at RAF Cranwell, including engineering support of Jetstream and Dominie aircraft, which are used for Multi-Engine Flying training and for Navigator/rearcrew training. This contract ends on 30 March 2004. A competition will be held for a replacement contract and the scope of the contract will be increased to include the provision of aircraft.

  The other current contract provides aircraft and the majority of the instructors for the Joint Elementary Flying Training School's tasks. This contract ends on 7 July 2003 and following a competition Babcock HCS have been awarded the follow on contract.

  For the longer term the future delivery of flying training is being considered by the United Kingdom Military Flying Training System project.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects HMS Nottingham to be out of service, and if he will make a statement. [70058]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 26W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the damage to HMS Nottingham from collision with a rock off Australia. [69409]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]The damage to Nottingham is severe. There has been extensive structural damage and flooding in the forward part of the ship. This has been controlled. She is in a safe, stable condition and is at anchor. Specialist teams are on board and they are continuing with their assessments. A further, more comprehensive survey of her structure and equipment will be necessary to determine the full extent of the damage.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on members of the armed forces using mobile telephones for personal purposes on deployments and operations. [69524]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]The use of personal mobile phones by members of the armed forces during deployments and operations is at the discretion of the local Commander.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what showering and washing facilities are in place for
  277W
  British armed forces personnel serving in Afghanistan; when these facilities were installed; and whether hot water was available. [69521]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]There have been showering and washing facilities with hot water in place for both the International Security Assistance Force and Task Force JACANA personnel since early in their deployments.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what latrine facilities are in place for British armed forces personnel serving in Afghanistan. [69522]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]There are deep trench latrines in place for troops in Afghanistan; this is in line with normal procedure for expeditionary operations. However, 20 toilet combination units containing showers and WCs are currently being put in place for those United Kingdom ISAF elements that will be in Kabul until the early winter months.

  Weapons Regulations
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the content was of the applicable regulation in force concerning the qualifying age for a private in the army to carry a weapon when engaged on general security duties in each year since 1994; and how(a) general security duties, (b) weapon, (c) engaged and (d) carrying are defined for the purposes of such regulation. [69286]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: I am withholding information on the detail of the regulations in force since 1994 in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In general terms, however, the regulations outline the eligibility of Army personnel for armed security duties, covering principally the training standards to be met, but also stipulating the minimum age requirement, namely having reached the age of 17 years.

  The following definitions apply:

  (a) general security duties

  Security duty on the Defence Estate including access/egress control, issue of passes, vehicle searching, patrolling and Quick Reaction Force duties.

  (b)weapon

  Generally regarded as a service issue rifle, pistol or baton.

  (c)engaged

  Carrying out a task

  (d)carrying

  The way in which a weapon is held, which will depend on the nature of duties and weapon.

  Armed Forces (Review)
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a review of armed forces personnel processes. [71291]

  Mr. Ingram
  A review of armed forces personnel processes is to be carried out this year. Preliminary work (Phase 1) has defined the scope of the study and identified the processes concerned. The aim of the review os to ensure that the outcome of the processes (providing the armed forces with the right number of people with the right skills in the right place at the right time) is achieved effectively and as efficiently as possible.
  278W
  The review will proceed in two further phases, under the sponsorship of the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel). Phase 2 will identify management, organisational, and structural options for improving the delivery of the personnel process outputs. The examination will include the business planning and performance management framework within which these processes operate. The sponsor expects to receive the report early in 2003. Phase 3, to be completed in mid-2003, will develop more detailed proposals for improvements in future performance and service delivery.

  This process-based review, whose approach is supported by the Treasury and Cabinet Office, will replace planned quinquennial reviews of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA), the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA), and the RAF's Training Group Defence Agency (TGDA). Although the future of these agencies will be considered in detail, the review will focus on end-to-end processes, and not primarily on historical agency performance.

  The review team will conduct wide consultation with representatives of stakeholders. However, the team would be interested to hear the views of other organisations or individuals (including people currently in the armed forces) who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contributions by Monday 16 September by post to:

  Service Personnel Processes Review Team,

  c/o 2" Floor Open Plan,

  Ministry of Defence

  St. Giles Court,

  1–13 St. Giles High Street,

  London, WC2H 8LD.

  or by email to: dgmo-traqqr3@defence.mod.uk

  Royal School of Artillery
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's total expenditure relating to the Royal School of Artillery in each year since 1997. [69668]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Financial year

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  23.102

  1998–99

  21.733

  1999–2000

  22.206

  2000–01

  23.022

  2001–02

  25.096

  The costs shown exclude the salary costs of students at the school.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many enrolled at the Royal School of Artillery in each year since 1997; and what percentage were graduates broken down by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) nationality. [69667]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Royal School of Artillery is a Phase 2 and 3
  279W
  training school and all students will be serving soldiers or officers. For officers we assess the broad percentage of graduate entry to the Royal Artillery to be 85 per cent.

  Cyprus
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent disturbance in the sovereign base areas in Cyprus; and what steps his Department has taken since July 2001 to ensure the safety of his Department's(a) personnel and (b) property. [69647]

  Mr. Ingram
  A peaceful protest against construction of a new antenna at the Salt Lake site in the Western Sovereign Base Area (WSBA) on 2 July was later hijacked by a few trouble-makers throwing stones and petrol bombs and setting fire to property. Order was restored quickly by the SBA police with support from military personnel. One SBA police officer was sightly injured and there was limited damage to property.

  Following the unprecedented riots of 3 July 2001, public order training and procedures, as well as physical security arrangements, were thoroughly reviewed by the SBA police and British Forces Cyprus. We do not, however, disclose detailed information on security arrangements at defence establishments, so I am withholding such details under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Royal Military Academy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students were sent to Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in each year since 1997 broken down by country. [69651]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Bahrain

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  2

  Barbados

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Belize

  3

  4

  5

  2

  3

  2

  Botswana

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  0

  Brunei

  2

  1

  3

  2

  8

  5

  Czech Rep

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  El Salvador

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Fiji

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Georgia

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Ghana

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Guatemala

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  British Guiana

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Hungary

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ireland

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Jamaica

  7

  9

  2

  4

  2

  4

  Jordan

  1

  1

  4

  1

  1

  4

  Kenya

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kuwait

  8

  8

  4

  5

  4

  5

  Latvia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lesotho

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lithuania

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Malawi

  2

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Malaysia

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maldives

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Malta

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Mauritius

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Morocco

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Mauritania

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mozambique

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  280W

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Namibia

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Nepal

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Nigeria

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  1

  Oman

  3

  6

  3

  4

  6

  2

  Pakistan

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Paraguay

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Philippines

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Qatar

  4

  7

  3

  1

  4

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Senegal

  0

  0

  3

  2

  3

  0

  Seychelles

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Singapore

  2

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  South Africa

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Sri Lanka

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Swaziland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Tanzania

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Thailand

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  The Gambia

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Tonga

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Uganda

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Ukraine

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  United Arab Emirates

  6

  2

  3

  2

  7

  7

  Uruguay

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yemen

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Zimbabwe

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1To date

  The figures relate to candidates from the countries named who are members of that Country's armed forces. It does not include candidates from Commonwealth countries who join the British Army.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many enrolled for the(a) war studies, (b) defence and international affairs and (c) communications studies departments at Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in each academic term since 1997. [69648]

  Mr. Ingram
  All students who attend the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst complete all modules of the Commissioning course, which includes War Studies, Defence and International Affairs and Communications Studies. For information, the total number of students entering RMAS each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Total intake

  1997

  797

  1998

  734

  1999

  660

  2000

  704

  2001

  798

  2002 (at July)

  495

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many enrolled at Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in each year since 1997; and what percentage were graduates broken down by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) nationality. [69650]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However the average age on entry at present is 23 years six months, a rise from 22 years six months as the age limit for entry was raised in 1999–2000 from 25 to 29. The percentages of graduates shown are all British: we do not record whether foreign students were graduates.
  281W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Total intake

  797

  734

  660

  704

  798

  495

  British male numbers

  606

  552

  514

  526

  629

  373

  British female numbers

  112

  108

  84

  119

  102

  73

  Foreign male numbers

  77

  68

  60

  56

  67

  45

  Foreign female numbers

  2

  6

  2

  3

  0

  4

  Percentage of British males shown as graduates

  76

  75

  76

  88

  75

  78

  Percentage of British females shown as graduates

  84

  83

  81

  87

  87

  90

  1As at July 2002

  Gibraltar
  Gregory Barker

  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his Department's policy regarding Gibraltar. [69653]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's policy recognises that Gibraltar has been and continues to be an important overseas base for the British Armed Forces, and contains valuable support, logistic, communications and training facilities.

  University Officers' Training Corps
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list total membership of the University Officers' Training Corps, by contingent, for each year since 1997; and if he will break down the membership by(a) age and (b) sex for each year. [69670]

  Mr. Ingram
  Membership of the University Officers' Training Corps, by contingent, for each year since 1997, and a breakdown of the membership by sex, is shown in the table. I regret that statistics for age are not held. In light of the fact that most officer cadets are undergraduates, we would expect the majority to be in the 18 to 22 age bracket.

  UOTC/year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Aberdeen

  156

  194

  167

  173

  215

  Birmingham

  215

  221

  216

  219

  211

  Bristol

  182

  214

  173

  183

  168

  Cambridge

  278

  289

  287

  248

  218

  East Midlands

  201

  178

  171

  216

  184

  Edinburgh

  201

  190

  167

  121

  143

  Exeter

  217

  199

  233

  184

  172

  Glasgow and Strathclyde

  155

  162

  164

  156

  190

  Leeds

  200

  184

  157

  145

  173

  Liverpool

  188

  172

  198

  220

  199

  London

  314

  398

  376

  391

  433

  Manchester and Salford

  169

  156

  162

  166

  174

  Northumbrian

  168

  209

  237

  227

  254

  Oxford

  220

  235

  212

  201

  248

  Queen's Belfast

  163

  197

  171

  213

  147

  Sheffield

  172

  183

  175

  212

  223

  Southampton

  165

  139

  161

  201

  202

  Tayforth (Dundee)

  247

  228

  184

  246

  219

  Wales

  211

  166

  189

  209

  202

  Officer Cadets Male

  2,490

  2,570

  2,553

  2,655

  2,667

  Officer Cadets Female

  1,332

  1,344

  1,247

  1,276

  1,308

  Total

  3.822

  3,914

  3,800

  3,931

  3,975

  Note:
  Information taken from "The Officers' Training Corps Annual Report 2001".

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's total expenditure on the University Officers' Training Corps, for each year since 1997. [69671]
  282W
  Mr. Ingram
  The expenditure on the University Officers; Training Corps, for each year since 1997, is shown in the table.

  £

  Expenditure

  1997

  17,112,000

  1998

  17,454,000

  1999

  18,410,349

  2000

  18,679,050

  12001

  20,627,053

  1Consequent on the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting this figure reflects resource costs.

  Source:
  The Officers' Training Corps Annual Report 2001.

  Akrotiri
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental impact assessments were conducted at Akrotiri prior to antenna construction. [69646]

  Mr. Ingram
  An assessment of the likely environmental impact of the project to build new antennas at Akrotiri was undertaken by a firm of consultants in 1997 and its results were reviewed by the company in 2001.

  Last year the British and Cypriot Governments agreed that these environmental impact assessments should be reviewed by an independent panel of international environmental experts. This review was co-ordinated by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. The panel found that there were significant deficiencies in the original assessments, when judged against today's best practice standards and that there was not sufficient information on which to base a decision to proceed with the second phase of the project. The Ministry of Defence therefore commissioned further studies to fill the information gaps identified by the panel and to address their criticisms of the approach to mitigating the potential environmental impact. The panel confirmed in May that this additional work satisfactorily addressed the deficiencies in the original assessments.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out for each Civil Service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45,
  283W
  (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities.[39150]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1072W, by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by his Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose; [48345]

  (2) if he will list the (a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by his Department. [48344]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66910]

  Year–calendar/training

  Hours low flyingbooked in LFA 16

  Hours OLF flown in LFA 20T

  Hours low flying booked by foreign aircrew in LFA 16 and surrounding overseas areas

  1995

  4,715

  555 hours

  —

  1996

  4,440

  310 hours 31 minutes

  —

  1997

  4,023

  199 hours 45 minutes

  —

  1998

  3,680

  221 hours 2 minutes

  —

  1999–2000

  3,408

  280 hours 59 minutes

  —

  2000–01

  3,735

  205 hours 59 minutes

  100 hours 43 minutes

  2001–02

  4,080

  297 hours 33 minutes

  32 hours 12 minutes

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates of periods of covert monitoring of low-flying operations conducted by Royal Air Force police(a) with and (b) without Skyguard deployment since 1993 within Low Flying Area 16 and 20T. [70324]

  Dr. Moonie
  Covert monitoring of low flying military aircraft is only undertaken using mobile Skyguard radar equipment by teams from the Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team of the RAF police. Deployments of the Skyguard radar in Low Flying Areas 16 and 20T since 1993 are identified in the table. Full dates are quoted where this information is held centrally and I shall write to the hon. Member with supplementary information and place a copy in the Library of the House when this is to hand.

  Year

  Day/month

  Location

  2001

  6–9 February

  Castle Douglas, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  2001

  23–25 October

  East Fortune, Gifford and Torness, East Lothian

  2000

  4–7 April

  Duns, Berwickshire

  2000

  3–6 October

  East Fortune and Torness, East Lothian

  1999

  6–8 September

  Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

  284W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 622W, by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander).

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours were booked for low flying broken down by(a) day flights, (b) night flights and (c) by NATO air force within low flying areas 16 and 20T since 1995. [70325]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of hours of military low flying training booked in the United Kingdom Low Flying System (UKLFS) is published annually. Figures quoted are in respect of hours booked by day and by night, with the night Low Flying Areas (LFA) mapped to the day system in order to produce the final total.

  Tactical Training Area (TTA 20T), when activated for Operational Low Flying (OLF), partly overlays LFA 16, approximately two-thirds of LFA 13 and a small area within LFA 12.

  The raw data prior to training year 2000–01 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Night data mapped to the day
  system does not distinguish between United Kingdom and foreign forces and therefore cannot be shown. Foreign military aircrew do not undertake OLF.

  Year

  Day/month

  Location

  1998

  February

  St. John's Town of Dairy. Dumfries andGalloway

  1998

  June

  Dunbar, East Lothian

  1997

  February

  Biggar, Strathclyde

  1996

  June

  Moffat, Dumfries and Galloway

  1995

  April

  Galashiels, Scottish Borders

  1995

  September

  Maybole, Strathclyde

  1994

  March

  Moffat, Dumfries and Galloway

  1994

  November

  Galashiels, Scottish Borders

  1993

  October

  Churnside, Berwickshire

  Monitoring of low flying training without the Skyguard mobile radar is accomplished on an informal basis when members of the Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team visit or pass through an area, for example, in connection with an investigation of a complaint.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are deployed on aircraft carriers; and how many were deployed in 1987. [70164]
  285W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]In general terms there are approximately 10 civilians who deploy with each aircraft carrier, of these are six employed in the laundry and four in the NAAFI. The numbers of civilians on board may vary depending on the type of deployment. Information on civilian numbers deployed on aircraft carriers in 1987 is not available.

  Public Relations
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public relations firms his Department has employed since 1997; and if he will list total moneys paid to each firm since 1997. [69652]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In recent years, information on expenditure and publicity which incorporates public relations has been included in the Ministry of Defence's annual Departmental Performance Report. Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Munitions
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of munitions will be stored in(a) DM(N) and (b) DM(N); and what the percentages will be if DM Dean Hill closes. [70177]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently the Defence Munitions distribution of stock by volume is as follows:

  Stock

  Percentage

  DM (North)

  19.5

  DM (Central)

  68.5

  DM (South)

  12

  Should DM Dean Hill close as proposed and stock from there dispersed to other DM locations the resultant stock distribution by volume would be as follows:

  Stock

  Percentage

  DM (North)

  21

  DM (Central)

  69

  DM (South)

  10

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage decrease in DM's operating costs has been achieved since its inception. [70175]

  Mr. Ingram
  At inception the Defence Munitions (DM) set a challenging strategic goal to reduce total operating costs by 20 per cent. by financial year (FY) 2003–04 ie by 31 March 2004. By the end of FY 2001–02 delivery towards the target stood at 9.3 per cent. The inclusions of Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 reductions (including savings arising from the proposed closure of DM Dean Hill) will, if implemented, deliver operating cost reductions of 16.7 per cent. by the end of FY 2003–04 with the full 20 per cent. being delivered in the course of the following year FY 2004–05.
  286W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions over the last two years the storage capacity of DM Gosport has been exceeded; and where the excess munitions were stored on each occasion. [70179]

  Mr. Ingram
  For safety reasons the volume of explosives that can be stored at any particular location at any one time is very strictly controlled by licence. Defence Munitions (DM) has an obligation to operate within these licensed limits. Steps (including dispersal to other locations if necessary) are taken to ensure that all DM establishments do not exceed their licensed limits. As a result the storage capacity at DM Gosport has not been exceeded at any time over the last two years.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which unions were represented during the consultations on the Defence Munitions rationalisation study 2; and which areas of the country they represented. [70178]

  Mr. Ingram
  The proposal to close Defence Munitions Dean Hill has the potential to affect more than 25 staff. Therefore, in accordance with Ministry of Defence regulations, formal consultation with the trade unions is being carried out at departmental level ie with the MOD Council of Civil Service Unions (MOD CCSU) and the MOD Industrial Whitley Council (MOD DIWC). This includes the following: Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU), Amicus (previously Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU) and Manufacturing, Science and Finance (MSF), General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union (GMB), Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT), Prospect, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), Association of First Division Civil Servants (FDA), Defence Police Federation, the Chief Police Officer's Association and the Retired Officers Association.

  The formal trade unions consultation period is due to complete on 16 August 2002.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account has been taken of the whole life assessment of munitions, and increased travel times, in the event of the recommended closure of DM Dean Hill proceeding. [70174]

  Mr. Ingram
  The process of weapon design addresses, inter alia, the issue of transportation. Where necessary to maintain the integrity and reliability of a weapon, customised packaging is provided to protect and preserve it during movement by whatever transportation medium is used, whether by road, rail or sea. Movement in approved packaging and by approved modes of transport has no impact on overall weapon life.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the increase in munitions carried by road and rail if the recommended closure of DM Dean Hill proceeds broken down by(a) volume carried and (b) increase in length of time during which munitions will be transported. [70176]

  Mr. Ingram
  If the closure of Defence Munitions Dean Hill proceeds as planned the munitions currently stored at the Depot would be transferred to other Defence Munitions Establishments. As part of this dispersal
  287W
  activity it is planned to work together with customers and stakeholders to ensure that the resultant distribution of munitions stock more readily lines up with the required outload points for the munitions themselves. Once this re-positioning is completed, the overall planning assumption is that there would be no increase in the volume of munitions carried by road or rail. Likewise there would be no increase in the length in transportation time for the munitions stockpile as a whole.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions will publish his Annual report. [70726]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that I have today placed copies of the Annual report in the Libraries.

  Certified Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59772]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, has plans to refurbish a part of the building it occupies within the next six months. This refurbishment involves painting and re-carpeting. It is unlikely that this process will involve the procurement of timber.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has no refurbishment projects in progress. It is planned to carry out repairs and decoration works to the external street frontages of the Department's headquarters building within the next six months. The project is unlikely to involve the procurement of timber.

  When timber is required, it is the Department's policy to instruct contractors that it must be obtained lawfully only from sustainable sources, and to verify that this is done.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has only one refurbishment project for the period in question, at Crown House, Portsmouth, which will commence in August 2002. The Crown Prosecution Service will procure the work by competitive tender through its managing agents. The agents use the National Building Specifications as part of the standard specification and this includes the requirement to use certified timber.

  The Serious Fraud Office has no refurbishment projects either in progress or due to start within the next six months.

  Sentence Referrals
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many requests for referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience were received by her Department after the expiry of the 28 day time limit for such referrals in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [56586]
  288W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]Relevant records are available only for the year 2000 onwards. The following figures are available:

  Year 2000
  one request for referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience was received by my Department after the expiry of the 28-day time limit;

  Year 2001
  three requests for referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience were received by my Department after the expiry of the 28-day time limit;
  Year 2002
  to date no request for referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience has been received by my Department after the expiry of the 28-day time limit.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many days of sick leave were taken in her Department last year; how many related to employees suffering from(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to her Department. [56478]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 May 2002)The latest annual report published by Cabinet Office "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service—2000" provides the latest figures available for each of the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible. The figures given for Treasury Solicitor's Department includes the figures for my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.

  The number of days relating to stress and other mental health problems and the cost could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through her Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64987]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible has implemented any EU directive or regulation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the EU directives relating to her Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64937]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible has had policy responsibility for the amendment or repeal of any EU directive in 2002.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64660]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The Cabinet. Office has set the leave entitlement for all staff in the senior civil service at 30 days.
  289W
  Leave entitlement for staff below the SCS is determined by grade and length of qualifying service and, in the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, varies from 22 days to 31 days per annum.

  Average leave entitlement could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's public service agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61038]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]The Law Officers' Department's public service agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its service delivery agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used in its departmental report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of service delivery agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61647]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I have given him today in respect of a similarly worded question.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by her Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64626]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The information is as follows:(a) None; (b) none; and (c) none.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66939]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]The Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible follow the Government's general policy on insurance, set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30, paragraph 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.

  None of the Law Officers' Departments has entered into commercial insurance contracts in relation to buildings they occupy.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66957]
  290W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]The National Asset Register, published in July 2001 (Cm 5221), lists assets owned by each Department and their valuation.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  LNM Holdings
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 4 July 2002,Official Report, column 539W, if the repayment schedule of the International Finance Corporation loan to Nova Hut steelworks has been renegotiated as a result of its recent acquisition by LNM Holdings. [70043]

  Clare Short
  I understand that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) is considering restructuring the loan to Nova Hut steelworks, but no proposals have yet come to the IFC Board.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68679]

  Clare Short
  Work by staff on the Spending Review was led by our Finance and Corporate Performance Division but also entailed contributions from many staff across all divisions of DFID. No staff have worked full-time on the Spending Review.

  Education Taskforce Report
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans there are for(a) taking forward the education task force report, officially endorsed at the G8 Summit, and (b) committing funds to do so. [69464]

  Clare Short
  The G8 Education Task Force Report made recommendations about the need for developing country commitment to Education for All (EFA), the response required from developed countries, and the need for better assessment of performance. It concluded that political commitment at the country level, the provision of adequate domestic financing, and the development of sound education strategies are the foundations for achieving EFA.

  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. It was agreed that each G8 donor will make public the steps it will take to fulfil this commitment.

  The Report also addresses the development of a more coherent international process for delivering EFA. It supported closer cooperation between the World bank and UNESCO in moving the EFA process forward. More specifically, it suggested that the UNESCO High Level Group on Education for All continues to meet annually to provide broad political direction and maintain the momentum for EFA; and that a high-quality, annual
  291W
  monitoring report on global progress toward EFA be produced, based on the best data available from national governments, the World bank and other sources.

  Primary Education
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the G8 will provide the additional resources required to deliver good quality primary education to the group of 18 countries selected to receive immediate financing. [69465]

  Clare Short
  At the Kananaskis summit, G8 leaders agreed to significantly increase the support provided by their bilateral agencies to basic education for countries with a strong policy and financial commitment to the sector, and to make public the steps that each G8 donor will make to fulfil this commitment.

  The World bank's fast track initiative is to offer 18 poor countries the chance to qualify for additional financing for primary education if they can demonstrate that their Governments are fully committed and have effective policies in place. A further five countries can apply for assistance in building capacity, filling gaps in data and developing effective policies for primary education. Further discussions about implementing this initiative will be held in Washington on 17 July.

  HIV/AIDS
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the contribution to the crisis in Southern Africa of(a) HIV/AIDS, (b) sanitation and cquality and quantity of water; and how it is taking its findings into account in its approach to the emergency. 69476]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is both a contributor to and a likely consequence of current food shortages in Southern Africa. The burden of disease has contributed to families' inability to grow enough food or earn the money to buy it; and shortage of food is leading women to trade sex for survival, to family separations and to reduced access to medical care. In assessing vulnerability NGOs and international organisations through whom we are working are taking account of the need to provide AIDS-affected families with appropriate rations and to design delivery mechanisms which will reach them; and to prevent widespread hunger leading to large scale population movement.

  We have made no specific assessment of the contribution of lack of access to water and sanitation to the current crisis, but expect needs in this sector to figure in forthcoming UN appeals.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure adequate storage facilities for clean water in Sub-Saharan Africa. [70490]

  Clare Short
  At the national and regional level reservoirs provide security against inter and intra annual variations in rainfall. At the local and household level water storage systems are an important factor to ensure that drinking water does not become contaminated. Our focus in water supply is on sustainable access to safe and
  292W
  affordable drinking water. Storage is an important part of this, and we support initiatives ranging from the work of the World Commission on Dams to rainwater harvesting, and groundwater development. But we also emphasize the importance of other factors that affect sustainability, such as appropriate institutional structures, cost recovery for operation and maintenance, and the involvement of local communities to ensure that services respond to their needs. Last year we provided £30 million for water related programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact a lack of decent transport facilities has had on the supply of clean drinking water to people in sub-Saharan Africa. [70491]

  Clare Short
  Good transport facilities help provide access to school and health care facilities, and improved access to agricultural inputs and markets. We have not made any specific studies of the impact of transportation on access to clean water. But improved transport facilities clearly improve access for construction materials, for spare parts and for maintenance of existing water systems. Intermediate transport, such as improved bicycles, donkey carts and handcarts all contribute to reducing the load carrying drudgery of the poor—particularly women and children—releasing time for other livelihood and household activities and to attend school.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to(a) monitor and (b) record the length of time between tabling of ordinary written questions to her Department and her Department's answers. [69645]

  Ms Keeble
  Monitoring and recording of the time between tabling written questions and sending them to Official Report is done both manually and electronically. These are checked daily to ensure that, wherever possible, the time is within the approved target of five working days as prescribed by the Cabinet Office.

  Small Enterprise Development Agency
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has recently received regarding the institutional development of the Small Enterprise Development Agency. [69641]

  Ms Keeble
  Since 1999 we have supported the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA) with almost £1 million to enable it to expand its micro-finance services to the poor, especially women and the rural poor. SEDA has recently discussed with officials the possibility of further support to strengthen its institutional capacity and resources. Any future support to SEDA will be considered as part of our new integrated programme to support the pro-poor development of Tanzania's financial services sector.

  Micro-finance Institutions
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has recently received regarding her Department's support of micro-finance institutions in Uganda. [69642]
  293W
  Clare Short
  DFID is providing £7.1 million for micro-finance institutions in Uganda for financial services to poor people, particularly in rural areas. These programmes are at very early stages and their first formal review is due later this year. However preliminary indications are that they are on track to meet the programme's targets. Several initiatives are also co-funded with other donors, and we are co-operating closely with them, industry stakeholders and the Government of Uganda to ensure best practice, maximum co-ordination and impact.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations her Department has received regarding the review of microfinance institutions in Kenya which her Department supports.
  [69644]

  Clare Short
  We are not aware of any review of DFID-supported microfinance institutions specific to Kenya. However, a peer review of DFID's international activities in microfinance, including those in Kenya, by other international agencies took place in May. We are currently considering our response to the review report which arrived in early July.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of microfinance institutions supported by her Department make available voluntary savings facilities. [69643]

  Clare Short
  Where local banking laws permit, and practice varies from country to country, microfinance institutions are invariably keen to make available voluntary savings facilities. In eastern Africa, two-thirds of DFIDsupported microfinance programmes make voluntary savings facilities available in some form. This proportion is likely to be reasonably representative of DFID-supported programmes elsewhere.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops' Residences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the cost was of maintaining the bishops' residences for the most recent year for which figures are available. [68879]

  Mr. Bell
  The overall spending by the Commissioners on bishops' housing and office premises in 2001 was £3.3 million, broken down as follows:

  £ million

  Building maintenance and repairs

  1.1

  External property management costs

  0.2

  Staff

  0.9

  Council tax, insurance and other running costs

  0.6

  Lambeth Palace Library running costs

  0.4

  Support services

  0.1

  Depreciation

  0.2

  Rent paid

  0.1

  Rental income

  (0.3)

  Suffragan bishops' houses are owned by the dioceses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 11 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miss G. Persse. [70346]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 15 July.

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69305]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions will follow the Government policy when published in summer 2002.

  Currently open source software (OSS) is not deployed in any of the Department's national or mainstream IT systems. Figures for any use by individuals within the Department are not available, but any such use is minimal and isolated from the Department's major business systems. The Department actively reviews its position on OSS with our IT providers, on a continuous basis, ensuring we are aware of the latest IT industry thinking.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56463]

  Mr. McCartney
  All advisory, executive and tribunal non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code of practice, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office. Copies are being placed in the Libraries with the exception of:Disability Employment Advisory Committee (DEAC)—This group was established on 1 April 2002. Members have yet to be appointed.
  National Employment Panel (NEP)—This group was established in October 2001. The Code of Practice will be placed as soon as it becomes operational.
  The pensions ombudsman is an individual appointment and conduct is covered in the appointment letter.

  Retirement Pensions
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if pensioners who have entitlement to two Category B retirement pensions will continue to be able to claim and receive the higher one. [71446]

  Mr. McCartney
  It has always been the intention to pay the higher Category B pension but because of the way the legislation was consolidated in 1992, the choice to take the higher amount was removed. This was unintentional. We will continue to pay the more beneficial rate as an extra statutory payment. We shall note the annual departmental resource account and will legislate to correct the position at the earliest opportunity.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1066W, if he will break down the total sum for spending on means-tested benefits for pensioners into figures for each of the main means-tested benefits. [69947]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. The cost of the main income related benefits to people aged 60 and over for 2002–03 are shown in the table:

  £million

  Income related benefits

  Minimum income guarantee

  4,275

  Housing benefit

  4,620

  Council tax benefit

  1,520

  Total

  10,415

  Source:

  Departmental Report 2002

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his letter of 5 July 2002 to members of the Committee that considered the Social Security (Electronic Communication) (Child Benefit) Order 2002, what proportion of downloads of child benefit claim forms from the existing website are made by women; and what proportion of existing child benefit claimants are women. [69259]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to differentiate between men and women downloading existing electronic claim forms. 95.5 per cent. of child benefit customers are women.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what basis the figures on page 38 of the latest departmental report, Command Paper 5424 on NIRS2 availability was calculated with particular reference to the other 1 per cent.; and if he will make a statement on those for whom NIRS2 is not available. [68479]

  Mr. McCartney
  The availability of the NIRS system is a contractional matter between the Inland Revenue and the supplier, Accenture. The figures used in the latest departmental report were supplied under these arrangements.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his reply of 1 July 2002, to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot),Official Report, column 8, how much tax has been paid by pension funds in each year since the withdrawal of advance corporation tax relief; and if he will make a statement on the level of extra business investment there has been in each year since 1997. [70068]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply

  Pension funds are not normally liable to tax and the abolition of advance corporation tax, which was widely welcomed, did not impose a tax liability. Total business
  296W
  investment, measured at constant prices, has increased markedly from £93.1 billion in 1997 and stood at £113.1 billion in 2001.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for 2002–03. [71400]

  Mr. Morley
  I have set the Veterinary Medicines Directorate the following performance targets for 2002–03.

  Safety and quality

  1. Provide high quality scientific assessment work.

  2. Provide high quality policy advice to Ministers.

  3. Comply with the timetables for entering SAR reports set out in the plan and to report to the VPC each quarter reviewing trends in SAR reports and identifying areas requiring evaluation.

  4. Meet, in full, the requirements of the Residues Surveillance Plans.

  Standards of service

  5. Comply with the timetables for handling applications under the centralised, decentralised and UK procedure set out in the plan.

  Efficiency

  6. Continue to collect data for 2002–03 with a view to establishing a three-year rolling average cost efficiency index. Establish a numerical baseline for timeliness of delivery from the results of customer satisfaction surveys.

  Financial control

  7. Recover from industry and Government the full economic cost taken as a whole of its main business activities of:

  Licensing and surveillance,

  Policy work, and

  Residues monitoring,

  without any cross subsidy between these businesses.

  PLAN

  Suspected Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme Reports. Enter human reports onto the database within two working days.

  Enter serious animal reports onto the database within two working days.

  Enter non-serious animal reports onto the database within 10 working days.

  Centralised procedures

  All assessments (including MRLs) to be submitted within timetables agreed with the EMEA.

  Decentralised procedures

  All authorisations to be determined within the established regulatory timetables.

  UK procedures

  New Marketing Authorisations to be determined or referred to VPC in an average of 120 clock days; all to be determined within 210 clock days.

  Type I variations

  Average time to complete first assessment to be less than 25 clock days.

  Average time to sign off assessment to be less than 50 clock days.

  99 per cent. of applications to be signed off by 60 clock days.
  297W
  Type II variations

  Average time to complete first assessment to be less than 55 clock days.

  Average time to sign off assessment to be less than 110 clock days.

  99 per cent. of applications to be signed off by 120 clock days.

  Renewals

  Average time to complete first assessment to be less than 80 clock days.

  Average time to sign off assessment to be less than 165 clock days.

  99 per cent. of applications to be signed off by 180 clock days.

  Game Birds (Feed Additives)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many game birds have been tested for dimetridazole in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what proportion of them had unacceptable dimetridazole levels. [69025]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]No residue of dimetridazole is considered acceptable in a food producing animal. Since 1997 the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has tested 272 samples from game birds. In 1997 dimetridazole residues were detected in four samples. Since then there have been no residues of dimetridazole detected in game birds. The following table sets out these figures in detail.

  Year

  Number of samples tested

  Number with dimetridazole residues

  1997

  120

  4

  1998

  54

  0

  1999

  33

  0

  2000

  33

  0

  2001

  32

  0

  Norman Baker

  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from(a) the French Government, (b) the European Commission and (c) other organisations regarding the use of feed additives in exported game birds. [69023]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The European Commission has recently raised with us an issue on the authorisation of dimetridazole for use in rearing of game birds in the UK. We expect these discussions to continue over the next few weeks. As part of this process we have been discussing this issue with a number of interested parties, including representatives from the UK game bird industry. We have not, to date, had any representations on this issue from the French Government.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 3 December 2001 and 13 May 2002, concerning the rights of residents under section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [67643]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no record of receiving the hon. Member's letters of 3 December 2001 and 13 May 2002.
  298W
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she has not responded to the letter from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire of 18 April regarding agrimonetary compensation for dairy farmers. [63181]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no record of receiving the hon. Member's letter of 18 April.

  Seeds
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 20 June 2002,Official Report, columns 473–74W, what the timetable is for consultation and changes to the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations. [69334]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers are still considering options for amending the arrangements for requesting a hearing on proposed National List decisions, in consultation with the devolved Administrations in Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland. We intend to consult all interested parties during the summer on proposals for change.

  Food Imports
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the percentage of containers which were subjected to inspection at ports of entry as a proportion of(a) containers whose shippers declare them to contain food products and (b) containers overall in each of the last three years. [69620]

  Mr. Morley
  Commercial consignments declared as meat or most other products of animal origin from non EU countries must be pre notified to the Border Inspection Post of arrival and all are subject to documentary and identity checks. The minimum proportion subject to physical checks is set out in EU law and is dependent on the product—at least 20 per cent. in the case of beef, pork and lamb and at least 50 per cent. in the case of poultry, game and honey.

  Consignments of other food products do not generally have to be pre-notified nor do they have to arrive at a Border Inspection Post but they must be accompanied by an accurate manifest. Checks on other food products are determined by the food safety risk associated with the product.

  Checks are carried out on consignments rather than containers. The number of containers involved is not recorded as a consignment may consist of part of a container load or of one or more containers. The numbers of consignments of products of animal origin imported from non EU countries and submitted for veterinary checks in the last three years were as follows:

  1999: 50,434

  2000: 52,305

  2001: 55,562.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy in relation to standards of animal hygiene and welfare in countries exporting meat to the United Kingdom. [69617]
  299W
  Mr. Morley
  Imports into the United Kingdom of animal products are governed by Community legislation, which protects both animal and public health. Under these rules only third countries approved by the Commission on the advice of the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health may export into the Community, and only from establishments which meet Community hygiene standards. The lists of countries and establishments allowed to export particular products into the Community, are available on the Commission's website at the following address: http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/sanco/ vets/info/data/listes/table0.html.

  Responsibility for ensuring that third countries meet these requirements lies with the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission. FVO mission reports are published on their website at: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/food/fs/inspections/vikeports/index_en.html.

  The Government have made clear the importance they attach to developing and maintaining high welfare standards for all animals both domestically and internationally.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the restrictions imposed and warnings given at ports and airports against the covert importing of meat. [69619]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with all the enforcement bodies and with stakeholders to ensure that we have the necessary controls in place to reduce the risk of illegal imports of meat and animal products entering the country.

  An Action Plan of work for 2002–03 to reduce this risk is being implemented by the Department. Key elements of the plan include a risk assessment, a strengthening of the legal powers available to enforcement officers, and enhanced deterrence and detection alongside improved publicity for the issue.

  On 8 July DEFRA launched a summer publicity campaign aimed at making the public more aware of the restrictions on importing meat and animal products for personal use from outside the EU and the reasons for these restrictions. Baseline research was commissioned to establish general awareness before the campaign and this will be followed up in the autumn to assess the effectiveness of this first stage of the publicity campaign. This campaign is just part of a longer term strategy to inform and educate the public on this matter.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to discuss the introduction of a fixed penalty system applying to illegal imports carried as personal baggage. [69548]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government published an Action Plan in March that aims to reduce the risk of introducing animal and plant diseases entering the country. In carrying out this Action Plan the Government are investigating a variety of deterrents, taking into account the experience of other countries. One of the deterrents being considered is on-the-spot fines and initial discussions are being held with the enforcement agencies on the practicalities of such a deterrent, as well as with officials of other countries who have adopted this measure.
  300W
  Mr. Raney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has been involved in with regard to the proposals for harmonising the regulation and inspection of imports throughout the EU. [69547]

  Mr. Morley
  Harmonised EU rules are already in place for the control and inspection of imports from third countries of live animals and animal products.

  The UK Government have been pressing the European Commission for clarification and strengthening of the rules on personal imports of meat and animal products throughout the EU since January 2001.

  The Commission produced a draft regulation in June 2002 and following discussion with the UK and other member states this was redrafted, reflecting the concerns of the UK, among others. The new draft Commission Regulation is due to be voted on in September 2002.

  Curry Report
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from farmers in respect of the proposal in the Curry report to raise the level of modulation from 4.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. [69624]

  Mr. Morley
  This proposal has attracted a varied response from farmers and farming organizations—including concern about the possible impact on farm incomes and support for the potentially positive effect on rural development funding. The Government are committed to shifting expenditure from production-linked subsidies to wider agri-environment and rural development measures.

  A final decision on the proposal will be taken after extensive consultation, including with the devolved Administrations. The decision will also need to take account of negotiations on the European Commission's "Mid-Term Review" proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy, which include the introduction of compulsory modulation across the European Union, initially at 3 per cent. but rising to a level of 20 per cent. after six or seven years.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken on implementing recommendations of the Curry report. [69623]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 26 March a series of early actions as a first step towards implementing the report. At the same time, a comprehensive process of engagement with a wide range of stakeholders was launched. This process has included a series of regional and sectoral events and the publication of a document, "Sustainable Food and Farming: Working Together", both of which have explored how to translate the Commission's vision into action.

  Feedback from stakeholders is now being analysed and will help inform construction of a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming in England, to be launched in the autumn. The strategy will incorporate a definitive response to all of the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Plant and Animal Control Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to harmonise the control systems for plants and animals with special reference to improving co-operation between the port health authorities and the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate. [69549]

  Mr. Morley
  The Cabinet Office are undertaking a study into how the various parts of Government control the import of animals, plants, and animal and plant products. The study will take place over the summer. Arrangements for co-operation between port health authorities and DEFRA's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate will be reviewed in the light of the outcome of that study.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what strains of(a) swine fever and (b) foot and mouth disease have been found over the past five years. 1695501

  Mr. Morley
  In the United Kingdom, the outbreaks of classical swine fever that occurred in East Anglia during 2000 were caused by a strain of virus belonging to genotype 2.1 and the foot and mouth disease outbreak during 2001 was caused by the pan asia strain of type 0 virus.

  Other than these outbreaks in the United Kingdom, the most comprehensive source of information of disease strains identified is on the OIE website. http://www.oie.int/eng/info/hebdo/A—DSUM.htm gives information of outbreaks of disease worldwide since 2001 and http//www.oie.int/eng/press/a—20000922a.htm gives information on strains of diseases found in outbreaks in Europe in 2000. Both of these sites give information on swine fever and foot and mouth disease.

  Advisory Committee Mandate
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55245]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Regulatory Committee on Organic Farming is set out in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. Standard rules of procedure were adopted by the Commission on 31 January 2001 in accordance with Council Regulation 1999/468/EC.

  The Regulatory Committee on Organic Farming met three times during 2001. (The UK attended a further 18 meetings of working groups supporting the Committee.) The meetings were attended by officials from the Department.
  302W
  The annual costs are estimated to be £14,000 in travel and subsistence expenses. The meetings, including preparation time and activities following the meetings, take approximately 150 staff days per annum.

  Items under consideration by the Committee in the last year include:
  amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 94/92 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements for imports from third countries provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91;
  amending Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1788/2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the provisions concerning a certificate of inspection for imports from third countries;
  amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 in respect of labelling and inspection requirements and precautionary measures for animal feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs and feed materials; and
  amending Annexe VI parts A and B to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 with regard to livestock products and fruit wines.

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

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Corn (2001) 783 Final.

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

  Lapwings
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made to her Department regarding rural lapwing population decline; and what measures her Department is taking to address this decline. [69630]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has sponsored extensive research over a number of years with the British Trust for Ornithology, the RSPB, and other organisations to try to identify the causes of the decline in lapwing and other farmland birds. The Department works closely with these organisations on formulating remedial measures. The Department is already diverting money from agricultural subsidies in the UK to double the size of our agri-environment scheme over the seven years of the England Rural Development Programme. The schemes include valuable incentives to encourage farmland birds such as the lapwing.

  Water Level Management
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has taken to ensure that water level management plans are commensurate to their intended purpose; and what resources her Department has made available to implement these measures. [69629]
  303W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA provides guidance to the operating authorities (Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities) which prepare water level management plans (WLMPs). However, the Department does not approve the final plans and it is down to the operating authority to ensure that the plan is fit for its intended purpose. In terms of nature conservation, WLMPs must be agreed with English Nature.

  While the Department has not funded the preparation of plans, we are grant-aiding flood management works arising from their implementation. We also fund and maintain a database of sites which records operating authorities progress in producing and implementing plans.

  In 1999 DEFRA set up a WLMP Advisory Group which considers significant issues arising from the WLMP preparation and implementation processes and endeavours to identify solutions. The advisory group is currently preparing guidance to operating authorities on the impact of the habitats regulations on WLMPs.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to make the production of water level management plans eligible for grant aid. [68189]

  Mr. Morley
  The majority of water level management plans are now either complete, or awaiting approval by English Nature. The next stage is to ensure that the plans are implemented and reviewed. There are no plans by this Department to provide grant aid to assist with WLMP preparation.

  Wildlife Preservation
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) information and (b) incentives her Department provides to farmers regarding the establishment of field margins for wildlife preservation. [69631]

  Mr. Morley
  Cereal field margins are a priority habitat under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, with a target of 12,725 hectares under sympathetic management in

  Regulations

  Section

  Consultation commenced

  Consultation ended

  Date regulations in force

  Regulations regarding mapping of access land and consultation on draft maps

  11

  March 2001

  20 June 2001

  1 November 2001

  Regulations regarding issue of provisional maps, appeals, and issue of conclusive maps

  11

  November 2001

  8 February 2002

  29 July 2002

  Regulations regarding the establishment of local access forums and the appointment of members

  194

  July 2001

  23 October 2001

  August 2002

  Regulations regarding dedication of land for access

  16

  January 2002

  15 April 2002

  November 2002

  Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II, including appeals (but not emergencies)

  32

  December 2001

  22 March 2002

  December 2002

  Regulations on removal or relaxation of restrictions on access land and to exclude access in emergencies (including appeals)

  231

  January 2003

  —

  August 2003

  Regulations on appeals relating to notices

  38

  February 2003

  —

  September 2003

  References to public places in existing enactments

  42

  February 2003

  —

  October 2003

  Regulations regarding review of conclusive maps

  11

  February 2004

  —

  August 2004

  1Part V

  2 Paragraph 7, Schedule 2

  Under the Countryside Agency's current published timetable for the mapping of open country and registered common land, the final provisional map in England would be issued by the end of March 2004.
  304W
  England by 2010. The Department has been actively encouraging the management of field margins by making grants available in schemes such as Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. As a result, the cereal field margin target has been exceeded almost 10 years ahead of schedule.

  Grant aid is available for six and two-metre grass margins, beetle banks and uncropped strips. The new Countryside Stewardship arable options, introduced earlier this year, have added wildlife mixtures and conservation headlands to this list.

  The Department funds ADAS and FWAG to provide free advice to farmers on a range of conservation issues, including the wildlife friendly management of field margins. DEFRA also co-funds a range of conservation leaflets with RSPB, which include advice and guidance on practical management of field margins.

  Rights of Way
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the timetable for implementing part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in order to achieve her Public Service Agreement target of opening up public access to mountain, moor, heath and down and registered common land by the end of 2005. [69392]

  Alun Michael
  Various regulations must be put in place in order that land may be opened up for access under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I recently laid before Parliament regulations on the issue of provisional and conclusive maps of open country and registered common land, including appeals against provisional maps. This will enable the Countryside Agency to issue the first provisional map in England which will apply to the south-east. The table records the overall progress we have made towards consulting on these provisions and bringing them into force together with our current timetable for completing the process. The precise timing of each of the remaining intermediate stages may vary but we are firmly committed to meeting our Public Service Agreement target and I am currently considering whether the final stage can be implemented region by region ahead of the target date.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate
  305W
  of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61696]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment is set out in Commission Decision 97/579EC. The UK is not formally represented on the Committee; members are directly appointed by the Commission, drawn from across the EU, on the basis of their scientific expertise.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture and the Environment is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61712]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture and Environment is set out in Commission Decision 98/235/EC. The UK is not formally represented on the Committee; members are directly appointed by the Commission, drawn from across the EU.

  The Commission, together with member states, is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to 'simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission'. As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be available through its website.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) from where the pig suspected of foot and mouth and swine vesicular disease which was slaughtered in Leicestershire on 21 June originated; [66168]

  (2) what measures her Department is taking to identify the origin of the pig suspected of foot and mouth disease and swine vesicular disease. [66169]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]All farms supplying pigs to the abattoir in question, together with a market and a collecting centre, were traced and inspected by official veterinarians. No disease was found. However, due to deficiencies in the identification of the suspect pig and a number of others in the same batch at the abattoir, inquiries so far have not established which of 17 farms was the farm of origin of the suspect animal. I have met pig industry representatives to discuss the implications of this episode. Investigations continue into what appear to have been serious breaches of identification regulations
  306W
  and prosecutions may follow. This could have had major consequences for the livestock industry should this pig had been proved to be carrying a disease.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many invoices remain to be paid to contractors over work carried out on foot and mouth; how many contractors are owed money; how many companies are owed over(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent., (f) 60 per cent., (g) 70 per cent. and (h) 80 per cent. of invoices submitted to her Department; what the length of period is of unpaid invoices; how much has been paid on account of unpaid invoices; how many contractors have money paid on account; and what the percentage terms are per contractor. [70167]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]I refer my hon. Friend to Figure 60 in Chapter 4 of the recent NAO report 'The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease' published on 18 June 2002. The report is available on the NAO's website on: http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/naoreports/01-02/0102939.pdf. Information other than that provided in the NAO report cannot be provided for reasons of legal and commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the UK Government have applied for EU compensation under Article 20 of Council Regulation 2759/1975 for farmers who were subjected to movement restrictions during the recent foot and mouth crisis; and if she will make a statement. [68916]

  Mr. Morley
  Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2759/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat provides that exceptional measures may be taken to support any market affected by restrictions on free circulation imposed in consequence of measures to prevent the spread of animal disease.

  Introduction of exceptional support measures is dependent on the member state being able to demonstrate that the restrictions due to a disease outbreak have caused severe market distortion. While the impact on those caught up in the control measures was severe, the UK pig market overall did not exhibit clear indications of distortion.

  The cull sow market was most severely affected by the export restrictions linked to the foot and mouth outbreak, and officials explored the possibility of a market support based solution with the European Commission—either exceptional market support under the CAP pigmeat regime and/or a cull sow disposal scheme. The Commission were not encouraging on either; although there are precedents for exceptional market support measures in animal disease situations, these have always been restricted to protection/surveillance zones. A scheme restricted in this way was not seen by the pig industry as being of any help to the cull sow market. A nationally funded cull sow disposal scheme was considered by the Commission to be income support; which is prohibited by state aid rules. Therefore no application for such support was made.

  Driving Lessons (Teenagers)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 213W, on driving lessons (teenagers), if she will list the 21 schemes by location and the (a) numbers and (b) proportion of teenagers who will benefit. [69335]

  Alun Michael
  The 21 locations in which Wheels to Work schemes are currently operating are:

  Cambridgeshire Suffolk

  Norfolk

  Hampshire (New Forest)

  Isle of Wight

  Kent (Aylesham area)

  Devon (Torridge) Devon (West Devon)

  Dorset

  Gloucestershire Somerset

  Wiltshire

  Nottinghamshire Herefordshire

  Shropshire (Bridgnorth, N. Shropshire)

  Telford and Wrekin

  Warwickshire Worcestershire

  South Lancashire (Runshaw College)

  Hambleton and Richmondshire

  Selby.

  Of the 21 schemes, six offer subsidised driving lessons: the Isle of Wight, Devon (West Devon), Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire.

  Information on the numbers of teenagers benefiting from the schemes is not held centrally. The good practice guide on Wheels to Work schemes, due to be published later this month, will includes some information on beneficiaries and target groups together with case studies and costings for a number of Wheels to Work schemes.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcomes of meetings of Green Ministers have been in respect of her Department's activities; and if she will make a statement. [64839]

  Alun Michael
  Following the general election in June 2001, the previously informal Green Ministers Committee was upgraded to a Cabinet Sub-Committee of ENV and it is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  The terms of reference for the Committee include the commitment to improve the performance of all Departments in contributing to sustainable development. DEFRA has been active in this area, for instance the Department's strategy for sustainable development "Foundations for our Future" was published in June 2002.
  308W
  The purpose of this strategy is to initiate change in the way the Department approaches its responsibilities and to ensure better and more sustainable outcomes. The strategy will be supported by a programme of events and activities for all DEFRA's staff over the next few months. These will explore the way in which the Department carries out is business and how each person can contribute to achieving our aim of sustainable development. This will put the spotlight on projects demonstrating best practice.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is the policy of the Government to modify the requirement in section 151 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that a dog when in a public place must wear a collar with a tag or a plate attached giving the name and address of the owner even if it is microchipped. [67999]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]Dogs in a public place are required to wear a collar with a tag or a plate attached giving the name and address of the owner, as specified under section 151 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, even if the dog is microchipped. We have no plans to modify this.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent research published by the Countryside Agency relating to the number of parishes with access to a village hall. [694051

  Alun Michael
  (holding answer 12 July 2002]In 1997 the Countryside Agency published research which showed that 72 per cent. of villages had a village hall. The definition has been refined following responses to that research which indicated that some villages have a community hall which is technically not a "village hall" but fulfils largely the same purpose. In November 2001 the Countryside Agency published a report entitled "Rural Services in 2000" which revealed that 85 per cent. of parishes had a village hall or a community hall in 2000. The proportion of parishes with a hall is 32 per cent. for those below 100 population, 77 per cent. for those with between 100 and 300 people, 92 per cent. for those between 300 and 500, 94 per cent. for those between 500 and 1,000, 95 per cent. for those between 1,000 and 2,000, 98 per cent. for those between 2,000 and 5,000, and 96 per cent. for those over 5,000.

  Village halls can play a vital role in rural communities as multi-purpose community centres and hubs for village life. We are supporting the development of active local communities and parish and town councils in a variety of ways; the village hall as a hub for social activity and service provision fits in well with our policy objectives, and support of village halls and the activities that take place there is available from a range of public sector and other sources.

  Scottish Agriculture
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent
  309W
  representations she has received from NFU Scotland with respect to the defence of Scottish agricultural interests in the European Union. [69284]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, receives representations from the NFU Scotland from time to time on a range of agricultural issues. However, there have been no recent examples.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the Scottish Executive with respect to the defence of Scottish agricultural interests in the European Union. [69285]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]There is an on-going dialogue with the Scottish Executive across a wide range of issues which affect Scottish agriculture. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with Ministers, or their representatives, from the devolved Administrations in Brussels on 15 July prior to the EU Agriculture Council meeting. The Commission's communication on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy was the main focus of discussion.

  French Beef Ban
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last discussed the French beef ban with(a) the French Agriculture Minister, (b) the Scottish Executive, (c) the EU Commission and (d) the Prime Minister. [692831

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]The Secretary of State regularly discusses the French ban on British beef with the French Agriculture Minister and EU Commission, including at Agriculture Councils. She also regularly discusses the ban with Ministers in the devolved Administrations. The Prime. Minister raised the ban with the French Prime Minister on 15 July and with the French President on 19 June.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held on 15 July; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [70881]

  Margaret Beckett
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 15 July. The Welsh Minister for Rural Development and Wales Abroad and the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development also attended.

  This was the first Council meeting of the Danish presidency which accordingly introduced its work programme for the six months ahead.

  The main item of business was a public debate on the mid-term review of the CAP. The Commission introduced its outline proposals and member states gave initial reactions. I welcomed the general direction of the changes proposed, but indicated where they fell short of what the UK believes is required to modernise the CAP. The
  310W
  proposals will be further considered by Ministers in September; officials will start detailed examination of them next week.

  The Council discussed the Commission's proposal for a mandate to open negotiations on modification of the bound duties for rice and cereals. Delegations, including the UK, expressed a range of reservations about the proposal. The Commission will be looking to narrow its scope and take further soundings at official level.

  The Council held a policy debate on Commission proposals for control of zoonoses. The Commission reported progress on establishment of the European Food Safety Authority and briefed the Council on progress made on its food safety White Paper.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress relating to the shellfish licensing system. [64385]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]We are committed to the introduction of a shellfish licensing scheme. Officials are currently considering the timing and format of such a scheme.

  DEFRA v. Asda Stores and Others
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the judgment of the High Court in the case of DEFRA v. Asda Stores and others. 166150]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Department's appeal in this case was dismissed in the High Court on 24 June. The Department has considered the implications of the judgment and has lodged an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. EU horticultural marketing standards continue to be directly applicable in the UK as in other member states, and the holder of products covered by the marketing standards is responsible for observing them.

  Flooding
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been undertaken to update maps of indicative inland flood risk areas as a result of recent flooding; and if she will make a statement. [69193]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency, with support from DEFRA, has a number of current initiatives to improve information on flood risk. These include a national database of all defences and further investments in flood risk mapping. The best means of presenting all this information in a readily accessible form is currently under active discussion.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation has been undertaken of the effectiveness of the Environment Agency in responding to the flooding of autumn 2000; and if she will make a statement. [69192]

  Mr. Morley
  The Autumn 2000 Lessons Learned report gathered information from the Environment Agency and all of its emergency partners. I support the
  311W
  main conclusion of this report, that a seamless and integrated flood forecasting, warning and response service had been delivered. The report put forward a number of actions and recommendations that have largely been concluded. Some of these have been further considered as part of the recent consultation on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review, and others were referred to in the Cabinet Office Emergency Planning Review—The Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales. The Agency has also recently commissioned an independent external audit, which should provide a further independent assessment of its effectiveness.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the egg industry's ability to pay the cost of implementing the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. [70336]

  Mr. Morley
  A full regulatory impact assessment concerning the cost of implementing the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 has been published. The long implementation times for the Regulations mean that the industry has a lengthy period over which to write off the required capital investment.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether UK producers in this country will be permitted to continue using conventional egg laying cases until the EU deadline of 1 January 2012 as provided for by Council Directive 1999/74/EC. [R] [70337]

  Mr. Morley
  The date for the ban on conventional egg laying cages across the EU is 2012 and this is the date we have stipulated in the English implementing regulations. We have no plans to bring that date forward unilaterally but the matter may be reviewed in 2005 at EU level.

  Chewing Gum
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) representations she has received from and (b) discussions he has had with (i) local authorities and (ii) manufacturers with regard to cleaning up chewing gum; how many local authorities have charged people with chewing gum litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; what action she plans to take to ensure that local authorities take action against chewing gum offenders; what action she plans to take regarding cleaning up chewing gum litter; and if she will make a statement. [69160]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA has not received direct representation from, or had discussions with, local authorities about the clear up of chewing gum. However, the environmental charity, Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), who DEFRA grant funds, has been working with the Wrigley's Company and local authorities over many years to develop best practice to clear up gum. ENCAMS has produced advice and guidance on prevention and cleansing for local authorities under the banner, "Become an Authority on Gum".

  Information on how many local authorities have charged people with chewing gum litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is not collected
  312W
  centrally by my Department. However, in 2000–01, 2,310 fixed penalty notices (FPNs) were issued for litter offences. The Department increased the FPN for littering offences from £25 to £50 on 1 April, and we are currently looking to see how local authorities will be able to retain these moneys and redirect the funds to measures that improve local environmental quality; which could include cleaning up chewing gum.

  Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what types of waste, previously not hazardous waste, will be reclassified as hazardous waste. [69235]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Hazardous Waste List (94/904/EC) has recently been extensively revised, and over 200 additions have been made. It will be transposed into UK law as part of the current review of the UK special waste regulations. The most significant additions include end-of-life vehicles containing hazardous liquids or components, electrical equipment containing CFC/ HCFC/HFC (fridges/freezers), and the following items if they contain hazardous substances: electrical equipment, contaminated soils, insulation materials and bottom ash.

  Environmental Adviser
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who has been appointed as Environmental Adviser to the Minister for the Environment. [63850]

  Mr. Meacher
  Stephen Hale was appointed as Environmental Policy Adviser to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 17 June.

  CAP
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many payments of financial support under the CAP in England and Wales were(a) between £200,000 and £499,999, (b) between £500,000 and £999,999 and (c) in excess of £1 million, in the last year for which figures are available. [70044]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table gives numbers of individual payments of financial support under the CAP to addresses in England and Wales in each category. Some businesses may have received more than one payment, or may have had trading interests outside the region of the address to which the payments were made.

  £200,000 to £499,999

  £500,000 to £999,999

  Over £1 million

  Grants and subsidies

  England

  158

  11

  3

  Wales1

  0

  0

  0

  Market support

  England

  523

  125

  33

  Wales

  82

  42

  33

  1Relates to the EAGGF budget year ending in 2000, the last year for which those figures were readily available.

  Note:

  Other figures relate to the 12 months ending June 2002.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 933W, when the research study by CBD Porton Down into the dose effect profiles for organophosphate sheep dips on brain electrical activity and sensitive behaviour indices in non-human primates will be completed. [69407]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: The laboratory work on this research study has been completed and a statistical analysis of the results is currently being carried out. We anticipate receiving a final report of its findings before the end of September this year.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she had made of the ability of hill farmers to diversify into other areas of business. [70371]

  Alun Michael
  The Government recognise that all farms have their own set of individual circumstances which influence the scope for diversification and that the same approach will not be appropriate in all

  1. Number of holdings classified as farm type dairy

  Government office region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North East region

  325

  285

  275

  251

  215

  North West region including Merseyside

  4,241

  4,058

  3,904

  3,630

  2,983

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  1,654

  1,532

  1,484

  1,358

  1,306

  East Midlands region

  1,336

  1,273

  1,226

  1,122

  1,156

  West Midlands region

  2,694

  2,531

  2,446

  2,305

  2,213

  East of England region

  250

  239

  231

  203

  215

  South East region including Greater London

  972

  888

  864

  779

  805

  South West region

  6,535

  6,207

  5,883

  5,478

  5,213

  England

  18,007

  17,013

  16,313

  15,126

  14,106

  2. Number of holdings with any dairy cows

  Government office regions

  1997

  1995

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North East region

  510

  467

  428

  398

  343

  North West region including Merseyside

  4,993

  4,862

  4,671

  4,315

  3,440

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  2,340

  2,248

  2,129

  1,983

  1,814

  East Midlands region

  1,836

  1,785

  1,729

  1,599

  1,567

  West Midlands region

  3,354

  3,261

  3,124

  2,936

  2,768

  East of England region

  641

  637

  584

  517

  527

  South East region including Greater London

  1,518

  1,500

  1,431

  1,350

  1,321

  South West region

  7,740

  7,556

  7,230

  6,819

  6,345

  England

  22,932

  22,316

  21,326

  19,917

  18,125

  Notes:

  1. Holdings shown as of June each year, not 'opened' or 'closed'.

  2. Table 1 shows holdings where dairy farming is the predominant activity.

  3. Table 2 shows holdings which returned at least one dairy cow in the June Census.

  4. A dairy cow is classed as any dairy cow or heifer that has calved.

  5. All figures relate to main holdings only.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  British Farmers
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps
  314W
  circumstances. The opportunity to pursue a successful diversification enterprise will depend upon a range of factors, including the resources and assets of the farm, the skills and expertise of the farmer and their family, and the farm's geographic circumstances.

  In England, DEFRA provides grants for farmers seeking to pursue good diversification projects under the Rural Enterprise Scheme, which forms part of the England Rural Development Programme. The Department also offers assistance in the form of free planning consultancy advice to farmers who intend to pursue an eligible diversification project through the Rural Enterprise Scheme and we are considering how to improve the provision of help and information to farmers considering diversifying their business.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy(a) farms and (b) businesses have been (i) opened and (ii) closed in the last five years, broken down by region. [68992]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not hold the precise information sought. However, according to figures from the June Census, the number of dairy farms by region in England over the last five years was as follows:

  she has taken to help British farmers remain competitive in international markets; and if she will make a statement. 169003]
  315W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government want the farming industry to succeed and become more competitive. That is one reason why we established the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food and why, following its report, we will launch a new strategy for sustainable food and farming in England in the autumn.

  We have already demonstrated our commitment to helping food and farming business increase their competitiveness. For example, we plan to introduce a new Agriculture Development Scheme offering grants to help farmers improve their competitiveness through better marketing. The proposed priorities are developing and improving assurance schemes, encouraging co-operation/ collaboration, benefiting primary producers and benchmarking and spread of best practice.

  Success is also dependent on changes at the international level. The Government are working to bring farmers closer to their markets by securing a more economically rational Common Agricultural Policy and further liberalisation of agricultural trade in the World Trade Organisation negotiations.

  Funding
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce funding allocated for Guisborough Market Town initiative. [68025]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Funding of an Action Plan for a market town follows the completion of a process of partnership working at the local level which starts with an initial "health check" to identify strengths and weaknesses. I am pleased to report that the Guisborough partnership is currently finalising its action plan following successful completion of the initial health check. I understand that One North East (the Regional Development Agency) has set aside £200,000 for approved projects within the action plan both in this and the next financial year.

  Landfill
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions since 1997 waste disposal authorities have been consulted by local planning authorities regarding developments within 250 metres of landfill sites; if she will list the location and nature of the development on each occasion; and if she will make a statement. [65602]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Business Rates
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what constitutes agricultural usage when considering the setting of business rates; and if she will make a statement. [66521]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.
  316W
  Most agricultural usage is exempt from non-domestic rates under paragraph 1 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The types of agricultural land and buildings covered by this exemption are set out in paragraphs two to eight of that schedule.

  In the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" we confirmed our intention to amend the agricultural exemption. First, we intend to ensure that the exemption applies to a range of flexible farming arrangements such as share farming, contract farming and machinery rings, which do not currently qualify for the exemption.

  Second, we intend to ensure that the exemption is properly targeted on agricultural activities. Case law has determined that a body corporate can qualify for the agricultural exemption in respect of ancillary activities such as food processing and packaging operations, provided that the corporate body includes a member who occupies agricultural land. The Government are proposing to amend the legislation so that ancillary premises occupied in connection with agricultural land and buildings can become exempt only where the occupiers of the agricultural land have a controlling share in the body corporate that occupies the ancillary premises. A consultation paper on these proposals was published on 31 May 2002.

  Provisions for both of these proposed amendments to the agricultural exemption are included in the draft Local Government Bill that was published for consultation purposes on 12 June.

  Chernobyl
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to farming in the United Kingdom of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl. [54170]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  No estimate of the total costs to farming in the United Kingdom arising from radioactive contamination from Chernobyl is available. However, the "Mark and Release" sheep compensation scheme which controls the sale of sheep from the areas affected by radioactive contamination is intended to compensate farmers for losses arising from these controls.

WALES

  Care Homes
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly regarding the use by English patients of care homes in Wales. [678791

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I discuss the NHS and other health issues on a regular basis with the First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister.

  Inward Investment
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about inward investment by European companies in Wales. [67880]
  317W
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about inward investment by European companies in Wales. [67897]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues, including inward investment in Wales. I am pleased to note that recent figures published by Invest UK show that the UK remains Europe's number one investment location.

  Investment by EU companies is vitally important to Welsh industry—in particular in the manufacturing sector. European companies represent more than a quarter of overseas-owned employment in Wales and around 10 per cent. of total manufacturing employment.

  Water Provision (Mid-Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Ofwat regarding future water provision in mid-Wales. [67881]

  Mr. Touhig
  None. This is primarily a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Valleys Communities
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the special economic needs of isolated South Wales valleys communities. [67883]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office has not made such estimations.

  The Government understand the difficulties that the South Wales Valleys communities have faced in recent years, including the Corns redundancies.

  The Government welcome the announcements from the Assembly which have been aimed at assisting these specific communities and is confident that such moves will improve the prosperity in Wales, particularly in relation to the manufacturing industry.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak in Wales. [67884]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am naturally pleased that Wales has not had a confirmed case of foot and mouth since 12 August last year.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly regarding the need for a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [67890]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a range of farming issues.

  The Government has always maintained that we will hold no public inquiry, as we want reviews carried out fully and effectively, and to uncover answers expeditiously at low cost. The review following the 1967 outbreak took 18 months. The three inquiries commissioned by the Government will consider the same issues in a much shorter time.

  Steel Industry
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and Cabinet colleagues about the steel industry in Wales. [67885]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister and Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues including the steel industry in Wales.

  I regret the news that the board of ASW Holdings plc has been unable to secure the agreement of its banks to provide continued support and has invited them to appoint administrative receivers over the business and assets of the company.

  This is a potential blow to workers, their families and the company, but we hope that the receiver can find a way to enable the company to continue trading without a loss of jobs.

  I know that the Wales Office, the National Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency and all the other organisations will work together to either find a new owner for the company or to help workers find alternative jobs.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and other Cabinet colleagues about the manufacturing industry in Wales. [67886]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister and Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues including manufacturing in Wales.

  The Government recognise it is a particularly tough time for manufacturers in the UK, due to the slow down in the world economy and weakness of the euro. However, these problems are not confined to the UK or Wales in particular.

  The manufacturing industry is now seeing the first signs that recession in this sector may be coming to an end. The latest CBI and EEF surveys point to stabilisation in manufacturing output over the next three to four months, with the latest CIPS survey even more positive, indicating output may have risen early this year.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited the European Union institutions in Brussels to discuss Objective One funding; and if he will make a statement. [67887]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I visited the European Union institutions in Strasbourg at the beginning of July. During that visit I had meetings with Welsh MEPs and with Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the UK's Permanent Representative to the European Union, to discuss a number of European issues, including Objective One. This built on my meeting with Commissioner Barnier in Brussels in November 2001 and on discussions with the President of the Commission and Commissioner Kinnock, during their visit to the new European Commission office in Cardiff at the end of May.
  319W
  The Government have renewed their commitment to ensuring that Wales receives the full benefit of Objective One funding, by providing full public expenditure cover for the Objective One programme in Monday's Spending Review. Once again, this is outside Barnett and additional to increases to the Welsh block.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the role of small businesses in economic development in Wales. [67888]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, including small businesses in Wales.

  Small and medium sized enterprises account for over 99 per cent. of all businesses in Wales and are therefore crucial to the economic success of Wales. A number of measures in the Chancellor's budget will make a significant contribution to supporting small businesses in Wales. 6,000 Welsh SMEs will benefit from the corporation tax starting rate cut from 10 per cent. to zero and a further 13,000 will be helped by the 1 per cent. reduction in the small companies' rate. In addition, thousands of Welsh SMEs will benefit from measures to simplify their VAT.

  Environmental Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on environmental protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty. [67889]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of matters affecting Wales.

  The Assembly is keen to see appropriate protection afforded to the five areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs) in Wales. As well as the resources provided through the local authority revenue settlement for AONBs, the Countryside Council for Wales provides additional core funding support.

  The Assembly also provides £750,000 each year, for the administration of the Environment Development Fund, which is designed to support innovative, sustainable development projects to support communities within the AONBs.

  Court Service
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning proposed changes to the Court Service in Wales. [67891]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales.

  The Court Service report "Modernising the Civil and Family Courts", which was published on 23 May, forms part of a wider Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme. This is a major programme of investment, which will enable the Court Service to change radically the way that courts across all jurisdictions work. I understand that the National Assembly for Wales was consulted about the implications of this programme.

  Teachers' Work Load
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will implement for teachers in Wales the key objective of the Review Body on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Service of reducing the work load of teachers. [67892]

  Mr. Touhig
  Teachers' conditions of service are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

  Consultation on the recommendations in the report of the School Teachers Review Body on teachers' work load came to an end on 3 July. The Department for Education and Skills' consultation letter of 8 May said that my right hon. Friend would consult again on practical measures, as appropriate in the light of the initial consultation.

  For the time being, the Department for Education and Skills is evaluating the initial consultation responses. Further consultation is likely to take place in the early autumn.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with Secretaries in the National Assembly about improving fire safety in Wales. [67893]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I hold regular meetings with the First Minister on a range of matters.

  Devolved Powers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of public attitudes to the operation of devolved powers in Wales. [67894]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I believe that people increasingly understand the split of responsibilities between Cardiff and London and that they welcome the new arrangements.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [67895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Tackling crime is a priority for the Government.

  Through the Safer Communities Initiative, all 22 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in Wales will benefit from extra cash during the current financial year, with an extra £1.1 million in total. In addition, the Crime Fighting Fund will be providing Welsh forces with up to 136 new police recruits over and above their previous recruitment plans.

  Since 1997, police numbers in Wales have been rising steadily and the passage of the Police Reform Bill will ensure that police officers can spend more of their time on front line crime fighting duties.

  EU Funding
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 169W, what the (a) 2001–02 EU
  321W
  structural funding and agricultural support payments in Wales and (b) the share of United Kingdom's net EU contributions represented by the Welsh share of UK GDP, were. [67896]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Structural fund payments in Wales amounted to £146 million and agricultural support payments amounted to £155 million in 2001–02. Wales accounts for around 4 per cent. of UK GDP.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary regarding violent crime in Wales. [67898]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters that impact on Wales, including measures aimed at reducing violent crime.

  The Government remain committed to improving the reporting and detection of violent crime, and to tackling its underlying causes.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly over funding to reduce waiting lists in Wales. [67899]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I discuss health issues on as regular basis with the First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister.

  This year health authorities have again received £35 million as part of the health authority allocation to help reduce waiting times and tackle emergency pressures.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about levels of unemployment in North Wales. [67900]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a number of issues, including unemployment in North Wales. Today's labour market statistics, show that we are making excellent progress towards our long term aim of getting more people into employment than ever before.

  Today's labour market statistics show that claimant counts are down compared to a year before in every North Wales constituency. Claimant counts have come down an average of 44.4 per cent. since the 1997 election across the 10 North Wales constituencies (Alyn and Deeside, Caernarfon, Clwyd, South, Clwyd, West, Conwy, Delyn, Meirionydd Nant Conwy, Vale of Clwyd, Wrexham and Ynys Mön).

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about Jobcentre Plus offices in Wales. [67901]
  322W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues. I welcome the fact that Jobcentre Plus—which was launched at the pathfinder office in Bridgend—is being rolled out to other offices in the Bridgend, Rhondda Cynon Taff and South East. Wales districts. District managers across Wales are now in the process of developing service delivery plans as the first step in the full rollout of Jobcentre Plus to all 144 former Employment Service and Benefit Agency offices in Wales.

  Mental Health Services
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Secretary for Health regarding the legislative framework for mental health services in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [67877]

  Mr. Touhig
  The draft Mental Health Bill is currently out to public consultation, as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process.

  It has been the subject of a long process of consultation by the Government, starting with the Green Paper Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 published in November 1999. The Assembly are statutory consultees, and will respond formally in due course.

  New Deal
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues about the operation of the New Deal in Wales. [67882]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the operation of the New Deal in Wales. I am also pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss the operation of the New Deal with the Wales New Deal Task Force, at the meeting in Brecon on 16 May.

  New Deal has been a huge success in Wales, particularly in helping young people back into work. 24,800 young Welsh people have secured jobs through New Deal since its launch and 80 per cent. of those have retained their jobs for 13 weeks or more. Today's labour market statistics show that there has been a 67 per cent. fall in youth JSA claimants since the launch of the New Deal programmes in Wales.

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66197]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I do not currently envisage any need for my Department to use 0870 numbers.

  Planning
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will make a statement regarding the planning powers of the National Assembly for Wales. [64711]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, as amended, sets out the land use planning powers of the National Assembly
  323W
  which were formerly vested in the Secretary of State for Wales. They include: the determination of policies; the issue of guidance to local authorities; the determination of planning appeals; and the 'calling-in', where necessary, of planning cases for decision by the Assembly.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of service delivery agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61639]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Department's service delivery agreement was published in November 2000. It sets out the Department's agreed strategy for delivering its objectives and the necessary internal procedures to achieve the best value for money. It is not possible to measure in a quantifiable and meaningful way(a) costs or (b) savings to the Department from pursuing service delivery agreement targets.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the EU directives relating to his Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002; [64948]

  (2) if he will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through his Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64997]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 April 2002 (volume 383, column 522). My Department has not had responsibility for the implementation, amendment or repeal of any European Union directives since its creation in July 1999.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to strengthen the scrutiny of Government by the legislature arising from his meeting on 16 July with the Liaison Committee; and if he will make a statement. [679121

  The Prime Minister
  I was pleased to answer questions from the Liaison Committee yesterday on a range of matters.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 10 July 2002, what action the Government will take against the French Government if a full and reliable service of 100 freight trains each way each week through the channel tunnel is not restored by September. [700341

  The Prime Minister
  Both Governments are determined to see freight traffic returning to normal out of Calais Frethun rail depot by September. To help achieve that, the SRA will contribute around half of the euro 7.5 million cost of fixed security installations at the site. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will visit
  324W
  Frethun in September with his French colleague to confirm the effectiveness of security measures taken to ensure normal services.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) of 10 July, on visitor costs to seaside resorts, to what consultation he referred; and which options cover the question raised. [70297]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Raynsford) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) on 8 July 2002,Official Report, columns 680–81W. The specific options can be found on pages 65 and 66 of the consultation document.

  Sustainable Energy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to establish a cross-Government sustainable energy unit. [70225]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government launched a consultation on energy policy on 14 May, following the publication of the Energy Review by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit earlier this year. The Government plan to publish an Energy White Paper around the turn of the year. The consultation is being carried forward by a team drawn from DTI, DEFRA, and other Government Departments

  The work on the White Paper will include further consideration of the PIU's recommendations for a Sustainable Energy Policy Unit and decisions on this will be made in the context of broader decisions on the White Paper as a whole.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Departmental Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, what the total volume of waste produced by the House was in each year since 1995, broken down into(a) paper, (b) plastic, (c) aluminium and (d) other; what proportion of waste from the House was (i) recycled, (ii) composted and (iii) re-used; and what plans she has to increase these proportions. [65618]

  Mrs. Roe
  The annual quantities of domestic waste removed from the parliamentary estate were as follows:

  Total waste1(tonnes)

  Recycled

  Recovered(percentage)

  1995–96

  —

  684 tonnes

  —

  1996–97

  —

  777 tonnes

  —

  1997–98

  —

  818 tonnes

  —

  1998–99

  —

  874 tonnes

  —

  1999–2000

  1,333

  30%

  100

  2000–01

  1,493

  30%

  100

  2001–02

  1,274

  32%

  100

  1 The total amount of waste was not recorded until financial year 1999–2000.
  325W
  Under the contract which has operated since 1999–2000, paper, glass and cooking oil are separated for recycling. Other waste is incinerated to generate electricity; metals are extracted from the ash, which itself is used for road construction.

  The House Administration has set the following targets for the financial year 2002–03:

  Percentage of total waste

  All recycling

  37

  Paper and cardboard recycling

  26

  All recovery

  100

  For April 2002, the most recent month for which full information is available, the figures were:

  Tonnes

  Percentage of total waste

  Paper and cardboard recycling

  19.9

  22

  Glass recycling

  10.4

  11

  Oil recycling

  0.6

  0.7

  All recycling

  30.9

  34

  All recovery

  91.4

  100

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, if he will take steps to provide for those hon. Members who request it notification by e-mail of their nomination to serve on standing committees. [69762]

  Mr. McWilliam
  The Committee of Selection recently agreed to establish on a trial basis arrangements for notifying hon. Members by e-mail of the meetings of forthcoming Standing and Select Committees to which they have been appointed. The trial encompasses the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, European Standing Committee A and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and its Sub-Committees. The purposes of the trial are to test the effectiveness, and acceptability to hon. Members, of using e-mail to notify them of Committee meetings and to assess the technical and resource implications of wider e-mail use. Recipients of e-mail notification messages have continued to receive notification cards, as before. I will invite the Committee of Selection to discuss the outcome of the trial and decide how to proceed early in the new session.

  In addition, hon. Members can already receive e-mail notification of meetings of Standing Committees to which they have been appointed, on request to the Clerk of the Committee of Selection.

  Website
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the redesigned parliamentary website will be available. [71489]
  326W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  Subject to final security tests, the redesigned parliamentary website will replace the existing site on 23 July. The Content Management System associated with the redesign will allow staff to make further improvements in the future, so the site available on 23 July should be viewed as the start of a continuing process of development and improvement. Feedback on the site, using the newly provided feedback option, will be welcome.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 781–82W, on rail safety, if he will list for each incident the (a) county, (b) Railtrack operating zone and (c) line where it took place: and if he will make a statement. [62179]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested, for the period I April 2000 to 31 March 2002, has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate's (HMRI' s) accident database (SIGNAL), which came into operation in early 2000, records the county of the location of the incident and line route details. Prior to 2000 HMRI did not collect comprehensive details of the county line route. This could be provided at only disproportionate cost.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he has(a) met and (b) corresponded with the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission in the last month; and what the subject was of each communication. [66249]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State met the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission and corresponded with him in relation to a number of departmental responsibilities for the Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Local Transport Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place copies of his Department's appraisal summary tables relating to the local transport plan annual progress reports in the Library. [66674]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not produce appraisal summary tables (ASTs) in relation to local transport plan annual progress reports.

  ASTs are used as a tool under our appraisal criteria to set out the key consequences of a strategy, plan or intervention for tackling a particular issue using the Government's five key transport objectives, namely environment, safety, accessibility, economy and integration. Local transport plan annual progress reports are monitoring documents. For this reason we do not make ASTs a requirement for such reports.
  327W
  Local authorities putting forward proposals for new major local transport schemes are required to produce ASTs for such schemes in line with our guidance on major scheme appraisal in local transport plans. Copies of ASTs accompanying new major scheme proposals due to be submitted by 31 July 2002 will be placed in the Library when received.

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under the Network Rail structure, which body would be held responsible with regard to corporate manslaughter charges. [66594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: If Network Rail successfully completes its purchase of the shares of Railtrack plc, any potential criminal or civil liability arising from past accidents would reside in the acquired Railtrack plc within the Network Rail group.

  Transport Telephone Line
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards setting up one national telephone number on which the public can receive transport information for all forms of transport; and if he will make a statement. [69764]

  Mr. Jamieson
  "traveline", the national public transport information system, is now available throughout Great Britain. It provides route and timetable information for bus, coach, tram, underground, train, ferry and metro through a national-rate call to a single telephone number—0870 608 2 608. "traveline" is also available on the internet in some areas, and full coverage should be available by the end of the year.

  £ million

  Motorways and trunk

  Local roads

  Capital

  Revenue

  Revenue

  Capital

  London local roads capital

  Transfer to TfL for former trunk roads

  1996–97

  408

  142

  1,712

  194

  —

  —

  1997–98

  410

  172

  1,658

  200

  —

  —

  1998–99

  425

  216

  1,721

  247

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  449

  252

  1,763

  309

  —

  —

  2000–01

  462

  274

  1,783

  476

  —

  —

  2001–02

  1421

  1244

  11,905

  1545

  132

  173

  1 Provisional out-turn figures

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 807W, on special purpose vehicles, if he will list the possible opportunities identified to which he refers; and if he will make a statement. [70638]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In addition to Chiltern and South Central, Special Purpose Vehicles may be appropriate for works on South West Trains, for the East London Line, for the East Coast Main Line and for other cases not yet identified.
  328W
  The Department is developing Transport Direct, a comprehensive travel information and ticketing service which aims to provide the traveller with all the information they need before and during a journey anywhere in the UK, and with the ability to buy the associated tickets. The vision, which will take several years to be fully realised, covers travel by all modes—air, car, train, tram, tube, taxi, bus, coach, ferry, bike and on foot—plus, importantly, mixtures of these modes.

  The centrepiece of Transport Direct will be a one-stop internet portal information point for all forms of travel information. In addition to schedules and details of any disruption on the chosen route, travellers will be able to look at maps of the area they are intending to visit. The initial portal service will go on-line during 2003.

  M25
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M25 between junctions 7 and 8 to be resurfaced. [70344]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M25 between Junctions 7 and 8 was resurfaced as part of the M25 Junctions 6 to 8 widening works that were completed in 1997. We therefore have no immediate plans to resurface this section of the M25.

  Roads
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on road maintenance in the UK in each year since 1997. [69525]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: The figures (£ million) for maintenance expenditure in "England", since 1997 are given in the table. Road maintenance figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Variable Speed Limits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the locations on Highways Agency roads where there are variable speed limits. [70646]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are variable speed limits on the M25 between junctions 10 and 16, the A646 at Cliviger and Todmorden, the A5092 at Lowick, the A 1 Gateshead and Newcastle Western Bypass between Birtley and Seaton Burn, the A47 at Thorney, and the A59 at Pemworthan.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many freight services used the channel tunnel in each month since January. [70658]

  Mr. Jamieson
  According to the operator, English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, the total number of freight services (inbound and outbound) using the channel tunnel since January is as follows:

  2002

  Number of freight services

  January

  329

  February

  357

  March

  1244

  April

  352

  May

  274

  June

  278

  July

  2154

  1Reduced owing to two weekend closures for CTRL work

  2 To 14 July

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 359W, on road maintenance, if he will (a) list the ways in which his Department is working with local authorities and (b) provide a definition of an efficient management system. [70641]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Roads Liaison Group (RLG) was set up in 2001, by the then DTLR. Its membership includes DfT, the Local Government Association, and representatives of national and local highway authorities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It is charged with advising on technical, financial, and administrative policy on the construction and maintenance of highways in the United Kingdom, and with progressing initiatives to further those objectives. These initiatives include the introduction of a computerised system of highway management (UKPMS), a revised version of the street lighting code of practice, and the development of a computerised bridge database and management system.

  An efficient management system in the highway maintenance field is one that delivers infrastructure fit for the needs of users while providing good value for the resources used.

  New Road Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authority road schemes which have been provisionally accepted by his Department for funding. [70619]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following local authority road schemes (listed by region) have been fully or provisionally approved by my Department under the local transport plan process:

  North East

  Approved:

  A689 Sedgefield to Wynyard Improvement (Durham)

  South Stockton Link (Stockton-on-Tees)
  330W
  Provisionally Approved:

  Eastern Transport Corridor (Darlington)

  A688 Wheatley Hill to Bowburn Link ,(Durham)

  A167 Chilton Bypass (Durham)

  Pegswood Bypass (Northumberland)

  Scotswood Road Improvement (Newcastle)

  Southern Radial Route (Sunderland)

  North West

  Approved:

  Manchester/Salford Inner Relief Road (Greater Manchester/ Salford)

  Provisionally Approved:

  Alderley Edge Bypass (Cheshire)

  Carlisle Northern Development Route (Cumbria)

  Glossup Spur (Tameside)

  Hall Lane (Liverpool)

  Bridgefoot Bypass (Warrington)

  Yorkshire/Humber

  Approved:

  Leeds Inner Relief Road Stage 7 (Leeds)

  East Leeds Link Road (Leeds)

  Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 & 3 (Barnsley)

  Provisionally Approved:

  A6023 Denaby Main Diversion (Doncaster)

  Scarborough Integrated Transport Scheme (North Yorkshire)

  Cudworth Bypass (Barnsley)

  A57 MI to Todwick Crossroads (Rotherham)

  West Bawtry Road Improvement (Rotherham)

  Sheffield Inner Relief Road Phase 2 (Sheffield)

  Hemsworth—Al Link (Wakefield)

  Glasshoughton Link Road (Wakefield)

  East Midlands

  Approved (and open to traffic):

  Ashby Bypass (Leicestershire)

  A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement (Nottinghamshire)

  Provisionally Approved:

  A6096 Ilkeston-Awsworth Link (Derbyshire)

  Markham Employment Growth Zone (Derbyshire)

  A47 Earl Shilton Bypass (Leicestershire)

  A607 Rearsby Bypass (Leicestershire)

  A 158/C541 Coastal Access Improvements (Lincolnshire)

  A 1073 Improvement (Lincolnshire/Peterborough)

  A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (Nottinghamshire)

  A612 Gedling Integrated Transport Scheme (Nottinghamshire)

  Oakham Bypass (Rutland)

  West Midlands

  Approved:

  A53 Hodnet Bypass (Shropshire)

  Biddulph Bypass (Staffordshire)

  Bumtwood Bypass (Staffordshire)

  Wyre Piddle Bypass (Worcestershire)

  331W
  Provisionally Approved:

  A38 Selly Oak Link Road (Birmingham)

  Rugeley Bypass (Staffordshire)

  Hanley-Bentilee Link (Stoke)

  Barford Bypass (Warwickshire)

  Rugby Western Bypass (Warwickshire)

  A38 Northfield Regeneration Scheme (Birmingham)

  Owen St. Level Crossing Relief Road (Sandwell)

  Cradley Heath Town Centre (Sandwell)

  Eastern

  Approved:

  Great Leighs Bypass (Essex)

  Broome and Ellingham Bypass (Norfolk)

  Provisionally Approved:

  Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link (Bedfordshire)

  Bedford Western Bypass (Bedfordshire)

  A1198 Papworth Everard Bypass (Cambridgeshire)

  A142 Fordham Bypass (Cambridgeshire)

  Baldock Bypass (Hertfordshire)

  East Luton Corridor (Luton)

  Nar-Ouse Regeneration Project (Norfolk)

  Stowmarket Relief Road (Suffolk)

  South Lowestoft Relief Road (Suffolk)

  West Thurrock Riverside Regeneration Scheme (Thurrock)

  South East

  Provisionally Approved:

  Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass (Buckinghamshire)

  East Kent Access Phase 1 (Kent)

  A228 Main Road to Ropers Lane (Phase I) (Medway)

  Bletchley Link (Milton Keynes)

  M4 J 11 Improvement (Reading)

  Kiln Lane Link (Surrey)

  South West

  Approved:

  Bridgewater Northern Distributor (Somerset)

  Provisionally Approved:

  A39 Camelford Bypass (Cornwall)

  Barnstaple Western Bypass (Devon)

  Poole Harbour Bridge (Poole)

  N.W. Taunton Package (Somerset)

  Weymouth Relief Road (Dorset)

  A350 Semington-Melksham Diversion (Wiltshire)

  Brunel Link & Harnham Relief Road (Wiltshire).

  Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 975W, on traffic forecasts, from whom his Department has commissioned work; what the scope of this work is; what the cost of work commissioned is; and what the timetable for this work is. [70640]
  332W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Work on different aspects of a multi-modal modelling and forecasting capability has been commissioned from:

  Faber Maunsell

  Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University

  Marcial Echenique and Partners

  MDS Transmodal

  TRL (formerly the Transport Research Laboratory)

  WS Atkins.

  This work has included:

  a review of requirements and approach,

  development of rail and highway network models.

  development of a central model of travellers' mode choice decisions,

  development of a national model of freight movements, and

  updating of previous work on the impact of different transport policies. to be consistent with the new framework.

  The resulting modelling system incorporates elements of the forecasting framework previously used to inform development of the 10-year plan. Work has included developing interfaces between various model components, and general integration and testing.

  The total value of the contracts awarded is of the order of £1.38 million.

  An initial version of the new framework is operational and being tested. Certain further improvements are being incorporated, and a programme of longer-term development has been identified.

  Dangerous Substances
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on the Control and Reduction of Pollution Caused by the Discharge of Hydrocarbons and other Dangerous Substances at Sea 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. [70576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee on the Control and Reduction of Pollution Caused by the Discharge of Hydrocarbons and other Dangerous Substances at Sea (known as ACPH) no longer exists and has been replaced by the Management Committee on Marine Pollution, which was established under Decision No. 2850/2000/EC of 20–12–2000 of the European Parliament and the Council. This set up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution.

  The committee is scheduled to meet on 4 October 2002 in Brussels. Officials from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), part of my Department, represent the UK on the committee. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Road works
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a full set of
  333W
  roadworks in 2002–03 area maps published by the Roadworks and Traffic Information Unit of the Highways Agency. [70778]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency does not have a Roadworks and Traffic Information Unit.

  The Highways Agency provides, fortnightly, an electronic Current Roadworks Information Bulletin on its website. This is a listing of planned roadworks on England's strategic road network. This information is not provided in any other format. Road users are given advanced warning of major road works by a variety of methods.

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library his Department's last accommodation requirements review. [70770]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport is assessing its future accommodation requirements in the light of the machinery of Government changes in June 2002 and will be reviewing the position in the autumn. No documents are currently available.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes(a) have taken place and (b) are planned relating to (i) the organisation of the Highways Agency and (ii) the Highways Agency website; and if he will make a statement. [707481

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (a)(i) In 2001 the Highways Agency established the Operations, Network Strategy and Corporate Directorates as part of an internal reorganisation, primarily to help improve its focus on delivering operational services.

  (a) (ii) As part of that reorganisation the Highways Agency is currently migrating some staff and functions from London, increasing its regional presence so that most of the Agency's staff and functions are located close to its customers.

  (b) (i) The Highways Agency's website was redesigned in April 2002. The changes were made to enable the website to better meet its key customers' requirements and make the website generally more accessible.

  (b) (ii) The Highways Agency's website will continue to evolve to improve the supply of information about the Highways Agency's network and developments.

  Utility Costs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the change in cost of utilities has been arising from the pilot study of the working of section 74A of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991; [70378]

  (2) what his estimate is of the likely annual change in cost of utilities to the average household following the national implementation of section 74A of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991; [70377]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the assessment of the pilot study of the working of section 74A of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991; and when this will be available. [70379]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Pilot schemes to test powers under which local authorities can charge utility companies "lane rental", under section 74A of the New Roads and
  334W
  Streetworks Act 1991, began on 4 March 2002 in Camden and Middlesbrough. No decision has yet been taken on whether to make these powers available nationally. However, the Government have appointed Halcrow to measure the impact of lane rental, in terms of its effect on the level of disruption caused by utility works, the costs which it imposes on those utilities, and the possible impact on utility customers.

  Halcrow are due to deliver their first report to my Department, covering the first few months of the scheme, later this year. I will arrange for copies of their report to be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many train operating companies have not implemented recommendation 69 of the Ladbroke Grove public inquiry report. [69868]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Recommendation 69 was that"the provision on board of explanatory information about the emergency facilities of individual trains is endorsed".

  The industry has reported to the Health and Safety Executive that currently four train operating companies (TOCs) have not fully implemented this recommendation. However, all TOCs will comply with recommendation 69 by September 2002.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he takes to verify that Lord Cullen's recommendations in the Ladbroke Grove public inquiry report have been implemented. [69867]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have asked the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to ensure that all recommendations are implemented. HSC published progress reports covering the six-month recommendations from Lord Cullen's 1 and 2 reports on 20 March and 23 May, respectively. In the autumn, HSC will publish a report that will cover progress on all 295 railway safety recommendations arising from the recent railway public inquiries.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much revenue has been raised by vehicle excise duty in each of the last five years. [70182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures, in millions and net of rebates and refunds, are as follows:

  £ million

  1996–98

  4,252

  1997–98

  4,487

  1998–99

  4,855

  1999–2000

  4,738

  2000–01

  4,941

  River Thames
  Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the recommendations made by Lord Justice Clarke to increase safety on the River Thames. [71290]
  335W
  Mr. Jamieson
  On 29 November last year I announced that I had, that day, placed in the Libraries of the House an updated summary of the action taken on each of Lord Justice Clarke's 74 recommendations. I have placed a further update in the Libraries of the House today.

  Roads (At-work Accidents)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets the Government have set for reducing death and injuries to Government employees at work while on the road. [666691

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply as Minister for the Civil Service.

  No specific targets have been set for reducing deaths and injuries to civil servants at work while on the road The Government and Health and Safety Commission have, however, set a broad based target to reduce the rate of all fatal and major injury accidents by 10 per cent. by 2010. This target covers all accidents reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Deaths and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. This includes the reporting of accidents to employees at work on the road, but not generally work-related traffic accidents.

  A high level forum has also been established to explore ways in which the civil service can act as an exemplar for reducing all accidents to its employees.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much irrecoverable VAT was paid, in each of the last three years for which information is available, in respect of the activities of the university museums and galleries which have collections that have been designated by Resource as outstanding. [70039]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: There is no requirement for such bodies to record VAT that cannot be recovered. As a consequence this information is unavailable.

  Mis-selling
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints of mis-selling of(a) endowment policies and (b) other financial products by (i) tied agencies and (ii) independent financial advisers have been made to the Financial Services Authority in each of the last five years. [703701

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority, as regulator, makes rules for IFAs and for tied agents. These include rules designed to prevent mis-selling and rules which require regulated firms to follow specified complaints procedures. Where firms are unable to resolve complaints themselves, FSA rules require them to allow complainants to pursue their complaints with the Financial Ombudsman Service and to comply promptly with an ombudsman's decision.

  The FOS has provided the following figures for complaints handled either by itself or by its predecessor bodies.
  336W

  Mortgage Endowment Complaints

  IFAs

  Percentage

  Tied Agents

  Percentage

  Total

  2001–02

  2,312

  15.84

  12,283

  84.16

  14,595

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  9,067

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  3,135

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2,856

  1997–98

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  2,751

  1See table 3.

  Other investment related financial products (personal pension plans, whole of life/non mortgage-linked endowments and other `packaged' investment products)

  IFAs

  Percentage

  Tied agents

  Percentage

  Total

  2001–02

  1,952

  15.76

  10.434

  84.24

  12,386

  2000–01

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  8,019

  1999–2000

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  6,112

  1998–99

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  5,642

  1997–98

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  4,042

  1 See table 3.

  Table 3. Figures for the percentage split between IFAs and tied agents across the range of investment related complaints are as follows1

  IFAs (percentage)

  Tied agents (percentage)

  2001–02

  15.8

  84.2

  2000–01

  13.9

  86.1

  1999–2000

  14.9

  85.1

  1998–99

  15.5

  84.5

  1 Breakdown figures are not available for the separate categories of investment complaints.

  Pharmaceutical Companies
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax incentives exist to encourage donations of medicines to developing countries by UK-based pharmaceutical companies. [70495]

  John Healey
  Clause 55 of the Finance Bill 2002 will remove a potential tax charge on corporate donations of medical supplies and equipment made for humanitarian purposes. It will also make the cost of delivering those gifts tax deductible and will apply to goods donated on or after 1 April 2002. Similar tax treatment is already available under section 83A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for gifts in kind made to United Kingdom charities by businesses.

  Statistics Commission
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Statistics Commission's annual report and accounts for 2001–02 will be published. [71293]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Statistics Commission's annual report and accounts, covering the 2001–02 financial year, are being published today having been laid before both Houses of Parliament. Copies are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

  Imported Goods (VAT)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the consultation on the VAT treatment of imported goods, announced in the Budget. [71292]
  337W
  John Healey
  Customs have today issued a consultation document entitled "Easing the Impact of VAT on Business: Consultation on the Delayed Accounting for VAT at Import Scheme (DAVIS)". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Responses to the consultation are invited by 31 October 2002.

  Corporate Accounting
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to reform corporate accounting measures; [697531

  (2) what (a) British and (b) EU legislation is in place regarding corporate accounting measures; and what plans the Government have to change that legislation. [69752]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The White Paper on Modernising Company Law, published on 16 July 2002, sets out the Government's proposals for modernising company accounting. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EC, the Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC, Directive 86/635/EEC and directive 91/674/EEC set out the requirements in respect of the preparation of annual and consolidated accounts of companies, banks and insurance undertakings. On 3 June 2002, the European Commission issued a draft directive designed to modernise the first three of these directives; negotiations commenced this month.

  The European Regulation on International Accounting Standards was adopted on 7 June 2002. It requires companies admitted to trading on regulated markets in the EU to prepare their consolidated accounts on the basis of accounting standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, from January 2005. The regulation gives member states the option to extend its application to other companies; the Government intend to consult on this in due course.

  Departmental Appointments
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) taskforces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33879]

  Ruth Kelly
  (a) The Chancellor is responsible for three public bodies.

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee on the design of coins, medals, seals and decorations
  Professor Sir Christopher Frayling was appointed as chairman in February 2001. Members of the committee are appointed on a seven yearly basis and are unpaid.

  Public Services Productivity Panel
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury chairs the panel.

  Statistics Commission
  Sir John Kingman was appointed as chairman in May 2000 and receives an annual salary of £28,000 per annum.

  Further information about these bodies is available on the Treasury website.
  338W
  We have nothing to report under categories (b), (c) and (d). The Bank of England is a public corporation and does not fall into the categories (a) to (d) however the relevant details are:

  Court of the Bank of England
  The chairman of the Court of Directors is the Governor of the Bank of England, whose present salary as Governor is £250,567. Sir Edward George has held this post since 1 July 1993 and was reappointed for a second five-year term on 1 July 1998.

  (e) Information on the number, remit and membership of taskforces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews has been published by the Cabinet Office on a regular basis. The first report was published on 11 January 2000 and gives information for the period between 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999.

  A second report was published on 27 July 2000, and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. A third report was published on 27 December 2000 covering the period 1 May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report: "Taskforces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews", which was issued in October 2001, covers the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Since the publication of the last annual report, a number of significant reviews have been commissioned and have issued reports. These include:
  Howard Davies report on "Enterprise and the Economy in Education", published on 14 February 2002;
  Derek Wanless' report—"Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View", published on 17 April 2002;
  Ron Sandler's report on his "Review of Retail Savings", published on 9 July 2002.

  Information on the political affiliation of chairs of the bodies listed is not collected. Membership and voting behaviour is a matter on which all citizens have the right to privacy.

  Correspondence
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Workington concerning correspondence from Mr. Proctor, a Cockermouth constituent. [57294]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have replied to my hon. Friend, and apologise for the considerable delay which occurred while we listened to all interested parties and resolved the issue.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 12 July; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [70624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 12 July.

  The Presidency introduced their work programme for ECOFIN. I and a number of other Ministers, stressed the importance of ECOFIN discussing the economic and budgetary aspects of enlargement.

  ECOFIN then had an orientation debate on the Commission's Communication on company taxation "Towards an Internal Market without tax obstacles".
  339W
  I stressed that we could consider some of the proposed targeted measures based on existing directive but could not accept harmonisation of the corporate tax base or rate. The Presidency asked the Commission to take forward further work, concentrating on the proposed short term targeted measures.

  ECOFIN adopted conclusions on financial services, agreeing to extend the Lamfalussy procedures for securities legislation to the banking and insurance sectors. There will be further discussion of this at the October ECOFIN. ECOFIN agreed a mandate for an inter institutional monitoring group to report on the progress of the Lamfalussy procedures in the securities markets. The Council also noted a brief oral update from the Commission on implications of the current market situation for financial services.

  The chairman of the Economic Policy Committee (EPC) gave an oral report to the Council, and presented two EPC papers on the relative merits of different pension systems. ECOFIN invited the Commission and the Economic Policy Committee to continue their work, focusing on the long term sustainability of pensions systems. There will be a joint Commission-Council report on pensions to the spring 2003 European Council.

  The Commission made a short presentation to the Council on public finances in EMU.

  ECOFIN noted the Commission's annual report on the protection of the Community's financial interests and the fight against fraud, and will discuss this again once the report has been considered by the relevant committees.

  ECOFIN agreed conclusions on Council reform as a follow up to the Seville European Council, and on methods of evaluating output gaps.

  No votes were taken at this meeting.

  EU Committees (Scottish Executive Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the European Securities Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [70903]

  Ruth Kelly
  The European Securities Committee is next due to meet on 19 and 20 September 2002. The UK is represented by an official from HM Treasury. Financial regulation is not a devolved matter. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not attended the Committee.

  Tax Credits (Advertising)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the advertising campaigns for(a) the working families tax credit, (b) the disabled person's tax credit, (c) the children's tax credit, (d) the child care tax credit and (e) the baby tax credit, have cost; and what the total annual spend on advertising each of these tax credits has been in each year since 1999–2000. [684781

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total campaign costs for tax credits are as follows.
  340W

  £

  Campaign

  Total campaign costs

  1999–2000

  Working families' tax credit

  13,800,000

  2000–01

  Working families' tax credit

  7,184,000

  Disabled person's tax credit

  219,000

  Children's tax credit

  7,161,000

  2001–02

  Working families' tax credit

  2,546,000

  Disabled person's tax credit

  957,000

  Children's tax credit

  364,000

  Note:

  All figures include advertising, VAT and other promotional activity such as freephone helpline.

  The 1999–2000 campaign costs for disabled person's tax credit were included within the working families' tax credit total campaign expenditure. The cost of obtaining a further breakdown of the total campaign costs between the two credits for that first year of their launch would be disproportionate.

  The child care tax credit is a component of working families' and disabled person's tax credit and the baby tax credit is a component of the children's tax credit. Figures for child care tax credit and baby tax credit expenditure are not, therefore, accounted for separately.

  For advertising costs alone I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 13 June 2002, Official Report, column 1394W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Manchester City Council
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the leader of Manchester city council. [64226]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I last met the leader of Manchester city council on 25 September 2001.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many special advisers serve in his Department; and what the total of their annual salaries is. [67551]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has three special adviser posts, two and a half of which are currently filled. It is not normal practice to release details of salaries paid.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the spending review. [68690]

  Mr. Leslie
  The spending review involves a comprehensive assessment of the Department's performance, priorities and resource requirements and a wide range of staff make a contribution.

  Homelessness
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were accepted as homeless in each of the unitary authorities in each of the last five years; and how many were accommodated in bed and breakfast establishments. [69345]

  Mr. McNulty
  Summary information on activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985

  Households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need during year

  Homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation as at end March

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Bath and North East Somerset

  405

  299

  294

  269

  364

  10

  3

  5

  4

  27

  24

  Blackburn with Darwen

  444

  187

  198

  182

  232

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Blackpool

  89

  98

  96

  118

  132

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Bournemouth

  257

  281

  393

  496

  512

  16

  14

  1—

  76

  102

  96

  Bracknell Forest

  62

  55

  73

  65

  59

  2

  6

  4

  8

  15

  3

  Brighton and Hove

  914

  631

  868

  925

  1,112

  135

  142

  171

  248

  282

  291

  Bristol

  1,621

  1,408

  974

  1,153

  1,444

  44

  49

  86

  65

  96

  149

  Darlington

  87

  51

  72

  211

  197

  1—

  8

  2

  6

  1

  1

  Derby

  1,114

  1,245

  1,258

  1,065

  1,085

  1—

  1

  1—

  3

  1

  1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  244

  281

  307

  305

  289

  4

  1

  1—

  1—

  2

  1

  Halton

  308

  163

  147

  126

  216

  3

  2—

  2—

  1—

  5

  2—

  Hartlepool

  209

  161

  131

  223

  240

  1

  1—

  3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Herefordshire

  324

  187

  254

  304

  278

  1

  8

  11

  7

  7

  11

  Isle of Wight

  283

  322

  270

  296

  297

  27

  56

  71

  54

  68

  72

  Kingston upon Hull

  273

  114

  153

  230

  270

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  Leicester

  1,021

  282

  747

  692

  774

  1

  2—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  2—

  Luton

  260

  195

  209

  229

  261

  10

  5

  4

  5

  33

  25

  Medway

  262

  238

  113

  170

  355

  1—

  1

  3

  16

  58

  52

  Middlesbrough

  472

  484

  406

  408

  414

  7

  6

  7

  2

  2

  12

  Milton Keynes

  559

  578

  537

  613

  1,035

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  2

  North East Lincolnshire

  234

  163

  131

  87

  95

  1—

  2

  2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Lincolnshire

  166

  230

  260

  249

  259

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  North Somerset

  215

  214

  362

  318

  343

  7

  14

  1

  5

  23

  27

  Nottingham City

  1,074

  908

  943

  881

  880

  7

  2

  2—

  2—

  6

  2—

  Peterborough

  169

  125

  95

  127

  170

  5

  1—

  3

  8

  16

  3

  Plymouth

  791

  940

  911

  1,019

  1,112

  17

  24

  36

  70

  55

  94

  Poole

  135

  153

  134

  125

  170

  1—

  40

  48

  43

  60

  42

  Portsmouth

  559

  413

  670

  547

  529

  18

  19

  14

  20

  18

  21

  Reading

  590

  583

  464

  433

  468

  3

  3

  2

  7

  31

  36

  Redcar and Cleveland

  657

  479

  505

  419

  439

  54

  45

  32

  21

  30

  2—

  Rutland

  24

  16

  10

  6

  10

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Slough

  142

  148

  213

  249

  291

  1—

  1

  8

  14

  16

  22

  South Gloucestershire

  401

  403

  392

  403

  570

  31

  47

  47

  74

  128

  142

  Southampton

  537

  584

  663

  758

  686

  3

  1

  1—

  1—

  1

  7

  Southend-on-Sea

  71

  77

  83

  91

  121

  1—

  3

  3

  21

  50

  24

  Stockton-on-Tees

  390

  158

  199

  242

  287

  3

  1—

  7

  2

  1

  9

  Stoke-on-Trent

  232

  171

  163

  193

  233

  1—

  1

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Swindon

  432

  408

  377

  255

  277

  2—

  2—

  10

  9

  14

  7

  Telford and Wrekin

  374

  341

  341

  316

  352

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Thurrock

  88

  174

  163

  130

  186

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  5

  2—

  Torbay

  184

  253

  226

  185

  139

  5

  6

  11

  4

  13

  2—

  Warrington

  371

  295

  215

  273

  335

  1—

  1—

  3

  1—

  1—

  2—

  West Berkshire

  237

  225

  209

  204

  169

  1—

  1

  1

  6

  11

  1—

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  250

  105

  42

  77

  49

  6

  12

  20

  26

  8

  5

  Wokingham

  136

  112

  122

  143

  94

  1

  1—

  2

  1

  16

  2—

  York

  196

  280

  393

  282

  495

  13

  18

  26

  24

  68

  41

  1 Denotes nil (0)

  2 Denotes data not reported

  Sources:

  Acceptances: ODPM annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns

  Bed and breakfast: ODPM quarterly PIE housing activity and HIP returns

  Social Exclusion
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to identify deprived communities at sub-ward level to ensure that they are not excluded from future Government programmes to combat poverty and social exclusion. [69511]
  342W
  and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and the number of these households resident in various types of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast hotels, at the end of each quarter.

  National and regional figures are presented in a quarterly Statistical Release, and an accompanying Supplementary Table also summarises reported information at local authority level. Both of these are available in the Library and via the ODPM website.

  A summary of available information for the 46 unitary authorities in England is presented in the following table.

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's Neighbourhood Statistics initiative will aim to provide deprivation-related data at sub-ward level in the future.

  In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly award a contract to investigate how the Indices of Deprivation 2000 (the current measure used
  343W
  to identify deprived neighbourhoods) may be further developed and, where possible, updated.

  As part of this contract, the researchers will assess the potential for further developing the Indices to sub-ward level.

  Fire Services (Radio Communications)
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what effect the time scale proposed for the procurement of a national radio communications system for the fire services in England and Wales will have on the ability of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to have in place a new radio system by December 2005. [70001]

  Mr. Leslie
  The project to procure a national radio communications system for the fire service is now under way. A prior indicative notice was published under EU procurement rules on 11 July, and the project team are taking forward work on the development of project plans and system specification. We expect to publish a formal notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the end of this year. The new national procurement strategy will deliver new radio systems to fire authorities, including the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, from 2005 up to December 2007—but with higher levels of resilience and interoperability than planned under the previous regional procurement.

  Haven Gateway Partnership
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the Haven Gateway Partnership is treated as a legitimate stakeholder when economic and social regeneration initiatives and policies are being considered affecting the eastern region. [69988]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I recognise the important role that the Haven Gateway Partnership, working with the East of England Development Agency and other partners, is playing in raising the economic profile of the area, and it will continue to be consulted about policy proposals and initiatives in the east of England region that are relevant to that role.

  Residential Property Conversions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many existing dwellings were converted into multi-occupancy dwellings in(a) Greater London and (b) Hertfordshire in each year since 1981. [69770]

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

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many non-residential properties were converted into residential dwellings in(a) Greater London and (b) Hertfordshire in each year from 1981. [69769]

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

  Coalfield Regeneration Trust
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money from(a) his Department and (b) other Government Departments has been granted to the Coalfield Regeneration Trust since February 2001. [70263]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since February 2001 the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has received the following sums of money for England:

  (a) From ODPM—£26,107,681; and

  (b) From DCMS (Heritage Lottery Fund)—£69,064.

  The Trust has also received European funds of £1,272,112.

  As announced in February 2001, from 1 April 2002 another £45 million will be made available from the ODPM to the trust over the three years to 2005.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to restrict the erection of telecommunications masts in residential areas. [70159]

  Mr. McNulty
  Mobile phone mast development in residential areas is subject to the normal telecommunications planning arrangements in place throughout England, set out in Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). These arrangements were significantly strengthened last year and include improved requirements for consulting local people about mast proposals. The changes to the GPDO were underpinned by revised guidance, set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8, Telecommunications.

  The Stewart Report on Mobile Phones and Health, published in May 2000, did not recommend that the erection of mobile phone masts should be restricted in residential areas and we have no plans to introduce such a restriction.

  Unadopted Roads
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he gives to local authorities regarding the adoption of(a) unadopted and (b) un-made roads. [70397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not give formal guidance to local authorities regarding the adoption of unadopted or unmade roads. However, the governing legislation applying to the adoption of unadopted roads is contained in sections 205–218 of the Highways Act 1980. Any decision to adopt these roads which are not highways maintainable at the public expense is a matter for the local highway authority.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he provides to local authorities regarding the provision of services to properties located on unadopted roads. [70398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not provide any specific guidance to local authorities relating to waste collection or street cleaning on unadopted roads.
  345W
  However, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on each waste collection authority to arrange for the collection of household waste in its area, except where the waste is situated at a place which, in the opinion of the authority, is so isolated or inaccessible that the cost of collecting it would be unreasonably high.

  The Act also puts a duty on local authorities and statutory undertakers to keep their relevant land, including roads, clear of litter and refuse. However, this duty does not apply to unadopted roads as they are not 'relevant land' as specified under section 86 of the Act. The clearance of litter on these roads is therefore the responsibility of the residents on that road.

  Abandoned Cars
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what date he sent new guidelines on dealing with abandoned cars to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [70005]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  New Regulations (Statutory Instrument 2002–746) to reduce the time after which local authorities can remove vehicles abandoned on the highway came into force on 9 April. These were sent on 11 April under a letter of guidance to the chief executive of each waste collection authority, waste disposal authority and joint waste disposal authority in England.

  Regulatory Accountability
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulatory proposals the ministerial panel on regulatory accountability has scrutinised in the last 12 months. [69678]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is established practice under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committee business is not disclosed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Energy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received concerning(a) current and (b) projected expenditure on nuclear energy publicity campaigns. [69447]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Nuclear Waste
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what testing procedures are employed, and at what cost, to ensure the safety of storage flasks used in the transportation of nuclear waste. [69038]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the UK, flasks used for the transport of radioactive material are approved by the Department of Transport to all relevant national and international regulations based on the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA's recommendations, "Regulations for the Safe Transport of
  346W
  Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition (Revised)", contain very stringent design test requirements that all packages, including flasks, must meet.

  The costs associated with testing such flask designs and the flasks themselves, are borne by the industry.

  Nuclear Security
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent measures she has implemented to increase the Office of Civil Nuclear Security's anti-terrorist inspections at nuclear facilities. [69450]

  Mr. Wilson
  As stated in his recent Annual report, the Director of Civil Nuclear Security is recruiting extra staff to strengthen oversight and inspection at civil nuclear facilities.

  Nuclear Plant Construction
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sites are being considered for the construction of nuclear plants. [69443]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. In common with all generation options, the initiative for bringing forward proposals to construct new plant lies with the market and the generating companies. British Energy and BNFL have said they have no current plans for such proposals.

  Energy Industry (Hackers)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations have been made to her Department regarding(a) the level of hacker activity against the energy industry and (b) the origin of such activity. [69453]

  Mr. Wilson
  No recent representations have been received on these topics.

  Energy (Economic Competitiveness)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received and by what measures she assesses the economic competitiveness of (i) nuclear, (ii) renewable, (iii) coal and (iv) fossil-fuel energy. [69455]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review, the Government launched a consultation on energy policy on 14 May with a view to publishing a White Paper around the turn of the year. The consultation document states that competitiveness is a key objective of energy policy.

  We shall shortly be posting the early replies which we have received to the consultation on the DTI's website, and a number of these have raised issues related to the competitiveness of different energy sources.

  A key measure of competitiveness is relative cost but other aspects which may be relevant include market share, openness to trade, measures of productivity and levels of innovation.

  Our view of the competitiveness of particular fuels is influenced by the extent to which external factors such as the impact on the environment or security are significant and have been taken into account.

  Uranium Mining
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where the uranium mines are from which the United Kingdom has obtained uranium since 1997. [69441]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Fuel Companies
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the trend in the number of transfers of fuel supply by energy companies without customers' consent. [68821]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of complaints about the erroneous transfer of gas supply received by Energywatch rose from 2,511—one and a half per 1,000 transfers—in January to June 2001 to 4,204—two per 1,000 transfers—in July to December 2001. In the same period, the number of complaints about the erroneous transfer of electricity supply rose from 2,905—one per 1,000 transfers—to 4,837—one and a half per 1,000 transfers. Complaints about marketing for 2001 also include involuntary transfers that occurred as a result of the sales process. The number of gas marketing complaints rose from 1,201 in January to June 2001 to 1,753 in July to December 2001. In the same period, electricity marketing complaints rose from 1,776 to 3,116. Energywatch complaints figures will shortly incorporate erroneous transfers arising from both administrative or data error and mis-selling. Although involuntary transfers remain very low in relation to the level of transfer activity—there were almost 1 million registrations in 2001—the Government are concerned about the distress and inconvenience caused by erroneous transfer of energy supply. They welcomed the Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter, which came into force on 1 January 2002. They have also encouraged the industry in its development of an action plan to address misselling, which should remove a key cause of erroneous transfers.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require fuel companies staff to be trained in consumer protection laws which relate to the fuel industry. [68823]

  Mr. Wilson
  The gas and electricity supply industry is working with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) and Energywatch on an action plan to address the problem of sales malpractice. Among other things, this will involve the establishment of an industry-wide code of practice. Six companies will also pilot the Electricity Association's EnergySure scheme, which was launched on 15 July. This will ensure that all agents are trained to an agreed, externally monitored standard. It will specifically require that sales agents understand the range of general and specific regulations that protect energy consumers.

  Fuel Supply Transfers
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sanctions exist for energy companies which carry out transfers of fuel supply without customers' consent. [688221
  348W
  Mr. Wilson
  The treatment of erroneous transfers is governed by the Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter, which was developed by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) and Energywatch. The charter, which is intended to improve co-operation between suppliers with a view to resolving problems quickly, with minimal involvement on the consumer's part, was agreed by the industry last year and came into force on 1 January 2002. OFGEM will review the industry's performance against the charter in October 2002, and has made clear that, if the industry's performance against the charter is inadequate, it will consider the modification of standard licence conditions or the introduction of guaranteed standards of performance, which carry an automatic right to compensation.

  Where erroneous transfers arise from mis-selling, the mis-selling may be dealt with under the appropriate consumer legislation or under condition 48 of the gas and electricity supply licence—the marketing licence condition. OFGEM may take a wide range of action in respect of breaches of licence conditions, including levying financial penalties.

  Consignia
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 988W, on Consignia, if she will list the total severance pay, broken down by (a) redundancy pay, (b) pension contribution and (c) other payments, for (i) Neville Bain and (ii) Mike Kinski; what notice period was served by each; and if she will make a statement. [67532]

  Mr. Timms
  Neville Bain's employment ceased at the end of a fixed-term contract. No redundancy or other payment was provided. Mr. Bain is in receipt of a pension in accordance with his contract. There was no explicit notice period other than the duration of the fixed-term contract.

  Mike Kinski resigned his Directorship. There was no notice period applicable, no redundancy or other payment, and no pension entitlement.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to Consignia in relation to their proposal to charge businesses for deliveries prior to 9 am. [70367]

  Mr. Timms
  None. Consignia's proposals are an operational matter for the company, who will consult fully with the regulator, the Postal Services Commission, and the consumer body, Postwatch.

  Post Office
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on small businesses in rural areas of(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England of the proposal to impose charges for delivery of mail prior to 9 am. [70368]

  Mr. Timms
  None. Consignia's proposals are an operational matter for the company, who will consult fully with the regulator, the Postal Services Commission, and the consumer body, Postwatch.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom postal services of the decision of the European Commission that Deutsche Post should repay illegal state aid. [64495]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have not yet studied the details surrounding the Commission's decision in this case. However in general we welcome the Commission's determination to tackle state aid which illegally distorts competitive markets. The decision will have no impact on our proposed funding for the post office network and mails business as this will be dictated solely by the need to ensure that the company continues to perform its vital social and economic role in a context of growing competition in postal services. Such objectives are legitimate in state aids terms and we will ensure that any aid or investment we provide will be fully compatible with the European rules.

  Post Office (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether provision will be made in the review of the urban and rural post office network for the provision of disabled access for those offices that need them. [68070]

  Mr. Timms
  As a matter of general policy, provision for disabled access to post offices will be taken into account in reviewing the future structure of the network. Compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act at any specific post office location is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. in respect of Crown offices and of the individual subpostmaster in respect of sub post offices.

  I have been informed by Post Office Ltd. that subpostmasters have been provided with packs enabling them to audit their own offices for Disability Discrimination Act compliance and that advice will be provided by Post Office Ltd. throughout this process.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, by region, the post offices that are accessible by the disabled; and what proportion these post offices comprise of the total in their respective region. [68533]

  Mr. Timms
  Accessibility for the disabled at post offices is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. together with individual subpostmasters and I have asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Post Office (Casual Workers)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks were carried out by the Post Office on(a) agency and (b) directly recruited casual workers employed in 2001. [65045]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Subpostmaster Vacancies
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many subpostmaster vacancies there were in each year since 1997, including 2002 to date. [68356]

  Mr. Timms
  Subpostmaster vacancies are an operational matter for the Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Vibration White Finger
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners suffering from vibration white finger who had mixed employment with both British Coal and other mining contractors have received their compensation; and how many claims are outstanding. [69460]

  Mr. Wilson
  There have been around 3,700 settlements of general damages compensation in co-defendant cases. We estimate that there are around 17,000 claims outstanding.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of her Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56314]

  Ms Hewitt
  A number of the activities carried out by DTI and its agencies are the responsibility in Scotland of the Scottish Executive, so that direct comparisons are inappropriate. Bearing in mind that caveat, the following table sets out the numbers of staff in DTI and its executive agencies who are located in Scotland.

  Organisation

  Staff based in Scotland

  All staff

  Percentage of staff based in Scotland

  DTI Headquarters

  166

  5,178

  3.21

  ETS—Employment Tribunals Service

  70

  934

  7.49

  INSS—Insolvency Service

  6

  1,385

  0.43

  NWML—National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  0

  57

  0.00

  PATS—Patent Office

  0

  801

  0.00

  R—Radiocommunications

  12

  607

  1.98

  SBS—Small Business Service

  0

  279

  0.00

  CH—Companies House

  42

  1,193

  3.52

  Grand Total

  296

  10,434

  2.84

  Information about NDPBs and the number of posts relocated since May 1997 cannot be answered without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Company Takeovers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation of Section 429(4) of the Companies Act 1985 and Schedule 12 to the Financial Services Act 1986. [66590]
  351W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Schedule 12 to the Financial Services Act 1986 introduced Part XIII A into the Companies Act 1985 which is designed to deal with the problems of residual minority shareholdings following a successful takeover bid. The principal provisions are:

  (a) Rights enabling a successful takeover bidder which has acquired not less than 90 per cent. in value of the shares to which the offer relates to compulsorily acquire the remaining residual minority shareholding (known as "squeeze-out" rights); and

  (b) Equivalent rights to a minority shareholder to require the successful bidder in these circumstances to acquire the shares owned by the minority shareholder ("sell-out" rights).

  To ensure that these rights are not abused, important safeguards are in place (including strict time limits during which squeeze-out rights and sell-out rights may be exercised, a requirement that the price offered to minority shareholders must be the same as that of the original offer and the right to apply to court in exceptional circumstances).

  Section 429(4) of the Companies Act lays down the mechanisms by which a successful takeover bidder may exercise squeeze-out rights.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Small Business Service is taking to ensure that regulations do not impose unnecessary burdens on small businesses. [70100]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: The Small Business Service is taking a number of steps to mitigate the effects of regulation and to reduce the burden on small businesses. The SBS has:
  produced clear guidance on a number of complex regulations.
  made help and advice available through the Business Link website www.businesslink.org. This is now attracting 80,000 users per month—and businesses can register to receive alerts about regulations automatically.
  established close working links with the Small Business Council.
  secured (as a result of its "Think Small First" strategy) the right to be consulted on all new regulations to ensure that the impact on small businesses is not disproportionate. Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) have to be produced for all regulations setting out clearly the costs and benefits with full recognition of small business concerns.
  secured for small businesses a 12 week period between regulations being agreed and implemented, allowing small businesses time to adapt to the new regulations.
  regularly brought together groups of small businesses to express their views directly to policy officials such as for Patrick Carter's review of payroll administration, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.
  we have also set up an independent office to represent the views of small firms to the European institutions, headed by Ben Butters, which takes its lobbying lines from small firms in the United Kingdom.
  the OECD assessment of regulatory harriers ranks the UK as having the fewest barriers.

  Further to all this and following the recent review of the Department of Trade and Industry, the regulatory challenge function within DTI has been strengthened. A new team has been created specifically to consider how the Department should challenge existing and future
  352W
  legislation as well as how to ensure all policy makers fully consider alternatives to regulation at the outset of the policy making process.

  Mine Workers Compensation
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid in England and Wales by the Government in recompense for legal fees to solicitors in respect of industrial compensation claims for(a) vibration white finger and (b) chest disease for former mine-workers, (i) in total and (ii) broken down by (A) individual legal practices and (B) parliamentary constituency. [68875]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  Total costs paid to solicitors as at 9 July 2002

  £ million

  COPD

  VWF

  Total costs paid to solicitors

  66

  52

  I have placed details of the breakdown by (A) individual legal practices and (B) parliamentary constituencies in the Libraries of the House.

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what percentage of energy consumed in the UK in each of the last five years came from renewable sources; [68237]

  (2) what proportion of UK energy consumption she expects being derived from renewable sources in each of the next five years. [68236]

  Mr. Wilson
  The percentage of total UK inland energy consumption that was accounted for by all renewable sources in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Total use of renewable sources thousand tones of1

  Total inland energy consumption oil equivalent2

  Percentage

  1997

  2,326

  226,814

  1.0

  1998

  2,583

  230,785

  1.1

  1999

  2,757

  231,353

  1.2

  2000

  2,957

  233,423

  1.3

  2001

  3,099

  237,727

  1.3

  1includes non-biodegradable wastes and renewables used to generate heat

  2 non-energy uses of gas and oil are excluded; energy consumption is expressed in terms of primary energy inputs (i.e. electricity's contribution to consumption is measured by the energy content of the fuel used to generate the electricity).

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2002

  On the same basis, the available projections, published in Energy Paper 68, "Energy Projections for the UK", are for 2005 and 2010. These projections give percentages for 2005 of 2.3 or 2.4 per cent. of UK energy consumption being met from renewable sources, depending on the scenario, and for 2010 between 4.3 and 4.8 per cent. These figures reflect the projected increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources which is planned to reach 10 per cent. by 2010.

  Post Boxes
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the accessibility of post boxes. [68233]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial support RDAs have provided for building projects on previously undeveloped land in the last financial year. [66250]

  Alan Johnson
  During the three years after the RDAs were created on 1 April 1999 up to the introduction of their single programme funding on 1 April 2002, the RDAs reported to each funding Department individually on the outcome of their separate programmes. Building projects on undeveloped land were funded by what is now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Accordingly DTI does not hold any figures for the last financial year.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which bodies carry out the training of new recruits to the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. [63843]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) employs applicants with a suitable background in the area. In addition to providing specialist training within its own organisation, new recruits undergo training as applicable and necessary with a number of other Government agencies.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 11 June 2002 to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham),Official Report, column 1157W, on the Director of Civil Nuclear Security, when she received a copy of the report from the Director of Civil Nuclear Security; whether a press release was issued to accompany the release of the report; and to which individuals, bodies and organisations in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere the report has been sent. [63934]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received a copy of the Director of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security's (OCNS) first annual report during May. No press release was issued about its publication. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 1157W when I said that the report was being placed in the Libraries of the House that day and was also being made available on the DTI website, www.dti.gov.uk. The report was also sent to all civil nuclear companies in the United Kingdom subject to security regulation, to overseas liaison contacts of OCNS and other Government Departments and agencies as appropriate.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has
  354W
  had with the Ofgem board about the development of renewable energy in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [70235]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have regular discussions with the chairman of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, who is also the chief executive of Ofgem, on matters including the development of renewable energy.

  The responsibilities of Ofgem are defined by legislation. The aim of discussions between this Department and Ofgem is to explore how Ofgem, in carrying out its statutory responsibilities, can best assist in the furtherance of Government energy policy objectives, including the development of renewable energy.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the levels of remuneration for members of the Ofgem board. [70234]

  Mr. Wilson
  The non-executive members of the board are paid £12,000 per annum.

  The executive members of the board are paid annual salaries as follows:

  Range (£)

  No. of members

  95,000 to 100,000

  1

  110,000 to 115,000

  1

  120,000 to 125,000

  1

  140,000 to 145,000

  1

  160,000 to 165,000

  1

  Source:

  Ofgem Annual Report

  Environmental Criteria
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had on the proposed EU Commission directive on public procurement relating to environmental criteria; and if she will make a statement. [68030]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have been heavily involved in discussions—both domestically and in Brussels—on the proposed new public procurement directive which, among other things, clarifies the scope to take account of environmental issues in public procurement. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets, signed up to a political agreement on the proposed directive at the Internal Market Council on 21 May. The proposed new directive will make it clear how environmental issues can be taken into account at all stages of the procurement process. This clarification, which is very much in line with UK objectives, should be particularly helpful in confirming the scope to take account of green production processes, eco-label criteria and environmental management systems.

  Environment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to support integration of environmental considerations into the public procurement process at the EU Council meeting in September; and if she will make a statement. [68031]
  355W
  Mr. Wilson
  Political agreement was reached on the proposals to simplify, clarify and update the existing public procurement directives at the Internal Market Council on 21 May. In the discussions leading up to this agreement, the UK strongly supported proposals to incorporate legitimate environmental considerations into the procurement process. The proposed new directive will, in particular, clarify the scope to use non-discriminatory specifications, which can include relevant eco-label criteria and green production processes. It will also confirm the scope to consider relevant elements of a company's environmental management systems in selecting tenderers, and to take account of whole life cost and quality issues, such as energy and disposal savings which benefit the contracting authority, at the award stage. This is all very much in line with UK objectives. Discussions are continuing on parallel proposals to amend the utilities directive, where it is expected that the scope to take account of environmental issues, under this directive, will be very similar to that for the public sector. It is not yet clear whether procurement will be a matter for the September Internal Market Council.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to incorporate environmental criteria into public procurement policies by EU member states. [68029]

  Mr. Wilson
  Each member state is responsible for its own public procurement policies within the framework set by the treaty and the EC public procurement directives. The Government have been very active—both domestically and in Brussels—in considering how environmental issues can be taken into account in public procurement within the EC legal framework and the Government's policy of achieving value for money for the taxpayer. The UK played a full part in the discussions in Brussels leading up to the publication of the Commission's interpretative communication on environmental issues and in the clarifications, in the proposed new public sector directive, of how environmental considerations can be taken into account at each stage of the procurement process.

  EU Policy Decisions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account she has taken of the treaty of Amsterdam in seeking to integrate environmental considerations into policy decisions by the EU; and if she will make a statement. [68028]

  Mr. Wilson
  Especially bearing in mind the treaty of Amsterdam, the Department has played an active and constructive part in those formations of the Council where the Department leads, to implement the conclusions of the Cardiff and subsequent Councils on integrating the environment and sustainable development in all areas of European Union policy making.

  Bankrupts
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what extra resources have been granted to the Official Receiver to ensure that the distinction between culpable and non-culpable bankrupts under the Enterprise Bill can be made. [69079]
  356W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service has been given additional funding equivalent to some 8 per cent. of the Service's gross administration budget for the next two years to train specialist staff and introduce the procedures and new IT systems required to deliver the reforms, including the new BRO process.

  Ex-miners (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long she estimates it will take to process the compensation claims by ex-miners who are suffering from vibration white finger, chronic bronchitis and emphysema; what steps she is taking to speed up the processing of claims; what plans she has to simplify and speed up the medical assessments required in compensation claims; and how many claimants have died while awaiting compensation. [69573]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]We currently receive around 700 new claims per week for vibration white finger (VWF) and around 900 per week for respiratory disease. It is therefore not possible to estimate how long it will take to process all claims.

  In order to speed up the claims process, we are continuing to work closely with the contractors and the claimants' solicitors, and have systems in place such as national ministerial monitoring groups in order to monitor the process. We are therefore ensuring that all parties are able to work together to make sure that any delays are dealt with promptly.

  The medical assessment processes for both respiratory disease and vibration white finger are detailed thoroughly in order to ensure that each claim is dealt with fairly and on an individual basis. They were agreed between the parties and there are no current plans to change them. The medical assessment is not a bottleneck causing delay in either scheme.

  The handling agreement for compensation for VWF was fonnally signed on 22 January 1999, and the respiratory disease handling agreement was formally signed on 24 September 1999. Claims under either scheme could not have been settled before this date. The number of claimants who initiated their claim after the date of the agreement, but have died since registering their claim, is 9,071 for respiratory disease and 3,151 for VWF.

  British Manufacturing
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps have been taken to support British manufacturing. [69214]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's Strategy for Manufacturing, published on 16 May this year sets a strategic framework for action, in partnership with key stakeholders, to help UK manufacturing companies fulfil
  357W
  their potential and move up the value chain to high-skilled, knowledge-intensive, highly productive operations. The strategy identifies seven pillars with objectives and actions for Government and industry to develop:

  Macro-economic stability

  Investment

  Innovation

  Best practice

  Raising skills and education levels

  Modern infrastructure

  The right market framework.

  It has been warmly received by manufacturers and trade unions.

  Recent steps taken within the strategy include:

  The roll out of the Manufacturing Advisory Service across the Regions.

  An example of practical measures to build manufacturing excellence, the MAS will provide free information to all UK manufacturers and practical help for smaller and medium sized firms in England and Wales who want to introduce world class manufacturing practices and technologies but who can find it difficult to access the information they need.

  Action on skills and training.

  The Government are determined to raise skills and education levels with vocational GCSEs and modern apprenticeships offering high quality vocational training to young people. We are establishing a network of employer-led Sector Skills Councils to drive up demand and give employers a voice in skills supply.

  Support for investment.

  Through regional selective assistance, through the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and inward investment through Invest UK. The Government are promoting more investment in basic science and have introduced R&D tax credits for SMEs and recently for larger companies to encourage innovation.

  Innovation and Growth teams.

  The DTI has set up a number of Innovation and Growth teams in key sectors, drawing upon the expertise of their major stakeholders to identify key issues which will shape their future and help the UK to respond to competitive challenges. The first of these teams, covering the automotive sector reported on 16 May.

  Expansion of best practice programmes.

  To drive up national competitiveness and productivity. Best Practice, enables innovation and investment to be turned into profitable products. The Government's policies include support for the new manufacturing advisory service, expansion of the business-led Industry Forum schemes and promotion of partnership in the work place by people focused programmes such as the Partnership Fund. At the manufacturing summit last December, an additional £20 million was earmarked for Best Practice activity.

  A substantial boost to the science budget.

  To encourage a vibrant flow of skills and ideas into manufacturing from our science base. The Chancellor's announcement on the spending review, included an increase in resources for knowledge transfer from £84 million in 2003–04 to £1 14 million in 2005–06.
  358W
  DTI manufacturing policy team.

  A strengthened DTI manufacturing policy team and plans to strengthen inter-departmental action on manufacturing.

  Alternative Energy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) geothermal plants, (b) wind power farms, (c) wave power and (d) biogas plants have opened since 1997. [68184]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department does not maintain a register of all renewable energy facilities.

  The British Wind Energy Association maintains a list of wind farms in the UK on its website at http://www.bwea.comimap/list.html.

  This includes 38 wind farms opened between 1997 and March 2002.

  The Department is aware of 126 biogas plants that have opened since 1997. All derive the biogas from landfill sites. A list of these plants has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  A wave power plant on the island of Islay commenced generation in November 2000. The Department is not aware of any geothermal plant that has opened in the UK since 1997.

  Directives (Trade Barriers)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of Directives on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in the Sector of Measuring Instruments and Methods of Metrological Control is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this committee. Officials from the Health and Safety Executive, which is sponsored by my Department, represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility for health and safety is a reserved matter. However, officials would consult the Scottish Executive in the event that there were agenda items in which it has an interest, in accordance with our concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many open individual export licence applications relating to exports to India have been(a) not renewed, (b) not extended on a temporary basis and (c) refused since 1 May; and if she will make a statement. [66506]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Information on the number of open individual export licences (OIELs) relating to exports to India, that have not been renewed or extended on a temporary basis since 1 May 2002, is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  359W
  Between 1 May 2002 and 1 July 2002 no OIEL applications were refused in full where India was one of the permitted destinations.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many open individual export licences have been modified so as to exclude exports to India since I May. [66505]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Between 1 May 2002 and 1 July 2002 no extant open individual export licences (OIELs) have been amended to exclude India from the coverage of the licence. However, a number of OIELs have been issued in respect of applications, which included India as an end user, where India has for the time being been excluded from the list of permitted end user countries in the issued licence.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Advisory Committee for cooperation in the field of tourism is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64916]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Tourism Advisory Committee is mandated to facilitate exchange of information, consultation and co-operation on tourism by a Council Decision of 22 December 1986 (86/664/EEC). The Committee meets on an ad-hoc basis, some three or four times yearly, and at the request of the Commission. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.

  There are no representatives of the Scottish Executive on the Committee. The UK is represented by officials from my Department. Under concordats with the devolved administrations, my Department leads on EC tourism issues, consulting with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on the arrangements for implementing Europe Agreement with the countries of central and eastern Europe and free trade agreements with the Baltic states is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64925]

  Peter Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  The EU holds annual Association Committees with each candidate, including the three Baltic countries, to review implementation of the Europe Agreements. The next meeting of an Association Committee is expected to be on 4 December this year, with Romania. The Central European Working Group, in which member states prepare for Association Committees and discuss the arrangements for implementing the Europe Agreements, usually meets weekly in Brussels. The most recent meeting was Monday July 15. A UK official always attends and represents the concerns of the UK, including those of its devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and on the respect of human rights and
  360W
  fundamental freedoms is next due to meet; what the UK representation is on it; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64913]

  Mr. MaeShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The next meeting of the EU Committee on Human Rights and Democracy is provisionally set for October 2002. Officials from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office represent the UK Government on the Committee which allocates EU budget resources to human rights and democracy projects in third countries. Scottish Executive officials have never attended this Committee. But consultation is made on issues of interest arising from the Committee's work and Scottish Executive officials can make their views known, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to deal with complaints about mortgages in the financial year 2001–02, with specific reference to dual mortgage rates. [69078]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The financial ombudsman service has been established under the Financial Services and Markets Act to deal with complaints against financial services firms which the firms have been unable to resolve themselves. In 2001–02 it received 3,876 new complaints about mortgage loans, of which 575 were about dual variable rate mortgages.

  Regulation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she plans to take in response to the Commission's Action Plan for Better Regulation presented to the Seville European Council. [70103]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Firstly, the Government will be producing a formal written response to the Commission's Action Plan on Better Regulation. Through this response, it will welcome the Commission's adoption of a strategy aimed at simplifying and improving the regulatory environment and call for full and timely implementation of the measures contained in the Action Plan. The Action Plan is a key element of the Lisbon economic reform process and its implementation is required if the EU is to achieve its Lisbon goal of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

  Secondly, the Government will play an active role in the structures which are currently being established to monitor implementation of the Action Plan, attaching great importance to the involvement of member states in the monitoring process.

  Thirdly, the Government will continue to work with the Community Institutions and other member states, at official and ministerial level, to promote better regulation
  361W
  within the EU, recognising that achieving progress in this area involves commitment and action by all parties which play a part in the EU's law-making processes.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has(a) made to and (b) received from the Commission of the European Union regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Mandelkern report on better Regulation; and if she will make a statement. [70102]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since its publication in November 2001, the Government have been active in pressing for the full and timely implementation of the Mandelkern Report's recommendations. In particular, the Government have focused on encouraging the Commission to draw on the report as a solid basis for its Action Plan to improve and simplify the European regulatory environment, called for at the Lisbon European Council (March 2000). In January 2002 the Government issued a formal response to a Commission Communication on this issue, reiterating the need for the rapid implementation of the Mandelkern Report and informing the Commission of the action we are taking at the national level in line with the Report's recommendations.

  For its part the Commission has responded by including the majority of the Mandelkern recommendations in its Action Plan, presented to the Seville European Council in June. The Government welcomes the Action Plan which sets out a clear strategy for better regulation at the European level and contains 16 specific measures with defined deadlines for implementation. We will now be working hard to ensure that it is swiftly and effectively implemented.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to reduce the regulatory burden on public houses. [68867]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our plans for the modernisation of the alcohol and entertainment licensing regimes were set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm.4696) published on 10 April 2000. Alcohol and public entertainment licensing will be integrated into a single scheme. This will remove at a stroke a considerable amount of existing red tape and reduce licensing costs. Our estimate is that the existing costs of the licensing regimes to industry of around £4–5 billion over ten years would be reduced by £1.9 billion under the new regime. The reforms will be implemented by means of primary legislation to be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Digital Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what deadline the Government have set for NTL to build a new cable and digital network to broadcast the channels of the Digital Terrestrial Alliance; and by what date NTL will put into operation their new digital and cable network. [69073]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The award of digital terrestrial television multiplex is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. On 4 July, the Commission announced that it had made a conditional decision to award the licences to the BBC and Crown Castle and not to the Digital Terrestrial Alliance, whose bid included a rebuild of the digital network by NTL.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) the new specialist schools announced on 4 July, (b) the schools short-listed but not successful and (c) the schools which applied but were not short-listed; and, in each case, (i) what specialism was applied for, (ii) what the category of school is, (iii) whether the school is (A) selective and (B) a non-selective school in an area with selective education and (vi) what other departmental awards have been won by the school in the last five years. [67631]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will review the funding formula for specialist schools in respect of the threshold of 1,200 pupils; and if she will extend the funding so that every child attracts the same funding. [70613]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are no plans to increase specialist school recurrent grant to include funding for pupil numbers from 1,001 to 1,200.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact on school transport and traffic congestion of the proposed increases in specialist secondary schools. [69543]

  Mr. Miliband
  No assessment of school transport or traffic congestion has been made in relation to the proposed expansion of the Specialist Schools Programme.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has issued to specialist schools in respect of the processes and criteria to be(a) adopted and (b) avoided in the selection of pupils by aptitude; and what measures she has put in place to evaluate these selection processes. [68174]

  Mr. Miliband
  The flexibility for admission authorities to give priority to some pupils on the basis of aptitude is not restricted to schools in the Specialist Schools Programme, but does require the school to have a particular expertise or facility. The Code of Practice on school admissions provides guidance on what is and is not permitted under Section 102 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 where the admission authority of a school with a specialism wishes to give priority to up to 10 per cent. of pupils who can demonstrate an aptitude for one of the prescribed subjects. The arrangements made are subject to local challenge and there has been no central evaluation of the processes.

  Teacher Statistics
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher retirements due to(a) old age and (b) ill health there were in each Government office region, broken down by (i) last known sector of service and (ii) grade in the latest year for which figures are available. [69969]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.
  364W
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified teachers in each Government office region aged under 60 have never worked in teaching, broken down by(a) calendar year qualified, (b) sex and (c) age, at the latest date for which figures are available. [69968]

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

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified teachers aged under 60 were working outside the service in each Government office region, broken down by(a) last known employment, (b) calendar year of last employment, (c) sex and (d) age in the latest year for which figures are available. [69967]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will provide a breakdown of the ethnic group of(a) primary school teachers and (b) secondary school teachers by local education authority area at the latest date for which figures are available. [69970]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not available. For the short-term, information on the number of teachers in service by ethnic group will be collected via the Annual Survey of Teachers in Service. The next survey will be carried out in January 2003. In the longer term, ethnicity data for all the schools' workforce is likely to be collected through a proposed common dataset for adults, on which the Department has recently consulted.

  Teacher Training
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will give a breakdown of the average proportions of SCITT funding that are directed to the(a) HE partner, (b) school and (c) mentor. [70229]

  Mr. Miliband
  Most SCITTs are formed only from groups of schools working in a consortium. It is the consortium that gains accreditation, receives the funds and decides how the funds are distributed to manage and run the training programme. Some choose to buy in services from a higher education institution but they are not obliged to do so. Most choose to reward the staff involved in school-based tutoring by providing release time or with remuneration. In all cases, no central rules or regulations are set down.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she plans to ensure that schools and mentors receive an appropriate proportion of SCITT funding. [70230]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for the teacher training provider to decide how best to allocate its funds to deliver initial teacher training (ITT), including what element of available resources to provide to support mentor training and mentoring activities across schools.

  The Teacher Training Agency (ITA), which has responsibility for teacher training matters, does not regulate the day-to-day management of ITT providers, including SCITTs. The quality of the training provided, including the quality of the management, is subject to
  365W
  periodic inspection by Ofsted. Providers would be expected to take action to address problems which affect the achievements of trainees.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to increase the number of schools involved in SCITT programmes. [70228]

  Mr. Miliband
  We welcome proposals from consortia of schools to become accredited providers of initial teacher training (ITT). Revised accreditation criteria were introduced last year following a consultation period. These should strengthen the SCITT sector by ensuring proposers of new provision understand the commitment they need to make to secure quality and viability and that they develop robust proposals. The further growth of the sector will depend on how many groups of schools can meet this challenge.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many SCITT schemes have been funded; and how many graduate teachers they have yielded in each of the last three years. [70231]

  Mr. Miliband
  30 SCITT schemes were funded in 1998–99, 36 in 1999–2000 and 46 in 2000–01. In 1998–99, 555 trainees were awarded qualified teacher status (QTS), of whom 483 gained teaching posts; in 1999–2000, 624 trainees were awarded QTS, of whom 569 gained teaching posts; and in 2000–01, 762 trainees were awarded QTS, of whom 708 gained teaching posts.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to extend school centred initial teacher training to include people other than postgraduates in certain clearly defined circumstances. [69680]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is Government policy that teaching will remain an all-graduate profession. This policy applies to all types of provider of initial teacher training (ITT), including school-centred initial teacher training (SCITT) providers.

  Around 25 per cent. of the ITT places allocated to teacher training providers are for undergraduate courses. No SCITT providers currently offer undergraduate ITT. There is however nothing in principle to prevent them from offering such courses providing they meet the standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and requirements for the provision of ITT.

  Other non-graduate ITT may be offered through the Registered Teacher Programme. This is an employment based route to QTS whereby unqualified teachers are employed by schools, having completed two years of higher education and receive training for QTS while studying for the award of a degree. Provision is managed by a recommending body, which may be different to the school offering the training, and applications are considered on a case by case basis.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what policy she has to increase the opportunity for students on the school centred initial teacher training scheme to work with professionals outside their designated school. [69683]

  Mr. Miliband
  The standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and requirements for the provision of initial teacher training (ITT) are set out in 366W
  the publication "Qualifying to Teach". These come into effect from 1 September 2002. The standards are the same no matter what route an individual trains under, and offer opportunity for trainees to gain experience in a variety of settings.

  The standards include the requirement that trainee teachers have experience in at least two schools and also that those awarded QTS must demonstrate that they understand the contribution that support staff and other professionals make to teaching and learning. Trainees may well work with a range of professionals, such as social workers, educational psychologists, education welfare officers and health professionals during their training in order to demonstrate that they have met the standards.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to strengthen the partnerships between schools and higher education institutions in the delivery of school centred initial teacher training. [69681]

  Mr. Miliband
  Many schools and higher education institutions (HEIs) already have strong links in the provision of teacher training. Most school-centred initial teacher training (SCITT) providers offer a Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) to their trainees, alongside the award of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), and these are validated by HEIs. Some HEIs are integral partners in SCITT consortia and several HEIs act as managing agents to the consortia.

  The Teacher Training Agency, which has responsibility for teacher training issues, is working with all providers to increase schools' capacity to deliver teacher training in partnership with ITT providers, including HEIs and schools.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the funding of school centred initial teacher training. [69686]

  Mr. Miliband
  The mainstream unit of funding for all providers of initial teacher training (ITT), including school-centred ITT (SCITT) providers, has increased by 3.5 per cent. each year for the past two academic years. This represents an increase in real terms over the past two years.

  SCITT providers are eligible for start-up funding of up to £30,000 over their first two years of operation and can also bid for capital funding of up to £20,000 a year to support the purchase of equipment, materials and to upgrade accommodation. The capital budget for SCITTs increased by over 10 per cent. between 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to improve(a) the administration and (b) the evaluation of school-centred initial teacher training. [69685]

  Mr. Miliband
  The new inspection framework for monitoring the quality of initial teacher training (ITT) will come into effect from September 2002. The framework places increasing importance on the management, administration and quality assurance of training delivered by all ITT providers, including school-centred provision.
  367W
  Furthermore, the Teacher Training Agency (TTA), which has responsibility for teacher training matters, undertakes stringent risk analysis and auditing procedures of all SCITTs to ensure that they manage and administer their funding in line with best practice.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to improve the consistency of quality of training given under the school-centred initial teacher training scheme. [69684]

  Mr. Miliband
  The quality of training delivered by all accredited providers of initial teacher training (ITT), including school-centred ITT, is inspected by Ofsted. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) has responsibility for teacher training issues and, as part of its statutory function, it uses Ofsted evidence of the overall quality of provision to determine the allocation of teacher training places to providers.

  All providers are required to submit to Ofsted and the TTA an action plan setting out how they would implement inspection findings. The TTA and Ofsted work closely with the provider to implement the plan.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional support she will give to schools to help in the delivery of school-centred initial teacher training. [69682]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Teacher Training Agency (TTA), which has responsibility for teacher training matters, offers a range of support to school-centred initial teacher training (SCITT) providers. SCITTs are eligible for start-up funding over their first two years of operation and can also bid for capital funding to support the purchase of equipment, materials and to upgrade accommodation. The capital budget for SCITTs increased by over 10 per cent. between 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  The TTA also offers partnership funding to schools providing ITT, which can be used to provide training for school-based mentors and school staff. The Agency's work to promote school involvement in teacher training should help improve the quality of school-based placements.

  Advanced Schools
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to decide where the new advanced schools will be located; what the time scale will be for establishing these schools; and if she will make a statement. [71001]

  Mr. Miliband
  We intend to establish a network of up to 300 advanced schools by 2006 and would want to see an initial group in operation from September 2003. Decisions about the location of these schools will be taken before next June. Advanced schools will be at the forefront of our drive to reform the education system and will provide opportunities for our best schools to lead the transformation of secondary education in their local areas.

  Literacy Tests
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 243W, what research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to corroborate trends in the results of the Key Stage 2 literacy tests. [70073]
  368W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has established an annual testing programme to provide data on pupils' attainment and progress in Years 3, 4 and 5. The data, collected and analysed by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NfER), augment those already available through the national curriculum tests at Year 2 and Year 6 and is reported in Ofsted's annual evaluation reports on the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Ofsted's report on the third year of the National Literacy Strategy said that:"For Pupils in Year 4 and Year 5, the average age-standardised score was significantly higher in 2001 than 2000".

  The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto (OISE/UT) has also been commissioned to evaluate the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. They will publish their final report early next year.

  Overseas Teachers
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on recruiting teachers for work in the UK from third world countries which are the aimed beneficiaries of the Education for All initiative. [69254]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government are committed to helping developing countries achieve the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015. We recognise that in many countries this will mean a major increase in the supply and retention of well-trained teachers. The Government do not directly recruit teachers, either here or abroad. Neither do we actively encourage recruitment by others from developing countries. But suitable teachers choosing to come and work in England for a time are welcome. Some are likely to return to their home countries, taking with them valuable experience of initiatives such as the numeracy and literacy strategies. We are committed to making the experience of those overseas teachers who do choose to work here as productive and developmental as possible, not least to maximise the benefits to their home countries. We have introduced a Quality Mark scheme, which will badge agencies that demonstrate, among other things, good practice in the recruitment and induction of overseas teachers. And we have established a new Recruitment and Retention Unit in the Government office for London which will support London LEAs in improving the experience of overseas-trained teachers.

  Foreign Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas-trained teachers were teaching in English schools in 2001–02; and how many of these(a) have been and (b) are on the training scheme to allow them to receive qualified teacher status. [70630]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on numbers of teachers with overseas qualifications is not available. In the 2001–02 academic year to date, 720 people have been awarded places on the special variant of the Graduate Teacher Programme that is available to overseas trained teachers who wish to gain Qualified Teacher Status.
  369W
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many foreign teachers were working in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) St. Helens Metropolitan borough council area, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the north-west and (iv) England in (A) 1997, (B) 1998, (C) 1999, (D) 2000 and (E) 2001. [70180]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 11-year-olds meet the standard of(a) literacy and (b) numeracy for that age. [69302]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the percentage of pupils who achieved level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 tests in England in 2001.

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  English

  75

  Mathematics

  71

  Science

  87

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils aged 11 met the standard of literacy for that age on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 31 December 1998, (c) 31 December 2001 and (d) the latest date for which information is available. [69298]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table. It shows the percentage of pupils who achieved level 4 or above in English in the Key Stage 2 tests in England since 1997. The tests were carried out in May each year.

  English

  1997

  63

  1998

  65

  1999

  71

  2000

  75

  2001

  75

  Small Schools
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 16W, on small schools, how much Small Schools Fund was allocated to each local education authority. [69336]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the amount of Small Schools Fund allocated to each local education authority in 2001–02 through the Standards Fund. The figures include both Government grant and local authority contributions.

  2001–02 Standards Fund Allocations for the Small Schools Fund

  £

  Barking

  32,056

  Barnet

  168,303

  Barnsley

  288,519

  Bath and North East Somerset

  376,676

  370W

  2001–02 Standards Fund Allocations for the Small Schools Fund

  £

  Bedfordshire

  1,170,106

  Bexley

  104,188

  Birmingham

  913,645

  Blackburn with Darwen

  240,433

  Blackpool

  80,144

  Bolton

  304,548

  Bournemouth

  40,072

  Bracknell Forest

  104,188

  Bradford

  1,049,890

  Brighton and Hove

  192,346

  Bromley

  144,260

  Buckinghamshire

  1,001,803

  Calderdale

  384,692

  Cambridgeshire

  937,688

  Camden

  136,245

  Cheshire

  1,346,424

  Cornwall

  1,410,539

  Coventry

  232,418

  Croydon

  216,390

  Cumbria

  1,907,433

  Darlington

  128,231

  Derby City

  304,548

  Derbyshire

  1,907,433

  Devon

  1,681,477

  Doncaster

  304,548

  Dorset

  937,888

  Dudley

  144,260

  Durham

  1,578,842

  Ealing

  136,245

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  713,284

  East Sussex

  721,298

  Enfield

  88,159

  Essex

  1,867,361

  Gateshead

  328,591

  Gloucestershire

  1,378,481

  Greenwich

  216,390

  Hackney

  136,245

  Halton

  280,505

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  138,245

  Hampshire

  1,739,130

  Haringey

  136,245

  Harrow

  58,101

  Hartlepool

  96,173

  Havering

  104,188

  Herefordshire

  601,082

  Hertfordshire

  1,851,332

  Hillingdon

  160,289

  Hounslow

  160,289

  Isle of Wight

  408,736

  Isles of Scilly

  40,072

  Islington

  120,216

  Kensington and Chelsea

  88,159

  Kent

  2,087,722

  Kingston upon Hull

  72,130

  Kingston upon Thames

  200,361

  Kirklees

  673,212

  Knowsley

  152,274

  Lambeth

  216,390

  Lancashire

  2,708,876

  Leeds

  657,183

  Leicestershire

  1,065,919

  Lewisham

  192,346

  Lincolnshire

  1,867,361

  Liverpool

  536,967

  Luton

  188,303

  Manchester

  424,765

  Medway

  240,433

  Merton

  168,303

  Milton Keynes

  384,692

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  328,591

  Newham

  112,202

  Norfolk

  2,179,924

  North East Lincolnshire

  160,289

  371W

  2001–02 Standards Fund Allocations for the Small Schools Fund

  £

  North Lincolnshire

  336,806

  North Somerset

  264,476

  North Tyneside

  232,418

  North Yorkshire

  1,975,837

  Northamptonshire

  1,538,770

  Northumberland

  1,306,351

  Nottingham City

  448,808

  Nottinghamshire

  1,498,698

  Oldham

  280,505

  Oxfordshire

  1,546,784

  Peterborough

  160,289

  Plymouth

  165,278

  Poole

  48,087

  Portsmouth

  160,289

  Reading

  176,317

  Redbridge

  72,130

  Redcar and Cleveland

  168,303

  Richmond upon Thames

  96,173

  Rochdale

  256,462

  Rotherham

  440,793

  Rutland

  120,216

  Salford

  384,692

  Sandwell

  256,462

  Sefton

  328,591

  Sheffield

  416,750

  Shropshire

  857,544

  Slough

  128,231

  Solihull

  136,245

  Somerset

  1,370,467

  South Gloucestershire

  320,577

  South Tyneside

  224,404

  Southampton

  248,447

  Southend-on-Sea

  88,159

  Southwark

  208,375

  St. Helens

  200,361

  Staffordshire

  1,610,900

  Stockport

  330,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  192,346

  Stoke-on-Trent

  336,606

  Suffolk

  1,739,130

  Sunderland

  320,577

  Surrey

  1,474,654

  Sutton

  88,159

  Swindon

  240,433

  Tameside

  264,476

  Telford and the Wrekin

  280,505

  Thurrock

  104,188

  Torbay

  104,188

  Tower Hamlets

  200,361

  Trafford

  224,404

  Wakefield

  536,967

  Walsall

  232,418

  Waltham Forest

  168,303

  Wandsworth

  192,348

  Warrington

  232,418

  Warwickshire

  1,081,948

  West Berkshire

  384,692

  West Sussex

  1,081,948

  Westminster

  180,289

  Wigan

  388,664

  Wiltshire

  1,282,306

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  352,635

  Wirral

  280,505

  Wokingham

  208,375

  Wolverhampton

  288,519

  Worcestershire

  1,274,294

  York

  264,478

  Total

  78,278,023

  Golden Hello
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons RE has not been included in the Golden Hello scheme. [70631]

  Mr. Miliband
  Golden Hellos are available for the five secondary shortage subjects in which the Government aim to recruit the most trainee teachers each year and in which demand for teachers is greatest.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of school children are entitled to free school meals in each(a) Government office region and (b) local education authority. [68904]

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

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary and all special schools:School meal arrangements as at January 2001, by local education authority

  Percentage of day pupils' known to be eligible for free school meals

  Nursery and primary schools2

  Secondary schools2

  Special schools

  England

  17.6

  15.8

  38.6

  North East

  24.0

  21.1

  50.9

  Darlington

  17.3

  15.8

  48.9

  Durham

  19.8

  17.9

  57.1

  Gateshead

  24.1

  21.6

  46.2

  Hartlepool

  25.2

  25.8

  41.4

  Middlesbrough

  29.1

  35.8

  60.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  34.4

  25.3

  67.1

  North Tyneside

  21.0

  17.6

  33.5

  Northumberland

  14.3

  12.1

  41.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  23.7

  22.8

  36.9

  South Tyneside

  28.8

  24.1

  55.9

  Stockton-on-Tees

  20.1

  20.0

  61.4

  Sunderland

  31.4

  30.0

  47.9

  North West

  21.7

  20.3

  46.4

  Blackburn with Darwen

  25.2

  26.0

  42.8

  Blackpool

  25.8

  22.0

  44.3

  Bolton

  17.8

  15.5

  37.7

  Bury

  14.6

  15.0

  25.4

  Cheshire

  11.9

  10.0

  35.6

  Cumbria

  14.5

  12.4

  40.5

  Halton

  26.6

  24.0

  47.3

  Knowsley

  37.0

  45.0

  62.9

  Lancashire

  16.1

  14.9

  46.0

  Liverpool

  37.2

  36.0

  61.1

  Manchester

  42.7

  43.8

  56.7

  Oldham

  23.3

  21.9

  47.1

  Rochdale

  23.5

  25.2

  51.5

  Salford

  30.3

  25.6

  33.6

  Sefton

  19.3

  19.8

  41.4

  St. Helens

  20.5

  19.2

  46.9

  Stockport

  13.1

  14.0

  32.5

  Tameside

  19.3

  20.1

  41.9

  Trafford

  14.6

  15.4

  32.3

  Warrington

  11.2

  10.1

  32.2

  Wigan

  16.3

  14.7

  46.1

  Wirral

  29.7

  26.7

  51.9

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  18.3

  17.2

  41.3

  Barnsley

  21.8

  24.7

  49.7

  Bradford

  22.1

  26.8

  42.9

  Calderdale

  17.7

  16.6

  36.7

  Doncaster

  20.3

  17.9

  44.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  10.3

  8.6

  36.9

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  25.9

  27.0

  43.5

  373W

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary, and all special schools: School meal arrangements as at January 2001, by local education authority

  Percentage of day pupils1 known to be eligible for free school meals

  Nursery and Primary schools2

  Secondary schools2

  Special schools

  Kirklees

  18.7

  18.0

  50.3

  Leeds

  19.1

  18.0

  35.6

  North East Lincolnshire

  23.6

  20.6

  51.2

  North Lincolnshire

  15.3

  13.5

  38.7

  North Yorkshire

  8.9

  6.4

  26.5

  Rotherham

  19.6

  15.8

  44.6

  Sheffield

  21.5

  20.0

  47.6

  Wakefield

  17.5

  17.0

  40.5

  York

  11.1

  8.9

  32.0

  East Midlands

  13.6

  12.6

  35.6

  Derby

  20.3

  20.2

  35.6

  Derbyshire

  12.8

  10.7

  38.0

  Leicester

  23.9

  22.3

  38.0

  Leicestershire

  7.8

  6.9

  47.4

  Lincolnshire

  6.6

  8.4

  31.5

  Northamptonshire

  9.9

  10.7

  29.8

  Nottingham

  32.3

  37.2

  44.0

  Nottinghamshire

  13.4

  12.7

  34.4

  Rutland

  5.0

  5.0

  3.0

  West Midlands

  19.1

  17.4

  38.9

  Birmingham

  32.8

  33.2

  43.6

  Coventry

  19.3

  20.1

  43.0

  Dudley

  14.3

  15.0

  38.9

  Herefordshire

  8.1

  7.9

  17.4

  Sandwell

  23.5

  24.3

  47.6

  Shropshire

  10.2

  8.1

  25.0

  Solihull

  12.6

  12.0

  33.2

  Staffordshire

  12.1

  9.2

  36.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  28.5

  24.3

  50.3

  Telford and Wrekin

  20.4

  20.0

  36.3

  Walsall

  18.0

  17.2

  46.4

  Warwickshire

  10.3

  7.6

  25.0

  Wolverhampton

  22.3

  22.4

  45.3

  Worcestershire

  9.0

  10.3

  32.6

  East of England

  12.4

  10.5

  28.6

  Bedfordshire

  11.1

  10.1

  29.3

  Cambridgeshire

  9.5

  7.8

  22.0

  Essex

  11.7

  10.0

  29.9

  Hertfordshire

  9.1

  7.4

  25.9

  Luton

  21.3

  26.9

  38.2

  Norfolk

  14.3

  10.7

  30.2

  Peterborough

  22.0

  17.5

  36.6

  Southend-on-Sea

  19.2

  13.1

  35.1

  Suffolk

  11.9

  10.5

  27.7

  Thurrock

  15.3

  15.3

  26.5

  London

  25.9

  25.8

  45.7

  Inner London

  38.2

  42.1

  53.7

  Camden

  42.3

  28.9

  39.5

  City of London

  33.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Hackney

  39.6

  44.4

  59.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  43.2

  33.1

  54.5

  Haringey

  36.9

  40.2

  52.6

  Islington

  41.3

  45.6

  55.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  38.2

  31.8

  7.0

  Lambeth

  37.7

  41.7

  66.2

  Lewisham

  32.7

  39.6

  57.2

  Newham

  34.2

  44.9

  26.5

  Southwark

  35.9

  52.8

  49.6

  Tower Hamlets

  54.3

  65.1

  78.3

  Wandsworth

  28.9

  26.8

  48.2

  Westminster

  36.8

  32.9

  51.7

  Outer London

  18.9

  18.3

  40.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  23.2

  26.0

  34.8

  Barnet

  17.0

  15.7

  38.1

  Bexley

  14.0

  12.7

  37.5

  374W

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary, and all special scholls: School meal arrangements as at January 2001, by local education authority

  Percentage of day pupils1 known to be eligible for free school meals

  Nursery and Primary schools2

  Secondary schools2

  Special schools

  Brent

  26.9

  24.5

  43.3

  Bromley

  13.9

  11.8

  34.4

  Croydon

  20.9

  19.4

  43.0

  Ealing

  24.0

  31.2

  47.6

  Enfield

  22.1

  20.3

  39.5

  Greenwich

  35.5

  33.6

  59.5

  Harrow

  12.0

  17.5

  32.0

  Havering

  11.9

  11.1

  30.9

  Hillingdon

  14.0

  14.8

  38.0

  Hounslow

  22.0

  19.7

  45.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  6.9

  9.1

  22.4

  Merton

  15.1

  16.3

  30.6

  Redbridge

  15.8

  15.2

  34.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  10.5

  15.7

  30.3

  Sutton

  12.3

  7.8

  42.7

  Waltham Forest

  26.6

  29.9

  44.8

  South East

  8

  9.1

  29.4

  Bracknell Forest

  6.9

  4.8

  18.6

  Brighton and Hove

  18.6

  17.6

  36.0

  Buckinghamshire

  5.6

  6.7

  36.5

  East Sussex

  14.7

  13.1

  35.4

  Hampshire

  9.0

  6.6

  22.7

  Isle of Wight

  18.8

  16.7

  36.2

  Kent

  13.1

  9.8

  33.9

  Medway

  12.9

  9.8

  29.8

  Milton Keynes

  13.2

  11.9

  45.7

  Oxfordshire

  9.1

  9.5

  22.6

  Portsmouth

  17.1

  16.1

  34.6

  Reading

  14.9

  13.1

  29.0

  Slough

  15.6

  15.5

  35.0

  Southampton

  22.7

  17.2

  38.3

  Surrey

  7.4

  6.1

  20.7

  West Berkshire

  6.4

  4.7

  21.1

  West Sussex

  7.6

  6.9

  24.7

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  6.6

  5.6

  40.2

  Wokingham

  3.8

  4.7

  35.6

  South West

  12.0

  9.7

  30.3

  Bath and North East Somerset

  10.5

  7.9

  25.2

  Bournemouth

  9.8

  10.7

  37.4

  Bristol, City of

  22.6

  20.5

  40.6

  Cornwall

  13.1

  12.2

  29.1

  Devon

  12.4

  10.2

  26.3

  Dorset

  4.6

  6.2

  19.9

  Gloucestershire

  9.7

  7.0

  26.0

  Isles of Scilly

  6.4

  6.3

  0.0

  North Somerset

  10.0

  7.8

  33.7

  Plymouth

  20.7

  14.0

  38.8

  Poole

  6.2

  7.2

  25.7

  Somerset

  10.7

  9.0

  28.2

  South Gloucestershire

  8.2

  7.5

  25.7

  Swindon

  12.5

  9.4

  35.0

  Torbay

  19.4

  13.9

  30.4

  Wiltshire

  8.8

  6.5

  27.9

  1Excludes boarders

  2Includes middle schools as deemed

  Source:

  Annual schools, Census

  Annual School Census
  Mr. Wiggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what personal information the annual school census collects. [69009]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) was introduced for all maintained primary, secondary and special schools and City Technology
  375W
  Colleges in January 2002. The following information was collected for each pupil on the school's register on the Census day:

  Unique pupil number (UPN)

  Full name

  Date of birth

  Gender

  Home postcode

  Date of entry

  National Curriculum year

  Enrolment status

  Courses of study (for post-16 pupils only).

  and the following information for each pupil permanently excluded from the school during the previous school year:

  UPN

  Full name

  Date of birth

  Gender

  Date of exclusion

  Ethnic group

  Stage on SEN Code of Practice scale (at the time of exclusion).

  From January 2003 information will also be collected on whether or not registered pupils are in local authority care on the Census day, and whether they have been in care at any time since joining that school.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what safeguards there will be in the school census following the inclusion in the list of children in care. [67587]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC), which was introduced for all maintained primary, secondary and special schools and City Technology Colleges in January 2002, will from January 2003 also collect details of whether or not pupils are in local authority care on the Census day, and whether they have been in care at any time since joining that school.

  Information about the safeguards in place to ensure that there is no unauthorised access to PLASC data was provided in the answers to previous questions from the hon. Member on 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 112W and on 10 April 2002, Official Report, columns 115–16W. All of these safeguards will continue to apply, and to be kept under review in the light of advice from the Information Commissioner and other developments.

  English Language
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children speak English as an additional language in each(a) Government office region and (b) local education authority. [68903]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  376W

  Maintained Primary and Secondary schools: Number of pupils for whom English is an additional language by local education authority—January 2001

  Percentage of pupils for whom English is an additional language1

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  England

  9.3

  8.0

  North East

  2.5

  1.8

  Darlington

  1.8

  1.4

  Durham

  1.0

  0.5

  Gateshead

  1.5

  1.0

  Hartlepool

  0.8

  0.5

  Middlesbrough

  6.8

  6.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9.6

  7.2

  North Tyneside

  1.3

  1.3

  Northumberland

  0.7

  0.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.1

  1.0

  South Tyneside

  1.7

  1.5

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2.4

  1.7

  Sunderland

  1.9

  1.1

  North West

  6.0

  4.8

  Blackburn with Darwen

  29.3

  23.2

  Blackpool

  0.8

  0.9

  Bolton

  12.4

  10.1

  Bury

  7.1

  6.8

  Cheshire

  0.8

  0.7

  Cumbria

  0.3

  0.5

  Halton

  0.3

  0.2

  Knowsley

  0.3

  0.2

  Lancashire

  6.8

  5.9

  Liverpool

  3.5

  2.4

  Manchester

  18.7

  16.8

  Oldham

  20.5

  15.4

  Rochdale

  15.8

  15.4

  Salford

  2.4

  1.4

  Sefton

  0.7

  0.5

  St. Helens

  0.5

  0.2

  Stockport

  3.1

  2.3

  Tameside

  5.5

  5.5

  Trafford

  7.6

  6.

  Warrington

  1.3

  1.2

  Wigan

  0.6

  0.3

  Wirral

  0.7

  0.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  7.8

  6.8

  Barnsley

  0.4

  0.1

  Bradford

  30.0

  29.4

  Calderdale

  8.2

  8.5

  Doncaster

  1.6

  1.3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.6

  0.3

  Kington Upon Hull, City of

  1.5

  0.8

  Kirklees

  18.0

  14.8

  Leeds

  8.3

  7.4

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.7

  0.6

  North Lincolnshire

  2.7

  1.8

  North Yorkshire

  0.6

  0.5

  Rotherham

  4.4

  3.7

  Sheffield

  9.5

  7.1

  Wakefield

  2.2

  1.8

  York

  1.5

  1.0

  East Midlands

  5.8

  5.5

  Derby

  11.5

  11.1

  Derbyshire

  0.5

  0.5

  Leicester

  38.4

  39.3

  Leicestershire

  5.1

  6.4

  Lincolnshire

  0.7

  0.8

  Northamptonshire

  2.8

  3.5

  Nottingham

  11.1

  8.9

  Nottinghamshire

  1.4

  1.4

  Rutland

  0.7

  0.6

  West Midlands

  11.6

  10.5

  Birmingham

  30.8

  28.9

  Coventry

  14.5

  14.4

  377W

  Maintained Primary and Secondary schools: Number of pupils for whom English is an additional language by local education authority—January 2001

  Percentage of pupils for whom English is an additional language1

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Dudley

  6.3

  5.8

  Herefordshire

  0.5

  0.6

  Sandwell

  18.2

  19.2

  Shropshire

  0.6

  0.7

  Solihull

  3.2

  2.5

  Staffordshire

  1.8

  1.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  6.8

  6.1

  Telford and Wrekin

  3.9

  3.9

  Walsall

  14.2

  13.0

  Warwickshire

  3.7

  3.8

  Wolverhampton

  15.6

  18.4

  Worcestershire

  2.2

  2.2

  East of England

  4.3

  3.9

  Bedfordshire

  6.5

  5.6

  Cambridgeshire

  3.0

  2.4

  Essex

  1.6

  1.7

  Hertfordshire

  5.2

  5.0

  Luton

  28.2

  29.7

  Norfolk

  1.0

  0.6

  Peterborough

  14.4

  13.1

  Southend-on-Sea

  4.5

  2.9

  Suffolk

  1.2

  0.8

  Thurrock

  3.1

  2.4

  London

  31.8

  29.2

  Inner London

  46.0

  42.3

  Camden

  46.6

  31.8

  City of London

  48.0

  0.0

  Hackney

  54.4

  50.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  36.1

  31.6

  Haringey

  49.3

  43.1

  Islington

  34.1

  40.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  39.7

  37.5

  Lambeth

  41.7

  35.6

  Lewi sham

  28.6

  24.2

  Newham

  60.2

  53.4

  Southwark

  38.7

  43.4

  Tower Hamlets

  66.5

  62.0

  Wandsworth

  31.2

  30.0

  Westminster

  60.0

  48.7

  Outer London

  24.0

  23.3

  Barking and Dagenham

  9.9

  9.4

  Barnet

  31.0

  27.2

  Bexley

  6.6

  6.2

  Brent

  51.4

  57.9

  Bromley

  3.9

  4.3

  Croydon

  16.4

  16.6

  Ealing

  44.8

  46.1

  Enfield

  29.3

  25.0

  Greenwich

  20.7

  19.7

  Harrow

  38.9

  38.8

  Havering

  2.1

  1.8

  Hillingdon

  19.2

  18.0

  Hounslow

  39.4

  44.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  16.0

  14.7

  Merton

  23.6

  16.6

  Redbridge

  40.2

  42.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  9.2

  8.3

  Sutton

  7.0

  7.9

  Waltham Forest

  32.5

  31.1

  South East

  4.1

  3.8

  Bracknell Forest

  2.9

  1.7

  Brighton and Hove

  3.9

  2.8

  Buckinghamshire

  8.7

  7.1

  East Sussex

  1.5

  1.2

  Hampshire

  1.2

  1.0

  Isle of Wight

  0.7

  0.5

  Kent

  2.5

  2.4

  378W

  Maintained Primary and Secondary schools: Number of pupils for whom English is an additional language by local education authority—January 2001

  Percentage of pupils for whom English is an additional language1

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Medway

  3.7

  3.2

  Milton Keynes

  6.3

  6.5

  Oxfordshire

  3.9

  4.8

  Portsmouth

  4.0

  3.6

  Reading

  10.7

  9.5

  Slough

  36.3

  35.0

  Southampton

  7.5

  6.7

  Surrey

  3.9

  3.7

  West Berkshire

  1.4

  1.0

  West Sussex

  3.1

  2.5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  9.5

  10.6

  Wokingham

  3.7

  5.2

  South West

  1.4

  1.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1.3

  0.9

  Bournemouth

  2.9

  1.0

  Bristol, City of

  5.6

  4.7

  Cornwall

  0.4

  0.3

  Devon

  0.7

  0.4

  Dorset

  0.6

  0.4

  Gloucestershire

  1.5

  1.4

  Isles of Scilly

  2—

  2—

  North Somerset

  0.7

  0.7

  Plymouth

  1.2

  0.9

  Poole

  1.1

  0.2

  Somerset

  0.5

  0.4

  South Gloucestershire

  1.1

  1.1

  Swindon

  3.1

  2.7

  Torbay

  0.7

  0.7

  Wiltshire

  0.7

  0.9

  1 The number of pupils for whom English is an additional language expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils of compulsory school age.

  2Less than 5 pupils

  School IT Equipment
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken to ensure that teachers who take home school/LEA IT equipment for their work do not have to insure such equipment with their own private home and contents policies. [68204]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government have no plans to legislate on the insurance of IT equipment owned by schools or LEAs. In cases where there is an understanding that a teacher uses such equipment at home for professional purposes, we would not expect him or her to have to cover loss or accidental damage to the equipment while at home or travelling to and from work.

  Disabled School Governors
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to improve opportunities for disabled school governors to fulfil their role; and if she will make a statement. [67679]

  Mr. Miliband
  Steps the Department has already taken to assist disabled governors include offering the Guide to the Law for School Governors in Braille and making the governors' induction training package available through distance learning.

  School Governing Bodies can, under the Education (Governors' Allowances) Regulations 1999, create schemes to meet expenses from the school budget. These
  379W
  schemes may include the cost of transport for disabled governors to and from meetings. In revised guidance to be issued following the Education Bill, we shall encourage all governing bodies to make schemes and to ensure that disabled governors can claim all expenses they incur.

  The Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill's provision for reasonable adjustments to premises to allow access for disabled people, should help for physically disabled governors.

  EU Committees (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU Advisory Committee on the training of chemists is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66453]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Advisory Committees on midwifery, medical, dental, nursing and pharmaceutical training were set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  Each Advisory Committee has three members from each member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are appointed on the same basis. Some of the United Kingdom's members and alternates of the Advisory Committees are Scottish, but the membership is there to represent the interests of all four UK countries.

  The Advisory Committees have not met during the last 12 months, and are not likely to do so again.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61063]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61029]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60904]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 381w.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60945]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 382W.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by her Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64631]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland at column 383W.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64653]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 382W.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66932]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 383W.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since 8 June 2001, indicating the(a) length and (b) number of responses received in each case. [68700]

  The Advocate-General

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at columns 383–84W.

  Staff Party
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas Party; and how many people attended. [61659]
  381W
  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 382W.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68684]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 383W.

SCOTLAND

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60903]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 68W.

  The information requested on planned expenditure on press and advertising campaigns in 2002–03 is not yet available.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61062]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since then my Department has spent £10,486 in 1999–2000, £21,364 in 2000–01 and £10,058 in 2001–02. My staff also has access to a comprehensive range of training and development opportunities through the Scottish Executive for which there is no charge to my Department.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much and what proportion of the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2002–03 will he accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61030]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 2001–02 was £7.236 million, of which approximately 51 per cent. was for staff costs. Information on what proportion of the DEL for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs is not yet available.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60944]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.
  382W
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. From June 2001, in my Department there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £68,157:, and one Minister of State, at a salary of £35,356. The Department also provides administrative support services to the Advocate-General for Scotland, who had an annual salary of £59,386.

  Staff Party
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas Party; and how many people attended. [61660]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department did not hold a Christmas Party for staff in 2001.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the EU directives relating to her Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64942]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No EU directives relating to my Department have been amended or repealed in 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through her Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64992]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No EU directives or regulations have been implemented through my Department in 2002.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64654]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 629W.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by her Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64632]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has originated or made five statutory instruments since 1 January 2002. They are:

  1. SI 2002/261—The Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arr angements) (Specification) Order 2002;

  2. SI 2002/653—The Scottish Water (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Tax Provisions) Order 2002;

  3. SI 2002/800—The Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (No. 2) Order 2002;

  4. SI 2002/801—The Scottish Administration (Offices) Order 2002;

  5. SI 2002/1264—The Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 (Directions in the Interest of National Security) Order 2002.

  An Article in the third statutory instrument in the above list revoked the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3917). No other statutory instruments have been revoked by my Department since 1 January 2002.
  383W
  No statutory instruments have been amended by my Department since 1 January 2002.

  There are no separately identifiable costs or savings for the statutory instruments above, but I expect them to be minimal in each case.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66933]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance, which is set out in "Government Accounting", chapter 30, paragraph 30.2.5, which notes that Government does 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", paragraph 30.2.11a).

  My Department has not purchased any buildings insurance.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the spending review. [68685]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A range of staff in my Department have contributed to spending review issues as part of their normal duties.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since 8 June 2001, indicating the(a) length and (b) number of responses received in each case. [68699]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has undertaken one public consultation exercise since 8 June 2001; the consultation paper on the size of the Scottish Parliament on 18 December 2001, which required responses by 29 March 2002. A total of 237 responses were received.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Trade
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has had from BAE Systems regarding unlicensed production of G3 rifles and MP5 submachine guns by the Defence Industries Organisation in Iran. [61985]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of no representations from BAE systems in this regard. We are not aware of any such unlicensed production of the weapons in question.

  Consular Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to improve the services offered by consular staff to UK nationals. [68235]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continually seek ways to improve the consular services offered to British nationals who get into difficulties overseas. Recent initiatives include the Know Before You Go campaign which encourages British travellers to make better preparations before they go overseas, producing guidelines on forced marriage for the police and improving our travel advice by including travellers tips for gay travellers.

  Arms Exports
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional safeguards his proposed changes to guidelines on UK arms exports will give to the terms of the Export Control Bill. [69467]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The factors which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 8 July 2002,Official Report, columns 650–52W, were an elaboration of the Consolidated Criteria.

  The Government's proposed Export Control Bill imposes a requirement on the Government to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers, requires that this guidance must address certain issues and provides that the Consolidated Criteria shall be treated as such guidance under the Bill.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether exports licensed under the new criteria on arms export components will be highlighted as such on the annual reports on strategic exports; and whether information as to end-use and ultimate destination of the finished products will be provided in these reports. [69506]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMG is committed to openness and accountability in arms exports. Our annual reports on strategic export controls are among the most detailed such reports produced by any arms exporting country. The reports will continue to provide details of all export licences approved and refused, as at present.

  However, export licences approved or refused on the basis of the factors outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), on 8 July 2002, Official Report, column 650–52W, will not be highlighted as such in the annual reports. Nor does the Government intend to provide in the reports information as to end-use and ultimate destination of finished products produced overseas incorporating UK components. Commercial confidentiality means that we usually cannot reveal such information. And in some cases, when taken with other parts of the Report, this information might reveal details of the recipient country's defence strategy. It would not be practicable to reveal this information selectively in the reports.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are made
  385W
  to ensure that his Department's staff travel by British carriers; and on what ground his Department's staff, Embassy employees, and associated staff use non-UK carriers. [69500]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our policy is to use airlines that provide the best value for money in terms of costs, safety and service on the routes served.

  Sanctions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are subject to(a) political, (b) diplomatic, (c) trade and (d) economic sanctions and arms embargoes by the UK in consequence of their policies on (a) human rights and (b) their minority ethnic and religious groups. [69932]

  Mr. MacShane
  Details of sanctions regimes, arms embargoes and restrictions on export of strategic goods by country and region can be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at the following address: http://fco.gov.uk/sanctions. The website currently lists 42 countries for which such measures have been implemented by the UN, EU, OSCE and UK.

  The EU ban on the sale of defence equipment to China was one of a number of measures put in place following human rights abuses and the suppression of pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen Square in 1989. EU measures applied to Burma, Zimbabwe and those taken against Milosevic and those associated with him were all also imposed, at least in part, as a result of human rights abuses.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what political, diplomatic, trade and economic sanctions the Government have had in place against the Government of the People's Republic of China since May 1997 in consequence of its policies on human rights, with particular reference to(a) Tibet and (b) its minority ethnic and religious groups. [69931]

  Mr. MacShane
  An EU arms embargo has been in force against China since the suppression of pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen square in 1989.

  Tibet
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent efforts have been made by Her Majesty's Government to ascertain the whereabouts and welfare of the Panchen Lama of Tibet; and what response they have received from the Government of the People's Republic of China. [69933]

  Mr. MacShane
  We raised the case of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima most recently at the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue in Beijing on 15 May. The Chinese responded that he was in good health and leading a "normal and happy life" with his parents, who did not want him exposed to international attention.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent discussions he has
  386W
  had with the Turkish Government on the increased deployment of Turkish troops in the occupied area of Northern Cyprus; [69708]

  (2) how many Turkish troops are stationed in the occupied area of Northern Cyprus. [69710]

  Peter Hain
  The 1960 Treaty of Alliance allows for there to be 950 Greek troops and 650 Turkish troops on Cyprus. The actual numbers of Greek and Turkish national forces on the island are a matter of dispute between the various parties concerned. No authoritative figures are available.

  Pakistan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Pakistani Government concerning violent attacks perpetrated upon Christian women by Muslim extremists. [69836]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We and our EU partners regularly raise our human rights concerns, including those of Christians and women's rights issues, with the Pakistani authorities. We are concerned by reports of violent attacks perpetrated upon Christian women by Muslim extremists. If the reports are substantiated, we look to the appropriate authorities in Pakistan to ensure that the perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice. We continue to monitor closely the position of religious minorities in Pakistan including women's human rights, and will continue to remain engaged with the Pakistani authorities.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Pakistani Government concerning the whereabouts of Naira Nadia. [69835]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Together with our EU partners, we have raised our human rights concerns at regular intervals with the Pakistani authorities, citing specific cases. We raised Naira Nadia's case with the EU on 10 April and on 14 June the Spanish presidency underlined our concern to the Pakistani authorities about various cases including that of Naira Nadia.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Pakistani Government concerning the treatment of Shakeela Siddique by the authorities; and if he will make a statement. [69837]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have asked our High Commission in Islamabad to ensure Shakeela Siddique's case is raised with the Pakistani authorities and further information sought about the circumstances of the case. We express concern where appropriate about human rights issues in Pakistan.

  EU Staff
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of existing staff it is envisaged will apply for special severance payment offers at the time of enlargement in the(a) Commission, (b) Council of Ministers, (c) European Parliament, (d) European Court of Justice and (e) Court of First Instance. [69820]
  387W
  Peter Hain
  We have no information on what individual members of staff of the EU institutions might do in the wake of concluding enlargement negotiations.

  International Terrorist Organisations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy for the United Nations proscribed list of international terrorist organisations to be applied uniformly to all domestic terrorist organisations. [69761]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. The United Nations Sanctions committee has, with active UK participation, named and frozen the assets of a number of suspected terrorists and terrorist organisations, under the terms of Security Council resolutions 1267, 1333 and 1390. However, these resolutions provide authority to name and freeze only those which have suspected links to al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban. None of the domestic terrorists organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act (2000) have such links.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on their policy on human rights in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [70270]

  Peter Hain
  On 19–20 June, a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office led a UK delegation at the first formal UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue, in Ankara. There was a frank and constructive discussion of the human rights situation in Turkey, the measures recently taken to improve it and what remains to be done. As a candidate for EU membership, Turkey must comply with the Copenhagen political criteria. Guaranteeing the rights of all individuals is one of Turkey's priorities for reform; we and EU partners encourage them in their efforts. The European Commission will publish their regular progress report on Turkey in October.

  Bush Meat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what briefings his Department's environmental attaches in countries in Central and West Africa have received on the bush meat trade. [70311]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has kept posts responsible for the six African states that are members of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group informed about its progress. Posts were asked to emphasise the group's importance to their host government. In February FCO sent a telegram to around 80 posts (including in West and Central Africa) highlighting the major issues, such as bush meat, of the forthcoming CITES Conference of the Parties. Many posts took this opportunity to discover the extent to which bush meat trade was a problem in their host country.

  The FCO briefed posts in all 23 African and Asian great ape range states, and also in potential donor states, about the UK's financial support of £175,000 to UNEP's Great Ape Survival Project (GrASP). The FCO contributed £75,000 to the UK's donation and I plan to make an
  388W
  announcement of further funding soon. Posts were also informed about GrASP's aims and asked to provide logistical and political support to the GrASP technical team which is led by Ian Redmond and the UK NGO Born Free. Posts that have provided support so far include those in Kinshasa, Yaounde, Abidjan, Kuala Lumpa, Kigali, Kampala, Dakar, and Jakarta. UNEP Executive-Director Klaus Topfer has paid tribute to the support that UK Missions overseas have given, saying that
  "the personal commitment they have shown is very encouraging for our GrASP team."

  DEFRA and the FCO have used UK diplomatic missions in Harare, Accra, Cairo, Pretoria, Kampala, Abidjan, Maseru, Dakar, Luanda, Nairobi, Kigali, Mbabane and Tunis to raise the profile of UK import restrictions and rules on meat and animal products.

  Kurdish Prisoners (Iraq)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information his Department sought from the Government of Iraq and its representatives abroad concerning the(a) location of, (b) condition of and (c) justification for the retention of Kurdish prisoners in Iraq since April 1980; and if he will make a statement; [70432]

  (2) what steps his Department has taken since 3 April 1991 to gain information on Kurdish prisoners in Iraq; and if he will make a statement; [70434]

  (3) what his Department's strategy is to secure the release of Kurdish prisoners in Iraq; and if he will make a statement; [70430]

  (4) what diplomatic steps his Department has taken since 1 May 1997 to ensure the release of Kurdish prisoners in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [70433]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK does not have any diplomatic relations with the Government of Iraq. However, we are deeply concerned about reports, such as those documented by Andreas Mavrommatis, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iraq, of the maltreatment of prisoners by the Iraqi regime. We remain committed to doing what we can to bring about improvements in the human rights situation in Iraq, including the treatment of political opponents to the regime, and take every opportunity to raise this issue in international fora.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications his Department had with the Government of Iraq and its representatives abroad between April 1980 and 2 August 1990 concerning Kurdish prisoners in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [70431]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This question could be answered comprehensively only by researching FCO files for the 10-year period in question. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park Executive Agency performed against the targets agreed for 2001–02; and what the agreed targets are for the current year. [71351]
  389W
  Mr. MacShane
  Wilton Park met all four of the agreed targets set for the 2001–02 financial year, for income, cost recovery, the number of conference participants, and cost per head to the FCO overall. Wilton Park's performance in 2001–02 and some of the targets for the current year are shown in the table:

  2001–02 targets

  2001–02 performance

  2002–03 targets

  Income (£)

  2,963,000

  3,210,0000

  3,278,000

  Cost recovery (percentage)

  85.9

  87.2

  86.1

  Number of conference participants

  2,400

  3,033

  —

  Cost to FCO per participant (£)

  203

  156

  —

  Wilton Park's targets have been adjusted from 2002–03 to give greater emphasis to service delivery. Measures for number of conference participants and cost to the FCO per participant have been dropped. Wilton Park's annual targets now work from framework targets for cost recovery (which is to recover all its cash costs ie excluding non-cash costs), quality of conference programmes and standards of service. New measures have been added for 'excellent' ratings awarded respectively for conference programmes and for conference administration. The 2002–03 targets for the two new measures are:
  `Excellent' ratings awarded for conference programmes: 56 per cent. (an increase of 2 per cent. on the informal target for 2001–02)
  `Excellent' ratings awarded for conference administration: 89 per cent. (an increase of 1.1 per cent. on the informal target for 2001–02).

  Morwenstow Facility
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the purpose of the facility at Morwenstow. [69415]

  Mr. Straw
  As I told the hon. Member on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 775W, GCHQ Bude, previously known as the Composite Signals Organisation Station at Morwenstow, provides intelligence support serving the interest of the UK and its allies. It is long standing policy not to provide details about the operations carried out at Bude.

  New Zealand
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from New Zealand regarding the transport of nuclear fuel near its territory. [69654]

  Mr. MacShane
  The New Zealand Government made a representation on 12 July through its High Commission in London on the return of MOX fuel from Japan to the UK.

  Nuclear Waste Negotiations
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has received concerning negotiations between Russia and Iran on spent nuclear fuel; and if he will make a statement. [69674]
  390W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Russian co-operation with Iran's nuclear industry, including issues concerning spent fuel. are regularly discussed with appropriate governments.

  Côte d'Ivoire
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether UK observers were present to monitor the recent local elections in Cote d'Ivoire, including the campaign and polling day; and if he will make a statement. [69666]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK did not send any observers to cover the Côte d'Ivoire district elections, nor did the European Union. However, members of our embassy visited polling stations in several areas of Abidjan and reported no serious incidents on polling day.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Côte d'Ivoire on the failure to distribute identity cards in time for the local elections on 7 July; and if he will make a statement. [69665]

  Mr. MacShane
  EU and other western diplomatic missions in Côte d'Ivoire, including our own, were in regular touch with the Ivorian Government and Independent Electoral Commission in the run-up to the elections. They made clear, among other things, the need to ensure that arrangements for voter identification were as comprehensive as possible. The Interior Minister gave an assurance that the distribution of identity cards would continue up to and including polling day itself.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the salary of the Director of the BBC World Service and Global News is paid out of his Department's grant to the BBC World Service. [70382]

  Mr. MacShane
  Mark Byford was appointed Director World Service and Global News in October 2001. As soon as the new division is formally established Mr. Byford's remuneration will initially be met two-thirds from the grant in aid and one third from BBC World. This would be subject to review after a year. Pending the creation of the new division, Mr. Byford's remuneration is met entirely from the grant in aid. His remuneration is set by the BBC Board of Governors, and is published in the BBC Annual Report and the BBC World Service Annual Review.

  Polish Steel
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions officials of his Department have held with the Polish Government in relation to the privatisation of the Polish Steel company. [69865]

  Peter Hain
  FCO officials have regularly discussed with the Polish Government the need to re-structure Poland's steel industry and to bring its support for the sector into line with the European Union rules on state aids. Privatisation is likely to be part of that restructuring.
  391W
  The EU has to agree a restructuring plan with the Polish Government before the competition chapter of the EU enlargement negotiations can be closed.

  Gibraltar
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has received concerning the status of telephone services between Spain and Gibraltar. [69662]

  Peter Hain
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials hosted a meeting on 17 April with representatives of Gibraltar Nynex Communications Ltd. (GNC) and the Government of Gibraltar to discuss the status of telecommunications services between Spain and Gibraltar. On 26 June officials received a follow-up letter on behalf of GNC. We replied on 12 July.

  The most recent representation from the Government of Gibraltar on this issue was a letter from the Chief Minister to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 18 March, to which I replied on 19 April.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding changes to the constitution of Gibraltar. [69664]

  Date

  Event

  3 June

  Golden Jubilee Celebrations at Nuffield Pool (including fireworks and lighting of a beacon)

  8 June

  Golden Jubilee Concert—St. Michael's Cave

  10 June

  Inter-faith Service of Thanksgiving

  13 June

  Queen's Birthday/Golden Jubilee Parade at the Victoria Stadium

  13 June

  Queen's Golden Jubilee Command Reception

  10–21 June

  Model Soldier Exhibition to commemorate HM the Queen's Golden Jubilee

  27 June

  Golden Jubilee Celebration Concert at St. Michael's Cave

  His Excellency the Governor, together with other members of his staff, attended all the events.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Golden Jubilee celebrations took place hosted by the Governor of Gibraltar; what the costs were; and what local elected officials were invited to the functions. [69658]

  Peter Hain
  The Governor hosted a Tree-Planting Ceremony on 6 February, a Golden Jubilee Medal Presentation on 7 June and HM the Queen's Golden Jubilee Garden Party on 14 June. The costs were £913, £458 and £8,630 respectively. All local elected representatives were invited to the Tree Planting ceremony and the Garden Party. The Medal Presentation was a purely military affair.

  The Governor also took the Royal Salute at the Queen's Birthday/Golden Jubilee Parade on 13 June and was guest of honour at the reception which followed. Both these events were arranged and funded by the Ministry of Defence.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has received from Spain regarding allegations of smuggling from Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [69663]
  392W
  Peter Hain
  We understand that the Gibraltar House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Reform has produced proposals. The Government of Gibraltar has not yet passed these to Her Majesty's Government. We will consider carefully any proposals we receive.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's latest assessment is of progress with negotiations with Spain concerning Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [69661]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 July 2002,Official Report, column 1165.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what members of his Department participated in public ceremonies celebrating the Golden Jubilee on Gibraltar; if he will list the ceremonies on Gibraltar members of his Department attended; and if he will make a statement regarding the celebration of the Golden Jubilee on Gibraltar. [69660]

  Peter Hain
  To date there have been a total of 10 public events in Gibraltar in celebration of HM the Queen's Golden Jubilee. In addition to those events hosted by His Excellency the Governor (and detailed in my reply to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) at column 391W, the following events have taken place:

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 151W.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals who live in Spain work in Gibraltar. [R] [68455]

  Peter Hain
  The Government of Gibraltar do not have these figures available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average length of time spent at Yarl's Wood is from arrival to removal from this country; [38664]

  (2) whether any persons at Yarl's Wood awaiting removal have been at Yarl's Wood for over (a) 14, (b) 21, (c) 28, (d) 35 and (e) 42 days; [38663]
  393W
  (3) how many of those persons who are still at large following the Yarl's Wood fire are (a) current asylum seekers and (b) failed asylum seekers awaiting removal; [38665]

  (4) if any of those removed from Yarl's Wood into prisons since the fire are current asylum seekers; [38668]

  (5) what proportion of those who escaped from Yarl's Wood following the fire but were recaptured were (a) current asylum seekers and (b) failed asylum seekers awaiting removal; [38671]

  (6) how many of the persons detained at Yarl's Wood are (a) awaiting removal and (b) in the process of making an asylum claim. [38666]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]In terms of the status of those individuals who have been transferred to Prison Service accommodation from Yarl's Wood, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 411W.

  The majority of the individuals who are considered to be at large from Yarl's Wood are failed asylum seekers who were detained pending their removal or the outcome of outstanding appeals.

  The remaining information requested is not available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Miss McIntosh

  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants were found in(a) freight trains and (b) lorries in each year since 1997. [68806]

  Beverley Hughes
  The figures for clandestine entrants found in freight trains have only been recorded separately since 2001.

  In 2001, locally collated, provisional statistics show that 1,563 clandestines arrived at Dollands Moor rail freight depot having boarded an open sided freight shuttle. For the 1st quarter of 2002 the figure was 454.

  The annual figures for clandestine entrants found in lorries and dealt with by Dover Immigration staff were 969 in 1997, 3,274 in 1998, 8,961 in 1999, 12,717 in 2000 and 6,397 in 2001. For the 1st quarter of 2002 the figure is 2,709.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the asylum application of a constituent the name of whom has been communicated to him. [70362]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]The hon. Gentleman's constituent's application for asylum was refused on 30 August 2000 and an independent adjudicator upheld this decision on 23 March 2001. He currently has an application for leave to remain here on the basis of marriage, on 15 June 2001, to a British Citizen. On 6 November 2001 the hon. Gentleman's constituent was asked to provide further information in support of this application and I understand that he passed this to his solicitors to forward to the Home Office. This has not been received and my officials will be contacting him shortly to provide further information regarding his marriage.

  Medical Retirements
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees of his Department retired through work-related ill health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost to the Department was. [56061]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]Records are not maintained by the Home Department which enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work-related. Our records indicate that for the Home Department the number of staff with a medical retirement certificate issued by the Civil Service pension scheme medical adviser for the period 1 January 2001–31 December 2001 was 505. Benefits provided on medical retirement are set out in the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and laid before Parliament, and provide for an immediate payment of enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure met from the vote was £310 million in respect of all Civil Service cases for which an ill health pension has been awarded. These cases number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formally been ill health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61822]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business. Information may also be held by the Home Office in connection with the security clearance of any hon. Member who has worked for or on behalf of the Home Office, but not in connection with his or her work as an MP.

  Internet (Security)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken by the Government to ensure that individuals using the internet to buy goods have their bank details and other personal information kept secure. [64799]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are taking forward a number of initiatives to ensure security of information when purchasing goods on the internet. Last year the Government, working closely with stakeholders, launched their Safe Internet Shopping Campaign to help explain how consumers can shop on-line with confidence. This included guidance on safe payment and data protection, together with directions to the Government's Consumer Gateway (www.consumer.gov.uk) which provides links to sources of detailed information. In addition, existing consumer protection law applies on-line. This includes the Consumer Protection (Distance
  395W
  Selling) regulations 2000, which give consumers protection against payment card fraud and rights to information and cooling off periods.

  The use of personal information on the internet is regulated by the Data Protection Act 1998, which sets rules for the handling of data about living, identifiable individuals throughout the United Kingdom. Among other things, these require personal data to be held securely. The Act is administered independently of the Government by the Information Commissioner, who has the power to take enforcement action if any of the Act's requirements is breached

  The Home Office has actively encouraged the finance and retail sectors to implement secure means of protecting cardholder information. These include the cardholder address and card security code checking system to make transactions over the internet more secure.

  Work Permits
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps are being taken to ensure that work permits applied for under shortage occupations criteria are only granted in circumstances where the skill required is classified as a shortage occupation skill; [66013]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the process of investigation undertaken by Work Permits (UK) into work permit applications that are submitted on the grounds of shortage occupations criteria. [66016]

  Beverley Hughes
  Should an employer make a false declaration there are a number of safeguards built into the application process.

  The work permit arrangements are designed to strike the right balance between enabling employers to recruit or transfer skilled people from abroad while safeguarding the interests of the resident labour force. The arrangements are labour market led.

  Before a work permit can be issued the employer will normally be expected to demonstrate by advertising the post that there is no suitably qualified resident workers. However, this requirement is waived where the vacancy is in respect of an occupation included on Work Permits (UK) shortage occupation list. Such applications will nevertheless need to meet the other criteria of the work permit arrangements as to the skills, qualifications and experience of the employee and the terms and conditions of employment.

  If Work Permits (UK) has any doubts about the validity of the information provided on the application form, they can request further evidence, such as a job description, copies of qualifications and references from previous employers to assess whether the overseas worker has the necessary qualifications and skills.

  In order to maintain the accuracy of the shortage occupation list, Work Permits (UK) has established a number of industry sector panels. The panels, including one for the Information Technology. Communications and Electronics (ITCE) sector, meet on a quarterly basis to review changes in the labour market and make recommendations on the occupations that should form the shortage list. Members of the ITCE sector panels include other Government Departments, trade unions, relevant
  396W
  industrial bodies and independent representative organisations such as the Professional Contractors Group (PCG).

  Work Permits (UK) is also developing arrangements to ensure that the work permit arrangements are not abused once the work permit has been granted. In addition to the existing Allegations Team, Work Permits (UK) is setting up a new Intelligence Team, which is expected to be operational by autumn. This team will facilitate links with the Immigration Service, the police and other interested bodies and allow a more thorough and coherent investigation of allegations. Additionally, a Post Issuing Checking (PIC) team, which will take a pro-active role in targeting sectors and visiting employers, overseas nationals or representatives who Work Permits (UK) suspect are not abiding by the scheme criteria.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of his Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [65971]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Home Office departmental responsibility for regulatory impacts is located in the Performance, Delivery and Strategy Unit.

  A breakdown of the numbers of staff employed, in each financial year, on regulatory impact matters is as follows:

  1997–98 (1 April 1997–31 March 1998):

  1998–99 (1 April 1998–31 March 1999): 2

  1999–2000 (1 April 1999–31 March 2000): 2

  2000–01 (1 April 2000–31 March 2001): 2

  2001–02 (1 April 2001–31 March 2002): 1.

  The Performance, Delivery and Strategy Unit regulatory impact co-ordinator works closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within the Home Office and with the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59312]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures for the number of letters received by each Minister in each month since June 1997 have been placed in the Library.

  Drugs
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates to be the value of the(a) domestic and (b) international trade in (i) cannabis, (ii) amphetamines, (iii) LSD, (iv) cocaine, (v) ecstasy, (vi) heroin and (vii) crack in the most recent year for which figures are available. [66663]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are no estimates of the value of the United Kingdom (UK) domestic and international trade in the drugs specified in the question. However, a study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) produced the following estimates of the value of the market in 1998–99 for the following specific drugs: amphetamines £257.7 million; cannabis
  397W
  £1,577.9 million; cocaine £352.8 million; crack £1,817.4 million; ecstasy £294.6 million; and heroin £2,313.0 million. These figures should not be regarded as definitive since the purpose of the study "Sizing the UK market for illicit drugs" was to carry out research into different methodologies for assessing the size of illicit drug market. Her Majesty's Customs believe the cocaine (and probably ecstasy) figure from the NERA study is likely to significantly understate the true position by missing much recreational use. This work was in large part derived from the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) and therefore reflects drug users who have come to the attention of the criminal justice system—which is more likely to be the case with heroin or crack users.

  A United Nations study published in January 1998 reported that estimates of the turnover of the global illicit drug industry varied considerably from US$100 billion to US$1,000 billion a year, with the most frequently found figures in the literature in the range US$300 billion to US$500 billion a year.

  Buildings insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66922]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance, which is set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30, para 30.2.5, which notes that Government do not need to purchase insurance to protect the viability of its business, and should consider insurance only where the value of claims met would exceed the cost of 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 that other accommodation options [Government Accounting, para 30.2.11a].

  The Home Department complies with this policy and with rare exceptions self-insures buildings in which it is the sole occupier. Where part of a building is leased and insurance forms part of the services provided to the building as a whole by the lessor, an element of the service charge payment will relate to the insurance cost, but extracting this element from such charges could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts involving accommodation provision an insurance element also forms part of the overall PFI charge. The Department's policy, based on advice from the Office of Government Commerce is that any additional insurance costs following 11 September is primarily a matter for the private sector.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67095]
  398W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]The Home Department undertakes a wide range of research activities that support the development of information-led policy, including scientific and engineering research, market and opinion research and social research. My Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) conducts social research supporting all seven Home Office aims. However, RDS do not collect statistics at parliamentary constituency level for a number of reasons. In particular, many of the statistics collected locally are based on administrative areas, such as local and police authorities, and these do not always share boundaries with parliamentary constituencies.

  In the past, following each United Kingdom (UK) Parliamentary General Election a House of Commons Paper compiled by RDS was laid before Parliament in the form of a Return to an Address, and similarly, after each European Parliamentary Election a Home Office Statistical Bulletin was published by RDS. Each publication contained statistics of individual candidates' Election Expenses (except for the bulletin covering the 1999 European Parliamentary elections where, because of the voting system used, individual candidates did not have control over their expenses). Both publications also contained details, by UK Parliamentary or European Parliamentary constituency, of rejected ballot papers, postal and proxy votes, and votes polled. The responsibility for compiling and publishing these figures passed on 1 December 2000 to the Electoral Commission.

  The full list of RDS publications is available on the Home Office website and copies are also placed in the Library.

  May I also refer you to the letter sent to you on 8 July 2002 by the National Statistician in which he stated that the Office for National Statistics do not collect statistics at parliamentary constituency level.

  Zimbabwe
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons arriving at a port of entry(a) from Zimbabwe and (b) claiming to be citizens of Zimbabwe from another port of embarkation have been refused entry by immigration officers and returned to Zimbabwe in the last six months for which figures are available. [69081]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information relates to the number of Zimbabwean nationals refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and removed. The latest six months for which data is available is for July to December 2000, and is shown in the table.

  Information on the original port of embarkation, and the destination of persons removed from the United Kingdom is only available by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  2002

  Zimbabwean nationals refused entry to the United Kingdom and removed1

  July

  110

  August

  130

  September

  160

  399W

  2002

  Zimbabwean nationals refused entry to the United Kingdom and removed1

  October

  170

  November

  220

  December

  300

  Total refused and removed July-December 2000

  1,090

  1Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action has been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntarily Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). All figures are rounded to nearest five.

  Information on the number of people refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and removed during 2001 will be published later this year in the Command paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2001", and will be available from the Library and the website of the Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Romanian Immigrants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Romanian Government on the issue of illegal immigrants by Romanian citizens into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [68450]

  Beverley Hughes
  Home Office officials met their Romanian counterparts in November 2001 and March 2002 to negotiate the terms of a readmission agreement between our two countries. The draft agreement is intended to improve co-operation between the United Kingdom and Romania in order to contribute to the prevention and combating of illegal migration. This it will do by facilitating the readmission to each country of its own citizens and third country nationals whose residence in the other country is illegal. Officials are currently working on finalising the text of the agreement, which we expect to be formally signed later this year.

  The United Kingdom has also deployed two officers to Romania in an advisory capacity, to assist the Romanian government in creating a professional intelligence unit for

  19971

  19981

  19991

  20001,2

  20011,2

  Total

  Applications received

  1,075

  1,295

  1,800

  7,475

  6,805

  18,450

  Initial decisions3

  660

  1,100

  735

  5,520

  4.060

  12,075

  Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Granted asylum

  255

  510

  315

  845

  805

  2,730

  Granted ELR

  295

  500

  320

  2,455

  1,800

  5,370

  Refused

  110

  90

  100

  2,220

  1.455

  3,975

  Backlog clearance exercise5

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  —

  —

  5

  10

  —

  15

  Refused under backlog criteria'

  —

  —

  *

  *

  —

  *

  1Data rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2

  >2Provisional data

  3Initial decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period

  4 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  5Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog

  6Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds

  400W
  combating organised immigration crime. The unit aims to provide intelligence packages to support operational activity to target the criminal gangs operating in and through Romania.

  Removals (Injuries)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been injured during removal from the UK during the last six months; what the nature of the injuries was and how they are documented; what the policy of the IND Enforcement Directorate is on removal of injured persons, and if he will make a statement. [68835]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Home Office does not keep statistics centrally recording those individuals injured during removal from the United Kingdom and these figures are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical staff at the removal centre will examine any detainee who states that they are ill or injured prior to travel to ascertain if they are fit to travel.

  A detainee injured during removal, while still in the United Kingdom would be referred to the Port Medical Inspector who would assess whether the detainee is fit to travel.

  The escorting contractors complete an incident report detailing any incident occurring during removal.

  Asylum Applications (Iraqis)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqis have claimed asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; how many of them claimed to be Kurdish; and how many of those claiming to be Kurdish(a) were granted refugee status, (b) were granted exceptional leave to remain, (c) were refused both and (d) were refused both after appeal. [69342]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the applications and initial decisions of Iraqis, excluding dependants, claiming asylum from 1997 to 2001:
  401W
  Data for refusals after appeal are available only for 1998 when 25 appeals were dismissed.

  It is not possible to say how many of the applicants are of Kurdish origin. Data on the ethnic origin of asylum seekers are not collated centrally and are therefore not available; the number of those who applied would be available only by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those Iraqi Kurds who have been refused refugee status and exceptional leave to remain after appeal have(a) been removed from the United Kingdom and (b) left voluntarily in the last three years. [69343]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of Iraqi nationals removed in the last three quarters of 2001 after making an application for asylum in the United Kingdom is given in the table, figures prior to this are not available. It is not possible to say how many of these are of Kurdish origin or at what stage of their application they were removed, it is also not possible to determine the number of persons who leave voluntarily without informing the Home Office of their departure.

  Iraqi principal asylum applicants removed1,2,3,4

  Number

  Q2 2001

  25

  Q3 2001

  15

  Q4 2001

  15

  1Provisional estimated data, subject to change.

  2Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  3Nationality breakdown of dependants is unavailable.

  4Data rounded to the nearest 5.

  Information on the number of asylum removals is published on a quarterly basis. The next set of data will be available on 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Raves
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many raves took place in South England in the last two years, broken down by county. [69393]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  This information is not held centrally and could be gained only at disproportionate cost.

  Positive Futures Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the existing positive futures projects; [68780]
  402W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the 33 new positive futures schemes referred to on page 170 of the 2002 Departmental report. [68779]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The existing Positive Futures projects have recently been subjected to independent evaluation which found that they are achieving their aims of increasing sports participation and reducing youth crime and drugs misuse. It found:a reduction in recorded come (of up to as much as 77 per cent.) in every area with a Positive Futures project;

  Positive changes in behaviour and lifestyle for many of these youngsters who were deemed to be 'at risk', for example returning to the education system;
  An increase in sports participation with many youngsters joining sports clubs, gaining coaching and leadership qualifications.

  New projects were awarded to 33 agencies that demonstrated how sports projects would complement the work of local youth offending and drug action teams. The majority of projects that started in April 2002 have now appointed staff and are working with statutory services to identify the 50 young people most 'at risk' of offending to ensure their involvement in the sports programmes.

  PSA Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost to public funds is of achieving the PSA target to make significant progress towards one million more people being actively involved in their communities by March 2004. [68795]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]My right hon. Friend the Chancellor (Mr. Brown) announced in January 2001 that he was making available £300 million as part of a package which almost doubled the Government's commitment to encourage more people to get involved in their communities. This includes expenditure on a range of initiatives including:£60 million to be used to develop mentoring, and modernise infrastructure in voluntary and community organisations;
  £70 million for the Children's Fund, which was announced as part of the Spending Review 2000;
  £50 million for community groups in deprived areas; and
  £120 million to fund volunteering in public services and a new National Experience Corp for the over 50's to pass on their skills and experience to help others.

  Macedonian Nationals
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Macedonian nationals are prohibited from entering the UK. [69777]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no international travel ban applying to Macedonian nationals at present. Nor have any Macedonian nationals been excluded from entering the United Kingdom within the last 10 years at the personal direction of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary using the powers available to him under the Immigration Rules. There will, however, be Macedonian nationals who are excluded on an individual basis under immigration powers, such as those who have been deported from the United Kingdom. It would entail disproportionate cost to identify all such individuals.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) his Department's Vote I budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54722]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is as follows:

  £000

  Description

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Vote 11

  210.2

  86.9

  Vote 22

  159.5

  77.3

  Total

  369.7

  164.2

  1 Vote 1—interpreted as core Home Office, agencies and no departmental public bodies and

  2Vote 2—interpreted as Prison Service

  The Home Office has a comprehensive anti-fraud and corruption policy and a response plan that is applied vigorously. All cases of reported fraud and theft are investigated with follow-up action taken, which includes prosecution where appropriate. There has been a decrease in overall reported cases of fraud and theft during 2001–02.

  Criminal Justice System Annual Report
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the Criminal Justice System annual report for 2001–02. [71447]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My noble and learned Friends the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I will today be publishing jointly an annual report for the criminal justice system for England and Wales.

  The document is a report back on the criminal justice system business plan 2001–02. It summarises the progress which has been made in modernising the criminal justice system, building on that reported in the previous two annual reports.

  Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will report. [71448]

  Hilary Benn
  The review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has completed its work. The report, "Breaking the Circle", is published today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Cannabis (Road Deaths)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road deaths are estimated to be a result of the influence of cannabis in each of the last three years. [70136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  National road accident statistics do not identify cases where drivers involved in fatal road accidents were under the influence of drugs. There are no estimates of the numbers involved in accidents where drivers had been under the influence of cannabis. Recent research shows
  404W
  that 12 per cent. of those killed in road accidents had traces of cannabis in the body. However, the presence of the drug cannot be taken as evidence of accident causation. In addition, the inactive element of cannabis remains detectable for a long time after any impairing effect.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of deaths related to misuse of(a) alcohol, (b) tobacco, (c) cannabis, (d) ecstasy, (e) amphetamines, (f) LSD, (g) heroin, (h) cocaine and (i) crack cocaine in the past 12 months. [67615]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The available information estimates that between 5,000 and 40,000 deaths per annum are caused by alcohol in England and Wales, reflecting the wide range of methods of calculation used in many studies.

  It is estimated that smoking causes 120,000 deaths in the United Kingdom each year. Source: "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995" Health Education Authority.

  Figures published by the Office for National Statistics indicate the number of times cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD, heroin, and cocaine are mentioned on death certificates. These figures are shown in the table. Separate figures are not available on crack cocaine.

  Figures for these substances are not on a comparable basis to those given for alcohol and smoking related deaths which are estimates.

  >Number of deaths where selected substances were mentioned on the death certificate—England and Wales 2000

  All deaths with substance mentioned

  Heroin/morphine1

  926

  Cocaine (including crack cocaine)

  80

  Amphetamines

  59

  Ecstasy

  36

  Cannabis

  11

  LSD

  0

  1As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate

  Source:

  "Death related to drug poisoning: England and Wales 1993–2000" Health Statistics Quarterly 13, spring 2002, Office for National Statistics; ONS database of drug-related poisonings

CABINET OFFICE

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by his Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64639]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department has not introduced, removed or amended any Statutory instruments from 1 January to the present day.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66927]

  Mr. Alexander
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance, which is set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30, paragraph 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, paragraph 30.2.11a). For the Cabinet Office the figures requested are as follows:

  1 April 2001 to 11 September 2001: £14,799.00

  12 September 2001 to 31 March 2001: £27,746.00.

  The increase in the post 11 September 2002 figure is primarily due to changes in the Cabinet Office's estate.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the buildings owned by his Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66947]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) gave the hon. Member for Buckingham on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 339W.

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what his policy is on the inclusion of Civil Servants within national pay scales. [68894]

  Mr. Alexander
  Responsibility for pay and grading outside the Senior Civil Service is delegated to Departments and agencies. The Government's policy is to give greater freedom and autonomy to front line managers, including for pay and grading, in order to encourage innovation and improve delivery. A system which included all Civil Servants within national pay scales would be incompatible with this policy.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Communications Bill
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to place a duty upon Ofcom(a) to ensure that inclusive design principles inform the development of all future digital communication technologies, facilities, services and equipment, (b) to promote the need for disability awareness and equality training throughout the communication industries and (c) to ensure that accessible communications services, equipment and facilities, with special emphasis on
  406W
  training and continuing support in their use, are made readily available at no extra cost to consumers who are disabled. [67783]

  Dr. Howells
  Ofcom must have regard to the needs of people with disabilities in carrying out all of its functions—this requirement is in Clause 3(2)d of the draft Communications Bill.

  Although there is no specific requirement on Ofcom to ensure that communications equipment is provided for disabled users the EC Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive permits the EC Commission to decide that particular types of apparatus shall support certain features for disabled users. The Government is working to improve the range of communications equipment available for disabled users through raising awareness of their needs among equipment designers and manufacturers.

  Dr. Howells
  Ofcom must have regard to the needs of people with disabilities in carrying out all of its functions—this requirement is in Clause 3(2)d of the draft Communications Bill.

  Although there is no specific requirement on Ofcom to ensure that communications equipment is provided for disabled users the EC Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive permits the EC Commission to decide that particular types of apparatus shall support certain features for disabled users. The Government are working to improve the range of communications equipment available for disabled users through raising awareness of their needs among equipment designers and manufacturers.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what savings she envisages by replacing existing regulators with the Office of Communications with regard to(a) staff and (b) expenditure; and what qualitative change in the culture of regulation she expects to be achieved by replacing the existing regulators with Ofcom. [69373]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government expect the replacement of the existing regulators by Ofcom to result in savings through greater administrative efficiency and the elimination of duplication. It is, however, too early to quantify any such savings at this stage.

  The creation of Ofcom should allow a more coherent, integrated and balanced approach to be taken to regulation across the communications sector as a whole.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the creation of the Contents Board as part of the Office of Communications; and if she will make a statement. [67856]

  Dr. Howells
  A number of representations have been made which refer to the creation of the proposed Content Board as part of Ofcom as part of the consultation process following the publication of the draft Communications Bill.

  These representations will be considered along with all other responses to the consultation and the report of the Joint Committee undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.
  407W
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to enshrine a grant-making power for the Secretary of State in the forthcoming Communications Bill similar to that enshrined in section 93 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to defray or contribute towards expenses incurred in developing and providing accessible communications apparatus and technologies for disabled people. [68305]

  Dr. Howells
  The grant making powers under section 93 of the Telecommunications Act have never been used and it is not intended to carry them forward into the forthcoming Communications Bill. The Government will continue to work to improve the range of communications equipment available for people with disabilities through raising awareness of their needs among equipment designers and manufacturers.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department has taken since July 2000 to ensure that those in receipt of grants for construction, restoration and refurbishment projects conform to Government requirements regarding timber procurement; and if she will make a statement. [67079]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is fully aware of the importance of procuring timber from responsibly managed and sustainable sources and actively encourages all of its non-Departmental public bodies (NDPBs) to take account of the principles of sustainable development in making grants. We are currently consulting Lottery distributors on ways in which a practical link between funding, projects and sustainable development, that can be trialed and measured, can be developed. We are also in the process of mapping the environmental practices of all our NDPBs with the intention of issuing further specific guidance, as appropriate.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68686]

  Dr. Howells
  The Spending Review involves a comprehensive assessment of the Department's performance, priorities and resource requirements, and a range of staff make a contribution.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the overseas trips on departmental business that have been undertaken in each of the last five years by officials in her Department; and what the(a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) result was in each case. [68739]

  Dr. Howells
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Images of England
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the initiative entitled Images of England by English Heritage; what steps she is taking to
  408W
  preserve the privacy of home owners who do not wish to have their houses displayed; and if she will ask English Heritage to abandon this scheme. [69818]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage's Images of England project is currently taking a single external photograph of each of England's 370,000 listed buildings. The project is grant aided by the Heritage Lottery Fund and began in 1999. Details of all listed buildings are already in the public domain. The photographs are primarily being taken from public land and will be published on the project's website. Where it is not possible to take a photograph from publicly accessible land. the Images of England photographer will seek consent from the owner, and if it is refused, will not take a photograph.

  English Heritage has also asked the Heritage Lottery Fund to approve an exemption scheme whereby photographs of private dwellings taken from public land will not be placed on the website for a period of 10 years if the owner requests this. I believe this strikes the right balance between the interests of the individual and the public.

  The Government are keen to improve access to all publicly available information. We have no plans to ask English Heritage to abandon the scheme.

  Alcopops
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research she has commissioned into the ages of the purchasers of alcopops. [69746]

  Dr. Howells
  Neither my Department, nor the Home Department which previously had responsibility for alcohol licensing, have commissioned their own research into the ages of the purchasers of alcopops. In formulating policies regarding alcohol Ministers have, however, considered research from a number of sources, including the Department of Health's teenage drinking survey, the British Medical Association's alcohol and young people survey and other work carried out by the Alcohol Education and Research Council.

  I am pleased to say that the Portman Group's second review of its Code of Practice, on the naming, packaging and merchandising of alcoholic drinks found that "underage appeal" of alcoholic drinks, which was the predominant cause for complaint in the code's first years, has now virtually disappeared as a problem. The Government are not, however, complacent about these issues and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 strengthened the ability of the police and trading standards officers to use young people to carry out test purchases of alcohol with the aim of ensuring that young people do not obtain alcohol illegally.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and. Sport what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report for each of the past five years. [70474]
  409W
  Dr. Howells
  The cost of publishing the Department's annual report for each of the past five years was as follows:

  >Annual report costs 1998–2002

  £

  Design, typesetting, pdfs etc,

  Print1

  Proof reading

  Total

  1998

  38,664

  16,800

  —

  55,464

  1999

  46,142

  25,000

  —

  71,142

  2000

  40,212

  18,310

  648

  59,170

  2001

  45,144

  24,648

  533

  70,325

  2002

  56,105

  24,774

  570

  81,449

  1Buy back copies from The Stationery Office.

  The costs for 2002 include the development of a new design template which the Department plans to follow for the next two to three years.

  Commonwealth Games
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the Government's response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's Fifth report, Session 2001–02, "Revisiting the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games". [71207]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am today publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's Fifth report entitled "Revisiting the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games". The response is available on the DCMS website (www.culture.gov.uk) and copies of the response have been laid before Parliament and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Historical Manuscripts Commission
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of the Historical Manuscripts Commission in the light of the recommendations in the Chipperfield report. [71352]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts announced on Friday 12 July the publication of the report into the review of the functions carried out by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (HMC) by Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield.

  The Government accept the key recommendations of the report and as a result of consultations with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Public Record Office and the Historical Manuscripts Commission my right hon. and noble Friend was able to announce that the Government intend to establish a new body, the National Archives. This will bring together functions relating to public and private records, in order to serve the nation's archives in a more efficient and effective way. It will also enhance access by members of the public to this uniquely rich national resource. The new body will report to the Lord Chancellor.

  To help facilitate the establishment of this new body, my Department has agreed to provide additional investment to enable the HMC to upgrade the National Register of Archives.

  Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she plans to maintain the ban on religious organisations owning many categories of broadcasting licence; and if she will make a statement. [70779]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's position is set out in the document 'The draft Communications Bill—The Policy' which states that where there is sufficient spectrum availability, restrictions on religious bodies holding licences will be removed (para 9.3.3).

  The Radio Authority, which licences all independent radio services in the UK, is currently given discretion under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to award local analogue, satellite and cable licences to religious bodies, subject to compliance with the authority's codes, and the ITC can also award cable and satellite TV licences to religious organisations. The draft Bill increases the number of types of licences which religious bodies can hold by giving Ofcom discretion to award local digital sound programme service licences, digital additional service licences, digital programme service licences and TV restricted service licences.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [70982]

  Dr. Howells
  Yes, the Department does have a designated consultation-co-ordinator.

  ITV Licences
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) the regional managing directors of ITV licences, (b) members of the boards for licence management and maintenance and (c) conditions for membership of such boards. [69673]

  Dr. Howells
  The regional managing directors of ITV licences are as follows.

  ITV regional company

  Managing director

  Anglia

  Graham Creelman

  Border

  Paddy Merrall

  Carlton Central

  Ian Squires

  Carlton London

  Colin stanbridge

  Carlton Westcountry

  Mark Haskell

  Channel

  Michael Luces

  Grampian

  Derrick Thomson

  Granada

  Brenda Smith

  HTV

  Jeremy Payne

  LWT

  Christy Swords

  Meridian

  Lindsay Charlton

  Scottish

  Sandy Ross

  Tyne Tees UTV

  Margaret. Fay

  UTV

  John McCann

  Yorkshire

  David Croft

  Membership of the boards and conditions of membership are matters for individual ITV companies and details can be obtained from the regional managing directors listed above.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mentally Incapacitated Patients
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the definition of giving basic care to a helpless patient includes the provision of fluids. [67209]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's position is that the definition of basic care includes the offer of food and fluids. These should always be offered to patients who are capable of swallowing them. Where nutrition and hydration have to be provided by artificial means, their possible withdrawal is, in all cases, a matter of clinical judgment which is undertaken in accordance with professional advice provided by a responsible and recognised body of medical opinion and the general law. The current consultation paper, "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves", reflects this position.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice will be given based on consultation on "Making Decisions: Helping People who Have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves" in the advisory leaflets on the effects of dehydration. [67208]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Consultation Paper, "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves", seeks responses by 9 July 2002. Following the closure of the consultation period, all responses received will be thoroughly considered and will inform the final published version of the guidance leaflets. I will make a statement on responses to the consultation in due course.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66908]

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

  Adjudicators
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many adjudicators were in post in January of each of the last 10 years. [68642]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information can be produced, but it has not been possible to do so in the time available. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Child Abduction
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the return rates for the United Kingdom to and from(a) Europe and (b) the United States were under the Hague Child Abduction Convention for each of the last two years. [69817]
  412W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The four tables show the return rates for England and Wales to and from(a) Europe and (b) the United States, for European and USA signatories to the Hague Convention:

  Figure 1: Return rates to England and Wales—European signatories

  2000

  2001

  Cases received during the year

  88

  96

  Cases outstanding at end of the year

  26

  29

  Cases where return of child achieved

  40

  38

  Return rate (percentage)

  64.5

  56.7

  Figure 2: Return rates to England and Wales—European signatories

  2000

  2001

  Cases received during the year

  139

  155

  Cases outstanding at end of the year

  51

  55

  Cases where return of child achieved

  57

  58

  Return rate (percentage)

  64.8

  58

  Figure 3: Return rates to England and Wales—USA signatories

  2000

  2001

  Cases received during the year

  38

  41

  Cases outstanding at end of the year

  12

  20

  Cases where return of child achieved

  17

  13

  Return rate (percentage)

  50

  39

  Figure 3: Return rates to England and Wales—USA signatories

  2000

  2001

  Cases received during the year

  28

  24

  Cases outstanding at end of the year

  11

  11

  Cases where return of child achieved

  15

  14

  Return rate (percentage)

  53

  58

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints have been made about the standard of service in the Public Guardianship Office in 2001. [70241]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the financial year 2001–02, 815 complaints were made to the Public Guardianship Office about the standard of service. A further 53 complaints were made about judicial decisions, fees, the conduct of solicitors or the provision of security bonds. This was the first full year of PGO's existence.

  Access to Justice Act
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Law Society in handling complaints with reference to the reserve powers that are contained in the Access to Justice Act 1999. [70243]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We continue to have concerns about the Law Society's performance in complaints handling, particularly in relation to the quality of casework. The Lord Chancellor has therefore asked the Legal Services Ombudsman to maintain increased oversight of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, the Law Society's complaints handling wing. He has warned that unless
  413W
  speedy and substantive improvements are made across the board, he will not hesitate to implement his reserve powers, which allow for the establishment of a Legal. Services Complaints Commissioner.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Software
  Brian White:
  To ask the President of the Council what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69322]

  Country

  No. of officials

  Purpose of trip

  Overall cost of trip 1(£)

  September 2000

  Croatia

  1

  Official ministerial trip

  2,481.07

  September 2000

  Switzerland and Germany

  3

  Official ministerial trip

  6,697.21

  October 2000

  Mexico

  4

  Official ministerial trip

  16,012.17

  October 2000

  Netherlands

  1

  Human Resource Management seminar

  500,68

  January 2001

  America

  5

  Official ministerial trip

  48,387.01

  October 2001

  Ireland

  1

  Information already available2

  348.13

  October 2001

  Netherlands

  1

  Human Resource Management seminar

  585.43

  1Includes travel, accommodation and subsistence costs.

  2I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 727W.

  All overseas travel by officials in my Department is undertaken in accordance with the principles set in Chapter 8 of the Civil Service Management Code, and the detailed rules and guidance set out in the Cabinet Office Management Code. Information requested prior to September 2000 was not collected, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Lactose
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the UK Medicines Control Agency will approve the issuing of new licences for medicines containing lactose. [53427]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency has approved the new licences for medicines containing lactose, and these licences will now be issued.

  EU Food Supplements Directive
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what position the UK Government have taken on the proposed EU food supplements directive, with specific reference to(a) possible banning of certain nutrients and (b) limits on the potency of others. [57960]

  Ms Blears
  The European Union food supplements directive has been adopted. In negotiations the Food Standards Agency (FSA), that represented the United Kingdom, argued that there should be no unnecessary restrictions on the sale of food supplements that are safe and properly labelled.

  The directive includes lists of vitamins and minerals, and vitamin and mineral sources, that may be used in food supplements. The FSA secured a position enabling member states to allow continued sale of products
  414W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department's computer software requirements are met via a Cabinet Office contract. Accordingly, I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 84W.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [68730]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  containing additional sources for up to seven years after the directive comes into force, pending safety assessment. The Government intend to take full advantage of this flexibility when implementing the directive.

  The directive lays down principles for setting maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements, but does not set specific limits. The FSA argued that limits should be based on thorough scientific risk assessments.

  Breastfeeding
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of mothers who breastfeed their babies; and how this has changed in the last five years. [68037]

  Ms Blears
  There has been an increase in the proportion of women who initiated breastfeeding between 1995 and 2000. The results of the infant feeding survey 2000 showed that 71 per cent. of the mothers in England and Wales initiated breastfeeding compared to 68 per cent. in 1995. The increase in England and Wales was particularly marked in low-income households, where the proportion of women who initiated breastfeeding increased from 50 per cent. to 59 per cent. between 1995 and 2000.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government provides to assist in the promotion of breastfeeding. [68038]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. We currently have a commitment in the NHS Plan for "increased support for breastfeeding" and have identified a number of key projects. They include:
  the development and dissemination of the evidence base on good practice through Best Practice' projects funded under the infant feeding initiative with funding of £3 million for three years. A total of 79 'Best Practice' projects have been funded across all

  415W
  regions. These projects were funded to enable effective communication and evaluation of current good practice, to address the barriers to breastfeeding, and thereby lead to improved breastfeeding rates among those least likely to breastfeed. This is a goal shared by all Sure Start initiatives and several health action zone programmes.

  embedding messages into national health service practice and other policies through the national breastfeeding awareness week and national network of breastfeeding co-ordinators.

  ensuring effective monitoring of infant feeding practices through quinquennial infant feeding surveys.

  Other related departmental activities include support for four main voluntary organisations involved in the promotion of breastfeeding and maintaining close links with UNICEF's baby friendly initiative.

  This work will be developed in the context of the forthcoming children's national service framework and will include maternity services that allow children to start their lives well and grow into healthy adults.

  Cancer
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a national set of standards for primary care for cancer. [614221

  Ms Blears
  Hospital cancer services have been assessed against national standards and we are working to develop primary care services for cancer patients. Cancer clinical leads have recently been appointed in every primary care trust.

  Cancer standards will be included in the quality framework of the new general medical services contract. This is being negotiated by the National Health Service Confederation and the British Medical Association and will be made public in due course.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the work published in the International Journal of Cancer, volume 99, by University of Newcastle researchers in respect of cancer risks from the BNFL plant at Sellafield. [68258]

  Ms Blears
  This study has been referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). COMARE will advise on this study and several other much larger studies concerned with the incidence of cancer in the children of radiation workers, in the committee's seventh report, which is expected to be published shortly.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS Cancer Plan and the implementation of the NICE guidance do not suffer while the structural changes to the NHS become established. [64387]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]We recognise the need to maintain and improve delivery of services for patients while structural changes in the national health service are made. Strategic health authorities, primary care organisations and trusts are responsible for implementation of the Cancer Plan. They need to work through existing cancer networks to do this.

  Primary care trusts have a legal requirement to ensure that funding for the appropriate implementation of National Institute for Clinical Excellence technology appraisals will be available within three months.
  416W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the reasons underlying the lower survival rate for(a) cancer and (b) colon cancer in the United Kingdom than in (i) Germany and (ii) the United States. [67800]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]While other developed countries have broadly similar incidence of cancer, there is evidence to suggest that for many cancers, including colon cancer, survival rates for patients diagnosed a decade ago are lower in this country than in comparable European countries and the United States. Experts in the field suggest that the reason for the lower survival rates is due at least in part to patients in the United Kingdom having more advanced disease at the time of treatment.

  That is why, in September 2000, we published the "NHS Cancer Plan" which sets out a programme of action to improve cancer prevention, detection, treatment and research which are intended to bring our survival rates in line with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government have taken since 1997 to raise awareness of(a) testicular cancer and (b) other cancers in men. [663581

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Department contributed to the recent production of Cancer Research UK's leaflet, "Testicular Cancer—Spot the Symptoms". Copies are available in the Library and also on both Cancer Research UK's and the Department's websites. We have also been working with Cancer Research UK on the development of information to support the prostate cancer risk management programme.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancer specialist units there were(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [66360]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]Cancer services in England are organised in 34 cancer networks. Cancer networks bring together primary, secondary, tertiary and voluntary service providers to plan and deliver specialist services across the patient pathway. Information on the number of participating institutions is not collected centrally.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities hold lead responsibility at local level for the preparation and delivery of teenage pregnancy strategies. [63332]

  Ms Blears
  Since April 2001, every top tier local authority in England has a local teenage pregnancy strategy and rolling three-year action plan, developed jointly by health and local authority partners and agreed by the Teenage Pregnancy Unit in the Department. Responsibility for the implementation of the local strategy is held jointly by the local authority and relevant primary care trusts (PCTs).

  Since April 2002, funding to support implementation of agreed local strategies has been routed to local authorities through a teenage pregnancy local implementation grant. The local authority is the accountable body and must take decisions on the expenditure of the grant to ensure that it
  417W
  is used to support the aims of the agreed local strategy. The local teenage pregnancy partnership board, with representation from the local authority, PCTs and key local partners, should make recommendations on the use of the grant and oversee implementation of the local action plan.

  BSE
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons why the Food Standards Agency are making representations to the Commission to ban the use of sheep intestines in sausages; and what scientific evidence his Department has collated on whether scrapie in sheep could mask the detection of BSE. [63676]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the Agency's Board endorsed a report on bovine spongiform eucephalopathy (BSE) and sheep from a core group of stakeholders at its meeting in Armagh on 13 June. It contained a recommendation that the European Commission be requested to add sheep intestine to the current list of specified risk material for sheep as an additional precautionary measure. The Board agreed the recommendation on the basis that the measure, added to the current controls, could reduce potential infectivity entering the food chain by up to two-thirds if BSE were found in sheep. Current precautionary measures are estimated to reduce risk by approximately one-third.

  There is a theoretical risk that BSE exists in the national flock as some consumed the same type of feed that is thought to have infected cattle. A sheep apparently suffering from scrapie could instead be suffering from BSE as it is currently not possible to differentiate between the symptoms of the two diseases. In an Opinion issued in February 2001, the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) of the European Union stated: 'the agent causing scrapie, the expression of clinical disease in scrapie-affected sheep, cannot currently be distinguished from BSE by any means other than biological strain typing of the agent responsible.' Bioassays in mice take up to two years to complete. It has only been possible to test a small sample of brains from sheep thought to have scrapie to determine whether a BSE-like strain is present.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy for fluoridated toothpaste to carry health warning labels. [64464]

  Ms Blears
  No. The only risk to health identified from the use of toothpaste containing fluoride is dental fluorosis. I am satisfied that the instructions on use which manufacturers include on packets and tubes of toothpaste protects the public from this risk.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if disodium fluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid are safe to use for the purpose of fluoridating drinking water. [64465]

  Ms Blears
  Yes. In dilute aqueous solution, sufficient to increase the naturally occurring fluoride concentration to one part per million, hexafluorosilicic acid yields fluoride ions, hydrogen ions and silica. Disodium hexafluorosilicate yields sodium ions in addition. All of these products occur
  418W
  naturally in water supplies. The only product whose concentration is significantly raised by fluoridation is the fluoride ion.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on water fluoridation. [64471]

  Ms Blears
  We have asked the Medical Research Council for advice on how the research base on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay might be strengthened and their report is expected shortly. In the meantime our advice to health communities in areas of high dental decay is to consider consulting their local populations on whether they should have their water fluoridated.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions there are on the concentration of fluoride permitted in water used to manufacture baby foods. [64472]

  Ms Blears
  The quality of drinking water is subject to The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI 1147) as amended. This sets a maximum limit for fluoride at 1.5 mg per litre. Therefore, companies making baby food or infant formula using tap water would have less than 1.5 mg per litre for the water component of the feed, plus any other source of fluoride. As the limit for fluoride is the same for Private Water Supplies (The Private Water Supply Regulations 1991 SI 2790), manufacturers using such a supply would not be expected to produce baby food with a different level of fluoride.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank health authorities in England in order of the highest waiting times for hospital operations, according to the numbers waiting(a) over six months and (b) over 12 months for in-patient treatments. [64537]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about waiting times in the current year is not available by health authority. We are currently progressing work to collect waiting times data from primary care trusts to reflect the new organisations that came into being in April 2002.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for a patient to see(a) a general practitioner and (b) a consultant in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [65581]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on actual or average patient waiting times to see a general practitioner are not collected or held by the Department.

  From September 2001 data are being collected quarterly on the lead time for the first available appointment with each GP practice.

  From the March 2002 survey, results showed that 75 per cent. of practices, with appointment systems in place, could offer a patient an appointment with a GP within two working days.

  The table shows the average (median) waiting time for patients to be seen for their first out-patient appointment following GP written referral. Over this period the number of out-patient attendance's have increased by 407,000 (5.3 per cent.)
  419W

  >Average (median) consultant out-patient waiting times: NHS Trusts, England

  Median wait (weeks)

  1997–98

  6.3

  1998–99

  6.8

  1999–2000

  7.3

  2000–01

  7.3

  2001–02

  7.2

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for 2002–03 for the Director of International Recruitment for Health Services for the number of foreign recruited nurses working in the NHS. [66161]

  Mr. Hutton
  A combination of international recruitment, return to practice, improved retention and increased output from training has meant that the NHS Plan increase of 20,000 more nurses by 2004 has been achieved well in advance of the 2004 target.

  The same methods will be used to ensure delivery of the manifesto target and further increases in the nursing workforce.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Department in the NHS is responsible for organising recruitment by way of the internet; and what its budget is. [68119]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's human resources directorate is currently undertaking procurement for a national electronic (internet) recruitment service.

  Full costings will be available once the contract has been awarded through the procurement process.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives will be given to primary care trusts and strategic health authorities to encourage long-term use of international establishments. [65499]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts, working with their strategic health authorities, are responsible for identifying the health needs of their local populations and for arranging to meet these needs, commissioning services from an increasingly diverse range of healthcare providers. International establishment schemes that offer good value and high quality care services will have an increasingly important role in meeting these healthcare objectives. "Growing Capacity" sets out our plans for developing and managing the market to enable commissioners to make best use of the opportunities available.

  Cervical Screening
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether funding and co-ordination of liquid based cytology training for pathologists, screeners and smear-takers will be organised centrally through the NHS Cervical Screening Programme following the NICE review; [67071]
  420W
  (2) who will be responsible for reviewing the requirements for liquid based cytology processing centres in England and Wales following the NICE review. [67068]

  (3) what plans have been put in place to train staff in preparation for the roll-out of liquid based cytology cervical screening within six months of a positive NICE review; [67073]

  (4) what additional data relating to liquid based cytology is expected as a result of the English cervical screening pilot trials; [67066]

  (5) if it is anticipated that every laboratory which wants to offer liquid based cytology screening will be appropriately funded following the NICE review; [67069]

  (6) when NICE' s review of the English pilot trials will be published; and who will be consulted as part of the review; [67067]

  Ms Blears
  Changing to liquid based cytology (LBC) would be a major change to the way in which the national health service cervical screening programme is delivered. Before any new technology is introduced in the NHS, we must be sure that it is safe and effective, and that quality standards can be maintained.

  The evaluation report of the three sites in the English LBC pilot is due in the autumn, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will give their decision on its implementation across the NHS cervical screening programme in 2003. As part of this process, NICE will consult all relevant stakeholders including manufacturers, patient and professional groups.

  We are discussing with experts in the field, NHS cancer screening programmes and the NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency how best to introduce LBC if the NICE decision is positive, including training in laboratories and primary care and the potential impact of LBC on laboratory provision.

  The evaluation of the pilot will provide data on the effects, costs and practical implications of introducing LBC technology into the NHS cervical screening programme.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if funding for setting up liquid based cytology cervical screening services will be provided direct to the laboratories, and if such funding will be ring-fenced. [67070]

  Ms Blears
  The April 2002 Budget provides the highest sustained growth in national health service history: annual average increases of 7.4 per cent. per annum real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if companies will be allowed to work in partnership with the NHS to provide a better cervical screening service for women in the UK. [67072]

  Ms Blears
  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency has supported the NHS cancer screening programmes within England by negotiating contracts for liquid based cytology for pilot study sites, and by providing commercial input into the development of the supply markets.
  421W
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is involved in ongoing discussions with suppliers of pathology products and services. The discussions include the potential benefits of working in partnership, the impact of partnerships on the NHS cervical screening programme and potential future developments which may enhance the service further.

  NHS Direct
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on staffing shortages at the NHS Direct walk-in centre in Shirley, Southampton; [67603]

  (2) what the cost was of the flights of the NHS Direct nurses who travelled from Manchester to Southampton; and what their accommodation costs were. [67605]

  Ms Blears
  Shirley national health service walk-in centre is one of 42 such NHS centres which have been established in most of the major conurbations as part of a national programme to pilot nurse-led walk-in services. Each centre is managed by a project manager or lead nurse who is accountable to the local primary care trust. The overall pilot programme is co-ordinated by a national team.

  On the weekend of Saturday 29 June and Sunday 30 June 2002, due to staff illnesses, and the lack of local suitably trained nurses, the NHS walk-in centre found that it would have had to close or run a reduced service unless cover could be found by temporarily redeploying nurses from other centres. Among those who provided this cover were two nurses from Manchester who, exceptionally, travelled by air from Manchester to Southampton. Their flight and accommodation costs totalled £669.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he is taking to address staff shortages in NHS Direct walk-in centres; [67606]

  (2) what the vacancy levels are at each NHS Direct walk-in centre. [67604]

  Mr. Hutton
  Recruitment of National Health Service walk-in centre nurses is a local matter for primary care trusts and as such data on vacancies are not held centrally.

  The NHS Plan sets out our commitment to implementing a range of measures to increase nurse recruitment and retention. As a new service which is expanding the role of nurses, NHS walk-in centres are contributing to this by offering an attractive option for nurses to expand and develop their skills and experience.

  Recombinant Drugs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to extend the availability of recombinant drugs to all haemophiliacs in England; and if he will make a statement. [67839]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are considering whether to make recombinant clotting factors available to all haemophiliacs in England taking full account of representations made by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia, the haemophilia society, the United Kingdom haemophilia centre doctors organisation and others. A decision will be taken later this year.

  Oncology Patients
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical oncology patients were waiting for elective admission for(a) ordinary and (b) day cases in each (i) quarter and (ii) year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [67869]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the number of medical oncology patients waiting for elective ordinary admission and day cases. Quarterly data is available only for the final quarter of the financial year 1997–98.

  >Patients waiting for elective admission: Medical oncology specialty Position at end of quarter: NHS Trusts, England

  Quarter end

  Ordinary admissions

  Day case admissions

  March 1997

  281

  105

  March 1998

  300

  175

  June 1998

  260

  174

  September 1998

  290

  165

  December 1998

  277

  158

  March 1999

  131

  66

  lune 1999

  115

  80

  September 1999

  108

  54

  December 1999

  85

  48

  March 2000

  122

  77

  June 2000

  92

  59

  September 2000

  63

  19

  December 2000

  88

  32

  March 2001

  53

  35

  June 20011

  65

  70

  September 20011

  74

  79

  December 20011

  66

  68`

  March 20021

  69

  61

  1 The data does not include results from Leicester NHS Trust due to the Trust recording clinical oncology data against the medical oncology specialty.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7

  Reserve Forces Doctors
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the NHS of the compulsory mobilisation of reserve forces doctors on 16 May. [R] [67685]

  Mr. Hutton
  The compulsory mobilisation to date has had minimal impact on the ability of the national health service to meet its commitments on delivery, timing, planning and organisation. The Department has been liaising closely with the Ministry of Defence throughout the planning of the compulsory mobilisation.

  Somatropin
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive advice from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on Somatropin. [67734]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on human growth hormone in children in May 2002. I understand that NICE's guidance on human growth hormone in adults was due to be issued this month. However, since the final appraisal determination has been appealed against, the guidance will be issued at the earliest in October 2002, subject to the outcome of the appeal.

  Rubella Vaccine
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 311W, how much rubella vaccine has been supplied to each clinic over the last year. [68609]

  Ms Blears
  In the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, the total amount of rubella vaccine issued to non-national health service accounts by Farillon Ltd was 8,576 doses. As these are private transactions, it would be for these customers to disclose the individual details.

  Young Disabled People
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals the Government have to provide adequate information about sex to disabled young people; and if he will make a statement. [68182]

  Ms Blears
  All mainstream and special schools have a duty to ensure that children and young people with special educational and learning difficulties are properly included in sex and relationship education (SRE). As part of our teenage pregnancy strategy work is in hand to improve SRE for all disabled young people, including those with physical and learning disabilities, mental health and behavioural problems and severe disability.

  MS Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made to make(a) beta interferon and (b) glatiramer available for MS sufferers by (i) primary care trusts and (ii) hospital trusts serving Sutton and Cheam. [68991]

  Mr. Hutton
  Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust (PCT) has implemented National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendations of prescribing drugs for patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). All eligible patients are being fully funded. These services are being provided to MS patients in Sutton and Cheam, at Atkinson Morley Hospital which is part of St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust.

  Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) is available on the NHS under the 'risk-sharing scheme for disease modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) that came into operation on 6 May 2002.

  Royal Bournemouth and Poole Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients at the Royal Bournemouth and Poole Hospitals NHS Trust are awaiting treatment with steroids for the management of chronic pain; what financial constraints have affected the availability of the treatments; and if he will make a statement. [69063]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Endometriosis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken in the UK to find possible causes of a treatment for endometriosis. [69420]
  424W
  Ms Blears
  There are nine ongoing and 49 recently completed projects about endometriosis shown on the national research register, which gives information about research funded by, or of interest to, the national health service. In addition, there are 11 relevant abstracts from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews shown. Details of all these can be found on www.doh.gov.uk/ research/nrr.htm.

  NHS Treatment (Entitlement)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks are made on foreign nationals to determine their entitlement to NHS treatment. [69433]

  Ms Blears
  Entitlement to national health service hospital treatment is based on residence in the United Kingdom. People who are not normally resident in the UK are subject to the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) regulations, as amended in 1991 (SI No:438), 1994 (SI No:1535), 2000 (SI No: 602), 2000 (SI No:909). These regulations place a duty on hospitals and other NHS bodies to establish the residence qualification of all patients.

  General practitioners are encouraged to consider residency before accepting a patient for NHS treatment but are not bound by the same regulations. Under the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 a general practitioner does not have to accept any patient for NHS treatment unless specifically allocated by a primary care trust. The general practitioner's decision does not automatically exempt the patient from charges for hospital treatment they may subsequently need.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the funding arrangements for GP practices in England; and what progress has been made on the reform of the present health funding system. [69248]

  Mr. Hutton
  The framework document for the new general medical services contract, which was agreed with the British Medical Association's general practitioners' (GP) committee in April, contains proposals for new ways of funding GP practices. Detailed negotiations on the contract are taking place now the framework has been approved in a ballot of GPs.

  With regard to the reform of the present health funding system, a wide ranging review of the weighted capitation formula used to allocate resources to health authorities and primary care trusts in England is currently taking place. A key criterion of the new formula will be to contribute to the reduction of avoidable health inequalities. The intention is that, following the review, the new formula will be ready for 2003–04 allocations.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will last by health authority in England and Wales the spending per head of population in each year since 1995. [69776]

  Mr. Hutton
  The expenditure per head of population by health authority in England has been placed in the Library. Information for Wales is a matter for the National
  425W
  Assembly for Wales. Health authorities were established on 1 April 1996. Data for 1995–96 is not available on a consistent basis as district health authorities and family health services authorities were not coterminous.

  Queen Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additions have been made to the originally agreed Private Finance Initiative scheme for the Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, which have affected the cost of the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [70426]

  Mr. Hutton
  No additions have been made to the scheme that have added to the projected costs.

  Wood Preservatives
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received regarding risk assessments his Department has performed on CCA pressure-treated wood. [69659]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has not carried out any risk assessment of wood pre-treated with copper/ chromium/arsenic (CCA) wood preservative, nor has the Department received any representation on this issue.

  In the United Kingdom wood preservative products are regulated under the Control of Pesticide Regulations (1986) and the Health and Safety Executive lead on such non-agricultural pesticides. CCA is approved for use in products for pressure impregnation at industrial sites. This follows the advice to Ministers from the independent advisory committee on pesticides that such products do not present any risk to human health or the environment.

  Recently an expert advisory committee to the European Commission, the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment has reviewed the safety of wood treated with this preservative and has concluded that there may be a risk to health of children from the use of such treated timber in playground equipment and also when treated wood is burnt or disposed.

  The European Commission has drawn up proposals under the Marketing and Use Directive to prohibit the use of CCA wood preservatives hut by way of a derogutim to continue to allow its use in a number of essential areas where human contact is limited. Draft proposals are currently being considered by member states.

  Podiatric Surgery
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce plans to recruit more domestically trained and qualified podiatric surgeons. [70375]

  Mr. Hutton
  Podiatric surgery is a specialism within chiropody/podiatry. We do not plan numbers of podiatric surgeons centrally but would expect the national health service locally to consider how to develop the role of chiropodists as numbers expand.

  Between 1999 and 2001 the number of chiropodists employed in the NHS has increased by 190 (5.5 per cent.) and our latest estimates, based on historic trends and planned increases in students entering training, suggest a further increase of 750 (20 per cent.) in the number of chiropodists working in the NHS by 2009.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 864W, on cancelled operations, how many operations were cancelled in the past three quarters in each NHS trust. [67176]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]Data on the total number of operations cancelled are not collected. The number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on, or after the day the patient was due to be admitted, broken down by national health service trust, are available in the Library.

  Smoking
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect on health outcomes of smoking in the last five years, broken down by region. [59792]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The information is not available in the form requested. In 'The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995' (published by the Health Education Authority, 1998) it was estimated that in the United Kingdom in 1995, smoking caused more than 120,000 deaths of people aged 35 years or more; one in five deaths at all ages. Men of 35 who smoke will, on average, die seven years earlier than men who have never been smokers. Similarly, women of 35 who smoke will, on average, die six years earlier than women who have never been smokers. As well as being the prime cause of cancer and heart disease, smoking also causes other fatal conditions and chronic illnesses among adults.

  In 'Smoking Kills' published in 1998, the Government set out a comprehensive programme to tackle smoking. A key element of this programme has been the development of smoking cessation services which were launched in the health action zones in 1999–2000, and were rolled out to all health authorities in England in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Regional prevalence data shows how the burden of smoking has varied over the past five years. Table 1 shows a regional breakdown of the prevalence of smokers among adults aged 16 and over. Table 2 details by region the number of people who had successfully quit at the four week follow-up and rates per 100,000 population for April to December 2001. Table 3 illustrates the regional variations in coronary heart disease. Table 4 illustrates the regional variation in cancer mortality.

  >Table 1: Prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over, by standard region, 1996 to 2000

  Per cent.

  Weighted

  Standard Region

  1996

  1998

  1998

  2000

  England

  28

  27

  28

  27

  North

  31

  27

  28

  28

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28

  28

  29

  28

  North West

  30

  31

  32

  30

  West Midlands

  26

  26

  27

  25

  427W

  >Table 1: Prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over, by standard region, 1996 to 2000

  Per cent.

  Weighted

  Standard Region

  1996

  1998

  1998

  2000

  East Midlands

  28

  28

  29

  26

  East Anglia

  25

  22

  23

  26

  Greater London

  29

  30

  31

  27

  Outer Metropolitan Area

  25

  24

  25

  25

  Outer South East

  28

  South West

  27

  24

  25

  27

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1998 and 2000 weighted for under representation in some groups (eg young men). Comparisons for 1996 and 1998 should be done on unweighted data: comparisons between 1998 and 2000 should be done on weighted data.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2000, published as Living in Britain: Results from the 2000 General Household Survey1.

  >Table 2: People successfully quitting during the period April to December 2001 and success rate per 100,000 population aged 16 and over (based on self-report), by NHS regional office area

  NHS regional office area

  Number of people who had successfully quit of four weeks (self-report)

  Per 100,000 population 1

  England

  79,051

  198

  Northern Yorkshire

  19,518

  385

  Trent

  6,866

  166

  Eastern

  6,453

  148

  London

  6,271

  107

  South East

  6,801

  97

  South West

  8,092

  201

  West Midlands

  9,602

  227

  North West

  15,448

  295

  1 Number of people who had successfully quit at four weeks (self-report) per 100,000 population aged 16 and over.

  Notes:

  1. A client is counted as having successfully quit smoking at the four week follow-up if he/she has not smoked at all since two weeks after the quit date. The figures presented here are based on self-report of smoking status by the client at the four week follow-up.

  2. The population rates in this table have been calculated using the 1991 census based population estimates of persons aged 16 and over for mid year 2000 (provided by the Office for National Statistics).

  Source:

  DH Statistical press release: Statistics on smoking cessation services in Health Authorities England, April to December 2001

  >Table 3: Trends in mortality from coronary heart disease (ICD410–414): standardised mortality ratios (SMR) 1995 to 2000 annually, all ages, by Government office region (standard rates are age-specific mortality rates in 1993)

  Government office region

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  England

  89

  86

  81

  78

  74

  69

  North East

  107

  104

  99

  97

  88

  82

  North West

  103

  98

  93

  92

  86

  79

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  96

  94

  90

  88

  80

  75

  East Midlands

  89

  86

  81

  79

  75

  68

  West Midlands

  95

  91

  86

  81

  79

  73

  East of England

  80

  78

  73

  72

  67

  64

  London

  84

  80

  73

  71

  68

  65

  South East

  78

  75

  71

  68

  64

  61

  South West

  81

  79

  74

  72

  69

  66

  Source:

  Department of Health: Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators 2001
  428W

  >Table 3: Trends in mortality from coronary heart disease (ICD410–414): standardised mortality ratios (SMR) 1995 to 2000 annually, all ages, by Government office region (standard rates are age-specific mortality rates in 1993)

  Government office region

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  England

  97

  96

  94

  93

  91

  89

  North East

  112

  114

  109

  111

  105

  103

  North West

  104

  105

  102

  101

  100

  98

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  100

  100

  97

  97

  95

  91

  East Midlands

  96

  94

  92

  91

  89

  87

  West Midlands

  99

  97

  94

  94

  91

  90

  East Of England

  92

  90

  88

  88

  85

  84

  London

  96

  95

  93

  93

  88

  86

  South East

  92

  91

  89

  88

  86

  84

  South West

  91

  89

  88

  86

  86

  84

  Source:

  Department of Health: Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators 2001

  Pneumococcal Meningitis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1075W, and of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 519W, if he will make a statement on the correlation between the irregular dispensation of pneumococcal vaccines and the number of pneumococcal meningitis cases over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [67691]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine has been recommended for some years for people over the age of two years who are at particular risk from pneumococcal infection such as those people with chronic renal, heart or lung disease. It is not given annually and in most patients is given once only. Once at-risk groups have been targeted for immunisation, the number of people requiring vaccine the following year should fall. Conjugate vaccine, suitable for those under two, has only recently become available.

  The number of notified cases of pneumococcal meningitis over the last five years has declined from 300 cases in 1997 to 201 cases in 2001.

  A correlation between the dispensation of pneumococcal vaccine and the number or pneumococcal meningitis cases notified in the same year cannot be made.

  CJD
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the quantitative risk of human beings contracting new variant CJD from consuming(a) lamb and matter from animals more than 12 months old and (b) lambs' brains. [68498]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that as the risk of BSE in sheep is theoretical, there is no quantitative assessment of the risk of consuming sheepmeat. Current precautionary controls require the removal as specified risk material of the spleen from all animals and the skull (including brain and eyes), spinal cord and tonsils of sheep over one-year-old. A report on BSE and sheep compiled by a group of stakeholders was endorsed by the Board of the FSA on 13 June 2002. The assessments taken into account in this report indicate that animals over one year would represent a higher risk, if BSE were present. Removal of lamb brain from younger animals was
  429W
  assessed to have a minimal impact on increasing the level of risk reduction compared with the current requirement to remove brains from sheep over one-year-old.

  Sausage Casings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risks to consumers of antibiotic residues in natural sausage casings imported into the United Kingdom from non-EU countries. [68495]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]Natural sausage casings are not routinely included in the United Kingdom's surveillance programme for veterinary medicines, including antibiotics. Following recent reports that antibiotic residues have been found in natural sausage casings from China and hence might pose a risk to consumers, a European Commission Decision has been implemented whereby 20 per cent. of all consignments of casing from China are required to be sampled and tested for a range of chemical residues including antibiotics. No other countries have been implicated to date.

  Wild Game Meat
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent(a) assessment he has made and (b) representations he has received relating to the Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995; and if he will make a statement. [69024]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]I have not received any recent representations, nor made any recent assessments, relating to the Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995.

  However, the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which advises the Government on matters of food safety, has recently received representations from the wild game meat industry about certain of the requirements laid down in the regulations, notably the post mortem health checks on small venison carcases. As a result, FSA officials are working with the wild game meat industry on practicable ways to comply with the post mortem inspection requirements that also provide the appropriate safeguards for food safety and public health.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the time taken to establish the Food Standards Agency following the date of Royal Assent to the relevant Act of Parliament. [69087]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]It took less than five months to establish the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  The Food Standards Act 1999 received Royal Assent on 11 November 1999 and the FSA started work on 1 April 2000.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he was informed that imported frozen chicken breasts adulterated with beef protein powder could present a risk of BSE. [68850]
  430W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]I have not received any scientific advice that imported frozen chicken could present a risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). When the Food Standards Agency conducted a survey in 2001 it did not detect any deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of bovine origin in imported frozen chicken. A subsequent survey published by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in May 2002 detected bovine DNA in some samples, which was associated with protein derived low risk materials such as hides and milk.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Food Standards Agency began to test imported frozen chicken breasts to determine whether they contained foreign DNA which was not declared on the label; and if he will make a statement on the results of the tests. [68845]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]Following an earlier survey in 2000, the Food Standards Agency found that some retail frozen chicken breast has excessive amounts of added water. Therefore in 2001, the Food Standards Agency and 22 local authorities conducted a joint survey investigating the composition and labelling of frozen chicken breast from catering suppliers. The survey found two samples tested positive for porcine deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), but none of the samples tested positive for bovine DNA. The results of this survey were made public in December 2001.

  The main finding of the survey was the problem of mislabelling of this type of product as to its description, its excessive water content, and the presence of undeclared hydrolysed chicken and pork protein.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are taken by his Department to monitor the labelling of imported frozen chicken breasts. [68851]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The monitoring and enforcement of labelling of all foods, including imported frozen chicken breasts, is the responsibility of local authorities. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has also carried out two surveys on the accuracy of labelling of frozen chicken breast, one in 2000 on retail samples and a further joint survey with 22 local authorities of frozen chicken breast destined for the catering sector in 2001. Both surveys have been published on the FSA's website.

  As a result of these surveys and subsequent work undertaken by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the European Union Commission has asked the Dutch authorities to take action to ensure correct labelling of chicken exported to other member states.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to prevent the import of frozen chicken breasts adulterated with beef protein powder which could present a risk of BSE. [68849]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]As a result of the Food Standards Agency's survey and subsequent work by the Food Safety Authority-Ireland, the agency has approached the authorities of the exporting countries to ensure correct labelling of these products. The agency is working with local authorities to follow up survey findings and take prosecutions where appropriate. The
  431W
  issue has also been raised with other member states, and the European Commission have agreed to take action against the Dutch authorities if they do not ensure correct labelling of frozen chicken breast exported to member states.

  All bovine material entering the food chain is subject to European Union-wide BSE controls. Therefore, provided these controls have been applied, any traces of beef that may be in any other products would not raise new food safety concerns.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment of risk to human health has been made by his Department with regard to bovine DNA contained in imported frozen chicken breasts. [68843]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that no bovine deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been detected in agency surveys of imported frozen chicken.

  A survey undertaken by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, published on 21 May 2002, detected bovine DNA in the form of milk protein or collagen. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infectivity has never been detected in milk, so milk protein is not considered to present a BSE risk. The European Commission Scientific Steering Committee concluded at its meeting of 10–11 May 2001 that the parts of the hide used for the production of collagen do not present a risk with regard to BSE provided contamination with potentially infected material is avoided. In addition it is a requirement throughout the European Union that food or food products (including bovine proteins) must not be derived from either confirmed or suspected BSE cases, specified risk material, or animals slaughtered at over thirty months of age that have not tested negative for BSE.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries from which the UK imports frozen chicken breasts which were suspected of containing foreign DNA of bovine origins in the last 12 months. [68846]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Food Standards Agency's survey in 2001 did not detect any DNA of bovine origin in the samples of imported frozen chicken breasts. Those samples of chicken found with DNA of porcine origin were imported from Belgium and The Netherlands.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the financial arrangements are between the NHS and the Ministry of Defence relating to the cost of running the Royal Hospital, Haslar; [69270]

  (2) what the cost to the National Health Service will be of (a) opening a diagnostic and treatment centre at the Royal Hospital, Haslar and (b) closing it in 2007. [69271]

  Ms Blears
  From April 2001 the responsibility for the delivery of most clinical services from the Royal Hospital Haslar transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the National Health Service, for both military and civilian patients. Arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Defence to ensure resources are made available to reflect this transfer. Financial arrangements for military
  432W
  patients reflect the principles contained within the circular HSC 1999–112, Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs)—Financial Arrangements.

  The development of a diagnostic and treatment centre is under way, the first phase taking place in April 2002. The Department has provided capital funding of £725,000 this year to support the development. Last year £40,000 was made available for project management costs. The centre will move to the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Cosham on completion of the private finance initiative re-development. This is scheduled to take place in 2007 and cost associated with the transfer cannot be estimated at this time.

  EU Committees (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the EU Advisory Committee on the training of midwives 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; [66413]

  (2) when the EU Advisory Committee on medical training 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; [66411]

  (3) when the EU Advisory Committee on the training of dental practitioners 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; [66414]

  (4) when the EU Advisory Committee on training in nursing 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. [66412]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have asked to reply.

  The Advisory Committees on midwifery, medical, dental, nursing and pharmaceutical training were set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  Each advisory committee has three members from each member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are appointed on the same basis. Some of the United Kingdom's members and alternates of the advisory committees are Scottish, but the membership is there to represent the interests of all four UK countries.

  The advisory committees have not met during the last 12 months, and are not likely to do so again.

  Obesity
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the role of sport in tackling obesity. [67996]

  Ms Blears
  (pursuant to her reply 8 July 2002,Official Report, 783W): I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:
  433W
  Increasing participation in sport has a role to play in raising the rates of physical activity. Low rates of physical activity together with an unhealthy diet contribute to increased rates of obesity. Major cross-Government work has been put in place to raise the level of physical activity, and participation in sport. This includes: £581 million
  434W
  from the New Opportunities Fund for a PE and sports programme; the national Active Sports Programme and the Department's recently announced £2.5 million programme of community physical activity pilots, which will test out different community approaches to increasing physical activity. All pilots will be based in neighbourhood renewal areas and three will also involve Sport Action Zones.

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.

Post Office and Railways
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What evaluation they have made of the relative merits of running the Post Office and the railways primarily as public services with appropriate business disciplines or primarily as businesses which provide a public service; and what was the outcome of any such evaluation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Post Office is a public limited company wholly owned by the Government. Network Rail will be a private regulated utility with members rather than shareholders. Both are legitimate structures appropriate for the specific circumstances.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very precise reply. Does he agree that on this issue, and more widely, there is a cultural crisis in this country because the primary purpose of the private sector is to produce profitability and a good return to shareholders and the primary purpose of public services is cost-effectively to provide the best possible public services? There is not much evidence of success in a happy marriage between the two. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will give this matter attention and give a strategic lead? If good use is to be made of the Chancellor's Statement this week—which we all applaud and welcome—we must promote a concept of public service as one of the highest callings and vocations in the nation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather feared that this was a philosophical question and that my noble friend would not be satisfied with practical answers. The Post Office has the structure it has because it had to be rescued from the worst possible form of public ownership—in other words, with no commercial incentives whatever. Network Rail will have the structure it will have because it has had to be rescued from the worst possible form of privatisation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if my noble friend will wait a moment. I served for many years successively in the public and the private sectors, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the prime motivation in the public sector was the concept of service and in the private sector profitability and efficiency. Do the Government consider not only in relation to the Post Office and the railways—to which the noble Lord,
1224
Lord Judd, referred—but also in relation to health and education into which so much more money has been put, that they have managed to find a way of reconciling these two motivations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that that is the implication of what I said in the first instance. There are different structures for these two forms of rescue. They are legitimately different in the sense that there are different requirements of them. But it is true that in both cases we must marry the advantages of business experience and responsibility to customers with the ideals of public service, to which my noble friend, Lord Judd, referred.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, apart from appropriate business disciplines, whether the Government are in any way concerned with the continuous provision of public services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am not sure that I understand that question. Public services will have to continue to be provided. I do not know what I am supposed to be concerned about.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what arrangements have been made in relation to the Post Office for consultation with appropriate organisations? During a recent debate on Consignia we were assured that consultations would proceed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords and consultations are proceeding. Consignia—or, as I prefer to call it, the Post Office—will continue to perform the functions which were set out for it in the Postal Services Act 2000. It has Postcomm as a very powerful regulator to ensure that it maintains the universal service obligation, to regulate its prices and to promote greater competition.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister think that the decision by the Post Office—as it is now called—to charge both the sender and the recipient of mail if it is received at a time which is consistent with doing a job such as noble Lords do in this House, is a sign that the rescue he referred to has succeeded?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect an element of that is the management of the Post Office flying a kite. No such charges have been agreed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister understand—sorry, no do come in. You had difficulty with one of your own members before.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, such kindness and courtesy is a feature of this House. Will the

1225
Minister admit that all the time that the Post Office was a public service it provided a good public service and paid money to the Treasury every year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was partly the trouble. Yes, it did provide a good public service but also through its external financing limits far too much money from its surpluses were paid over to the Treasury with the result that there was long-term under-investment in the kind of mechanisation—to put it no higher than that—which was necessary for the Post Office to compete in the longer term. The freeing-up of those gilts, which was in the Secretary of State's announcement, is essential for the future survival of the Post Office.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad that I allowed the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, to precede me because I am very sympathetic towards the question that he asked. Is the noble Lord aware that people cannot understand why the Post Office, which ran a magnificent service for 150 years at a very cheap price and with absolute service to every part of this country, now has to open itself to competition? Is it not a fact that the reason for this problem is that the Post Office was reorganised in the way it has been reorganised to allow competition into the service in accordance with the single European market and the Single European Act? Is that not the problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, it has nothing to do with the Single European Act.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister give us an assurance that there will not be two levels of delivery, depending on whether people have made a pre-payment? If that were the case, Nos. 25, 27 and 29 in a street could receive a delivery at seven o'clock, while Nos. 26, 28 and 30 could receive one at nine o'clock. That does not sound efficient, does it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, simply repeats the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There are no firm plans to charge anyone at any time of the day. The matter is being considered by the Post Office.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are now into the ninth minute.

Diet and Behaviour
2.45 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of Natural Justice, a charity concerned with the physical and social causes of offending behaviour.
1226
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to support the work of the charity Natural Justice and its research into the effect of poor nutrition on behaviour.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, both the Prison Service and the Home Office facilitated the original research project carried out by Natural Justice at Aylesbury young offender institution. While the study demonstrated that nutritional supplements had a positive effect on behaviour, the present pressures on the prison population mean that it is not currently possible to provide the practical support required to facilitate further research.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Can I take it from that that the Government accept that there is a connection between diet and offending behaviour? In the young offender institution at Aylesbury, when a large number of prisoners were given dietary supplements, offending behaviour of the most serious type declined by almost 40 per cent. Does that not have the most serious and important implications for society as a whole and immediate implications for the management of prisons and the cost thereof? Is it not therefore very much in the interests of the Home Office to facilitate such research as much as it possibly can by allowing us access to prisons so that we can replicate the research that has already been carried out?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we certainly accept that the research was useful and that the trial was encouraging. However, it must be placed in context. The sample was small: 231 prisoners. Sadly, the study could not be continued and its parameters extended to consider whether the reduced reoffending continued once the offenders had left prison and were no longer subject to the dietary regime. We accept that recent articles have highlighted considerable interest among the scientific community in the influence of diet. Obviously, we understand the benefits that a good, healthy diet may have on the otherwise often chaotic lifestyles of young offenders.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Environmental Medicine Foundation. Does the Minister not find it extraordinary that although those of us in the agricultural community are very aware of dietary deficiencies in our animals—cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, in my case—and are willing to replenish the diets of those animals to bring them up to peak condition, the Department of Health seems reluctant to accept that there may be dietary deficiencies in the community not because people are eating an unbalanced diet—although it is well proven that they are—but because they cannot absorb nutrients from straightforward foods as they can from dietary supplements? Will he co-operate with the Department of Health to consider what is happening to the human

1227
population of this country, including children's problems with attention deficit syndrome and so on, in order to put things right?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously, I cannot speak for the Department of Health, but I am aware that in the NHS Plan 2000 a wide-ranging series of proposals were aimed at improving children's diets: for instance, the national school fruit scheme and the promotion of the "five a day" programme to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, which especially targets those children with the lowest intakes. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency are working with the food industry—manufacturers and caterers—to improve the overall balance of diet, including reducing fat and sugar. So the Government have an extensive programme and the Department of Health offers a great deal of advice on such matters and has encouraged schools to play an active part in encouraging a healthy diet from a young age.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as there is clear evidence that certain types of food allergy lead not only to adverse physical reactions but to adverse emotional reactions, are the Government considering the cases of people who have bouts of violent behaviour that are unrelated to alcohol or substance misuse? Could not those cases be related to some form of food allergy? If so, that would provide an easy way to reduce criminal activity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously, such cases are important. I am sure that the prison health service will readily provide the advice that people who suffer from such problems need and give them access to the right sort of advice, support and encouragement.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one man's meat may be another man's poison? What efforts were made to continue the studies that, he said, it had not been possible to continue? It shows a defeatist attitude to say that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Baroness's second point; her first point goes without saying. There was—is—continued dialogue, and I understand that Natural Justice is interested in doing some continued work with children in the juvenile estate. That may prove to be a profitable course of action, but it is likely that the research will need to extend beyond offender institutions. As I said, one fundamental deficiency of the study was that it did not examine whether the reduced offending rates inside the institution continued outside it. In the longer term, that might be a better test.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Home Office has considered evidence on the influence of diet on prisoners' behaviour for, at least, 20 years? Many of us are convinced that there is a direct causal link; one need only consider the effect of a sugar-free
1228
diet on a hyperactive child. It is time that we realised the valuable savings that could be made from application of that knowledge.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we all accept—I, too, have young children—that a child's diet fundamentally affects the way in which he or she behaves. That is why I drew attention to the important work going on in schools. We should consider not only the prison population or those in young offender institutions but all our children. We must ensure that they have the right diet, and, if that has a beneficial influence on their behaviour, it will be to the greater social good.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the fact that we were unable to carry out the work on prisoners after release has no bearing whatsoever on the significance of the research for the management of prisons? If we can reduce offending behaviour in prisons, there will be a reduction in costs and the management of prisons will be made very much easier. That is the point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a respectable point. I am sure that the study had value of itself; we recognise and acknowledge that.

Sub-Saharan Africa: HIV/AIDS
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they have been able to make to a reduction in HIV prevalence rates in sub-Saharan Africa, and in which countries.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, sub-Saharan Africa is the worst affected region in the world, with an average HIV prevalence rate of 9 per cent, corn pared to a global prevalence rate of 1.2 per cent. The figures are rising. However, successes in reducing prevalence rates in Uganda and Zambia provide us with much to learn and much to hope for. The Department for International Development continues to work throughout Africa, including Uganda and Zambia, to combat HIV/AIDS. We have committed over £180 million to direct programme funding in 2000–01 and considerable additional funding to support non-governmental organisations and international institutions such as UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation in the fight against AIDS in Africa.
There is no magic bullet. Prevalence rates generally are still climbing, and the sheer scale of the epidemic means that HIV/AIDS is and will continue to be one of the biggest threats to development in Africa.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She implied, I think, that it was only through long-term education and raising awareness that countries will defeat this terrible

1229
scourge. It is only because of Barcelona and other conferences that we have suddenly become aware of that.
There is a tremendous need for political will, above all in sub-Saharan Africa. Does the Minister agree that it is only in countries such as Uganda, where there is a degree of political control and national unity, that the campaign can succeed? Why, if the Government have such political commitment, is their contribution—drawn from existing aid budgets, not new ones—still so small?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that political will is important. However, it is not sufficient in itself. In countries such as Uganda and Senegal, we have seen political leadership of the highest order in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In those countries, we have also seen a demonstration of the importance and effectiveness of supporting strategies to promote awareness and behavioural change through information, education and community mobilisation. Those countries have also supported the prevention of infection through condom promotion and the treatment of sexually transmitted infections. There has also been support and encouragement for voluntary counselling and testing.
It is significant that, in those countries, there has been a real effort to reduce the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS and the denial that goes with it, both of which lead to a greater problem.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the importance of sexual and reproductive health in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Can she reaffirm the Government's commitment to providing sexual and reproductive health services in sub-Saharan Africa? Which non-governmental agencies do the Government use to promote better standards of sexual and reproductive health in Africa?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I confirm that the Government support sexual and reproductive health programmes in southern Africa. We contribute to programmes organised by the WHO, UNAIDS and the UN Family Planning Association, among others.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is true that, of the 28.5 million people in Africa affected by HIV/AIDS, 58 per cent are women? What implications does that fact have for programmes of intervention?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Throughout Africa, women are more vulnerable to HIV than men and are affected at an earlier age. The prevalence among teenage girls in some countries of sub-Saharan Africa is five times greater than among boys. Girls are more vulnerable because they become sexually active at a younger age and are often unable to negotiate safe sex or to stop coercive sex. In some communities, girls must sell sex to make a living.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how great is the United Kingdom's contribution to the global fund for AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis? To what extent have we encouraged the European Union to make an equivalent contribution, proportionate to its ability to pay?
Will the experience of the Brazilians—particularly with the manufacture of generic drugs under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which allows patents to be broken in cases of national emergency—be read across to southern Africa? Does the Minister think that the global fund will be instrumental in helping that to happen?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the UK's contribution to the global fund is £140 million over five years. It is being made from previously unallocated funds. The UK's bilateral spending on HIV/AIDS-related work in 2001–02 is over £200 million. I am sure that, following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the House will welcome the increase in resources to assist programmes tackling AIDS in Africa.
I will write to the noble Lord about the situation in Brazil.

IVF Clinics: Regulation
3 p.m.
Earl Howeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to investigate the circumstances in which, as recently reported, twins conceived by in vitro fertilisation were born to a couple who are not their genetic parents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are, of course, very concerned about these reports. I can assure noble Lords that we have arranged for a thorough independent investigation to be carried out. Perhaps I could add that at last week's court hearing the judge directed that the Government should not announce that they had set up an investigation. That was because she was anxious to keep discussion of this case to a minimum to protect the families and children concerned. I have mentioned the investigation today because the noble Earl asked me a specific question about it and I could not mislead the House. But it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the nature of the investigation.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may begin by making clear that this Question is in no way intended as a means of eliciting the identities of any of the individuals involved in the particular case reported in the press. However, that very disturbing story gives rise to some serious concerns about the role of the HFEA as the regulator of IVF clinics. What confidence can people have that the procedures followed in IVF clinics are proof

1231
against error? Is the Minister confident that the monitoring systems employed by the HFEA are satisfactory in all respects?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the concerns of members of the general public. The HFEA has stated it is confident that the incident reported is an extremely rare event and it has no reason to believe there are other cases. As regards the performance of the HFEA, it undertakes an inspection of each clinic every year looking at specific aspects, and an in-depth inspection of each clinic every three years. Where there is concern about standards or compliance with good practice the authority can and does apply stringent conditions under which the licence can operate. That can and has resulted in clinics being prevented treating patients.
However, I assure the noble Earl that as part of our own monitoring process we ensure that there are regular discussions between ourselves and the authority, identifying any problems and requiring the authority to put them right.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Government, in their response to the report of the Select Committee of this House on stem cell research, stated that they agreed with the committee that they should keep the funding of the HFEA under review and ensure that its resources were commensurate with its increased responsibilities. In the light of recent events, are the Government satisfied that the HFEA has sufficient resources to carry out its current regulatory responsibilities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government accept that the HFEA has increased its activities over recent years and that funding has not kept pace with it. Much of the resource that the HFEA spends comes from licensing fees and the HFEA is currently undertaking a consultation on the level of those fees. However, the Government have invited the HFEA to assess what additional resources it needs and, when put forward as a proper business case, that matter will be very carefully considered by my department.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister explain why publication of the HFEA's annual report for 2002 was delayed for more than six months and why the same applied to the patients' guide the previous year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there were some problems with the authority's IT infrastructure which delayed the availability of the recent performance data. My understanding is that the authority hoped to receive the data and delayed publication of the report. The data were still not available so the report was published late. The actual data information will shortly be available on the HFEA's website. Clearly, the authority needs to improve its data collection and analysis procedures. The matter is under discussion between my department and the authority.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, how can we be sure that it is a rare event?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I referred in my original Answer to the investigation that we have launched. I do not believe that I can comment further.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that reports of serious faults in IVF are now increasingly frequent? Is it the case, as has been reported, that in some 80 per cent of women the treatment fails? Does he see anything wrong in Britain spending millions of pounds aborting natural babies and millions more procuring babies by scientific procedure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are clearly mixed views. I believe that ultimately it is a matter of personal conscience. Of course, the provision of infertility services takes place under the law passed by Parliament more than 10 years ago, regulated by the HFEA. I believe that Parliament has made its views clear. As regards the success rate, the figures I have estimate that a woman aged under 35 has a 30 per cent chance of a successful pregnancy.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to do anything to validate other births through IVF from the same NHS clinic or from any other clinics practising IVF?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords., there are clearly lessons to be learnt which will have to be considered very carefully.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the scale of the damage done to two or four individual people by this clinical slip cause the Government to assess how much more stringent the control of procedures should become now that genetic engineering procedures are available to us?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is clear that we need robust regulatory machinery in place which works effectively. It is the Government's intention to ensure that that happens.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place entitled Justice For All.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rix: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to sexual relations with persons lacking capacity to consent to sexual relations, and

1233
with vulnerable adults to whom a duty of care is owed; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Rix.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hooson: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hooson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 56 [Detention centres: change of name]:
The Lord Bishop of Derbymoved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 30, line 40, after "persons" insert "over the age of eighteen"
The right reverend Prelate said: On behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. It arises on grounds of principle as well as being informed by the casework undertaken by the staff and volunteers of the Churches Commission for Racial Justice. The commission acts on behalf of all the mainstream Christian denominations through Churches Together in Britain and Ireland. The CCRJ shares a coalition of concern with other children's charities, including the Save the Children Fund.
The amendment aims to ensure that children and their families are not housed in detention or removal centres by redefining the centres to exclude children. It assumes that, as the Government would always seek to keep families together, no families with children would be detained.
1234
Based on experience, there is a strong belief among children's charities and refugee organisations that detention centres can never provide the most appropriate and supportive environment for vulnerable children. In earlier debates it has been pointed out that the well-being and development of the child should be a primary and not a secondary consideration. In other words, if we believe that living in certain institutional settings may damage children, then it is indefensible to place them in such settings.
The Home Office considers that prison is not the best environment for young children and therefore babies are taken from their mothers by the age of six months. If prison is not the best environment for these young children, to the extent that the Government think it preferable to separate them from their mothers, then why does the same government department believe that detention centres are an acceptable environment for children seeking asylum?
We know that such children are particularly vulnerable. At best, they will have suffered upheaval and loss. At worst, they will have been involved in unimaginable horrors in situations of war and persecution. Our compassion for their circumstances, rather than the fraught politics of asylum policy, should shape the way we seek to care for them. Indeed, placing children in institutionalised settings that are not focused on meeting their needs is likely to contribute to and intensify their existing problems.
The policy of detaining families with children represents a recent shift in government policy. Until last year, the Government were apologetic about the detention of children, saying that as a rule it was undesirable and necessary only in exceptional circumstances. But they have now greatly widened the criteria for detaining families. The White Paper preceding this Bill endorsed the policy of detaining children in asylum-seeking families prior to removal. It also made a vague, open-ended statement about detention in other circumstances "where necessary".
But there has been no explanation from the Government as to why this change of policy is necessary. Indeed, the Home Office has conceded that there is no statistical evidence to show that families with children are more likely to abscond or less likely to make a successful claim for asylum. I invite the Minister to explain why the Government now believe that it is necessary to increase the detention of families with children. Furthermore, in the light of the new policy, what legal safeguards will be in place to prevent immigration officers from acting in an arbitrary manner when making decisions on whether to detain families?
The proposals to focus on the use of detention-for-removal will mean that even more children and their families are detained. That is in the context of the UK detaining more people seeking asylum than does any other country in Europe. The Government do not appear to be responding to the cautionary lessons emerging from Yarlswood. There, vulnerable children were incarcerated with distressed and desperate adults. In such situations, would the Government still argue that the needs of the child had been put first?

1235
Detention also gives rise to a range of child protection concerns. There are many risks to child safety in institutional care, given the power and control that staff have in such settings. Furthermore, children and families who try to avoid living in such centres will become part of a hidden population whose whereabouts can be difficult to track. In turn, that makes it even more difficult to promote and protect the rights and needs of the child.
Recognising that the concerns of the Churches Commission for Racial Justice are widely shared across the voluntary sector, it should not be suggested that these are the arguments of unrealistic idealists. They are concerns arising from practitioners. They resonate with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention helps to provide a framework of principles for our treatment of children. The Government have signed up to that convention, which states that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all policies affecting children. I should be interested to know whether, in the face of opposition from all the major children's charities, the Government believe the detention of children and young people to be in their best interests.
Detention also gives rise to serious concerns in respect of violations of other articles of the UNCRC, in particular the duty on the state not to discriminate, the duty to ensure to the maximum extent possible the development of the child, the duty to enable freedom of association and the duty not to interfere with privacy and family. Can the Minister tell the Committee what is the legal advice on compliance with the convention in respect of children in detention centres?
In conclusion, I reiterate the view that detention facilities cannot afford children the care and protection they need. On the contrary, they may have a serious negative impact on the child's physical and emotional health and well-being. I would urge the Government to revisit and revise their policy of sanctioning and expanding the detention of families with children. The evidence to date suggests that it is a step neither necessary nor proportionate. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Before turning to the amendment itself, perhaps I may ask the Minister who is to respond initially whether he has seen a report from Geoff Meade, the European editor of PA News, about remarks said to have been made by the Secretary of State in connection with his meeting with his French opposite number, Nicholas Sarkozy, concerning the issue of the closure of the Sangatte centre in Calais. According to the report, Mr Blunkett said that he had,
"already made provision for [this] Bill to be speeded up, short-cutting the usual procedures, so that it could be in place by mid-October".
1236
Later the right honourable gentleman is said to have remarked that,
"if Britain could send 'early signals' to France about the Bill's progress and possible completion in July, London and Paris may be in a position at the September meeting in Frethun to set an early deadline for closure before the end of this year, rather than in the first quarter of next year".
I can hardly believe that the Secretary of State will have made those remarks, but it is important that noble Lords should be given an early repudiation of what PA News has said so that we do not have to cross swords with the Secretary of State over interference with proceedings in your Lordships' House, which of course would be highly improper. I can only think that there must have been a misunderstanding between the Secretary of State and the journalist who reported him in these words. The matter should be cleared up at the earliest possible stage.
I turn now to the amendment. The right reverend Prelate was correct to mention the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have any intention of continuing with the reservation on Article 22 which allows them to take these steps, or whether we should become full signatories to the convention, as are most other states that have signed it. The reservation is harmful to our image abroad and to our position as leaders in championing human rights around the world.
As the right reverend Prelate has already commented, the children put into these detention centres have not broken any laws. Their only so-called "crime" will be that their mother or father has claimed asylum or otherwise sought to remain in the United Kingdom. Yet it is now the intention of the Secretary of State to detain these children, along with their parents, for what may be an indefinite period of time. We all know of instances where people have been detained for several months on end.
As far as I am aware, the only other children in the United Kingdom whose liberty is restricted in a similar way are children who have been brought before a criminal court, or who are subject to an order tinder the Mental Health Act 1983, or those who have had a secure accommodation order made by a family court.
I refer the Minister to the official guidance given in the Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 1 Court Orders in relation to the making of secure accommodation orders for children. That guidance states:
"Restricting the liberty of children is a serious step which must be taken only when there is no genuine alternative which would be appropriate. It must be a 'last resort' in the sense that all else must first have been comprehensively considered and rejected".
Furthermore, under those provisions children can only be placed in secure accommodation for a maximum of 72 hours in any 28-day period unless a court order is obtained. So the Government have to justify detaining children as a first as opposed to a last resort, as they plan to do under the Bill.

1237
There is also the question of the incompatibility of these provisions with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5(1)(d) of that convention only permits,
"the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority".
In Re K (Secure Accommodation Order: Right to liberty) [2001] 1 FLR 526, the learned judge, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, stated:
"In each case where a secure accommodation order is applied for, the English court, at any level, must have the requirements of Article 5(l)(d) in mind when considering the relevant criteria, and thereby the compatibility of the section with the Convention right".
So the Government have an obligation to explain to the Committee how the detention of children in these centres is compatible with their duties under the Human Rights Act and how they came to make a statement on the face of the Bill that there was nothing in it that was not compatible with our obligations under the convention.
Lord Judd: The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have argued the case for their amendment very fully and effectively. However, I should like to know the thinking of my noble friend the Minister on one specific point. As I understand it, the Government's position is that people in these places could conceivably—despite being there—be accepted as legitimate asylum seekers. If it should prove that they are legitimate asylum seekers, God knows what traumas and awful experiences such families and children will have been through already. How can we contemplate putting them in a position of anxiety and stress, which will inevitably be found in such centres, after all they have been through? How can my noble friend deal with that point?
The Earl of Sandwich: I, too, support the right reverend Prelate in his reasonable amendment which seeks to restrict the use of detention to adults, ensuring that families with children under 18 are not kept in detention. It is the view of the Refugee Children's Consortium and many others that detention centres are not appropriate for vulnerable children. We forget sometimes that we are talking about a vulnerable category of children who have committed no offence and whose parents have committed no offence but are merely awaiting the outcome of an application. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied that a very small number of children are affected. In fact, they constitute a substantial number of those in detention.
Under successive UN conventions these children should receive more protection than other children. I was working with Save the Children soon after the UN convention was passed and signed and I remember how strongly children's charities felt at that time about those rights as they passed into our own legislation in the form of the Children Act 1989. Those organisations now say that the Bill, unamended, could be in breach of no fewers than 12 articles of the convention.
1238
As the right reverend Prelate said, it is well established under the Children Act that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. So why have MPs and Peers had to repeat this amendment on children in various asylum Bills over the 13 years since that Act was passed?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity, yet again, to explain the Government's reservations about Article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which are beyond most people's comprehension. Phrases such as "not normally detained", "used sparingly", "regrettable" and "most exceptional" will not do. If the Minister repeats those phrases today he will not satisfy those who work with these children and will only bring us back to the same arguments at Report stage.
When discussing the issue of bail for immigration detainees on Second Reading, I referred to the case of a mother who was detained with her sick 18 months-old child for four months pending removal and a judicial review. As the right reverend Prelate said, the fire at Yarl's Wood is another recent example of the risks associated with such a policy. We now know from our debates on Monday that detention means detention and rarely removal. The holding of children for that length of time is both immoral and against international law.
Lord Hylton: For a long time now the theory has been that detention should be used only in the minimum necessary number of cases. When the Minister replies, will he say what has changed since 1999? Will he also give an explanation of what is meant by "exceptional circumstances"? Do not the Government agree that daily reporting would he far more satisfactory than either the detention of children or, if that is to be avoided, the splitting up of families? Both procedures are totally deplorable and should be avoided at all costs.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I owe an apology to my noble friends on the Front Bench. Such has been the frenzied progress on the Bill that I fear an act of politeness has failed me. When I was a pairing Whip the late Lord Braine once gave me an excuse that he had missed a Division because he had been in a Hindu temple meditating and the matter had slipped his mind. I am in the same condition on this occasion.
I notice that the party which I share with my Front Bench has not put its name to this amendment. I am not clear whether my noble friends believe that Mr Malins received a satisfactory answer in Standing Committee E in the Commons on 14th May at cols. 23573X2013;236 of Hansard or whether the circumstances in which the issue was raised, which concerned detention by the Secretary of State, referred to a different case. It may be that I shall learn more about our own attitude before the Minister responds to the debate.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I do not normally take part in the Committee stage of this Bill but, before the

1239
Minister replies, I wish to speak to the issue on which the debate concluded on Monday. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I believe that it raises serious constitutional issues.
We were discussing at that point in Committee the issue of the naming of the centres in which these children might be detained. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised the issue of whether some centres have already been renamed as removal centres, with official headings on letters to that effect, even though there has been no approval by this House or Parliament as a whole about that change of name.
If we are discussing a crucial amendment about the detention of children—which is an appalling act for a modern, civilised state—we should at least consider it in the context of what kind of centre these children are being sent to. We now understand that under the direction of the Home Secretary—which, with great respect, sounds more like an action of President Putin than that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—these changes have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, promised the House an explanation and said that we would be allowed to see documents. I apologise, in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for intervening. However, it raises grave constitutional issues if a Minister acts as though legislation has been passed when it has not. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to offer an explanation as we proceed with the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The right reverend Prelate has done us a favour in bringing forward this important amendment, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville always does me a favour when he intervenes, as on this occasion. Indeed, when my honourable friend Mr Matins spoke to these matters in another place and when we looked in detail at the Minister's answers in Hansard, we determined that we were not fully satisfied with that response. We felt that the Government needed to be pressed more closely in this place to justify their policy.
A couple of weeks ago, I met representatives of the Refugee Children's Consortium. I was struck by their deep concern over the Government's continuing policy of detaining families with children. I noted their strong objection to the detention of children, based on the belief that detention centres cannot afford children the care and protection they need or uphold their rights under human rights law. They drew attention to the interference with the child's rights to freedom, to a normal social life and to education. As the consortium rightly pointed out, detention facilities are never the best environment for children and may have a serious negative impact on their physical and emotional health and well-being.
These are sensitive issues to which the Government must address themselves. They may provide justification which persuade us. But this is the time and the place to press the Government. If we are unable to reach a conclusion today, I am sure that this will
1240
continue to be an issue. I am willing to give the Government the opportunity to persuade me. I shall listen carefully to their reply.
Lord Filkin: Before my noble friend responds to the amendment, perhaps I may respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I have the Home Office press release before me. I do not have the PA report referred to. It is clearly desirable that the Bill is passed as soon as is practicable, consistent with parliamentary consideration and scrutiny. It will be clear to all Members of the Committee that that will not be before the Summer Recess.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before I deal with the amendment, I want to pick up the point quite properly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the naming of removal centres. I gave a clear undertaking the other day that I would write to Members of the Committee on the matter. That remains the case. I am not in a position to provide a response today, but we shall provide the response that was properly requested. As I believe I said when the matter was raised previously, I will ensure that all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the discussion will be availed of a copy of the correspondence.
This has been a useful debate. It has enabled us to focus on some important issues and some tough decisions that often have to be made in the exercise of immigration and asylum legislation.
The amendment to Clause 56 moved by the right reverend Prelate would mean that removal centres could not be used to hold detained persons under the age of 18. Let us be quite clear about that. However, it would not prevent the detention of those under 18 in other places designated for the purposes of detention under the Immigration Act 1971. I refer, for example, short-term holding facilities.
Our current policy on the detention of minors is clear. It is, of course, very regrettable to have to detain those who are under 18, but there are two limited sets of circumstances in which we may decide to do so. The first is where it is considered necessary in line with our policy to detain a family with children. In such a case, it is surely better for the children to be detained with the parents rather than to separate the family, which is likely to cause the children needless distress and anxiety. To suggest that in that case families should not be detained is, frankly, unrealistic. They may need to be detained while their identities or the basis of their claim are established, because they are unlikely to comply with the terms of temporary admission or release, to effect their removal, or as part of the fast-track asylum process at Oakington reception centre.
Secondly, there are exceptional instances where it is necessary to detain an unaccompanied minor while alternative care arrangements are made. The detention would normally be just overnight and in most cases with appropriate care facilities. A minor arrives alone late at night at a port of entry, for example, without

1241
family or adult relatives to go to. I am sure we can imagine circumstances arising from time to time fortunately, not too frequently, but they do arise—in which immigration officers and staff have to make hard decisions.
In such cases, we believe that it is right that the minor should be held until alternative care arrangements can be made, either with relatives or with the local social services department. The limited circumstances in which minors may be detained are sensible and reasonable—and fair for those who may be affected. If a young person comes to this country with no knowledge or understanding of the language and is confronted by officialdom, there may well be a strong case for holding that person in secure accommodation until someone can be brought there who has a knowledge and understanding of the language and who can explain what is likely to happen to that young person. In those circumstances, it would be foolish not to have some secure accommodation available.
A number of questions arose during the debate. I stress that the number of people affected at any one time is fairly limited. The total detention capacity is just 2009. Excluding Oakington, there are approximately 150 family beds. These are usually organised in family rooms with four beds. Therefore, the total number of families is likely to be no more than 30 to 40 at any one time, including parents. Therefore, it must be plain that the vast majority of families are not detained.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised the important issue of child protection. Every removal centre with family accommodation has to have a child protection policy in place, and appropriate training is provided to staff. Policies and training programmes have been carefully drawn up in consultation with experienced members of staff from local authorities and the NSPCC. Staff take child protection issues very seriously indeed.
We believe that we are acting within the spirit of our human rights and UNCRC obligations. Questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others about compatibility with Article 5. Article 5(1)(d) specifically permits the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of education supervision and his or her lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authorities. Article 5(1)(f) expressly permits the detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry to the country or of a person against whom action has been taken with a view to deportation.
The detention of children, regrettable though it is, is necessary from time to time. It is within the scope of Article 5(1)(f) and is not prevented by Article 5.
We believe that we are exercising our powers in a proportionate, reasonable and fair-minded way. We make full provision to protect the welfare and interests of the child. The circumstances in which detention is effected are limited and are related to the two areas
1242
that I outlined earlier. For those reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord referred to the best interests of the child. Does he agree that they are best taken into consideration at the outset of the process, not after a decision to detain has been made? Does he also agree that if a child arrives late at night, as in his example, the local authority social services department would be perfectly capable of dealing with the matter, just as it would with any child who was not being looked after by a guardian or adult and who might need its care?
Lord Hylton: I accept nearly all of what the Minister said about unaccompanied children arriving at ports. Nevertheless, will he respond to my suggestion that daily reporting by parents with children is far preferable to detention? On the important constitutional point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the change of name, will the Minister be kind enough to place a copy of his reply in the Library so that it is available to other Members in addition to those who took part in that debate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course a copy of that correspondence will be placed in the Library so that it is on the record and readily accessible to other noble Lords. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we have to take the welfare and interests of the child into account at all times during the process. That has to be a primary consideration.
However, I ask the noble Lord to contemplate this point. However generous a spirit we have about asylum seekers, I am sure that the noble Lord accepts that some of them will be removed from this country at the end of the process because they are fundamentally in breach of our laws and regulations and are outwith the asylum process. They are illegal immigrants to this country. Some people caught within that process will attempt to abscond from the lawful authority. From time to time, children will he involved with those adults. Hard though those decisions may be, it is right that we have to place such people within secure accommodation and it is in the interests of the welfare of their children that they remain with them, so that at least the children are with adults whom they know and recognise—their family and their immediate kith and kin. Difficult though those decisions are, they have to be taken.
Of course the best advice will be taken from those involved in the welfare and care of children in local authorities. As I made plain at the outset, the desire of immigration officials is to ensure that early contact is made with social services so that they can be introduced to the situation, offer their best advice and make a proper and full assessment.
Lord Hylton: Will the noble Lord reply to my suggestion about reporting by parents with children who would otherwise be detained?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If the assessment is that the family unit presents no risk of absconding, those sorts of reporting arrangements may well be put in place. I cannot predict that that will always be the case, because it may not be. Those judgments have to be made by those most immediate to the case—the case officers and those handling the difficult circumstances. It is best left to their discretion. We cannot easily prescribe it here in the comfort of a debating Chamber.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am encouraged that he emphasised the exceptional and short-term nature of such arrangements. I urge that that will turn out to be the case. It was said in a recent letter and in answer to a parliamentary Question that there is no statistical evidence or reason for increasing the detention of families. I hope and urge that it will remain an exceptional provision. In the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House be now resumed for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Justice
3.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement on the reform of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. We are today publishing a White Paper outlining an end-to-end reform of the service.
"First, however, I pay tribute to all those who have assisted in this tripartite paper. The Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and I wish to thank in particular Sir Robin Auld for his review of criminal courts and John Halliday for his sentencing review.
"The people of this country deserve a criminal justice service that works in the interests of justice and puts the victim first. The White Paper is designed to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim and deliver justice for all. We are sending the strongest possible message to those who commit crime that action will be effective in detecting, convicting and properly punishing the perpetrator.
"We have a tradition of justice in this country going back centuries. We have embarked on reform of the police and an overhaul of youth justice, including a dramatic drop in the time it takes to bring young offenders to justice. The street crime
1244
initiative has already made a difference by bringing together the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the court administration.
"I can announce today that, following the Chancellor's Statement on Monday, we will invest over £600 million over the next three years in information technology. This will help us join up the criminal justice system.
"But root and branch reform across the board is still required. Delay, inefficiency and repeated adjournments are costing us dear. Through improved police investigation, case management and presentation, conviction of the guilty must be secured and acquittal of the innocent ensured. We seek not simply the process of justice, but the visible evidence that justice has been done. Every time someone on bail offends, or a case collapses or the wrong verdict is revealed later, we compound the harm done to victims and to society as a whole.
"We will ensure that victims and witnesses are protected. We will provide them with separate facilities from the accused. To ensure that their views are heard, we will establish a victims' commissioner, supported by a new advisory panel. Above all we will deliver faster, more effective justice.
"Our actions will be underpinned by the fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
"However, the one in eight defendants who fail to appear at court will be dealt with swiftly and summarily. We will bring in incentives for early guilty pleas, deal decisively with delays arid improve the use and availability of forensic and technological expertise.
"As soon as practicable, the Crown Prosecution Service will have responsibility for determining the charge in the most serious cases, other than where the police need to make a holding charge. We will allow the police to impose conditions on bail before charge to limit the chances of offending.
"Disclosure of evidence is currently a battleground between defence and the prosecution. This leads to delay and considerable cost. We will rebalance the rules of disclosure. Both the prosecution and defence will be obliged to disclose all the material necessary.
"We will make the rules of evidence simpler and clearer. Relevant previous convictions will be admissible where the judge believes it would be helpful to the jury without prejudicing the defendant's right to a fair trial.
"In time, we will integrate the management of the courts into a single organisation.
"We will extend the sentencing power of magistrates from six months to 12 months and legislate to allow Parliament to extend this to 18 months.

1245
"I can tell the House that the right of defendants to elect for jury trial will remain. However, in order to deliver justice in serious and complex fraud trials, we will seek Parliament's consent that such cases can be tried by a judge sitting alone. We will consult on whether a judge sitting alone should deal with trials where the danger of intimidation makes justice difficult to achieve. In addition, we will explore a similar option for complex financial or organised criminal cases. We have a real problem when in some parts of the country around three quarters of jury trials result in acquittals.
"We will produce in the months ahead a joint paper on long-term prevention for children at risk. We will legislate in the next Session to increase the powers of youth courts to hear more serious offences.
"Currently, no one can be tried more than once for the same offence. This is known as double jeopardy. We will allow for a retrial in cases where compelling new evidence such as DNA has come to light. This will cover murder and very serious offences such as rape.
"As I said last year, we must put the sense back into sentencing. For the first time, we will set out in legislation the purpose of sentencing: to protect the public, to punish the perpetrator and to prevent re-offending. We will establish a guidelines council to ensure greater consistency in sentencing and ensure Parliament has a role in considering and scrutinising draft guidelines.
"We will introduce a new suspended sentence of `custody minus' which will provide automatic imprisonment for offenders who breach their sentence. We will reform short custodial sentences and introduce, once piloted, 'custody plus', requiring offenders to serve the whole of their sentence—partly in custody, and the remainder under strict supervision. A new intermittent custodial sentence will mean that offenders spend part of the week in custody. Reparation, drug and alcohol treatment will help address offending behaviour.
"However, in protecting the public we are placing emphasis on dealing with dangerous violent and sexual offenders. Those not sentenced to life imprisonment, but who are nevertheless a danger to society, will remain in custody until they are considered safe for release. An indeterminate sentence will ensure they will be released under strict supervision only when they are no longer assessed to be a threat to the public. This House takes seriously its duty to protect the public, and we wish to ensure that democratically elected representatives retain the right to protect those we serve. A whole life tariff should mean life.
"The proposals we have set out are far-reaching, radical and require a culture change. To achieve this, we will need the support of those working in the service and of the wider public. We will need a balanced and sensible debate which I hope will be
1246
led by this House today. We need to reinforce trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as we seek to deliver justice for all.
"I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. I hope that he will forgive me for not exhibiting complete mastery of the contents of the White Paper; it arrived on my desk only this morning and will require considerable study before we can return to the subject. However, I hope that, when that study is complete, the noble and learned Lord will agree to a much more extensive debate in your Lordships' House about its contents.
Crime in all its evil manifestations—violent crime, sexual crime, drug-driven crime, organised crime—is, I suppose, the greatest single domestic threat to the wellbeing of our society. The Opposition welcome this White Paper, animated by—as the noble and learned Lord said—the reports of Sir Robin and Mr Halliday. I think that all political parties in your Lordships' House must recognise that the onward march of crime has outmanoeuvred even the most adroit of modern Home Secretaries.
As I understand it, the organising theme of the White Paper is to marshal all the component parts of the criminal justice system into a successful integrated force. I think that that is a wholly admirable objective. Indeed, it is only common sense. If the police do not successfully do their job of detecting crime, the courts will not have any prisoners to try. If the CPS is not properly resourced and does not do its job of bringing the right charges in relation to the right people, prosecutions will fail in the courts. If the courts are too biased towards the accused, many victims will not get justice. Equally, if they are too biased against the accused, we will find ourselves living in a totalitarian society. If we do not get our sentencing policy right, we will never rehabilitate criminals.
So all these parts are crucially linked together. If one of these links in the chain fails, all the others will be mortally wounded. So the philosophy behind this White Paper has to be the right one.
I am also impressed by the "oil" that the noble and learned Lord has provided to lubricate this co-ordinated system: substantial investment in IT communications. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord has set the target, to be achieved by 2005, of allowing every victim to follow by means of IT facilities the progress of the trial affecting his alleged wrongdoer. That must improve the relationship between victims and our criminal justice system.
I can, in the time available to me, and on the information that I have at my disposal, touch on only a few of the details of the White Paper. I should like, first, to comment on the features that I wholly endorse. First, I am delighted and relieved that the courageous proposals of Sir Robin about a middle tier of courts do

1247
not feature in the White Paper. Secondly, I applaud the decision to increase the power of magistrates' courts to sentence for a period of up to 12 months.
Thirdly—this is one of the most imaginative proposals in my view—I endorse entirely what I understand to be the intention of the noble and learned Lord: to take the existing pleas and directions hearings in criminal trials and extend them to a proper interlocutory procedure; so that, by a process of successive approximation, what is ultimately heard by the trial jury are the issues germane to the offence, and nothing more. That objective seems wholly admirable.
The most controversial points about the proposals are going to be those affecting double jeopardy, the right to opt for trial by jury and, perhaps most of all, the suggestion that a previous criminal record can be put to the jury before it considers the allegations. I shall reserve any comment on these individual matters until I see the Government's detailed proposals. I am partially reassured by what the Minister said early in his Statement; namely:
"Through improved police investigation, case management and presentation, conviction of the guilty must be secured and acquittal of the innocent ensured".
That is a crucial addition to the earlier expression— that acquittal of the innocent is ensured.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord needs no reminding from me of perhaps the most famous domestic policy utterance of Mr Churchill when he said that the hallmark of a civilised society is the protection it affords to the criminal accused. That should feature prominently on the desk of every official who is responsible for making any proposals in relation to questions of double jeopardy and the other matters to which I referred a minute ago.
We must also be cautious, when we look at rates of acquittal, not just to look at the trial procedure but also to look at the resources available to, and indeed the competence of, the CPS responsible for the particular area where the acquittal statistics are garnered. It is true that there are big differences throughout the country; but that may well reflect big differences in the standards met by the CPS. Here is an area where I think that the noble and learned Lord ought to proceed with great caution. But I take his general point that, in so far as our trial procedures now appear to be biased too much against the victim, he has to take the issue of criminal court proceedings very seriously.
I have just three other matters to mention before I subside. The first of these is about victims and magistrates' courts. If the noble and learned Lord is really serious about victim-driven reforms, he must stop closing down magistrates' courts—because there is nothing more detrimental to a victim than to have to travel long distances for his trial to be heard. That is equally true of witnesses. Given the large number of occasions on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have extolled local justice locally delivered, I simply cannot understand why this programme of closures of magistrates' courts is
1248
continuing. It may well be that the volume of cases in some of them is lower than whatever statistical test the Home Office applies; but in my submission that is a small price to pay for what we are seeking to achieve on behalf of the victim.
The second point concerns the Probation Service. I applaud the noble and learned Lord's imaginative approach to community penalties. That is one of the most successful features of the White Paper. But that policy will not succeed unless really substantial investment is made in the Probation Service. That is an absolutely crucial component and corollary of successful community penalties.
Finally, I should like to say something about the proposed committee for criminal procedure. I am second to none in my admiration for the Horne Office. It has a long tradition of integrity and the quality of its staff is extremely high. If I have one criticism, it is that the Home Office is perhaps a touch too excessively possessive about its powers. It took all the skilful diplomacy of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to expropriate just a small portion of these about a year ago. I should like to suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the journey upon which he is about to embark would be vastly more comfortable and immensely more successful if he gave the criminal law procedure committee that he is about to set up its head and allowed the judges to play a full part in designing these reforms which are so urgently needed for our country.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest as a practising barrister who both prosecutes and defends, a recorder of the Crown Court for 28 years and the son of a policeman. That covers a fair field.
I congratulate the Government as much on what the Statement does not say as on what it does. We welcome the abandonment of many of the proposals contained in the Auld report to restrict jury trial. Jury trial puts the citizen at the heart of the decision-making process. The jury represents the public interest in a democratic sense and is a vital safeguard against oppressive laws and oppressive prosecutions. Hence, we welcome the abandonment of the misconceived idea of appeals by the prosecution against so-called "perverse" verdicts.
We also welcome the proposals to prevent avoidance of jury service. It is wrong in a multicultural society that juries in long trials should not be representative in age, employment, gender and ethnic and religious background. Does the Minister envisage the reintroduction of the right of challenge on the basis that the jury called is not representative? Such matters are in the pipeline at the moment.
As regards fraud trials by judge alone, we shall examine the proposals with care. Experience shows that the simple issue in all fraud trials is whether dishonesty is proved. The standards of honesty should be set by the ordinary citizens on a jury. We are pleased that the Government have rejected the Auld proposal

1249
that experts or assessors should be called in to judge the defendant in accordance with the current practices and mores of the City or the commercial world. However, it is up to the prosecution to present a case in such a way that it is clear and can be understood by the jury. It is wrong in principle for a defendant to be convicted by a judge sitting alone and be sent to prison for criminal conduct that only an elite and not the general public can understand.
The proposals to end committal for sentence in the magistrates' court will do much to reduce Crown Court work: a positive encouragement will exist to elect for trial by magistrates. The extension of the sentencing powers of magistrates contained in the White Paper is therefore acceptable. However, it is important that magistrates should be encouraged to regard imprisonment as the last resort. The rhetoric of successive Home Secretaries has led to an unhealthy culture in which imprisonment is seen as the first resort. Fortunately, now both the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition seem to be moving to more liberal and more sensible policies of rehabilitation and reform. We welcome the restoration of the suspended sentence where prison would otherwise be imposed.
We support proposals for early guilty pleas and plea bargaining. Open plea bargaining is far better than the nudge and the wink. If there were not at the moment discussions between prosecution and defence as to what the issues are in a trial and how they can best be resolved, the whole system would break down now. That is why so many cases that reach the Crown Court crack on the day. The involvement of the judge is not usually necessary now that sentencing guidelines have been introduced and there is a recognised percentage reduction for a guilty plea. I am pleased to see that in the White Paper those practices are commended. In the old days it was the most vital function of the judge's clerk at assizes—totally unknown to the general public—to convey what his Lordship had in mind by way of sentence. Now, open plea bargaining is the way ahead. I hope that the Minister will confirm that discussions on a plea in a closed court should be entirely without prejudice to the defence at a subsequent trial if no accommodation is reached.
There is a greater emphasis on victims. Victims and witnesses frequently require protection and support. We welcome the proposals but there must be a balance. The public must remember that witnesses are frequently mistaken and sometimes lie. It is necessary to challenge them robustly if the truth is to be established. There is no point asking a witness, "Do you mind if I suggest to you that you are telling a lie"? if the witness replies, "No, I am not" and the interrogator then says, "Thank you very much. I apologise for asking the question". Obviously, defence counsel must do their job. ACPO and other police associations that make wild allegations about devious defence lawyers and their tricks are living in a world of fantasy. That is not surprising as one never sees a senior officer in court unless the High Sheriff is throwing lunch.
1250
The section of the White Paper on pre-trial openness and transparency is balanced. There have been spectacular miscarriages of justice due to the withholding by the police and prosecution of relevant material; hence, the defence has had to adopt the practice of demanding to see everything that it can. It has been necessary for the court to take over control in relation to the decision about whether material should be held on public interest immunity grounds. Scientific evidence has in the past regrettably been faked. Accordingly, it has been necessary for the defence to make its own inquiries in that regard.
The White Paper calls for more detailed defence statements. That may be desirable but it should not be assumed that defendants always tell their lawyers the complete truth at the beginning. They sometimes have a perfectly good and truthful defence but finding out what that is is like extracting teeth. I should be extremely wary of drawing adverse inferences impinging on a privileged area involving the instructions that have been given by a defendant to his legal team at an early stage.
There are many other points in relation to the White Paper which will require detailed attention. We approve of and welcome many points about the White Paper but others will be subject to scrutiny and criticism in due course.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the White Paper. I also say on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith that he regrets not being here today. He is unavoidably detained appearing in court on behalf of the Government. He would have wished to have been here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that this is an issue for a much more extensive debate. I could not agree more with that, although I should be unwise to make any sort of commitments about having a debate in the House. That must be a matter for the business managers, as he well knows.
The noble Lord described crime as the single greatest threat to people's lives and livelihood. I agree. He welcomed the White Paper, for which I am grateful. He said that the philosophy underlying the White Paper, which he described as right, was marshalling all of the component parts of the criminal justice system into an effective fighting force. I would not quarrel with that description of one of the very important foundations of the White Paper.
The noble Lord congratulated us on the IT announcement and on particular parts of the White Paper. I need not go through that. He indicated what he considered the most controversial parts of the White Paper but I note that he did so without indicating whether he supported or opposed them and said that further debate was required. I await that further debate with interest.

1251
The noble Lord concluded with three particular points. First, he emphasised the importance of local justice. We thoroughly endorse the importance of local justice. That point is made specifically in the White Paper. Secondly, he referred to the importance of the probation service. He was absolutely right to underline its importance. It will have an increasingly vital role in the important supervision proposals that are made in relation to the correctional and sentencing parts of the White Paper. Thirdly, he emphasised the importance of the committee for criminal procedure. I thoroughly endorse its importance. As he knows, the White Paper proposes that that should be put on a statutory basis.
Similarly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—who speaks with particular experience on this issue, as he indicated at the start of his speech—for his support for significant parts of the White Paper. He raised various issues, with which I shall deal very quickly. First, he said that he hoped that prison would be regarded as a last resort in relation to sentencing. As he made clear, prison must be required for dangerous sexual and violent offenders: those who threaten society. We thoroughly endorse the idea that short prison sentences are very often not appropriate and sentencers should look for alternatives where appropriate.
The noble Lord raised the point that any indication by the judge about what the sentence might be if there is a plea of guilty at the point at which the judge is indicating which sentence will be passed would be without prejudice to any subsequent defence. I give him that assurance.
The noble Lord emphasised the point that there needs to he a balance between victims and witnesses on the one hand and the defence on the other. He said that in certain trials it is of course important that there should be robust testing of the evidence of the victim and witnesses. I thoroughly endorse that but we believe that there must be a rebalancing under the present system without in any way compromising the justice to which the defendant is entitled. He described our proposals in relation to pre-trial disclosure, which make impositions on both the prosecution and the defence, as balanced. I am grateful for that.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have two questions for my noble and learned friend, which arise from his comments. The first point concerns delays. The White Paper says that the Government, or whoever the relevant body is, will deal decisively with delays. Can I take it that the prosecution will also be dealt with when it delays? I have not had an opportunity to read the White Paper any more than my noble friend—I mean the noble Lord, who is also a friend. How decisively will they deal with delays that are caused by the prosecution?
My second point involves the fact that disclosure of relevant previous convictions will be admissible where the judge believes that that would be helpful to the jury. Does my noble and learned friend agree that different judges behave differently and have different
1252
attitudes? Would it not be a good idea to have a guidelines council in this regard, as is envisaged elsewhere?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall deal first with the point about delays. Delays would have to be dealt with from whichever side in a case they come, whether the prosecution or the defence. An important element in dealing with delay will be the proposal set out in the White Paper for much more proactive judicial case management. Judges will ensure by the orders that they make and the steps that they take that both sides in a criminal trial meet sensible but pressing timetables.
On relevant previous convictions, we say in the White Paper that previous convictions should go in when they are relevant and when the judge, exercising his discretion, considers that the prejudicial value does not exceed the probity value. I do not believe that it is possible to indicate precisely which previous convictions will go in and which will not. The examples given in the White Paper are of help in that regard. My noble friend suggests that perhaps there should be guidelines in that regard. We should develop the arrangement as time goes on through the judiciary.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord completely satisfied that a single administrative structure supporting the Crown Court and magistrates' courts will lead to greater efficiency? Who currently says that Crown Courts are better run than magistrates' courts? I have never heard that said. Is it really suggested that local project managers will be more responsive to local needs than the magistrates' courts committees? If one looks at chapter 7 of the Auld report, does one not find that Sir Robin himself was forced to the conclusion that there had to be a single administrative structure because that would be an inevitable result of there being a third tier? If we are no longer going to have a third tier, is it not very much better to stay where we currently are so far as administration is concerned?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on administration, a unified system means that very many anomalies that presently exist can be ironed out. For example, it means that a Crown Court judge in the Crown Court can deal with the indictable offence before him and with that which is triable only summarily; he does not have to refer that back to a magistrates' court. That arrangement is inconvenient and wearisome for defendant, victim and witnesses. Equally, it means that the geographical place at which a trial can be heard can be set more easily so far as victims and witnesses are concerned. We are very keen to ensure that any changes bring administrative savings and preserve the arrangement concerning the importance of local justice, which the noble Lord discussed. In developing those ideas, we will ensure that there is extensive consultation with the magistracy to ensure that both those principles are preserved.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I venture to think that the House will have noted with considerable pleasure that those who spoke from the Front Benches opposite were broadly in agreement with the White Paper. I say that because, if ever there was a matter that should be taken out of the political arena, it is the fight against crime.
The other point I want to raise is that the fight against crime must be a fight against recidivism as well. I did not notice very much in the White Paper or in the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is very much a weapon in our armoury which we dare not forget. Will more money be spent on rehabilitation by education in the prisons? Are more people to be enlisted? Is there to be a means by which those who leave prison are helped to find a job?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend said about the welcome nature of the cross-party support for these proposals. The proposals are explicitly described in the White Paper as both radical reform and root and branch reform of the criminal justice system. I welcome the support for the radical measures that we propose.
So far as concerns recidivism, the White Paper explicitly acknowledges the importance of fighting the reconviction rate. Whether one is referring to those coming out of prison or talking of community sentences, more than 50 per cent of people are reconvicted within two years. A concerted effort is required to attack that. The White Paper deals with the specific points to which my noble friend referred. In particular, it deals with the importance of equipping people who come out of prison with a skill. It also refers to the need to ensure that housing, alcohol or drug problems do not overwhelm people when they come out and cause them to offend again.
We need to address those issues in a long-term programme for fighting recidivism. The White Paper is a programme for the next five to 10 years fundamentally to transform the criminal justice system not only in relation to the court process but also in relation to sentencing, which is the important point raised by my noble friend.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I have no current interest to declare, having retired. However, like him, I believe that I can claim to have had a similar experience of working in the criminal courts. I welcome much of the contents of what the Minister said and, in particular, the tone of the Statement.
Nevertheless, does he agree that we shall have to be very careful to ensure that, in drafting the changes in criminal procedure which he has recommended, we do so without undermining the fundamental principles of the rules of justice to which the Statement refers?
Secondly, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question about sentencing. Does he agree that the answer to overcrowding in prisons is not only to give to the courts more alternatives to imprisonment as
1254
punishment but also to ensure that non-custodial sentences are used more widely? Does he not find it disturbing that the proportion of non-custodial sentences and community service orders has apparently been reducing over recent years? Do the Government have any plans to encourage the wider use of non-custodial sentences?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. We must be careful at all times to ensure that the changes that we make are consistent with our fundamental notions of justice and, in particular, with the fundamental notion that a person is presumed innocent and should be convicted of a criminal offence only when evidence shows that beyond reasonable doubt. However, ensuring that the changes are consistent with that fundamental principle is not the same as saying that we should do nothing. Everyone agrees that fundamental and radical change is required.
As to the second proposition raised by the noble Lord, again I agree with the two sub-points made. First, there need to be more alternatives to prison, and, secondly, sentencers need to be encouraged to consider those where appropriate. I make it clear that all too many short sentences are now passed where an alternative to custody would be better.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, of course I have no authority to speak for these Benches but, on my own behalf, I echo the welcome accorded the Minister's Statement. I want to raise one small point. As one of the very few noble Lords in this House who supported the ill-fated Bills in respect of election of choice in each-way cases on which, sadly, the Government appear to have thrown in the towel this afternoon, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether there are any plans to bring some kind of logic into the list of offences which carry automatic right to choice and those which do not.
While the proposed raising of magistrates' powers in the matter of sentencing is a welcome step in reducing the pressures on Crown Courts, the fact remains that the anomalies which exist at present and which are jealously guarded in some legal circles should have no place in a modern legal system. As part of these welcome measures, will the Government look at those anachronisms?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are no current plans to look again to see which are either-way offences, which are summary only and which are indictable only. But, by increasing the sentencing power of magistrates to 12 months and by taking away the power to commit to sentence, we are seeking in the White Paper to ensure that cases which should properly be dealt with by magistrates' courts stay there far more in the normal course of events. That is the way in which we seek to address the problem of the anomalies where cases which should stay in magistrates' courts are heard in the Crown Court.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for repeating the Statement made in another place. Like most other noble Lords, I have had no time to digest the White Paper. However, I noted that it says:
"in time, we will integrate the management of the courts into a single organisation".
Can my noble and learned friend reassure your Lordships that, within the suggested new arrangements, local people rather than civil servants based in the regions will continue to be able actively to participate in, and be responsible for, the management of the criminal courts?
Further, does my noble and learned friend agree that to lose this stake in the system in favour of notional consultation would be a retrograde step and further inhibit the promotion of confidence in the rule of law, which is itself one of the Government's overarching objectives for the criminal justice system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, I underline what I said to the noble Lord. Lord Kingsland. Locally delivered justice is very important. Paragraph 9.20 of the White Paper says:
"In an integrated system, local managers will have much greater freedom to balance workloads across the civil, criminal and family jurisdictions, making it easier to sustain court services in local areas. This will support our aim to provide the widest possible network of viable local venues".
My noble friend also referred to the importance of local consultation. We thoroughly endorse that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as major legislation will need to be passed as soon as possible in order to implement the Government's proposals, can the noble and learned Lord say whether there is any hope of introducing it within the present Session or shall we have to deal with it early in the forthcoming Session? Perhaps I may make the suggestion that, if we are to get this Bill through in its best form and as soon as possible after it is introduced, it should be introduced, first, in your Lordships' House, where there is far more experience—judicial and otherwise—needed to deal with this legislation than can be found in another place.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no prospect whatever of a Bill relating to the White Paper being introduced this Session. The noble Lord, with his experience, has identified that a fairly significant Bill will be required to implement the measures in the White Paper. We hope to be able to introduce one as quickly as possible. The noble Lord suggested that it be introduced in this House rather than in another place. For the same reason I gave the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I would not dream of giving such an indication. That is a matter for the business managers.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as I am one of the few magistrates in your Lordships' House I can tell noble Lords that broadly magistrates will welcome the increase in sentencing powers. However, I heard with some anxiety the word "reorganisation". I am
1256
conscious that at the present time the magistrates' court system is in the middle of quite a considerable upheaval. Is the intention to build on what has al ready been achieved through the changes or is the intention to start all over again?
When reorganisations are carried out the impact upon the staff and the people who work within the system tend to be forgotten. As reorganisations take place, they cause difficulties and basic inconvenience and they undermine the system. Will the magistrates' court system continue under the proposals currently being adopted, or will the cards be thrown up in the air again?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we do not envisage throwing the cards up in the air. Unifying the court system into one organisation will be a significant change, but it will be carried out in a manner that builds upon the strengths of what is already in place. I thoroughly endorse the point made by the noble Baroness that too much change can have a detrimental effect on an organisation. Change must be carried out in a highly consultative and careful way to ensure that the system continues to run while the changes take place.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, like many noble Lords I have had no time to study the White Paper. Therefore, the few words that I offer are subject to further and better particulars later. From what I have heard, I would welcome a Bill. I am a little concerned by the ringing cries that the interests of the victims must be put first. I am not sure that I understand what is meant by "victims". I understand the word "complainant", but a complainant has yet to establish that he has a justifiable case for the prosecution to support. To me, a victim is one who has, without doubt, been wrongly, unlawfully, illegally treated. Surely, that can only be established after there has been either an admission of guilt by the defendant or a finding that the complainant is justified in coming forth with his complaint.
A large area of law establishes that previous convictions are, in limited circumstances, already admissible. I should like to hear in detail what is inadequate about the existing provisions. If judges are to be relied upon to add to those exceptions to the rule that previous convictions are not admissible, they will find themselves reluctant to do so. When I was a judge I followed the usual tradition of cautioning counsel before he overstepped the mark, for example, by over-attacking the conduct of the prosecution. One did that because one did not want previous convictions to determine a case.
I believe that the reluctance to allow previous convictions in evidence will continue. Unless the judiciary is to be bullied into doing something that it does not believe is just—I do not see that succeeding—I would not place too much store on widening the exceptions that exist at the moment.
There is no doubt that a relevant conviction can be highly prejudicial. As a generalisation, in a case of rape it would be wrong to allow previous convictions of

1257
rape unless they were admissible under the exceptions that already exist. One of the reasons for the high acquittal rate in rape cases is that as a member of a jury one has to evaluate whether one believes X or Y, while bearing in mind the obligation to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. In that situation one can understand reasonable doubt arising in a large proportion of cases. That is a good example of a case in which reasonable doubt would immediately vanish if the jury learned that the accused had been previously convicted of such an offence. Those are "off the seat of one's pants" observations. I look forward to the further debate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall deal shortly with those questions. I believe that many people would take issue with the definition of "victim" stated by the noble and learned Lord. For 77 per cent of crimes committed in this country no criminal is detected. I do not believe that that makes those who suffer crimes any the less victims of crime.
On whether judges may be reluctant to extend the circumstances in which previous convictions are admissible, we propose that such circumstances should be extended to where they are relevant and be subject to the judicial discretion to which I referred. Sir Robin Auld, in his report, in reference to the work of Professor John Spencer, put forward a proposal that involved a very expanded increase in the circumstances that we do not adopt; so too did the Law Commission, presided over by Sir Robert Carnworth. So other judges who have considered this issue are willing to entertain increased circumstances in which previous convictions are admissible. The current circumstances are difficult to follow and are not necessarily consistent. In many circumstances they are not fair to the prosecution.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.38 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 56.
[Amendments Nos. 170B and 170C not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
Clause 57 [Bail]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 173:
Page 32, line 13, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: This is an important matter so I hope Members of the Committee will understand if I take a little longer than usual in introducing it.
Amendment No. 173 would delete subsection (6) of Clause 57 in which the Government propose to repeal the provisions on routine bail hearings enacted in Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Many
1258
outside non- governmental organisations are rightly concerned about this proposal and it is right that today the Government should justify their intention.
In another place the then Home Secretary, Mr Straw, said in a debate on 22nd February 1999 at col. 39 of the Official Report:
"Part III fulfils the commitment in the White Paper to introduce a more extensive judicial element in the detention process. That will be achieved by introducing routine bail hearings for those detained under immigration legislation.".
In this House the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when moving the Second Reading of the same Bill on 29th June 1999, at col. 178, said,
"Part III introduces important new safeguards for immigration detainees. It introduces a more extensive judicial element into the detention process by means of a system of routine bail hearings, but the Government have decided that we should go further. The Government intend to bring forward amendments during the proceedings in this House to provide for a statutory presumption of bail, with exceptions to ensure effective immigration control and enforcement. Part VIII of the Bill provides a proper statutory framework for all aspects of the management and administration of detention centres and for the escort of detainees. Taken together, the provisions regarding bail and detention centres will provide significant additional safeguards for immigration detainees".
I am sure Members of the Committee will recall that the noble and learned Lord moved the amendment of which he spoke at Second Reading on 19th July in Committee when he said,
"I hope that the amendment will meet with the universal acclamation of the Committee".—[Official Report, 19/7/99; col. 725.]
That amendment is now Section 46 of the 1999 Act and it is those very provisions in Part III of the Act, so eloquently spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, three years ago, which today the Government propose to repeal under Clause 57(6) of this Bill. We acclaimed it; the Government now dispose of it.
There was an extensive debate on this matter in Standing Committee in another place. But the justification given at that time by Miss Angela Eagle was unconvincing. Members of the Committee will note that the provisions have never been brought into force. The Minister said that they were not brought into force because,
"we have been trying since the 1999 Act to work out the frequency and logistical implications of automatic bail hearings for each detainee. We concluded that it would be a logistical nightmare that would divert scarce resources from processing asylum applications … Implementing the Part III bail provisions would significantly increase the burden on the Immigration Appellate Authority".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 14/5/02; co1.256.]
I cannot believe that the provisions in the 1999 Act which were described as important and significant by the noble and learned Lord, now the Leader of the House, and the implications of which were doubtless considered in detail by the Home Office when the White Paper was drawn up, when the 1999 Bill was drafted and when the amendments were proposed, are now to be dismissed as a logistical nightmare. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, would have put his name to such a measure

1259
and spoken in favour of it if he were not entirely certain that it was eminently workable and its implications had been fully thought through by the time the Act was passed by this House.
One final but important point on Amendment No. 173 is this. In another place my honourable friend Mr Malins moved an amendment which would have brought the provisions of Part III of the 1999 Act into effect. The Minister argued in response that to do so would be administratively unworkable and would cause chaos and catastrophe in the system. Amendment No. 173 meets the Government's point. It would not bring the provisions into effect but it would stop their repeal. The effect of that would be to allow the Government to bring them into force at a time when the administrative concerns which the Minister cited in another place had been allayed.
If the Minister were to resist the amendment, surely he would have to cast aside the mask of administrative unworkability that was taken up in another place and reveal the real policy reasons behind the Government's change of position. I invite him today to give us better justification on this matter than in another place. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Before I spoke to the last amendment I asked the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench to comment on the reports which have been made of remarks by the Home Secretary which appear to be an interference with the arrangement of business in your Lordships' House. I sent the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, a copy of the report by AP which quoted the Secretary of State as saying that he had already made provision for his new Bill to be speeded up, shortcutting the usual procedures so that it could be in place by mid-October. Later he went on to say that,
"if Britain could send 'early signals' to France about the Bill's progress and possible completion in July, London and Paris may be in a position at the September meeting in Frethun to set an early deadline for closure [of the Sangatte centre near Calais]".
The noble Lord owes the House more of an explanation of what happened than simply to tell your Lordships, as he did, that those words were not in the press statement issued by the Home Office. We know that because the press statement is on the Home Office website and can be read by everybody. This is a report by the European editor of a respectable news agency purporting to quote the Home Secretary in direct terms saying that he had already taken steps to intervene in the proceedings of your Lordships' House and to adopt short-cutting procedures which would enable Parliament to complete the passage of the Bill so as to speed up the closure of the Sangatte centre.
I am sure we are all in favour of closing the Sangatte terminal, but not at the expense of proper discussion on this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will be able to give further assurance either that the Home Secretary did not speak the words attributed to him by the European editor of AP, or that he made a mistake in doing so and that there is no intention by
1260
the Government of intervening in the usual channels to irregularly speed up the procedures that we normally adopt in this Chamber.
Turning to Amendment No. 173, which we fully support, we see this as being about the Government reneging on their undertaking to bring in automatic bail hearings for people detained under the Immigration Act which was given at the time of the 1999 Bill. They now say that Part III was not a cynical point to keep Members on these Benches and in another place happy, but it certainly had that effect at the time.
It means that we have to look with scepticism on other apparently liberal and compassionate provisions which come into effect on a date to be determined by the Secretary of State, of which there may be quite a number in this Bill. Only 18 of the 143 clauses before us come into effect on the passing of the Bill. How are we to know, for instance, that in three years' time the Government will not do another U-turn and say that the clauses we are proposing to approve now will no longer be necessary or desirable in the light of changed circumstances?
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a strong case for saying that if we leave Part III as it is, it can be brought into effect whenever the Government choose and the administrative concerns which now prevent them from doing so may have changed rapidly in a couple of years' time. We certainly hope that in three years the pilot accommodation centres which we have already discussed will be up and running and, if they are the success we hope, there will be little need to detain anybody at the beginning of the asylum process.
The White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, gave three sets of circumstances where detention would normally be justified. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, recapitulated on them on the last amendment. They were: where there is a reasonable belief that the individual will fail to keep to the terms of temporary admission or temporary release; initially to clarify a person's identity on the basis of their claim; or, thirdly, where removal is imminent. The third category we have no argument about. We assume that, since the Government's intention is to speed up the removal of people who have exhausted their legal remedies, most of those people will be removed within seven days, or certainly within the 28 days at which the second automatic bail hearing would come into play.
It would be useful if the Minister could give us some idea of the mean time for which people are presently held prior to removal, and the standard deviation from the mean, or what they hope to achieve when the removal centres are fully in operation. That is the key. If no one was held longer than 28 days, the additional 2,000 bail hearings—a figure which I think initially the Minister in another place gave to the House—would no longer be operative. It would be a much smaller figure, which we would need to assess in the light of any figures that the Minister can give us about the length of time people will be detained.
In the vast majority of cases, at the beginning of the process the person's identity and the basis of his claim would be verified at the induction centres. If there are

1261
a few where uncertainty still exists, further inquiries can be made after an applicant reaches an accommodation centre. People will have a strong incentive to remain in an accommodation centre. If they leave, not only will they jeopardise the success of their claim, they will lose support and have to fend for themselves.
Therefore, the number of people who need to be detained at the front end of the asylum process could be small. That would bring about the administrative changes which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has spoken of and which would negate the fears expressed by the Minister that we would overwhelm the process with this vast number of applications.
In the meanwhile, there is something to be said for the suggestion made by the honourable Member for Walthamstow in another place, who is also chair of the all-party group on refugees, that at least automatic hearings should be retained and brought into force for asylum seekers whose legal rights have not yet been exhausted. It would be useful to know whether the Government have any views on that because we could think about it between now and the Report stage.
When the honourable Member for Walthamstow made the proposal in another place the Minister ignored his remarks. She rested her case on the statistics that she had given—that bringing Part 3 into force would mean this extra 2,000 caseload a month on top of the 1,000 cases which are already being heard. Those figures appear to indicate that two-thirds of the people detained have no opportunity for a bail hearing. In many cases that is because they have not had access to an experienced immigration law practitioner or because it is impossible to find sureties.
I welcome that detainees are now being notified of their right to apply for bail and are given the telephone numbers of the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service on the form which sets out the reasons for their detention. But, as we have already heard, those forms are not translated into the languages normally used by asylum seekers; nor do those agencies take on bail hearings for applicants who are not their own clients. People who go through Oakington have a better chance than others because the IAS and the RLC are on the premises, but the IAS only rarely applies for bail because of the huge pressure of its substantive work. I accept that if automatic bail hearings were to be introduced additional resources would need to be made available to those agencies.
What would probably happen under the present arrangements, if we had automatic bail, is that immigration officers would use detention only where it was strictly necessary. If the Minister says that is already how it works, that they only detain someone where it is strictly necessary to do so, I can give examples from BID's recent cases which appear to show that detention is applied in circumstances where there is no reason to believe that the applicant would abscond or would fail to comply with residence or reporting restrictions.
1262
We have already heard about the examples that BID has sent to your Lordships. I shall just quote one from the set which has emerged since 9th July. That is the case of asylum seeker B who was detained by the Immigration Service despite the fact that he had previously been granted bail and had kept in touch with the authorities by signing on regularly at the police station as instructed. B's legal representatives felt that without at least one surety they could not proceed to a bail application because the chance of success was too low under the terms of the merits test for public funding. So B spent seven-and-a-half months in detention without a bail hearing before one was arranged by BID.
The Immigration Service failed to produce the applicant in court. As a result he spent a further six weeks in detention. At the next hearing B was produced and the application went ahead. It then became clear that an error had been made by the Immigration Service in its case for maintaining detention and it was shown to be effectively without foundation. So B was then granted bail in his own recognisance in the sum of £10 with no sureties required after nine months in detention.
That is what happens when there is no automatic bail hearing. People can languish for months on end in detention without their cases being heard. Therefore, automatic hearings would concentrate the minds of immigration officers, knowing that they would have to respond to challenges before the adjudicators or the magistrates. The fact that clients do much better when they have competent representation proves that the volume of detentions is not a function of the probability that applicants would fail to comply with the conditions, but of the availability of legal assistance and of sureties. Since detention is expensive, it would be in the public interest to make it easier for asylum seekers to apply for bail by expanding the resources of agencies for that purpose and reducing the demands made on sureties.
It would be in the public interest to agree to the amendment because there would be a huge net saving of public expenditure, so I whole-heartedly support the noble Baroness. I hope that the Government will agree to her amendment.
Lord Filkin: Before the noble Lord sits down, in order to seek to avoid running two debates at once, perhaps I could respond to his further questions about the PA press release. What I said when the noble Lord raised the issue with me earlier today was that I had the Home Office press release before me, I did not have the PA notice. The noble Lord has kindly provided me with the PA notice so I now have it in front of me.
I shall re-emphasise that I would like to check the accuracy of the record and therefore to respond in writing to the noble Lord when I have done so. What I am absolutely certain of is that the Home Secretary thinks that it is important that we make vigorous progress in improving the ability of the country to manage the asylum and immigration challenge that we face. I sense that no one in the House dissents from that challenge.

1263
I am also certain that the noble Lord is keen for the Report stage of the Bill to be as early as possible when your Lordships' House reconvenes after the Summer Recess Therefore, I am certain that that is the kind of issue that he will be seeking to address in his discussions within government, so that we come to Report after the benefit of a good period of consideration early on when we reconvene after the Recess. I shall write to him further on these points.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for the explanation that he has offered on that part. He noticed our concerns. In the first days he was kind enough to discuss with us the timetable for the Bill. We had no difficulty whatever in agreeing with the amount of days devoted to the Bill. To a great extent, we have not been responsible for the slowness of progress, in the sense that during the past five days of the Bill a number of Statements have been made, which have taken much time out from the Bill. One day there were a number of orders which exceeded their allocated time. So we are literally about four to five hours behind.
I can assure the Minister that there is no intention on our part to delay the Bill before us in Committee. I just say that the fault has not been ours. A statement of this nature reported in the press makes it uncomfortable, particularly for people on these Benches, because we felt that there was a push by the Home Secretary. I hope that the noble Lord will look into it and let us know at the appropriate time what is the correct position.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: In relation to the point about Sangatte raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can the Minister tell us whether negotiations with the French turn on future arrangements to be made with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? If so, can he tell us whether the Home Secretary already has sufficient powers to make more or less whatever arrangements he sees fit with the High Commissioner?
As for routine or automatic bail hearings, I have moved amendments on the subject to previous Bills, so I have a continuing interest. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has covered the matter so comprehensively that I have nothing to add. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Briefly, is the real reason for the provision that the Government will not do what they said in 1999 that they would do—I remember discussion of the subject at the time—because it would be a logistical nightmare?
We should not delay the Bill unduly by our discussion. We are talking much too much, if I may say so, and taking too long to make points. We should make our points more concisely and quickly, because we all want to deal with the problem of asylum. We should not spread out our discussion endlessly until the holiday and continue to spread it out on Report.
But my noble friend has given the Minister a chance to get off the hook. She suggests that the status quo should remain and that, in present circumstances, the
1264
provision should be implemented as soon as possible. Will the Minister make plain whether the Government really consider that to be impossible?
It is vital that asylum seekers should receive the correct impression of our justice system, and bail hearings are crucial. It is not a good idea to allow them to think that bail hearings are something that can be used rather casually by immigration officers, mixed up with all the other decisions that they take. The Government should consider my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said so succinctly. As he said, the need to preserve automatic bail hearings is linked with the necessity for full written reasons. One follows from the other. It is well understood from our earlier debates that removal does not mean exactly what the Government would like it to mean. In many cases, it is a mirage. For most asylum seekers, detention means exactly what it says. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned several case studies of bail for immigration detainees, so I shall not cite them, except to remind noble Lords that one case involved an asylum seeker who spent seven-and-a-half months without a hearing and then a further six weeks in detention.
During previous discussion, the Minister admitted that there have been failures in the system with regard to reasons for detention and he has undertaken to consider them before Report. Similarly, as we have heard, errors are occasionally made in the arrangements for bail hearings. The result is that many people with legitimate claims are overlooked and unnecessarily remain in stressful conditions before their claim is heard. The Minister must recognise that those errors would be minimised if there were a proper system for routine hearings.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made some good suggestions. The fact that the presumption of liberty puts too much pressure on the Immigration Appellate Authority or interferes with the streamlining that we all want is neither here nor there. It is a human rights issue, as was plainly stated by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, that is justifiable only once a decision has been taken. If the person is not being removed, the requirement remains.
If it is a question of cost, what about the vast cost of detention? As to absconding, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, already mentioned in respect of another matter, the Minister in another place, Ms Angela Eagle, never responded to Mr Neil Gerrard when he cited the South Bank University report that more than 90 per cent of those in the sample who were given bail complied with their bail conditions. That was at col. 254 of the proceedings on 14th May.
So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, if Part 3 of the 1999 Act is still valid but cannot yet be implemented, it should at least remain on the statute book.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may now speak to the amendment, having already responded on a previous matter. First, let me say how delighted I am on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Front Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the case made by my noble friend Lord Avebury. I shall be brief and shall make only three points.
First, when the 1999 Act was introduced, we were delighted that, despite some negative aspects, it introduced the concept of automatic bail provision. We genuinely welcomed that. The point is that, after all this time, it has not even been tried. It causes us serious concern about what value we can place on government promises to introduce a measure when that has not even been tried but is now being repealed. That is a matter of grave concern to all those who believe and trust many of the promises that Ministers make in this House.
Secondly, at no stage should we ever consider administrative convenience at the expense of the fairness of our judicial system. Granting of bail is part of that fair system. It is fundamentally wrong that administration costs should take priority over fairness to the individual.
Thirdly, the rest of the world follows many of the good examples and practices that we adopt in this country. It will be a tragedy when they see that we trample on some of the basic rights, such as the right of people who are being removed to ask for bail. What sort of example does that set for the rest of the world?
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider taking the issue away and returning to us with some reasonable suggestions as to how we can speedily handle applications for bail from people who are being detained.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This does not seem to be a good week for the Home Secretary. I allude to the events late on Monday mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anelay and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, the jury is still out on both matters, so we should obviously get on with the rest of our business.
No doubt the Government gained no little credit both inside and outside Parliament for introducing Part 3 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. My late noble kinsman, told me that when he was an undergraduate, there was a club in his college—which is also the college of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, called the Husteron Proteron Club, taken from the Greek for "later earlier". Every term, the club lived one day backwards. Its members would rise, drink a glass of whisky and play some bridge and end up having porridge late at night.
By introducing Part 3 of the Act into the Bill, the Government appear to be following somewhat the same practice. They appear to have legislated for the provision—as I said, perhaps gaining no little credit for that—and then, as the then Minister, Angela Eagle, told the Committee in the Commons, undertaken considerable research that persuaded them that it would be quite wrong to implement the provision that they had already enacted.
1266
On Monday, I alluded to the fact that during the previous Parliament, through what it would be wrong to call the activity of the Home Office because it was due more to its inactivity, I found myself writing to it 40 times more often than I had done in Parliaments previous to that one. One was prepared to do all that was needed on behalf of one's constituents, but what I found trying was that no Home Office Minister in that Parliament would ever admit to having got anything wrong. That was a little provocative, as it was clear that some of the decisions were going wrong. In the retraction of those provisions, we have an acknowledgement that the decision taken in the previous Parliament was, in the eyes of the Government, wrong. I suppose that that represents some improvement. The Home Office Ministers from the previous Parliament who would not acknowledge that anything was wrong are no longer Ministers. There will be no names and no pack drill.
The fact remains that we are getting an acknowledgement that the Government think that they got it wrong. To their mind, they got it wrong on cost grounds. I must say that, although there may be such costs, there is a greater cost to those for whom the previous provisions were brought in. I join my noble friend on the Front Bench in support of the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: There is, I think, consensus in the Committee that detention, properly managed, is part of a sensible system of asylum and immigration control. There is, at times, a need to use detention powers on entry, although, as has been said, immigration officers will, for obvious reasons, generally seek to minimise the use of the powers. There is also a need to use detention at the end of the process, when people are found to have no further right of residence in Britain either because their asylum claim has not been accepted or because their presence in the country is illegal for another reason.
We all recognise that it is crucial that we should be more successful at removing people who do not have a right of presence in the country. We are not motivated by any sense of punitiveness, but, unless we reduce the success rate of traffickers who charge people money to bring them here, we are likely to see a continuation of such attempts at trafficking. It is crucial, therefore, that removals take place when there is no longer a justification for someone's presence. Detention is a necessary part of ensuring greater success with removals, and the expansion of the detention estate to 4,000 places is, in large part, a product of that objective.
Many members of the Committee have spoken about what the Government did in 1999. I can understand why those points were made. However, we are now three years on in our experience of trying to cope fairly but firmly with asylum and immigration. We now recognise the need for a larger detention estate and more success at removals. Having a detention estate of 4,000 places would, as we said at Second Reading, mean that the implementation of Part III

1267
would lead to some 36,000 bail hearings per annum. That is impracticable and would be a significant diversion of immigration officers' time from other crucial duties.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we cannot plead administrative convenience as the sole justification for an action, although it plays a part. The realities of government mean that one must, sometimes, consider how to manage within available resources. Therefore, it is important to consider how one ensures that people who are necessarily detained can petition effectively for release under bail provisions, should they wish to do so. That is the point to which the debate must return. Given that detention is necessary and that a routine bail process is unrealistic, how do we ensure that people can apply for bail when they wish to do so?
Everybody who is detained—with two exceptions—has a right to apply for bail. One exception relates to those who have been in the country for fewer than seven days. The Committee will realise that that exception allows for the first stage of evidential checking. However, that exception should not cause us great anxiety. The other relates to detention of those due to be deported under Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 who do not have a pending appeal of the type referred to in paragraph (3) of Schedule (3). Those who have a pending appeal will have a right to apply for bail, but it is common sense that those who have exhausted their appeals and are in the process of being removed should not.
Most people will continue to have the right to apply for bail. The question is whether, in practice, that right can be effectively exercised by people who are detained. As part of my preparation for the Committee stage, I read the notice that is given to detainees setting out the reasons for their detention and their bail rights. Taking cognizance of the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who said that we should get on with things, I shall not read it all out. However, it sets out people's rights in clear, if—how shall I put it?—official language. In practice, it is also translated, so that each person detained is informed orally by a translator of their right to apply for bail.
The charge is sometimes made that people may not, in the heat of the moment, understand what is said to them. I can believe that there will be occasions on which that will be true. However, 85 per cent of detainees are asylum claimants, as we would expect, and most are legally represented. I shall not be flippant about it, but I am less concerned about asylum claimants who have representation; even if they do not understand what is explained to them in their own language, their advocate or representative will. In most cases, excellent advice is given to asylum claimants in this country, and advisers will be able to give advice on the right to apply for bail.
We intend to go further and publish a pamphlet that will be clear but simple and will deal with the entire process of asylum claims. It will be given to every person who claims asylum in this country. It will set out their right to apply for bail clearly and
1268
categorically and in language that is as simple and clear as is consistent with the duty to be legally accurate. That pamphlet will be translated into the 30-odd main languages that we come across when dealing with asylum seekers. I would like to give an absolute commitment about when that pamphlet will be available in those 30 languages. I shall do my best to make it highly likely that it will be produced before Royal Assent to the Bill is signified. That is the timetable on which we should operate. The sooner that such advice and information is in people's hands, the better. In a sense, they will have belt and braces—an advocate and a document for themselves that seeks to give an understanding of the process.
I shall turn to some of the questions— not all—that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked important questions about the average time spent in detention. There are no figures for that, but I can say that over 55 per cent of those detained, excluding those at Oakington, spend less than two months in detention.
Lord Avebury: I am interested in knowing about the 55 per cent of people who spend less than two months in detention. Quite a proportion of those 'would therefore spend less than 28 days in detention. The Minister earlier referred to the number of places occupied by people who are detained for less than a week, so from a number which is much smaller than 4,000 how does he arrive at the vast figure of 36,000 bail applications? Many of those people in detention will not have time to apply for one of the automatic bail hearings, let alone for both of them.
Lord Filkin: I shall enjoy exploring and debating the statistics with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in detail subsequently rather than at this point in time. However, the position stands that an expansion of a detention estate to 4,000 would very considerably expand the number of hearings. Currently, we are dealing with a smaller number, but I shall be pleased to exchange correspondence with the noble Lord on that matter if it would be of interest to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, gave examples of cases which had gone wrong, perhaps even seriously wrong. I invite noble Lords to bring such cases to my attention. I do not say that by doing so they will for one second reverse a wrong that may have happened, but it will inform me and add weight to their challenge about. the importance of ensuring that people should know that they have a right to apply for bail in law. I should therefore be grateful if both noble Lords would provide me with that information. I give an undertaking to examine it and investigate such cases and to reflect on any implications for the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the ECHR. Article 5.4 does not require a right to apply for bail. The requirements of Article 5 are satisfied by the ability of a detainee to apply for judicial review, or habeas corpus, to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Notwithstanding that, I do not dilute in any way what I have been saying about the importance of allowing people to have access to hail if they so wish.

1269
I hope that that is helpful to the Committee in terms of setting out the Government's thinking. We recognise the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that at times governments have to make changes in policy or process because their perception or scale of the problem, changes. This is one such example.
Lord Dholakia: I welcome the idea of producing a leaflet to be given to people setting out their rights in terms of bail. However, perhaps I may make a plea. Will the Minister ensure that all the non-governmental organisations working in the immigration field are consulted on that leaflet and that it will be in simple language which people can understand? Many people coming to this country will not understand the bail provisions in their own home country, and ours must be explained in simple language rather than in the legal jargon which often accompanies such statements.
Lord Filkin: Yes, I am happy to agree to both suggestions and will so do.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken on this complex issue and I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government are planning to publish a leaflet giving proper information. We hope that we may be able to see that before we come to later stages of the Bill.
This is a complex issue. I shall look carefully at what the Minister said in Hansard. I believe that he has taken us further forward than his colleague in another place. However, I bear in mind what my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said. It is important that people who come to this country seeking asylum gain the right impression of our justice system. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 173ZZA and 173ZA not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Reporting restrictions: travel expenses]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 32, line 19, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 173A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 174 standing in my name. Clause 58 provides that the Secretary of State may meet the reasonable travelling costs of those supported asylum seekers who are required to travel as directed under the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 44. That clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to link the provision of support with the requirement to report to the police or to an immigration officer.
If the power were not given to the Secretary of State, the asylum seeker would have to meet the travel expenses out of his existing subsistence payments.
1270
Clearly, that would be wrong. I cannot understand why the power has been made permissive rather than a duty. It is the Secretary of State who places a requirement upon the asylum seeker to travel, so surely it is only appropriate that those reasonable travel expenses should be met by the Secretary of State. After all, the asylum seeker is not left with any option to report; he must do so.
My amendment will ensure that the Secretary of State "shall" meet the reasonable travelling expenses in those circumstances. That appears to be common sense. If the Government say that the requirement is too harsh on the Secretary of State, they must reflect upon the fact that we are talking about only reasonable travelling expenses. That will be for the Secretary of State to determine, so the asylum seeker is hardly likely to have a chance to exploit those expenses for his own purposes.
Amendment No. 174 is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to require the Secretary of State to pay the travelling expenses of an asylum seeker within a reasonable period. I have tabled the amendment to ask the Government what they believe good practice will be. How long do they expect asylum seekers to wait before the payments are made? I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: We on these Benches support the amendment. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has identified the need to meet some of the costs incurred by people making applications.
Lord Hylton: I support both amendments. The so-called probing amendment appears to be just as important as the amendment moved. The amendments relate to reporting restrictions and therefore may provide the Minister with an opportunity to respond to my earlier suggestion that daily reporting by parents, who with their children would otherwise be detained, needs urgent consideration.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and those noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment. Until recently, those required to report were in the main expected to attend their local police station but—and I am sure that all noble Lords involved in the Bill will acknowledge this—it was recognised that such reporting does not come within the core work expected of police officers. The Government felt it appropriate to put in place alternative arrangements so that the reporting obligation could be taken away from the police and focused on the Immigration Service. It makes more sense for those required to report to be seen by an immigration official rather than a police officer. That is why we are establishing a network of reporting centres.
The opening of reporting centres has meant that, in some cases, people have to travel a far longer distance in order to report—there are fewer reporting centres than police stations. To address the concerns that some of those required to report, such as supported asylum seekers, would be unable to meet the costs of

1271
travel, we are proposing that the Secretary of State may meet the reasonable costs of travel. It is the word "may" which is causing some difficulty.
We see no reason to meet the costs of travel in every case where a person is required to report. Perhaps it is that which separates the two sides of the argument. However, we have argued on previous occasions that some asylum seekers—not all by any means—will be able to fund the cost of travel themselves, while others will be required to report to a centre within reasonable walking distance of their home. Thus it will not he the case that in every instance an asylum seeker will incur costs or be without the means to pay the reasonable costs of travel.
For that reason, the term "may" has been used in the Bill. We wish to retain a measure of flexibility so that we do not have to refund every claim for travel costs. Not in every case will costs be incurred.
I hope that I shall also be able to reassure the Committee that Amendment No. 174 is unnecessary, although I accept that it is a probing amendment. While the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has yet to issue precise instructions, it seems likely that when asylum seekers leave the induction centre, they will be issued with a warrant to enable them to travel to the reporting centre when required. When asylum seekers comply with this requirement, they will be given a further date for attendance and at the same time issued with a warrant to enable them to travel to the centre.
I accept that some of those required to report will not have been required to go through the induction process. In those cases I am sure that arrangements can be put in place to enable the costs of travel to be reimbursed. Once the first visit has been made, they will be given a further date for attendance and at that stage can be given a warrant to enable them to travel.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to Amendment No. 174, which I shall read carefully. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Hylton, for their support. We have just debated a complicated legal issue on bail and now we have moved on to a point of practice and common sense. However, for those involved it is an important matter of detail. It affects only a limited number of people, but of course it is vital to them.
I should remind the Minister that I made it clear that, in this case, the Secretary of State has imposed a duty on a person to travel; it is not their choice. I noted the Minister's response to the effect that, if a person lives within reasonable walking distance, then there would be no costs. However, there would be no claim. I do not believe that he has been able to overcome my objections in that respect.
1272
While listening to the Minister's remarks, If was reminded of a comment made recently by my noble friend Lord Brooke; namely, that this provision reflects an Alice in Wonderland existence. We are considering people who will be living on very low incomes indeed. They will not have the money available to meet these travel expenses. As a matter of principle I believe that, on this occasion, I should test the opinion of the Committee.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Joffe,L.

Alderdice, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Attlee, E.

Laird, L.

Avebury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Barker, B.

Ludford, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Luke, L.

Biffen, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Blatch, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Boardman, L.

McNally, L.

Bowness, L.

Maddock, B.

Bridgeman, V.[Teller]

Mar,C.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Newby, L.

Cox,B.

Palmer, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crathorne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Razzall,L.

Darcy de Knayth,B.

Redesdale, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rennard, L.

Derby, Bp.

Renton, L.

Dholakia,L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dundee, E.

Roper, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Russell, E.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fowler, L.

Sandwich, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Freeman, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne,E.

Geddes,L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Greaves, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Higgins, L.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

1273

Tope, L.

Walpole, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Trumpington, B.

Weatherill, L.

Waddington, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Walmsley, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Islwyn, L.

Bach, L.

Jeger, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Judd, L.

Berkeley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Layard, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brennan, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

[Teller]

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L

Dixon L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Rea, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sheldon L

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Harrison, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Haskins, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Induction]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 175:
Page 32, line 32, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: The amendment, the effect of which would be to require the imposition of residence requirements without regard to personal circumstances, has been tabled to probe the issue of whether the "may" in subsection (1) in practice will indeed be "shall" so that requirements will be routinely imposed without regard to personal circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Amendment No. 175A concerns the same issue. We take the view that the Secretary of State should have regard to the personal circumstances of an asylum seeker before deciding to place that person in an accommodation centre. We believe that it is too extreme to provide that every single individual who applies for asylum must necessarily go through an accommodation centre.
We believe that age, in particular, is a relevant factor, a point made to us by ILPA. That body states that putting children into the induction centres may not meet their needs. It could expose them, as could detention in other places, to possible danger or abuse from traumatised adult asylum seekers, or from employees of the induction centres who have not been trained as childcare workers. The very fact that their freedom of movement is restricted may have an adverse effect on children who, as stated many times during these proceedings, may be extremely disturbed by their experiences in their country of origin and during their flight to this country.
This concerns the very start of the asylum process. A person goes into an induction centre immediately after their arrival from their country of origin when the stress on their psyche is at its most extreme.
Amendment No. 175B seeks to reduce the number of days a person can be made to stay in an induction centre from 14 to seven. This is in pursuance of an earlier discussion when the Minister told the Committee that the policy would be to keep someone in an induction centre only for two or three days before moving on to an accommodation centre. We therefore wonder why such an extreme margin beyond the time it is intended to keep someone in an induction centre is needed in the Bill. Surely seven days would be perfectly adequate if it is not intended to keep someone there for longer than two or three days.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendments are concerned with the operation of the induction process. The induction programme is an important element in the new procedures we are putting in place for the consideration of asylum claims.
Normally, the induction process will take place at the outset of a person's claim. During this induction asylum seekers and their dependants will be advised of their rights and responsibilities and provided with an explanation of what will happen to them during and after the consideration of their claim. Providing information of this kind is, in our view, the foundation

1275
of an effective asylum system. It will ensure that everyone knows where they stand so that future stages in the process can operate smoothly.
The purpose of Clause 59 is to enable a residence restriction to be imposed so that a person is required to reside at, or at least near, a place where induction is to take place for a limited period of up to 14 days. This residence restriction does not have to be imposed in all cases, but where it is decided that it should be imposed the clause provides that this may be done "without regard to personal circumstances". The clause as drafted therefore provides all the power needed.
Since we believe that the current wording is appropriate for our intentions as regards the induction process, we are happy with it as it is. Amendment No. 175 would seem to be designed to make it a requirement that a residence restriction be imposed where the conditions of subsection (1) are met. It will indeed be the case that the great majority of asylum applicants and their dependants will go through an induction programme, but there will be occasions where this does not happen. It is conceivable, for example, that an unexpectedly high volume of applications may mean that not everyone can go through an induction centre at the time we would wish.
Furthermore, there may be some people who, although they will be inducted, will not go through a standard programme. Examples would be unaccompanied asylum seekers and applicants who are detained. The provisions in Clause 59 are not really applicable to them.
To the extent that Amendment No. 175 has an effect, it seems to be to remove some helpful flexibility in the current wording, without adding anything further to it. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Kingsland: That is the whole point of the amendment. The noble Lord says that it removes "some helpful flexibility" without adding anything. If it acids nothing, that proves the objective that the amendment sought to prove; namely, if "shall" adds nothing to "may", "may" in the Government's mind, in practice, will always be "shall".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I would argue the opposite case. "May" is a much more flexible word to use in the context of the clause than "shall", which is far more definite.
Lord Kingsland: If "shall", to use the Minister's own words, adds nothing, that suggests that "may" is an illusory discretion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We could argue the point for a long time. I do not believe that it is illusory. I believe that the word is there for a good reason. I know that Members of the Committee find this hard to accept, but the flexibility is important. I cannot see that "shall" adds anything to it. If the noble Lord wants to reflect further on the point, I shall reflect further on our position.
1276
Amendment No. 175A would reduce the effectiveness of the current wording by removing the reference to the power being imposed,
"without regard to his personal circumstances".
It is important that we have the power to require all asylum seekers to reside near a programme of induction. That will ensure that everyone is able to understand his or her rights and responsibilities within the asylum process. It is for this reason that Clause 59 makes it clear that a residence restriction may be imposed "without regard" to a person's personal circumstances.
If, for example, an asylum seeker has accommodation available to him but that accommodation is not near a place where an induction programme is run, we want to be able to have the person residing, for a short period, not at that accommodation but at a place which is more convenient. Otherwise, individuals may find themselves missing important parts of the briefing because of delays in getting to the place where information is being given out. That is a sensible requirement which will enable the induction process to be run effectively and efficiently.
I should like to make two additional points. First, there will be cases where we would not expect to exercise the power in Clause 59. For example, it is not the intention to have unaccompanied asylum seeking children going through the same programme of induction as is given to others, although they will have an equivalent programme. In addition, there may be individual cases where it would be inappropriate for a person to go through the normal induction programme. We shall of course deal with such cases in an appropriate manner, tailored to the person's particular needs—nothing in the clause as drafted would prevent us from doing so.
Secondly, where people had accommodation available to them, they would not be seeking NASS support. The period of time they would spend going through the induction programme would therefore be short—probably no more than a single night. So the requirement to reside away from their accommodation would not be long-lasting—a residence restriction would not last longer than necessary.
That leads me to Amendment No. 175B. This would reduce the maximum period for which a person could be required to stay near a place where an induction programme was being run from 14 days to seven days.
The period of time a person will spend going through the programme will depend on his or her circumstances. As I mentioned, someone who has acceptable accommodation available to him or her—for example, through family or friends—should be through the process in about a day. For those going to accommodation centres, the process might take two or three days. For those seeking NASS support but not going to an accommodation centre, the process will often last slightly longer because of the need to find suitable accommodation.
We would expect that for people in this last category the process would last no more than about seven days, but there will always be some cases—as indeed there have been recently at Dover—where matters take

1277
slightly longer than that. It is for this reason that the Bill provides for a maximum of 14 days. We can understand the desire to constrain the time period, but there will be occasions when we need slightly longer because of individual circumstances.
The restriction will be in place for only so long as it is required. So where a person has accommodation and the process is completed, we shall not require that person to continue to reside near the induction programme location. As for asylum seekers who have no support available to them and for whom the government are in the process of finding support, there will be no hardship for them to be required to stay in accommodation near the induction programme location—rather, in our view, it will reduce uncertainties and upheavals that they might face.
The noble Lord and I have disagreed about the flexibility required. However, I have given an explanation as to why we believe that the restrictions that we are placing on people in these circumstances are reasonable. I suggest that these amendments are not necessary.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may suggest that he re-examines the drafting. The clause is ambiguous. The requirement could be put much more clearly. I am not sure whether my noble friend has found the solution, but the noble Lord ought to look at it again. It is quite incomprehensible.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am always happy to agree to re-examine wording. Like the noble Baroness, I am happy to see us bring legislative language into an up-to-date format that we can all understand. So we will try to bring some further clarity to the wording.
Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, it would be immensely helpful if he could give a specific assurance that it is the intention of himself and his colleagues that valid compassionate grounds should always be taken into account.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than happy to give that assurance. We want to exercise the process in an entirely compassionate way. It will be tailored to individual needs. That is why we need the flexibility to which I have referred.
Lord Kingsland: I shall not press the point that lies behind the amendment again. I simply ask the noble Lord whether, during the summer adjournment, he might reflect on our exchanges. I shall table the amendment again at Report stage and we can debate it further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 175A and 175B not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 176:
Page 32, line 38, at end insert "which programme will include full access to legal advice and representation"
The noble Lord said: We remain disturbed at the Government's failure to appreciate the need for early access to legal advice for all asylum seekers, and especially for those who are under a disability, such as unaccompanied minors and persons who have no command of the English language.
It is surely in the interests of the Government, as well as of asylum seekers, to secure decisions as quickly and fairly as possible. Legal advice at the initial stage can help to elicit all the information on which a Home Office caseworker can make a fully informed decision.
Despite the provision of statement of evidence forms in languages other than English, these complicated documents still have to be completed in English. There is a paucity of free interpretation and translation services available to asylum seekers, especially in areas of dispersal.
Whatever the individual circumstances of asylum seekers, they all share the desire to know what their status is likely to be. They all want their claim to be fully articulated. That can be done only with the assistance of qualified, competent and free advice.
There is no commitment to enable those in induction centres to have access to legal advice, even though some will be there for several days. On leaving an induction centre, an asylum seeker will be dispersed and given a date for the interview and a travel warrant to get there. They have little or no chance of arranging for legal advice and representation in the area of dispersal, unless that has been arranged while they stayed in the induction centre. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I support Amendment No. 176. All of us who are in any way involved with asylum seekers know how vital it is that they get proper, accurate legal advice as early as possible in the process. A large number of the difficulties that asylum seekers encounter, including their failure to present a full and adequate case at the initial interview and therefore to get a proper decision early in the proceedings, come from their inability in different ways to access competent legal advice that gives them sufficient time to prepare their case and obtain all the necessary documentation. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has made an important point and we support it.
Amendment No. 177, in the names of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Dholakia, says that the provisions of Clause 59 should apply when,
"the social services department of the appropriate local authority undertakes an assessment of the needs of any minor dependant under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989".
It is a probing amendment on the Government's intentions. What will happen if it is necessary to make residence restrictions on the parents of a minor when the reason for doing so is in the interests of the child, who is being assessed by a local authority? It would he ludicrous for the parents to be able to remove a child to

1279
another part of the country while a local authority was assessing the needs of that child, which might be acute. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Hylton: I fully agree with both previous speakers about the importance of early legal advice and the crucial importance of interpretation and translation. However, I would not be dogmatic about whether that happens in an induction centre, in an accommodation centre or at the beginning of dispersal. The vital thing is that the applicant gets it. That is in the interests of the quality of first decisions and the avoidance of further appeals and judicial reviews. I very much look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Judd: Anything that the Minister can say to underline the Government's determination that people shall have access to legal advice from the beginning in their own interests and those of good procedures and sensible outcomes would be welcome.
Lord Renton: I support Amendment No. 176 for several reasons in addition to those that my noble friend has mentioned. I find the drafting of the whole clause unsatisfactory. Unless legal advice is given about the effect of the cross-references to the 1971 Act, they will create appalling obscurity for asylum seekers. After all, 1971 is 30 years ago.
There is a further problem. At the top of page 33, "programme of induction" is defined as:
"education about the nature of the asylum process",
From a legal point of view, I have never come across that definition. I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. The Government should also carefully consider accepting Amendment No. 177.
Even if those amendments are agreed, I can save the Committee my making another speech later by saying that the whole clause is unsatisfactory from the point of view of drafting and cross-references and because it will place asylum seekers at an appalling disadvantage. There we are. Whatever the decision on the amendments, I hope that the Government will look at the clause again.
Earl Russell: The Committee seems pretty well unanimous in favour of Amendment No. 176. However, it is not the only amendment in the group. I shall follow up what my noble friend Lord Greaves has said on Amendment No. 177.
Children seeking asylum in this country tend to arrive in a state of trauma. One who is known to me had come from Kosovo, where she had seen her grandparents shot by Serbs in her presence. She did not speak for three months after that. I am happy to say that she is now doing fine and is a strong justification for educating asylum seekers in the normal school system, where she is thriving.
Not everybody in that situation recovers as quickly. Very often, the speed with which help is given to people in that situation makes an enormous difference to how effective it is. For a child in particular, to be able to say
1280
what has happened to them to somebody who is capable of understanding their words and the emotional significance of them can be extraordinarily valuable.
I would understate the case if I said that in this case a stitch in time saves nine. It may save 999. The care process is very expensive. Even from a Treasury paint of view, one does not want to involve people in it more than necessary.
I also support Amendment No. 177ZA, which says:
"Victims of torture, including rape, whose trauma is likely to be compounded by being detained in conditions which may be reminiscent of the detention they fled, will be exempt".
We believed we had achieved that on, I think, the 1996 Bill, when we saw a powerful coalition of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool as he then was—now the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard—the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.
We believed then that we had been given adequate undertakings that victims of torture would riot be detained. It has not proved to be the case. As far as I can see, the selection of people for detention is entirely random. Victims of torture seem still to he detained in just about the same proportion as everyone else.
These are not merely people who have done nothing wrong. They are not merely people who are not even accused of doing anything wrong. They are people to whom very great wrong has been done. To detain them without cause shown and without charge gives a very literal meaning to words that are normally used metaphorically: compounding a felony.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us again the undertaking that we were given in 1996, and that, if so, the Government are able to take control of the administrative process which leads to detention sufficiently thoroughly to be able, as I am sure they wish to do, to make that undertaking good. It will be a difficult struggle. I wish them luck with it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should like to start by saying something positive about these amendments. It is this. I can well sense the feeling and mood of the House, and I support and encourage the sympathy that has been expressed for those who come here after very traumatic circumstances and have to undergo a process. I also think that the debate about asylum seekers has usefully moved on. I am hearing a much more positive attitude and approach to asylum seekers, and I think that that is all to the good. However, that does not mean that we do not have to have in place a set of very proper, very rigorous, but, as I said before, occasionally uncomfortable processes of bureaucracy which can occasionally seem insensitive. However, if we are to have a proper programme of managed migration, it is in everyone's interest that those rigorous processes are in place.
These amendments again pick away at and examine the operation of the induction process. I think that we have established that the induction programme is an important element in the new procedures and that it is

1281
right that we have included them. We have discussed this programme and these procedures on quite a few occasions in our debates.
Amendments Nos. 176 and 177A deal with access to legal advice. In discussing this issue within the context of Clause 59, we really do need to be clearer about the nature and purpose of the induction programme. I think that this is an iterative process; we are all beginning to learn what that process entails.
The Government's position on legal advice was set out quite clearly in the White Paper. Paragraph 4.36 states:
"While access to legal advice is not a pre-requisite to initial decision making, and should not hold up the decision-making process, the Government is committed to ensuring access to quality legal advice at that, and all later stages, for all asylum seekers whether or not they are in an Accommodation Centre".
The induction programme is not, however, part of the decision-making process. I think that that is probably the dividing line in this debate on this issue. We are not considering the merits of an individual's asylum claim. Rather, we are giving asylum seekers information about the overall process and their rights and responsibilities within that process. There is therefore no need for legal advisers to be present while such information is being provided.
I think that we need to pause and think about what that means. What we are saying is this. At that very early stage, we are describing a process; we are advising people and helping them to understand when they can make best use of quality legal advice. That is what it is about.
Information about legal advice will form part of the induction programme. So before a person leaves, they will, for example, be given information about how they can obtain access to legal advice in the area in which they will be living. They will also be given a date for when the interview on the substance of their asylum claim will be held. This will normally be 2 or 3 weeks from the date they leave the induction programme. So all asylum seekers will, if they wish, have the opportunity to discuss their claim in advance of the interview.
I think that these arrangements are right and set things in the right order, and that there is no basis for imposing the requirement in this amendment that legal advice be provided at the induction programme stage. The induction programme will explain the virtue, value and necessity of good legal advice. It will not in itself be a part of the process of providing that legal advice.
I turn to Amendment No. 177. Although I fully understand why the amendment has been tabled, I do not think that it is necessary or, in the circumstances, appropriate. The policy intention is that children who are dependants of their asylum-seeking parents will accompany them to an induction centre. That is beneficial to all concerned, and I cannot see any reason to prefer that the children be separated at that stage.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will also receive induction. It is as important for them that they understand what is going on as it is for adults. They
1282
may come here in a very confused state. They may not understand at all our language and culture. The induction programme is an enabling and helpful tool to take them through that process. It is expected that such induction will happen probably at separate locations from where programmes for adults are run. They will need, of course, to be of a different nature.
The provision in the Children Act 1989 to which the amendment refers enables a local authority to carry out an assessment of a child's needs where it appears to such an authority that a child within their area is in need. My understanding is that in very few cases would a local authority carry out such an assessment in respect of a child who was here as a dependant. In most cases, no particular needs would exist which would merit an assessment being made.
Consequently, it would clearly be inappropriate for such an assessment to be made a requirement in relation to a dependent child going to an induction centre. Adequate arrangements will exist to cater for children during their short stay at or near an induction programme, and it makes no sense to impose the condition set out in the amendment. The amendment would impose such a condition. It would either place an unacceptable and perhaps even unnecessary burden on local authorities to carry out assessments where there was no justification; or it would prevent dependent children going to induction centres since such assessments may not be carried out.
I should add that a core assessment can take up to 35 days. If the intention of this amendment is to hold up the asylum process for this period, then I think that it is very misguided indeed. No one would gain from such delay in the system. Where there are cases that merit an assessment of a child by a local authority, the Children Act 1989 enables that to be done. So no specific provision is needed in relation to a clause on induction centres.
We contend that very few cases are likely to arise where it would be harmful to a dependent child for it to reside near a programme centre. However, should such a case arise, there is no requirement in the Bill as drafted that a child must reside in such a place. As noted earlier, the clause provides a power that may be exercised, but does not have to be exercised in every case.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 178A, which would prevent a person being moved out of their accommodation near an induction programme site until the Secretary of State had satisfied himself that access to legal advice would be available in the area to which the asylum applicant was to be sent. As I said earlier, applicants who go through the programme will be given information before they leave about how they can obtain access to legal advice in the area where they will be living. If a person is going to an accommodation centre, there will be access to legal advice; it will be there on location. Moreover, if a person is dispersed to part of the NASS estate, he will be able to obtain legal advice. The whereabouts of that advice will be made plain and clear to him.

1283
It will be for applicants who make their own accommodation arrangements to decide how they will access legal advice and support. However, as I explained earlier, they will be given information on legal advice in their area during the course of the induction programme. We shall do everything we can to ensure that that occurs. It is in the interests of the state to provide that legal advice as it will help individuals to help the state reach a proper decision and will ensure that people's rights are fully understood. Those rights are important and we need to protect them.
I am satisfied that applicants will gain sufficient information from the induction programmes to seek legal advice. That is our aim and objective. I referred to the Government's commitment in the White Paper to asylum seekers having that advice. Arrangements will be in place to enable that to happen. Therefore, I can see no reason for adopting the proposed amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: Does the Minister consider that the care assessment is in a child's best interests? Surely it should be carried out irrespective of the length of any delay in the asylum process. For that reason surely it is in the best interests of a child.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The assessment proposed in the amendment would not necessarily be in the best interests of a child, particularly of a child who is with his family in an induction centre. To put such a child through a social services assessment at that stage might be completely unnecessary. There will, of course, need to be flexibility. The system is now somewhat more geared to the needs of the individual and where it is appropriate such an assessment could be made. The power exists for it to be made.
Earl Russell: The Minister made a couple of remarks that worried me a little. First, he described this as part of a process of managed migration. That rather strengthens me in the opinion that I expressed on Monday; namely, that asylum and immigration ought to be seen as two different subjects. They ought to be managed by two different divisions of the Home Office and included in two different Bills. As soon as the thinking of one subject overflows into the other, mistakes occur. It was clear from the report, Deciding to Detain, which I quoted on Monday, that immigration officers live by the creed of A P Herbert's epitaph on an archbishop:
"My predecessors fighting sin
Did their best to bring men in
But I was best without a doubt
At keeping the unworthy out
So when I died the Church was one and that was me".
That is not the spirit in which asylum law should be administered.
The other thing that worried me a little was when the Minister said that it was the duty of the induction centres to give information to asylum seekers about the process of asylum. However, he did not say
1284
anything at all about receiving information from asylum seekers. But if the process is to be at all useful, it needs to be a two-way process. I should like to know from when the asylum claim starts to run. When does the clock start ticking? Does it start ticking after they have come out of the induction centre, when they have access to legal advice, or does it start ticking the minute they go into the induction centre before they have had any access to legal advice? If it were the second, it would be of some concern to me.
I appreciate the point that the Minister made about the difficulty of getting a social services assessment of a traumatised child. The BMA brief on the Bill is full of such cases. However, that is precisely why it is necessary to have a duty placed on the local authority. It is an argument that I have heard repeated over and over again by those who have taken part in the Grand Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill. It is an argument which has some place here
It is also important that advice should be in many contexts impartial. Suppose, for example, that advice is given on repatriation. It may not be the intention of the present Government, but I am perfectly able to envisage a future government who might give such advice. It would be vitally important that that advice should be given by someone impartial.
Recently I came across a rather useful and interesting quotation in Sir William Wade's book on administrative law from the committee on Ministers' powers in 1932 which pointed out that a cynical and lazy Minister may much more often be able to give an impartial ruling on a judicial matter than one who is more zealous in his particular duty. The committee stated:
"An easygoing and cynical Minister rather bored with his office and sceptical of the value of his department, would find it far easier to apply a judicial mind to a purely judicial problem connected with the department's administration than a Minister whose head and heart were in his work. Parliament should be chary of imposing on Ministers the ungrateful task of giving judicial decisions in matters in which their very zeal for the public service can scarcely fail to unbalance their unconscious".
I do not think that I would describe the Home Secretary as an easygoing and cynical Minister. So the Home Secretary equipped with those powers might well apply them in a spirit in which zeal was more obvious than impartiality. Even if he did not do so, he might very well be unjustly accused of having done so. It is a suspicion from which, if I were Home Secretary, I would rather like to protect myself.
These amendments could be in the Home Secretary's personal interest quite as much as they are in the interests of asylum seekers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall respond to a couple of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl, as ever, entertains the Committee with an historical discourse. I was interested in his description of Ministers. The Home Secretary does an extremely good job in difficult circumstances. I am grateful that the noble Earl does not think that he is a cynic; he certainly is not. The Bill is testament to that. We are trying hard to get it right in everyone's interests

1285
so that the process is not seen as cynical but one that works for those who are caught up in the asylum process.
I shall not enter into a long debate about asylum being mixed up with managed migration as I do not believe that that would take us much further in considering the amendments. We are trying to ensure that there is no confusion between asylum and managed migration. The asylum process should not be abused. It is in everyone's best interest that it should be used properly.
I am conscious that I did not respond to an issue that the noble Earl raised earlier. I believe that he referred to Amendment No. 177ZA when he said that victims of torture should not be sent to induction centres. However, induction centres are not detention centres. We are not sending people to detention centres. The atmosphere in an induction centre is very different.
Earl Russell: Will the doors in induction centres be locked at night?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand that they will not. Induction centres do not resemble detention centres in any way.
The noble Earl asked whether, if there were special circumstances which justified a person not going to an induction centre, the Secretary of State need not send him or her there. I refer to the case of someone who has self-evidently suffered torture and discomfort before arriving in this country to seek asylum. Flexibility is available in the matter. We should celebrate the fact that that flexibility exists.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked when an asylum claim starts. Our understanding is that it starts from the moment at which it is recorded. That happens before the induction centre stage. That is when the clock starts to tick.
I hope that I have responded fairly to the points that the noble Earl raised.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. In his response to my amendment, he drew to the attention of Members of the Committee the Government's White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, which was published in February 2002. In particular he drew to our attention paragraph 4.36 in support of the proposition that he sought to sustain. I remind him of the words that he quoted just a few minutes ago. That paragraph states:
"While access to legal advice is not a pre-requisite to initial decision making, and should not hold up the decision making process, the Government is committed to ensuring access to quality legal advice at that, and all later stages, for all asylum seekers whether or not they are in an Accommodation Centre".
First, I want to dispose of the statement that,
"the Government is committed to ensuring access to quality legal advice".
1286
That commitment does not appear anywhere in the Bill. Earlier in the Bill there is a commitment to provide the facilities for the provision of legal advice. When the relevant amendment was debated, the understanding of Members of the Committee was that legal advice would be financed by the Legal Services Commission. We all know that the Legal Services Commission deals with legal aid in the context of civil matters and that it applies a fairly stiff test before it is disposed to provide legal aid for asylum cases. There is no guarantee in the Bill for quality legal advice. However, it appears that paragraph 4.36 of the White Paper requires that. I hope that between now and Report, the Minister will see that the Bill is amended to that effect.
That is not, however, germane to the amendment. What is germane to the amendment is the fact that paragraph 4.36, in my submission, achieves the opposite to what the Minister said, in response to my opening statement, it would achieve. My understanding of the paragraph, which I have just quoted, is that it contains a clear commitment to provide legal advice at the induction stage. All the later stages—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I read that paragraph differently. My reading of it is that the legal advice will be there from the point at which an initial decision is made. Legal advice will be necessary at that point, not at the point of induction. The induction process, which, as I described, may be quite short or perhaps up to two weeks, will involve facilitating people's access at a later stage so that the legal advice is there to enable representations to be made at the decision-making stage.
Lord Kingsland: The commitment here is to give legal advice at the initial decision-making stage and at "all later stages". However, the "later stages" in the paragraph are the accommodation or dispersal stages. So far as I am aware, there is no intervening stage between induction and accommodation or dispersal. So how can the Minister's interpretation possibly be correct?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that my understanding is the right one; I am confident that it is. However, we will reflect on the noble Lord's words. I believe that the reference to the accommodation centre is something of a red herring. That is simply a matter of where people are living. The important point is that we ensure that throughout the decision-making stages, there is good legal advice.
I re-emphasise that the induction centre is not part of the decision-making process but that it is part of the asylum process. That needs to be understood. Paragraph 4.36 of the White Paper supports the contention that legal advice is available before a decision is taken. That, surely, is the important point.
Lord Kingsland: However—
Earl Russell: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will forgive me; I beg his pardon.

1287
Asylum seekers will be put at a more serious disadvantage if they are not able to get legal advice in induction centres and if there is no duty to provide it. The medical foundation is aware of—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Why is that the case? Some of those people attending the induction process —we should be honest about this—may not have more than a rudimentary understanding of the English language. During the induction process, it may well be the case that they will benefit from having some interpretation facility so that it can be properly explained to them how the decision-making process will work and so that they can get access to good-quality legal advice before decisions are made. The induction programme opens up the system for them so that legal advice is available to them before a decision is made.
Earl Russell: I was about to answer the Minister's point in my next sentence.
The medical foundation knows that a good many people are leaving induction centres and going to London to get legal advice, thereby putting themselves in breach of their legal residence requirement. The Minister probably remembers the days when he used to wait for exam results. It was an anxious period. If one could get the information sooner, one was rather keen to do so. That anxiety is nothing compared with the anxiety about the determination of one's asylum claim. If people can get legal advice sooner by going to London—resident requirement or not—they will do so. It would be elementary to let them have the facilities on the spot so that they could take advantage of them at once. That would save a great deal of time spent hunting for people who have gone looking for legal advice elsewhere. That would be to the Minister's convenience as well as a kindness to the asylum seeker.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Earl is making a very good point but it is different from the one which I was seeking to make. My point was about the proper construction and language of paragraph 4.36 of the White Paper. It is clear that its language envisages that a decision-making process takes place before the movement either to accommodation centre or dispersal. That is clear from the language of that paragraph. The only stage before the move to the accommodation centre is the induction centre. It must follow then, as night follows day, that the initial decision-making process takes place at the induction centre. If so, there is a clear commitment by the Government to give legal advice at that stage. This is not a question of the Minister reflecting on my words; it is a question of the Minister reflecting on his Government's own White Paper and the commitment that it contains.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are going to have to disagree on the construction of the contents of the White Paper. The induction programme, as I said, is not part of the decision-making process. Decisions come later. Whether or not someone is in an
1288
accommodation centre is in a sense somewhat irrelevant. When they are in the accommodation centre, they will be getting legal advice on site, but that may well be at the dispersal stage or in other arrangements.
We are saying—this is where the debate comes to a point—that we do not believe that legal advice during the induction programme is the right place for such advice; we believe that legal advice should come later. We are trying to use the induction programme so that people can have access to good quality legal advice and can know what sort of legal advice they require and where to get it. I make that point because I believe that it is germane and important.
I can understand the anxiety that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggests some asylum seekers may experience. It is an anxious time in their lives—there is no doubt about that. But it may not be the best time for them to seek legal advice. We are trying to be a helpful facilitator. We are trying, to ensure that asylum seekers receive good quality advice and not unhelpful advice because some people in the business are less than scrupulous.
Earl Russell: If the Minister wants to ensure that they receive good quality advice, why does he not provide it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are endeavouring to ensure that they receive good quality advice. That is why the commitment is there and in the White Paper.
I pick up the point about accommodation centres made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The wording of paragraph 4.36 does, indeed, include a specific reference to accommodation centres. It appears in the section on accommodation centres. Paragraph 4.36 means that people in accommodation centres, in other NASS accommodation or elsewhere will all have access to legal advice. All those stages occur after a stay in an induction centre. That is the point that I have been making.
Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he understand that asylum seekers may want independent advice on some of the information, instructions or whatever they are given in induction centres? They may want independent advice on the information that they are given about the process that they will go through and about the way that they will be treated, and so on. It is not a question of being given advice on their claims but on the way that they are treated.
While I am on my feet, I wonder whether the Minister will give us an assurance that induction centres are not, and will not, be used in any way to persuade an asylum seeker to withdraw his claim and go home. Will he give an assurance that no such inducements or advice will be given once the asylum claim has been made? If that were to happen, it would certainly be a matter on which people would require legal advice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In a sense, the noble Lord is being helpful in relation to the point that I am trying to make. Is it not better that the legal advice is not given at the induction stage in the induction centre? If it is given off the premises, then surely the trust that a person going through the process has will be that much greater. There will be a degree of independence to the advice. It will be separate from a process which simply explains and provides information to people.
Lord Judd: Will my noble friend give way? I have been listening to this exchange with great interest. Does he agree that one of the basic realities of political life is that a perception becomes a political reality? In that context, my noble friend—I say this with some humility—is perhaps not taking sufficiently seriously the political fact that there is a perception that the induction process will be used as a means of conditioning people and that it will be used as part of a negative-inspired policy instead of a justice-inspired policy. It is in that context that some reassurance is required that people can continue to receive legal advice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes an important point. In a sense, it picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that a degree of cynicism may exist. We are trying to produce a clear process that people can understand so that they can move on. For that reason, I should have thought that it would not necessarily be best to place legal advice in the middle of the induction centre programme.
The purpose of that programme is to make clear to people what will happen to them and what the process involves and to avail them of the opportunity at a later stage to obtain legal advice before decisions are made. That is what we set out in the White Paper and that is what we are seeking to achieve.
This has been a long debate and I am not sure that more is to be gained from it. We shall take away and reflect upon all the comments made by Members of the Committee who have been involved in the debate because they need to be reflected upon. I hope that noble Lords will also reflect upon the points that we have been making as part of this argument and discussion.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may remind him that on Monday I referred to the case of the Ariana Airlines jet which was hijacked and came down at Stansted and from which all the passengers were removed to the Fire Service College in Worcestershire. They were kept there over the weekend and severe pressure was brought upon them to persuade them to return to Afghanistan. It is episodes of that nature that make us anxious that the induction process will not purely impart information to the asylum seekers but will exert indirect, or even direct, pressures on them to withdraw their claims or to vary them for the convenience of the Home Office.
Therefore, I ask the noble Lord who will be in the business of imparting information to those people? If it is the Immigration Service, the suspicion will always
1290
be aroused that the service will be able to exert improper influence on asylum seekers. If the induction centres are to be manned by people who do not belong to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, perhaps that will give Members of the Committee some reassurance.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that the induction programme will be properly thought through and carefully designed and that people who are part of that process will be properly trained. Of course, it is not a question of applying pressure on people; it is about helping them through a process and ensuring that they understand it. We want people to be able to exercise their rights properly and to understand what will happen to them.
I have been advised that support for the programme is being provided by the Migrant Helpline, which is not a government body. Organisations such as that can help greatly in ensuring that the induction programmes are perceived as helpful, useful and valuable to those who go through them.
Lord Kingsland: I want to help the Minister here because I do not want this amendment to end up in a confrontation, although it may have to. The Minister is confident about the meaning of the words in paragraph 4.36. Therefore, will he undertake to place those words on the face of the Bill? He is so confident of his own interpretation that surely he must say that he will. Will he do that—or will he place words on the face of the Bill that reflect exactly the words in paragraph 4.36?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, I am confident of the interpretation that I have given. I am prepared, as I said a few moments ago, to reflect long and hard on what has been said in the debate. I shall not give a cast-iron commitment across the Dispatch Box and I do not believe that the noble Lord would expect me to do so. That would be wrong. But I am happy to give very careful consideration to what the noble Lord said and to reflect further on it. I recognise the importance and validity of this debate. It is important because it gets to the heart of ensuring that people properly access their legal rights and properly understand what will happen to them and what the process entails.
Lord Kingsland: I gave the noble Lord the Minister the opportunity to back his own belief in what those words meant by placing them on the face of the Bill. Clearly, he will not do so. Therefore, it is with regret that I shall ask to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Liverpool, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lucas, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ludford, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Luke, L.

Attlee, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Avebury, L.

McNally, L.

Barker, B.

Maddock, B.

Blatch, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Boardman, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Newby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chalfont, L.

Noakes, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Plumb, L.

Cox, B.

Razzall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rennard, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dundee, E.

Roper, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Russell, E.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Sandwich, E.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Freeman, L.

Selborne, E.

Geddes, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Greaves, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Henley, L.

Stewartby, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Joffe, L.

Tope, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kingsland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Laird, L.

Walmsley, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ahmed, L.

Crawley, B.

Alli, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Andrews, B.

David, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bach, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Desai, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dubs, L.

Brennan, L.

Elder, L.

Brett, L.

Erroll, E.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Carter, L.

Filkin, L.

Christopher, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Gale, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Golding, B.

1292

Goldsmith, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Monson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morgan, L.

Grenfell L.

Nicol, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Palmer, L.

Harrison, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Radice, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Sewel, L.

Chancellor)

Sheldon, L.

Islwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thornton, B.

Lipsey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Walpole, L.

[Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Whitaker, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitty, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Massey of Darwen, B.

Privy Seal)

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.59 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 177 to 177A not moved]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 178:
Page 33, line 10, leave out from "shall" to end of line and insert "not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 178, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 180. The amendments would mean that regulations made under Clauses 59 and 60 would be made by all-in-native rather than negative resolution. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the following matter. Regulations made under Clauses 59 and 60 can be made only in respect of the definition of "dependant" in each clause. For what reason will, "dependant" be defined under separate regulations in each clause? What difference do the Government have in mind?
Furthermore, why will there be a different definition of "dependant" in Clause 59 and in Clause 60 from that in Clause 18 where "dependant" is defined for the purposes of accommodation centres? Shall we end up with three different definitions of "dependant": one for Clause 59, one for Clause 60 and one for Clause 18? If so, what are the reasons behind that? Even if there are good reasons, have the Government considered whether that will be confusing for asylum seekers and their dependants, as well as for everyone else? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is an occasion when what I am about to say may find favour with the noble

1293
Lord. I am sure that he will be pleased about that, although we have had some good discussions. Upon reflection we have concluded that it would be better to define the term "dependant" on the face of the Bill rather than leave it to subordinate legislation. We alerted the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform to that intention, which it welcomed. We shall bring forward amendments on Report along the lines indicated to the committee.
Two factors will determine whether someone is treated as a dependant—a person's treatment is the important factor—for the purpose of Clauses 59 and 60. The first, and prior, matter is whether a person wishes to be treated as a dependant. If a family member is not seeking to enter or to remain on the basis of their relationship with the principal applicant, they will not be seeking to stay as a "dependant" and will thus not come within the scope of the clause, unless they are an asylum seeker in their own right. It is important to remember that no one will be forced to be a dependant.
The second factor is whether we consider that a person qualifies to be treated as a dependant. It is the need to cater for that factor which led us to thinking that a regulation-making power would be desirable. But we have now concluded that a definition on the face of the Bill would be as effective.
The starting point is that the spouse and dependent children under 18 of a principal application would normally be treated as a dependant if they so wished. Other family members would not normally qualify as dependants, but our policy is to treat people outside the main definition as dependants where special circumstances justify it. For example, an elderly relative or a relative with a disability might be included in certain cases.
The amendments we plan to table on Report will, we think, deal with those two factors to the Committee's satisfaction. With the definition placed on the face of the Bill, the question of the appropriate order-making procedure falls away. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We expect the same definition will appear in Clauses 59 and 60. I hope that clarifies that point.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response to my question. I should like to see how this is handled as a matter of fact. I assume there is an intention to introduce this amendment in the version of the Bill which will be before your Lordships on Report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178A not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Asylum-seeker: residence, &c. restriction]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 179:
Page 33, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Clause 60 deals with persons who apply for asylum while still within their permitted leave to remain in another capacity; for example, a visitor or a student. The Explanatory Notes say that there are very few people in that category and it would be useful if the Minister could be more precise and tell us how many people have applied for asylum when they still had leave to remain in some other capacity. How many people would have been covered by the provisions of Clause 60 if it had been in operation for the whole of 2001 or, even better, for the first half of 2002?
As I understand it, until this clause is passed the Secretary of State has no power to impose residence or reporting restrictions on those persons under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. Can the Minister tell the Committee what the practice was with those persons? Were they asked to comply voluntarily with the suggestions made by the Secretary of State as to reporting or residence, or were they left alone until their permitted leave to remain expired? Has any record been kept of whether people in that category kept in contact with the IND to pursue their claims? If they had always intended to remain here illegally, they might as well simply have gone to ground at the end of their permitted stay rather than applying for asylum at the end of that stay. So it can be assumed that most of the people concerned had a genuine case and intended to pursue it in the normal way.
What happened when they reached the end of their six months as visitors or as students? Did the power to impose restrictions then kick in? Paragraph 21 refers to a person liable to be detained under Clause 16, which in turn refers to a person who may be required to submit to an examination under Clause 2 which is concerned only with persons arriving at a port of entry. There seem to be no equivalent powers relating to a person already in the country whose leave to remain would have expired but for the fact that they had applied for variation of that leave while it was still current. If the Minister will explain what the procedures are under the current legislation and what difficulties have been experienced in practice, it would help the Committee to understand the necessity for the clause. I can see the logic in applying the same restrictions to all asylum seekers whatever their immigration status before they made their claim. But unless the absence of these powers can be shown to have caused problems, the case has not been made out.
In any case, ILPA says that children should not be subject to reporting restrictions and the penalties which can be awarded for non-compliance with such restrictions—I suppose they are referring to unaccompanied children. There can only be a small number of children admitted in some other capacity who apply for asylum after entry, though one could imagine how it might occur in theory.

1295
For example, a child may have been sent to boarding school in this country by the leader of the opposition in Ruritania and following a military coup the parents are thrown into prison. However, they manage to get a message to the child in boarding school that he or she is to apply for asylum half-way through the academic year when the child is still within the permitted leave to remain period as a student. No doubt in those circumstances the child would remain voluntarily at the school. The school could make arrangements for the holidays and the social workers would look after the interests of the child if the parents were not able to appoint a guardian. Presumably the IND would then be able to deal with whoever was in loco parentis.
If the child is a member of a family, and the head of the family applies for asylum after entering in some other capacity, then, if the Minister can satisfy us that the restrictions of paragraph 21 should be capable of imposition on the parents, obviously the child should reside at the same address and comply with the same restrictions. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 60 is concerned with residence and reporting restrictions which may be imposed on an asylum seeker who has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom at the time of their application, or who is the dependant of such a person. It needs to be explained that this category of asylum seeker is presently a small one in percentage terms.
The noble Lord asked for some figures. There are no hard statistics but the number will be low. There are few in-country asylum seekers in any event. But, as I speak today, we do not have data. We will carry out some checks and see what figures we can put together. But it is unlikely that we have hard and fast records covering that point. So I cannot satisfy the noble Lord.
The great majority of asylum seekers have no leave when they apply because they have applied on arrival or they are illegal entrants or overstayers. Those relatively few asylum seekers who do have leave are not subject to any reporting or residence restrictions. Clause 60 changes that by extending existing powers in relation to those without leave to asylum seekers with leave and to their dependants. We think it is important for the fairness and efficiency of the new asylum processes that asylum applicants are treated the same, whatever their circumstances before they applied.
Amendment No. 179 would take away the purpose of the clause by omitting subsection (2). That is the subsection which provides that restrictions may be imposed on asylum seekers with extant leave in a similar way that they may be imposed on those without such leave, in accordance with paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. The noble Lord appreciates that point. I am sure that he also appreciates that removing that subsection would take all meaning away from the clause. It is for that reason that we cannot accept it.
I want this to be understood. We want to make plain that Clause 60 should not be seen as a blank cheque to impose restrictions on asylum seekers with extant
1296
leave. That is not what we seek to achieve. The power it confers, of course, will need to be exercised reasonably in all circumstances. I also want to make clear to the noble Lord that individual circumstances will be taken into account when deciding on appropriate reporting restrictions. So the circumstances of each case will be very carefully weighed up. Such restrictions will not be unnecessarily onerous or imposed without good reason. If, for example, an asylum seeker cannot report on a particular day because of ill health he will be able to contact us to make alternative arrangements.
The noble Lord asked a few pertinent points. He asked whether reporting requirements were voluntary before this legislation. No voluntary reporting requirements were imposed. He also asked whether they kept in contact. No figures as to how many did not keep in contact are available. The noble Lord also asked what problems from absence of powers exist in Clause 60. We are introducing a new asylum process with the emphasis on greater contact for good reason, so that we understand the nature of what we are dealing with through the asylum process and also greatly to the benefit of asylum seekers.
When such a system is put in place it will become more important that all asylum seekers are subject to it. So there is a universality to it. We consider that the power in Clause 60 is important, whatever has happened in past practice.
The noble Lord also made the point that children should not be subject to reporting restrictions. The power to require all asylum seekers, including children, to report is needed. But I can give this clear assurance: it will be sensitively, sensibly and—I think importantly—compassionately applied, and not as a matter of simple routine where the need to maintain contact is less evident; for example—the example that the noble Lord gave—they are at boarding school. It would seem unreasonable and lacking in sensitivity to try to set out a rigorous reporting regime in those circumstances. There will be flexibility. We shall take careful account of the circumstances of the individuals involved. I hope with that that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I had hoped for rather more information than the noble Lord has been able to give. Even though the number, he says, is extremely small, he is not aware of what the practice has been, except to say that the voluntary restrictions have not been imposed on someone who applies for asylum with only a limited leave to remain for some other purposes.
Furthermore, he is not able to say what has been the experience of the IND with regard to the reliability of those persons in continuing their applications and maintaining contact with the IND. I am surprised because, if the number is as minute as he told the Committee, surely it would have been easy enough for the Minister to come along and give that information.
Nor has he told me—which is even more important—what has been the practice when someone gets to the end of a limited leave to remain in some

1297
other capacity; for example, as a student or in any short-term capacity. It might be a visitor with six months leave to remain. He comes to the end of that period. Is there then power under Schedule 2 to impose reporting or residence requirements on him? Or, because he applied within an existing limited leave to remain, is the Secretary of State deprived of ever being able to exercise any restrictions on that person from the time of his application until it is completed?
Curiously, it would appear that the Secretary of State has power to persuade that person to go into an induction centre because the induction centre process is not dependent on Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. We need to explore that curious anomaly in further detail. Perhaps I may leave these rather complicated questions for a discussion which I hope to have in due course with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, or with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, about some other left-over matters from earlier Committee sittings. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Serious criminal]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 181:
Page 34, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert "that offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment is fourteen years or more"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 180, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 182 to 184. They seek to amend the proposed criteria by which a person may be regarded under United Kingdom law as a serious criminal for the purposes of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention.
Article 33 of the convention prohibits the return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of the well-known convention reasons—namely, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or possession of a particular political opinion.
The article contains an exception in its second paragraph which allows this provision to be disapplied in respect of any refugee who may reasonably be regarded as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or a refugee who, having been finally convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
The amendments relate to the statutory definition that the Government propose in Clause 61, which will be a definition for the purposes of our domestic law of a serious criminal. Clause 61(2) provides that a person shall be presumed to have fulfilled the test laid down in Article 33(2) of the convention if he is convicted of a crime in the United Kingdom and sentenced to at least two years imprisonment. Alternatively, subsection (3) provides that a person is to be presumed to have fulfilled the test if he is convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment outside the United Kingdom and he could have been sentenced to such a term in the United Kingdom for a similar offence.
1298
The four amendments present two pairs of alternatives that would change those tests so that a person would be presumed to be a serious criminal if he had been convicted in this country of an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is either 10 years or more or 14 years or more; or if he was convicted abroad of an offence which, in the United Kingdom, would carry the same level of maximum punishment of at least either 10 or 14 years.
First, it is important to remember that Article 33 of the convention refers to a serious criminal as someone who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime. The definition that the Government propose relates not to the crime that the person has committed but only to the punishment that he has received. Have the Government satisfied themselves that the test that they propose, which turns on punishment rather than crime, is consistent with the provisions of the convention?
Secondly, will the inflexible criteria of two years imprisonment proposed by the Government cover all the circumstances in which someone, who is a danger to the community in the United Kingdom, is convicted of a particularly serious crime? To give an example, under the clause as drafted, someone sentenced to two years, after a trial on a plea of not guilty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which the maximum term is five years, will be presumed to be a serious criminal for the purposes of the convention. Yet someone sentenced to 18 months—perhaps including a substantial discount for a guilty plea—for child pornography offences, for which the maximum sentence is 10 years, or drug dealing, for which the maximum sentence in respect of class A drugs is life imprisonment, would not be presumed to be a serious criminal.
Everything would hang on whether the person in question had been sentenced to two years imprisonment or more. If he had been sentenced to 18, 21 or even 23 months in prison, he would not be presumed to be a serious criminal. If another person had been sentenced to two years for the same offence, he would be presumed to be a serious criminal.
To reiterate an example that I gave earlier, dealing in drugs is certainly a serious crime and drug dealers are certainly a danger to the community. Yet sentences of less than two years are not unheard of, especially on a guilty plea. It is by no means guaranteed that, in all cases, someone who commits a serious crime and may be regarded as a serious criminal will receive a sentence of at least two years unsuspended imprisonment.
A further problem with a rigid two-year imprisonment test relates to crimes committed abroad. How can the Government say, with any certainty, that someone who should be regarded as a serious criminal for the purposes of the convention will always be sentenced to at least two years by the courts in all foreign jurisdictions? The amendments would again cure that problem by referring to the seriousness of the comparable crime in the United Kingdom, rather than the actual sentence received abroad.

1299
Perhaps the Minister will also take this opportunity to tell us whether convictions abroad in countries such as Iraq and North Korea—perhaps, indeed, the very country from which a refugee had fled—leading to the imposition of two years imprisonment in that country, would mean that a person would be presumed to be a serious criminal under the clause? As I read the clause, that is the case.
Is that what the Government really intend? Will the nature of the country's judicial system and its adherence to the rule of law be taken into account in allowing the presumption to be rebutted? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that question as well.
Returning to the amendments, I recognise that there may well be some problems with the tests that we propose. For example, to set the test of when someone is to be regarded as a serious criminal at conviction for a crime for which the maximum sentence is 14 years would exclude all child pornography offences, the maximum sentence for which is currently 10 years.
Perhaps a better approach might be to refer not to the maximum term of imprisonment that might be imposed, as do the amendments, or to the length of the sentence, as does the Bill, but to list, in the clause or in a schedule, all of the qualifying offences, as the Government did in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, for the detailed definition of the term, "offence against a child". Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, with our limited resources, have been unable to undertake that considerable task, but it may prove a better way forward and is certainly not beyond the resources of the Government.
To conclude, for those reasons—namely, that the Government's proposals in the clause focus on the nature of the punishment imposed rather than the seriousness of the crime committed; that the level of two years imprisonment may in some circumstances be too high and inflexible; and that the sentencing practices of courts in foreign jurisdictions may well be different from ours, producing unforeseen results—I earnestly hope that the Minister will undertake to reconsider the wording of the clause. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on spotting that point. When I used to have immigration questions to raise in that jurisdiction, I had a New York attorney who rejoiced in having obtained an immigration permit for Mr John Lennon, in spite of his having had a conviction for possession of cannabis, which was an absolute offence. The attorney told me that in order to achieve that, he had used a provision in law that had never previously been used by the United States courts, except against Communist countries. He was really rather pleased with himself.
What is the present penalty for sodomy in Zimbabwe? Also—the Minister may not know the answer to this so I shall table it as a Written Question and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may receive the Answer before Report—how many Commonwealth
1300
Prime Ministers since the war have served sentences of more than two years imprisonment imposed upon them by the British authorities?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This is a Greek chorus-type remark. As ever, I have promised, through a self-denying ordinance, not to mention it more than once on any Bill. The clause that we are discussing, the very title of which demonstrates that it concerns a serious matter, was the 11th of 11 new clauses attached to the Bill by the Government in Committee in another place. The Government allowed 32½ hours for debate of this Bill in Committee. Within the past month, I have described the passage 20 years ago of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill which received 105 hours of debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was there!
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was the Opposition Whip. Those 105 hours did the Bill much good and it has stood the test of time for 20 years. The fact that the Government regard 32½ hours as being enough time in Committee means that we must debate 11 new clauses—of which this is the last—that have not been put under any scrutiny. On the whole, that must act against the proper working of Parliament.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, launched a major assault on the text of the clause. Two years must be too low a threshold. Crimes are seldom relevant to a genuine fear of persecution. That is why I urge the Government to reconsider the clause.
The Earl of Erroll: The principle behind the amendments is good. We must consider the way in which sentencing policy changes, particularly as some judges regard the prisons as being overcrowded. We cannot be certain that judges will impose the sentences that we might expect. This is not the correct measure of the seriousness of a crime.
Lord Avebury: The UNHCR handbook relating to Article 33(2) refers to crimes against the principles of the United Nations or crimes against humanity. It was never intended that the provisions of Article 33(2) should apply to relatively minor crimes such as might attract a sentence of two years. I am attracted by the idea advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that, instead of considering the sentence or the period of imprisonment, we should list qualifying offences in a schedule, as has been done in other cases. If we did that, we could cover domestic crimes and crimes committed in a foreign jurisdiction at the same time.
I have one other point to make about crimes committed in a foreign jurisdiction. How do the Government intend to treat offences of a political character or offences for which someone is tried in absentia? We all know of people who have been convicted and given serious sentences m foreign jurisdictions, without their being present in the court.

1301
There is no provision in the clause that would allow the Government to exclude such offences from consideration. The clause needs further examination. It would be useful if the Government would undertake to consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, so that they can satisfy both sides of the Committee.
Lord Judd: As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I wondered how Nelson Mandela would reflect on the clause.
Lord Avebury: It would be a good idea to consult Nelson Mandela. Perhaps, we should also consult the Movement for Democratic Change, in view of what my noble friend said about the offence of sodomy in Zimbabwe, where it attracts a sentence of more than two years. Under Clause 61, the Government could expel people accused of those offences in Zimbabwe. We could find many similar examples. In the political field, there is endless scope for finding examples of people whom we would not want to see covered by the Bill.
Lord Filkin: It has been an interesting and important debate. I cannot give a full response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, about proceedings in another place, but I shall make the oblique point that the happenstance that we will have a pause of two and a half months between Committee and Report gives the Government a good opportunity to reflect on the richness and variety of our debate on this and other points. We will do so without commitment, but it will not be a frivolous process. That may not be a full answer, but it may be a crumb of comfort.
Clause 61 defines the phrase "particularly serious crime", as used in Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, as meaning any offence for which a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment has been imposed. A person whose offence falls within that definition is presumed to constitute a danger to the community. However, the presumption is rebuttable. I shall return to that matter.
We decided on a tough yardstick in order to make it clear that high standards of conduct were expected from refugees who have the privilege and advantages of residence here. The small minority of refugees who commit serious offences—I have no exact figures, but it is about 100 a year—will be expected to argue their case for remaining here by seeking to rebut the presumption that they are a danger to the community. At present, with no formal definition of particularly serious crime in Article 33(2), it is too easy for refugees to rely on the protection of the refugee convention in order to secure their stay.
Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 suggest alternative definitions of particularly serious crime and would reduce significantly the scope for applying Article 33(2) to refugees who are convicted of criminal offences. Amendments Nos. 181 and 184 would do that by relating the phrase "particularly serious" to any offence for which the maximum period of
1302
imprisonment was 14 years or more. Amendments Nos. 182 and 183 would do so by relating the phrase to any offence for which the maximum period of imprisonment was 10 years or more. The Government do not agree that particularly serious offences are limited to those for which the maximum term is either 14 or 10 years. The adoption of 14 years as the definition would mean the exclusion of all offences with a 10-year maximum period. Those include sexual offences and indecent assault, offences against children, making threats to kill and damage or destruction of property.
The adoption of a 14-year or 10-year criterion would exclude offences carrying a maximum sentence of seven years or less. Examples include theft, child abduction and placing or dispatching of articles to cause a bomb hoax. At the five-year maximum sentence level are offences such as assault causing actual bodily harm—the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—violent disorder, the production, supply or importation of class C drugs and aggravated vehicle taking where a death occurs. All the offences that I quoted are ones in respect of which a court, following a conviction, might choose to make a recommendation for deportation. That, in itself, is an important indicator of seriousness. Previous cases in which Article 33(2) has been applied have often involved a court recommendation for deportation.
When deciding to opt for the two-year actual sentence criterion, we also had to take into account the different criminal justice system in Scotland, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, will remind us. In Scotland there is a wider range of common-law offences for which, if trial is on indictment, there is no maximum sentence. Thus, a criterion that stipulated a maximum penalty of x years could be satisfied in Scotland in cases in which it would not be satisfied elsewhere in the UK.
Another difficulty with using a criterion stipulating a maximum penalty of x years is that it would require a reference in legislation to a specific list of offences. In part, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, recommended that we consider. It may work in England, where most offences are defined, relatively narrowly, by statute; it would work less well in Scotland, where most serious offences are widely defined common-law offences and where nomen juris does not matter.
I shall turn to some of the specific questions raised. I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that someone could easily be sentenced to two years for causing actual bodily harm. He is right about that. In such circumstances, our presumption would be that the person had a case to answer. There would not be an automatic decision to remove, but the person would certainly have a case to answer. I am not an expert, but I can say that a two-year custodial sentence for ABH is a serious sentence for that offence, and we would expect to find a context in which there was at least some previous criminality.

1303
Arguing against the Government's view, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also gave the example of a sentence of 18 months for child pornography offences. Yes, on first reflection, we would expect that in the light of such behaviour those given the benefit of refugee protection would not be entitled to continuing protection. At the least, we will reflect on that matter, as he suggested.
Moreover, we are satisfied that the wording is consistent with Article 33 in that the sentence imposed is, in general terms, most likely accurately to reflect the severity of the crime and that it has taken into account not only the offence but the context in which it was committed. That is what the judge is doing when he determines the level within the discretion that he has.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I welcome what my noble friend has said, but wonder whether he has in mind a continuing discussion with the judges about the issues that have been raised.
Lord Filkin: If my noble friend meant that were the Bill to be passed in its present form would we envisage a continuing discussion with the judiciary about the matter, the answer, in short, is "no". The legislation would cover that, but I shall turn to some of the relevant protections in a moment.
As regards the schedule, for the reasons that I gave in terms of Scottish law, we have doubts about it. Nevertheless, on both sides of the Dispatch Box we recognise the difficulties. He argues cases of difficulty and definition; we see difficulties with his form of definition. It is good that we reflect on both those positions and see whether the differences can be squared. I repeat the undertaking to examine that.
As regards punishment in Iraq, the person would not automatically be covered by Clause 61. First, the crime for which the person was convicted would need to carry a possible sentence of at least two years. Secondly, the Secretary of State would not be obliged to seek to remove someone where he did not consider that the person should be so removed; for example, because he had no faith in the sentence passed in Iraq. I wanted to emphasise the point that there is the presumption to disprove by the trigger of statute. Then the Secretary of State must make a judgment which, because he is always open to judicial review challenge, must be a judgment in the round as to whether in the light of all the circumstances it appears reasonable so to do. Thirdly, in such cases it is inconceivable that people under the threat of a deportation order would not exercise their right to go to court to challenge that, and legal aid would be available to them.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, challenged me to nominate the penalty for sodomy in Zimbabwe. I was aware of the repressive approach of the Zimbabwe Government in that respect, but I do not know the level of the sentence. Of course, the clause applies to crimes committed overseas only if those crimes, if committed in the UK, would carry a sentence of more
1304
than two years. Therefore, an automatic protection exists because sodomy does not carry a criminal sentence in this country—nor should it. That provides a safeguard when actions which are considered serious crimes abroad are not considered serious crimes in the United Kingdom. I repeat that the Secretary of State also has the discretion not to seek to remove someone and must exercise that discretion after thought and consideration rather than blindly.
Lord Avebury: There is an absolute discretion in the Secretary of State's hands to decide that a particular jurisdiction—for example, Iraq and Zimbabwe—do not give people a fair trial. Does not that put too much on to the shoulders of the Secretary of State to decide in which particular foreign jurisdictions he will disregard such convictions?
Lord Filkin: First, we do not believe that he will be challenged by the volume of cases—not many cases of this type will come before him. Secondly, I do not believe that the provision is too big a burden. I believe that properly advised on the facts that he should bear in mind, he will be able to make such a judgment and will be well advised about our knowledge of the criminal law system in those countries. Were he thought to be wrong, clearly there is the possibility of an adjudicator or an IAT overturning his decision in such cases.
I want to reflect on some of the points made. We stand firm to the importance of seeking, with the protections that the clause allows, to remove people who have committed serious offences, but we will reflect on the points made in the debate.
7.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: Once again, I declare my interest as a member of an immigration appeals tribunal. I have listened most carefully to what the Minister and other noble Lords have said but know that we on the tribunal are already dealing with such cases reasonably satisfactorily. We are not given details of what is a serious crime and how long a sentence to consider, but we are asked to use our judgment as citizens of the United Kingdom. I have not yet been responsible for a case that has gone to judicial review.
I wonder why the Government believe it necessary to draft the clause in these terms. Perhaps the Minister could explain that.
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to be brief. The Government believe that there is no adequate definition in statute of what are serious crimes and that it is beneficial to provide one. In order to be part of the process of marking the seriousness of the matter, we expect people who have the protection of this country to behave responsibly and to make it clear that there are circumstances in which we would act to remove. We believe that it is necessary to do so.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. He accepts, as do I, that there are

1305
imperfections in the solutions offered by the Bill and by my amendments. There are advantages and disadvantages in both. I have not undertaken a systematic analysis of the number of offences showing how, as regards a particular offence, each of the two systems would impinge.
The Minister accepted that for England and Wales the best solution would be specific listing in the Bill. He made no criticism of that, except to say that there would be difficulties in Scotland.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord is accurate in his recollection of what I said, but he would be wrong to infer that I thought the listing was automatically perfect. I gave an undertaking to consider the pros and cons of the listing and the alternatives.
Lord Kingsland: I hear what the Minister says. If he can find no criticism, when on his feet giving a reply on behalf of the Government to the solution of listing, in contrast to the criticisms he made of the other two systems before him, there must be a presumption—and I allocate no degree of strength—that that is the best solution of the three. Accordingly, the Government, unless they have good arguments to the contrary, ought to adopt it. Of course I accept that that might mean a separate approach in Scotland from England and Wales, but that is not beyond the scope of the Bill.
Lord Filkin: It might be that uncharacteristically and unusually the noble Lord is trying to take advantage of my attempt to be brief and my genuine commitment to examine the issues. I repeat for the third time that we will examine the matter without a presumption either way.
Lord Kingsland: I am aware that we are long past the accorded time for the evening adjournment. I shall not therefore press further what I regard as an extremely strong argument on my behalf.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to consider it. We have two-and-a-half months between now and our return in October. I hope that the degree of serious consideration by the Minister will be proportionate to the length of the break. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 182 to 184 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that we return to this business not before ten minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Diabetes
7.50 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making on drawing up the Diabetes National Service Framework; and whether specific funding will be allocated to implement it.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have two key reasons for initiating the debate tonight. First, I seek to raise the question of the timing of the implementation of the Diabetes National Service Framework; and, secondly, to ask whether adequate funding will be allocated to ensure that the NSF itself will be properly implemented.
In speaking today I wish to pay tribute to bodies such as Diabetes UK and the all-party group chaired by my honourable friend Adrian Sanders. They have campaigned tirelessly for recognition of the seriousness of diabetes and improvement in diabetes care nationwide.
First, I shall set out a few facts. Around 1.4 million people in the UK are diagnosed with diabetes, with an estimated further 1 million people with undiagnosed diabetes; that is, they are unaware that they have it. Those figures already represent the largest chronic disease group in the country and diabetes is one of the fastest increasing conditions. It is estimated that about 3 million people will have diabetes in the UK by 2010.
Estimates of the costs of diabetes vary. The Kings Fund TARDIS report, published in 2000, put annual NHS expenditure at £1,738 per capita for patients with type 2 diabetes, or around £2 billion per annum, to which should be added the higher costs of 250,000 type 1 diabetes patients. Diabetes UK considers that diabetes accounts for as much as 9 per cent of the annual NHS budget. That represents a total of approximately £5.2 billion per year. Yet the potential for making savings by addressing the management of diabetes could be considerable. In his recent report, Professor Rhys Williams of Leeds University stated that £1.38 could be saved from the treatment of complications for every pound spent.
Diagnosis takes place on average nine to 12 years after the onset of the disease. As a result, up to 50 per cent of patients already show signs of complications at the point of diagnosis. These include heart disease, stroke, renal failure; retinopathy often leading to blindness; and neuropathy often leading to amputation caused by persistently raised levels of blood glucose damaging the nerves and the large and small blood vessels. The complications account for 80 per cent of diabetes-related costs. In Testing Times, the Audit Commission reported that hospital costs for people with diabetes are six times greater than for those without the disease.
People with diabetes can have a fivefold increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. All in all, diabetes can shorten life expectancy by as much as 30 per cent. It is the fourth leading cause of death in the UK.

1307
Growing levels of obesity in the population mean that, horrifyingly, we are seeing for the first time ever teenage children developing type 2 diabetes. The trend is set to continue, with almost one in 10 of under-11 year-olds categorised as obese. Girls are particularly at risk. In a recent Plymouth study, one-third of five year-olds were found to be overweight. With one in five of the adult population classified as obese, that means an inexorable and exponential growth in type 2 diabetes.
In the light of those alarming facts, it is extraordinary that diabetes is not formally included in the Government's top priorities in the NHS Plan, alongside heart disease, cancer and mental illness.
Secondly, I turn to a brief history. In January 1999, the then Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, announced the establishment of the Diabetes National Service Framework. Although it was intended that the national service framework should be implemented from April 2002, a 12-month delay was announced in October 2001 by the Minister responsible at the time. The first published stage of the NSF was the launch last December of a standards document, itself delayed by over a year. The standards document has been welcomed by diabetes organisations as the first step towards the prioritisation of diabetes and meeting the needs of people with the condition.
Those standards have the potential to provide a platform for massive improvements across standards of prevention, management and care, in particular early and effective treatment and good clinical care that will lead to the prevention of complications. However, it is extremely disappointing that the standards have been published without the necessary delivery strategy, resources or milestones to support implementation. It is unacceptable that the needs of people with diabetes have been put on hold and implementation delayed until April 2003.
It is essential to ensure that no further delays hamper the implementation of the NSF and that the delivery strategy will be published this summer. Can the Minister give the House that assurance today?
However, there may be something of a silver lining. Type 2 diabetes has been described as,
"first and foremost, a primary care condition".
Primary care trusts will play a vital role. Yet it is clear that many GPs have little interest in diabetes and inadequate skills in its management. Despite the delay, or perhaps because of it, there is now an opportunity for PCTs, with their new responsibilities under Shifting the Balance of Power and the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, to ensure that they prepare fully for implementation and undertake local assessments of the diabetes services that they provide.
I hope that the delivery strategy will address fully all the issues that must be considered with regard to implementation. I shall list only a few of them: the key need for partnership in service planning, involving people with diabetes; the major problems with staffing levels, since a recent Diabetes UK survey revealed that only one in five health authorities had the recommended number of consultants, and there is a
1308
huge shortage of specialist diabetes nurses; the need for commonly accepted blood glucose control targets; and the need to ensure the early identification of diabetes. What is the department doing to evaluate some of the diagnostic tests and screening techniques that have been developed to detect diabetes early? Surely it cannot be right that the UK National Screening Committee is due to report to the department on this only in 2005.
I come to the issue of funding. Increased resources are key to this matter. This year the Chancellor's Budget released a great deal of extra money for the NHS. Diabetes must get its fair share. Those charged with implementation on the NHS frontline must be supported with new money and given incentives to meet agreed diabetes standards. At the same time it must be recognised that spending on the prevention and management of diabetes now will save money as well as lives over the long term, as the complications of diabetes can be delayed or avoided.
As yet, the Department of Health has refused to make any commitments on additional resources to fund the NSF. With the Comprehensive Spending Review behind us, can the Minister give the House some answers today? The adequacy of funding is a real issue. The interim Wanless report used a 3 per cent per annum increase in the prevalence of diabetes as the basis for its calculations. The final Wanless report suggests that the NSF will cost an extra £600 million per annum to implement by 2010, but attributes the majority of that cost to improved care programmes and only a modest increase in prevalence.
In fact, however, in a Written Answer dated 8th May 2002 to a Parliamentary Question put by David Stewart MP, the Minister, Jacqui Smith, stated that the estimates submitted by the Department of Health to Wanless anticipated an increase in the number of diabetes patients from 1.3 million in 2002 to 1.8 million in 2011, representing an increase just short of 40 per cent. That is hardly modest.
In addition, one must take into account the undiagnosed population. If one increased the numbers with only half of the undiagnosed group, together with those already referred to, then the number of diabetes patients would rise by up to 900,000. Based on the average cost of treatment set out in the Wanless report, that could increase NHS costs by the best part of £1 billion. In that light, a £600 million increase looks seriously inadequate.
All this bears out the magnitude of the problem and suggests that the funding proposed in Wanless is far short of what is required. One need only to compare the estimated growth of resources devoted to diabetes in the period to 2010 of 5.3 per cent with the increases anticipated for coronary heart disease at 8.3 per cent, 8.8 per cent for mental health and 6.2 per cent for cancer to see the problem. The Department of Health needs to revisit its assumptions as a matter of urgency.
We face a formidable implementation agenda. If we do not address the issues that I have raised today then, as Professor Rhys Williams said in his report, the NHS risks being overwhelmed by diabetes. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, diabetes is not a lot of fun. As an insulin-dependent diabetic, when you first get the disease under control you are like one of those aliens in early sci-fi films who is sent to earth as a sleeper to infiltrate the general population. Everything on the surface is normal. Only the tell-tale signs—a packet of dextrose to counter a hypoglaecemia; an insulin pen, colourfully disguised but which is just too big to be a fountain pen bulging in your pocket; the abrupt spitting out of a cup of tea that has been wrongly laced with sugar—reveal you to others in the know as one of the brethren.
Later, if complications set in, you feel like a latter day Errol Flynn, parrying the various epee thrusts of eye disease, renal problems or foot ulcer, each of which can administer the fatal stiletto hit. Swashbuckling is for the movies, not for diabetics who are daily trying to balance lives, work, personal relationships and, of course, their daily shots of insulin.
In Banting, Best and Dorothy Hodgkin, discoverers and developers of insulin, we diabetics do, of course, have our medical heroes, along with our local GPs, diabetic nurses, hospital consultants and the long list of carers made up of friends and family who, in turn, become adept at recognising the onset of a hypoglaecemic reaction and who thus spot the right occasion when, "Yes, he does take sugar".
We have our heroes who are sufferers. Back in time to novelist H.G. Wells; "Goon", but not forgotten, comedian Harry Secombe; former Tottenham Hotspur football captain, Gary Mabbut; and finally, of course, Olympic rowing champion, Sir Steve Redgrave, in whom, if he will forgive the pun, we all stand in awe.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this vital and opportune debate. I, too, associate with his praise of Diabetes UK.
The Government displayed their willingness to take on diabetes and defeat it by publishing the standards for the National Service Framework for Diabetes in December last year. The parlous state into which funding the fight against this disease had fallen is cogently set out by the Secretary of State, Alan Milburn, in his preface to that document. He declares:
"Compared with other European countries, Britain has a poor record of blood glucose control and blood pressure control. We have",
he continues,
"higher rates of heart attacks and strokes, foot ulcers, renal failure and nerve damage",
than the rest of the EU.
The central question is whether the Government will provide the money and resources to ensure that the ambitions of the NSF can indeed be fulfilled. It has been a major disappointment among the diabetic community that the publication of the NSF delivery strategy has been delayed until summer 2002, and that the implementation of the framework has been delayed until April 2003. Summer has arrived. Can my noble friend the Minister, whom I welcome here today, tell us where the strategy paper is? Secondly, can she
1310
give us an assurance that its implementation will not be further delayed and, when it is implemented, that it will have the wherewithal to make it happen?
Will my noble friend further ensure that, at the implementation stage, local health authorities are clear that this must be one of government's funding priorities and that diabetes care must feature in all future local health improvement programmes? Will she also ensure that GP practices will be helped in meeting agreed diabetes standards by receiving additional central funds? I also wonder whether the Government will be sympathetic to appointing a diabetes czar to help the 300 primary care trusts deliver the strategy.
There will be a significant pay-back for the Government if this money is applied in a timely fashion. Diabetes care consumes almost 10 per cent of the national health budget. The more that is done to diagnose diabetics early before complications set in—and there are some 1 million diabetics undiagnosed whose condition is typically not discovered a decade after the onset of the disease—the more likely it is that diabetics can lead productive and fulfilling lives longer and thus be less of a burden on the state. After all, some one-twelfth of the Government's total health budget is spent on picking up the pieces of the complications that arise from diabetes—an arresting statistic.
In the light of this and the fact that diabetes is a major killer that tracks closely the socio-economic deprivation in the general population, and that it affects some 2.5 million people in the UK, perhaps I may register my surprise that diabetes has not been cited as a clinical priority in the public service agreement targets published early this week in the otherwise very welcome comprehensive spending review. Can my noble friend solve this mystery? Can, indeed, my noble friend say on what basis her department determines national clinical priorities? Is it the prevalence of a disease? Is it the financial cost borne by the NHS? Is it health inequality? Or are the criteria the levels of morbidity and mortality? It would help to know.
By acting now on the near pandemic of diabetes, the Government will achieve some of their other major health objectives in relation to children, older folk and heart disease. One pound in every five spent on heart disease, for instance, is diabetes related.
But money is not the whole story. Both inside and outside the doctor's surgery, spreading secure knowledge of the facts and characteristics of diabetes can pay enormous dividends. I give but one example from the 12 areas of concern set out in the standards document where we could do better by increasing professional and public understanding of the disease. I refer to the care of diabetics during their stay in hospital. Despite the good intentions of all involved, I have experienced at first hand the lamentable state of knowledge of some hospital staff with respect to, say, the timing and administering of insulin injections, and the very poor understanding of the complementary therapy of giving a diabetic patient an appropriate

1311
diet. A diabetic diet is a normal, healthy diet, not one clogged up with compulsory sponge puddings and chips with everything, as I have been offered in hospital.
Indeed, will the Minister take note of the report published today which highlights the startling imbalance of advertising budgets for a good, healthy diet of fresh fruit and vegetables and those for poorer diets of fatty foods and sugar-added preparations which are clearly features in the rise in incidence of diabetes among children?
I opened by declaring that being a diabetic is no fun—and it is not—and that much can be done through implementing the NSF to improve the lives of sufferers and help the sterling ranks of those who care for diabetics. But let me conclude with perhaps the best bit of fun that I have had related to my condition as an insulin-dependent diabetic for the past 34 years. Some 10 years ago, as an MEP with some expertise in the application of regional funds, I was summoned to the royal palace in Monaco to participate in a small conference concerned with the pollution of the Mediterranean, a subject dear to the heart of Prince Rainier, who hosted this exclusive EU initiative. Following a productive morning of échanges de vues, the speakers were invited to a relaxing lunch, at which, I might add, there was not a chip nor a sponge pudding in sight.
Before sitting down with the Prince, I had to find a bathroom to perform my pre-prandial insulin shot in privacy. Imagine how privileged I felt to be shown to the royal loo itself, a privilege entirely denied to my non-diabetic colleagues. On rejoining the royal company, I rejoiced in the fact that my condition had enabled me to penetrate one of the finest royal loos of Europe. I tucked into my fresh fish with a feeling of immense pleasure. I thought that at the conclusion of our debate on diabetes I would bring this cloacal story to your Lordships, here in the Chamber in what is, after all, appropriately called the House of Lords.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on introducing this important debate. I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Parliamentary All-Party Diabetes Group. I am also one of the 1.4 million persons in this country to whom the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred who are diagnosed as diabetic. I have Type 2 diabetes.
From my personal experience, I believe that advice is vitally important in tackling this common and dangerous disease. Here, I should like to pay tribute to Diabetes UK, which is the country's largest patient organisation, with over 200,000 members, and to the many local diabetes groups up and down the country run by volunteers, especially the one in South Tyneside, which I know offers valuable advice and comfort to many sufferers.
A million or so people are said to suffer from diabetes and do not know that they have the disease. It is estimated that, on average, diagnosis does not take
1312
place for up to nine to 12 years after the onset of the disease. The longer people go undiagnosed, the more likely they are to develop life-threatening conditions such as heart disease, strokes, kidney failure, blindness and lower limb amputations.
I did not know that I had diabetes. I found out only when I went in to the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle to be treated for pneumonia in 1997 and was diagnosed as a diabetic. When I was told some of the symptoms of diabetes, I was rather surprised. I had been totally ignorant of the symptoms of the disease. One symptom, I was informed, was that a person becomes irritable and short-tempered. I can assure your Lordships that there are many Members in the other place who will tell you that I showed that symptom from the time that I entered the Whips Office in 1984. In fact, some Members next door will tell you that I am the only person who can wish 30 people a merry Christmas and upset 29 of them.
I believe from my own personal experience that there should be plenty of advice and an adequate screening service, together with a screening programme that targets people who are subject to a high risk of developing diabetes. To my knowledge, only about half of GPs' surgeries have a policy on screening, and almost 90 per cent of hospitals do not have the recommended number of consultants—although I am informed that the situation is improving. If it is accepted that 1 million people suffer from diabetes without realising it, then I have no doubt that the cost of additional screening is a lot cheaper than having to deal with the problems caused by late diagnosis.
It was the Audit Commission's report, Testing Times, which highlighted the unacceptable variations in the standard of the diabetes service in this country. It prompted the Government to announce, early in 1999, the development of a national service framework for diabetes in this country.
Treatment for diabetes is an urgent issue, and the implementation of the Government's national service framework is vitally important. In the Department of Health circular 1999/0744, issued on 8th December 1999, headed:
"Key milestone in the setting of national standards for the care of people with diabetes",
my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—who has taken a great interest in the treatment of diabetes; and I have no doubt that my noble friend on the Front Bench will follow in his footsteps—speaking at the first meeting of the Diabetes National Service Framework Expert Reference Group in December 1999, said:
"The Diabetes National Service Framework will ensure that top quality standards of care and treatment for diabetes are available in all primary care, local hospitals and specialist centres".
I wholeheartedly agree 'with those words.
Diabetes is the biggest single cause of blindness among adults of working age in the United Kingdom. The risk of hospital admission owing to heart disease is said to increase fourfold among those with diabetes. Almost half of all lower limb amputations other than that following trauma are a consequence of the disease.

1313
In replying to a Commons debate in Westminster Hall on 13th March, my honourable friend Yvette Cooper—who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health—said:
"Diabetes is a serious condition but the future need not be bleak because evidence shows that the onset of type 2 diabetes can be delayed or even prevented and effective management of the disease can increase life expectancy and reduce the risk of complications. The diabetes national service framework builds on the found a tions".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/02; col. 307WH.]
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I sincerely hope that there will be no further delays in the Government's diabetes national service framework and that the resources will be made available for it to be implemented.
The Wanless report calculated that an additional £600 million a year would be required to implement the diabetes NSF—and that is a tight figure. It is estimated that diabetes accounts for as much as 9 per cent of the annual National Health Service budget. Like the noble Lord, I believe that spending money on preventing and managing diabetes now will save lives, as well as money, in the long run.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take these points on board—as I have no doubt he will. I am not one who criticises the Government in relation to the National Health Service. It was only early in the Government's term in office that I began to be treated in hospital. I had to be treated for pneumonia in 1997, then diabetes, then cancer; and I have received first-class treatment. I am the last one to criticise the National Health Service. It is a good service. We should build on it. We should never be satisfied, but I hope that when the terms of the diabetes national service framework are published, the Government will not only implement them but make sure that the resources are available for them to be carried through.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, diabetes is clearly on the march. There is a lot of it about. Perhaps I may give a few statistics, some of which your Lordships may have heard previously. Diabetes affects 2 per cent of the population, and the incidence is increasing year by year, so that in the next decade type 2 diabetes will have increased by some 30 per cent.
The disease is selective in those whom it affects. The prevalence in South Asians is as high as 15 to 20 per cent—a frightening figure. There is a similar level in Afro-Caribbeans, and the figure is rising. Diabetes is increasing silently. About a million people do not know that they have the disease or are about to get it, yet they are all susceptible to complications which are either life-threatening—especially heart attacks and strokes—or health-threatening: blindness, infections, foot ulcers and the like. Much of it is preventable, if only we can intervene early enough.
It is against that background that I commend the Government for embarking on the diabetes national service framework, which is absolutely essential. But it is no easy task. There are so many aspects of
1314
diabetes—from prevention through to management of the complications—that it is vital that we get the priorities right and investments are made where real differences can be made, not only now but in the inevitably long period of time over which the disease evolves. We are in for the long haul.
I believe that it is clear where investment is needed. First, the cause of the diabetic epidemic is largely due to lifestyle, with diet, lack of exercise and obesity heading the list. For the population at large, changing their lifestyle is something of an uphill struggle. Few, if any, are willing to change what they do, even when threatened with ill health in 10 or 20 years' time.
Targeting those with early signs of diabetes, a family history or predisposing factors to be obese would be worth considerable effort. How do we get to such people? We need to invest much more in those who can engage directly with the communities at risk. In pole position are the diabetic nurse specialists, who do much more than provide lifestyle advice. They have key roles in early detection, in monitoring for complications and in continuing care and advice. My first request to the Minister is for a reassurance that efforts are being made to increase the number of diabetic nurse specialists across the country. Where they exist now at primary care trust level they have been shown to have enormous benefits, but many parts of the country have none or too few. Can she encourage primary care trusts to take their public health role seriously enough to appoint these invaluable nurses who can be shown clearly to have an impact on the health of their populations?
My second question is about how we might begin to fill the gap in consultant diabetologist numbers. The president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir George Alberti, has calculated that we need to double the number of consultant physicians who specialise in diabetes to cope with the rising tide of patients who are currently overwhelming their ability to cope.
Clearly, that gap will take some time to fill, even if we start now. Meanwhile, we could try to encourage those physicians who are inclined to retire early from the NHS for a variety of reasons to stay on. The current average age of retirement for physicians is around 60. They could provide another five years of high-quality service if they stayed until the normal retiring age. Much more could be made of flexible employment arrangements for doctors who wish to slow down a little in the last two to five years. Such flexibility could enable a doctor to provide clinical service sessions, perhaps part time, without the need to carry out other roles such as administration or committee responsibilities, which many abhor. The Government are keen to encourage flexible working, but too often the incentives for trust chief executives to allow consultants to work in that way in their last few years are limited. They are often unwilling to embrace the possibility with any enthusiasm.
While we are waiting for investment in more consultants and for them to come off the training production line, will my noble friend the Minister offer

1315
some encouragement that efforts will be made to retain those valuable experts already in the system towards the end of their working lives? Will she encourage trusts to take up the challenge—which I know is part of her department's policy—with more enthusiasm than they have shown so far?
Many aspects of a national service framework for diabetes have to be put in place. We must move ahead as quickly as possible, but we should not underestimate the enormous amount of work to be done to make sure that we get it right. There is inevitably a need for greater investment, but there are some things that we could do now. Having more diabetic nurse specialists and retaining doctors in the service are two important areas that we could focus on. I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on introducing the debate. Unfortunately, nine minutes is not long enough to do justice to such an important subject. All speakers tonight have rightly pointed out that diabetes is a major killer. The House will be particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Dixon, for telling us their personal experiences of diabetes.
The delayed national service framework was finally published in December 2001, but without an implementation strategy. An implementation group was set up at the beginning of this year and the Department of Health promised that a delivery strategy would be published in the summer of 2002. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, summer has arrived—at last—but Ministers are now saying that it will be published later this year. Can the Minister confirm that a delivery strategy will be published, as promised, this summer and that those with diabetes and the medical professionals involved in the provision of diabetes services will not have to wait until the end of the year before the plans for implementation are made known?
I was also concerned to read an article written by the Health Minister previously in charge of diabetes, Jacqui Smith, who said:
"the delivery strategy will set out only the first stages in a 10-year programme".
I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my concerns and those of the many organisations bringing together the users and providers of diabetic services in confirming that the Government's delivery strategy will be comprehensive and effective and will be able to start making a difference now, not in 10 years.
The department has not yet published detailed funding plans for the NSF. However, an indication of what might be expected was published in the Wanless final report, Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View. Derek Wanless estimated that the current cost to the NHS was £1.3 billion per annum and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, said, a further £600 million would he required to implement the NSF.
1316
Concern has been raised about the calculations in the Wanless report, which it appears may fall far short of what is required. We on these Benches have two specific areas of concern.
First, the Government may have underestimated the future increase in the incidence of diabetes. Jacqui Smith recently said:
"the rapid increase in the incidence of diabetes is not inevitable".
We are concerned that that may not be the case. Many experts in the field also take a different view from the Government.
John Murray, a public consultant, points out:
"the prevalence of diabetes in the coming decade, and more, is largely pre-ordained. In particular, the effects of the threefold increase in obesity over the last 20 years, to one in five of the population, cannot be swiftly reversed".
Stephanie Amiel, professor of diabetic medicine at King's College Hospital, said:
"What can be delivered is a reduction in the rate of hospital admissions per patient, but not in the overall numbers—they will continue to increase as the numbers of people with diabetes rise, and so will the costs. Ministers and their advisers must hear this message. It is absolutely essential that the NSF for diabetes is based on informed fact and riot wishful thinking".
Secondly, there is the question of unhealthy lifestyles, which undoubtedly lead to an increase in diabetes. Obesity statistics in England make grim reading. Two thirds of men and half of women are overweight. Nearly six in 10 adults—some 20 million people—need a change in lifestyle, said the National Audit Office last year. Furthermore, doctors have recently seen the first cases of overweight white children in Britain with a type of diabetes normally confined to the over-40s. Obesity has trebled in England in the past two decades.
The causes of the increase in incidence of diabetes are widespread. For example, the inactivity of children could be attributed to any number of factors: watching too much television; playing video games; the preference of parents for taking their children to school by car rather than on foot; the reduction in the amount of PE at school; and the availability of high-fat foods and fizzy drinks. In the short term, it is unlikely that any significant changes in lifestyle will be achieved; all signs point to the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, wisely said.
In a recent article, Jacqui Smith wrote:
"investment in health services includes looking more closely at prevention by reducing obesity, increasing physical activity and promoting a healthier lifestyle".
Few could argue with the need to tackle these key causes of diabetes.
What steps, therefore, is the Minister's department taking to ensure a cross-departmental effort in tackling the problems of obesity and inactivity? What role does her department see the National Health Service having in promoting a healthier lifestyle? Does she envisage a stretched NHS, and in particular overworked primary care trusts taking on an educational role? If so, additional resources, particularly in terms of staff, will be required.

1317
The problem that the Government have already encountered with regard to recruiting additional GPs is of grave concern. It is crucial that the Government work across all departments and do not just rely on the NHS. What discussions has the Minister and her colleagues had with their counterparts in the Department for Education and Skills and with the DCMS with regard to the diabetes NSF?
With regard to staffing, the Government have indicated the need for more staff and stated:
"By 2008 there will be 60 per cent more nurses qualifying each year than there are today".
How many of these will be involved in providing specialist diabetes services in primary care? What plans does the Minister's department have in place to ensure that rates of GP recruitment improve? What training do the latest intake of medical students receive with regard to the delivery of diabetes services?
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his choice of debate. After hearing the statistics produced on all sides of the House, and the very personal and moving stories from noble Lords who suffer from the disease, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this very powerful and balanced debate has enabled us to move most productively from the general to the specific. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken.
I also join all who have praised the inestimable work of Diabetes UK and the extraordinary job it has done over the years to inform and support people with diabetes. I acknowledge too the work of the all-party group to which my noble friend Lord Dixon referred. I assure my noble friend that we have never thought his temperament, either in the other place or your Lordships' House, as anything but most sweet. I hope that he will not worry about that too much.
I shall not reiterate the statistics that have been cited. I simply say that it is the scale and the scope of diabetes that make it such a challenge. Diabetes presents a range of complications, from CHD to renal failure, to amputation, to blindness, and an extraordinary challenge in terms of prevention. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said, the need to change lifestyles is but one challenging aspect of prevention.
Consequently, we have to approach the problem on a national basis. We have to tackle it with national funding and a national strategy. The scale of the problem arises partly from the fact that, until testing became possible, we had no concept of the variability of treatments or the extent to which treatment would be effective. I therefore share the anxiety expressed by all noble Lords that there must be rapid action. Like many noble Lords, I also recognise that we are facing a formidable national challenge.
I was very pleased that my noble friend Lord Dixon paid such tribute to the NHS. All of its resources will have to be employed in order to ensure a better deal for
1318
diabetes patients in the next 10 years. The disease is almost unique in the way it crosses so many health boundaries.
As for funding, although there have been calls for action to the contrary, we believe that ring-fenced funding for the diabetes strategy would not be the most effective response. We are planning a coherent spread of well-funded strategies for prevention and treatment which will reduce the risk of complications and the disabilities that literally threaten life and limb. I therefore make no excuse for drawing to your Lordships' attention the fact that the health service as a whole is now better funded and more effectively organised. That can only help in ensuring prevention and better treatment.
Noble Lords surely must welcome the fact that we are currently increasing public spending on health faster than any other major country in Europe. That increased funding will be devolved to where it can do most good on the front line of the service. Decisions on the allocation of the funding will be made later this year. We shall ensure that noble Lords are fully aware of the implications for the spread of complications and so on.
We should, however, also remind ourselves that the challenge of diabetes is not purely financial. We have heard not least from the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, of the patchy—sometimes, as in the example he gave, disgraceful—service on offer. I do not dispute that assessment. It is for precisely that reason that we give such great priority to the national service framework. However, in addition to investing, we have to do things differently. The national service framework seeks to ensure that that happens by focusing on principles such as improved working practices, devolving resources to the front line and more choice for patients. Those principles are alive in the way in which we have prioritised better services for patients in the first set of national standards.
I was pleased recently to see that a leading academic—a specialist clinician—welcomed those standards as,
"a totally appropriate and admirable set of standards".
As noble Lords on all sides have said, however, it is delivery that counts. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, in the past seven months, an implementation group led by Mike Pringle, professor of primary care at Nottingham University, has been helping the Government and working extremely hard to develop the delivery strategy for the diabetes NSF—to ensure that, in operation, the NSF will be manageable, robust, sensibly paced and, above all, fully delivered in 10 years.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Turnberg on the scale of the problem and why it will take 10 years to deliver. It will not be 10 years before we do anything, but it will take 10 years to put in place a properly timetabled framework. We can do some things faster than others, such as improving and more effectively offering information. It should not take too long to do that. However, the delivery strategy will be

1319
published later this year for implementation over 10 years, from April 2003. It will set out the timetables, the benchmarks and the framework and arrangements for supporting and ensuring the delivery that noble Lords want to see.
What issues does the framework have to address? Some of them have been outlined in this debate, such as the fact that the onset of Type 2 diabetes can be delayed or even prevented; that effective management increases life expectancy; and that self-management is the cornerstone of effective diabetes care. Those are precisely the challenges that we must systematically meet if we are to reduce the incidence of diabetes particularly among the high risk groups.
There is no doubt, as the evidence presented today shows, that the challenges are increasing. We have a more obese and sedentary population. Our children are more obese and sedentary and are less active. All of that will make for a very poor prognosis unless we address the big issue of prevention—which is the first standard set by the framework itself.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that there is a raft of work going on between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to tackle the issue of better diet, increased healthy activity and sport in schools. I am tempted to read out the list of activities which occupies four pages of my brief. However, I prefer to write to noble Lords, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the preventive strategies ranging from increased support for breastfeeding to food to rolling out the national school fruit scheme, the food in schools programme. It would make more sense to write to noble Lords to give them a thorough account of that. I refer also to appropriate programmes for adults.
The diabetes framework must sit firmly alongside other frameworks which can help it to be more effective. I refer to the chronic heart disease programme and to the national service framework for older people. The programmes must overlap like maps to make sure that they deliver the optimum effect. Standard 3 of the diabetes framework is concerned with putting people with diabetes in control of their condition. That constitutes effective management of the patient.
Diabetes has been described as,
"the easiest of the chronic diseases for which to introduce a person centred service".
We want to bring an end to the spectre of the dependent and depressed patient trailing around from the dietician to the ophthalmologist to the chiropodist. Those services should be provided in one place along with the GP's practice where the patient knows that he is supported by people who are working together on his or her behalf. That is the central plank of the NSF and constitutes a new approach to care and treatment. It will enable a person with diabetes to agree their care plan in partnership with health professionals. That may involve enabling them to keep a record of blood glucose levels, altering medication, improving their diet or taking more exercise. We are looking for
1320
"expert patients" to manage themselves as far as they can. Some may not want or be able to do that and they must be given the right support. However, we can do much more not just in terms of giving them information but also the confidence to manage the condition and to prevent the complications which cause so much distress. That issue is less about resources and more about roles—those of patients and professionals.
What we want to see—this would enable us better to manage pressures at the primary care trust level—is the sort of coherent and comprehensive service that is evident in the North London family healthcare centre where the full range of services are available in one place or in areas such as Basildon where GPs, nurses, podiatrists, dieticians and other providers have been involved in the entire consultation process setting up diabetes services. I refer also to the district wide services in North Tyneside where people are researching ways of developing expert patients. If one makes that kind of best practice a reality, one meets the shortages which noble Lords have identified. It involves making fundamental changes to workforce planning and development linked to service needs rather than traditional roles.
We estimate that by 2010 there will be another 766 diabetes specialists. That is an increase of 50 per cent. However, in the interim, we must lay the foundations for more flexible and effective working through the continuous professional development of diabetes specialists, whether GPs or nurses. That will have an impact on service delivery. The long-term conditions care group workforce team will identify innovative ways in which the skills and competencies needed in the workforce can be delivered. We aim to make it possible for nurses to acquire specialist knowledge of how to treat diabetes. We seek to bring together professionals and patients to develop new ways of working.
Work is being done with the Sector Skills Council for Health to produce a competence framework for diabetes in the next year. I say to my noble friend, Lord Turnberg that there is much interesting and exciting work being carried out in the field of specialist nursing. For example, the Royal College of Nursing Diabetes Forum in collaboration with Diabetes UK is taking forward a project to map the knowledge, skills and competencies as a career framework required to deliver diabetes nursing services. A draft framework will be available for wider consultation later this year, and will provide a system of accreditation for the spectrum of nurses involved in diabetes care including healthcare assistants, practice nurses, diabetes specialist nurses and consultant nurses. And our changing workforce programme is running pilots in two diabetes services to test and implement new ways of working to improve patient services and tackle staff shortages.
There will be new opportunities—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry to trespass on the Minister's time. In her otherwise excellent exposition she elegantly managed to duck the

1321
two central questions that I asked: first, whether implementation was on track for April 2003 and, secondly, whether the Wanless estimate of £600 million is the figure that the Government are adopting, or whether a higher figure will be adopted in the light of many of the arguments made in the Chamber.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the first question. I said that the implementation strategy would be published later this year. As regards the Wanless assumptions, as far as I know—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry. The delivery strategy—the actual document—is one thing but the implementation from April 2003 is another matter.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. Certainly, April 2003 is the time we are working to.
As regards the Wanless assumptions, assumptions about diabetes are changing for many reasons. However, as far as I am aware, the Wanless assumptions still hold. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
As I was saying, underpinning these policies are strategies to develop new knowledge. We have tried to put together in the delivery strategy a coherent plan which tackles the changing roles of patients and professionals, funding and new knowledge. I was asked about early diagnosis. There are no fewer than 1,400 diabetes research projects in place at the moment. Later this year the joint MRC/DH review of diabetes research will report. It will seek to bring research projects together to establish the parameters of funding and priorities. I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is a great deal happening in this area. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing clinical guidelines for both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes.
Noble Lords have asked why the delivery strategy is taking so long. Perhaps the catalogue of activity partly answers that. As I say, some things can be done quicker than others. For reasons which noble Lords themselves have acknowledged, changing habits and lifestyles pose a difficult and long-term challenge. That is precisely what we have to tackle as well as introducing new forms of care and treatment. We published the NSF in two parts as that enabled us to engage the NHS, partner agencies and people with diabetes more closely in planning and managing the implementation of the NSF. That has occurred over the past seven months. By planning delivery carefully and with full co-operation we stand a better chance of getting it right and being able to respond to and meet the pressures. We are pleased that the GP ballot approved the new contractual framework. Negotiations are continuing on the content of the quality framework.
1322
I hope that the mix of short-term responses and long-term planning for action will reassure noble Lords that diabetes is not only recognised as a priority for action but also a priority for delivery. We are determined that the next decade will see the changes that we want to see in the lives of people with diabetes. I am conscious that in the time available I have not been able to address some of the specific questions that were raised.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister said that she would send a copy of the letter about the Wanless report to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Several other noble Lords mentioned that report and we should be grateful if all of us could have copies of the letter.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, I shall be very pleased to do that. I shall also write to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the policies relating to the planning framework and the way in which diabetes fits into that framework in terms of performance management. It will be performance managed and delivery targets will be set. That will have to be followed.
I hope that noble Lords find some relief in those assurances and agree that we are on track.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
8.51 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 61.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 34, line 47, leave out "to a period of custody" and insert "to detention, or ordered or directed to be detained,"
The noble Lord said: The amendment and those grouped with it are of a minor nature. They are designed to ensure that correct references are made to the different categories of offender who may fall within Clause 61. In particular, although it is unlikely that many cases will arise, we must allow for the possibility that a refugee convicted of an offence may suffer from a mental disorder and could be a danger to the community. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 184B to 184D:
Page 34, line 48, after "prison" insert "(including, in particular, a hospital or an institution for young offenders)"
Page 35, line 1, after "sentenced to" insert "imprisonment or detention, or ordered or directed to be detained, for"
Page 35, line 2, leave out "of custody"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Family]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 184E:
Page 35, line 28, leave out "second" and insert "fourth"
The noble Earl said: Some years ago, I was reading a detective story by Freeman Wills Crofts in which Inspector French was able to puncture the murderer's alibi because it rested on the extraordinarily implausible assumption that a letter had taken two days to get from London to Surrey. One would not find that in any detective story now.
I happened to be in the House a few weeks ago on the day when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made the Statement that consigned Consignia to oblivion. It was very clear on that occasion that our expectations of the Post Office are not now likely to be met. We will have to get used, in the absence of second posts and many other services, to a degree of delay that we have not previously expected. While listening to that Statement, I made up my mind that one of the matters to which I must give my attention is the need to bring legislation up to date in terms of what are now the Post Office's standards.
This happens to be the first clause that has come before me since then that deals specifically with the number of posting days after which receipt will be assumed. It is in a rather important context. It concerns giving directions for the removal of an unsuccessful applicant's family. Where a direction for removal has been given and an attempt is made to execute it, and the supposed recipient has not actually received it, he may believe himself to have been subjected to an assault. The situation is a tenuous one. I hope that Ministers have not forgotten the case of Joy Gardner, which all of us, I am sure, do not want to happen too often.
Subsection (5) states:
"If a notice under subsection (3)"—
that is, directing removal—
"is sent by first class post" —
I congratulate the Government on using first-class post—
"to a person's last known address, that subsection shall be taken to be satisfied at the end of the second day after the day of posting".
Despite the excellent standards of service of the Post Office in this House—I do not think that we realise quite how lucky we are in that regard—I cannot assume the arrival of my Whip the second day after the day of posting, so why should we make that assumption in this context? That assumption is optative and Utopian and I hope that the Minister will consider something a little more practicable. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment. Will the Government confirm that letters of the kind specified in the clause will always be sent by recorded delivery? That is essential in view of the number of times that people and families involved in immigration or asylum tend to move house.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment relates to a provision clarifying Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Section 10 contains the power to remove people who overstay their leave, fail to observe other conditions of their leave or who have obtained leave to remain by deception. In future, if Clause 63 is accepted, it will also allow the removal of someone who seeks leave to remain by deception and, if Clause 64 is approved, of someone whose leave to remain has been revoked on their ceasing to be a refugee.
Section 10 also contains the power to remove a member of the family of a person who is being removed. In such cases, the Secretary of State is required to give the family member written notification that he intends to remove that person. The notice must be given within eight weeks of the first person being removed. The amendment to Section 10 made by subsection (4) of Clause 62 reproduces the provision in current legislation by providing that where that notification is sent by first-class post to the family member's last known address, it is considered to have been received by the end of the second day after the day on which it was sent. That amendment would mean that it would not be considered to have been received until the end of the fourth day.
The purpose of the deemed service provision is to prevent people who believe they may be liable to removal frustrating the process either by claiming that they have not received the notice or by going to ground so that it cannot be served. The timing of when the notice is considered to have been served really becomes important only once the first person—the overstayer or person who has breached the conditions of his or her leave and whose removal is the trigger for removing the family member—has left the UK. As I mentioned, the written notice has to be served on the family member no later than eight weeks after the first person has left or been removed from the UK.
Normally, we would aim to remove all family members at the same time as we remove the first person. However, in cases where we do not, the purpose of requiring the Secretary of State to notify the family member within eight weeks of the removal of the first person is to prevent family members from being put in the position where they are suddenly notified that they too are to be removed long after the first person has gone. As I have said, a provision deeming service of such a notice is necessary to prevent people arguing that they cannot be removed because they never received the notice.
The choice of two days after posting rather than the proposed four days is because two days is the usual period for deemed service of notices sent by first-class post. It is the period which applies elsewhere in the immigration legislation: for example, in Section 94(9) of the 1999 Act and in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act. It is also the period which applies to the service of all documents in civil proceedings by virtue of the civil procedure rules. These seem to be excellent precedents—they have quite a long history—and I see no strong reason to depart from them.

1325
It is hard to imagine that any great injustice will be suffered by the family member as a result of the two-day period being applied here. The only possible cause for complaint would arise if the Home Office were to leave it until, say, seven weeks and five days after the first person's removal or departure before posting the notice by first-class post.
If the postal service were particularly slow and the notice was not received within the next two days, the person would discover that the Secretary of State was intending to remove him just over eight weeks after the first person had left the United Kingdom rather than just within that period. That seems a minor grievance, and one which could occur even with a four-day period if the post were very badly delayed. In our mind, it certainly does not seem to be a strong reason for departing from existing precedent in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a question about recorded delivery. Giving notification is a formality to prevent people from moving. Receipt is not necessary. If a person is not at the address, obviously he cannot be removed.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the question of the risk of assault. Frankly, we do not believe that such a situation will occur. In any attempt to remove, the immigration officer will identify himself and make clear his authority for conducting the removal. If need be, he can set removal directions on the spot. That is the situation.
I believe that I have covered the questions arising from the amendment. While I understand the good nature of the noble Earl's motives, I suggest that there are no good precedents for departing from the current procedure.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord for describing the nature and purpose of my amendment with more care and detail than I did myself. I am, of course, perfectly well aware that the amendment would reproduce previous provisions. But the purport of my argument was not that the Government have changed but that the Post Office has changed, and that the Government are now providing for a situation which no longer exists.
I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say that receipt is not necessary. If receipt is not necessary, then I do not see why the letter is necessary. They might just as well cease to send out the letter completely. But if they are to send it out, they might as well send it out when there is some hope of it being received. I agree with the noble Lord that even four days may be optimistic but I was pessimistic about my chances of persuading him of any more. It seems that I was not quite pessimistic enough. The Government will have to learn from experience, and not for the first time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 185:
Page 35, line 32, at end insert—
"(5) In paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry, &c.: detention) for the words "8 to 10" there shall be substituted "8 to 10A"."
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns subsection (1) of the clause, which creates a new power to give directions for the removal of the family member of a person who is himself being removed as an illegal entrant or following a refusal of leave to enter.
The amendment will allow a person liable to removal under the new power to be detained on the authority of an immigration officer. Clause 62 already provides for him to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State. The purpose of the new removal power is primarily to enable directions to be given in respect of children born in the United Kingdom to illegal entrants or to couples who spend a lengthy period on temporary admission while their applications for leave to enter are considered and any appeal is dealt with.
We accept that detention is a sensitive matter, and the detention of children particularly so. However, as I said in earlier debates this afternoon, it may be necessary for that to take place in order to secure the safe removal of the family group.
As either an immigration officer or the Secretary of State may give removal directions under the new power inserted by subsection (1) of the clause, we consider it appropriate that either should be able to authorise the detention of those liable to removal under this power. I beg to move.
The Countess of Mar: I draw the Minister's attention to what must be a printing error. The amendment seeks to insert subsection (5) when there is already a subsection (5) on the face of the Bill. Perhaps he will consider renumbering it. We have just discussed subsection (5), which is concerned with posting dates.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to ensure that we look at that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Revocation of leave to enter or remain]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 186:
Page 36, line 12, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: This amendment, together, I believe, with Amendments Nos. 189A and 193A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, seeks to probe the issue of the legal effect of the revocation of a person's indefinite leave to enter or remain under Clause 65.
I recognise that the Government seek to justify the power in subsection (1) in terms of it being used against those who have committed serious criminal offences and who are therefore liable to deportation. But I am sure that the Committee and, indeed, the noble Lord

1327
the Minister will agree that it is important to be certain of the legal consequences of the power and of those powers contained in subsections (2) and (3).
In the circumstances envisaged by the clause, a person's leave to enter or remain could be revoked but a deportation order could not be made for legal reasons. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can tell the Committee what the immigration status of such a person would be. In another place, my honourable friend Mr Malins described it as a "legal limbo". The Minister, the honourable Ms Eagle, did not shed much light on the matter by saying, simply, at col. 269 of the Standing Committee report, that the revocation of indefinite leave to enter or remain would,
"send a message to individuals that although their removal may not be possible at that time, their presence in the UK is not guaranteed. It will also express official displeasure at their conduct".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 14/5/02; col. 269.]
It may well send a message to the individual. But perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell the Committee what that message is in terms of the individual's immigration status.
If he no longer has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, but no deportation order has been made, on what basis is he present in the United Kingdom? Is he present at the pleasure of the Secretary of State? Will the Minister also comment on the other circumstances in which the power in subsection (1) may be used? The Explanatory Notes refer to "serious criminals"; but the power is drawn wider than that. In another place the Minister referred to "other undesirables". Perhaps the Minister could expand on that definition as well.
Amendment No. 194, also standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, seeks to probe the issue of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will use the power given by subsection (3) of Clause 65 to revoke the indefinite leave to enter or remain of the dependants of refugees. In the circumstances envisaged by subsection (3), a person granted refugee status may have his indefinite leave removed as a result of availing himself of the protection of another country or of the country from which he sought refuge in the United Kingdom. However, the Secretary of State will also have the power to revoke the indefinite leave to remain of that refugee's dependants who may not have followed the same course of action as the refugee himself, particularly if he has spent a long period of time in this country.
What would be the position if the dependants of a refugee did not wish to avail themselves of the protection of another country, or to return to their country of origin, either for convention reasons or perhaps because of family circumstances or roots put down in the United Kingdom over a number of years? Would the Secretary of State revoke the dependants' leave in all cases? If the dependants feared persecution for conventional reasons, would they have to make asylum claims to avoid being removed from the United Kingdom under the power granted by subsection (7)?
1328
What would be the immigration status of such dependants if they could not be returned to another country? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 186 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 187 to 189A due to pre-emption.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted to support the amendment. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 189A, 193A, 193B, 194 and 194A to 194C. It deals with the revocation of leave to enter or remain. I have a question to add to that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Would Clause 65 leave a person in limbo? Could it be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that he or she would have no access to social security, work, education and so on?
The purpose of the amendment is to delete the provisions that would permit UK residents who have broken no law to be deprived of the right to continue to live here simply because they were originally granted indefinite leave to remain as refugees but have taken advantage of subsequent changes in circumstances which mean that they no longer require international protection as refugees or that they were originally granted indefinite leave to remain as the dependants of refugees and the head of their family has taken an action over which they may well have had no control.
There is also concern that subsection (3) will discourage refugees with indefinite leave to remain from making exploratory trips to their countries of origin. It does not seem to acknowledge that the process of return takes time and careful consideration for people who originally left their country of origin in a crisis. It will also prevent them making family visits.
The clause does not seem to take account of the fact that many convention refugees are recognised as such because of their fear of persecution by non-state agents of persecution. The problem with the use of the word "protection" in this clause is that it is ambiguous: it could mean actual protection or may just mean "diplomatic" protection. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point.
The clause also discriminates against people who have exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom as that is often stamped in their national passports, but once they have indefinite leave to remain they do not have it revoked if they make a trip home.
We also question the necessity for this subsection because if a person goes to his country of origin and establishes himself there, and if he stays away for more than two years, he will lose his indefinite leave to remain here. Those are matters of concern and I hope that the Minister has an explanation as to why this clause is necessary.
Lord Hylton: We need to be specific about the effects of this clause; for example, will a person who is caught

1329
by it be able to take advantage of the National Health Service? Will his children be able to be educated in schools? Is the intention to create a kind of underclass of non-citizens? The powers that this clause entrusts to the Secretary of State are far too sweeping and should at least be under the control of a recognised tribunal or court.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I can pursue a question raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia; that is, the discouragement of persons with indefinite leave to remain from going back to their countries to "sniff the air", so to speak, and decide whether or not it is safe for them to return permanently. I give three illustrations of the principle which are perhaps important at this point in time.
First, I understand that a European Union agreement is in being that there should be an ability to send people back to Sri Lanka in view of the changed conditions and the agreement between the government and the LTTE. Most people sought asylum in the UK on the basis of persecution by the government because of their connections with the Tamil independence movement, or they were Tamils who did not agree with the independence movement and were in fear of persecution by the LTTE.
As I understand it, according to the EU agreement, we shall soon begin sending people back who had indefinite leave to remain on those grounds, unless they have applied for British citizenship, in which case they would be exempt from the provisions of this clause. But that forces people into applying for British citizenship so that they become immune from the deprivation of their right to remain, which power the Secretary of State is taking upon himself in this clause.
The second example is Bahrain, where a certain amount of loosening has taken place of the formerly harsh regime of the A1 Khalifas. Security courts have been abolished; political prisoners released and an invitation issued by the young heir to exiles who had been kicked out of the country by his father to come back and play their normal life in the country. I know a number of people who were not fully confident that they could return to Bahrain and take up where they left off, sometimes as long as 20 or 25 years ago. However, they wished to go there and see what the atmosphere was like and find out whether or not it would be safe for them to take up their former occupations and indeed take part in the political and journalistic activities. One friend of mine went back to start a newspaper. It was obviously important for him to know that in doing so he would have the latitude to say what he felt in the newspaper without fear of renewed persecution.
This clause will discourage people who feel that they would like to return from returning to their country of origin. They will not want to take the chance of being permanently deprived of their right to live in this country if it turns out that their position back home is not as favourable as they hoped it would be.
1330
The third example I give the Committee, which may be of immediate importance, is Afghanistan. Many people from Afghanistan have applied for asylum and many have been given indefinite leave to remain. I believe around half the residents in Sangatte originally came from Afghanistan. Presumably it is the policy of the Government to encourage those who have talents and skills to contribute to the new Afghanistan to go back there. But if they wish to test the water, under this clause they would be permanently deprived of any right they had to live in this country.
The effect of the clause therefore could be extremely harmful and I beg the Minister to consider the effects I outlined, not only on people from the three countries I mentioned—I chose those because they are current—but also on the many others that may occur to Members of the Committee.
Lord Filkin: Clause 65 would give the Secretary of State the power to revoke the indefinite leave to remain of a person who is liable to deportation or removal but who cannot be removed due to legal or practical reasons. It also confers the power to revoke the indefinite leave of a person who is acting in such a way that they would cease to be a refugee under the parallel provisions in the Geneva Convention.
The grant of indefinite leave to remain entitles a person to remain without any time limit unless they are served with a deportation order, removal directions or remain outside the United Kingdom continuously for two years or more. A person with ILR may be deported if they have committed a criminal offence of a certain severity. As the Committee knows, legal obstacles such as Article 3 of the ECHR can prevent a deportation order being issued.
A person with ILR may be removed if they have obtained their leave by deception. However, again, legal obstacles such as ECHR or practical difficulties can make that impossible or impractical.
Where a person is liable to deportation or removal but cannot be removed, the revocation of indefinite leave is a sanction designed to indicate displeasure at his conduct and to disentitle him to the benefits associated with indefinite leave, such as immediate family reunion—if he has not made use of this right already—and the assumption of permanent settlement. It may also make removal easier in the future if circumstances change.
However, once indefinite leave has been revoked it is likely to be replaced with short periods of limited leave— for example, six months at a time. I hope that that responds to the question from the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Dholakia.
I turn to the specific eight amendments. Amendment No. 186 seeks to delete Clause 65(1). The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, kindly indicated that it is a probing amendment. It would prevent an important sanction being taken against criminals and other undesirables who are liable to deportation but cannot be removed. The Committee knows how Article 3 of the ECHR bites on that without my going into it at this time.

1331
I should also add to the disbenefits that the person would experience that they would not become eligible for naturalisation. The intention would be to remove the individual from the UK if it became possible in the future, and revoking indefinite leave might assist, as I have indicated.
Amendments Nos. 189A and 193A would require the Secretary of State to grant further leave in cases where indefinite leave is revoked under subsections (1) or (2);. that is, in circumstances where a person is liable to deportation but for a practical reason we cannot deport them. In requiring the duration of leave granted to be no less than the period for which the barrier to removal persists, we feel that the amendments are unworkable. We consider that the duration of the barrier will usually not be known at the outset. It will depend in each case on various factors, often outside the control of the Secretary of State. As a result, the only option available in light of these amendments would often be the granting of indefinite leave.
Where a person has their indefinite leave revoked under subsections (1) or (2), in most cases it will be appropriate to grant a period of limited leave, as I indicated earlier. The only exception to that is if a person is expected to become removable in the very near future, even if there is no certainty about this expectation.
I shall take Amendments Nos. 193B and 194C together. These would prevent the Secretary of State revoking leave and subsequently removing a person who has ceased to be a refugee as a result of their own actions. The 1951 convention envisages that refugee status arid its accompanying protections can come to an end in certain circumstances and therefore it is perfectly legitimate for the United Kingdom to end protection when these circumstances arise. This power will apply only where a person ceases to be a refugee due to their own actions and excludes situations where the circumstances in connection with which the person was recognised as a refugee cease to exist, which is a fundamental point which addresses some of the concerns raised.
We did not consider it appropriate to take away indefinite leave due to circumstances beyond the control of the individual. But where, for instance, a person voluntarily re-avails themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, they will have indicated that they no longer require the protection of the United Kingdom.
The law would not permit the Secretary of State to exercise this power in an unreasonable manner, and there will be circumstances where it would not be appropriate to revoke leave. Compassionate factors, such as the need to travel to the original country to visit a sick or dying relative, would be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State would not act in breach of his international legal obligations, so that removal could not take place where the individuals concerned have built sufficient ties to the United Kingdom for this to be in breach of Article 8 of ECH R. This is not a power to keep refugees permanently on
1332
their toes but a prudent measure to enable former refugees to be removed in circumstances where it is clear from their own actions that they no longer need protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the important and sensitive issue of dependants. Amendment No. 194 to Clause 65(3) would prevent us from revoking leave and subsequently removing dependants in circumstances in which that is legitimate. It is important that, where appropriate, we can remove the dependants of those who have ceased to be refugees for the reasons described in Clause 65(3). But we do not intend the power to apply to all dependants. Where dependants are refugees in their own right, it will not normally be appropriate to revoke their indefinite leave unless they also cease to be a refugee for one of the reasons described in Clause 65(3). There is no suggestion that we would breach our obligations under the 1951 convention by seeking to remove from the UK those who are still refugees.
However, where dependants are not refugees in their own right and where there are no compelling reasons why they should remain in the UK, it will usually be appropriate to revoke indefinite leave and seek to remove the family group. The principle of family unity should apply in those cases. Therefore, where the main applicant falls to be removed and the dependants have no independent basis on which to remain in the UK, it is important that we can remove the family as a group. The power to revoke the leave of dependants and subsequently remove them will be exercised only where it is appropriate to do so.
There are safeguards in place in the immigration rules to ensure that when exercising the removal powers under Section 10 of the 1999 Act, the Secretary of State takes into consideration compassionate factors such as the strength of ties to the UK, length of residence and the status of the spouse and child at the time of removal. For instance, where the spouse and child have been living apart from the person being removed, it would not normally be appropriate to remove them in line with that person. The power to remove those who have their leave revoked is to be inserted in Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, so those safeguards will apply. It should also be noted that we intend to take such compassionate factors into consideration prior to the revocation of leave, so that where removal is not appropriate for such reasons those concerned will normally retain their indefinite leave.
Dependants are not included under Clause 65(1) and (2), as we would not seek to revoke their leave in those circumstances. The fault that has resulted in the person being liable to deportation or removal will be on the part of the main applicant. Unless the dependants themselves have behaved in a way that brings them under the provisions of Clause 65(1) and (2), or it becomes possible and appropriate to remove the family group, their leave will be unaffected.

1333
However, that will not be the case for former refugees and their dependants under Clause 65(3). Removal will, we hope, immediately be possible in those cases. Clause 65(3) therefore includes the power to revoke the indefinite leave of dependants.
Amendments Nos. 194A and 194B concern the retrospective provisions. I shall not speak to them, as they were not raised in debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about legal status. The status of someone whose leave is revoked is that he has no leave—that is slightly tautological. In cases in which someone cannot be removed for legal or practical reasons, we will substitute short periods of limited leave, except where we reasonably expect him to be removed quickly, as I said. So while he would not have indefinite leave, he would have shorter periods of leave.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and take the example of Sri Lanka. Where a person has indefinite leave to remain as a refugee, he will not be required to return to Sri Lanka simply because the country's circumstances have changed. I previously referred to that as being something outwith the control of the actions of the person himself. Clause 65 does not bite in such circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, rightly asked what would happen to people whose indefinite leave to remain had been revoked. National Health Service and education rights of refugees and families would remain. The revocation of indefinite leave does not cover the wide area that the noble Lord suggested. It merely removes discretion in such areas as naturalisation, being joined by the family and facilitating removal, if that is thought appropriate or possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised concerns about returning. Removal will in all cases be subject to the Home Secretary's international obligations, such as Article 8 on family reunion rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about other undesirables. The short answer is that the Secretary of State may deem that deportation would be conducive to the public good. Each case will, however, be judged on its merits. In general, deportation may be considered for immigration offences involving violence against the person, drugs offences or offences for which a sentence of 12 months or more is imposed by criminal court.
I regret that it has been such a lengthy response. They are complex issues, as the Committee is aware.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Could the Minister address his mind to the question that I asked about people who wished to return to their country of origin to see whether it was safe to go back permanently? I quoted the case of the Bahrainis, many of whom were in that situation. At the time, several of them asked the Home Office whether it would be in order for them to go to Bahrain to see whether it was politically satisfactory for them to resume their life there. They did not get an answer from the Home Office.
1334
Will the Minister amplify what he said about the short periods of leave to remain that would be substituted for indefinite leave? How will that affect dependants? Would children attending state schools be entitled to continue their education? Would they be thrown out because of the forfeiture of their parents' indefinite leave to remain?
Lord Filkin: In the circumstances suggested by the noble Lord, a person whose indefinite leave to remain had been revoked would have to apply to the Home Office for permission, and the Home Secretary would have to consider the circumstances. There would be an obligation on the Home Secretary to respond within a reasonable time.
I have already spoken about the education of the children in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. They would still be entitled to education and state benefits.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his careful reply. I will, of course, read it in Hansard before deciding where to go next with the amendments.
I shall probe a little further on one matter. In our discussion of Amendment No. 186, in response to my question about the effect on the immigration status of individuals covered by subsection (1), the Minister said that, in practice, the indefinite leave to enter or remain would be replaced by a series of shorter, fixed-term permissions.
How would that affect the immigration status of those individuals? At some future date, the Government might change the rules over the circumstances in which someone can be deported. If they did, the individual would, I suppose, be legally susceptible to deportation, when the short-term renewed period came to an end. Is that what the Government have in mind, in switching from indefinite leave to a series of shorter periods of leave?
Lord Hylton: Could the Minister include in his reply an explanation of the effect of the change on the person's ability to travel—for example, for a brief holiday in France or Belgium? It is part of a wider question about travel documents for those who do not have refugee status but who have exceptional needs of one kind or another.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about the effect on status. The position is as I sought to explain previously. Someone whose indefinite leave has been revoked and replaced with, for example, a leave for six months will have legal status to occupy within that period of six months.
The noble Lord's second conjecture is right. I gave several reasons, one of which was that if, at the end of the short period of leave, the Government considered that it was possible and compliant with ECHR to return the person to the country from which they came, a deportation order would be served.

1335
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what was the travel status of people with ILR or short-term periods of temporary leave to remain. I do not know the answer to that and will write to him.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his careful reply and shall spend a substantial portion of my summer addressing it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 187:
Page 36, line 13, at end insert "the person"
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments will ensure that it is absolutely clear that the standard of proof required to revoke leave on the grounds that leave was obtained by deception is exactly the same as the high standard required to remove on those grounds. I should he happy to speak in more detail if the Committee would wish it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 188 and 189:
Page 36, line 14, leave out "the person"
Page 36, line 15, leave out "the Secretary of State thinks that the person"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 189A not moved.]
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 190 to 193:
Page 36, line 18, leave out "the Secretary of State thinks"
Page 36, line 19, leave out "that"
Page 36, line 20, leave out "that"
Page 36, line 21, leave out "that"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 193A to 194C not moved.]
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [No removal while claim for asylum pending]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 194D:
Page 37, line 18, after "Convention" insert "or Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights"
The noble Lord said: The amendments deal with Clauses 66 and 67, which refer to the removal of a person while his claim for asylum, or his appeal against refusal of asylum, is pending. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I can explain them briefly.
Amendment No. 194D seeks to add those who are asking for protection under Article 3 of the ECHR, which relates to protection from torture, to those protected from removal pending the determination of their claim. In other parts of the Bill, that is accepted as part of the definition of "refugee" and we believe that it should be inserted at this point also.
As regards Amendment No. 194E, while Clause 66 supposedly provides safeguards that no action to remove will be taken while a claim is pending, subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to take preparatory action for the person's removal by giving directions, which presumably are not enforceable until
1336
the claim is determined but which are seriously prejudicial to the claim. As my noble friend Lord Russell said in respect of an earlier amendment, it is a case of sentence first, verdict afterwards.
Amendment No. 194F seeks to clarify what the Secretary of State can do pending the application by establishing as far as he can the meaning of the phrase,
"other interim or preparatory action".
It precludes in particular forcing applicants to apply for travel documents from their country of origin before their claim is finally determined.
Amendment No. 1940 relates to Clause 67. While Clause 66 deals with a person whose claim for asylum is pending, Clause 67 contains the equivalent provisions relating to a person awaiting art appeal. It begins by stating that the Secretary of State is not to remove him or require him to leave, but goes on to confer a power on the Secretary of State to give directions for his removal—that is, to make a deportation order against him—and to take,
"any other interim or preparatory action"
against him presumably in connection with the removal or deportation order, although the clause does not say that in so many words. Again, we object to these powers which would prejudge the outcome of an appeal and may seriously prejudice the appellant's case.
I turn to Amendment No. 194GA. Existing provisions protect applicants from removal pending the determination of their appeals. The amendment seeks to clarify what the Secretary of State can do pending the determination of appeals by establishing again the meaning of the phrase,
"other interim or preparatory action".
As in the previous clause, it precludes in particular forcing applicants to apply for travel documents from their country of origin before their cases are finally determined.
In reference to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Minister in another place stated:
"Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it would be unlawful for the IND to act in breach of a person's human rights. The amendment would not make that any more unlawful, and is therefore unnecessary".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 14/5/02; col. 275.]
We accept that if any interim or preparatory action were taken contrary to the ECHR, it would already be unlawful, but this is not what the amendment asks for. We seek to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have the power to take any action that may prejudice the safety of a person who has made an appeal either under the convention or tinder Article 3 of the ECHR. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: These are necessary amendments. While my noble friend was speaking I looked carefully at Clause 67(3). These are exactly the circumstances that led to the death of Mary Queen of Scots. The Queen signed the warrant for Mary's execution and said afterwards that she had no intention that it should be carried out; it was simply a preparatory action. The

1337
warrant was then dispatched and, in the words of the council minutes, it was resolved not to tell Her Majesty until the "execution be overpassed".
The Queen blew her top and was furious. She did everything to the then Cecil who had sent off the warrant except sack him. From that day to this, we have been arguing about whether what happened was what Queen Elizabeth intended. The Bill is so drafted as to invite a recurrence of that situation and I do not think that that is a pleasant position for any administrator.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hesitate to respond to the noble Earl on his history lesson about Mary Queen of Scots; rather I shall stick to the plot.
All the amendments in this group repeat amendments tabled in Committee in another place. I hope that I shall be as persuasive as my honourable friend the Member for Doncaster Central was on that occasion. The Government's position has not changed.
So far as concerns the first of the amendments, Amendment No. 194D, I recognise that the consideration of asylum applications and of claims that removal would be contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR raise similar issues. However, the two are not always synonymous. We would not seek to remove anyone if to do so would result in a breach of our obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR because we take those obligations very seriously. But there is a difference between that and an asylum applicant.
Someone applying for asylum is saying in effect, "I am a refugee as defined in the 1951 convention". If that contention is accepted, certain things flow from it. In cases where Article 3 applies, there is a more circular definition. A person who cannot be removed because that would be contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR is a person who cannot be removed because to do so would be contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. It becomes an issue only when removal is contemplated, whereas a refugee is a refugee whether or not removal is being considered.
The immigration rules recognise the positive possibility of someone applying for asylum. They do not contemplate anyone applying to be recognised as a person at risk of treatment breaching Article 3 if they are removed. It simply envisages that where this is the case, removal will not be pursued. Unlike a substantial proportion of asylum applications, the Article 3 "claim" does not arise until removal is actually in prospect.
As I have said, in deciding whether or not to remove someone from the UK we do, of course, have regard to our obligations under the ECHR. But it is unnecessary to make explicit reference to this in this clause. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act means that it would be unlawful for IND to act in breach of a person's human rights. The amendment proposed would not make it any more unlawful and for that reason is unnecessary.
1338
Turning to the other amendments in the group, Amendment No. 194E seeks to delete subsection (4), while Amendment No. 194F seeks to limit what is permissible by way of "other interim or preparatory action". As the phrase "other interim or preparatory action" appears only in subsection (4), and is only possible because subsection (4) permits it, I assume that these amendments are intended as alternatives.
Amendment No. 194E, which, as I have said, seeks to delete subsection (4), would restore the position which existed under Section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, at least until the new appeals provisions in Part 5 come into force, and would seriously impede the processing of asylum applications.
Section 6 was replaced because it was an obstacle to the processing of applications. Put most simply, if an illegal entrant applied for asylum and the application was refused and the decision was sent by post, it was not possible to notify the applicant of his right to appeal because it is the setting of removal directions which trigger the appeal. Under the old Section 6 of the Act, and under Amendment No. 194E were it to be approved, it would be necessary to wait until the applicant had received the notification of the outcome of the asylum application before removal directions could be given. This is unnecessarily cumbersome. Parliament accepted in 1999 that it made more sense to be able to send the two directions in the same envelope. I do not understand why the noble Lord now wishes to revert to the pre-1999 position.
Similarly, in a deportation case, if the asylum application is refused a deportation order has to be made in order to trigger the appeal to the adjudicator. Apart from the sheer inefficiency of having to send two letters to the same person two or three days apart, imagine the feelings of the applicant who receives a letter saying his application for asylum has been refused but which says nothing about how a challenge can be made to that decision.
As I have said, the position on appeals will change under our proposals in Part 5 and removal directions will no longer be the event which triggers the appeal. But, apart from the possibility that we may wish to commence this clause in advance of Part 5, where it is possible to do so, we would still wish to set removal directions at the same time as the applicant is notified of the decision to effect removal.
Amendment No. 194F takes a rather different approach to subsection (4) and seeks to limit its effect rather than abolish it altogether. I should make it clear that the Government fully accept the need to safeguard the position of those who claim they are in danger of persecution in their country of origin. However, we cannot accept that it would never be appropriate to make inquiries of the authorities in the country concerned where these can be done—and I stress this—in a way that does not put the applicant or his family at risk.
For example, where someone has submitted a birth certificate as evidence of identity, we may wish to confirm whether or not it is genuine. Similarly, asylum

1339
applicants from the Indian sub-continent sometimes submit what are said to be warrants for their arrest. These can be checked without disclosing the reasons for checking. I have to advise the Committee that quite often we discover that the documents submitted are false; they are not genuine. We accept the need to be discreet but cannot accept that we can never make inquiries of the authorities in the country concerned.
Separately, I can see no reason why an applicant should not be asked to complete a travel document application provided that it is made clear that this is done as a matter of routine and will in no way affect the outcome of his application. It is far more straightforward to obtain the necessary information at an early stage in the process. If the applicant is subsequently given leave to remain, the application form can be destroyed.
Finally, I should like to deal briefly with Amendments Nos. 194G and 194GA. Like Amendments Nos. 194E and 194F, these form a pair. Amendment No. 194G would make a similar amendment to Clause 67 to the one made to Clause 66 by Amendment No. 194E, and Amendment No. 194GA makes the corresponding alternative option offered by Amendment No. 194E. In each case, the first deletes a subsection, and the second seeks to limit the action permissible under that subsection. But whereas the first pair apply to asylum applications, Amendments Nos. 194G and 194GA would apply to any appeals, not just to asylum appeals.
Provided that the person concerned is not removed, which is the effect of Clause 67 as presently drafted, there is no good reason why preparatory measures should not be taken. Indeed, if this reduces delays at a later stage, it seems reasonable to do so. There is no reason why everything should be put on hold the moment an appeal is lodged and resumed only when the appeal is dismissed.
Equally, there seems no reason to limit the nature of the interim or preparatory action permitted in the way proposed. My objections to Amendment No. 194E apply equally to this amendment; but just as this amendment goes wider than just asylum appeals, so my objections are also broader. Clearly, we would not take any action which we believed might prejudice the safety of any appellant.
I do not accept either that preparatory steps to document someone whose application for asylum has been considered and refused should be suspended pending the outcome of any appeal.
I have given a long response but, I hope, a full one, which explains plainly our intention in regard to this part of the legislation and why we cannot accept these amendments.
Earl Russell: I listened as carefully as I could to that reply. It seems to me to give rise to quite a number of problems. I am rather distressed by what the Minister says about making inquiries in the country of origin. Very often, refugees have relatives, friends, colleagues and political allies still living in the country of origin. Those people may be in acute danger. A mere inquiry
1340
about a birth certificate, although it may purport to be about something that is completely un-germane to any case of asylum, gives the authorities in the country of origin the idea that the person may well he in this country. It can hardly do otherwise.
I do not think that the Minister can possibly have any idea of how many lives he may be putting at risk by the process that he is undertaking. I am aware that it is for his administrative convenience. I am aware that the invocation of Article 3 may on occasion disturb the programme. But this sounds a little like that type of librarian who says, "The only thing wrong with libraries is that they have readers".
What the Minister says about Article 3 is a curiously circular piece of argument. He says that, at present, it comes into effect only at the moment of removal, But in a sense it is equally true that the claim to be a refugee comes into effect only at the point of removal—because in both cases that is the only point where the line is transgressed.
What the Minister says about preparatory work is clearly for his convenience. I can understand that—and I do not regard the inconvenience of the Home Office as being a desirable objective for its own sake. On the other hand, once you have put in train measures for a person to be removed, you have set a piece of clockwork machinery running. The risk that that clockwork machinery may run on of its own momentum until it leads to the deportation and possibly the death of the person concerned is a real one. The point I made about Mary, Queen of Scots was not merely a piece of antiquarian amusement. It described something which is capable of happening in any century and is probably happening at this minute.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister told the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that he would not take him up on the Mary Queen of Scots point and then went on to say that the Government would never act against the human rights of anyone whom they were removing from the country. I am not in the business of rubbing salt in Home Office wounds, but in the run-up to Clause 56 the other night the Minister might well have said, but for the grace of God, that if the Government were seeking statutory cover for some act that they wished to perform, they would never dream of acting until Parliament had vouchsafed them those powers.
The Minister's error is not as comprehensive as that of the schoolboy who wrote that Mary Queen of Scots was playing golf with her husband when news was brought to her of the birth of her child. I have always wished that a Victorian tableau painter could have recorded that. However, in his response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the Minister was leading with his chin.
Lord Avebury: I would love to pursue the Mary Queen of Scots point, but I shall not do so at this time of night, to save the noble Lord the trouble of going down those historical avenues. However, I cannot

1341
refrain from saying that I found the reply profoundly unsatisfactory, particularly on the preparatory action, which the noble Lord has not justified at all.
The noble Lord gave one example of a person making a false claim to have been arrested or that arrest warrants had been issued in his name. Surely the noble Lord is aware that it is up to the applicant to satisfy the immigration officer or adjudicator, as the case may be, of the facts adduced in support of his claim. If he says that a warrant was issued for his arrest, he has to prove that to the satisfaction of the adjudicator. If he fails to produce documentary evidence that the arrest warrant was issued, the adjudicator will disregard that claim.
The noble Lord may shake his head, but that is a fact. That is how adjudicators look at matters that are brought before them, as I am sure the noble Countess sitting behind him will confirm.
The Countess of Mar: The noble Lord is under a misconception. The Minister is right.
Lord Avebury: Will adjudicators accept a claim that somebody had been arrested or that a warrant had been issued for their arrest without any documentary proof being adduced in support of that claim?
The Countess of Mar: I think the Minister was saying that false documents are sometimes presented. The onus is then on the Home Office to prove that they are false. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
Lord Avebury: I am certainly not disputing the fact that false documents may sometimes be produced. However, if the Home Office asked the authorities in the country of origin to verify or disprove a claim that a person had been arrested and if the claim turned out to be genuine, it would certainly put him in great jeopardy if he was finally sent back to that country. We do not have to go back to Mary Queen of Scots to find examples of the Home Office sending people back to great jeopardy. I said earlier that until January—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am intrigued by the assumption that the Government would undertake inquiries that put someone at risk. I have no evidence that we have ever authorised such a process and such a set of inquiries. We have no evidence that any applicant or family has been put at risk in the way suggested by the noble Lord. If he has evidence and examples of that happening, clearly we want to hear of them because they may impact on our view on the matter. I made it very clear that we would not do anything that would put an applicant at risk and that any inquiries would be conducted with the utmost discretion.
1342
Noble Lords opposite ought to be prepared to accept that, because that is how we believe the system should be run.
Lord Avebury: We are looking at the new situation that will arise when the Minister has these powers. He is asking Parliament to approve the power to allow him to take,
"any other interim or preparatory action".
He has given one example of that this evening which does not cover the whole spectrum of possible inquiries that might be made or possible preparatory actions that the Secretary of State might take. We do not know what that action is as there is no definition of it in the Bill.
So we are not talking about the situation in the past but what will happen if the Committee approves this subsection which I am seeking to delete. I am afraid that the Minister has not satisfied me on that.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: I shall, if I may, reply to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I think that everyone accepts that on occasion forged papers will be supplied. I think that everyone accepts that the Home Office is under a duty to check those papers. What we feel very strongly is that, wherever possible, and I hope always, those papers will be checked without direct recourse to the country of origin. After all, the Home Office must be familiar with the format of documents from a good many countries, and especially with the format of documents used for purposes of immigration and passports. On these occasions, any check of the format of the document—of the watermark of the paper, of the date of the paper, of the location of the paper—is in order.
The Minister says that he does not know of any individual applicant who has suffered either in person or through his family as a result of such inquiries. But, as the saying goes, he wouldn't, would he? If the country of origin chooses to take action perhaps several weeks later against the wife or the first cousin or the political colleague of the applicant, the first thing that the country of origin will do is not to inform the British Home Office that it has taken that action.
If the British Home Office hears that a Mr Singh has been detained for a public disturbance, there is no reason at all why the Home Office should connect that particular Mr Singh with a Mr Singh about whom it has just made a travel inquiry. It is in the nature of the case that the Home Office would not know this. I accept its good intentions. But it must be aware that a number of the people whom it returned to Zaire very shortly before that practice was thankfully brought to a halt had by the time they were discovered suffered very serious injury. In times past appeals were made on behalf of other people, but orders were made to return them to Zaire and sometimes they were never found again.

1343
Mistakes have been made and I think that the Home Office must be aware of that. It must be aware that, even with the best of intentions, it is moving in very dangerous territory. The tidiness of process cannot be the only consideration.
Lord Avebury: We are not talking about the situation as it has been in the past but about what will happen when the Secretary of State has the new powers that we are conferring on him in this Bill. Those powers include,
"the taking of any other interim or preparatory action".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These are not new powers. As I explained, I think, they replicate powers in Section 15 and Schedule 4 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Lord Avebury: However, they are powers that will be exercised prior to the determination of a person's claim and prior to the outcome of his appeal. We are saying that if the Secretary of State uses these powers, it may well jeopardise the position of the applicant.
We are aware of families in Zimbabwe who have been harassed after it became known that their relatives had made applications for asylum in this country. As the Minister will be aware, right up until early January we were pleading with the Secretary of State not to send people back to Zimbabwe, particularly those who had MDC membership, because of the campaign of violence inflicted on them by the Mugabe regime. The Government continued to send those people back, and they continued to dispute the validity of the MDC cards that were produced in support of their applications.
If the Secretary of State is now going to make inquiries of Mr Mugabe as to whether someone's MDC membership card is valid—as he certainly would be able to do under the clause, as the noble Lord verified—we think that that is a dangerous power with which to arm the Secretary of State.
However, I realise that I shall not convince the noble Lord of any of this at this time of the evening. I assure him that we shall return to these matters on Report reinvigorated after the Summer Recess. For the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194E and 194F not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [No removal while appeal pending]:
[Amendments Nos. 194G to 194GA not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Removal of asylum-seeker to third country]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 194H:
Page 38, line 41, at end insert—
"() Standing arrangements within the meaning of this section shall not apply unless they have been laid in draft before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
1344
The noble Lord said: The Minister will probably be happy that this is the final amendment that is proposed to Part 4. Clause 68 concerns the removal of asylum seekers to third countries. The clause substitutes a new Section 11 for Section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Subsection (5) of the new Section refers to standing arrangements. Those arrangements give us cause for concern.
The Secretary of State can already prevent an in country appeal in a third country case by certification where removal is under the Dublin Convention. The clause allows him to certify cases under bilateral agreements between member states. It believe that it is right and proper that if such bilateral agreements are secured between different countries, Parliament has a right to know what those agreements are. Accordingly, our amendment requires that any such bilateral agreement be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Dhoilakia, mentioned the Dublin Convention. However, if the Secretary of State signs a certificate to send people to another member state, that surely presupposes that that member state is prepared to accept them. I should be interested to know at present how many member states have arrangements for receiving people from this country under these circumstances. It seems a good idea for Parliament to be informed of those arrangements as they are made. However, my understanding is that we have no such arrangement at the moment with anyone. I may have the matter wrong. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment would make any arrangement made with another EU member state for the return of asylum seekers there subject to the approval of each House of Parliament. We do not agree that "standing arrangements" which we might make with any member state or states should require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
The "standing arrangements" referred to in this section apply specifically when the member state with whom an arrangement has been made has accepted that it is the responsible state in relation to the claimant's claim for asylum. No arrangement under this clause can be entered into unless that condition has been fulfilled. I do not think that it is necessary to seek the approval of Parliament therefore for arrangements to carry out removals to safe third countries.
Given the level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms by the member states of the European Union, member states should be properly regarded as constituting safe countries for all legal and practical purposes in relation to asylum matters. Any such "standing arrangements" should therefore benefit from the automatic safe third country provisions envisaged in Section 11 of the 1999 Act. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

1345
In response to the question of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which was about agreements with member states, I advise him that none has yet been entered into outside Dublin.
Earl Russell: On the removal centres, I wonder whether the Minister has quite so much confidence in his judgment about what is a matter on which the approval of Parliament is necessary. Parliament is entitled to take a view of its own in that regard. In due course, I hope that it will.
I express a good deal of doubt about the concept of a safe third country. That concept is treated as if it were an absolute. There is no such thing as a country that is absolutely safe or one which is absolutely unsafe. After all, plenty of people were safe in the Soviet Union in the days of Stalin's glory. The question surely must be whether the country is safe for a particular applicant. That is not the same question at all. Take, for example, the United States, which is generally regarded as one of the safer countries in the world in terms of civil liberties. I do not know how many Members of the Committee remember the name of Matthew Sheppard, a gay young man who was found dead, lashed to a fence at Laramie, Wyoming. He had been beaten to death. Had Mr Matthew Sheppard succeeded in escaping from that fence, arrived in this country and applied for asylum on the ground that he had a well-founded fear or persecution, that would have been a perfectly genuine asylum claim. No amount of certifying the United States to be a safe country would have changed that. Moreover, a number of specialists in jurisprudence in the United States might have agreed with that claim.
I hope in future that we will discuss not whether a country is absolutely safe but whether it is safe for a particular applicant. When dealing with applicants who are in that situation, that is often a very material distinction. I hope that the Minister will address that in future amendments. We might get along a little faster.
Lord Dholakia: The Minister's explanation would have been more convincing if there had not been so many discussions in recent days in which the Government were prepared to regulate overseas aid to third world countries on the basis of whether they would take people deported from this country. I do not know what the truth of the matter is; I see only the press publicity on such matters. It is right and proper that if any arrangement is secured with member states, Parliament has a right to know how the Government arrived at that arrangement and whether there were any behind-the-scenes arrangements about which Parliament was not aware. It is right and proper for Parliament to scrutinise any such arrangement, rather than simply trusting the Government. There is very little trust left in terms of the policy involving the deportation of asylum seekers.
1346
We can come back to this matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 221:
Before Clause 102, insert the following new clause—
"IMMIGRATION PROCEDURE AND WAITING TIMES: ANNUAL REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(1) The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament detailing the measures taken and proposed to improve procedure and reduce waiting times in immigration applications and appeals.

(2) The report shall include details of outcomes relating to any targets agreed or set by the Secretary of State in respect of such applications and appeals."

The noble Baroness said: I welcome the fact that Amendment No. 235, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been grouped with this amendment. The amendments cover a similar matter.
The purpose of my amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on his targets and measures to improve immigration procedures. The Bill is entitled the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, but there is precious little in it on immigration. That point was made by several noble Lords at Second Reading.
There is an absence of measures needed to speed up immigration decisions and appeals; no proposals were advanced by the Government on Report in another place. In Committee in another place, the Minister indicated that the Government were looking into the administrative processes. What progress have the Government have made in terms of the details of how the processes could be improved? I am advised by the Immigration Advisory Service that students, spouses, dependent relatives and others are subjected to inordinate delay, which greatly prejudices their lives.
Speaking in another place at Second Reading, Mr Keith Vaz pointed out:
"There is a real problem of lack of co-ordination between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over cases that come from abroad. The appeals section of the Home Office should be renamed room 101. Files just disappear in there and hon. Members spend all their time trying to find out what happened to explanatory statements".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/02; cols. 377–378.]
As a former Minister at the FCO, he should certainly know.
A trawl through parliamentary Written Answers shows that, although there are targets for entry clearance officers, those are not monitored. Worse still, there are not even any targets, let alone monitoring, concerning how long an explanatory statement should remain in the Home Office. There is no doubt that the system is in disarray. My amendment would give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise in the proper manner any proposals brought forward by the Government to ensure that the system is improved.
I made it clear that, at this late stage of the evening, this is a probing amendment. However, it may be one that I shall wish to pursue at a later stage. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Our Amendment No. 235 is grouped with this amendment. Perhaps I may make one or two remarks about the need for an annual report to Parliament of the measures taken and the proposals to improve procedures and reduce waiting times in relation to applications and appeals against targets that are agreed by the department.
Certain targets are set out in the White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer. They include, for example, the aim that we shall try to ensure that all first applications are dealt with in two months and appeals in four months. Since discussing this matter at an earlier stage, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, saying that we should be doing better than that. When that target was set out in the White Paper we were not contemplating accommodation centres, the purpose of which is to speed up the procedures and, by providing all the facilities in one place, ensure that the applicant has access to legal advice, that the adjudication is carried out in the vicinity or in the accommodation centre and that, in every other way, the procedures are as smooth as possible.
Therefore, why do we not have targets which aim for better than two and four months? After all, the whole purpose of this legislation is to try to improve the flow of work through the asylum system. That is the question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, when I wrote to him after discussing the matter at an earlier stage. Perhaps Ministers on the Front Bench can tell us why they have not improved on that performance already.
If we had an annual report such as that proposed in the amendment, it would ensure that Parliament had continuing oversight of the objectives set by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and that it could form an opinion about whether the Government were performing adequately against those targets. I believe that this is a fairly obvious amendment which will keep the Government on their toes. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Judd: I hope that, as this is a probing amendment, my noble friend the Minister will deal with the anxieties expressed from the Benches opposite. However, I want to say to those who proposed the amendment that in some respects its wording is unfortunate. We are after expeditious, effective action which is committed to justice. It seems to me that the amendments lend credence to the concept of administrative targets. Targets of that kind may work against the deliberation of justice and against ensuring the right outcome. Therefore, I suggest that, after making their probe and if they go away to consider what they will do on Report, they come back with a rather more considered amendment on this point.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I speak in support of my noble friend. Twice during this Committee stage I have alluded to the fact that in the previous Parliament I found that I had to write to the Home Office 40 times as often as I had done in any earlier Parliament. Primarily that was because at a particular moment in the previous Parliament Ministers requested Members of Parliament writing on behalf of constituents to cease writing to Ministers and to write to officials instead. Inevitably, that slowed down the speed with which one received a response, but I understood the problems that the Home Office had during that period—translating manual files into computerised ones— so I was happy. At all stages I faithfully did what Home Office Ministers asked, until one Minister said that the situation was easing and it would be all right to write to Ministers.
The consequence of writing 40 times as often as I ever had before—previously I had communicated only with Ministersx2014;was that I gained a wide experience of how long it would take for a file to be sorted out if it came direct to officials and not via a. Minister's private office. My experience was the same as my constituents would have had if they had written to Home Office officials themselves. I hope for the sake of everyone concerned—those in the Home Office and former constituents of mine—that that situation is now easing, and that the Government's attention to current cases will gradually produce a removal of the backlog. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but I cannot say whether an annual report of this kind would make any difference. There were moments when I wondered whether Ministers had any conception of the experience of Members of Parliament in dealing with officials rather than with Ministers' private offices.
I shall cite a particular instance. A constituent of mine who started communicating with me in about 2000, after visiting me at a surgery, had been through the entire procedures in relation to remaining in this country as early as the end of 1996 and had been invited by the Government to leave the country. He had not done so, but had continued to live in a hostel in my constituency. Once a year he went first to Dover and then to Ramsgate to acquire authority to stay for another year. In 2001 he wanted some degree of finality to his situation because he could not get on with his life, but when I communicated with the Home Office it said that that was the first time that it had heard of the individual since indicating to him that he should leave the country in 1996.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in his early days as a barrister, was once asked to defend the Three Hands Disinfectant Company. He resisted the temptation to say to the judge, "This is one of those cases where two hands did not know what the third hand was doing"! The experience of those who dealt with the engine room of the Home Office during the two years when we were asked not to communicate with Ministers left one with a real concern on behalf of constituents as to what happens in the engine room which is invisible to the outside world.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his story and personal experience. I share his sense of frustration. In the past I too have had to conduct casework with large bureaucracies, including the Home Office. There is always room for improvement. We would not pretend that in the past matters have been perfect and we will not pretend that they will be in a state of perfection in the future. For that reason this substantial piece of legislation is before the Committee. We are seeking to make improvements to the system. Noble Lords cannot have missed the substantial sums that the Government have set aside to invest in improving this area of their operation.
Delays in official correspondence are, quite rightly, often paraded in aid of an argument in your Lordships' House. However, it must also be placed on the record that the casework performance, certainly within the Home Office and its agencies, has improved considerably. Casework has certainly speeded up for both asylum and non-asylum cases. The noble Lord helped to make the point. Computer systems being introduced and going over from a manual to a computer-based system led to a significant improvement following difficulties in earlier years. That is recognised. We are starting to make serious inroads into the target times that have been set. Targets are aimed at reducing processing times and they are improving year on year, particularly on the two-plus-four target.
We now have a fully integrated case-work system bringing together immigration officers and those who work on asylum cases. We are aiming to ensure that the process works much better in the future. This group of amendments seeks to oblige the publication of an annual report with those targets in mind.
However, the information which Members of the Committee are keen to have in the public domain in the form of an annual report is already publicly available in the Home Office annual report and in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate report. The information the amendments require are those fundamental to the achieving of aim six, which the Immigration and Nationality Directorate exists to deliver.
In common with other departments, the IND produces its performance and business priorities in publicly available reports. So we are already doing what the amendment would oblige us to do. I cannot accept the proposition that to produce another report replicating information already in an annual report in exactly the same form would lend any greater or added value. It is also the case—I am sure Members of the Committee who have been Members of another place know this full well—that the Home Affairs Select Committee reviews the Home Office annual report, and the Permanent Secretary and the IND director-general have to answer questions on it. In fact, they are due to answer questions on 18th July this year on precisely those issues.
Therefore the Government must resist the amendment. We are making improvements to casework processing. The information sought by the amendments is already in the public domain; it is debated publicly; it is
1350
reviewed and subjected to the rigorous scrutiny afforded through the effective Home Affairs Select Committee. For those reason I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for that reply. I made clear at the beginning that this, like all my other amendments this evening, is merely a probing amendment and like other amendments will not be pressed to a Division tonight. In other words, I am giving a cue note to Members opposite that they can relax.
I was grateful to hear from my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville who has long experience as a Member of the other place acting on behalf of constituents. It is important for that information to be on the record. There was perhaps a subtle irony in that in moving the amendment I was trying to persuade the Government to set yet more targets when they seem to be wedded to them up to the eyeballs. Yet we have a Member on their own Benches in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, trying to persuade me that setting targets can be counter-productive. So it looks as though we have won one convert on the Government Back Benches. Perhaps we might win some more as time goes on.
Of course I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 102 to 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Fee for work permit, &.]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 222:
Page 54, line 39, at end insert "but no fee shall be payable by nonprofit organisations"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 222 I also welcome Amendment No. 222A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It is similar to mine but perhaps not quite as robust. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is indicating that his noble friend Lord Avebury will be speaking on that amendment.
Clause 105 gives the Secretary of State the power to charge for the consideration of applications for immigration employment documents including work permits. Subsection (3) provides for regulations to give details of the charges to be made.
Amendment No. 222 would ensure that non-profit organisations would not be subject to charges. As the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association has pointed out, it is only right that there should be a distinction in this matter between profit-making and non-profit making organisations.
What progress have the Government made with the consultation mentioned during the debate in Standing Committee E on this amendment in another place on 16th May at cols. 282 to 284? My honourable friend Mr Malins asked the Government to consult widely on what should happen to charitable and non-profit making organisations. In response the Minister,

1351
Ms Winterton, stated that the consultation process had begun on 15th April. At col. 283 she stated that it included charities and non-profit making organisations and would be completed by 5th July.
Can the Minister confirm whether that consultation process has been completed? How many charities and non-profit making organisations were given the opportunity to respond? When will the results be published, since publication was promised by the Minister in another place? I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Amendment No. 222A provides substantially the same as Amendment No. 222 but in slightly different words. We think there is a case for exempting non-profit organisations from the fees that would otherwise be chargeable under the clause. We realise that the Minister has the power to exempt them in the clause. We hope that it will be clear that he will do so on the face of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With regard to the outcome of the consultation in this area, referred to by the noble Baroness. Lady Anelay, which ended on 5th July, we do not yet have the full analysis. I am told that this will not be available until mid-August. We do not propose any exemptions to the charge except to prospective employers of nationals of countries which have signed and ratified the Council of Europe charter or the European Social Charter in its revised state.
Currently, these countries make up approximately 5.5 per cent of all work permit applications received. In the year 2001–02 just over 8,500 applications were received from such countries. I could give the break down but I do not believe that it would greatly illuminate our debate.
We do not want to pre-empt our consultation exercise. We are committed to publishing the findings by 22nd September this year. To further respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, I am advised that 68 charities and not-for-profit organisations were in contact with the Home Office as part of that consultation exercise. We can probably assume from that it was fairly broadly cast and ranged fairly fully.
We consulted a wide range of employers. They included charities and not-for-profit organisations. But we have not yet collated the outcome of the information fully.
At this point it would be premature and defeat the very object of consultation—after all, it was the product of earlier debate—and pre-empt the findings of our formal consultation exercise. I hope that noble Lords will not seek to press—they have hinted that they will not—the amendment.
In this context, it is right that the question of exemptions is dealt with in secondary legislation. The clause, as drafted, allows exemptions to be included in regulations and enacted by statutory instrument. Regulations can more easily in that form be amended in future rather than in primary legislation. It is in an adaptable state and better able to reflect changes that
1352
perhaps have taken place in the labour market which make exemptions from fee-paying desirable from time to time.
Should our consultation exercise provide suitable evidence that we should look at the exemption of not-for-profit organisations, we will need to be clear on the detail of which organisations this should include. We will need to ensure that the regulations clearly define which not-for-profit organisations will be covered by any exemption. I say that because a blanket exemption for charities could involve exempting private schools, for example, many of which are registered in that way. If we conclude that all or certain not-for-profit organisations should not be exempted at this stage, the provisions as drafted allow us the flexibility to introduce further exemptions in future.
Also, because any regulations passed under the provisions must be passed by negative resolution, there will be an opportunity for Members of the Committee to object to non-exemption, if they so wish.
I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been moved. We hope that the Committee Willa wait our full analysis of the consultation exercise, which has been valuable. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I certainly agree that it will be important in framing regulations for the Government to be certain about which organisations should be defined. The consultation that they are carrying out should help them to hone that definition of the relevant organisations.
The Minister will appreciate that our difficulty is that because the regulations will cover more than just tax-exempt charities, however they may be defined—they will cover other matters, such as the sliding scale of payments for all other organizations—we may end up with a statutory instrument that is wholly admirable in one part, but entirely objectionable in another. It is a draconian step for noble Lords to pray against a statutory instrument and carry it to the death. So it is all the more important that, between us, we ensure that the definitions at which the Government arrive in the statutory instrument will hold true and be accepted by all sides.
I am grateful to the Minister for promising that the analysis will be published in mid-August. Before I formally beg leave to withdraw the amendment, when the analysis is published in the recess, will it be in the Library or in the Printed Paper Office? How may noble Lords gain access to it before we must consider tabling amendments for Report?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With the customary "nodding dog" approach to information and intelligence passing around your Lordships' House, I am advised that we will place it in the Library.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222A not moved.]
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Authority to carry]:
[Amendment No. 222B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: There is a point to be made on Clause 107 stand part of which the Committee should be made aware. The clause introduces a new scheme that provides the Secretary of State with power to penalise airlines and other carriers who do not obtain an authority to carry a person where an authority-to-carry scheme has been imposed. The clause is extremely broadly drafted and the Secretary of State can impose different schemes for different classes of passenger and for different classes of carrier. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make whatever regulations he needs to operate such schemes.
Has the Minister received any representations from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees about the clause? As we understand it, the commission believes that the authority-to-carry scheme may actively impede the right to asylum. It considers that it would obstruct admission to the asylum determination system and that the practical effect of the scheme may be such as to undermine the spirit of the convention.
We are already making it as difficult as possible for people who might be eligible for asylum to get to the United Kingdom in the first place. This is one more impediment in the way of people who have genuine reasons to fear persecution in their home country and would like to come here and apply for asylum. The authority-to-carry scheme puts a huge obstacle in the path of anyone wishing to come here by a regular, scheduled service. It requires more justification than we have heard so far.
Lord Berkeley: Can my noble friend explain how Clause 107 differs from Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971, which also requires carriers to pay someone's return fare or pay a penalty if they have brought in people who do not have the right travel documents?
Lord Filkin: I shall respond first to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about UNHCR, say a few words about the intent of Clause 107 and then respond to the point about Section 27.
The UNHCR has expressed some concern that authority to carry schemes could impede the right to asylum and has amplified that by saying that it might obstruct admission to the asylum determination system. The Government's view is that ATC schemes are designed to identify people who are known already to pose a security or immigration control threat. They would not normally identify a person who had not previously been to the UK. Most people coming to the UK to seek asylum who had not previously applied for asylum here would not be known to the system.
1354
The clause provides a power to make regulations allowing for the future creation of a scheme. The Government think that there will be sense in exploring such schemes, but we are not in a position to do so imminently. The purpose of pre-screening is to identify people who are a known security or immigration control threat—nothing more than that. That would include people who are known to be subject to a deportation order or an international travel ban, who have been excluded at the direction of the Home Secretary or who present documents that are not acceptable because they are false or do not properly establish the identity of the holder. It is not intended to make decisions on a person's admissibility under immigration rules.
In making regulations, we intend to provide avenues for redress and for inquiries to be made from the country of origin. However, we believe that the schemes have potential advantages for travellers generally. Similar arrangements have been successful in Australia. In any event, any scheme would be introduced using the affirmative resolution procedure, which would give ample opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important, however, that we are able to explore the option and, if appropriate, introduce regulations to introduce such a scheme.
The muse is silent on the question about Section 27 of the 1971 Act. I shall write to my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Lord Avebury: Presumably, the UNHCR made representations in discussion with the Home Office. Does the Minister think that his department has satisfied the concerns initially expressed by the UNHCR?
Lord Filkin: I do not know whether the representations were made in dialogue or in writing. Nevertheless, I shall examine the matter and come back to the noble Lord.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Carriers' Liability]:
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 223:
Page 96, leave out lines 1 and 2.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 223, which stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Freeman and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 224 and 225.
Before speaking to the amendment, I declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. I shall explain a little of the background to the Committee, as the next five groups concern Schedule 8 which amends the carriers' liability provisions of the 1999 Act. The carriers' liability order provides for a £2,000 fixed civil penalty per clandestine entrant detected on a transporter, which covers both trucks and trains. The order causes great concern to all trade associations involved in transport.
I understand the difficulty for the Government, which is that an asylum seeker has achieved his objective if his feet touch UK soil. The Committee will understand the

1355
background to the problem but it is not relevant to our discussions on the amendments today. However, the problem means that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and his colleagues cannot run their train services, so goods have to be moved a long distance by road when they could be moved economically by rail. That is environmentally unsound and is destroying the cross-Channel rail industry.
In addition, cargo being moved by road or rail is being damaged and ruined by clandestines hiding in vehicles or containers. The clandestines are cunning and ingenious and organised crime is heavily involved. Because of the sophisticated technique employed, it is extremely difficult to avoid inadvertently carrying clandestines across the Channel.
The Committee should consider carefully the extent to which it is safe to bash the transport industry in general and truck drivers and their operators in particular. An unintended consequence of these civil penalties might be that decent, law-abiding operators leave the transport industry in favour of cowboys and much worse.
Another possible consequence is that the current shortage of HGV drivers may be exacerbated by good drivers declining to undertake Continental work because of the civil penalty regime and other difficulties and risks. When moving later amendments, I will talk more about difficulties with the ECHR, but in the Roth case the court criticised the existing system of calculating penalties as being disproportionately severe because a high-fixed penalty was applied cumulatively.
Schedule 8 amends Section 32 of the 1999 Act and introduces a new Section 32A. It provides for the penalty to be varied according to the degree of blame, but still leaves the resulting figure to be multiplied by the number of illegal immigrants detected. This is illogical and contrary to natural justice. The imposition of a civil penalty occurs where it has been determined that there are no grounds for introducing a criminal prosecution. It is therefore confined to instances of unwitting carriage through alleged negligence.
In those circumstances, the number of illegal immigrants who have managed to gain access to the vehicle is a matter of pure chance and can have no bearing on the degree of diligence exercised by the responsible person. It therefore follows that such an arbitrary figure can have no role in determining the amount of penalty. I beg to move.
Lord Freeman: I rise to support my noble friend in Amendments Nos. 223 to 225. I declare an interest as the immediate former president of the British International Freight Association. The freight industry, covering the movement of rail freight across the Channel and road freight, is extremely upset at the provisions in the Bill, which relate the penalty for bringing illegal immigrants into this country to the number of immigrants rather than the offence.
The offence is failure by the driver to examine either the freight wagon or the truck at the appropriate times to ensure that there are no illegal stowaways. That is the present system.
1356
To introduce in the Bill a penalty which says in effect, "It does not matter whether you have one, five or even 10 illegal immigrants, we shall calculate the penalty not on a single offence of negligence, but as a multiple of the number of immigrants", is, as my noble friend pointed out, an offence against natural justice. I should tell the Minister that what happens in practice is this. In virtually all the cases in the industry of which I am aware, where there is stowing away of illegal immigrants, it tends to take place as one event. A number will enter either a truck or a wagon. It is not a serial event. Of course that should he detected, if humanly possible, by the driver or by the person in charge of the freight.
I am sorry to say that there has been a lack of consultation with the transport industry on the part of the Government on these proposed changes to the 1999 legislation. The relevant amendments were introduced very late in the day and there has not been the normal opportunity for consultation. Given that, I would ask the Minister whether, between the Committee and Report stages, the Government are prepared to meet certain noble Lords including myself, my noble friend Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others, together with representatives of bodies such as the British International Freight Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Heavy Transport Association to hold a discussion before we return to this very important subject after the Summer Recess.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friends have been commendably succinct. I hope to assist them by being fairly brief as well. However, it may be appropriate to put on the record the Front Bench views on these matters across the whole series of amendments rather than speaking only to the group before the Committee. I shall not then have to repeat my words when we reach the subsequent groups.
I pay tribute to the expertise and hard work of my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Freeman in addressing these matters. I understand their concern that there may be unintended consequences as a result of the new civil penalty regime. I have heard many concerns expressed both tonight and on other occasions about the fact that the penalty is to be related to the number of clandestines who enter this country rather than to the offence itself.
My noble friends are also aware that we have always strongly supported government efforts both under this Government and during our own time in government to impose penalties that should prevent clandestines from entering this country. We recognise too the vital part played by the haulage companies in trying to achieve exactly the same aim; that is, to keep out clandestines. It is important that a fair and equitable operation of the penalties should be extended in the Bill and therefore it is necessary to debate the matter tonight because, as was pointed out by my noble friend, the opportunity to do so was not afforded in another place.
The Government face a difficult task in trying to ensure that clandestines do not enter this country and it is an effort that we wholeheartedly support. However, it

1357
must be balanced against the fact that they must not undermine the haulage industry, on which much of our economy depends. My noble friend Lord Freeman referred in particular to difficulties with regard to consultation. We have heard in connection with other parts of the Bill that perhaps the Home Office has not been exemplary in its consultation with the Local Government Association and that it hopes to put that right.
I hope to hear that the Minister will accede to the request of my noble friend Lord Freeman. Proper consultation should take place over the summer between officials, noble Lords with an interest in the matter and representatives of the industry. Perhaps we shall be able to resolve the difficulties before we reach the Report stage.
Lord Berkeley: I support these amendments and I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, on the way in which they have introduced them. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
Potentially the amendments will affect not only rail freight but road freight and, in certain circumstances, other means of crossing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in regard to the lack of consultation. I believe that we heard about this issue in late or mid-June. My noble friend the Minister has tabled a raft of new amendments for today's proceedings. The amendments may be good, they may be bad, but we certainly need more time for consultation before we get to Report stage.
On Second Reading, I generally welcomed these proposals as being, in the round, an improvement on the 1999 Act, although there are still problems. I welcomed particularly the fact that EWS Railway was effectively exempt because it did not have a joint venture agreement with French railways and therefore could not be held responsible for what happened on the French side.
In just over six months time something called "open access" is due to come into operation on the railways, when, in theory, any freight operator on the continent or here can run into any other country. We await with great interest to see whether it happens in France on 15th March, but it will happen elsewhere. The Commission see it as the way forward for freight and we do not want to encourage further restrictions on this traffic because undoubtedly the open access operator for rail freight would then be caught, hook, line and sinker, by Schedule 8. One would then have to question whether this complied with the Treaty of Rome and the open access policy. The European Commission is at the moment considering whether to take the French Government to court in respect of the illegal immigrants at Sangatte.
Looking at the amendments, I begin to wonder whether Section 32 of the 1999 Act is becoming a bit of a dog's breakfast. A "clandestine entrant" is defined as a person who comes in concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft—the Bill suggests that freight wagons should be added to the list—but why is a person not a clandestine
1358
entrant if he comes in on a passenger train? I do not believe that it has anything to do with the process for dealing with clandestines as they come in. Does entry by aircraft or train make any difference as to whether or not they are considered clandestine entrants? They are either clandestines or not, regardless of how they come in.
That brings me to the substance of these amendments. I do not understand why the Bill introduces a clandestine's friend—that is, a "concealed person". I can find no definition for a "concealed person", although there is a complex and rather inconsistent definition of what I call an asylum seeker, clandestine entrant or whatever. Can my noble friend help me with the definition of a "concealed person"? Does an asylum seeker have to be concealed? If he does have to be concealed, why do we have another category of person called a "concealed person"? And, secondly, why are passenger trains excluded from the definition of how a clandestine entrant might come in?
11.00 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I shall speak briefly to Clause 108 in general and respond to Amendment No. 223.
In this context we know about the numbers of clandestines that were coming in by freight vehicles and about the significant reduction in numbers which took place as a result of the civil penalty. Understandably the haulage industry did not like it but, from the Government's perspective, it achieved the intended objective despite the pain.
The Roth judgment, which, if I recollect correctly, took place in February, has put some pressure on time in this respect—which is one of the reasons why there have been some difficulties in consultation. These clauses are intended to address that.
To address some of the points raised, the level of penalty imposed will be determined by the Secretary of State, who will consider matters as specified in a new statutory code of practice, which is already on deposit and is available for consultation. The code will specify mitigating or aggravating factors, such as the responsible person's previous record of liability to penalties and, in certain circumstances, that person's level of co-operation in bringing clandestine entrants to the notice of authorities. A copy of the draft code has been placed in the Library and copies have been sent to haulage industry representatives inviting their comments.
Rather than all responsible persons being held jointly and severally liable, as under the existing regime, each individual responsible person will now be liable for his own penalty, which is clearly one of the areas of condition. Where a penalty is imposed on a driver who is an employee of the vehicle's owner or hirer, the employer will be jointly liable with the driver for payment of that penalty. Employers are clearly in a strong position to promote effective security measures: it is a well-established principle that an employer should take responsibility for the actions of the employee.
Where a penalty is imposed on more than one person, or on the same person in more than one capacity, there will also be a prescribed maximum, a total amount of

1359
penalties that may be imposed in respect of each clandestine entrant. The combined maximum amount that can he imposed will he prescribed in regulations.
In addition, however, we are taking the opportunity to introduce a statutory right of appeal by which a person may contest in the court both liability to a penalty and its level. The appeal will be a re-hearing of the Secretary of State's decision to impose a penalty and may take account of matters of which he was unaware at the time the decision was made. The penalty regime, as amended, will also apply to rail freight and freight shuttle operators.
The argument that the number of clandestines who are able to enter a vehicle should be ignored is, we feel, inappropriate. Were it to be the case that carrying a single clandestine would give rise to the same penalty as the carriage of 30, we believe that the new provision will significantly reduce the motivation to take all possible or reasonable steps. It is more difficult for groups of clandestines to enter a vehicle than it is for individuals. Once access has been gained by a significant number, the presence of a group is easier to detect. There would be significantly less incentive for drivers and others properly to secure and check their vehicles in these circumstances.
Lord Berkeley: Can my noble friend help on this matter? He will recall a horrible situation that occurred about a year ago, when some 60 people were found dead in a container coming into this country. Is the carrier liable for payment in respect of people who are dead when they arrive?
Lord Filkin: Perhaps I am unduly sensitive, but I find that a rather macabre request. I should have thought that the answer was no. I shall check on the matter and write to the noble Lord.
It is also appropriate to take into account the outcome of a person's negligence which, in the case of clandestine entrants, has implications for the taxpayer.
A couple of points may be of some small comfort. Where a penalty has been imposed on a driver, we would normally seek payment from him in the first instance. If payment is not made by the driver, however, we shall seek to recover the penalty from his employer. If the employer has also received a penalty in his own right, it may be appropriate in some circumstances to take this into account when seeking to enforce payment.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, drew the Committee's attention to issues about consultation to which I have referred, which are due in part to the limited time since the Roth judgment, and in part to the complexity. While industry representatives and other interested parties have been informed about the proposed changes to the legislation, along with being sent copies of the draft code of practice, the time intervals are less than we normally expect and seek to achieve. Nevertheless, Beverley Hughes has agreed to meet the Freight Transport Association and either she or I will be happy to meet relevant interested noble Lords or relevant industry representatives at that meeting or a separate one, if appropriate.
1360
On a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, the existing Part II of the 1999 Act fixes a penalty of £2,000 per clandestine entrant. The provisions of the Bill are no different in that respect. That is not the point on which the Government lost in the Roth case. The Government lost on the fixed and relatively severe nature of the penalty.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, there is not a problem of clandestine entrants on passenger trains or aircraft because detection is much simpler. The owners of ships and aircraft are liable for passengers without required documents under carrier's liability, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, knows. We shall come to that point later this evening.
The noble Lord also asked whether the provisions were compatible with the free movement of goods requirement. The Roth judgment found civil penalty provisions to be fully compatible with EU law, including the free movement of goods. Nothing in the amendment would change that position.
I was also asked who a "concealed person" is. A concealed person is a person who is concealed— would you believe it?—with a clandestine entrant but who does not fall within the definition of a clandestine entrant as set out in Section 32(1) of the 1999 Act. I shall require time to understand that, so no doubt we shall return to the subject if it is not as clear as it should be.
Finally, I was asked why we do not apply the civil penalty to passenger trains. Historically, there has never been a significant problem, as I mentioned previously.
That concludes all I wish to say, apart from to repeat that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and others can look forward to a fuller discussion with Beverley Hughes or me. I hope that at this time of night it will not be necessary to press the amendments.
Lord Berkeley: I thank my noble friend very much for his answers. I accept that there is much less of a problem with aircraft and passenger trains. We have discussed the subject many times. I come back to Section 32 of the 1999 Act, which includes aircraft but not passenger trains. I wonder why, in all their amendments, the Government have not taken the opportunity to remove aircraft if they are not a problem.
Lord Filkin: That is further food for thought for the holidays. I shall add it to the pile that is mounting rapidly.
Earl Russell: I had intended to speak later on Amendments Nos. 228 or 228A, but by discussing the whole of Schedule 8 in his reply, the Minister has invited me to make my remarks now rather than leaving it until later.
There are a good many more problems about carrier's liability than anyone has yet indicated. In the first place, this is a privatisation of an administrative liability. I have always had my doubts about those. They tend to create a conflict of interest. It is clearly in the interests of the carrier to turn away as many people as possible. That applies particularly to the airlines. They are not expert in immigration control. They are not trained in the

1361
recognition of documents in the way that the Home Office and its employees might be. They have a natural interest in saving themselves from fines. They are becoming judge and party in their own courts.
Those problems of conflict of interest in privatisations go back centuries. Nobody has found the answer and the Government have not done so here.
My second cause for concern is that it is always unjust to punish people for things that are not under their control. I shall not soon forget the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when we discussed the 1999 Bill. He described the way in which freight trains across Europe are put together and how it is possible for clandestine entrants to make their way into wagons long before the person who is liable to pay the fine has had any access to them.
I do think there should be some concept of mens rea before one applies any notion of crime. One should fine people for what they do, not for what others have done or for what they, with all reasonable care, cannot prevent. That is why I had been thinking of making my remarks largely on the subject of Amendment No. 228 which deals very specifically with this problem. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will, in spite of having had a full reply on the schedule, take up that amendment in due course. It is a good one and I wholeheartedly support it.
The reason I am deeply concerned about carriers' liability is that it is another case where we suffer very deeply from the confusion between immigration law and asylum law, and of course it bites on both equally. The carrier is not trained in distinguishing between an immigrant and an asylum seeker. He is not trained in distinguishing between an economic migrant and a victim of persecution. If one's job is running heavy goods vehicles, one cannot reasonably be expected to be expert on things like that.
Immigration differs deeply from asylum. In respect of immigration, you can be expected to have a proper and orderly set of papers. You can be expected to prove who you are, where you come from and what route you have travelled by. If you cannot do these things you are an illegal immigrant and you may suffer for it. It is in the very nature of being an asylum seeker that you come from somewhere where you probably have no access to such papers and would risk your life if you attempted to get them. So it is in the nature of being an asylum seeker that you cannot legitimately be expected to have the proper documentation and cannot be punished for it.
How are legitimate asylum seekers to make entry to the country? I know somebody who has come in illegitimately in a lorry; three days and nights freezing with a daughter probably suffering from pneumonia. It is not a particularly pleasant experience. However, it is in the nature of the market that where there is a sufficiently intense demand for something, the market will, legally or illegally, supply it. So if there is to be no legal route whereby genuine asylum seekers can make entry to the country and make their claim, then it is to be expected that they will use an illegal route, some people undoubtedly indulging in that deliberately and consciously as a matter of profit.
1362
It may be perfectly proper to punish those people if a legal substitute is supplied. Equally, however, as we have seen regularly with trains and with many heavy goods vehicles—as we have even seen with people clinging to the undercarriages of aircraft coming into Heathrow, clinging on to any nook or cranny they can get hold of, and occasionally falling from several thousand feet in the sky over Richmond—people will take that risk because there is no legal means by which they can get in.
I have heard the whole system described as a "ring of steel" to keep asylum seekers away from this country. If that is what the Government in their wisdom wish to do, they may do it. However, I do not think that they are entitled to punish innocent goods operators and innocent train operators because they unwittingly and unwillingly provide a vehicle—I use the word in both senses—by which this is done. So people here are being held responsible for what is the Government's fault. If the Government wish to put it right, they should take action themselves and allow people a legal route by which they may come to this country and claim asylum. It is simply no good saying that it is safe to claim asylum outside this country; it is not, and that is of the very nature of asylum.
If we could have genuine hearings at the ports with lawyers in attendance for both sides, then we might have a channel through which people could go and claim asylum legally and the weight would be taken off the carrier—to the great benefit of our national commerce, to the great benefit of the single market within Europe, and to enable people to make a legitimate profit through a legitimate business, as I think they should he free to do. Once again, immigration and asylum are two separate subjects. The carriers have a greater interest in establishing this than anyone else except the asylum seekers themselves.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Freeman: Before my noble friend concludes his remarks on the amendment, I thank the Minister for a fair response. The trade associations, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will welcome his comments. The Minister responded to a number of amendments. They are all interrelated as they concern the unjust burden imposed upon the freight industry. The Minister's offer of a meeting with either himself or Beverley Hughes during the recess is much welcomed. I thank the Minister.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with regard to the phrase concealed persons". It certainly confused me when I was drafting the amendments. My noble friend Lord Freeman talked about a lack of consultation. However, my phone was red hot as a result of calls from trade associations in connection with this matter.
I have a question for the Minister. What advice would he give to a lorry driver who leaves the port of Dover and realises that he has several clandestines on board his

1363
vehicle? Should he stop and let them run away or should he contact the authorities? What advice would the Minister give to a lorry driver in that situation?
Lord Filkin: I shall deal with the final point first. I am not sure whether it is easy or difficult but as a Home Office Minister there is only one response I can possibly give; namely, that the driver should report the matter to the responsible authorities. He would no doubt thereby expose himself to the prospect of a penalty but could plead in mitigation his honesty and compliance with the law—but you would expect me to say that, wouldn't you?
I shall seek to respond to a number of the other points that were made. I refer to the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about private bodies being expected to carry out administrative functions. In short, the Government believe that the responsibility for securing vehicles and trains to prevent the carriage of unauthorised persons must lie with the transport opera tor and not with the Immigration Service. We do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect carriers to take adequate steps physically to secure their transporters. They will be judged only against the test of whether they have taken all reasonable steps. The code of practice will seek to ensure that that is the case.
I was also asked about aircraft by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Earl Russell: I hope that I may ask the Minister for one more piece of advice in regard to someone who is a legitimate asylum seeker but an illegal immigrant. By what route should he attempt to enter this country?
Lord Filkin: I have not forgotten the question. I shall come to it in a moment. I refer to the question about aircraft asked by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Part 2 of the relevant legislation has not been commenced for aircraft because there is not presently perceived to be a problem for aircraft. The measure does not remove the reference to aircraft as the Government wish to maintain flexibility in case it proves necessary to apply the civil penalty to aircraft in the future. We do not expect carriers to be experts in this matter. We expect them only to carry out simple as opposed to sophisticated checks.
The question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is significant and profound. It deserves more of an answer than I can sensibly give at this stage, but I shall make one or two points. It is not the object to keep out genuine refugees. The UK continues to respond to the problems encountered by genuine refugees. However, not all non EEA nationals require visas to come to the UK. Although visa regimes may be widespread, they do not prevent genuine refugees from seeking international protection. Where an inadequately documented passenger makes a successful application for refugee status, any charge imposed on a carrier will be waived or refunded as appropriate. An asylum seeker always has the option of approaching a UNHCR representative. However, as I signalled, this is a massive subject which
1364
requires more time than one can give at this point. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Earl will feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response. He surprised me somewhat by covering most of my amendments in some detail. If I had been aware of that, I would have happily grouped them together and moved them en bloc. The hour is late and I do not propose to move my other amendments unless any Member of the Committee would like me to do so.
Lord Berkeley: There are a few matters in some of the other amendments that have not been covered but which deserve brief discussion, if the noble Earl agrees.
Earl Attlee: Will the noble Lord suggest which amendments he would like me to move, or shall I move them all?
Lord Berkeley: It would be best to move them all and to try to do so quickly.
Earl Attlee: Subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 226:
Page 96, leave out lines 16 to 18.
The noble Earl said: If the employer has diligently employed a suitable prevention scheme, I am not sure why he should be liable to the driver's penalty if the driver failed properly to implement the scheme when outside the control of the operator. The amendment deletes new subsection (4)(a) so that the employer would not be liable to the driver's penalty. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. One can go a step further in this context. As the Minister said in relation to an earlier amendment, the Bill is designed to cover the owner of the vehicle. However, in many instances nowadays, the owner of the vehicle is a financing and leasing company. I have received several representations from such companies. This consideration applies mainly to the road network but it could in future apply to rail. The companies say that due to the ways in which the financial arrangement is structured, their members—the leasing companies—are the title owners of the commercial vehicles, which in theory could be impounded and they could be liable for the penalties.
The companies obviously do not have any day-to-day operational control over the vehicles; they may not even know that they are going out of this country. It is pretty inequitable to penalise them for something over which they have no control. It is worth pointing out—I believe that this supports what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in relation to a previous amendment—that the business is worth about £billion a year. This approach is part of keeping the wheels of industry moving. If leasing companies say, "Right, none of your lorries is to go out

1365
of this country", that would add to the problems of drivers' hours, the shortage of drivers and so on and it would put up the cost of what comes into the country. Goods would probably come into this country in 25 year-old cowboy lorries. I hope that my noble friend will consider changes that could protect those lessors—if that is the right word—from that provision.
Earl Russell: There is only one problem with this approach. The noble Earl's argument for protecting the employer from the driver's penalty has much equitable force in it. However, there is a risk of a shortage of drivers who are prepared to undertake cross-Channel journeys. There is such a thing as international commerce and it is rather important to this country. If no one is prepared to take the risk of being a driver, how will that happen?
Lord Filkin: Briefly, the amendment would remove the provision that the vehicle's owner or hirer should be held jointly responsible for the payment of a civil penalty issued to the driver where they are the driver's employers.
It is a well-established principle of civil law that employers should take some responsibility for the action of their employees while retaining some level of personal liability themselves. It is perfectly reasonable to expect employers to train and monitor their employees, and to exert influence over them, to ensure that they take proper security measures that are required to avoid liability to a penalty.
The provision is also needed to enable the effective enforcement of the regime. It will prevent drivers whose personal resources will be more limited than those of haulage firms being disproportionately affected by the civil penalty regime.
With regard to the point raised about finance and leasing companies, the amendments moved by the Government tonight provide a significant concession for leasing companies by allowing them to apply to a court for the release of their vehicle. That perhaps relates to a slightly wider point.
That is all that I wish to say at this point, and I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the extremely important point about the situation in the finance and leasing industry. Its trade association has certainly been telephoning me incessantly. There is a real danger that its members will not allow their spot-hire vehicles to leave the UK. That would be a disadvantage to UK industry.
The Minister touched upon a later government amendment. However, that is not the complete answer, and at a later stage I shall table an amendment to deal with that point. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 227:
Page 97, line 7, leave out from "32" to end of line 8.
1366
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 227, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 229, which is the substantive one, and to Amendments Nos. 230 and 231.
I was not able to take part in the passage of the 1999 Act as I had other Front-Bench responsibilities at the time. However, it seemed to me that the Act was highly questionable in terms of the ECHR. I believed then, as I do now, that many noble Lords are more concerned with the rights of bogus asylum seekers than with those of our own UK transport operators and drivers.
I believe it is bizarre that, if we want to take a young hooligan to task, we must deal with him in a magistrates' court, even if the likely penalty is very minor. On the other hand, if a transport operator inadvertently brings in a clandestine entrant. the Secretary of State determines whether the operator should pay a civil penalty, which could bankrupt the operator. The Secretary of State hears any appeal hut, of course, the same group of officials is involved in the process. I was not in the least surprised when the legislation hit the buffers with the Roth case in the Court of Appeal.
I understand the difficulty facing a government when it is difficult or impossible to secure a conviction for smuggling illegal immigrants under the 1971 Act. But how far can one go with the introduction of severe civil penalties instead of a criminal prosecution? The Government have moved some way towards addressing those deficiencies with paragraph 8 of Schedule 8, which provides for new Section 35A in the 1999 Act.
In the Roth case, the court was particularly critical of the penalty system being based on the reverse burden of proof. The Government's new Section 35A does nothing to address that. However, as part of a fairer system, it is imperative that consideration as to whether there is a statutory defence and, if there is not, what the penalty should be is taken away from the Immigration Service. Those who are liable for penalties should be able to appear in person before a specially constituted independent body and be legally represented. My amendments provide for that. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble Earl makes a very serious case about the reverse burden of proof, which I hope will get a hearing. I also hope that we shall not turn this into an argument over the rights of legitimate commercial operations as against the rights of asylum seekers. The only way that we can reach a solution that is satisfactory to both parties, who have a common interest in this matter, is to provide a legal channel by which people may enter this country to obtain a hearing for a claim for asylum. If we approach the matter in that way, we have no need to argue with each other, and we can join forces, as we should.
Lord Berkeley: I support this group of amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and myself. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has hit the nail on the head again. Several times he has made the point that the 1999 Act turned the carriers—be they road or —railinto unpaid frontier control guards who, unlike most guards and security firms, are fined when they make a mistake and

1367
have their equipment impounded. That is a funny way of enthusing them to carry out their job properly. It is a little like expecting the French police to police the Sangatte centre on the basis that the French want to keep asylum seekers in France when they actually want to leave. As I said before, there is much argument for encouraging the British authorities to have a presence in Sangatte or at the terminal and to process asylum seekers there. I believe that there would be a benefit to that.
The Government's proposal is an improvement because at least they propose an appeal to an independent court. When one goes down that route the legal fees become high and there are delays. Such poor people—I mean poor people, although some may deserve their treatment but not all—are quite often small businesses and the thought of appearing in court against the Government and the Home Office is beyond them. There is a strong argument for having a quick, cheap, but independent tribunal where they can represent themselves in person with confidence and seek a quick resolution to any appeal, confident that it really will be independent.
Lord Filkin: As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, signalled, the Court of Appeal in Roth criticised the absence of an independent appeal right, which is clearly what we are seeking to address. Schedule 8 introduces a statutory right of appeal over and above the existing objection procedures, which will also be retained. In other words, people will be able to make informal direct objections to the Home Secretary about any penalty imposed and they will be able to have that considered before they exercise a statutory right of appeal. We also require the Secretary of State to determine any objections made within a period to be specified by regulations so that they do not suffer from delay. That will enable someone who is dissatisfied with a right of objection to the Secretary of State to be in time to go to court.
I understand the argument for creating an independent tribunal, but we believe that it will be impractical and would lead potentially to delay. In practice, the ability to seek redress in the county court if dissatisfied with the Home Secretary's response appears to the Government to be relatively quick and inexpensive. Therefore, an aggrieved operator or owner has two options both of which can be exercised if he feels aggrieved. He should be able to exercise them relatively rapidly and inexpensively.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have responded to my amendment. If we follow the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we would have no problem at all. When moving my amendment I used the term "bogus asylum seekers" and I was worried that I may have enraged the noble Earl. I believe I got away with it. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment subject to the usual caveats.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 228:
Page 97, line 36, at end insert—
"(3B) Where the transporter is a vehicle, it is also a defence for the carrier to show that—

(a) on the occasion in question prescribed measures were taken to identify if a clandestine entrant was concealed in the vehicle and the measures did not identify that a person was so concealed,

(b) the measures were taken by an approved person in a secure area of the port of embarkation, and

(c) after the measures were taken the vehicle remained in the secure area until it boarded a ship, aircraft or train to the United Kingdom."

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 228 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Freeman and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It too relates to Schedule 8.
Section 34 of the 1999 Act is amended by the new subsection 3(a) which is helpful to the rail industry which has been severely damaged by the curtailment of services. Under the code of practice it is the responsibility of the driver to carry out checks en route and prior to embarkation. Eurotunnel, the Port of Calais authorities, Pamp;O Ferries and others are providing drivers with the opportunity to have their vehicles checked in a controlled, secure environment.
CO2 checks are involved as well as a manual inspection. No doubt other technologies will emerge so long as they provide art effective defence against the civil penalty. The checks were put in place at the initiative and the cost of the transport industry and are effective in detecting clandestine entrants. It is essential that the value of the checks is fully recognised by making the use of the facilities a statutory defence against the imposition of a penalty. My amendment seeks to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 228. The key to it is what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, called a "secure environment". It could apply to ports on the Continent, the Eurotunnel terminal or to the French railways terminal at Fréthun when it has its new fence.
At the moment the port or the Eurotunnel provides the infrastructure in which the security checks can be undertaken by the operators. The same will apply to railways in the future because they may involve different operators as I said earlier. It is reasonable that if the protection measures are provided to a defined standard, and the operators who may be many and varied in number undertake the checks in the way that they should in accordance with the code, it should provide a statutory defence against the imposition of fines.
Wording such as that contained in the amendment, though it may be improved, would be advantageous to removing the uncertainty from the industry as to what it will have to do to comply with the code. At the moment the position is woolly and the industry is not sure whether or not it has complied. That may be

1369
intentional but it is not very encouraging for those who want to trade safely, reliably and honestly across the Channel.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Earl for this useful probing amendment, though I shall not be able to respond as positively as he hopes.
Though the wording is not explicit, we understand that Amendment No. 228 is intended to have the effect that the drivers and owners of vehicles who have submitted to the current carbon dioxide detector tests in Calais and elsewhere prior to embarkation should be automatically exempt from civil penalty charges if clandestines are subsequently found. It may be argued that it should apply also to other forms of detection technology such as x-ray, heartbeat detectors and so forth.
While the Government applaud the objective of encouraging the use of detection equipment, which certainly helps, the technology has not yet reached the level of effectiveness that we could accept that in itself it constituted the requisite system for detecting clandestines. The latest figures show that in the first six months of this year, 56 per cent of vehicles in which clandestine entrants were found had been through a check at Calais or Dunkirk. Thus no single type of detection technology can produce conclusive results in all circumstances; for example, the results of carbon dioxide screening may be affected by such things as the length of time people have been concealed, the type of vehicle or the nature of the load carried.
It is essential therefore that hauliers continue to ensure that their vehicles are adequately secured physically throughout their journey and that they follow the requirements in the statutory code of practice for the prevention of carriage of clandestine entrants. In addition there is often a significant delay between the time of such checks and the vehicle actually boarding the ferry. During that time we require drivers to be vigilant to the possibility that unauthorised persons might gain access to their vehicles. So, the use of detection equipment is a useful part of the system. By itself it cannot be sufficient.
In relation to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the industry wants as much security as it is reasonable to provide, in a sense we shall develop this through the consultation on the code of practice, which clearly needs to be ongoing over the summer. It is important to give that as much energy as possible during that period. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel inclined to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down, he has mentioned the statutory code of practice several times. We welcome that. There was a code of practice in a 1999 Act. I recall that it went out for consultation. I know that a number of trade organisations, companies and probably Members of the Committee responded. It is my firm recollection that not one change was made. I may be wrong. But I felt that the consultation was not quite as responsive as one would
1370
have hoped. I hope that this time there will be much more response and a two-way dialogue so that we can constructively produce the best provisions for the industry and help the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with some of his concerns.
Lord Filkin: No doubt the long summer gap will give noble Lords the opportunity to see what progress we are making over the summer.
Earl Attlee: I was grateful for the Minister's reply but I was a little surprised. He seemed to be saying that it is not possible to guarantee detection of clandestine entrants in the vehicle. If we cannot use technology to detect clandestine entrants, how is the lorry driver on his own supposed to be able to detect clandestines?
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The point that I was making was that it is not possible through technological means alone to be reasonably sure that there are not clandestines present, which is why the checking of security ropes and such obvious physical checks at the point of embarkation is an essential part as well.
Earl Attlee: But my amendment specifically refers to a manual check on top of technological checks.
It is also important to remember that these clandestine entrants are ingenious and extremely cunning. It only takes a moment's distraction for them to be able to climb on top of a trailer, cut the tilt open and jump in. A moment's distraction can be set up by a little disturbance.
Also my amendment refers to a secure area in the port. So it is hard to understand how this could occur. No doubt I shall be pursuing this matter at a later stage. We shall see how the consultation goes. In the meantime, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 228A:
Page 97, line 41, at end insert—
"(7) Where a person has a defence under subsection (2) in respect of a clandestine entrant, that person shall be exempt from any liability in respect of section 27 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (offences by persons connected with ships or aircraft or with ports).
(8) Where a person is not a responsible person as defined in section 32(5) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (penalty for carrying clandestine entrants), that person shall be exempt from any liability in respect of section 27 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (offences by persons connected with ships or aircraft or ports)."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 228A is related to the previous amendment, but slightly separate. We have talked about the Roth case several times today where the judge found against the Government in relation to fines for bringing in clandestines. It is interesting that, although it has changed the level of fine or charge, the Immigration Act 1971 still requires the carrier to be responsible for two weeks' board and lodging—I am not sure about

1371
that—and a fare home for anyone who has been handed over to the authorities rather than left by a lorry parked on a motorway and invited to go across the fields, as we discussed earlier. This requirement for repatriation applies to railways, road, air and any operator where the asylum application has been turned down.
Whereas this may be equitable for those clandestines on whom the charge of £2,000 or £4,000 has been applied, there are companies—S
we have discussed today—which have a defence under the 1999 Act, which means, effectively that the Government accept that the carrier has taken reasonable precautions. We have discussed what precautions are reasonable. The last amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, tried to put that in a little more detail. But there are occasions when a company has been told, for whatever reason, that it has taken reasonable steps and that it therefore has a defence under subsection (2).
As things stand, although it is not liable for the —2,000 to —4,000 per person, it must still pay the fare home of anyone who is subsequently refused asylum. It is perverse that, even though the Government accept that the carrier is not liable, it is still liable to pay for board, lodging and fares.
I do not have figures for how many members of the road haulage industry have been caught by that provision, but I suspect that there are many of them. English, Welsh and Scottish Railway, which has been given what I call exemption, has received bills for more than —200.000 for fares back to Romania, Afghanistan or wherever. As has been said in other debates, there is no incentive to hand people over, even for those who are not liable for the entry fines.
The amendment is designed to reflect the result of the Roth case. I am advised that Section 27 of the 1971 Act suffers from the same defects of non-compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, which, in my view, is what caused the Government to lose the Roth case. That has wider implications than those for the six respondent lorry drivers. It is interesting to cite a paragraph from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown, who says:
"What is presently in issue…is the intrinsic legality of the scheme itself rather than the liability of carriers in individual cases. The facts, therefore at this stage are relevant only: a) to indicate the extent of the problem of illegal entry and the success of the scheme in combating it …and b) to illustrate how ineluctably the scheme in practice works".
He continues that even if the scheme does not contravene Article 6, he certainly believes that it contravenes Article I, on the basis that,
"the hallowed principle that the punishment must fit the crime is irreconcilable with the notion of a substantial fixed penalty".
In the three cases before him, the drivers only discovered that the clandestine entrants were on board when they had travelled up the motorway to London. They would therefore never have been penalised had they not themselves alerted the police.
.A similar situation obtains under Schedules 2 and 3 to the 1971 Act, because the operator must always pay the full cost of complying with any direction given by the Home Office. I could go through that Act in detail,
1372
but I think that, at this time of night, we should avoid that. The 1971 Act, like the 1999 Act, contains no element of discretion. The similarities between the Roth case and the requirement to repatriate under the 1971 Act are so great that there will be a good case to be made against the Government if they require operators to comply.
Does my noble friend really want the industry to spend two years taking the Government to court for exactly the same reasons as obtained in the Roth case? Perhaps he would like to reword my amendment to achieve the same objective and receive lots of thanks from the industry. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Lord Grimond once remarked that Parliament sometimes gets what he described as a legislative stammer: it legislates over and again on the same matter. First it was education; then it was local government; now it is asylum. Often, that happens because an attempt is being made to do something that cannot be done at all. Listening to the exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, arid the Minister, I was unable to help wondering whether this is one of those cases. Indeed, I cannot help wondering whether the whole Bill is one of those cases.
The Minister might add to his summer reflections the question of whether we should not go back to the drawing board and start again.
Earl Attlee: I shall be brief. I support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Filkin: As I promised, we shall give serious consideration to all that has been said today and on previous days in Committee and to what will be said next Tuesday. The Government do not think that we need to go back to the drawing board on the principles of the White Paper, the principles of the Bill or the development of the Bill, although we will, no doubt, learn from and reflect on the parliamentary scrutiny. We seek to strike the right balance between making it
possible for people who have a genuine asylum case to make it and limiting those who do not. I will not speak at more length on that.
The amendment would ensure that, since English, Welsh and Scottish Railways International:is not defined as a responsible person, it would riot have to comply with directions for the removal of illegal entrants either. If that is the intention, the amendment is technically deficient, as it extends exemption way beyond EWS.
If the intention behind the amendment is that all carriers that are not responsible persons should be exempt from the requirements of Schedules 2 and 3 only in respect of clandestine entrants, we still cannot accept it. There is no direct link between liability to a civil penalty and the responsibility for arranging removals, as those who are designated as responsible persons for penalty purposes do not necessarily have an obligation to arrange the removal of the clandestine entrants whom they carry here. For example, drivers, hirers or owners of vehicles, who are responsible persons under the penalty regime, have no

1373
responsibility for removing the clandestine entrants whom they may carry here. That is the responsibility of the international carrier that transported the vehicle and, therefore, the clandestine entrants to the UK.
If it is the intention of the amendment that a carrier that has a defence against liability to the civil penalty should not be responsible for the removal of persons whom it transports to a country, we would argue that our present policy reflects well established universal practice and is consistent with international agreements such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation Convention. Paragraph 26 of the Schengen Convention, in which the UK is participating, also provides that member states shall require carriers to remove passengers who are found to be inadmissible. Such obligations are, unfortunately, part of the commercial risk that carriers over international routes must bear. It is right that all carriers should be responsible for the removal of any illegal entrants who are found to have arrived in the UK on the services for which they are responsible.
In short, all carriers are responsible for the removal of persons whom they have transported, regardless of whether they were at fault in carrying them. That has been the case for centuries, rather than decades. There is no reason why EWS should be treated differently from any other carrier in that respect.
The Roth case has nothing to do with the liability of carriers to pay the costs of removal in compliance with a removal direction. The Government contend strongly that removal directions are not in breach of ECHR.
I suggest that it might be in order to withdraw the amendment at this stage and allow both sides to consider what has been said.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I have no intention of entering into a long discussion now; it is one for the summer holidays. I am sure that we will come back to the matter, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 not moved.]
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 231A:
Page 99, line 31, at end insert—
"() for "given" substitute "issued","
The noble Lord said: I shall not speak in detail to this and the other minor and technical amendments in the group, unless the Committee requires me to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 231B to 231H:
Page 100, line 17, leave out "(whether or not he owns it)" and insert—
"() A vehicle, ship, aircraft or wagon may he detained under subsection (2) whether or not the person to whom the penalty notice was issued owns it.
1374
()But a vehicle may be detained under subsection (2) only if the person to whom the penalty notice was issued—

(a) is the owner or hirer of the vehicle, or

(b) is, or was when the penalty notice was issued, an employee of the owner or hirer of the vehicle."

Page 100, line 29, at end insert—
"() In subsection (2) for "claiming an interest in the transporter," substitute "whose interests may be affected by detention of the transporter,"."
Page 100, line 31, at end insert—() After subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) The court may also release the transporter on the application of the owner of the transporter under subsection (2) if—

(a) a penalty notice was not issued to the owner or an employee of his, and

(b) the court considers it right to release the transporter.

(3B) In determining whether to release a transporter under subsection (3A) the court shall consider—

(a) the extent of any hardship caused by detention,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the owner is responsible for the matters in respect of which the penalty notice was issued, and

(c) any other matter which appears to the court to be relevant (whether specific to the circumstances of the case or of a general nature)."

Page 100, line 36, leave out from "permission)," to end of line 37.
Page 101, line 2, after "unlawful" insert "or under subsection (3A)"
Page 103, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
(3) An appeal under this section—

(a) shall be a re-hearing of the Secretary of State's decision to impose a charge, and

(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the Secretary of State was unaware.

(4) Subsection (3)(a) has effect despite any provision of Civil Procedure Rules."
Page 103, line 34, leave out paragraph 16 and insert

"(1) Schedule 1 (sale of transporter) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(2)(a) omit "or charge".

(3) After paragraph 2 insert—

"2A. Where the owner of a transporter is a party to an application for leave to sell it. in determining whether to give leave the court shall consider—

(a) the extent of any hardship likely to be caused by sale,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the owner is responsible for the matters in respect of which the penalty notice was issued, and

(c) any other matter which appears to the court to be relevant (whether specific to the circumstances of the case or of a general nature)."

(4) In paragraph 5(2)(d) omit "or charge"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Physical data: compulsory provision]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 232:
Page 57, line 31, at end insert "(with or without modification)"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 will amend Clause 109(4)(e) and (f) to enable the Secretary of State to specify modifications to a code

1375
and to provisions of a code for the purposes of Clause 109 of the Bill. They will require authorised persons to have regard to the code, or provisions of the code as modified, when collecting data under Clause 109.
Amendment No. 234 deletes subsection (10) of the clause. Clause 109(10) refers to a clause on deemed applications for asylum which has been removed from the Bill. Clause 109(10) is therefore no longer required. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay or St Johns: I hate to break into the party and be the first to ask questions on government amendments, but I want to raise a couple of matters. I recognise that a similar provision in Section 14.5(3) of the 1999 Act modifying the effect of a code of practice under PACE already exists. However, can the Minister tell the Committee what kinds of modifications have been made to the PACE code under that provision and whether similar modifications will be made as a result of the amendment?
Clause 109(9) defines the term "code", to which these amendments relate, by giving it the same meaning as in Section 145(6) of the 1999 Act; namely, a code of' practice under PACE or the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order. However, as the Minister is aware, Section 145(7) states that Section 145 does not apply to anything done in Scotland. As always, I have in mind my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. There is no reference in Section 145(6) to a code in respect of Scotland. Will the Minister tell the Committee what codes will apply to regulate the conduct of persons taking data for immigration purposes in Scotland under the regulations made under Clause 109?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will cover some of the points in the longer speaking notes provided for the clause. The data which may be required extend to external physical characteristics, including features of the iris. The clause supplements the power to fingerprint and gather data from individuals as contained in Sections 141 and 146 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The regulations made under the powers contained in the clause closely mirror those contained in the 1999 Act.
The amendments are based upon the power of the Secretary of State to require compliance with specified provisions of the code which is contained in Section 145 of the 1999 Act. Under sections of that Act, the Secretary of State may require authorised persons to have regard to specified provisions of the code and to specify by direction modifications to those provisions for this purpose when collecting fingerprints under Section 141 of the 1999 Act.
The noble Baroness asked some helpful questions. She asked whether modifications will be the same as under the 1999 Act. I have made plain that they will be the same. Mindful of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, the noble Baroness asked about Scotland. Of course we must always be mindful of the position in Scotland. It might be better if I undertake
1376
to clarify this later arid provide the noble Baroness with a full explanation of how it is to work north of the Border.
Midnight
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am happy for the Minister to write to me about a point that strikes me, as someone born in England, as a technical point. However, for those in Scotland it is quite rightly an extremely important issue. We must hear that in mind. The Committee will know from interventions made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy on previous occasions that there have been one or two slips in the Bill in this regard. It is important to ensure that it is correct. I do not expect the Minister to provide me with a full answer tonight.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I had not intended to provide one, but I shall do so at a later date.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 233:
Page 57, line 33, after "code" insert "(with or without modification)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): In calling Amendment No. 233ZA, I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 233ZB due to pre-emption.
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 233ZA:
Page 57, line 34, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to suggest that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 234A and 234B because they all concern the provision of personal information under Clauses 109 and 110, which the noble Lord has just helpfully outlined. Perhaps 1 may pursue that explanation in a little more detail.
The clauses here provide respectively a compulsory and a voluntary scheme for the provision of physical data already described by the noble Lord, including iris recognition data, a fairly new technique which has proved to be even more reliable than fingerprinting in enabling an individual to be recognised.
Under the compulsory scheme, physical data may be required from an individual making an application under the immigration laws. Those physical data include external physical characteristics including, for example, the features of the iris. The physical data may then be retained and used for any other purpose, including non-immigration purposes.
Under the voluntary scheme set out in Clause 110, physical data may be supplied by a person in connection with his entry into the United Kingdom. I gather that it was envisaged that such data would be used for the fast-tracking of particular applicants who travel frequently to the United Kingdom. The noble Lord may be able to say something about the

1377
voluntary scheme which I understand has been piloted by certain airlines: namely, to expedite the progress of frequent flyers coming into the country. It would be most useful to know how that scheme has worked and whether it is to be read across to the scheme now being proposed under the Bill.
Can the Minister also say something about the charging aspect? Provision has been made to set charges. We should like to know how it is intended to operate and whether it will be entirely at the expense of the individual traveller or whether the airlines will make a contribution to the scheme.
As I have said, what is objectionable is that the physical data collected about an individual under the compulsory scheme may be used for purposes that have nothing to do with immigration. This power is far too wide and the Secretary of State has been unable to justify its use, given the serious implications for data protection. That is why we suggest the deletion of Clause 109(4)(g).
The clauses refer to codes which the Secretary of State may lay down in relation to the taking of physical data. Those are codes of practice made under Section 145 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However, those codes refer only to fingerprints while the new codes will be extended to embrace a wider range of physical data. We consider it essential that the Secretary of State should consult with the relevant organisations, but we do not seek to impose any particular restriction on the use of his discretion as regards with which organisations he will consult. However, the code of practice should be made by order and laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 233ZB. 233A and 233B in this group, which stand in my name. The amendments seek to expose the issues underlying the compulsory provision of physical data. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has covered many of the points in relation to the first and third of my amendments, I shall confine my remarks to Amendment No. 233A.
I was grateful when the Minister indicated to me earlier today that the Government will now put their name to the amendment and accept it. I indicated to the Minister that I would explain why I had tabled the amendment in the hope of saving him from having to give his own justification for accepting it.
It is often the case that members of these Benches will seek to change a statutory instrument from negative to affirmative resolution as a matter of principle because we consider that the Government should justify their actions and thereby provide better scrutiny. That argument underlies the amendment, but there is far more to it than that.
The Committee will have read the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Paragraph 14 of that report states:
"This clause confers power to make regulations about the compulsory provision of personal data by an immigration applicant. The personal data is not limited to fingerprints but
1378
extends to 'all physical characteristics'. The Committee is not persuaded by the arguments in paragraph 185 of the Memorandum that negative procedure is appropriate here and suggests that the House may wish to consider whether this significant power should be subject to affirmative procedure".
I understand that the reference to paragraph 185 is a misprint and that the reference should be to paragraph 174 of the Home Office memorandum.
That paragraph states the Home Office's view that,
"The negative resolution procedure is considered appropriate because these regulations will closely mirror the provisions of sections 141 to 143 of the 1999 Act, which have been subject to full scrutiny of the House. They are not believed to be so wide as to necessitate an affirmative resolution procedure".
I am grateful to the Minister for his indication that the Home Office's view has now changed. The argument at paragraph 174 of the memorandum was, if I may say so, a less than adequate justification of the negative resolution procedure for the regulation-making powers sought in Clause 109. Indeed, the negative resolution procedure at present provided for in the clause would produce an absurd result in practice. That is why I tabled the amendment.
As Members of the Committee will recall. Sections 141 to 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 make provision for the taking of fingerprints from a limited class of persons defined in Section 141(7), including those who arrive without the proper documentation, persons who have committed or may commit immigration offences, as well as those who claim asylum. The Committee will have noted that these provisions are limited to the taking of fingerprints and that they apply only to certain limited classes of persons specified on the face of the statute.
In Clause 109 of the Bill the Government are seeking to take powers to make regulations requiring the provision of data relating to any external physical characteristic of any person who applies for a visa, entry clearance or leave to enter or remain—in short, all those who seek permission to come to or stay in the United Kingdom.
So the Government were not correct in their assertion in the memorandum to the Select Committee that these powers are the same as those already passed by Parliament in Sections 141 to 143 of the 1999 Act for three reasons. First, the powers sought will relate to any physical characteristic, not only fingerprints; secondly, the powers will apply to almost anyone seeking to enter the UK rather than to the limited categories of persons specified on the face of the 1999 Act, such as those without adequate documentation; and, thirdly, the Government seek the approval of Parliament for a broad regulation-making power under Clause 109 rather than specifying in detail on the face of the Bill the procedure to be followed, as they did in the 1999 Act.
Even leaving aside those arguments, the ultimate flaw in the clause as presently draftedߞwhich is why it is important to have this detail on the official record todayߞis that it would have produced an absurd result because similar powers provided for in the 1999 Act already require an affirmative resolution.

1379
Section 144 of the 1999 Act, which comes immediately after the provisions cited to the Select Committee in the Home Office memorandum but which was not referred to in that memorandum—I am sure that that was an oversight and not intentional on the part of the Home Office; I make no allegations—states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations containing provisions equivalent to sections 141, 142 and 143 in relation to such other methods of collecting data about external physical characteristics as may he prescribed".
That is a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to make provisions equivalent to Sections 141, 142 and 143. It is, therefore, exactly the same as the power that the Government are seeking to take in this Bill under Clause 109(1), although it would apply only to the limited classes of persons specified in Section 141(7) of the 1999 Act rather than to the broader classes of persons envisaged by subsection (1) of Clause 109. However, by virtue of Section 166(5) of the 1999 Act, any regulations under Section 144 are to be made by affirmative resolution.
I have had to place that on record, but what I have tried do by means of this amendment—and I am relieved that the Government have accepted it—is to get the Government out of creating an absurd situation. It is one that would have been short-circuited if indeed the correct section had been referred to in the Home Office memorandum to the Select Committee. I hope that we have now got out of that conundrum.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall try to cover the entire group of amendments: Amendments Nos. 233ZA, 233ZB, 233A, 233B, 234A and 234B.
Amendment No. 233ZA would delete Clause 109(4)(g) and remove specific reference to the inclusion in any regulations made under this clause or provision for the use and retention of information collected under Clause 109. Amendment No. 233ZB would effectively prevent the Secretary of State from including in any regulations made under Clause 109 provision permitting the use of any information collected under those regulations for anything other than immigration and crime prevention and detection purposes.
The clause as drafted clarifies that the regulations may provide for the use and retention of information collected under those regulations, and may permit the use of information for specified purposes other than immigration.
It is right and proper that this information might be used for purposes other than immigration. This might well include the prevention and detection of crime, but it might also be used in the proper exercise of other government functions. At this time, we simply do not know what wider uses might properly be made of the data or, for that matter, that any uses other than those relating to immigration control will be appropriate. But to limit our ability to make proper use of the data would, we contend, be inappropriate and not in the best interests of society generally.
1380
Any provisions allowing for the use of information other than for immigration purposes would be set out in regulations and so would be transparent and open to full parliamentary scrutiny. As a consequence of Amendment No. 233A, scrutiny of these regulations will now be subject to the affirmative procedure. We are happy to have signed up to that amendment and we entirely accept the case that the noble Baroness has made, which was very well put. I am sure that the Committee will accept that this provides an adequate safeguard against any improper use of these data.
Any exchange or use of data collected under these powers will, of course, he subject to the safeguards contained in the Data Protection Act 1998. So we welcome Amendment No. 233A and the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform which urged that the powers to make regulations under Clause 109 be subject to the affirmative procedure. We were happy to go along with that recommendation.
The collection of personal data is always an important and sensitive issue. Although when preparing the Bill we felt that the negative procedure would provide sufficient safeguards, we are happy to accept the amendment providing for the affirmative procedure to be adopted when we bring forward regulations.
Clause 109 allows for the making of regulations on the collection of information on the external physical characteristics of certain individuals. On the face of it, Amendment No. 233B would not alter those provisions. However, in our view the removal of the reference, among other data, to
"the features of the iris or any other parts of the eye"
in the definition of "external physical characteristics" removes some clarity from the provision. We believe that the features of the iris and other parts of the eye are external physical characteristics and we think it right to make that plain on the face of the Bill.
On Amendment No. 234A, the schemes envisaged under the powers contained in Clause 110 are aimed at frequent travellers who pose a low immigration risk. Any scheme would be designed around the data already registered with—and the technology used by—the Home Office to automate the arrival controls. The benefit for those who participate in such a scheme is that they are likely to pass through our immigration controls more quickly than would otherwise be the case. We do not think it would be right to expect the taxpayer to fund a scheme that exists pretty much for the benefit of frequent travellers. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power t o charge for this service. For that reason we oppose it.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Avebury: What about the voluntary scheme that has already been piloted by the airlines, to which I referred? Has it been working well?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord raised the status of the pilot scheme. That scheme is currently being evaluated in conjunction with the British

1381
Airports Authority. We have not had the full fruits of that evaluation. I recognise the noble Lord's point. Of course we shall want to ensure that that evaluation is well understood. Clearly, we will want to bring the fruits of that to your Lordships' attention when it is complete, but it is just at the pilot stage at the moment.
The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 234B would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft of any code of practice adopted in respect of those engaged in the collection of physical data under the provisions of Clauses 109 and 110. The code in question is not new, but is referred to and defined in Section 145 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. We have been over that point. "Code" is defined in Section 145(6) of the 1999 Act as:
"in relation to England and Wales, any code of practice…in force under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984"
and,
"in relation to Northern Ireland, any code of practice…in force under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989".
Subsections (1) and (2) of that section ensure that a person authorised to, among other things, gather data,
"must have regard to such provisions of a code as may be specified".
The appropriate provisions are set out in a direction given by the Secretary of State. Section 145(3) of the 1999 Act enables the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the code for that purpose. The provisions in the Bill, together with government Amendments Nos. 232 and 233, simply ensure that those involved in the collection of physical data, whether under the powers of the 1999 Act or this Bill, can be covered by the same codes of practice.
That seems sensible to ensure clarity and fairness. There is no requirement in the 1999 Act that any such code be laid before Parliament. We do not accept that such a requirement would be right. No argument was made against that at the time. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to engage in a consultation process about pre-existing codes of practice established under non-immigration legislation. We do not think that that is acceptable; it would make a nonsense of the provision. We therefore cannot accept that amendment.
I am sorry for the length of the explanation but I wanted to go through these amendments very carefully.
Lord Avebury: I do not think that the Minister should apologise for his comprehensive and clear explanation of the effect of Clauses 109 and 110. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on her success in persuading the Government after her careful study of the opinion of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers, and its relevance to Sections 141 to 145 of the 1999 Act, that there should be an affirmative resolution procedure. I think that she has done the Committee a great service in persuading the Government to accept that line of argument.
1382
At this late hour I shall not run through everything that the Minister has said. I should like to thank him for his careful explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233ZB not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 233A:
Page 58, line 11, leave out from "shall" to "House" and insert "not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233B not moved.]
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 234:
Page 58, line 23, leave out subsection (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Physical data: voluntary provision]:
[Amendment No. 234A not moved.]
Clauses 110 and 111 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 234B and 235 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Local authority]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 59, line 21, at end insert -"through a named officer"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 235A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 235B, 235C and 235D in the next group.
Our amendments deal with the disclosure of information. Amendment No. 235A is designed to restrict the wide-ranging provision permitting the Secretary of State to require public authorities, employers and financial institutions to supply information to him regarding persons he suspects of committing an immigration offence. We are certainly concerned about the potential infringement of a person's right to privacy. We are also concerned about the difficulties that individuals will have in challenging the accuracy of information disclosed in obtaining their records. Safeguards must be put in place in the provisions to avoid abuse and errors, to ensure the confidentiality of information and to ensure that only qualified persons are able to give or receive information.
Amendment No. 235B is designed to narrow the group of people about whom the Inland Revenue shall be required to provide information to only those who have committed immigration offences rather than anyone who does not have leave to enter or to remain.
We are suggesting in the last two amendments that information should be limited only to fact and should exclude opinions formed by, for example, the commissioners. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I should just like to say that we support these amendments.
Lord Filkin: In speaking to the four amendments I hope that I can put on the record a number of points.

1383
Although I cannot agree with the specific amendments, I hope that I can go some way either to calm concerns or to explain why we think that certain measures are necessary.
Clause 112 makes it compulsory for local authorities to comply with requests for information from the Secretary of State made within well defined criteria and provides a new legal obligation for authorities to comply with requests for information. The proposed amendment would require such disclosures to be made through a named officer. However, stipulating a named officer who must respond to those requests does not place the responsibility for compliance on that officer. Appropriately, it still remains the local authority's legal duty to comply. Local authorities and the Secretary of State are required to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 in processing personal data. The Act requires among other things that data be processed securely.
The proposal to route disclosure through a named officer would fail to guarantee secure processing as the request for information necessary would still have to be routed to that person on its being received by the local authority. Therefore, access to the information and the request would not be limited to the named officer despite the requirement that the reply be sent by a named officer.
I wish to discuss who we are talking about and what sort of information we are talking about. The purpose of the information is to help establish the whereabouts of a specified individual whom the Secretary of State reasonably suspects has committed a specified immigration offence. This is not a general fishing trip. The offences in question include illegal entry, overstaying, working in breach and absconding from temporary admission. Local authorities have always been an important source of information and many have frequently complied with such requests but current practice in terms of co-operation varies considerably. There is a degree of ambiguity in the interpretation of current powers.
I wish to mention also the type of information that the Horne Secretary might seek. He might seek information from council tax and housing records to locate specified individuals that he reasonably suspects are immigration offenders and are living, or have lived, in the local authority's area. The request for information has a narrow, specific focus. We believe that it is compliant with Article 8 of the ECHR which provides that any interference with the right to a private life, which includes disclosure of data about a person, must be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim. We believe that the disclosures I have mentioned are proportionate to that aim. The offences in question include entry to the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave; remaining beyond the time limit of leave; failing to observe a condition of leave or temporary admission; remaining without leave; and having entered as a crew member.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 235B and 235C. The central focus here, although not the exclusive one, is the identification of people who are working without
1384
permission. Clause 113 would enable commissioners of the Inland Revenue to disclose information from their records to the Secretary of State for three separate specified purposes: first, to establish the whereabouts of a specified person if the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the person does not have leave to enter or remain and does not have permission to work in the United Kingdom: secondly, to verify whether applicants for naturalisation meet the "good character" requirements in Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981; and, thirdly., to verify whether sponsored entry clearance applications meet the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the Immigration Rules.
I accept that the amendment is a well intentioned attempt to provide consistency with Clause 112 which relates to the provision of information by local authorities. However, we do not believe that consistency with Clause 112 is appropriate as the latter is aimed at locating persons whom the authorities seek to remove regardless of whether they have worked in the UK or not.
The second amendment would seek to remove from Clause 113 the proposed gateway in subsection (4) enabling the Inland Revenue to disclose information. The Government cannot accept that because we regard the proposed gateway in respect of sponsored visa applications as necessary in the interests of providing a better joined-up service to applicants and reducing the current scope for fraud in entry clearance cases. In seeking information in such cases the Secretary of State will look for evidence of wilful refusal to meet tax applications as that will provide potential grounds for refusing naturalisation. That would certainly require the disclosure of hard facts.
We do not believe that it is appropriate simply to draw a hard distinction between fact and opinion in operating the gateway. In many circumstances, the Secretary of State would also be seeking to get an opinion and an understanding of the context in which the facts operated from the Inland Revenue in such circumstances. In other words, there is a wish to have regard to the interpretation of events and the pattern of conduct formed by the relevant bodies as well as the hard data about an applicant, such as their criminal record, in reaching decisions about naturalisation considerations.
I have already spoken to the Data Protection Act, requiring authorities to process data securely and accurately. Subjects can complain to the courts and the Information Commissioner if their data are inaccurate or have been inappropriately handled. I hope that that assists the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
12.30 a.m.
Earl Russell: I briefly ask the Minister to give a little more thought to my noble friend's point about opinion. I declare an interest as a member of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records. The work of the committee should not be properly discussed in public. However, I do not believe that I

1385
am giving away any secrets when I say that the free expression of opinion by officials gives us a good deal of work. For the sake of future historians, will the Minister pay some attention to my noble friend's point?
Lord Filkin: That applies generally. While we do not agree to amendments, neither are we dismissing them out of hand. I give the specific assurance required; I am happy to agree to that.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. My fear is that such clauses tend to become rather like a snooper's charter. I hope that that is not the case. The fear is that under the provision the local authority must comply. Could the Minister provide some guidelines to the local authority, the Inland Revenue and soon about the type of information that is required? That should be based on facts rather than opinion or suspicion about individuals. That would allay some of our fears. I hope that the Minister will consider that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Inland Revenue]:
[Amendments Nos. 235B and 235C not moved.]
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Police, amp;c.]:
[Amendment No. 235D not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Medical inspectors]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 236:
Page 61, line 19, at end insert ", or
(b) a person working under the direction of a medical inspector appointed under that paragraph."
The noble Lord said: This amendment and those grouped with it are usually described as being minor and technical amendments. They bring the clause into line with current procedure in cases in which information is passed by a port medical inspector and staff working under their direction in port health units to health service bodies where necessary for specified medical purposes. It also serves to refine the definitions of "health service body" in England, Wales and Scotland for the purposes of the clause.
First, the amendments make it clear that the power is not just to be used in cases in which a person has been brought to the attention of a port medical inspector but also when the person has been referred only to an assistant working under the port medical inspector's direction. The inclusion of assistants in the clause is essential because it is accepted that the medical inspector will not be physically available at
1386
all times. In those cases, of course it will be desirable—in the interests of both the individual concerned and for the welfare of the general public—that those working under the direction of the medical inspector would not be prevented from carrying out necessary disclosures on the port medical inspector's behalf. Under the clause, they would be allowed to do so only in accordance with very specific guidance issued by the port medical inspector. They would not exercise any judgment of their own but would refer to the port medical inspector's views about when and what to disclose and to which health service or health service body or bodies. Therefore, the power is still technically exercised by the port medical inspector, but the amendment means simply that it can be exercised in his absence. That would reflect current procedures.
Secondly, the amendments revise the definitions of "health service body" to reflect recent changes in the configuration of health services—particularly the creation of primary care trusts in England. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 237 and 238:
Page 61, line 41, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) in relation to England, a Primary Care Trust established under section 16A of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49),
(aa) in relation to Wales, a Health Authority or Local Health Board established under that Act,"
Page 62, line 1, at beginning insert "in relation to Scotland,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Notice]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 238ZA:
Page 63, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 238ZB. The effect of the amendments would he to simplify the clause by removing the provision for a person to make a declaration, in response to a notice served by the Secretary of State, saying that he does not have the information specified.
The person who genuinely does not have that information will not be committing the offence of failing to provide it because he will have a reasonable excuse and therefore a complete defence. Therefore, there is no need for subsections (3)(b), (3)(c) or (5).
Clause 119 already requires the recipient of a notice served by the Secretary of State to provide the information requested in the notice in the manner specified. By requiring the recipient to make a declaration within a specified time if he did not possess all or part of the information requested, old subsections (3)(b) and (c) and subsection (5) simply

1387
provided an additional stage of the process which we consider to he unnecessary and unnecessarily complicating. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 238ZB:
Page 63, line 21, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 [Disclosure of information: offences]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 238ZC:
Page 63, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 238ZC and Amendment No. 238ZD, which is grouped with it. would be to streamline the new offences currently created by Clause 120 to provide a single offence of failure to comply with a notice served under Clause 119 without reasonable excuse. The resulting clause would be consistent with other legislation, including tax legislation, which adopts the approach of including the mischief of making a false declaration or supplying false information within the offence of failing to comply with a notice requesting information.
The amended clause provides the same range of penalties as before, amalgamated conveniently into one provision. Therefore, the penalty for failure to comply will be a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. It will be for the courts to determine within that range the penalty in each case. A person intentionally making a false declaration would be likely to attract a higher penalty than a person who merely omits to respond to the statutory notice.
Amendments Nos. 238ZE and 238ZF clarify the position of limited partnerships as distinct from "traditional." partnerships in respect of criminal liability for offences created by Clause 120. That reflects the differing status of those bodies with regard to the differing responsibilities of partners in limited partnerships. The amendment would result in all partners in a limited partnership being treated for the purposes of the clause in the same way as officers of a body corporate with sufficient room for the courts to interpret their degree of responsibility where appropriate.
Finally, Amendment No. 238ZG is needed to correct a defect in the self-incrimination defence provided in Clause 122. Close observers will note that Clause 122 is required to ensure that the enforcement
1388
mechanism underpinning the information powers provided in Clauses 117 to 121 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. But the statutory defence is currently too wide in that it should not cover officers and employees of a body served with an information notice. Thus, it would restrict the possibility of a criminal prosecution of illegal workers detected as a consequence of the exercise of the information powers. The amendment rectifies that defect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 238ZD:
Page 63, line 39, leave out "(3)" and insert "(1)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 [Offence by body]:
Lord Bassam of Briightonmoved Amendments Nos. 238ZE and 238ZF:
Page 64, line 14, after "partnership" insert "(other than a limited partnership)"
Page 64, line 15, at end insert—
"() Subsection (1) shall have effect in relation to a limited partnership as if—

(a) a reference to a body corporate were a reference to a limited partnership, and

(b) a reference to an officer of the body were a reference to a partner."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122 [Privilege against self-incrimination]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 238ZG:
Page 64, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before one o'clock.

  British Council: Global Health Issues
  British Council: Global Health Issues
  Algeria
  Algeria
  South Asia
  South Asia
  Prisoners: Self-inflicted Deaths
  Prisoners: Self-inflicted Deaths
  Prisoners: Transfers
  Prisoners: Transfers
  Ms Lindis Percy
  Ms Lindis Percy
  Boris Project
  Boris Project
  Terrorism Arrests
  Terrorism Arrests
  Rehabilitation of Offenders
  Rehabilitation of Offenders
  European Arrest Warrant
  European Arrest Warrant
  Accommodation for Victims of Trafficking
  Accommodation for Victims of Trafficking
  House of Lords Membership
  House of Lords Membership
  Criminal Justice System Annual Report
  Criminal Justice System Annual Report
  Crumlin Road Courthouse
  Crumlin Road Courthouse
  RPIX
  RPIX
  United States: War Loans to UK
  United States: War Loans to UK
  Armed Forces Personnel Processes
  Armed Forces Personnel Processes
  President of Ireland: Visits to UK
  President of Ireland: Visits to UK
  Illegal Residence and Employment
  Illegal Residence and Employment
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Hunting with Dogs
  Hunting with Dogs
  Foot and Mouth: Computer Models
  Foot and Mouth: Computer Models
  New Homes
  New Homes