Sitting of 19 July 2002

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

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Totternhoe)
9.33 am
Andrew Selous: I wish to present a petition bearing the signatures of more than 400 residents of the village of Totternhoe, in Bedfordshire, to which I am pleased to add my support.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of residents of Totternhoe, Bedfordshire
Sheweth that the narrow roads of Totternhoe were not made for heavy goods vehicles to pass through the village, and that the size, noise and speed of these vehicles are abhorrent to the petitioners. In addition, when the "Green Wave" starts in Dunstable the position will worsen and the number of lorries increase.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government and local authorities to impose a 7.5 tonne weight restriction order, except for access, in Stanbridge Road, Castle Hill Road and Dunstable Road, Totternhoe.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. etc.
To lie upon the Table.
9.35 am
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that under the heading "Business of the House", yesterday's Order Paper states:
"at the sitting on Monday 22nd July, the Motion for the adjournment of the House…may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours".
However, it was then pointed out that the Division on this question stands deferred to Wednesday 24 July.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that we attempted to deal with this matter yesterday evening, and I simply seek your guidance as to where the House now stands on this motion. It appears that the motion provides for three hours for the Adjournment debate on Monday, but that the Division that will decide the matter is not until Wednesday. The House would be grateful for your guidance as to what is likely to happen on Monday. The Leader of the House said that there will be a statement, and there are two other items of business that we know about: Second Reading of the Mobile Telephones(Re-Programming) Bill, and the motions to establish the Transport Committee and the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that Monday is already
556
a fairly busy day, can you explain the likely shape of business, and in particular the status of the Adjournment debate?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Monday's business will go ahead without account being taken of the proposal in the motion before the House yesterday, which was not decided on. By the time that the deferred Division on that motion is taken, it will be too late for it to have effect; however, the Chair has no power to cancel the deferred Division. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to take up, through the usual channels, how this odd situation may be dealt with.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for that guidance, although I doubt whether anybody else will be. However, it raises another matter relating to the Adjournment debate itself. Will it be within the gift of the Government to arrange business on Monday so that we can have an Adjournment debate of a proper length? I see the distinct danger that, if the business that we know about is in any way prolonged—and if the Government insist that we stop at 10 o'clock, for example—the Adjournment debate could be squeezed very severely. Can you confirm that it is now a matter for the Government as to whether proper time be allowed for the Adjournment debate?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, is very accurate in these matters. It is a matter for the Government as to what shape Monday's business will take.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice because I am very concerned about what appears to be the incredible shrinking Order Paper before the House today. On Monday, 63 Bills were down for consideration today, on Tuesday there were 64, and on Wednesday we had an embarrassment of riches—67 Bills. Yesterday, 68 Bills were listed for consideration today, all of which have some merit and are certainly worthy of closer examination.
Today, however, only 49 Bills are on the Order Paper, and I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on what has happened to the others. I want to know why they are not before the House today and whether some dirty deal behind the bike sheds has been done to get rid of them, thereby robbing this House of the opportunity to scrutinise them in any way, shape or form. Can you advise me whether it is possible to find out if undue pressure has been brought to bear on any Member to withdraw his or her Bill? That information would be most helpful to other Members, and certainly to Opposition Members.
Mr. Speaker: I am always happy to advise the hon. Lady. Bills that are not printed are not included on the Order Paper. Of course, hon. Members of this House would not tolerate undue pressure from any quarter.
Bob Spink: On a very pleasant point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the day on which Trevor Dann, the Principal Doorkeeper, announced your arrival in this House for the last time before his retirement, will you advise us whether this would be an appropriate time

557
for us, on behalf of the whole House, to thank him, and Peter Overfield, the Deputy Principal Doorkeeper, and Maureen Coxon, the first lady Doorkeeper, who guarded the Letter Board so admirably over many years, for their work and the help that they have given us, and to wish them a long and happy retirement?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to say that I have known those officers for a long time, and they have been conscientious, hard-working and most obliging to all Members of the House. I wish them all well in their retirement and thank them for their excellent service to the House.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 1088 of the Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, which reports the deliberations of the Reasons Committee in respect of the Lords amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill? I was a member of that Committee and I found myself in a difficult position, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how one should deal with the situation that developed.
The Votes and Proceedings says:
"The Commons disagree to Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 made by the Lords, for the following Reason:
Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions, the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate."
I find myself in an awkward position, and I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I was asked to be party to a vote on why this House disagreed with something, when not a single word had been uttered in the Chamber to explain why the vote turned out as it did. Is it appropriate for a Committee of the House to sit and speculate on what the Government really meant but refused to give us the opportunity to discuss? It was the statements that the Government arranged yesterday, and the lengthy delays that they caused, that prevented the House from knowing what the reason for disagreement was. I feel very uncomfortable at having put my name to a guess about what the House meant. Is there not a better way of doing things?
Mr. Speaker: The responsibility of the Reasons Committee is to give reasons as to why certain legislation has been dealt with in a certain way. It is not for me to interfere with the business of the Reasons Committee. It has put down a reason and that will be sent to the other place.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can it be in order for any Member of the House to seek your absolution because he regrets his own voting record?
Mr. Speaker: It may be more appropriate for the Speaker's Chaplain to do such things.

Orders of the Day
  Private Hire Vehicles(Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Private Hire Vehicles(Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill

  DAMAGE BY ASSISTANCE DOG
  'Where an assistance dog being carried in a private hire vehicle causes damage, vomits, urinates or defecates therein then the disabled person accompanying the assistance dog shall be liable for the full cost of repairing and cleaning the private hire vehicle, the amount being recoverable as a civil debt.'.—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.45 am
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, after "medical", insert "or other reasonable".
  Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
  'and any relevant medical condition or allergy to dogs (supported by such medical evidence as the licensing authority may prescribe) of the driver'.
  Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 14, after "vehicle", insert "or named driver".
  Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  'which period shall be not less than 12 months'.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
  'or
  (c) at the time of the refusal the assistance dog was in an excitable, agitated or boisterous state which might have endangered the drivers ability to properly control the private hire vehicle.'.
  Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
  '(8A) No offence is committed by a driver under subsection (3) if—

  the dog is so large as not to be able to sit comfortably on the floor of the vehicle, or

  the disabled person refuses or fails to require or fails to cause the dog to sit on the floor of the vehicle'.

  Sir Sydney Chapman: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has suddenly had to go to an unexpected and rather serious engagement in his constituency. A matter has come up, and I will willingly explain privately to any hon. Member the reasons why my right hon. Friend cannot attend today. He sends his apologies for not being here. I understand that as the amendment stands in my name as well as his, I am permitted to move the new clause and to speak to amendment No. 2.
  Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me say first that I fully support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and wish it well; I hope that it reaches the statute book expeditiously. The purpose of the new clause and amendment No. 2 is to protect the security interests of the driver of a private hire vehicle.

  559
  I have received a briefing from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, in the names of its campaigns director and its campaigns officer, Mr. Nicholas Russell. I have been very much persuaded by what Mr. Russell has written, and it seems to me on balance that, provided that nothing to the contrary comes out of the ensuing debate and the Minister does not argue the other way, I should not seek to put either new clause 1 or amendment No. 2 to the vote, but should rather, with the leave of the House, withdraw the motion.
  Before doing that, I shall mention the reasons why I have come to that conclusion. New clause 1, as the House will know, deals with the possibility of a guide dog vomiting, urinating or defecating in a vehicle. The driver would be able to recover the costs in civil law if necessary. I am not a lawyer, but I am assured that if that happened the owner of the dog would in any case be liable for a civil debt under the general law of tort. If that is the case, it would be extraneous to proceed with the new clause.
  The new clause was not intended to suggest that such events would happen except in the most extreme and rare circumstances. I am deeply aware of how guide dogs are chosen and trained, and the care that goes into that, and I would not seek to suggest that it is the norm that a dog would do any of those things, or cause damage in the way described in the new clause.
  Amendment No. 2 deals with the possibility of a dog being
  "in an excitable, agitated or boisterous state",
  and the same applies to that. Dogs are selected and extensively trained to ensure that they are of a placid temperament and know how they are expected to behave in cars. If, exceptionally, a dog became excited or boisterous, it would be retrained, and the RNIB assures me that if the retraining was unsuccessful the dog would be retired.
  In the light of those assurances, and unless there is some legal point that might necessitate strengthening the defence for a driver in such exceptional circumstances, I shall not insist that the House divides on either new clause I or amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Characteristically, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has made a very moderate speech—indeed, a good speech—in opposition to the new clause and amendment No. 2. However, there are some in the House today who may recall the passage of what was then the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Government of the day chose the right hon. Member for Richmond. Yorks(Mr. Hague) as the Minister who piloted the Bill through, and he did that extremely well. I led for the Opposition, and I leave others to decide what my performance was like. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tremendous."] I am sure that it is all on the record. However, I very much regret, as do Members who were involved in that Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has done such a marvellous job in introducing this Bill, that we had to move the then Government on transport because it had not been included in the original draft Bill. So we made more progress on transport than was originally expected. However, we did not reach the issue in this Bill.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for giving the impression that he will not press new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 to a vote because all the evidence
  560
  is that the behaviour of guide dogs for blind people and hearing dogs for people with hearing impairments is normally impeccable. They are properly trained and their owners look after them. Were the new clause and amendment to be passed, the opposite impression might be given, which would do a great disservice to a progressive step forward.
  Lawrie Quinn: The whole House respects the work that my right hon. Friend and the supporters of the Bill have done. However, does he agree that it is often human beings, particularly those who have had too much to drink or are intoxicated in other ways, who cause the offence to drivers of private hire vehicles? Yet the proposal before us implies that dogs or other animals are capable of the same behaviour that some people indulge in after a certain hour.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining what I think would be the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Were we to adopt new clause 1 and amendment No. 2, we would impose on dogs something that we do not impose on people. Yet all the evidence is that some people—a minority—behave much more unacceptably than most dogs. Therefore, the proposals are unnecessary.
  The experience of the House, not to mention that of individual Members, the advice of our constituents and of the RNIB, is profound. Nearly every day we are delighted to see a guide dog in the House. Very often, the guide dog behaves much better than the average Member, yet no one would seek to impose draconian rules on Members regarding their behaviour. It is certainly not necessary for that wonderful dog, which comes in with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in general terms. However, I recall one time when the guide dog of a very distinguished Member performed in this Chamber in a way that: I have never seen any right hon. or hon. Member perform.
  Mr. Clarke: I leave the defence of canines to their friends. It would be a dangerous path, and I am sure that you would not allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were I to deal with the behaviour of every Member at every moment the House is sitting.
  On the serious point, I think that we are making excellent progress.
  Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is right that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) was reasonable in his analysis of some of the defects in new clause 1. We have yet to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the amendments would introduce uncertainty into the legislation and allow the unscrupulous minicab driver—I am sure that there are very few of those—to prevent those who use guide dogs or hearing dogs from taking them into the car? That uncertainty, which has not yet been touched on in the debate, is an added reason for rejecting the amendments.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West(Gareth Thomas) is absolutely right. He spoke, as always, very coherently. That takes me to my peroration.

  561
  The Bill is long overdue. Those who train guide dogs for blind persons and hearing dogs for persons with hearing difficulties do a first-class job. I want more training to take place. More people should have access to these dogs, and people with disabilities should not be restricted in using transport. As I said, I regret that access to minicabs was not included in earlier disability legislation. and it is important to welcome a measure that is long overdue.
  Mr. David Heath: This is an extremely important Bill, which I support. I am slightly perturbed by this group of amendments. I agree with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) did a good job of demolishing the case for his new clause and amendment. Perhaps he was not in full possession of the facts when he appended his name to the new clause in the first instance and has had time for reflection since then.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I really cannot let the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) get away with that. I admitted that I was not a lawyer. I received legal advice, which I then understood. Irrespective of that, new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 were genuinely designed to strengthen the Bill, not destroy it. They might make it more detailed, admittedly, and would cover the rights of the vehicle's driver. However, having had other matters explained to me, on balance, I think that new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 are not necessary and are even irrelevant to the Bill's main purpose and objective.
  Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Of course I accept at face value everything that he says about his intentions. I still have difficulty in reconciling the original intent of new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 with strengthening the Bill, but no doubt that point will be developed as we debate this further.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon(Mr. Dismore), does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome(Mr. Heath) think it possible that the new clause gives us a glimpse of the real meaning of compassionate conservatism?
  Mr. Heath: That may well be the case, but as the hon. Gentleman says, he will have to apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon(Mr. Dismore), who appears to have joined the gang. I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon will have an opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. and explain his intentions.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: While in no sense wishing to rise to the bait of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green(Mr. McCabe), do the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and other Members present for this fascinating debate agree that whether or not we accept the amendment and new clause, it is important for the credibility of the Bill that these
  562
  difficult issues, analogous but not identical to some of those raised in Committee, are fully debated to sustain the future credibility of the Bill?
  Mr. Heath: I am happy to accept that proposition. The hon. Gentleman will recall a similar balance of interests when we considered the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill. That is one of the two Bills of the Session which, if they reach the statute book, will greatly advance the interests of those with visual impairment. It is important to reconcile conflicting interests in matters of this kind, so that everyone feels that their concerns have been properly heard and addressed in this place.
  10 am
  Nevertheless, I find it difficult to understand why an assistance dog should be singled out as an animal or sentient being—I use that term in its broadest sense to include some members of the human race who may use private hire vehicles—subject to specific treatment under the law in such circumstances. As was correctly said earlier, by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: And Chryston.
  Mr. Heath: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.
  As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out earlier, our experience and that of the trade shows that such problems are far more likely to be associated with human beings who may over-consume certain substances during an evening, hire a cab late at night and then find themselves indisposed. The likelihood of an animal being in that condition is much more remote, especially in the case of the best trained dogs in the country. They are wonderful creatures; they undergo extensive training and behave appropriately. It is somewhat perverse to single out that group for a specific requirement in the Bill.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should at least be some test of reasonableness in the provision? Some of the folk that we are dealing with may not be able to see what condition the dog is in and may not fully anticipate what it might do in the vehicle. Such people should not be subject to harsh penalties if they behaved reasonably, whatever might have happened later.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the owner is responsible for the actions of their animal, irrespective of whether they can determine its condition in advance. I suspect that action under civil law and recovery of costs through tort would still be possible.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I agree with the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the new clause. Does he agree that it seems unfair to impose such a condition on the carriage of blind people and their dogs when, as far as I am aware, the same restriction and redress in law is not applied when a blind person takes his or her dog into a shop or workplace? Would that not be a brand new requirement under law?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point that I am not qualified to address in detail, but I agree that the provision would be unique.

  563
  The counter-argument of course is that there would be a unique requirement under law that the private hire operator could not refuse carriage of the animal, whereas if it were of a different species or if the circumstances were different, he or she would be within their rights to say, "No, I believe that were I to carry a water buffalo in the back of my cab, it would be likely to cause damage to my vehicle so I am within my rights not to carry said animal." That clearly does not apply to a guide dog. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about children?"1 Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) make the same point—we all know the dangers of travelling with children. However, that is to go a little way from the purpose of the proposal.
  The new clause is not necessary. Damage caused to a vehicle by the animals described in the Bill is covered by other areas of law and cost recovery would be available to the driver. The new clause is at the very least otiose and possibly damaging to the interests of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will withdraw it in due course.
  We have heard relatively little about amendment No. 2, which raises different problems. It provides that there would be no offence if
  "at the time of the refusal the assistance dog was in an excitable, agitated or boisterous state which might have endangered the drivers ability to properly control the private hire vehicle."
  I could just about understand that provision in the case of a black cab hailed on the street, when the driver could assess the state of the animal, which would be standing at the kerbside with its owner, and could suggest that the dog was not in an appropriate state of mind to be carried in the cab.
  Private hire vehicles would not normally be hailed in the street. however; indeed it is illegal. They are hired by a phone call or a visit to the company's office and it would be impossible for the driver—other than through a process of extra-sensory perception—to assess the state of mind of the animal in question. I cannot for the life of me understand the circumstances in which the amendment would be relevant other than as later rationalisation of a decision taken on other grounds. That would seem an unfortunate addition to the Bill as it would offer an avenue for abuse on the part of the private hire company.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I do not want to put words into the mouth of the supporters of the amendment, but perhaps their intention is to put the responsibility on to the person who is booking the private hire vehicle. The hirer is supposed to make the assessment when they book their cab. Does my hon. Friend want to question—as I do—whether the provision impugns the behaviour and sensible conduct of all owners of such dogs?
  Mr. Heath: That would be one interpretation of the amendment, albeit a most unfortunate one if it were correct. I certainly would not want Members of this place to suggest that a person with a sensory impairment who was the owner or user of an assistance dog would be so lacking in proper care and consideration that they would hire a vehicle in the full knowledge that their dog was in a state quite alien to the normal conduct of such animals. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that that is one interpretation of the amendment.
  564
  I prefer to assume that the purpose of the amendment is to allow the operator or driver of the car to refuse carriage on the grounds of the boisterous or unruly behaviour of the dog. However, I do not think that the driver would be able to assess that.
  Mr. Clarke: Following the very logical arguments that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is putting to the House, I wonder whether he would agree that my constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston would find it very unusual if their Member gave support to an amendment that includes a split infinitive: "to properly control". Given the excellent Scottish education system, they would have some reservations about that as well, would they not?
  Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, who has clearly had the benefit of an excellent Scottish education. I shall not go too far down the road of parsing the clause in question, but I have a difference with the right hon. Gentleman about the appropriateness or otherwise of the split infinitive. The split infinitive was commonly used in the authorised version of the Bible, and historically. It is only a Victorian invention that equated the English infinitive with the Latin infinitive, which of course could not be split because it was incorporated in a single word.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: The same happens to be true of modern Greek, but that is by the by. I actually discussed this point with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) in the Library this morning. There is not only a split infinitive in amendment No. 2; there also happens to be a dropped apostrophe, but that does not take away from the substance of the amendment, on which I hope to address the House later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has now raised a very important point indeed, because the fact that the apostrophe is not there means that we have no way of assessing whether the amendment refers to a single driver or plural drivers, and that would have an effect on the operation of the clause.
  Mr. Webb: I want to bring my hon. Friend back to the question of reasonableness. Does he agree that a private hire driver expects wear and tear as part of the cost of the hire, and that includes wear and tear caused by people who make the seats dirty, and people who have accidents? These are things that happen in the back of a vehicle as part of the ordinary running of a private hire vehicle. Is it not wrong to penalise a particular group of disabled people when they have been acting reasonably? Reasonable wear and tear and reasonable accidents should surely not be included in the legislation.
  Mr. Heath: I think that my hon. Friend is right, although when we look at amendment No. 7, which the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was prepared to support, apparently without caring or troubling to look into its syntactical quality or grammatical errors—perhaps I do him a disservice; perhaps in the original form these errors were corrected
  Mr. Dismore: I was aware of the grammatical errors and I anticipated that the amendment might not be pressed

  565
  to a vote. However, I believe that it raises some important issues, which we need to debate in the House, and should I catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have some points to make on it, in response to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made already.
  Mr. Heath: I am most grateful for that intervention; as a declaration of intent, it could not be bettered. I am not sure that it took the arguments a great deal further.
  I do not want to take too much of the House's time this morning. I accept that there is an issue about the control of animals, or of children—or of adults if they are not entirely compos mentis, whether that condition is chemically influenced or otherwise—in a vehicle, but I consider that there are already proper protections under the law for circumstances in which that would apply. My argument, quite apart from what I have said about the point of assessment—which is relevant to a private hire vehicle that is not a black cab—is that I see very little reason to include in this legislation a specific prohibition or qualification in relation to something that applies much more widely than to those with some form of sensory impairment who make use of an assistance dog. Indeed, I would suggest—reasonably, in my opinion—that those who use assistance dogs and those with sensory impairments are the least likely among the general population to cause what one can only assume to be the mischief that the new clause and the amendments seek to remedy. That is the bone of contention and that is why I do hope that, in the fullness of time, the new clause and the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
  10.15 am
  We have not yet had the benefit of the advice of the hon. Member for Hendon on the amendments that he has tabled, so it is inappropriate to deal with them in detail until he has had the opportunity to address the House. My only observation is that I hope that he will explain why he feels that the amendments are necessary, given what is already in the Bill, and particularly why he tabled amendment No. 7, which seems to be a reiteration of something which clearly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think perhaps we should wait until we reach amendment No. 7 before we start to debate it.
  Mr. Heath: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had understood that it was grouped in this group. Am I wrong?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is my fault.
  Mr. Heath: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a great rarity for the occupant of the Chair to be wrong in any way in the Chamber and I do appreciate the immediate correction.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although many of us may think that
  566
  it is not necessarily a great rarity for the Chair to be wrong, it is a great rarity for the Chair to admit it so quickly and so—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think at this point we should return to the amendments.
  Mr. Heath: I had no intention of following the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) down that road. In my experience it is certainly not a rarity; it is simply a rarity for there to be anything wrong with the judgment of the Chair in the first instance, and I would reject utterly any suggestion to the contrary.
  I return to amendment No. 7, about which we have not yet heard from the hon. Member for Hendon. The point that I was seeking to make was that the amendment appears, as I read it, simply to reiterate and re-state in a different form a provision that is already in the Bill, which allows an operator to have a certificate exempting him from the provisions of the Bill for medical reasons. I am not clear—but no doubt we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman why I am wrong in my interpretation—why he wishes to re-state that in the Bill and why it is necessary to have a doubling up. Perhaps it is a belt and braces approach. Perhaps he is concerned that the subsection may be contestable in law and he would prefer to repeat the provision elsewhere in the Bill to enable him to direct his defence lawyers to a different part of the Bill in order to adduce additional legal evidence in the case. We do not know; we must wait until the hon. Gentleman makes his speech. We shall listen carefully to the arguments that he adduces in favour of his amendment.
  In conclusion, this group of amendments, which may be well-intentioned—I am perfectly happy to accept that the amendments are well-intentioned—in fact does very little to advance the interests of a Bill which, as I have already said, is extremely important. Indeed, I consider that they are to its detriment. Worse, they single out a group of people—a group who are already singled out by virtue of their sensory impairment and their need for the help of assistance dogs—in what could be considered a discriminatory way. That is unjustified. It is not relevant to the operation of the Bill, should it become statute. I hope that, having heard the arguments in some detail, those who have tabled the new clause and the amendments will, having reflected on the matter—it appeared that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had done quite a lot of reflection in advance—feel it appropriate to withdraw the new clause and not press the amendments, so that we may make further progress with the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: Before I start to justify my amendments and speak in favour of new clause 1, although perhaps not its precise wording, may I say that I very much sympathise with the aims of the Bill? I have read the briefing from the RNIB, and I very much hope that the Bill will pass today, although a number of issues need to be addressed. Even if the amendments are not accepted today, there will be an opportunity to consider some of the technical issues in another place if the Bill receives its Third Reading today, which I very much hope it will.
  In response to the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), I simply say that, although the Bill may become a little more complicated if some of my proposals are accepted,

  567
  my objective is not to make it more complicated, but to ensure that we do not inadvertently create injustices for the owners and drivers of minicabs. Of course our job in the House is to try to ensure justice for those on both sides of any argument. Although it is the natural tendency of hon. Members to favour the less advantaged in society, such as those whom we are trying to help with the Bill—and rightly so—we must ensure, while doing so, that we do not inadvertently cause an injustice to someone else.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asks why we have singled out guide dogs. Perhaps he hinted at the answer in his own contribution: if someone wanted to take his pet water buffalo or warthog—or even his ordinary, small pet mongrel—in a cab or minicab, the driver would have the right to refuse to take him. I used to have a pet dog before being elected to the House. On one occasion, when she was in a slightly muddy condition, I tried to flag down a cab, but the driver refused to take her. She was called Griswald. She occasionally damaged the upholstery of my car, so I know that we need to address such issues.
  Dogs could be refused passage, as, of course, could a drunk on a Saturday night. We are creating the right for people to insist on being taken. That is the right thing to do, but people must accept the consequences of any damage that may arise from insisting on exercising that right.
  Mr. Heath: May I make it absolutely clear that I entirely understand that balance of interests? I think that I alluded to it in my comments. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I used to keep pigs. I never required a private hire carrier or black cab driver to try to take one of my pigs in the back of his cab.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Claire Ward: My hon. Friend refers to his own experiences of attempting to take his dog in a cab but being refused because the dog had muddy paws. Does he think that those who drafted the new clause considered that muddy paws equated to damaging a vehicle?
  Mr. Dismore: Muddy paws themselves cannot damage a vehicle. In fact, my dog had rather more than muddy paws on that occasion. However, if the muddy paws got on to the upholstery, the vehicle could be damaged. I have still got the car with the muddy paw marks in the back to prove it. Sometimes such marks do not come out.
  Mr. Gardiner: What happened to the dog?
  Mr. Dismore: I am afraid that the dog died of old age in 1996, and I have not replaced her because, frankly, my lifestyle since being elected to the House would not allow me to look after a dog properly. As a responsible dog owner, I thought it inappropriate to get another one.
  Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that all hon. Members would appreciate not only my hon. Friend's skills as a dog owner, but the fact that he has a legal background. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said in his opening remarks that the current civil law of tort made provision for recovery of a debt if
  568
  a vehicle is soiled. Will my hon. Friend confirm from his experience as a lawyer that that is the case now and that it would be the case if the Bill were to become a statute?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall come to that issue shortly, and there are some points to be made about the present legal position in the absence of the new clause.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) suggested in an intervention that, if the dog owner were sight impaired or blind, he might not be able to see the condition of the dog. That is an important point, but it goes against the argument, which he was trying to advance, that the owner may not be aware of the condition of the dog at the time. The briefing from the RNIB says that that will be a very unusual occurrence and that it would arise only if the dog were ill, for example, because assistance dogs are properly trained and well behaved. I certainly take that point on board, but even if such occurrences are comparatively rare, it is important to ensure that the rights of the car owner or driver are protected, because the damage could be expensive to repair.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Does my hon. Friend understand that the difficulty that may arise is that, if a driver says, "I'm sorry. I am not going to take you and your dog because your dog is in a poor state and might damage my vehicle," the owner of the dog may be unable to assess whether that is the truth? That is a very serious loophole in the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: If the new clause said that, I would agree with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid it does not. It relates to carrying the dog in the car, not to refusing to take the dog in the car. It would apply ex post facto, rather than on refusing to admit the dog. That is dealt with in amendment No. 2, which I shall come to later. So there are some important considerations to bear in mind.
  There is a problem with the wording of the new clause. It refers to "the full cost", and there could be arguments about the full cost of restoring the vehicle to its previous condition. I would have preferred the new clause to refer to "reasonable cost", as perhaps that would be a fairer way to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon. The phrase "reasonable cost" would have been better, but perhaps we could consider that on another occasion.
  Mr. Boswell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—the House should be made aware—that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has advised that dogs trained by it are covered by public liability insurance and that the cost of repairing any damage so caused would not fall on the blind person? So it seems that the point that he makes has been taken into account.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When we debate amendment No. 2, I shall make a point about the definition of the term "assistance dog". That definition raises some issues that the hon. Gentleman might not have anticipated in making that intervention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that fact, but of course public liability insurance applies only if there is liability in the first place. That point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington,

  569
  West (Joyce Quin), and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has referred us to the RNIB briefing, which simply says that such damage would be covered by the common law of tort. I should like to know a little more about that.
  Before being elected to the House, I practised as a solicitor for 20 years in the law of tort, and I can envisage something of a minefield. For example, if a case were brought on negligence, the question would be whether the dog owner was negligent. The dog owner may well be able to say, was not negligent", for a variety of reasons. Could such an action be brought in contract? Doing so could be difficult because the contract may not be with the car driver and car owner, but with the minicab company, subcontracting the call to the car driver. So it may be difficult to bring the action in contract.
  There is an argument about whether the dog owner would be liable under the Animals Act 1971. Hon. Members have said that the behaviour of guide dogs is always excellent, so it could be strongly argued that that Act may not apply because it normally clicks in when strict liability is involved and the species of animal has a propensity to behave badly. If the normal propensity of the breed or species of guide dog is to behave properly, it may not he strictly liable under the Act. It may come under other provisions, but then there are arguments about whether liability is involved.
  10.30 am
  Lawrie Quinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that taxis in some seaside towns, not least the towns of Scarborough and Whitby, display the terms of carriage, which often state the tine for soiling. Under the new clause, the terms of the contract would have to be made available in braille, and before a booking was made those terms would have to be explained. Does that not provide over-regulation, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow(Mr. Gerrard) does not intend?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an important point, which relates to the distinction I was making between black cabs and minicabs. If a driver picks up a passenger off the street, the contract of hire is immediately between the passenger and the driver, who, as part of the contract, can specify the terms, which could include the need for liquidated damages should this problem arise. The difficulty in this case is that, first, the driver has no say in whether to accept the contract—we are making that clear in the Bill—and, secondly, the contract may not be between the driver and the passenger, and, thus, there is no privity of contract that can be enforced between the driver and the passenger, because the contract may be between the passenger and the minicab company, which subcontracts the hire to the driver. That is the problem that one can reach in contract.
  Whether I am right or wrong, these points are arguable at law. I would hate the small claims court to have to adjudicate between a sight-impaired person and a minicab driver. It would be far better to have a very clear statutory term under which, if damage is done, the reasonable cost could be met, whether through the public liability insurance policy to which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred, or by the owner of the dog.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend's argument, as I understand it. hinges on two things. One is
  570
  compulsion—the minicab driver is compelled to take the dog or the animal—and the other is potential ignorance on the part of the passenger as to the condition of the dog. What I fail to understand—perhaps my hon. Friend will enlighten me—is why he does not envisage a minicab driver being able to say to the owner of the animal about to board his cab under compulsion, "Your dog looks a bit ropey to me, are you sure he is all right to travel?" The passenger, or potential passenger, is therefore made completely aware of the condition of the dog, and everything else will follow. I am not a lawyer, however, so I accept that I probably do not understand these things.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. That assumes, however, that the driver can see that the dog is ill. The dog may have an illness that is not immediately apparent to the driver. My point is that a whole series of arguments could end up having to he litigated on in the county court. In practice, however, we could deal with the problem very simply with a new clause along these lines. I fully accept that the new clause is not perfect in its current form, and that can perhaps be corrected in another place. Important issues need to be addressed, however, to make sure that we deal fairly with the obligation that we are imposing on the driver.
  Mr. Webb: I thought that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) was going to make the opposite point. Let us imagine that there is a blind person with a dog, and that a driver who does not really want to take that person pulls up and says, "Sorry guvnor, that dog looks a bit iffy to me, I won't take you," and drives off. If that loophole is put in the Bill under amendment No. 2, what can a blind person do? They cannot report the number of the cab that has just driven off. Does not that make a nonsense of the whole Bill?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Those arguments come under amendment No. 2, and I shall address that point separately. At the moment, we are not dealing with those circumstances; we are dealing with circumstances in which the dog is in the vehicle and causes damage. That is not the situation pronounced on by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), in which the dog has not got into the vehicle. We are talking about a situation in which the dog has got into the vehicle and caused damage. On the question of whether the driver can refuse to accept the hire, under the Bill in its current form he could not refuse to take the dog, no matter what was wrong with it.
  Mr. Gardiner: I cannot allow my hon.—and learned—Friend to get away with that. His own justification for new clause 1 was on the basis of the compulsion on the driver to admit the passenger with the dog. He cannot, therefore, divorce the two elements that he has logically connected.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, these provisions are not necessarily both acceptable in their current form, and I fully accept that those points need to be addressed separately. At the moment, we are dealing with the position in which the dog has caused damage to the vehicle. A separate issue

  571
  arises in relation to whether a dog could be refused admission to the vehicle for whatever reason, but that is not the point that I am addressing in relation to new clause 1. I have probably exhausted my arguments on new clause 1, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North is tempted to intervene yet again.
  Mr. Gardiner: I hesitate to intervene once again, but I think that it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to give the House an exposition. Again, I claim no particular knowledge of the law, especially of the law of tort, but perhaps we should consider the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. As I understand it, that case hinges on the obligation on a person to ensure that anything that comes from their property does not do damage elsewhere. I understand that that has caused many a legal case and much dispute. This is one occasion on which I would welcome listening to the perorations of my hon.—and learned—Friend.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. As he will no doubt recall, Rylands v. Fletcher concerned the law of nuisance and the release of water. Of course, we are talking about a rather different release of water under this provision from that which applied in Rylands v. Fletcher. That case concerned a piece of land that was flooded by water that came from another piece of land. It is concerned with the principle of a hazard arising on one piece of land or property and affecting another. Cases have been brought in relation to damage by fire and so forth. I do not really think that the law of nuisance applies in the circumstances that we are debating.
  I want to move on to amendment No. 6—I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. I promise the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that I shall deal with his points in relation to amendment No. 2 when I get to it.
  Clause 1(5) indicates that the only grounds for granting a certificate of exemption are medical grounds. That is somewhat restrictive, as there could be other grounds on which it would be perfectly fair to grant an exemption. My amendment would allow a licensing authority to take into account other reasonable—not fanciful—grounds. I shall give the example of someone who has a pathological fear of dogs. When I have been out door knocking and canvassing with my campaign team, one or two of them have been terrified of dogs when we knock on doors. I do not think that that is a medical condition—some may think that it is a natural reaction—but when a dog is barking on the other side of the door, they tend to run away and send me instead. I always take dog biscuits with me when I am out campaigning, just in case. That is a useful tip for all hon. Members.
  Claire Ward: I would not wish my hon. Friend to fall foul of the electoral law, but does giving biscuits to dogs when canvassing for votes constitute the bribery or treating of voters and their families?
  Mr. Dismore: At the risk of trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that giving dog biscuits is treating.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. My patience is beginning to be tried. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the amendment in hand?
  Mr. Dismore: I give way again.
  Mr. Heath: I cannot quite let the hon. Gentleman get away with the suggestion that a pathological fear of dogs is not a medical condition. If something is pathological, it is medical. If it is not pathological, it is not medical.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Perhaps I slightly overstated my case.
  Mr. Gardiner: May I help my hon.—and learned—Friend out? Although the minicab driver may not have a medical condition and be able to obtain an exemption certificate, he may have a standing contract with someone who has an allergy to dogs. Does my hon.—and learned—Friend agree that such a circumstance presents the reasonable ground covered by the amendment?
  Mr. Dismore: I will come on to the issue of allergies shortly. I am dealing with the point that some people are frightened of dogs.
  Mr. Tom Harris: One of the weaknesses of my hon. Friend's argument is that unscrupulous taxi drivers may simply decide that they do not want to carry animals. It would be very difficult to prove that they are telling the truth about their pathological fear of dogs. Will my hon. Friend consider that point?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend has a point, and I deal with it in the amendment that considers the evidence that should be considered by the licensing authority. A pathological fear of dogs is an example of the circumstances that might not be covered by the provision in clause 1 for a new section 37A(5) that outlines the grounds on which an exemption might be granted. If someone is genuinely frightened of dogs
  Claire Ward: That is medical.
  Mr. Dismore: That person might not consider himself to be ill, so I am not entirely convinced that it is covered by the provision for medical grounds. The licensing authority should, however, be able to take account of such circumstances.
  Mr. Edward Davey: On amendment No. 6, the hon. Gentleman must convince the House that there are other reasonable grounds by which an exemption could be made by the licensing authority. So far, he has failed to give one example that has not been countered by the arguments of other hon. Members. He must come up with a concrete example before the House can accept the amendment. I ask him to do so.
  Mr. Dismore: I stand by my view that a fear of dogs is not a medical condition. The people with whom I canvass would not say that they are ill because they are frightened of dogs. They think it is a natural reaction. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that people sometimes have a mental illness that creates such a fear, but people can have a genuine fear that does not go that far.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I would not dream of suggesting that my hon. Friend is making a meal of this, let alone a dog's breakfast. However, when people have a phobia, the treatment involves confronting them with the conditions

  573
  that led to the phobia. Given the charm of guide dogs and hearing dogs, would it not be to the advantage of people with a fear of dogs to have more experience of dealing with them?
  Mr. Dismore: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, the first time that a driver is exposed to a guide dog should not be when he is about to take charge of a moving vehicle. Perhaps the RNIB could help people to overcome their fears through other programmes. However, the provision could create a hazard not only for the driver, the passenger and the dog but for other road users. The driver will be travelling along looking over his shoulder to see whether he will be attacked by what appears to be the placid dog sitting in the back.
  Claire Ward: I realise that my hon. Friend is trying very hard to justify the amendment. However, I find it difficult to accept that what he describes as a fear of dogs will not simply mean that the driver will refuse to carry dogs because he does not like them. My hon. Friend must establish the fact that such a fear will not be covered by the provision that relates to medical grounds. I suspect that the amendment would create a loophole so that drivers would be able to say, "I have a fear of dogs, but I have not been to the doctor about it." They would say that just because they simply do not like dogs.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not dispute that it is a potential problem. However, it should be left to the discretion of the licensing authority to satisfy itself that there is evidence for a driver's claim that he is afraid of dogs. That point is covered in amendment No. 7, and that answers the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who asked me what the purpose of the amendment was.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am afraid that the House is not yet with the hon. Gentleman on this point. I understand his motives, and we are grateful to him for allowing us to debate the point. It has focused our attention on the matter in hand. However, I am concerned that we would place on the licensing authority an obligation that it would find almost impossible to carry out. It would find it impossible reasonably to assess someone's claims that he had a fear of dogs if there were no medical evidence to back them up.
  Bob Spinkrose—
  Mr. Dismore: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point(Bob Spink) and deal with two points at once.
  Bob Spink: I agree with the mood of the House. I am not convinced that inserting the words "or other reasonable" grounds would be a good move. It would provide an escape clause. We are aware that specific medical conditions such as agoraphobia and arachnophobia, which is the fear of a particular animal, exist. However, if someone had a true phobia of dogs, he would have sought medical help. He would have a medical history, so the fear would be covered by the
  574
  provision relating to medical grounds. Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that the problem would be dealt with in that way?
  Mr. Dismore: I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) when we consider the next amendment. On the other point, some people do not consider themselves to have a medical condition, but they are frightened of dogs.
  Mr. McCabe: I do not agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but he is right on one point. It is perfectly possible to have a rational fear of dogs. For example, a person might have been bitten more than once or someone close to them might have been attacked. The fear would not constitute a medical condition, but it would he perfectly rational and understandable.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes succinctly the point that I have tried to make in the past few minutes. That is why a driver should be able to use other reasonable grounds for refusing to carry a dog.
  Mr. Pondrose—
  Clarire Wardrose
  Mr. Dismore: We will have one last round, before I move to my next point. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward).
  Claire Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing us to pursue the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) suggested that, if the driver, a member of his family or one of his friends had been bitten, we should perhaps consider that a reasonable ground for his refusing to carry a dog. However, that argument is not reasonable, because the fact that a member of his family or an acquaintance had been bitten should not allow him to continue his prejudice against dogs. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) thinks that such circumstances justify the amendment, I believe that they merely highlight another weakness in it.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think that she is wrong. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). The fact is that people have a fear of dogs, and the question is whether they can satisfy the licensing authority that it is a genuine fear. If they cannot do that, they will not receive the exemption.
  To suggest that an exemption can be allowed only on medical grounds boxes the driver in. There may be other reasons, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. I cannot come up with another example now. I am focusing on the one that we are discussing because we need to make progress. It is wrong to say that there is only one reason why a licence exemption should be granted. I am concerned that there may be many other reasons that we cannot think of now, which if brought to our attention could properly be considered a fair reason for refusal. It is a matter for the licensing authority in the light of the evidence that is presented to it.
  Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend has referred to the need for drivers or operators to persuade licensing authorities that

  575
  they have a genuine fear of dogs. Does he realise that that would introduce a real inconsistency from one licensing authority to another? Such inconsistency would allow real loopholes. Unless we have exemptions that are based on medical criteria and which have some element of objectivity, there could be a serious weakness in the implementation of the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: I hear what my hon. Friend says but I do not agree with him. Fear of dogs may be a subjective fear, but it is an objective issue for the licensing authority to determine from case to case. I do not see the issue arising very often. I believe that simply saying that there can be no reason other than a medical one is creating an injustice that we may not even be aware of as we consider the Bill.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman said that he cannot think of another reasonable reason, but that there might be one so we should accept the amendment just in case. That is not a persuasive argument for the House. Surely it is a matter of the balance of rights. There is the right of the person who cannot see to travel in the same way as a sighted person can travel versus the right of the person who is driving to avoid the discomfiture that he might suffer from a fear of dogs. We must find that balance. In saying what is reasonable, how do we measure fear? Where do we draw the line? A medical condition is definable and can be justified and argued. By introducing "reasonable", we are giving lawyers work. I think that we should reject the amendment.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the issue is where the balance lies. That was where I started my speech. Where does the balance lie in ensuring that we do justice between the two parties? I am concerned that we may end up creating an injustice by not allowing slightly more flexibility to the licensing authority.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has pursued this point with some passion and at some length. I am interested to know his motivation. Is he expressing a concern, having read the Bill in detail, or has he received representations from minicab owners in his constituency or elsewhere, which have led him to pursue this point with passion?
  Mr. Dismore: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is simple. I have read the Bill and I perceive injustices and loopholes. We should address them today and give our concerns an airing. I will listen to the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), when he replies. He may convince me that I am wrong, or he may say that he sees some merits in some of my points.
  I move on to amendment No. 7. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked me why we need it. I have been debating, in responding to various interventions, the question of medical conditions. The starting point is that clause 1(5) reads:
  "If the licensing authority is satisfied…on medical grounds",
  it should
  "issue a certificate of exemption".
  576
  Clause 1(6) deals with the issues that should be taken into account in
  "determining whether to issue a certificate of exemption".
  The issues that should be taken into account all relate to the particular vehicle. They do not relate to the medical condition itself.
  I am concerned that the licensing authority is not required to examine the medical condition on the basis of medical evidence. Almost everyone in the Chamber made that point to me during our discussion of amendment No. 6. There would have to be medical evidence to prove that there should be an exemption. However, the Bill does not provide that the driver must provide medical evidence to justify the reasons why he should be exempt. He could merely say, "I have an allergy to dogs" or whatever. The licensing authority would then say, "All right, fair enough." According to the Bill, the driver does not have to produce medical evidence to justify what he is saying.
  Bob Spink: If the taxi driver refuses to take the person who cannot see and his dog, how could the person who cannot see take down the taxi driver's number?
  Mr. Dismore: That is a rather silly intervention. The minicab will have been booked through the mini cab company, which will know the name of the driver who was allocated the job. That intervention is not pertinent to amendment No. 7.
  Lawrie Quinn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dismore: I shall develop my argument and then give way to my hon. Friend. I am concerned that subsections (5) and (6) do not sit together as well as they should. I am not sure why the physical characteristics of the vehicle, or kind of vehicle, are relevant to the medical condition. Yet there is no requirement to produce medical evidence. It seems that that is a loophole and something that a driver could exploit. He could give the licensing authority a great spiel about why he has a problem with dogs without having to justify that with medical evidence.
  Lawrie Quinn: Many Members will be aware that my hon. Friend has great expertise in industrial and health and safety law. I return to my earlier intervention about the relationship between the subcontractor and the contractor. I followed my hon. Friend's argument. However, in terms of health and safety provisions at work, what is the liability in the relationship between the subcontractor and the cab hire company? Surely anyone who found himself in medical difficulties because of taking jobs that involved the carrying of a dog on many occasions could take some action against his employer or the person to which he was contracted, namely the minicab hire company.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend's intervention raises complicated areas of law, especially in relation to vicarious liability in terms of the main contractor and the subcontractor. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not like me to go down that road. However, my hon. Friend has a valid point that needs to be addressed at some stage.

  577
  The purpose of health and safety legislation is to ensure that people do not get injured or ill in the first place. However, if they do get ill or injured, there must be compensation arrangements afterwards. In my view, the purpose of health and safety legislation is preventive rather than compensatory.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Is my hon. Friend not stating the obvious with amendment No. 7? What evidence does he have, for example, that the licensing authority does not currently require medical evidence to be provided? Is not the solution to his concern about the licensing authority to ensure that those who sit on the authority carry out a rigorous inspection? Perhaps the House might like to nominate him to sit on the licensing authority, but only if it meets on Friday mornings.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I was once a member of the Westminster City Council licensing committee. We had great fun considering the licensing of sex shops, but that is another story.
  Perhaps I might answer my hon. Friend by putting his question back to him the other way round. There is nothing in the Bill that provides that the licensing authority should consider medical evidence. It is an open question. Some licensing authorities may say, "We take the driver's word for it." Other authorities may be more rigorous. We return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham about inconsistencies between the approach adopted by different authorities. If we include in the Bill a requirement that they must take into account medical evidence—they can specify what they want—that would address the issue.
  11 am
  The amendment deals with allergy to dogs. That is because the RNIB briefing dismisses the point about that being equivalent to carrying a passenger with a heavy perfume to which some people could be allergic. It is a little more complicated than that. We should take into account the possibility that someone has an allergy to dogs, because it is potentially dangerous if a driver is sneezing while driving.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience of licensing, can he tell me how many cases of exemptions he thinks will be brought about on these grounds?
  Mr. Dismore: I have no idea, and I do not think that anybody knows. We know roughly how many minicabs there are and how many guide dogs there are, but we do not know, because the question has never arisen, how many people are allergic to dogs or have other medical reasons why they should not carry them. Nevertheless, it is something for which we should provide. In response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the point of amendment No. 7 is that it would enable a licensing authority to require medical evidence in justification, whether it is a note from a GP or something more serious. At the moment, the Bill does not require that.
  Mr. Pond: I wonder if I can help my hon. Friend as regards the scale of the problem that we are addressing.
  578
  I am grateful to the RNIB for digging out the relevant Department of Health figures. I understand that approximately 4 per cent. of the adult population have asthma that is so severe as to require regular medical supervision, but of course the number of those whose asthma or other allergy would be triggered by dogs will be much smaller than that. Although I accept that such allergies are not to be sneezed at, there are not huge numbers of people who will be affected by the problem.
  Mr. Dismore: The RNIB briefing tells us that there are 150,000 private hire vehicles, and 4 per cent. of that figure represents quite a lot of people. I take my hon. Friend's point that not all of them will have a dog allergy, although some will, and perhaps he can do some arithmetic on that basis. However, a sufficient number of people will be affected to warrant our trying to ensure that their interests are protected.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The amendment does not specify the type of medical evidence that the hon. Gentleman would wish a licensing authority to take account of, so it is superfluous. Clause 1(5) says:
  "If the licensing authority is satisfied that it is appropriate on medical grounds".
  Given that, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a licensing authority would not want to see medical evidence?
  Mr. Dismore: The simple answer is that we do not know. Some licensing authorities may have a very busy agenda to get through on the day the driver turns up and says that he has the allergy. Those of us who have been in local government know that many matters pass through relatively quickly without the scrutiny that they deserve.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I know that the hon. Gentleman served on Westminster city council, which is known for one or two methods that are not beyond reproach. Surely he would agree, on the basis of his experience and knowledge of local councils, which are for the most part the licensing authorities that we are talking about, that most of them would act in a responsible manner and would in no way wish to grant an exemption certificate that would disadvantage some of their own residents unless they were assured that there was evidence to back up the driver's claim.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Most licensing authorities would take their responsibilities seriously. However, given that subsection (6) specifies that the authority should take into account the characteristics of the vehicle, it seems peculiar not also to draw attention to the medical evidence that is required. That is putting the cart before the driver.
  As for allergy, that can be a serious hazard for a driver, because if they are driving along the road sneezing they may lose control of the vehicle. That is an important factor that the RNIB, somewhat unfairly, discounted.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am curious about this. If the hon. Gentleman is right that a driver would refuse to take a guide dog because he was worried that he would have an

  579
  accident if he did so, which law would he have broken? Would he be driving with undue care and attention, or would he be in default of the Bill?
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but he is not following the point of the amendment. We are dealing with an exemption for a driver who has a medical condition. If a driver were exempted, he would not be put in the position of having to take the dog. The problem is that if he took the dog because he did not have an exemption, what would happen to him then? He would not have broken the law under the Bill because he took the dog, but he could fall foul of the general laws relating to loss of control of the vehicle, careless driving or whatever.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier I raised a point of order to say that 49 Bills are on the Order Paper for consideration today. Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that the Government are backing this Bill and the Commonwealth Bill. Is it in order for such lengthy debate to take place at this stage, preventing us from reaching other worthy Bills? Is there any mechanism whereby we can reach the other Bills, and what chance do we have of getting them through today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady knows full well how these matters are normally dealt with. As long as hon. Members who are addressing the House are in order, it is not a matter on which the Chair should intervene.
  Several hon. Membersrose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fairness, I have dealt fully with the point of order.
  Mr. Dismore: If the hon. Lady is concerned to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised, that is exactly what I am doing. As I said, I very much support the Bill, but certain issues need to be addressed.
  On amendment No. 8, the certificate of exemption refers to particular vehicles, but does not say that the driver has to be named. It is relatively straightforward, and I hope relatively uncontroversial, that a certificate should say whom it is granted to as well as in relation to which vehicles.
  Amendment No. 9 deals with the period of exemption. If an exemption is granted, it should be for a finite period, not indefinitely, and a period of 12 months would be fair in relation to people who have a medical condition that is transient, so that it is appropriate for the exemption to be re-examined from time to time.
  Much play was made earlier about amendment No.2, which deals with the behaviour of dogs. I am glad that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said that he is not going to press it, because, apart from the serious grammatical errors, it raises a rather different issue as regards the construction of the Bill.
  We have assumed that the assistance dog is properly trained by the RNIB or whoever, and that it is a placid dog that does what it is told and behaves itself. We all know that dogs that are properly trained by a registered charity, such as the RNIB, behave. However, proposed new section 37A(9) does not stipulate that. Proposed new
  580
  subsection (9)(c)states that an assistance dog is one that has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist someone with epilepsy or other stipulated conditions. The problem is that the definition of assistance dogs in the context of a blind or deaf person does not state that it has to be trained by a prescribed charity.
  If the electors of Hendon decide that they have had enough of me, there is no reason why I should not set myself up as a guide dog trainer. I have no qualifications or skills to do that. I could claim that I have a dog that is trained to look after blind people, but it could be a lively dog that jumps around a lot. It could be Scooby Doo.
  We have a serious problem to address. If the definition of assistance dog does not say that the dog has to be trained properly by a prescribed charity, there is a serious loophole in the Bill. An assistance dog that has not been properly trained by a prescribed charity could be excitable, agitated or boisterous. In those circumstances, the driver might be in a difficult position.
  Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend mentions a loophole. On amendment No. 2, what would happen if a dog became boisterous or agitated during a journey? If the Scooby Doo dog becomes animated—although Scooby Doo is, of course, already animated—will the driver be able to stop in the middle of the journey and ask the passenger with said dog to leave? How would that affect the original contract?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. Amendment No. 2 deals with the behaviour of a dog before it gets into the vehicle. It does not deal with what happens if a dog becomes agitated after it gets into the vehicle. I suspect that amendment No. 10 addresses that problem, although I accept that it may not be on all fours with my hon. Friend's argument. I would be much happier if the definition of assistance dog in amendments Nos. 2 and 10 applied to a dog that had been trained by a prescribed charity no matter what the disability. If we do not address that serious loophole today, it will have to be sorted out in another place.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman's point does not stand up to much analysis. All dogs that are trained for use by a blind or deaf person, or the people covered by proposed new section 37A(9)(c), will have a certificate to show that they have received full training. Should the driver of a private hire vehicle wish to question whether a dog was properly trained and thus came within the parameters of the Bill, he could ask for such a certificate. I should be surprised if the people who own the dogs did not have the certificate with them.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He is right to say that proposed new section 37A(9)(c) refers to a dog that has been trained by a prescribed charity. It covers people with, for instance, epilepsy and problems of mobility and manual dexterity. However, proposed new section 37A(9)(a) and (b) do not say that a dog has to be trained by a prescribed charity.
  I fully accept that if the dog is trained by the RNIB, RNID or a similar organisation, it may have a certificate of training. I am sure that both the driver and the dog owner would be confident that the dog would not be

  581
  boisterous and would be properly behaved, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry. The problem is what happens if the dog has not been trained in those circumstances. If no training certificate can be produced, how can the driver be guaranteed that the dog will be well behaved?
  11.15 am
  Claire Ward: My hon. Friend raises an important point and he has proved why it is important to scrutinise the Bill. Proposed new section 37A(9)(a) and (b) could provide an opportunity for an unsuitable person to train a guide dog for a blind or deaf person. However, surely a dog could not be trained to guide a blind person if it was boisterous by nature.
  Mr. Dismore: The problem is that that becomes a matter for the lawyers in relation to what is meant by "trained" and "guide". If there is a certificate to say that a dog has been trained by a registered charity, that would be conclusive. However, there is no provision for that. I think it is a drafting error that could be corrected in another place. I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow responds, he will tell us whether there are organisations that are not registered charities that do such work.
  However, there is a loophole. As I said, there is no reason in principle why I should not set myself up as a dog trainer, although bearing in mind my experiences with Griswald it is clear that I would not be very good at it. She seemed to be trying to train me rather than the other way around, which is the problem with many pet dogs.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman says he thinks he has found a loophole, which he describes as a drafting error. Does he really think that lots of people are queueing up to pass off their dogs as guide dogs and dogs for the deaf? Does he have any evidence to back up that claim?
  Mr. Dismore: There is no reason for people to do that at the moment. However, we are talking about imposing an obligation on someone who is outside the guide dog loop. It is fine if someone who does not represent a registered charity agrees to train a dog and the deaf or blind person is happy with the dog, but we are proposing to impose an obligation on someone else who has to take it for granted that the guide dog is what it purports to be.
  There are rules about allowing guide dogs into restaurants. I suspect we could he opening a can of worms for restaurants as well—if I can put it that way—if we go down the route of not specifying what we mean by a guide dog. The hon. Gentleman may well be right; perhaps it is belt and braces.
  Bob Spink: We are in the realms of the absurd. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we issue licences for the dog to show that it has been trained? That would be a dog licence in reverse because it would be attached to the dog rather than the owner. Who would issue that licence? Would we require an inspection department to check that the standards were being upheld?
  582
  Would he call that department Ofdog or Ofwoof? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could move on and let us make some progress.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying far from the point.
  Mr. Dismore: I am pleased that you are getting into the spirit of the morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The intervention of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was rather silly. The answer is simple: if the Bill stipulated that the dog had been trained by a prescribed charity, the problem would disappear. Both parties could thus have confidence, and the law would be confident that a proper arrangement was in place for the dog. I am not sure of the precise arrangements for a dog that the RNIB trains and whether it has a certificate, docket—or dogget—to prove it. If so, there would be a clear presumption that the dog was properly trained.
  Claire Ward: I want to revert to the serious point about the definition of an assistance dog. Let us consider dogs who are being trained but who are not yet fully trained to be guide dogs for the blind or for the deaf. The dog obviously needs to be exposed to circumstances that it will encounter later. It needs to be able to guide a person with a disability into a minicab or taxi or on to public transport. The definition in the Bill does not cover dogs that are being trained. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should consider that?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I assume that part of a dog's training is in getting in and out
  vehicles, and that the driver will be part of the training set-up, and will therefore know the propensities of dogs that are being trained.
  There are serious training problems. I shall not go into the matter in detail, but the Bill does not even define "dog".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that hon. Members know what a dog is.
  Mr. Dismore: When we considered hunting with dogs, the definition caused problems.
  Amendment No. 10 does not go as far as amendment No. 2, but I believe that it should be accepted. The RNIB brief states that a properly trained assistance dog is required to sit on the floor between the owner's legs or lie down in the well of a cab. However, what happens if the dog is too big for the vehicle or if the person in charge of the dog refuses to make it sit on the floor? A dog can make a terrible mess by sitting on a car seat, especially if it is moulting. It is fair for the driver to be able to insist that the dog sits on the floor. That is also good practice.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The problem with amendment No. 10 is that it fails to deal with small private hire vehicles. A dog's inability to sit on the floor may be no fault of the owner, and may have nothing to do with the dog's size or its behaviour.
  Mr. Dismore: The amendment is trying to deal with that. The hon. Gentleman should consider it with proposed new section 37A(6), which refers to
  "the physical characteristics of the private vehicle"
  that could be a ground for exemption.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Amendment No. 10 refers to the dog being
  "so large as not to be able to sit comfortably on the floor of the vehicle".
  How can one ascertain whether the dog is comfortable?
  Mr. Dismore: A dog that is uncomfortable in a vehicle lets it be known pretty quickly. It will not stay put. We must also consider the animal welfare issues. If a dog is uncomfortable, it is not right to force it to go into the vehicle.
  Claire Ward: Who will determine whether the dog is comfortable: the person who is being guided or the driver?
  Mr. Dismore: The dog—although my hon. Friend has a point.
  Perhaps proposed new section 37A(6), which deals with the physical characteristics of the vehicle, covers paragraph (a) in amendment No. 10. An exemption could perhaps be made under it if the vehicle were too small to take a dog. However, it does not cover paragraph (b), which relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made when he asked what would happen if a dog that initially sat on the floor tried to get on to the seat or started to jump about. Paragraph (b) would deal with a dog that started to misbehave during a journey because it would allow the driver to stop and require the dog to leave the vehicle.
  Mr. Pond: I am reliably informed that few vehicles that are used as minicabs are not sufficiently large to take an alsatian, which is the largest assistance dog. Surely that practical point does not need to detain us for too long.
  Mr. Dismore: I agree, and I hope that the point will not detain us. My speech has been longer than I intended because I have taken a lot of interventions. The debate has been important because we have aired the issues well.
  Mr. McCabe: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is desperate to move on, but I want to consider his previous point. He said that amendment No. 10 would give the driver the power to stop the vehicle and order the blind person and the dog out. Does he seriously mean that he is prepared to table an amendment to a Bill that aims to protect blind and disabled people, to allow a driver to stop in the middle of nowhere and order the dog and the blind or disabled person out because the dog is irritating the driver? Is he seriously proposing that?
  Mr. Dismore: As my hon. Friend says, the Bill is about the "carriage of disabled persons", but the long title also refers to "carriage" of "guide dogs". We must therefore consider the animal welfare issues that affect the dog as well as protecting the disabled person who is being guided. As I said, perhaps proposed new section 37A(6) deals with the problem of the dog being uncomfortable in
  584
  the vehicle, but the Bill does not cover paragraph (b) of amendment No. 10 and the problem of the dog refusing to sit or stay on the floor.
  There are serious road safety considerations to be taken into account. The driver is responsible at all times for controlling the vehicle. The dog could jump about, try to get into the passenger's lap, or look out of the window. I admit that my dog used to do that. That could cause a serious problem for vehicle control. If the vehicle had an accident, the person who was hit would sue the driver. Would the driver have a claim against the owner for not controlling the dog? That takes us back to tort, which we discussed at the beginning of my contribution.
  Mr. Gardiner: Everybody understands that a driver has a responsibility to his passenger and other road users for the safety of his vehicle and his conduct on the high road. None the less, a less nuclear approach might be to provide that the driver must stop the vehicle until the animal has been brought under control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said, it may be too much to evict the passenger and the animal from the vehicle.
  In passing, I congratulate my hon. Friend on speaking for more than an hour and eight minutes, which was the record for a Friday morning.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a tempting point and there is some merit in his argument. The point may well be one that is addressed in the other place. It is a question of doing justice and striking a balance between the passenger and the dog, the minicab operator and other road users. A slight difficulty arises—especially if the minicab driver is working to a schedule—of how to deal with a dog that cannot be brought under control. As always, my hon. Friend has come up with a sensible compromise in respect of the points that I am making. It is a shame that he did not table his own amendment to that effect, as we could then have explored that possibility.
  In my amendments, I have tried to draw attention to one or two drafting problems in the Bill, and I am interested in hearing the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. If, as I hope, the Bill proceeds to the other place, some of the points I have made might receive further consideration, although I hope that my hon. Friend and the Minister will be able to respond to them today.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Boswell: So far, the debate has been fascinating. The group of amendments was introduced succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), and has been spoken to by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) at rather greater length—and, to be fair, in greater detail and with a lawyer's perceptiveness. It is also fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has triggered a clutch of questions and counterpoints, which is the proper role of the House of Commons. We sometimes hope that such matters might be dealt with more expeditiously in Committee, but we all agree on the importance of their being properly resolved before a Bill passes to the other place.
  Mr. Dismore: I did not have the good fortune to be appointed to the Standing Committee on the Bill, otherwise I would have made my points there.
  Mr. Boswell: As one who was a member of the Committee, I can say that it was the Committee's loss that the hon. Gentleman was not able to participate in our deliberations.
  Conscious of the time. I should like to say on behalf of the Opposition that although the debate has been wide ranging, we should have some regard to the generality of the issues involved. I do not often quote my own remarks, but I shall do so briefly. In the Standing Committee, in response to comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I said:
  "The legislation will allow us to prevent people from using the excuse of some theoretical inconvenience when there is no problem at all." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12 June 2002: c. 12.]
  That remains my strong view, and I know that it is shared by the Bill's promoter, who responded to my remark.
  As all hon. Members have said, we want the Bill to succeed. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) remarked, it is all of a piece with the development of law from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 through subsequent amending legislation. It would remove or repair an omission by including private hire vehicles in the provisions, along with public carriage vehicles.
  A huge complex of law and practice is building up in the field of disability discrimination, dealing with the sensitive handling of guide dogs and other assistance dogs as well as the strict letter of the law, and nearly all of it seems to work perfectly well. This morning, only one reference has been made to the admission of guide dogs and assistance dogs to public restaurants; as far as I know, when that has happened, no major concerns of public health, order or nuisance have arisen. I see no reason why the provisions of the Bill should give rise to exceptions.
  I believe that I am right in saying that under the existing law covering black cabs, only three drivers have required exemption. That is entirely proper and it reflects the scale of the problem that might be encountered if the Bill is passed. The problem will not be large, although I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon that that in no way absolves the House from the obligation to get the provision right.
  I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, whose introduction of the amendments was somewhat qualified, and to the extensive discussion of the whole group of amendments led by the hon. Member for Hendon. After listening to the latter building up his argument, the nearest analogy I could think of was a famous story of an Australian outback farmer in the 1920s. He ordered a new Rolls-Royce—no doubt, he farmed on a fairly large scale—and the company was intrigued by his special emphasis on having a glass partition; it was the main selling proposition. When asked delicately why the partition was so important, he is reputed to have replied, "Because it stops the sheep licking the back of my neck when I'm driving." With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman. I felt that the debate was starting to stray into that sort of territory. Of course there will be hard cases, but he is a lawyer, unlike me, so he knows that hard cases make had law. We have to think about them, but we also have to deal with them and get past them.
  Broadly speaking, the exchanges, all of which were quite proper, struck a fair balance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said. we are in the
  586
  business of seeking a balance. He questioned whether, under amendment No. 8, it would be possible to put qualifications on the exemption certificate. When I revisited the provision, it looked to me as though we had a prescription for either the vehicle or the driver to be exempted, and I thought that that would probably cover all possible cases. No doubt the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), will be able to explain that point.
  The subject with which the Bill deals invites a jocular attitude, and that has been the mood in the Chamber today, but a serious point has been made that whereas guide dogs normally behave in an exemplary manner, are trained to do so and can be proved to have been trained to do so, a bigger concern for cabbies and operators of private hire vehicles is the behaviour of the human cargo and the various things that can go wrong. I suspect that the many hon. Members who are avid readers of The Economist noticed the story in the American section last week about the United States hot dog eating competition. It was won—by a considerable margin—by a Japanese gentleman, who was, in the words of the newspaper, able only narrowly to avoid a "Roman incident".
  I shall not dwell on that subject at length, but I am reminded of one of my modest attainments in Parliament. It is no great confession, but in the Jubilee Room some years ago I won the national biscuit dunking competition. I hasten to add, lest there be any question of interest, that I did it for charity and the only prize was the award of a golden biscuit. The runner-up. my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), was greatly distressed and was heard to say under his breath, "I'd like a blood test, please." On the whole, that was rather odd given that neither of us is a member of the union Amicus. Let me conclude that point by mentioning the fact that after my triumph. I was invited to comment in a television interview and in the best style of "Match of the Day" described myself as feeling as sick as a parrot.
  People can be sick in taxis, as can dogs. What we must not do is use the pretext of an extremely rare occurrence to scupper, dilute or destroy this excellent measure. To the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) I say that I regard the Bill as a parallel to that other legislative brick that we laid this year, the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill. I very much hope that the Bill before us today will succeed as well.
  I want to touch on the case for any amendments of comfort along the lines of those proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon. We want to carry the minicab trade with us and meet its reasonable concerns, ensuring that people are not treated unfairly when they comply with the law. I believe that the Bill does that. Legislation prescribes that something should happen, and we should not need further legislation to absolve people who have found an excuse for it not to happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, it is a matter of striking the right balance. Having listened carefully to the debate, I judge that we have got the balance about right.
  There is a powerful business case for this, too. If cab drivers can be shown to be friendly and welcoming to people with assistance dogs, that is good business. There may be cases in which that cannot happen, and that is what the legislation is trying to pick up on, but to remove oneself from a significant section of the market, with

  587
  perhaps 2 million visually impaired people in this country and a large number who may require assistance, though not all from dogs, would be a foolish business decision.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has, as usual, made a thoughtful and intelligent contribution to our debate. His last point applies to regulation in general. Many people see regulation as damaging to business, but often it can promote business, creating a market and encouraging people to get involved. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a business case, although that may not be the main point. The overriding case for the Bill is the need to end the discrimination that blind, deaf and other disabled people have experienced.
  The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) did the House a great service by bringing out some of the key underlying issues that faced those who drafted the Bill. It is worth pointing out, though, that the dogs in question are all exceptionally well trained. We have missed that point up to now. My partner's family have a dog called Sweep who was rejected as a guide dog because he was not up to the mark. He had been chosen as a puppy and had gone through the initial training, but had been unable to control himself—he had been too "boisterous", to use the word in amendment No. 2.
  11.45 am
  I want to draw the attention of the House to Canine Partners for Independence. Hon. Members are probably aware of Guide Dogs for the Blind and of the increasing number of dogs being used to assist people with hearing impairments, but they may not know of the CPI, which is a small but growing charity that shows how dogs can help people with disabilities in amazing ways: they can do shopping, load dirty washing into machines, open doors and call for lifts.
  I want to focus on dogs calling for lifts. Dogs are trained to do that, which may go some way towards answering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who questioned the intentions underlying amendment No. 2. It might be possible for the operator to know whether the dog is in an excitable state when the lift is called for. To be serious, however, I would imagine that the operator receiving the call would have been trained to understand and accept such calls.
  Mr. McCabe: What exactly happens when a dog calls for a lift? I find that quite amazing.
  Mr. Davey: I would love to be able to explain that in detail, but to save time I refer the hon. Gentleman to the website of Canine Partners for Independence. It may be that the hon. Member for Hendon will be able to elucidate further.
  Mr. Dismore: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of dogs calling for a lift, does he mean an elevator or a vehicle?
  Mr. Davey: I was referring to a vehicle, but I am sure that dogs could call for an elevator as well.
  I want to take the House through some of the processes that the CPI uses to train dogs. First, there is a selection at the puppy stage. Only puppies that show an aptitude
  588
  for the tasks are chosen. The chosen puppies are placed with families that bring them up in a certain way for the first 12 months. Then, the one-year-old dog gets six months of advanced training in a training centre. That is a huge investment, and shows how seriously the CPI takes the job of training.
  Afterwards, the disabled person and the dog are matched in a very careful and sensitive way. There is a two-week residential training course during which they get to know each other and learn the various commands, followed by a graduation ceremony if the dog is successful. Even after graduation, there is follow-up care and supervision. All that training has not been mentioned in the debate so far.
  All of that underlines the most worrying aspects of new clause 1 and amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making a constructive contribution, and setting the debate in the right context. Dogs for the Disabled is located just inside my constituency, near Banbury, so I can echo the experience that he has just outlined.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that. I do not know the dogs myself, but my constituent Pauline Hamblin works for the CPI and brought its good works to my attention. She was a great help in preparing for this debate.
  The new clause and the amendments are not necessary. We should bear in mind the fact that the dogs are exceptionally well trained. The Bill should go onto the statute book as it stands.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Had the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) been here, he would have been a little surprised at the slightly surreal contribution of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who moved new clause 1 and proceeded to speak against it forcefully. I am in danger of doing the opposite—of opposing the new clause but speaking for it.
  You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a story to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred. During a debate on education, I was an illustrious member of the Whips Office, sitting where the Government Whip is sitting now. The dog belonging to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) unfortunately misbehaved by doing one of the things to which new clause I refers. At one point, it was suggested that we adjourn the House for a moment so that a clean-up might be effected; indeed, I believe that you were in the Chair at the time. However, in the end it was I who crawled along the floor with a cloth and performed the clean-up.
  There was a sequel to that. Shortly afterwards, in September, I went on a parliamentary trip to the United States. The senator who introduced the British parliamentarians and said a little about their backgrounds eventually got to me. He looked down at his notes and said, "Mr. Jamieson, you're the guy who cleaned up the dog puke." So my claim to fame in this House is that I was the guy who cleaned up after my right hon. Friend's dog. One reason to smile on that occasion was that the dog threw up just as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) got to his feet to make his speech.

  589
  However, there is a serious point here. It is important that other people respect dogs that are kept for that purpose, and do not feed them without the knowledge of their owner. Indeed, that was the problem that gave rise to the incident to which I referred.
  Mr. David Wilshire: There is a further important and serious point that needs to be made. As a former Whip, the Minister will be aware that colleagues consider a Whip's job as involving all sorts of nasty things. He has just demonstrated that the reality of the Whip's job is to crawl around on the ground doing strange things. Is that not the truth of the job that he used to do, and which I now do?
  Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps reflecting his own role, rather than the one that I had. [Laughter.]
  The Government believe that new clause 1 is unnecessary and we will not support it. It adds nothing to the general law of tort—a point on which there has been an interesting debate today. If a person or an animal over which he has control causes damage, a tort arises and the owner of the damaged property can sue for the cost of repairing or replacing it. That applies equally to a disabled person with an assistance dog and to someone with a pet dog.
  Mr. Pond: Does the Minister agree that new clause 1 is not only unnecessary but could also prove dangerous? I know that he, like other hon. Members, has visited Gravesham. He will have seen that the cabs in that town are in pristine condition, but that is not always the case throughout the country. Perhaps some unscrupulous cab owners might use the new clause to get such passengers to pay for a clean-up that in reality had nothing to do with their dog. Indeed, such passengers would he unable to ascertain the truth of the situation.
  Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is a further reason to oppose the new clause.
  The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire—in whose name new clause 1 has been tabled—may have thought that, by imposing an obligation on the driver of such a vehicle to carry a dog, the Bill will remove the driver's normal private law rights to sue for damage caused by passengers and their animals. However, we believe that the general law covering such circumstances does not remove such rights. I should also point out that new clause 1 is flawed, in that it does not state to whom the payment should be made, or by whom it would be recoverable.
  Mr. Boswell: Am I right in thinking that the driver's public law obligations in relation to the safety of his vehicle, for example, are not removed, and that if there is ever any doubt as to whether he should carry on driving, he would be fully within his rights to stop? Is not the provision concerned solely with discrimination, in terms of admitting a guide dog to a vehicle?
  Mr. Jamieson: Yes, drivers are always responsible for conducting their vehicles safely and properly.
  590
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made a brief and succinct contribution on amendment No. 2. In our view, the Bill already offers sufficient protection for drivers. It does not force drivers to carry dogs in circumstances in which they would normally refuse. For example, as was pointed out, they are not obliged to take a drunk or disorderly person, with or without a dog. Equally, they can refuse to take an unruly assistance dog. Refusing to take an unruly dog is not the same thing as refusing to take a fare. Because the passenger in question would be accompanied by an assistance dog, no offence would be committed in such circumstances.
  If the Bill succeeds—it is my earnest hope that it should—we intend to issue full guidance to private hire operators and drivers, as well as disabled users, just as we have done in respect of taxis. The guidance will cover all the issues raised, and we believe that that will be more than sufficient to reassure people. In any event, I think it highly unlikely that the circumstances envisaged in the amendment will arise. No similar provision for taxis is made in section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so the amendment would create an imbalance in legislation. Of course, it may be felt that that is not good enough, and that we should look at the provisions afresh. In support of our position, I should point out that since April last year—when the provisions in section 37 began to apply to taxis—we are unaware of any cases of problems arising through the behaviour of assistance dogs.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister said that the Government will issue guidelines to the industry and to other affected parties, but in his list he did not mention licensing authorities. Can he reassure the House that guidelines will be issued to licensing authorities, because that would deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) rightly raised?
  Mr. Jamieson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all parties involved, including licensing authorities, will be issued guidelines.
  As has been pointed out, the dogs in question are highly trained animals. It is therefore unsurprising that we intend that the provision cover only dogs trained by recognised bodies that are to be prescribed in regulations. It is therefore highly unlikely that they would behave in such a manner. If they did, they would be of little assistance to their owners.
  I hope that I have given the House an explanation of why the Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary.
  Mr. Dismore: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but that is not in the Bill. It refers to prescribed charities in certain circumstances, but does not mention assistance dogs for the deaf or blind. That is a genuine drafting problem. If what my hon. Friend says is correct, so be it, but that does not appear in the Bill, except in connection with assistance dogs for people with other disabilities.
  Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has made his point, as indeed he did in his previous contribution. Notwithstanding that, we hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion.
  12 noon
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: This has been an interesting debate, and I shall try not to repeat what has already been covered by the speeches from both Front Bench spokesmen, because they have already dealt with some of the points that came up. Sometimes during the debate it has felt as if we were discussing something totally new that had never been thought of before, and that none of the potential problems had ever been considered. On the contrary, since the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed we have had legislation imposing exactly the same obligations on the licensed cab trade as are proposed in the Bill. A great many local authorities already include the provisions in the Bill in their licensing requirements for private hire vehicles, and require drivers to take guide dogs.
  The problem is not that that does not happen, but that it does not happen everywhere. There is inconsistency between one local authority area and another, so that people with assistance dogs, especially when they are travelling away from home, cannot be confident that they will be able to use private hire vehicles. The problem is the lack of consistency across the country.
  The attempts that we have heard to construct convoluted scenarios for the problems that guide dogs might cause ignore the fact that we already have experience, and we are not dealing with something completely new. We may be spending too much time trying to find all the extreme examples of things that might go wrong with the Bill, when the fundamental issue is really very simple: rights of access for people with disabilities.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) perfectly illustrated the fact that the only way one can tell whether a minicab driver has run over a assistance dog or a lawyer is that there would he skid marks in front of the assistance dog?
  Mr. Gerrard: It would be dangerous for me to go down that road now, because I do not wish to upset the lawyers, especially while we are still debating the new clause and the amendments.
  I want to address some of the issues related to new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 concerning damage, and dogs being excitable. A lot of them have already been covered: the legal advice that I have been given makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent someone from suing now, and the Minister agrees. Again, we have the benefit of the experience of the licensing authorities that already make that requirement. In the very unlikely event of a guide dog causing damage, there is nothing to stop people suing now, so it is unnecessary to add the provisions to the Bill.
  Clearly it is important that excitable dogs should not make cars dangerous to drive, but as several hon. Members have already explained, the very nature of assistance dogs makes that scenario highly unlikely. We should also remember that private hire vehicle drivers are used to dealing with difficult situations and customers. Unfortunately for them, that is part of the business.
  It is important to remember what the Bill actually says. There have been several references to the idea that a passenger would have the right to insist on being taken.
  592
  That is not strictly accurate, because clause 1 says that it will be an offence for the operator or the driver to refuse a booking for the sole reason that the person is accompanied by an assistance dog. That does not mean that someone with an assistance dog is in a privileged position compared with any other person trying to make a booking. The Bill simply brings parity.
  There is nothing to say that a private hire vehicle driver has to accept every booking offered. If a driver is offered a booking to the airport and he does not want to drive all the way across London to Heathrow, he can say no. The Bill will simply stop discrimination. The driver and the operator will not be able to say, "I'm not going to take you because you've got your assistance dog with you." If, in the very unlikely circumstance that the driver turned up for a booking and the dog was unruly or the passenger drunk or abusive, there would not be the slightest problem if the driver refused to take them for that reason. It is an offence only if he refuses to take them because the dog is an assistance dog.
  The definition of an assistance dog is the same as in section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It works for black cabs, and I see no reason why it should not work for private hire vehicles. The very detailed guidance issued by the Department to drivers, people with disabilities and the local authorities, which are the licensing authorities, covers the definitions clearly.
  It would be a mistake to look for additional reasons for exemption. A number of issues were raised in relation to exemptions, such as phobias and medical grounds. The guidance issued under section 37 of the 1995 Act to licensing authorities for black cabs specifically refers to drivers having severe asthma aggravated by contact with dogs, allergies or acute phobias. Those are given in the guidance as the sort of reasons that would allow a driver to apply for exemption. The guidance also makes it clear that the driver would be expected to produce to the licensing authority the medical evidence required for such an exemption.
  People have asked what is the point of the provision on having regard to the physical characteristics of the private hire vehicle in proposed section 37A(6). This relates to the driver's medical condition. As with black cabs, if a driver claims that he cannot have a dog in his cab because he is allergic, questions about the physical characteristics of the vehicle become relevant when considering whether a medical exemption should be granted. Is there a partition between the passengers and the driver, for example? Do the physical characteristics of the vehicle have a bearing on the medical condition that is being claimed?
  We should get the scale of the exemption into perspective. I believe that so far three exemptions have been granted to drivers of black cabs. This will not be a huge problem—vast numbers of people will not suddenly require exemptions. We should recognise the scale of the problem and approach it with common sense. It affects about 5,000 to 6,000 people who own guide dogs—they are the people who suffer problems, not the drivers. However, there are about 150,000 drivers, and the average driver will never have to deal with this situation, or only extremely rarely.
  I suspect that anyone who uses private hire vehicles, as I quite frequently do in my constituency, will soon realise which firms are reliable and which give a good service and they will use them. People who own assistance dogs

  593
  will quickly learn where to go, and a pattern will emerge. I am sure that this already happens in areas that have licensing arrangements. Drivers who are happy to take assistance dogs will become known to customers and will frequently take them, while others will hardly notice any difference.
  Some of the amendments are unnecessary, as they cover points that are already dealt with in the Bill; for example, the ability of a driver or operator to sue for damage if necessary, or to refuse carriage provided that the reason for refusal is not simply the assistance dog—he can certainly refuse to take an abusive or unruly passenger whether or not they are using an assistance dog.
  Some of the points raised about exemptions and definitions may not be included in the Bill, but they are already in practice under section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act and provisions for black cabs. We are familiar with them. We do not want to introduce inconsistency; what works for black cabs should work perfectly well for private hire vehicles and it makes sense to amend the Act in the form currently taken by the Bill to achieve that consistency for different classes of vehicle, rather than to make that aspect more complex. We should not look for problems that do not exist.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I have listened with interest and at length to the debate. It is good that we have held the debate because it has brought out certain problems that might be faced. However, I am entirely persuaded by the hon. Gentleman and the eloquence on both sides of the House, not least from the Front-Bench speakers, so I shall withdraw the new clause. I understand that if that is accepted by the House, amendment No. 2 will fall so I shall be in the happy position of knowing that a dropped apostrophe and a split infinitive are no longer in danger of getting on to our statute book.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 47, at end insert—
  '(2) In Schedule 8 to the 1995 Act (modification of Act in its application to Northern Ireland) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 21—
  "21A (1) In section 37A(5) and (6) for 'licensing authority' substitute 'Department of the Environment'.
  (2) In section 37A(9) for the definitions of 'driver', 'licensing authority', 'operator' and 'private hire vehicle' substitute
  "`driver"' means a person who holds a taxi driver's licence under Article 79A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981(SI 1981/154(NI I);
  "operator" means a person who in the course of a business makes provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle;
  "private hire vehicle" means a vehicle which

  seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and

  is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to carry passengers for hire (but not to stand or ply for hire).'.".'

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, after "(2AB)", insert—
  'Regulations under subsection (2AA) above may provide for the creation of offences and for making offenders liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (2AC)'.
  Mr. Gerrard: The amendments are straightforward but important. As originally drafted, the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland and Scotland because of their devolved powers. However, it is of some importance that we try to extend the provisions across the whole United Kingdom.
  The Northern Ireland Assembly could have dealt with this matter but it would have taken some time. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, the Assembly unanimously agreed to urge us to amend the Bill so that its provisions would extend to Northern Ireland. That is the purpose of amendment No. 3. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment will make detailed regulations for Northern Ireland so that there are parallels between licensed taxis and private hire vehicles.
  Amendment No. 1 deals with Scotland and will correct a drafting error made in Committee when a clause was inserted to extend the Bill's provisions to Scotland but, unfortunately, omitted anything that made it an offence in Scotland not to comply with the provisions. We thus had the rather odd situation whereby a Bill applied to Scotland but if people chose not to obey it nothing would have happened. Amendment No. 1 puts that straight and ensures that, as well as the Bill applying to Scotland, there is also an offence for not complying with its provisions.
  I hope that the House will support the amendments, which will give us consistency throughout the whole UK.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has spoken to the amendments very effectively.
  Amendment No. 1 is necessary to ensure that Scotland has parity with England and Wales in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, which now extends to Scotland, amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and places a duty on drivers of private hire cars to take guide dogs and other assistance dogs and not to make a charge for doing so.
  Enforcement measures are an integral part of the process and, as the Bill is drafted, there is now some doubt about the ability of Scottish local authorities and police to enforce its provisions. They felt that the Bill needed to be corrected and express provision made for this purpose; to do otherwise would render the Bill impotent in Scotland.
  The amendment replicates the current offence relating to the duty placed on taxi drivers in Scotland, the penalty for which, on summary conviction, is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  The Bill has been extended to Scotland and I am pleased to say that amendment No. 3 has been tabled to ensure that it extends to Northern Ireland as well. I am certain that all of us in the House would agree that disabled people who rely on assistance dogs in any part of the United Kingdom should enjoy the same rights as everyone else when they travel by private hire vehicle, and the Bill will now secure those rights.

  595
  At this point it may be appropriate for me to state, on behalf of the Government, the position of the Bill with regard to the European convention on human rights. It is the view of the Government that the provisions of the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 19, after "(2AB)", insert—
  'Regulations under subsection (2AA) above may provide for the creation of offences and for making offenders liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (2AC)'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Clause 6

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Mr. Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 39, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
    'within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent'.
    Mr. Dismore: I shall be relatively brief. Both the amendments relate to the commencement provisions, which I am always anxious to test. It is simply an opportunity for the Minister to say when he expects to be able to bring the legislation into force. At the same time. perhaps he will say when the guidance that he has spoken of will be promulgated.
    Mr. Gerrard: I shall be brief. I understand my hon. Friend's wish to be certain about the dates on which the Bill's provisions come into effect, but there is a problem with putting a specific time scale in the Bill. There are still some issues to be sorted out in relation to London. Transport for London recently launched its follow-up consultation on the licensing of drivers, which should probably come into force early next year. However, there is a further issue in London—licensing of vehicles—on which there is still uncertainty as to timing. It would not help for the Bill to state a time scale that perhaps could not be met; further primary legislation would be needed to put things right. With the Bill in its present form, timing can be dealt with by regulation. I am also anxious to make it possible for the Bill to be brought into force in different parts of the country at different dates, without requiring everyone else to wait for everything to be sorted out in London.
    Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, obviously, I personally want the Bill to come into operation as soon as possible, and we need the practical flexibility with the timing that it contains at the moment.
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friends have effectively made the point, but may I say on behalf of the Government that we intend to introduce the provision as quickly as possible? The Bill provides different commencement dates for different areas of the country—for example, in London—so we felt it inappropriate to set a specific time scale for the whole country.
    Mr. Dismore: I have listened to what my hon. Friends have said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    12.20 pm
    Mr. Gerrard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I shall be brief because this morning's debate has ranged over most of the issues that the Bill covers, but I want to put on record my thanks to all the hon. Members who have supported the Bill. Since first introducing it, I have received support from hon. Members from all parties, and I am extremely grateful to them for their support. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials for their help, without which I am sure I would not have been able to deal with all the required drafting details. I also thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB, which, again, have been very supportive in getting the Bill drafted and, I hope, accepted by the House.
    Some significant changes have been made in the Bill since Second Reading. On Second Reading, clear arguments were made about the principles and the need for a Bill to bring consistency across the country and between black cabs and private hire vehicles. In Committee, we had to make sure that the Bill would work, which required some changes to ensure that operators, as well as drivers, were covered. Of course, amendments were made on Report to extend the provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    I am pleased that we have been able to make progress. As I said in an earlier contribution, the Bill will not affect huge numbers of people. It will affect perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 people, but it will be enormously important to those people. People who rely on assistance dogs rely much more on private hire vehicles and taxis than the average person does, and it is enormously important for them to be able to travel freely and to know that they can take their dogs with them. So the Bill makes a valuable contribution to helping people with assistance dogs in their daily lives. I am sure that that is the view of hon. Members in all parties, and I am grateful to them for all their support, which has enabled me to reach this point with the Bill.
    12.23 pm
    Mr. Boswell: I simply wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his Bill and to echo his thanks to all those people who have been involved in its preparation and consideration in the House, including the officials, the representatives of the disability organisations and those hon. Members who have participated. We wish the Bill every success as it passes to another place.
    12.24 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I join the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and, I think, the whole House in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on the excellent Bill that he has piloted through the House. We all hope that it will achieve its Third Reading and, of course, that it will be enacted in due course.

    597
    I wish to express two main thoughts in this brief contribution. The first is about the empiricism of the House as we develop legislation. The second is about the sheer persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who deserves to be congratulated most warmly on seizing the opportunity that this Bill offers to extend rights to people who would otherwise be denied them.
    On the point about empiricism, my hon. Friend will recall—as he was proactive in the House when the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced—that, as I said earlier, there was no intention to introduce transport provisions into it, even on its Second Reading. In due course, some of us, including my hon. Friend. pushed hard. Eventually, we achieved provisions on access to stations, to trains, to bus terminuses, to buses, to taxis, but not, alas, to private hire vehicles, which has been achieved today. I think that that shows the House at its best. It shows that the sort of determination that we have seen from my hon. Friend succeeds.
    I thank my hon. Friend, too, for the sensitivity with which he has extended the Bill to Scotland. People in Scotland do not like paying out all that much, but the fines are perfectly agreeable and should, of course, be consistent with those in the rest of the UK. It is right that we should work in partnership, as we are doing, with the Scottish Parliament, which in due course will introduce a statutory instrument putting the Bill into effect in Scotland.
    For all those reasons, I say again that my hon. Friend has done a fine job in the reforming tradition of one of his greatest predecessors, Clement Attlee, and long may he continue to do it. I know that people in disability organisations are profoundly supportive of what he is doing today. We thank him sincerely for his excellent efforts.
    12.27 pm
    Mr. Heath: I join other Members who have warmly congratulated the hon. Member for Walthamstow(Mr. Gerrard). We can be as brief as we need to be on Third Reading, as we explored the issues in Committee.
    This is a good Bill. It will not make a difference to a huge number of people, as the hon. Gentleman said, but for those whom it does affect, it will make a substantial difference, across the country, to their way of life. The Bill has not been imposed on Scotland and Northern Ireland but it has been welcomed and embraced by people there who wish to be involved with it.
    As some Members know, I chair the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment. We take no credit for the hon. Gentleman's initiative in the Bill or for that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) in her parallel measure, the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill, which I mentioned earlier. Perhaps, however, at long last, the House is taking seriously issues of visual impairment, and we are able to provide more focus on an area that has been neglected for too long. Two major stepping stones have been put in place in this Session, and I hope that both Bills succeed in another place. The House, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Minister and all involved with the Bill are to be congratulated on what they have done.
    12.28 pm
    Mr. Pond: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)on what is a very significant contribution. If I may, I would like to pay tribute to organisations such as the RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Assistance Dogs UK, whose briefings have informed our debate effectively.
    Clearly, private hire vehicles are an important part of the network of accessible transport for people with disabilities. For some of those people, in some areas, they constitute the only available form of transport. If I may, I want to share with the House the experiences of one of my constituents, who is also a friend, Mr. Wayne Busbridge of Ifield road, Gravesend. He is visually impaired and has an assistance dog. In my discussions with him in preparation for this morning's debate, he told me:
    "The biggest fear is being stranded in a town you don't know. feeling vulnerable and insecure.
    He said that some private hire vehicles even try to charge him for his dog—as much as £10 a time. He said that the worst experience is turning up at taxi ranks and drivers refusing to take him, even when there are no other taxis at the rank and it is clear that he is being left stranded. He has talked about his experiences in a strange town or city. If a taxi drives away, he has no other means of getting to where he needs to go. He feels vulnerable and often waits 40 or 50 minutes while the telephone operators in cab firms search for someone who is willing to take him. It is important that the Bill has its Third Reading.
    I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for his persistence. He assisted the debate considerably, and I am sure that the whole House was saddened to hear of the demise of Griswald, which we hope was not too closely associated with the damage that she did to the upholstery of my hon. Friend's car.
    I confess that I am a dog owner. I was feeling rather edgy in our earlier discussions in case the organisers of the Westminster dog of the year competition were listening. In last year's competition, my dog, Camden, was guilty of many of the activities listed in new clause 1, and was so in close proximity of the judges. I had to explain that he was very obedient but hard of hearing, and that I had been telling him to sit.
    I have shared the experiences of my hon. Friend the Minister, and we must be clear that such embarrassments do not normally afflict only the owners of assistance dogs. As other hon. Members have said, they are highly trained dogs and it is unlikely that they will cause difficulties in, or damage to, private hire vehicles. We must not allow discrimination to hide behind the suggestion that they would cause such damage.
    It is important that the Bill brings private hire vehicles into line with taxi cabs, removes the inconsistencies that apply around the country and makes sure that people such as my constituent Mr. Busbridge no longer have to wait at taxi ranks in fear, feeling vulnerable and facing the indignity of not being able to get to where they want to go.
    12.32 pm
    Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on introducing the Bill. It shows that we recognise and respect the needs of

    599
    everyone in society. I am sure that the wonderful people who run and attend the Phoenix club in Castle Point will be delighted that the Bill is likely to make progress today. They will welcome it as an excellent Bill that will help some of them. Having said that, I hope that we can move on quickly so that we can discuss the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill and help pensioners equally.
    12.33 pm
    Mr. Dismore: I shall be brief in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on piloting his Bill through the House, particularly as it is a ten-minute Bill. I know from my experience that trying to make law with a ten-minute Bill is very difficult.
    In the earlier debates, I raised a series of reservations and concerns about the Bill, and my hon. Friend amply dealt with them in his reply. I now wish to be much more positive about the Bill. It is important to take forward the rights that it contains, given the situation in my constituency in outer London. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) will share the view that, in outer London, the availability of black cabs is less than in central London, so people rely much more heavily on minicab services.
    My constituents who depend on assistance dogs have told me that they have been refused the use of minicabs. I have taken the issue up with the minicab company concerned, which has taken steps to ensure that the problem did not reoccur. I am pleased to say that, when problems have arisen in my constituency, we have been able to deal with them amicably and on a voluntary basis. Nevertheless, I fully accept that that is not necessarily the position throughout the country. I therefore welcome the Bill as an important step in meeting the needs of those who depend on assistance dogs. I fully accept that those dogs are always well behaved and well trained. They provide a very valuable service.
    12.35 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: In the spirit of joining the congratulations that have been offered to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I would say that the way in which he has conducted the passage of the Bill throughout its stages has been exemplary, and has shown the private Members' Bill process at its very best. I was delighted when the hon. Gentleman asked me to be a co-sponsor, and I thank him for that. I have been appreciative of both the communication that I have had with him on the Bill and the communication that I have had with various charities, in particular the RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
    At an earlier stage in our proceedings, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he said that we were not giving any extra privileges to the people who will benefit from the Bill. He then said that we were giving them the chance to enjoy the access to transport and the freedom of movement that others enjoy. That is not a large thing to ask. Indeed, it is a small thing. It is good that there is great support for the Bill from Members on both sides of the House. We all have been seeking to remove inconsistencies and discrimination, and more importantly, to increase independence. I think that the Bill does these things well.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill will affect only 5,000 to 6,000 people, but that it was important that they had their rights recognised. From the information that I
    600
    have received from the various charities involved, I can add that it is not a small matter for the 5,000 to 6,000. It can literally change their lives, so it is very significant for them.
    In a recent survey carried out by the RNIB, it was found that one in seven of a sample of 500 visually impaired people said that they regularly used regulated taxis and private hire vehicles, and that they were the most frequently used forms of transport. One in five stated that he or she used taxis or private hire vehicles once a week. The people that the hon. Gentleman was talking about are frequent users of these vehicles. That is why the Bill is so much needed to help them.
    It has been interesting throughout our debates to note the increasing range of activities in which dogs can help human beings. That suggests that this will not be the only time that we see legislation of this sort brought before us. I hope that policy changes will be made by the Government as well. We should utilise the amazing skills and attributes that dogs have. In my experience and that of my constituents, they can completely change the lives of people with physical impairments. I hope that through the experience of the Bill, the House will have heard and acknowledged these benefits and will return on future occasions to improve legislation still further. I very much support the Bill on its Third Reading.
    12.38 pm
    Roger Casale: At the conclusion of our proceedings, I want to add my welcome for this measure, which I know will be extremely welcome to my constituents. I spoke once again this morning to the Merton Voluntary Association for the Blind and the Guardian centre for the blind, which are delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has introduced the Bill. It is excellent that it has enjoyed so much cross-party support. Sometimes that does not bode well for a Bill, but I think that this Bill is an exception. It is clear that we are bringing common sense into law.
    The Bill is important because, as we have heard, the present lacuna in legislation causes great inconvenience to people who use guide dogs. Many measures discriminate against people with a particular disability, but this lacuna adds insult to injury. We have heard the suggestion that people are unable to look after their guide dogs, for example. That causes further offence. I know from my contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and having followed his career over many years, that he is inspired by his longstanding commitment to extend the rights of disabled people. I congratulate him on this measure. When disabled people are discriminated against, it is an injury and an insult to those people and to us all.
    I am also delighted that the Bill is progressing because it is an important development in relation to the licensing of minicabs generally, which has been much debated in recent years. When I spoke in the debate in this House in 1998 on the licensing of minicabs, I said that I was not able to come to the House by minicab and I wished that I could say that it was because I was unable to find one that was licensed. Any humour in that remark would be removed by the fact that if I had been blind and the owner of a guide dog, even had I been able to find a licensed minicab I might not have been able to avail myself of it because it would not have accepted me with the dog.

    601
    In my discussions this morning with the Merton Voluntary Association for the Blind, I was told that it is very difficult for their clients to find minicab firms that take guide dogs. Indeed, only one company in Merton—Olympic Cars—does so, when estate cars are available. Eighteen months ago, the centre wrote to all the minicab firms in the local area asking them if they would carry people who had assistance dogs with them, and not a single one replied.
    That brings me to my final point about why I welcome the Bill. It is often said in the House that we have too many regulations, but we need them if people's rights are to be properly respected. The Bill is a good instance of that. It builds on earlier measures on the licensing of minicab operators, drivers and vehicles. That is especially important in London, where many abuses take place. We cannot simply rely on the goodwill of the operators to comply with the perfectly reasonable requirement that they should accord the same service to people with assistance dogs as to everybody else.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill, which will be very much welcomed in my constituency. I am pleased that it has received all-party support and wish it well on its further passage through the House.
    Mr. Jamieson: It is considerable pleasure for me to be able to wind up the debate. Many thousands of disabled people rely on private hire vehicles or minicabs for their day-to-day mobility. In a recent MORI poll produced for the Department for Transport's disabled persons transport advisory committee, 40 per cent. of respondents reported that they had used taxis or minicabs at least once a month. and the figure was even higher for visually impaired people, 53 per cent. of whom had made similar use of those modes of travel. It is therefore clear that minicabs are a vital part of the transport mix for many disabled
    602
    people, so it is intolerable that people who use assistance dogs often face a barrier to travel not because the vehicle is inaccessible, but because the attitude of the driver or operator of the service is at best indifferent to their needs or at worst downright discriminatory towards them. By introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has ensured that such attitudes will no longer be tolerated in the trade and that the way will be clear for disabled people to go about their daily business in the confidence that they will not be refused a minicab because they are travelling with a well-trained assistance dog.
    I pay tribute to Guide Dogs for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which have made continuing representations on the matter not only to us but to those in local government with responsibility for private hire vehicles. I pay a warm tribute to the officials in my Department, who have worked extremely hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to get the Bill securely on to the statute book, or at least to assist it in its progress through the House.
    I should also like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Like many hon. Members, he has a long and distinguished record on disability issues. However, today we must offer the warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow not just on introducing the Bill, but on the way in which he has steered it through Parliament. As one of the few hon. Members who has managed to get a private Member's Bill through all its stages, I know what a difficult and arduous task that is.
    My hon. Friend has placed his name on a piece of legislation that in some small way will improve people's lives for years to come. There is nothing better that a Member of Parliament could do.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Commonwealth Bill
    Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered. Order for Third Reading read.
    12.46 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill, whose purpose is twofold: to sever the Government's statutory link with the Commonwealth Institute and to make provision for recognition in the United Kingdom of the admission to the Commonwealth of Cameroon and Mozambique, which happened in 1995. Conservative Members fully support this small but important Bill. In doing so, we join the Leader of the House who said at col. 427 of Hansard yesterday that the Government fully support the measures.
    In 2000 the Commonwealth Institute was established as an independent charitable company and links to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were severed. The management of the Commonwealth Institute is no longer under the direct control of the FCO. We have always supported severing the links with the Foreign Office and giving the institute greater independence to promote learning across the Commonwealth. The Bill repeals the statutes that provide for the management of the Commonwealth Institute as a Government-supported body. More importantly, it will ensure the transfer of the institute's trust fund, which is approximately £50,000, from the trustees to the institute.
    The second part of the Bill enables us fully to recognise Cameroon and Mozambique. They were admitted to the Commonwealth in 1995 when my good Friend Baroness Chalker was Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth. The Bill tidies up parts of the law covering the Commonwealth. For example, it amends the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to include Cameroon and Mozambique in the definitions of "Commonwealth force" and "Commonwealth country". Other legislation is amended to ensure that the forces of Mozambique and Cameroon can be treated as visiting forces from a Commonwealth country under those statutes.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: No, I am drawing my remarks to a close.
    There is nothing more to add to my comments. I hope that the Bill has a safe passage.
    12.49 pm
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: I do not want to speak at length because overall I welcome the Bill. It is interesting that we are debating it when the Commonwealth games are about to commence. In addition, The Guardian today has an interesting section on the future role of the Commonwealth which raises some questions. However, I am sure we all agree that the Commonwealth is an important institution to support.
    604
    The membership criteria for the Commonwealth were set out in the Harare declaration and reinforced in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh communiqué states:
    "to become a member of the Commonwealth, an applicant country should, as a rule, have had a constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member;…it should comply with Commonwealth values, principles and priorities as set out in the Harare Declaration; and…it should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions."
    On Second Reading, I raised the human rights record of Cameroon. I also said that a new electoral commission had been appointed and that elections would be held this year. In view of the criteria for Commonwealth membership, I remain worried about Cameroon's human rights record. There are serious tensions between Cameroon and Nigeria over the border area, which contains oil. A case is before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and we hope that it will make a ruling soon. Nigerian communities have repeatedly reported alleged attacks by Cameroon gendarmes, despite the fact that there is a case before the International Court of Justice.
    The election campaign has been marred by violence. Indeed, elections were postponed because of irregularities, intimidation and election fraud. It is interesting to note that the election, which was postponed for a week, has been challenged and that the court in Cameroon has ordered a rerun of the election in nine constituencies because of fraud. However, the Opposition parties are worried that many of their objections and allegations of fraud have not been properly investigated, although many were accepted as valid. It was argued that petitions were filed too late or that there was a lack of sufficient evidence. The latter is a serious problem.
    The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture states that torture is commonplace in Cameroon. Its report refers to serious abuses. Amnesty International's 2002 report, which covers January to December 2001, relates some horrific examples of human rights abuses and the lack of the rule of law. They include intimidation and attacks on the defenders of human rights and journalists. I shall not go into that in detail, but the report is available in the Library.
    I remain worried that Cameroon's record does not fulfil the high standards that we should expect from a member of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that we need to strengthen the monitoring elements in the Commonwealth so that we can be sure that they are ever vigilant not only of new but of existing members?
    Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to oppose Cameroon's membership of the Commonwealth, but if it is part of that organisation, it is incumbent on Commonwealth institutions to do all that we can to help Cameroon to improve its democratic and human rights records.
    Mozambique has proved a success story. Although the Amnesty International report raises questions about political abuses, it is not as damning as the information on Cameroon. For example, in Mozambique, the death penalty has been abolished and police officers have been dismissed and have faced prosecution for abuses. Progress has therefore been made in Mozambique. Arms have also

    605
    been handed in. A programme that was backed by Christian Aid destroyed more than 100,000 guns, grenades and rocket launchers.
    However, Mozambique faces serious economic challenges because of the floods. I am pleased that efforts have been made through the African Development bank to build dams to control that problem. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for food aid. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will say what the Government are doing to help with prompt action on the African famine through the Commonwealth and by ourselves. The United States has already begun to tackle that.
    Bob Spink: On the subject of human rights and aid, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be appropriate if the Government were to adopt a policy of smart aid, whereby the delivery of non-humanitarian, non-NGO aid is linked to the development of good governance and human rights?
    Mr. Dismore: I agree, and I hope that we shall start to develop such a policy. In The Sunday Telegraph on 7 April, there was an interesting article about the fact that Mozambique is welcoming refugee farmers from Zimbabwe and helping them to re-establish themselves.
    Both Mozambique and Cameroon are welcome. Despite all the serious challenges it faces, Mozambique is making a lot of progress with the assistance of the Commonwealth and other countries, and I hope that we will start to see better progress in Cameroon.
    12.55 pm
    Mr. David Heath: I shall be extremely brief—in fact, if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) had been willing. I would have preferred to intervene on her than to make a speech. I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to other hon. Members, but I must briefly leave the Chamber at 1 o'clock. I hope that I will not miss an important part of the Minister's reply to the debate as a result.
    I broadly support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why no earlier opportunity was taken to make the statutory changes in respect of Cameroon and Mozambique. I am aware of legislation sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by the Department for International Development which could have been used as a vehicle for such minor changes to British law in respect of those two countries.
    I understand and support the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). It is important that the Commonwealth is conscious of the need to do more than require that lip service be paid to human rights, but to monitor and ensure that Commonwealth members live up to such expectations. Having said that, we should welcome the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth.
    Cameroon is part of what is normally considered francophone Africa—perhaps the Minister knows whether it is simultaneously a member of La Francophonie—but it is clear that within Africa the Commonwealth is regarded as a better vehicle for countries' aspirations to development and co-operation than La Francophonie. That is a good thing for Great Britain and its interests.
    606
    Mozambique is in a unique position. Not only has it never been part of the British empire, but it is lusophone. It is the only lusophone member of the Commonwealth, which is an excellent thing. Mozambique's recent history is terrible. A great deal needs to be done to deal with the corrosive effects of war—especially landmines, as the Minister knows—and the after-effects of natural disasters such as floods. Offering the greatest co-operation we can to the people of Mozambique, including enabling the armed forces to take part in combined operations to deal with the natural disasters which I have no doubt will strike that country in future, is to be applauded.
    I am well aware of the work of British non-governmental associations in Mozambique. One NGO based in my constituency, Action on Disability and Development, has done a great deal of work with people in Mozambique who have been disabled, mainly by landmines. The connection between our two countries is extremely important to both of us, and I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill to cement that relationship.
    12.59 pm
    Mr. James Clappison: It is a pleasure to support the Bill, and to follow the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Let me express my admiration for the latter, whose range of interests and intellectual agility allowed him to move seamlessly from the behaviour of guide dogs in private hire vehicles to human rights in Cameroon and flooding in Mozambique. Those are all important matters.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly said, the Bill will regularise the legal footing of the Commonwealth Institute, an independent body that promotes learning throughout the Commonwealth, by severing the statutory link with the Government, which has become necessary because it is now an independent charitable company. The Bill also acknowledges the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth.
    The institute is a force for good in the Commonwealth. We all deeply appreciate our links with the Commonwealth and its Parliaments. I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham is a member of the international executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. This year, with the role of the Commonwealth in the golden jubilee celebrations and the Commonwealth games coming up in Manchester, we can all agree about the value of the role of the Commonwealth, in which the institute certainly plays its part.
    1.1 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on the progress of his Bill, as well as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who is standing in for him today.
    As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) said in Committee, the Government are committed to the Bill. I hope that the House will give it its full support today.

    607
    As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) reminded us, it has two key purposes: to repeal the statutes providing for the management of the Commonwealth Institute following its severance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's responsibility and its establishment as an independent charitable company in January 2000; and to acknowledge in United Kingdom law the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth, by amending certain Acts of Parliament to allow them to be listed and treated as Commonwealth countries.
    The Commonwealth Institute has made a distinguished contribution to British understanding and appreciation of the Commonwealth since it opened in 1962. In the late 1990s, its board of governors agreed that it should seek to change its status from a non-departmental public body responsible to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to that of an independent charitable company. We were asked to support the change. We examined it in detail and agreed to do so. We negotiated terms with the institute and drew up a severance contract that allowed it to determine its own future.
    As an independent organisation, the institute continues to develop its role to meet the challenges and demands of the Commonwealth at the start of this new century. I want to recall the impressive contribution that it made to the golden jubilee of the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. It organised the Commonwealth aspect of the bank holiday procession in the Mall, demonstrating the strength of the Commonwealth in this country and the contributions made by many of its people to our multicultural society at the start of the 21st century. As part of its contribution to the 17th Commonwealth games, which open in Manchester next Thursday, it has devised and distributed educational materials to schools throughout the country, deepening children's knowledge of the Commonwealth and its contributions.
    We wish the institute well in its new independent role. I commend the Bill to the House in respect of its repeal of legislation to allow the institute to determine its own future and how it can best contribute to the needs of the modern Commonwealth.
    Clause 2 formally ensures that the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth is properly recognised in UK legislation. I should point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that past efforts to secure the parliamentary time necessary for considering this issue have not been successful. However, thanks to the hon. Member for Havant and his Bill, we have now been able to do so, and we are grateful for that.
    Of course, the Commonwealth as a whole operates in a spirit of consensus, and all its members agreed to the admission of Mozambique and Cameroon in 1995. The House should be aware that the Bill does not imply that any further formal approval is needed for the membership of these two countries; it simply tidies up the statute book. However, their membership highlights the value of the Commonwealth as an international organisation.
    Mozambique had no traditional links with the association. Surrounded by Commonwealth countries, its membership resulted from its active and constructive engagement with problems in the then Rhodesia and South Africa. Once both countries secured majority rule, Mozambique applied to join the Commonwealth, and it
    608
    was warmly welcomed. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, it has proved a committed and enthusiastic member. Its role in the Commonwealth has proved to its benefit, and to the benefit of the Commonwealth itself.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Dismore) said, Cameroon's membership of the Commonwealth has proved somewhat less encouraging. Member countries are expected to uphold the Commonwealth's principles of good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. International concern about Cameroon focuses on the need for reform in these areas. The Commonwealth has actively engaged with Cameroon since it joined in 1995, and it has looked at particular ways in which it can help Cameroon to uphold Commonwealth principles.
    In the light of last month's legislative and municipal elections, there is now even greater emphasis on the need for electoral reform. Although the official results are not yet available, we are concerned about indications of procedural irregularities and flaws. There is a real need for reform before the presidential elections in 2004. We are pleased that the Commonwealth sent observers to monitor the recent elections, and we welcome the Commonwealth Secretary-General's appointing of a special representative to Cameroon—the Canadian Christine Stewert—to support its efforts to meet the requirements of Commonwealth membership.
    In response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I should point out that—despite some concerns about Cameroon's human rights record—it is right that we welcome it into the Commonwealth, and that we seek to challenge it to improve its human rights record. As part of that exercise, we shall work with Cameroon as closely as we can—as, no doubt, will the Commonwealth as a whole.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister is using much of his speech to point out some of the existing problems, particularly in Cameroon. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that perhaps the best way to deal with those problems is to allow Cameroon into the Commonwealth, and to offer the support network that only the Commonwealth can provide. Can he say a little more about that, and about how soon he hopes to see those improvements? We are being asked to vote for a Bill that, in many ways, will give up one of our existing sanctions. The Minister shakes his head. He may wish to say that we will consider the case for removing Cameroon from the Commonwealth in due course, after discussing it with our partners, if it fails to meet the mark, but he should reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government will be very strict with Cameroon and Mozambique if they fail to meet the standards required.
    Mr. O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but let me make it clear, as I thought I already had, that the Bill does not secure the entry of Cameroon into the Commonwealth. Cameroon joined in 1995, and the Bill simply tidies up our statute book by recognising something that has already occurred.
    The Commonwealth Secretary-General has engaged, as we have, in a number of ways with Cameroon, and there have been discussions with its Government to ensure

    609
    that they are aware of our concerns about a series of issues, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon touched on, and others of which we could go into, no doubt at great length, today.
    The point is whether through the Commonwealth and particularly through the appointment of Christine Stewert by the Secretary-General to enter into close discussions with Cameroon and support its membership of the Commonwealth, we can engage it in a serious discussion of how it can improve its human rights and electoral system. We are talking to Cameroon and ensuring that it is aware both of our concerns and of the fact that there are ways in which we can encourage it, and provide some practical assistance if it wishes to improve its electoral and other procedures to protect human rights better.
    We believe that membership of the Commonwealth is important to enable our partners to encourage Cameroon to meet its commitments, and we hope that the way in which we and the rest of the Commonwealth are engaging with it will start to secure some change. There is no point in making threats and wild statements. We need to engage constructively and seek to change the way in which things are done. I hope that hon. Members will feel that the Bill is worth supporting, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill
    As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
    Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill

    ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR DECLARATIONS: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
    1.13 pm
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out "a year" and insert "six months".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 8, after "convictions", insert—
    'and taking into account any previous unspent convictions'.
    No. 3, in page 1, line 13, after "convictions", insert—
    'and taking into account any previous unspent convictions'.
    No. 19, in page 1, line 14, at end add
    'and
    (c) it is satisfied that any withholding of benefit, as set out in section (3) below and related regulations, will not increase the likelihood of the offender committing similar offences again,'.
    No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
    'and specify the period of disqualification for the purposes of section 3(1)'.
    No. 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "behaved", insert—
    'and is satisfied that any withholding of benefit, as set out in section (3) below and related regulations, will not increase the likelihood of the offender committing similar offences again,'.
    No. 8, in page 2, line 35, after "declaration", insert—
    'and specify the period of disqualification for the purposes of section 3(1)'.
    No. 22, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
    '(3A) A court may only make a declaration under subsection (3) above against a person over the age of 65 if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances and if it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable.'.
    No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 44, at end insert—
    '(1A) In deciding to make a declaration under this Act, the court shall give due consideration to any hardship which may be inflicted on others as the consequence of disqualification of the person from benefit'.
    No. 24, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
    '(1A) Subsection (1) shall only apply after the Secretary of State has—

    reviewed evidence as to the likelihood of the offender re-offending as a direct result of the benefit reduction, and

    (b) stated that, in his opinion, the benefit reduction does not increase that likelihood.'.

    Mr. Dismore: Although there are quite a few amendments before the House, the issues—or at least, the issues behind the amendments in my name—pare straightforward. Amendment No. 1, which is a probing amendment, raises the question of when the declarations about antisocial behaviour can be made. Clause 1 (1)(b)

    611
    suggests that an order cannot be made if a sentence of a year or more has been imposed. I would like the promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), to explain why he has picked that period.
    If a person is in custody as a result of a sentence imposed by the court, the question of their receiving housing benefit does not arise. Whether they receive housing benefit will not make much difference to their behaviour if they are already in jail—although it may have an impact on their family.
    I could understand the position if the sentence were a community sentence. That would be clear, but I do not understand why any custodial sentence should not be a bar to the making of such an order. That needs to be considered, especially bearing in mind the qualification regulations for receiving housing benefit when people are sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point because in Committee we did not consider in great detail the length of the custodial sentence that would apply to the housing benefit sanction. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that it should be six months rather than the year provided for in the Bill?
    1.15 pm
    Mr. Dismore: I hit on six months simply as a probing measure—I could have chosen any period. I wanted to probe whether it was appropriate for an order to be made at all when someone is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is an expert in the operation of housing benefit in these circumstances, and I am sure that he had a reason for deciding on a year rather than any other period.
    Mr. Davey: May I help the hon. Gentleman? It was not the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who proposed this part of the Bill, because it was largely rewritten in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). The Minister proposed the provision that the hon. Gentleman is probing.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for that clarification. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have an even better reason to justify the term of imprisonment referred to in the Bill. If someone is sentenced to imprisonment, taking away their housing benefits seems a belt and braces approach, to say the least, to correcting their behaviour.
    My next point concerns previous offences. When a court passes sentence on someone who has been convicted of an offence, the sentence will reflect the form of the offender concerned. The offence for which the court was considering the offender could be relatively trivial but could he seen in the context of a series of prior offences that were not before the court. It seems peculiar, given the Bill's present wording, that the court can take into account only the convictions that are being considered.
    If somebody is up before a court for one event of disorderly conduct, such as trouble outside a pub or drunken, noisy behaviour on the way home, the court is unlikely to do much about it other than sentence that person to a community sentence at worst, although it
    612
    would more likely be a fine. However, if that was just one in a long series of antisocial behaviour incidents, the court should be able to consider any previous unspent convictions when deciding whether a declaration under the Bill should be made. It is something of a loophole, if we are trying to deal with that annoying but relatively low-level form of antisocial behaviour that currently escapes the powers of the courts. I hope that the Minister will answer that point when he replies.
    Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 relate to who sets the order for the withdrawal of benefit—the disqualification period. I have real concerns that this will simply be an administrative process. A court may make a declaration and have no real understanding or knowledge of how long that person will be disqualified from benefit. Equally, when the social services department imposes a disqualification period administratively, it may not know the full context, which the court may have known when deciding to make the declaration. The appropriate course would be to telescope that procedure into a declaration and disqualification, both of which should be considered by the court when deciding what action to take.
    When considering a sentence, the court always listens to a plea of mitigation. There may well be a social inquiry report and other matters may be brought to the court's attention when passing sentence. It seems peculiar if, at the same time, those facts are not brought to the attention of the person or body implementing the disqualification order.
    Mr. Davey: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will see that the situation is even worse than he describes, because we are not told the sort of benefit reductions that will apply. The Minister gave some indication in Committee but did not share with us the details that the Government have in mind in respect of the different stages of benefit reductions and how they would apply. It is all under regulation in the Bill. Therefore, in debating the hon. Gentleman's amendment. the House is bereft because we do not know the detail of what the
    Government intend.
    Mr. Dismore: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The point is important. We are considering whether it is correct to impose as a simple administrative process what is, in effect, a sanction, when there are grades of offence. It would not be as though someone had failed to sign on or had fraudulently claimed benefit—either they have done that or they have not. We are considering the use of the benefit sanction as an adjunct to the powers of the courts, so it would be appropriate for the court to decide the length of disqualification.
    Mr. Davey: I understand from information given to us in Committee that the Government intend that the first reduction of housing benefit—when the sanction has been applied after the court's declaration—should be a fixed sum. The hon. Gentleman's point is thus even more valid; everyone will be treated in exactly the same way even if one person's antisocial behaviour was far worse than that of another.
    Mr. Dismore: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt we shall also hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on that point when he replies to the debate.

    613
    I am certainly concerned about the disqualification period, which we may discuss later. When the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited the United States to examine such issues in the context of its benefits system, we found that the first penalty was often a short sharp shock rather than the long one that the Bill seems to presage. The court might want to take that point into account.
    Similarly, there could be repeat offences; an offender could come before the court to face a second benefit sanction. If there is no opportunity for the court to examine all the circumstances and to consider a gradation of penalty—perhaps increasing the disqualification period for a second offence—we are not sending the right message to offenders. I support some of the ideas behind the Bill, but I am worried about the practicalities. We would be wielding a big and rather inflexible stick instead of using the measure as it should be intended: to correct offending behaviour rather than to provide a penalty for having offended. We should see the measure as a tool of correction, to try to help people to recognise that they owe an obligation to society in return for their benefit, in which case a gradated approach would be far more appropriate.
    Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend is of course aware that although we are discussing only one measure, the Government want to introduce a series of measures in the next Session, including model tenancy agreements, fast-track evictions, and conciliation services such as those in Dundee. It is not as though someone committing antisocial behaviour will go straight into court as a result of the Bill; there will be several steps before they reach that point.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but it does not mean that there should not be some degree of flexibility in the process so that it can complement those measures rather than being used as an inflexible stick at the end.
    Mr. Davey: May I clarify one point? I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was saying. Although the Government have a range of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, many of which we wholeheartedly support because they are exactly right, the Bill does not set out a process whereby those methods and policies can be used before the court is asked to make a declaration and the benefit sanction is applied. In Committee, I tried to insert a provision for such a process so that all the options could be explored, but the Government resisted such amendments. I do not want the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Davey) to be under any illusion: no process involving other measures is foreseen in the Bill
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps, in order to make this more of a debate than a conversation piece, the hon. Gentleman might save up his comments and seek to catch my eye later on.
    Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I noted what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for
    614
    Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, and the House will obviously form its own view when it considers the amendments at the end of this short debate.
    The last amendment in my name in the group, and probably the most important, is amendment No. 11. It concerns the extent to which the penalty could have consequences for people who are not before the court, or are not directly in receipt of the benefit. If I may return to my basic point, which is that the power should be exercised by someone with a bit of discretion—that is, the court—it seems to me that the court should be able to take into account not only the circumstances of the offender before it, but any hardship that is likely to be inflicted on others as a consequence of that person's disqualification from benefit.
    If benefit is taken away and the person concerned happens to be the householder, that could have a serious impact on their children and/or their partner, husband or wife. I am keen to ensure that we do all that we can to deal with those who behave in the most appalling antisocial ways, but I do not believe that it will necessarily be constructive if in doing so we penalise the children or the partner in the relationship. That could make things worse. That would not necessarily apply in all cases, but the court should certainly have discretion to look at the hardship of what could be, according to the Bill, a very lengthy withholding of benefit. These provisions must be exercised with a degree of flexibility.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I shall primarily speak to amendments Nos. 19, 21, 24 and 22, and I shall try not to be tempted to cover ground that I covered in exchanges with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) because that would try your patience sorely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Amendments 19, 21 and 24 are intended to highlight one major change to the Bill that has occurred during its passage. In Committee the Bill was effectively rewritten, and the sanction, instead of applying after two antisocial behaviour orders had been issued on a person—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) tries to intervene from a sedentary position. I am saying that the old Bill talked about two antisocial behaviour orders. It has been changed. In clause 1, the Government have introduced the link between the benefit sanction and a custodial sentence. Under clause 2, in civil proceedings the sanction will be triggered by some method of which we are not yet told, because those proceedings will be prescribed in due course in regulations.
    Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 24 are intended to challenge some of the thinking behind those amendments, particularly the linking of the sanction to the custodial sentence, which would introduce a double punishment. Once an offender's case has been heard, and he or she has been convicted of the crime that they were accused of, the court decides a punishment appropriate to the crime. Clause 1 seeks to add another punishment to that initial punishment. Although it may be related to the original offence—I wish to discuss that point in a second—it is a double punishment. That may well be a first in law, and to my knowledge it certainly is in benefit law, because other benefit sanctions have been introduced very differently.
    The second aspect that really concerns me is what will happen as a result of the relating of the extra punishment to a benefit sanction. The consequence will be one of two

    615
    things. The offender will either come out of prison with debts because his rent has not been paid during his time in prison—at least the 13 weeks in prison that it can currently be paid for—or come out without a home.
    Either way—whether people come out of prison with increased debts or having lost their homes—the chance is that they will have no stable accommodation, as the opportunity to have stable accommodation will have been reduced. There can be no dispute about that fact because that is the Government's and, indeed, the Bill's original promoter's explicit aim, so there is no debate about that. My concern is what will happen as a result.
    I should have thought that our policies—whether those for benefits or housing in general—should ensure that ex-convicts, people coming out of prison, have a good chance of getting stable accommodation. Why? Because a lot of the evidence shows that the risk of reoffending significantly increases when ex-convicts do not have access to accommodation.
    1.30 pm
    Government reports—particularly the social exclusion unit report, "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners", which was published this month—and a lot of other detailed work by Departments say that reducing reoffending is one of the Government's key targets. The Government say that reoffending is a major problem and that they wish to stop the vicious cycle of crime, which can add to the prison population.
    Page 3 of the Prime Minister's foreword to that report says:
    "People who have been in prison account for one in five of all crimes. Nearly three in five prisoners are re-convicted within two years of leaving prison. Offending by ex-prisoners costs society at least £11 billion a year. This all tells us we are failing to capitalise on the opportunity prison provides to stop people offending for good."
    So the Bill, which deliberately sets out to penalise offenders by reducing housing benefits, goes exactly against what the Prime Minister said in a report published this month. I find it quite bizarre that we are debating the Bill given that the Government say that they are in favour of joined-up government.
    Having stable accommodation for ex-offenders has been shown to reduce the risk of reoffending by a fifth—a significant amount. If we could ensure that all prisoners have access to stable accommodation when they finish spending time at Her Majesty's pleasure, we would significantly reduce crime. That is what the evidence shows. The Bill, particularly clause 1, goes in exactly the opposite direction.
    A third of prisoners already lose their homes while in prison. That comes from recent Home Office research. The SEU report to which I have referred makes a number of recommendations to try to improve that figure, including changes to the housing benefit administration regime. which go in exactly the opposite direction to the Bill.
    The recent Home Office survey, "Jobs and homes—a survey of prisoners nearing release", says that
    "71 per cent. of those with no accommodation arranged on release had not received any help in finding accommodation."
    Clearly, the Prison Service and Her Majesty's Government have a lot more to do to tackle that aspect of reoffending. I cannot believe for a minute that they welcome the Bill because it would make that huge challenge far more difficult.
    616
    I refer hon. Members to the details of the amendments in this group. If the amendments were accepted, they would at least mitigate some of the problems that I have identified. Amendment No. 19 would add another test: the court would have consider whether
    "it is satisfied that any withholding of benefit, as set out in section (3) below and related regulations, will not increase the likelihood of the offender committing similar offences again."
    That would ensure that, before making any declaration to trigger the benefits sanction, the court would have to consider the likelihood of such a sanction worsening the chances of reoffending. That is a sensible thing for the courts to have to consider, as the criminal justice system plays its full part in trying to reduce reoffending.
    Amendment No. 21 has a similar effect, but it amends clause 2 and would attempt to ensure that the civil courts were satisfied that there would be no increase in the likelihood of reoffending.
    Amendment No. 24 would apply at another stage. As it amends clause 3, it relates not to the court stage but to the stage when the Secretary of State would apply the benefit sanction. Before clause 3(1) kicked in, therefore, the Secretary of State would be required to review all the evidence as to the likelihood of the offender reoffending as a direct result of the benefit reduction. It is therefore very specific and targeted. It would require the Secretary of State not just to review the evidence but to state that, in his opinion, the benefit reduction does not increase that likelihood.
    I cannot see how the Minister could reject such an amendment. Given that his boss, the Prime Minister, stated this month in the publication from which I quoted that the Government's express aim is to reduce reoffending, and given that that document refers at length to the importance of improving the housing opportunities of people released from prison, the tests that I seek to add to the Bill are very mild, both for the court and the Secretary of State. I would therefore be extremely surprised if the Minister were to reject them.
    Amendment No. 22 states:
    "A court may only make a declaration under subsection(3) above against a person over the age of 65 if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances and if it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable."
    The reason I have tabled that amendment is that people over the age of 65 need extra protection from the penal sanctions in the Bill. The Minister said in Committee that a hardship regime will be introduced, although we have not had any description of that hardship regime in any shape or form. Amendment No. 22, however, would at least ensure that pensioners over the age of 65—who could still be hit by those benefit sanctions, as I am sure the Minister would agree—would be subject to an extra test that the courts would have to consider. That can only be right.
    Mr. James Clappison: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree, however, that in the real world an awful lot of people aged over 65 are looking for protection from the antisocial behaviour of others, who are predominantly younger people, and that they want to see people who behave antisocially, of whatever age, brought to account for it?
    Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. He enables me to make the point that I had intended to make at the beginning of my remarks. Liberal Democrats take the problem of antisocial behaviour very seriously. We support strong, tough measures to deal with those who behave in that appalling way, to pensioners who are their neighbours or to people of any age in our communities. As I explained at length in Committee—I will not do so now, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are using innovative measures to deal with antisocial behaviour that are proving far more effective than the Government's measures.
    I quoted at length—I shall be brief now—the case of acceptable behaviour contracts, which are an innovation in the Liberal Democrat-controlled borough of Islington. Acceptable behaviour contracts did not require legislation. They are much quicker in effect than measures such as antisocial behaviour orders and the proposals that we are debating, and they have enabled the council, working with the different partners in the borough of Islington, to tackle the problem quickly. They do not require a legal process or huge expenditure of taxpayer's money. They have been very effective, however, at dealing with the problem.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for his intervention, because, effectively, he refers to the second part of my amendment No. 22, which states that the court must be
    "satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable."
    When we debated the issue at length in Committee, we heard that many alternatives are available to local authority social services departments and so on. The alternatives are being piloted around the country, and I cited several examples. They all show the high degree of success of the relatively new experiments that deal with such behaviour.
    Liberal Democrats believe that successful experiments should be rolled out across the country. They should be fast-tracked and given top priority by the Government, so that we can ensure that councils and public authorities are made aware of the tools that they already possess, have the funds to ensure that they can act quickly and have the pressure of Government on them to ensure that they use those tools appropriately.
    The hon. Gentleman's intervention was rather ill-advised. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that best practice is used. It would particularly ensure that older people are not affected, and I am grateful to Age Concern England and Age Concern London for the evidence that I have received from them. It shows how elderly people are currently disadvantaged under the complexities of the housing benefit administration system. There is a danger that the disadvantages that they already suffer will be exacerbated by the Bill. These are modest amendments.
    Matthew Green: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that another point relates to those aged over 65. If financial penalties drive people into debt, a retired person is less able than someone of working age to work themselves out of debt. The use of financial penalties will especially penalise those who cannot earn the money to take themselves out of debt.
    Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and one that I had not noticed. He strengthens the
    618
    case for the amendment. I stress that it deals with people who have appeared before the courts. They have already been sentenced to prison or received a conditional discharge. They have been punished, but the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Government are effectively seeking to put them into poverty and perhaps into homelessness. It is extraordinary that they should seek to make elderly people homeless; it is bizarre.
    Mr. Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) does not need my protection, but the hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. The people to whom he referred are not the victims, but the perpetrators. No one is trying to put them into poverty; they are choosing to accept the sanctions by choosing to continue along the path of constant antisocial behaviour. It is their choice to have the sanctions, which they know about, imposed upon them.
    Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman would have a point against my argument if it was that we should not do anything about such people. I made it very clear that we should be very tough and seek to change their behaviour. My argument, both in Committee and now, is that the approach taken by the Government and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will not work.
    I sought to discuss in Committee much of the evidence about other aspects of the benefits system in which benefit sanctions have been trialled and explored at some length—the new deal, the job seeker's allowance and so on. Much of the evidence suggests that benefit sanctions have not worked. I know that the right hon. Gentleman might jump to his feet and refer to examples of research in which people have said that they have changed their behaviour. He would be right to do so. I said in Committee that the evidence was mixed. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that I have changed my tune. I have not.
    Mr. Frank Field: When the hon. Gentleman was under threat from the Chairman in Committee, he changed his behaviour and gave us a good example of how the threat—not the exercise—of sanctions actually worked.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is just a small point, but I said nothing in Committee.
    Mr. Davey: I confirm that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also confirm that the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) was exemplary. I had no quarrel with the Chairman. However, some of the amendments that I tabled for consideration today were not able to be debated in Committee because of a closure motion. The Committee was unable to sit for as long as I think it needed to in order to scrutinise a particularly serious Bill.
    1.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Given that in Committee the hon. Gentleman monopolised the time, so preventing concerned Conservative Members and Labour Members from discussing this important measure, our concerned constituents would like to know now whether he is trying to talk out the Bill.
    Mr. Davey: I assure the Minister that I am not intending to talk out the Bill. I can say to him that he and

    619
    Conservative Members moved the closure motion. It was not Liberal Democrat Members who sought to reduce the time for debate in Committee. If there is any problem with the Bill not going forward, the Minister should take his share of the responsibility.
    I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). It is important that we try to improve the behaviour of these people because it is unacceptable. We must tackle it and be hard on it. That is why I quoted an example from the hon. Gentleman's own country, Scotland. I referred to the Dundee families project, which I will not talk about now because I did so at length in Committee. The project has proved exceedingly successful. It has involved resettlement of some families—taking them away from the communities that they are disrupting. I fully support such resettlement projects. In some cases, I even support evictions of these families. I do not suggest that we must be anything but tough on these people. We must be. The question is whether the approach set out in the Bill will either change their behaviour or result in less antisocial behaviour. I think that all the evidence shows that if we make people poorer and give offenders less chance of stable accommodation when they come out, crime will increase as well as antisocial behaviour. The proposition before us is contradictory in its own terms given the evidence which the Prime Minister supported this month.
    Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the measures contained in the Bill are the only possible sanctions against the people about whom we are talking. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is only one of a wide range of measures. He is right to point out other measures, but this is an important measure even though it is one of many that the Government and local authorities should have at their disposal.
    Mr. Davey: I think the hon. Gentleman unintentionally misrepresents what I am saying. I am in favour of a range of measures. He has talked about a few of them, and the Minister has talked about some others, that are designed to tackle the sort of behaviour that we are discussing. My point is that the measure before us will have the reverse effect. It will increase antisocial behaviour, not reduce it. I think that all the evidence backs our case. We have had no evidence that the reverse is the case. I seek to draw the attention of the House to that.
    In drawing my remarks to a close, I wish to point out that the amendments that are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) are focused on a key aspect of policy for the criminal justice system. We are trying to stop reoffending, to stop crime, and to stop antisocial behaviour. That is the purpose behind our amendments, and they will have that effect. If the Government were to accept them, they would make the Bill better. Their insertion would remove some of the more worrying consequences of the Bill.
    Mr. Frank Field: An intervention and the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere(Mr. Clappison), gave the game away for the Liberal Democrats. Any Member who was concerned to represent their constituents' views about how their lives are being ruined by a small, dedicated group of constituents behaving in an antisocial manner would have
    620
    introduced their comments on the amendments by making that plain. It took an intervention to stir from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that that was the real point behind his amendments. I do not accept that. Liberal Democrat Members tabled a whole series of wrecking amendments in Committee, some of which we spent five hours going round and round, and they are doing it again today. We all have in our mind's eye the image of Liberal Democrats as being people with shaggy beards and sandals. They must be here today if they think that we have a load of 65-year-olds running around terrorising young families with children in an antisocial manner. Their amendments are absurd.
    Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Field: I will in a minute, because it is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his seat.
    I hope all those who are of pensionable age in Surbiton and other Liberal Democrat seats think carefully about the absurd image that Liberal Democrats have of people who cause antisocial behaviour in their constituencies. It is to protect those older constituents that many of us on both sides of the House are supporting this and other measures.
    Matthew Green: My concern about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that measures introduced by his Government, such as antisocial behaviour orders, are not being used. If there is such a huge problem, will he explain why ASBOs are not being used before he advocates more measures?
    Mr. Field: That question should have been addressed to the hon. Gentleman's own Front Benchers. If the measures are never used, why should they stir up the fear that this one will send vast numbers of our constituents to prison? The two things do not add up. When pressed in Committee, Liberal Democrat Members sprang up like jack-in-the-boxes to say, "Of course we are representing the interests of our constituents: we are massively concerned about antisocial behaviour, and we want a whole range of measures to deal with it." I therefore asked the Library to find out what concerns every Liberal Democrat had expressed about antisocial behaviour before the introduction of the Bill. Let me record on the Floor of the House that not one Liberal Democrat had asked a question about it, made a speech about it in this Chamber or written an article about it for a national or local newspaper. They may be concerned about it now, but they certainly were not before the introduction of the Bill.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I know that my hon. Friends have raised the issue. More importantly—with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman—Liberal Democrats on the ground are not just talking about it and writing articles, but producing policies to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. I challenge him to go to the borough of Islington to see how acceptable behaviour contracts are working. I also suggest that he go to the Home Office's website, where that Liberal Democrat innovation has been held up by his own Government as best practice and has been recommended across the country. That has not taken legislation or parliamentary

    621
    questions, but active engagement by elected Liberal Democrat councillors in Islington. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remarks.
    Mr. Field: I shall not do so for the simple reason that, as Labour and official Opposition Members have made plain, if we are to stand any chance of countering antisocial behaviour more successfully than in the past, we need a whole range of measures, and the Government have said that they will provide them. Some will require legislation, but many will not. Some councils, thank goodness, are already pressing ahead with such measures, but others are dragging their feet.
    Lawrie Quinn: Many seaside communities such as Scarborough and Whitby have a persistent problem in relation not only to tenants, but to landlords who fail to police and monitor their tenants' activities. My local council and local community would want this measure to be placed on the statute book to give them an extra deterrent to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with.
    Mr. Field: I agree. Given that our seaside towns usually have a higher proportion of elderly people than elsewhere, it is interesting that my hon. Friend chooses not to use the scare tactic of saying that we have to protect pensioners from the measure when, of course, we want to protect them from antisocial behaviour. He probably knows that a clause in the original Bill dealt directly with landlords. Sadly, it had to be withdrawn because it clashed with human rights legislation that the House passed.
    The good news is that the Government are considering measures for the next Session aimed specifically at bad landlords—in particular those who make a cool killing on milking housing benefit. Those people pay not the slightest attention to the way in which they contribute to the collapse of working-class areas by accommodating such families. None of us would want to live next door to those families, so we should not inflict them on our constituents.
    The Liberal Democrats took the typical old line of pulling out one tiny bit of Government policy. They said that the Bill must fall because it is against the Government's strategy on people who reoffend, but that is only part of their strategy. The Prime Minister's overall vision of our society is to remoralise it and to change people's behaviour. That is the cornerstone of policy. We are in a new situation in which old class politics are giving way to the new politics as regards how we control behaviour. As we get to grips with that agenda and fashion measures to deal with it, of course we must be careful and listen, especially to our constituents, but to pretend that we can pull measures off the shelf, as we could for the past century, as solutions to issues that are only just emerging, shows how naive the Liberal Democrats are on this issue.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the next election, the neighbours from hell who make so many people's lives a misery should put up Liberal Democrat posters in their windows,
    622
    because it is clear from debates in Committee and the House that the Liberal Democrats are the party of the neighbourhood nuisance-makers?
    Mr. Field: We all hope that those who are in error change their ways. I have warned the Liberal Democrats, and in so doing perhaps slightly hardened their views about antisocial behaviour, that they have to answer one question: are they prepared to have one, let alone two, of those families living on one or both sides of them? Hence the Liberal Democrats' support in Committee for the establishment of what some people crudely call sin bins. If we do not want those families living next to us, we cannot expect to inflict them on our constituents. In that case, we have to think about where we put such families until they change their behaviour.
    Ms Karen Buck: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with care. As someone who has a serious problem of antisocial behaviour in my constituency, on which I have spoken many times, the aspect that concerns me most is that the neighbours from hell who have been evicted have almost invariably ended up living with friends, sometimes staying on their floors, in private accommodation, which gives the local authority virtually no leverage to deal with their behaviour. The consequence of the actions taken under the current provision is to relocate the problem from within, say, a council estate to a street nearby where their behaviour continues unchecked.
    Mr. Field: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. That is why I have lobbied the Government to the effect that local authorities should be given the resources so that they can build accommodation to house people who inflict such horrors on our constituents. That is part of the overall picture. However, the measure does not deal with it because the Bill's title means that we can deal with only one aspect of the problem in our debate. However, the contrast between the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) tabled and those that the Liberal Democrats tabled reveals a difference in approach.
    2 pm
    Let me deal with my hon. Friend's amendments. I accept that my hon. Friend was probing through the amendments and that he therefore probably already knows some of the answers. Indeed, given his legal experience, he probably knows them better than me. It is important that hon. Members do not have a view of the courts that is too mechanical. Things may be different in London, but most of our constituencies are clearly defined areas of towns, villages or groups of villages. The courts' operations happen against the background of that framework. Those there know a bit about the people who come before them.
    At the end of proceedings, a charge of antisocial behaviour will be made against the individual before the court. That should be taken into account when we devise sentencing policy. The House has always been careful not to be too prescriptive on sentencing; it grants some freedom of manoeuvre in a general framework. However, some courts are still waiting for their first, second or third order to arrive. The hon. Member for Kingston and

    623
    Surbiton referred to that. The logic of his position is that we need to find methods of speeding up the process and ensuring that antisocial behaviour orders come before the courts more quickly.
    We began to consider the matter in Birkenhead seven years ago, and we lobbied the Labour party, which was then in opposition. We proposed a simple system of penalty points, which the police could apply mainly against young lads for their misbehaviour. That was not accepted and we got antisocial behaviour orders instead. Not one application for such an order has been successful in Birkenhead. Consequently, we have made representations to the Home Secretary to turn the procedure upside down so that one seeks an order and returns to the court after carrying out all the detailed work to implement it. The Home Secretary accepted that reform, which is outlined in the White Paper that was cited.
    Considering methods of controlling behaviour is new, and we realise that even after introducing a measure, we may have to revert to it to speed up the process of justice to protect our constituents.
    Ms Buck: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must remember to address the Chair.
    Ms Buck: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My local authority has also been slow in introducing antisocial behaviour orders. The primary problem is obtaining witness statements that are sufficient to enable the police and the local authority to take action. It is difficult to persuade members of the community to give evidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the principal reason for the slowness of ASBOs?
    Mr. Field: Indeed. When preparing for the debate, I asked our local authority, Wirral, to give me all its papers on taking four families in my constituency—the figure will be low in most constituencies—to court. A single parent who has been smashed in the face, pushed over and had her house wrecked by the family next door, is the only person under pensionable age who is appearing before the courts to give evidence, even though the family next door has threatened to kill her if she goes to court. That makes laughable the Liberal Democrat amendment to protect those over 65 and ensure that the Bill does not sanction them. In Birkenhead, and, I guess, even in Surbiton, the bravest people, who are prepared to go to court, stand up, and be seen and known by the thugs are pensioners. They feel that strongly about it.
    My answer to the point about the difficulty of getting cases to court is that on the first occasion, the sanction is applied only against the head of the household for a part of that head of household's benefit. The difficulty of getting the case back into court if the behaviour remains unchanged will be considerable, but the fuller sanction will be applied only against the head of the household and not to the housing benefit for the whole household. I hope that by the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon will feel that this aspect of the Bill has been explored effectively, and that further probing will take place when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.
    Mr. Clappison: I shall be brief. The Conservatives welcome the Bill and want it to make progress because it deals with a serious issue for many of our constituents, that of antisocial behaviour by badly behaved neighbours.
    With that in mind, I appeal to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to think again about his amendments. The Committee debated how long the prison sentence in respect of which the sanction would not apply should be, and the Minister told us that it was not appropriate in respect of longer sentences. The Committee accepted that. As for taking unspent convictions into account, the hon. Gentleman will see that the Bill catches antisocial behaviour on any occasion on which it arises. The legal definition of antisocial behaviour is the same as is used in other statutes. The message is clear: the Bill is designed to catch antisocial behaviour and to bring it to a halt.
    As a result of amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and supported by the Conservatives that were accepted by the Committee, we now know how long the period of reduction of benefit—the disqualification period—will be. It will be at least 26 weeks, which substantially strengthens the Bill. As for the question of hardship, I ask the hon. Member for Hendon to read the Committee debate on the provisions that were to be put in place to deal with that.
    I understand the point of view being expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), but have difficulty with his approach to the Bill. I wish that he would face up to the consequences of his arguments. When we debate disapplying provisions in the Bill for the over-65s, we are becoming somewhat fanciful. I do not know what sort of world he inhabits, but it appears to be full of Victor Meldrews on crack. In the real world—the one inhabited by our constituents—the over-65s are often the people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. As for their being made homeless, they will not be made homeless as a result of the Bill; what all too often makes the over-65s and many others homeless is their own decision to leave their homes because they can no longer endure the behaviour of people around them.
    We want more measures to bring antisocial behaviour to a stop. People are crying out for assistance—for a measure that will end the behaviour that far too many people have to endure and that makes their life a torment. We appeal to the Liberal Democrats, even at this late stage, to face up to the consequences of their actions. They must realise that the Bill will help people, or at least acknowledge that their chosen approach will block a piece of legislation that would otherwise help many people whose lives have been made a misery by the antisocial behaviour of others. We want to stop that behaviour, they want it to be stopped, and I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton not to continue his present course of trying to talk out a measure that many people want and that would help many people, including the elderly.
    Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to be back in the Chamber discussing the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) following an extensive series of debates in Committee. The Government fully support the Bill's objectives in preventing antisocial behaviour which, as some speakers today have said, blights the lives of so many of our constituents. We believe that it would make a valuable

    625
    third strand in our armoury, alongside the use of antisocial behaviour orders and the Government's strategy to improve landlords' powers to tackle antisocial tenants.
    Our priority has been to make the Bill workable and compatible with human rights legislation. We recognise the concerns that have been expressed urging caution but also the voices recommending a tougher approach. We believe that the Government amendments made in Committee strike the right balance.
    I shall not try to respond to each of the amendments individually. They have a common theme in giving a greater role to the courts in deciding whether to apply a benefit sanction and considering the likely implications of any sanction. We would all agree with many of the objectives of the amendments, such as that of ensuring that sanctions are used in a fair and proportionate way, but as I explained in Committee, the Government's proposals will achieve those objectives by a different route and the approach suggested here is not compatible with the streamlined process that we introduced with the Government amendments.
    We deliberately designed a procedure of court declarations that would sit on top of decisions that the courts already make. It will be a relatively quick and straightforward decision following a conviction or an order. The crucial factor under our approach is that the courts need consider only the nature of the behaviour—that is, was it antisocial or not? There is no need for them to know whether the person is on benefits, has other family members, has received previous declarations and so on.
    In practice, the courts have no way of knowing many of those things. There is no ready mechanism for them to check whether someone is receiving housing benefit, or the details of their family. Equally, they may not know whether there has been a previous court declaration, especially if that declaration was made in a different type of court proceeding, either civil or criminal.
    Requiring the courts to find out and take account of such factors would drastically increase the amount of work involved in making declarations. We believe that it would be disproportionate in relation to the objective and could risk disrupting the wider work of the criminal and civil justice systems. In a week when the Government have just published the criminal justice White Paper. that is an important factor to bear in mind.
    For those reasons, we believe that the amendments would not work under our approach and that they are not necessary. The Government's plan is to set up a hardship scheme in the same way as for other benefit sanctions, taking account of the family circumstances at the point when the sanction is applied, and not just when the court is making a declaration. For example, it may be some time after the court hearing before a sanction is put in place, allowing time to cross-match declarations against housing benefit records. The composition of the household may have changed in that time.
    The Government approach would be not only more streamlined and efficient but more responsive to family circumstances, and therefore more effective at preventing hardship as a result of benefit sanctions.
    Mr. Steve Webb: To clarify how existing hardship provisions work, can the Minister tell me—I
    626
    genuinely do not know—whether support can be given to the sanctioned person because the sanction has caused hardship, or only when the hardship is caused to other family members?
    Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of the hardship regime is to take account of children and other factors such as a pregnancy. If the Bill is enacted, we will spell that out in secondary legislation and the House will be able to discuss it. We noted the hardship regime as one example of our approach, but we will need to take expert advice and make specific proposals in Committee.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) asked about prison sentences. There is clearly no exact science, but the Government think that there should be a cut-off point to exclude long prison sentences. The question is where to set it, and that is a matter of judgment. We feel that a year is about right. In practice, that means that anyone who served longer than six months would be excluded. With shorter prison sentences, there is perhaps less distinction between offenders sent to prison and those given alternative punishments. Exempting shorter sentences might create a more arbitrary cut-off, whereby people who carried out similar kinds of antisocial behaviour were treated differently under the Bill. That is the thinking behind our approach to this issue.
    2.15 pm
    The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is a very important one that has been welcomed by many people on both sides of the House. As he noted, increasing numbers of such cases are brought to us in our constituency advice surgeries, and I am afraid that my own constituency of Croydon, North is not exempt from such bad behaviour. My constituency notes show instances of people being verbally threatened, and doors being kicked and bashed in order to frighten residents. In one case, a saw was held to a woman's neck and she was racially abused, and in another a blowtorch was used through a neighbour's letterbox. A woman who asked that a dog stop barking incessantly was attacked with a knife. In a further case, a radio was left on constantly, not tuned in to any particular channel, with the windows left open. There was also an instance of dog faeces being put through a letter-box.
    In one case that I personally recall—it is particularly relevant to the debate—a woman and her children had to flee their own house because of antisocial behaviour, a form of self-eviction over which she had no choice. When I hear the Liberal Democrats talk about the terrible plight of those who might be evicted if they continue in their antisocial behaviour and sanctions are stepped up, I wonder why they do not recognise—as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) recognised—that in effect, many decent, honest people are evicted because of such behaviour. That is an important point.
    Geraint Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, as a council leader I employed private detectives to ensure that evidence was submitted to enable the eviction of unruly tenants. Does he agree, however, that the purpose of housing benefit is to enable those on low incomes to pay for their housing, and that it is not a tool for other policy objectives? Those who are rich will have no sanction against them, and the danger is that this Bill

    627
    will be seen as evidence that those who do not behave themselves might lose their home—unless, that is, they are well off.
    Malcolm Wicks: We have stressed that there are different weapons in the armoury, some of which I have noted. For example, owner-occupiers can also be antisocial, and hopefully antisocial behaviour orders will apply in their case. However, I would find it difficult to explain to those of my Croydon constituents who are being abused and harassed why that is happening, and why those responsible are having their rent paid by the rest of the community. If we are to turn the decent rhetoric of rights and duties into practical social policies, we have to get real and get tough where appropriate—not for the sake of being macho, but for the sake of the decent people in our constituencies who form the great majority.
    We dealt with these matters in great detail in Committee, and as I pointed out, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) chose—sadly—to hog the discussion for various purposes, but mainly to hold up the Bill's progress. That showed great discourtesy to those
    Conservative and Labour Members who wanted to make proper contributions to the debate—including, no doubt, some challenging questions for me in my role as the Minister tabling amendments. I recall that the Chairman of the Standing Committee urged the hon. Gentleman on several occasions—some 15 times in respect of the first group of amendments—to make progress. That shows the real concern that exists about such bad behaviour in Committee. The Liberal Democrats' sole purpose—(Interruption.] They are muttering because they are embarrassed. Their sole purpose was to oppose the Bill as amended by the Government. They opposed the idea of an additional useful, and perhaps minor, weapon in the armoury against antisocial behaviour.
    I find that approach troublesome, because it would have been good if we could have returned to our constituencies tonight and—in my advice surgery this evening, for example—reassured our constituents that Parliament was taking their views seriously and had now sent to the House of Lords a serious measure that had been usefully amended. Sadly, that may not be possible now because of the tactics of the Liberal Democrats.
    In drawing my remarks on the amendments to a conclusion, it is not unfair for me to say that in our constituencies, whether those be in Croydon or Surbiton, it will be the abusers, the bullies, the harassers and the thugs who will be pleased by the Liberal Democrats' performance both today and in Committee. That is not just political rhetoric; I say it with more sorrow than anger.
    The Liberal Democrats' political tactics on the Bill will come back to haunt them. This must be the first case in our democracy of Liberals writing the manifestos of their political opponents for the next general election. The people who are crying out for decent social policy and decent law to stem the tide of antisocial behaviour will be aghast at their tactics today.
    Mr. Webb: Faced with a bad Bill, we have a duty to scrutinise it and, if it should come to a vote, to oppose it. We make no apology for that, because we would be doing the victims of antisocial behaviour no service by passing had legislation that will make a bad problem worse.
    628
    Our amendment No. 19 says that a court should make a declaration and pave the way for cutting housing benefit only if it is convinced that doing so will not lead to further reoffending. How can anyone oppose that? If the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, (Mr. Field) is so confident that his measure will reduce antisocial behaviour, he should also be confident that that test would always be passed. If it were, the courts would always make the declarations and we would not have stopped the process. Our amendment would bite only if a court of law—which would presumably be on the side of justice rather than on the side of the offender—thought that the declaration would not help to reduce reoffending. In that case the declaration should certainly be stopped, so what could possibly be wrong with the amendment?
    Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the fear and worry caused by the prospect of losing their home would be likely to stop people reoffending?
    Mr. Webb: I do not deny for a moment that some individuals might be affected by that threat, but others will carry on regardless. They may be pushed from one neighbourhood to another, causing mayhem wherever they go. Critically, that might undermine attempts to make them less likely to reoffend. For example, the evidence suggests that antisocial behaviour is often linked with the abuse of drugs and alcohol. How are the support services ever to solve those problems if we keep shunting people from one place to another? That simply mucks up the support services and wrecks any chance those people may have of building up a relationship with the professionals who might have been able to help to solve their problems.
    It is no good Members of Parliament pretending that some of us are the good guys and the others are the bad guys. We are all against antisocial behaviour—but we oppose a Bill that will make matters worse, and is not on the side of the victims.
    Mr. Frank Field: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that the Bill will make matters worse, when his hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that no matters would ever be referred to the courts? Either one Liberal Democrat is right or the other is; they cannot both be right.
    Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman must have misheard my hon. Friend; that is not what I understood him to say.
    Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the migration problem when people are moved from one neighbourhood to another. Does he realise that the movement of people from one seaside resort to another is now being encouraged by absentee landlords who are trying to milk the system? What answer does he have for my constituents who have asked me to come here today and support the Bill? What does he think I should tell them?
    Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As he has discovered from earlier interventions, the parts of the Bill that deal with landlords have been removed, so nothing in the Bill deals with the point that he makes. However, a document from the former

    629
    Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions on tackling antisocial tenants makes proposals that would help deal with landlords who do not take their responsibilities seriously.
    Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Webb: I should like to pick up on one of the Minister's points, if I may. The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly fair point about the relative merits of our amendment as against other ways of assessing whether these measures would lead to more or less antisocial behaviour. He said that the court should not make this decision because there would be an administrative cost in getting all the information that it needed, which would slow the court down, but he did not say who would take the decision. The Secretary of State and his representatives decide whether taking this action is likely to reduce reoffending, but are we talking about a housing benefit officer or someone representing the Secretary of State?
    Malcolm Wicksindicated dissent.
    Mr. Webb: The Minister shakes his head. I am not clear who will take the decision, and I am happy to give way if he can tell me who will.
    Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the discussions, of course, because he was not in Committee. The court makes the judgment as to whether behaviour is antisocial. There will then be an automatic sanction policy. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the details instead of trying to hold up proceedings, he would understand that point.
    Mr. Webb: I am not sure whether my five-minute contribution has played a major part in this delay. Indeed, it was certainly not my hon. Friends who delayed the debate in Committee.
    When cutting housing benefit is considered, the test should be whether such action would help. We should all agree on that. We believe that the court should make that decision because it is the only place where all the information about the person accused of the offences is present. The court has access to what the probation officers say and the social inquiry report. No one else has that information.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman believe, to take a parallel situation, that the fixed penalty for a speeding offence should be imposed only if the court is convinced that it will reduce someone's speed in future?
    Mr. Webb: The difference is that, under these measures, people will lose the roof over their heads. That is more likely to affect the possibility of someone reoffending than whether they incur a fine for speeding. The order of magnitude is completely different.
    Mr. Frank Field: I just wanted to take the hon. Gentleman back to his argument. It is clear who makes the decision—it is the court.
    Mr. Webb: We are saying that the court should make that decision based on a further test which, according to
    630
    the right hon. Gentleman, will always be passed. If the right hon. Gentleman is empirically correct that imposing these sanctions will reduce the likelihood of further antisocial behaviour, the test that we are trying to impose will never stop things. We believe that if the court considers the evidence independently and decides that imposing a penalty will not make a difference or will actually make things worse, it will not have to do so. That is the discretion that we want for the courts, which have the ability to consider all the circumstances.
    Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Webb: No, I do not want to delay the House any further.
    There are issues in this group of amendments that need further scrutiny. However, we cannot say that the Bill has come to the House completely different from how it was on Second Reading and the first day of its Committee stage. It has had one day of Committee scrutiny and an hour or so today. We should never let legislation go any further without proper scrutiny, especially when it is bad legislation like this Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
    'and provide written evidence of that anti-social conduct'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 13, after "convictions", insert
    'and by reason of the written evidence it has considered as to the specific anti-social conduct concerned,'.
    No. 20, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "behaved", inser—
    'and has considered written evidence of the anti-social conduct'. No. 23, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
    '(6) Where a court is minded to make an order under this section and it forms the view that any person against whom the order is intended is unable to represent himself properly and is not otherwise represented, the court shall adjourn the proceedings to give any such person the opportunity of securing legal representation.'.
    Mr. Davey: The amendments seek to ensure that the court has written evidence of antisocial conduct. As the Bill stands, the court will make the declaration following discussions on whether the person should be convicted of the crime of which they are accused, not related to any antisocial behaviour. The only test for antisocial behaviour is whether someone could have been responsible for antisocial behaviour at the same time as committing a crime. No evidence is required for the court to judge whether antisocial behaviour occurred. All we want to do is to ensure that there is written evidence before the court, so I would like—
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

    Remaining Private Members Bills

      PENSIONS ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
      Order read for further consideration, as amended(in the Standing Committee).
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Energy (Conservation) Bill seems to have disappeared from the Order Paper. Can you confirm that it was withdrawn by order of the promoter of the Bill, under pressure from Government Whips? How much has it cost the taxpayer for the Bill to go through so many of its parliamentary stages, and would you agree that it is a denial of the sovereignty of Parliament that a Bill supported by the votes of a majority of the House should be cut by a Government?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman has obviously not consulted the Official Report as I ruled on that matter on a point of order yesterday. The later questions that he asked cannot possibly be matters on which the Chair could comment.
      Further consideration what day? No day named.

    PRIME MINISTER (OFFICE, ROLE AND FUNCTIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    FOOD POVERTY (ERADICATION) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    HOUSING (WALES) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (PROHIBITION ON USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 15 November.

    FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    ENDANGERED SPECIES (ILLEGAL TRADE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    MUSEUMS BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    ALCOHOL SERVICES BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    WASTE BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in our rules or procedures to protect the House against Members who allow their Bills to be on the Order Paper, thus raising expectations among other Members and people outside, but who gratuitously fail to be here on the day so that their Bill has no chance of making progress? Is there anything that can protect us from that casual attitude of Members to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As in all matters, all hon. Members are expected to behave in a responsible way and are entirely responsible for their conduct in the House.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that one can place on record the fact that, so far at least, the vast majority of Members who have not shown up to move their Bills—if not all of them—are Labour Members?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Official Report will show precisely what has happened and people may make their own interpretation.
    David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If some Members have

    633
    been unavoidably detained and thus unable to he here to move their Bills, would it be possible for other Members, who may have an interest in the matter to move the Bills in their place?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that that procedure has already been demonstrated and is in order.

    RELATIONSHIPS (CIVIL REGISTRATION) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 January].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy speaker: second Reading what day? No day named.

    ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED BILL
    Order for second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal convention that if a Member is moving a Bill on behalf on behalf of another hon. Member, they should say that they have the consent of the Member concerned?
    Hon. Members: Wrong again.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on the question whether the Bill is moved, no.

    RIGHT TO SELF-EMPLOYMENT BILL
    Order for Second reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND REMEDIES BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    AGE DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November.

    TREASON FELONY, ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND PARLIAMENTARY OATH BILL
    Order for Second Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me. We have so far had three Bills this afternoon in respect of which Her Majesty had to go to the trouble to give her consent to allow us to proceed to Second Reading. Is it not appalling that, Her Majesty having gone to that trouble, we do not now have the opportunity as a House to consider those three Bills? Could you advise me how we may enable those three Bills to be discussed and considered in the House after Her Majesty has gone to such trouble?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

    CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance once again. Is there any way in which at least we can place on the record the fact that now, Labour Back Benchers' Bills are being killed by their own Government Whips?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has just done so.

    HEALTH REFORM (EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PRESCRIPTIONS (CHRONIC DISEASES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November.
    Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us are used to this end-of-term cull of good prospective legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—by the Government. To which Committee would we refer the question whether we could make the Government give reasons for objections when they make them?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he might take this up with the Procedure Committee. I am sure that the Chairman would be pleased to hear from him.

    FIREARMS(REPLICA WEAPONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    FOOD LABELLING BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [15 March].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. DismoreOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy speaker. As hon. Members have moved Bills in the names of other Members who are not present without idicating
    636
    whether they have the consent of those Members, which is the usual courtesy, can we assume that they are doing so without the Member's consent?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not an assumption on which the occupant of the Chair can comment.

    PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Geraint Davies: I beg to move formally, with the consent of the hon. Member concerned.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    REGULATION OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November.

    AREA CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEES BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    DATA PROTECTION(AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No named day.

    SHOPS BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    FOOD SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    WASTE(No.2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    HEALTH(AIR TRAVELLERS)(No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTERS (RESTRICTIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS)(No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Order for second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituents are crying out for this Bill, and I have had inquiries about it—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot engage in a debate now. He could have done so if he had been given the opportunity, but he cannot do so now.

    ANIMAL SANCTUARIES (LICENSING)(No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS)(No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far we have dealt with 41 Bills on the Order Paper, many of which have been moved by my hon. Friends or myself. In particular, three of the Bills that stand in my name—those on the health of air travellers, which covers deep vein thrombosis; on animal sanctuaries, the proper regulation of which is a matter close to all our hearts; and, lastly and most seriously, on organ donation—have all been objected to by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is a Government Whip.
    We are rapidly approaching the 44th Bill on the Order Paper—the Control of Fireworks (No. 2) Bill. Although it may not be as important as the other three of my Bills to which the Government Whip has already objected, it deals with some important safety matters that affect my constituency and those of every other Member. Can you
    638
    advise me whether there is any way in which I can prevent the Government from blocking further discussion of that Bill in the cavalier fashion that they have exhibited today?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady knows the answer to her own question. Under the procedures of the House, many Bills—good or bad—do not get the time that their promoters and sponsors perhaps think would be sufficient for them.

    LITTER AND FOULING OF LAND BY DOGS (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the record show that it was the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who objected to all three of my highly worthy Bills?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The discerning reader of the Official Report may well make that assumption.

    TRAVELLER LAW REFORM BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    CONTROL OF FIREWORKS (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    HOME ENERGY CONSERVATION (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 15 November.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), a Government Whip, has objected to a Bill that has been supported by five Ministers and the majority of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only confirm that I received an objection and that it was taken.

    FIREARMS (AMENDMENT)(No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: second Reading what day? No day named.
    Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you not agree, and is there any way of making it absolutely clear, that the Government have objected to this Bill, which would attempt to make it much more difficult for irresponsible teenagers to fire air guns at animals and at people, thereby causing injury? Is it not a disgrace that the Government are against that sort of sensible measure to protect the public?
    Mr. Deputy speaker: as think the hon. Gentleman appreciates, those are not matters on which the Chair can comment.

    CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (PROHIBITION OF SALE) (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy speaker. Is there any way in which I can show for the record that a Government Whip has just blocked a Bill that was modelled on another that arose out of the terrible Fred West murders case?
    Mr. Deputy speakerNo more than in the words that the hon. Gentleman has used.
    Claire ward: On a point of order Mr. Deputy speaker. Is there any way in which I can place o the record the fact that the points of order made by Opposition Members today are a pantomime, given that when they were in government they objected to
    640
    private Members' Bills in exactly the same way? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chrislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, has a considerable record of many years of objecting to private Members' Bills.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that Opposition Members and Labour Members have been consistently trying to get the Home Energy Conservation (No. 2) Bill through all its stages during this Session? The Government have gone against the sovereign will of Parliament.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must not get involved in debate on particular measures. The official record shows precisely what has happened throughout this Session.

    RAPE (CONSENT) BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By my reckoning, the Government have today callously killed 33 private Member's Bills. Can you confirm whether that is a record? It strikes me that this Government have excelled more than any other in the heartless and inconsiderate killing off of these Bills, many of which my hon. Friends obviously cared about and took the trouble to bring to the House only to find the hopes of many people outside the House dashed by the Government and the Government Whip.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot answer off the cuff from the Chair the question that the right hon. Gentleman has posed. I dare say, however, that that information can be unearthed with a degree of research.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am conscious that the Government have objected to both the Food Labelling Bill and the Food Safety (Amendment) Bill in the extraordinary calumny this afternoon of defeating more than 30 Bills of good measures. I have a record of taking a keen interest in those particular matters on behalf of my constituents and consumers throughout the country. The Government have always proclaimed, but, clearly, by their actions, they are not prepared to follow through, their concern for the safety of the public in terms of the food that they eat and the protection of farmers' interests—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, the hon. Gentleman cannot enter into a debate on the substance of these measures. Secondly, there is still some time left in this Session, and I do not think that he needs advice from me on the opportunities that may be available to raise the subjects in which he is interested.

    Britain's Muslims
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    2.50 pm
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Since I was elected to the House, a number of Adjournment debates have explored issues of concern to specific communities. Among the most recent was a debate on Sikhs in Britain that was initiated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). In discussion with my constituents, a series of concerns affecting the Muslim community have been raised with me. I am therefore grateful that Mr. Speaker saw fit to grant me this opportunity to highlight its concerns.
    Islam is one of the world's great religions. "Islam" derives from the word for peace, and it involves allegiance to God and to his prophet Mohammed, and the Koran sets out the teaching of Mohammed as relayed to him by God. There are five pillars of the Islamic faith. Shahada is the profession of faith, and salat is the formal act of worship. Zakat is the giving of alms to the poor and is assessed on the basis that all adult Muslims give 2.5 per cent. of their capital assets once a year. The hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca, which every Muslim is supposed to undertake at least once in their lifetime. I understand that an estimated 20,000 British Muslims undertake it each year. Sawn is fasting during Ramadan.
    There have been Muslims in Britain for centuries. It is worth placing it on record that Britain's first mosque was established in Woking in 1889, and London's first mosque was built in 1941. An estimated 1.2 million to 1.8 million people of Muslim faith are in the United Kingdom, with an estimated 675,000 to 780,000 Muslims actively attending one of the 660 mosques in the UK.
    There are three mosques in my borough. The oldest is Harrow central mosque, which has been active for 20 years. It developed from one house that was converted into a mosque, and it gradually extended as other neighbouring properties were bought and adapted. The mosque is used predominantly by Sunni Muslims. The second mosque is in Stanmore, in the neighbouring constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and it is used mainly by Shia Muslims. The third mosque, the Mehfil Ali mosque in north Harrow, is in my constituency and it has been in use for 10 years. It is used predominantly by Shia Muslims, and by Sunni Muslims as well. The three mosques serve an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims, who are also served by a variety of other local cultural and social organisations for which a key co-ordinating body is the Middlesex Muslim forum, which was set up two years ago to promote dialogue within local Muslim organisations and between the local Muslim community and decision makers. In particular, I commend the work of Riaz and Razir Esmail for their establishment of the forum and for keeping it as active as it is.
    In 1997, the Runnymede Trust published a report, "Islamophobia: a challenge for us all", which described Islamophobia as an unfounded hostility to or dread of Islam. It considered the practical consequences of such hostility. They include the unfair discrimination against Muslims in the provision of services; the violence, verbal abuse and vandalism of property that takes place simply
    642
    because someone is a Muslim; the exclusion of Muslims from employment and senior management positions and from the political process; as well as prejudice in the media and in everyday conversation.
    The Runnymede Trust rightly drew a distinction between unfounded hostility to Islam and an entirely legitimate and democratic disagreement with elements of Islamic faith or particular Muslim organisations or activities. It is certainly not wrong to challenge or criticise the speeches of one or two extreme clerics and the activities of their adherents, but it is patent nonsense to think that they reflect the opinions of the vast majority of Muslims in my constituency or more generally.
    As a prelude to a week of articles that explored the depth and breadth of the Muslim community in Britain, the opening paragraph of a leading article in The Guardian a month ago reflected the concerns of many Muslims in my constituency. It said:
    "Muslims have been on the receiving end of so many accusations over the last year that it sometimes requires an extra effort to see past the stereotypes".
    Mr. Paul Goodman: On that point, would the hon. Gentleman like to pay tribute to the work of imams in my constituency and throughout the country, who rightly made it clear in the aftermath of 11 September that the actions on that day were in no way representative of the real teachings of Islam?
    Mr. Thomas: I pay tribute to the imams in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and endorse his general comments.
    The Guardian article continued:
    "At home…since September 11, Muslims have been placed under an often unforgiving spotlight. They have been depicted as angry and alienated, united in opposition to modernity and tolerance, and as people who choose to live culturally separate lives involving a minimum of interconnection with our values…To others, Muslims are already the enemy within, a fifth column."
    I think that that analysis is perhaps somewhat over the top, but it is undoubtedly true that Muslims in Britain are looking at Members in this place to take further action to tackle the consequences of the religious and racial discrimination that the community continues to experience in Britain. I think that they are right to do so.
    It would be useful, for example, if the Press Complaints Commission were to consider how the Muslim community has been reported, especially over the past nine months or so. The new head of the commission might want to undertake that task. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions over the past 18 months about discrimination against Muslims and the Government's response. I welcome the progress that has been made since 1997, but through this debate I hope to encourage the Government to go further.
    During the series of articles in The Guardian on the Muslim community, a poll of British Muslim was featured. A third of all Muslims say that they or their families have been abused because of their faith. It is too soon for any analysis to be made of attacks on Muslims since 11 September, but anecdotal evidence of a rise in the number of attacks—especially on visible Muslims such as those wearing traditional dress, for example—has circulated in the media and within the Muslim community. Similarly, anecdotal reports of a rise in vandalism against mosques have been noted.

    643
    I am pleased to say that there have not been significant problems for the local Muslim community in Harrow since 11 September, not least because of the strong partnership that exists between local community organisations, led by Harrow Council for Racial Equality, and the local police. I commend the ongoing work of Asad Omar, who is one of my constituents. He has recently been elected as a local councillor for his leadership in the community. I commend also the leadership of the local police. I hope that such positive partnership working will continue to be encouraged, particularly throughout the Metropolitan police area.
    The Runneymede Trust report chronicled the level of racial harassment and violence back in 1997, supporting the intention, now implemented, of new legislation to make racial violence a specific offence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will outline the further efforts that are being made to bring the perpetrators of racially motivated crime, particularly against Muslims, to justice, and to improve the recruitment of members of the Muslim community into the police and the wider criminal justice system.
    The trust recommended even in 1997 that incitement to religious hatred should be made unlawful, and that when sentencing offenders for crimes of violence or harassment, courts should formally treat evidence of religious hatred as an aggravating factor. I welcome the fact that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created new religiously aggravated offences including assaults, threatening behaviour and criminal damage, and provided that there should be greater penalties where there is evidence of religious hatred. I hope that my hon. Friend will detail how the courts, police and prosecuting authorities are being trained to use those powers. I welcome the fact that the Act increased the penalty for inciting racial hatred from a maximum of two years to seven years in prison. Like many Labour Members, I was disappointed that the proposal to make incitement to religious hatred an offence had to be dropped from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act because of opposition in the other place. I welcome the decision by Lord Avebury and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) to reintroduce those provisions in private Members' Bills, which will keep the debate and the argument for the measure moving forward. It is worth restating that similar provisions have existed in Northern Ireland since 1987, and that the Bills would prevent only religious hatred, not comedy or genuine religious debate, as some feared when the proposals were first mooted last year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that we remain committed to legislation when time allows.
    In its report, the Runnymede Trust chronicled the under-representation of Muslims in political life. The situation has changed since the trust first began its work on the report, with the elections of my hon. Friends the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and the appointment of four new Muslim peers to the House of Lords. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the formation of an all-party friends of Islam group to consider issues of importance to the Muslim community on a cross-party basis. It is essential to take further action to stimulate dialogue and understanding and to encourage active debate between representatives of the Muslim community at all levels of government.
    644
    One issue that the all-party group will want to consider is the extent to which our efforts to modernise and reform public services to make them more client-focused are succeeding in respect of the Muslim community. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain how Muslim organisations, charities, cultural organisations and other independent sector Muslim groups are being invited to work in partnership with Government—for example, to prevent crime and to improve our delivery of health care, education and employment. In its report, the Runnymede Trust undertook a comprehensive examination of the extent to which Britain was making progress towards being an inclusive society for the Muslim community. It highlighted concerns across public services, noting the sharp rise in the number of Muslim men in prison and the fact that unemployment levels for those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin were considerably higher proportionately than for other people. The trust also highlighted work by the Policy Studies Institute, again noting the relatively greater disadvantage of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families in housing and public health, and called for further research to explore the level of opportunity for Muslims to hold senior staff positions in local government and in the civil service and to be appointed to quangos.
    The report also drew attention to examples of where public services could be more finely honed for the Muslim community. To pick out two specific examples, Muslim women often do not use mainstream leisure services as they want to take advantage of women-only sessions and want such sessions to be entirely private. Although providers of leisure services are increasingly providing women-only swimming sessions, some are neither entirely private nor have women lifeguards. What may seem to many outside the House to be trivial concerns are of considerable importance to the Muslim community, who are as a result unable to partake of such mainstream services. It would not take a rocket scientist to address that issue, and more effective dialogue with the Muslim community could produce improvements to services from which all women would benefit.
    Another example concerns the burial of Muslims. Islam requires the early burial of a dead relative, ideally within 24 hours. Most local authority cemeteries are geared up for speedy burials during the traditional working week, but the facility to provide early burial at weekends is much more problematic and patchy. Local authorities with significant Muslim communities need to be encouraged to consider how such issues can be considered further. Perhaps the Government might encourage local government, through the best value process, to consider the issues in more detail in those areas where there are significant Muslim communities. I also hope that my hon. Friend can say what preparations are being made to implement the welcome EC employment directive outlawing discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of religion.
    Lastly, will my hon. Friend consider, in the reviews of planning law, whether proposals for new mosques, or extensions to mosques, can be dealt with more appropriately, so that the needs of local communities and worshippers are addressed effectively? We need to ensure that proposals for mosques do not become the source of tension within communities. Of course licensing should properly reflect the needs of neighbours, but it must also reflect the observance of key religious traditions.
    Since my election to the House, I have seen it as my role to speak up for the people of Harrow, West; to raise key local concerns about public services; to resist

    645
    proposals that will have a damaging impact on my constituency; and to raise wider concerns about the Government's work. Members of the Muslim community in my constituency have raised those concerns with me, and it is right that they have an airing in the House. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response.
    3.6 pm
    The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. It is clearly an important subject for his constituents and he has shown characteristic diligence and assiduity in pursuing their concerns. However, the subject is important for the country as a whole.
    The Government have a clear vision of a multicultural and multifaith Britain; a truly dynamic society that values the contribution made by each of our many diverse communities. We have a pluralistic view of our national identity, in which Muslims and representatives of all communities come together under the broad heading of our British identity. It is vital to ensure that all communities live and work together, and retain their distinctive identities, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. Since the events of 11 September, that vision has been tested in various ways. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) rightly stated that those events and those who perpetrated them are in no way representative of Islam, and I want to stress how much the Government agree with him.
    British Muslims bring with them a strong and inspiring history of academic, scientific and cultural achievement which enriches all of us in Britain today. There has been a significant Muslim presence in Britain for at least 300 years. Britain's first mosque was established in 1889. The site for the Regent's Park mosque was donated by the British Government in 1944. Today more than 1,000 mosques serve the 2 million or so British Muslims.
    It is particularly important that we celebrate the Muslim community's contribution—socially, culturally and economically—to the stability and prosperity of British society. Islam is thriving within Britain as a religion, and many people are converting to it because they find in it both spiritual enlightenment and personal freedom. That is why Islamophobia is such a cancer and why we must tackle it. The Government have a role to play, but so has the rest of society. We have to ensure that we are engaged with the Muslim community in many ways. We need to stress over and over again that those terrible events on 11 September last year had nothing to do with Islam.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe drew attention to his constituents' condemnation of those terrible atrocities. The general response of British Muslims in condemning those atrocities reminds us of the real Islam: an Islam of peace, tolerance and understanding.
    That is why the Government find the unprovoked attacks on Muslims so repugnant. We all need to understand that careless use of Islamophobic language and images causes great suffering in Muslim communities. In the worst cases, it influences those who abuse and attack Muslims. It has no place to our society.
    My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that we must engage with the anxieties of Muslims and other minority faiths about religious discrimination. We must consider
    646
    the case for it to be made subject to the law. That inevitably raises many difficult, sensitive and complex questions to which there are no easy answers or quick fixes. The Government are determined to take a strong lead in eliminating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. We are therefore tackling religious discrimination in several ways.
    My hon. Friend referred to article 13 of the EC employment directive. As hon. Members know, it outlaws discrimination in employment and training on grounds that include religion. We are committed to implementing it by 2 December 2003.
    The Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation paper on implementing the directive last autumn. It is now analysing the responses with a view to drafting regulations and related good practice guidance, on which it will consult later this year.
    We are also tackling religious discrimination through the Human Rights Act 1998. We incorporated the European convention on human rights into UK law on 2 October 2000. We believe that it will help to create a new culture of rights and responsibilities in Britain, including people's rights to hold or manifest their religion or belief. The Act changes the nature of the debate on religious discrimination that must take place in the light of the developing human rights culture.
    As hon. Members know, in the aftermath of 11 September, the Government tried to introduce proposals to extend the law to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence. That was part of our measured response to counter those who exploit the fears that terrorism raises.
    We tried to protect those who risked assault or abuse because of their religious beliefs. The proposals would have expanded the current law on incitement to racial hatred. However, opposition in another place unfortunately meant that the proposals could not be made law. We await with interest the outcome of the deliberations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Lord Avebury's Bill, which covers much of the same ground.
    As my hon. Friend said, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created new religiously aggravated offences. They include assaults, threatening behaviour and criminal damage, and they carry higher maximum penalties when there is evidence of religious hostility in connection with them. We believe that that will play an important part in tackling the problem.
    As my hon. Friend knows, we need to continue to engage, and practical information is important to doing that. The 2001 census therefore included a question about religious affiliation. It will provide important data on Britain's minority faith communities. It is also symbolically important because it acknowledged the importance of faith identity. The responses to the question will help inform the planning and delivery of services that are sensitive to the needs of faith communities. I gather from my hon. Friend's remarks that he is especially concerned about that. As hon. Members know, the results of the census are due in February next year.
    Legislation alone is not enough. We are considering a complex and crucial matter. We cannot achieve everything through law. We need to affect our culture, and that means adopting a comprehensive approach in which

    647
    education, training and a greater effort to teach more in schools about the diversity of faith will play an important part.
    Mr. Goodman: Is the Minister aware of the expressed desire of many of my Muslim constituents for either an Islamic school or a girls school in the area, and will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about making it generally easier to establish such schools?
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that we are introducing measures to encourage the establishment of faith schools, which we think are an important means of engaging people in the community. In return for receiving state funding, they undertake to subscribe to the national curriculum and various other provisions. That is an important way in which we can integrate minority faiths into our society and bring both sides together. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituents' desires.
    We need to do more to encourage in young people an understanding of different faiths and the importance of the richness they bring to our society. From September, citizenship will form part of young people's education. For the first time, pupils will be taught as part of the national curriculum about the diversity of identities in the UK, about the importance of the fact that we in this country have plural national identities, and, critically, about the need for mutual respect and understanding.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West referred to the need to engage with faith communities across the spectrum, including in the delivery of public services, which is critical. The Government are reviewing the way in which we interface with the faith communities. We shall ensure improved consultation and participation and the presence of appropriate faith communities at major national events, and we will build on that. In the context of the jubilee there was a remarkable reception for faith communities at Buckingham palace, involving 700 members of the main world faiths from all parts of the United Kingdom. It was the first time that such a gathering had taken place.
    All the main faiths share core values of peace, tolerance and helping others—all essential elements of social cohesion. The participation of faith communities in
    648
    interfaith dialogue and activity plays a critical role in building and sustaining cohesive communities. We know that the process is not always easy. The disturbances last summer in some northern towns showed that some things can fracture communities and trigger violence. It is vital that attempts by the British National party and others to create divisions along ethnic or religious lines do not succeed, and the obligation to ensure that they do not rests on the Government in particular, and on every member of our society. Such divisiveness is cruelly destructive of the cohesive communities that we all want.
    Faith community leaders at national, regional and local level have a responsibility to show others the way forward by their good example. That is currently an active process in my Swindon constituency. As a Government, we have to play our part by giving leadership, by listening and by responding, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to do that. We recently published a guide for local authorities, "Faith and Community", which we believe will assist in the process.
    My hon. Friend spoke of the need for the media to play their part. That is crucial because people's view of the world is in large part seen through the eyes of the media. Whatever politicians do or say, people are often far more informed by what they see on television or read in their newspaper, so my hon. Friend makes an important point when he says that the governing bodies responsible for the media, both print and broadcast, also have a role to play.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was similarly concerned, and facilitated a meeting following the events of 11 September between Muslim leaders and the Press Complaints Commission and the broadcasting authorities about the portrayal of Muslims in the media. I am sure that the dialogue will continue and I hope that we will see an accurate reflection of our communities in the media.
    Our relations with the Muslim community are extremely important to the Government and we will continue to strive to improve them. We want our Muslim community to find in the Government not only a sympathetic ear but a friend, willing to do all that we can to make Britain a safe and fulfilling place in which to live.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the Fifth report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; who the members of the Committee are; and if he will make a statement. [72102]

  The Prime Minister
  The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has submitted its fifth report to me and I have today placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The report gives an account of its work from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  The Committee is an independent body which advises me on business appointment applications from the most senior civil servants and members of the Armed Forces. Where the applicant is a senior diplomat, it advises the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under the similar rules which apply in the Diplomatic Service. The Committee also gives advice, under published guidelines, to former Ministers about any outside appointments they wish to take up after leaving office. It includes members with extensive experience of public life in England, Scotland and Wales, and, in this respect, it acts as a joint body although it provides its advice directly to those who seek it in accordance with the provisions of their Ministerial Code.

  The current members of the Committee are:

  The Right Hon. Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC DL (Chairman)

  Sir John Blelloch KCB (Vice-chairman)

  The Right Hon. Lord Morris of Aberavon QC

  The Right Hon. Lord Maclennan of Rogart

  The Lord Wilson of Tillyorn KT GCMG

  Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton GBE KCB FEng FIEE

  Sir Bryan Nicholson

  The Committee has an important role, and I am very grateful to all the members for giving their time so freely to it.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Regulator
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 982W, on the Strategic Rail Authority and Rail Regulator, if he will list the type or nature of the occasions on which it is deemed approporiate for him and other departmental ministers to meet the (a) Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) Rail Regulator.[70639]
  568W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and other departmental Ministers would expect to meet the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator to discuss matters of common interest, and at wider industry meetings and events.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the responsibilities of(a) the office of the Rail Regulator and (b) the office of the international rail regulator; and if he will make a statement. [70661]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The functions and duties of the Rail Regulator are set out in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 as amended by the Transport Act 2000; and those of the International Rail Regulator in the Railway Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1340).

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Strategic Rail Authority will consult on its review of rail fares policy. [72100]

  Mr. Darling
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has today published its consultation paper on fares policy. Copies have been placed in the House libraries and the document can also be viewed on the SRA website (www.sra.gov.uk). The consultation period will end on 11 October 2002. This process is part of the SRA's review of fares policy announced in the Authority's Strategic Plan, published in January this year.

  Network Rail
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. pursuant to his statement of 27 June 2002,Official Report, columns 971–73, on Network Rail, if he will make a statement on the Government's proposal to incur the contingent liabilities set out in the associated minutes he laid before Parliament. [72012]

  Mr. Darling
  In my statement on 27 June on Network Rail, I informed Members of two minutes I had laid in the House that day, setting out the contingent liabilities I proposed to incur on behalf of the Government to enable Railtrack plc to be acquired by Network Rail.

  This classification of Network Rail was a decision taken, not by the Government, but by the Office for National Statistics. The ONS takes independent decisions in matters concerning the classification, preparation and publication of statistics. It was their view that Network Rail would be classified as a private sector corporation —once its board has been ratified by its membership — and that the company's borrowing could be classified as private sector borrowing in the national accounts. In reaching this conclusion the ONS has, I understand, based their considerations upon the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95).

  As I explained to the House in my statement of 27 June the SRA is providing Network Rail with standby credit facilities. It is the commercial debt markets that will provide the required borrowing for Network Rail, with the credit facilities called upon in identified, though unlikely, circumstances. On this basis the SRA's standby credit
  569W
  facilities are considered to be contingent liabilities and would only score as public expenditure in the extremely unlikely event of them being called upon.

  The Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office has, in his capacity as auditor of the SRA, concluded that Network Rail should be accounted for as a subsidiary of the SRA. This judgement is based on the application of UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (UK-GAAP). As such the expenditure and liabilities of Network Rail will be accounted for in an open and transparent way—a very welcome step.

  The provision of any funds necessary to meet the SRA's financial obligations could be made by way of grant under paragraph 7 of schedule 14 of the Transport Act 2000 or by permitting the SRA to borrow in accordance with paragraph 8 of that schedule. Whether the SRA's financial obligations (subject to normal supply procedures) would be met by a grant, by allowing it to borrow, or a mixture of both would be determined if the need arose.

  It therefore remains my intention to proceed as proposed and incur the liabilities set out in the minutes.

  The Government judges that the contingent liabilities set out in the minutes I laid before the House on 27 June provide robust means of quickly setting up a strong and well-managed company to take over the responsibilities of Railtrack as network operator. And to do so by uniting the rail industry to work together under the strategic guidance of the SRA with Government with the overall aim of delivering the efficient, safe and reliable railway network that customers want.

  Rail Services (Plymouth)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement with respect to(a) achieving and (b) building on the three hour target for rail journeys to Plymouth. [67600]

  Mr. Spellar
  I understand that the winter timetable will include a 3 hour service between London and Plymouth. The SRA has recently concluded a consultation on the potential combination of the Great Western and Thames franchises in 2006, which would provide an opportunity to review service patterns with a view to improving journey times between London and Plymouth, and other destinations in the South West. Decisions will be announced in due course.

  Commuter Lines
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which lines are to be considered as commuter lines with regard to the intended output for more frequent services on commuter lines as given in his 10-year plan at paragraph 6.22, page 49; and if he will make a statement. [71158]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Those on which a substantial proportion of passenger journeys and/or passenger kilometres involve travel to, or from, work. There is no standard definition, but traffic on such lines is generally heaviest in the morning and evening peaks.

  Passenger Rail Demand
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the methodology behind his Department's estimate, on page 20, paragraph 49 of the 10-year plan background analysis, that just under two thirds of the increased passenger rail demand due to fare reductions and service quality improvements will be from car users switching to rail; what percentage of the total estimated increase in passenger kilometres, resulting from the 10-year plan, this will represent; and what estimate has been made as to the number of car users switching to rail as a result of(a) economic growth and (c) car traffic growth. [71055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The estimate of the proportion of rail demand that would be a result of car users switching to rail came from evidence available at the time, collated by consultants to the Department, with the methodology reported in "Modelling using the National Road Traffic Forecasting framework for Tackling Congestion and Pollution and Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan—Technical Report" (DETR, December 2002).

  This proportion represents about 15 per cent points of the growth in passenger demand over 2000 levels (from the total 50 per cent increase), as the two thirds factor was only applicable for patronage growth resulting from plan policies.

  No separate estimates were made of the impacts of economic growth and car traffic growth respectively. It is intended that the multi-modal National Transport Model we are developing will be able to address such questions in the future.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many tonnes of freight were moved by(a) rail and (b) road in each of the last five years. [71058]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The figures for Great Britain are set out below:

  Road billion tonne kms

  Rail billion tonne kms

  1997–98

  152.4

  16.9

  1998–99

  150.5

  17.3

  1999–2000

  149.4

  18.2

  2000–01

  149.5

  18.1

  2001–02

  not available

  19.7

  Rail Investment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) proportion and (b) total value is of the required passenger infrastructure and rolling stock investment, as outlined in the SRA plan, that is expected to be funded from increases in fare revenues. [71056]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan assumed no change to existing policies on fares regulation.

  Safer Stations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 208W, on safer stations if he will list those train operating companies which are committed to seeking accreditation to which he refers; what steps have been taken; and when full accreditation is likely to be granted. [70642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is working with the Train Operating Companies, as part of the franchise renewal and extension process, to agree commitments to both the Secure Stations Scheme and the Secured Car Park Scheme. As a number of these franchise negotiations are currently taking place, it would not be appropriate to disclose which Train Operating Companies are seeking Secure Stations accreditation for all their stations.

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency plans have been put in place against the event of a shipwreck involving a ship carrying nuclear waste to Sellafield off the coast of the UK. [70372]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) response to an incident involving a ship carrying radioactive materials will follow the procedures laid down in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations. The MCA would lead and co-ordinate a multi-agency response bringing in key organisations to provide advice and support as required.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) and its subsidiary Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited (PNTL) have produced emergency response procedures that are compatible with the NCP for their fleet of seven vessels which are specifically designed for the carriage of radioactive materials. Each ship of the fleet has a Shipboard Marine Emergency Plan which follows the guidelines prepared by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization. BNFL and other nuclear operators are technically competent in responding to incidents involving radioactive material and would provide radiological advice to the MCA as required.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the appropriate level of insurance cover for NATS; [71117]

  (2) what level of insurance he is requiring from NATS; [71118]

  (3) what discussions he has held with NATS over their insurance cover. [71116]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With effect from 1 July NATS has obtained aviation third party liability insurance to a level comparable with that secured by other major aviation interests post the events of 11 September.
  572W
  NATS is continuing to investigate alternative markets that it has been advised may facilitate further cover. NATS and its lenders will take a view of this matter once quotes have been obtained for this additional layer of insurance.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many air traffic controllers were(a) employed and (b) in training in each year since 1990; [71121]

  (2) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned to increase the number of trained national air traffic controllers; and if he will make a statement; [71160]

  (3) how many air traffic controllers were (a) employed and (b) in training in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement; [71162]

  (4) what steps he has taken to increase the number of air traffic controllers; [71119]

  (5) what the target staff complement is of National Air Traffic Services; how many vacancies and at what levels are unfilled; how many individuals have (a) left, (b) retired from and (c) joined NATS in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [71163]

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

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with NATS, the unions, the CAA and other air traffic control providers about increasing the number of air traffic controllers; and what representations he has had from these bodies on this subject; [71120]

  (2) what recent (a) representations he and his Department has received and (b) discussions he and his Department has had with (i) NATS and (ii) the CAA regarding the number of trained national air traffic controllers; and if he will make a statement. [71161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ensuring that there is an adequate number of air traffic controllers, is an operational matter for NATS.

  However, the Department, in its capacity as a responsible shareholder, has regular meetings with NATS. It is understood that unions and management are working together to find an effective and acceptable solution, that accords with the requirements of the air traffic control approval granted by the CAA.

  Railway Statistics
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the methodology used by the SRA in order to seasonally adjust passenger kilometres. [71063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Passenger Kilometres data are collected in four-weekly periods and are susceptible to seasonal effects. The SRA seasonally adjusts the four weekly data using a variant of the "X11 Arima" package, developed by Statistics Canada and used (and recommended) by the Office for National Statistics.

  The SRA publishes both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted figures.

  Vehicle Charging
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he will publish guidelines related to(a) workplace parking and (b) road use charging; whether the guidance will be retrospective; and if he will make a statement; [70814]

  (2) when he will publish guidelines related to (a) work place parking and (b) road user charging; and if this guidance will be retrospective. [71051]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am considering the nature and scope of guidance on the workplace parking levy and on road user charging.

  Congestion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the level of congestion in large urban areas in England was in 2000; and what criteria are used to define such areas. [71625]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We plan to publish congestion data relating to 2000 in the autumn. These data will form a baseline against which future congestion data will be compared. For the PSA congestion target, large urban areas are defined as all those urban areas with a population of above 250,000: Greater London; the former metropolitan counties centred on the cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield; and the urban areas of Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton, Bristol, Hull, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton and Stoke. These urban areas may include parts of neighbouring local authority areas to give consistency with the area definitions in the Department's National Transport Model.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the level of congestion was on the inter-urban trunk road network in 2000; and what criteria are to be used to measure changes in congestion each year. [71626]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We plan to publish congestion data relating to 2000 in the autumn. These data will form a baseline against which future congestion data will be compared.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for(a) guidance and (b) legislation relating to the implementation of multi-modal studies; and if he will make a statement. [70742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans for(a) guidance or (b) legislation relating to the implementation of Multi-Modal Studies. Implementation of agreed recommendations from the Studies will be the responsibility of the relevant delivery agencies. Government Offices will have a co-ordinating role.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the new trunk road and bypass schemes which(a) have been given approval and (b) are awaiting approval after being part of a multi-modal study. [70618]
  574W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We have made announcements on three Multi-Modal Studies and have asked the Highways Agency and relevant local authorities to take forward work on the trunk road and bypass schemes listed below. Final decisions on schemes will be taken following completion of the normal statutory processes.

  Access to Hastings

  MMS — A21 Tonbridge to Pembury

  A21 South of Pembury

  Cambridge to Huntingdon

  MMS — Widening and partial realignment of the A14 in the

  Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor

  South East Manchester

  MMS — M60/M67/A57 Denton Interchange.

  A6 Stockport N/S Bypass

  A523/A555 Poynton Bypass

  A555 Manchester Airport Link Road West A34

  Alderley Edge Bypass

  A number of other Multi-Modal Studies have submitted Final Reports to Regional Planning Bodies. Study recommendations including those relating to trunk roads and bypasses will be considered in the light of Regional Planning Body advice.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to(a) safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, (b) protect voters from intimidation and (c) ensure that postal votes are completed by the voter to whom they belong, in postal ballots. [59174]

  Ms Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply. We recognise that it is essential to make sure that new methods of voting do not undermine the integrity and security of the election process. Safeguards in relation to the postal voting have been in place for many years, and we have no reason to believe that they do not operate satisfactorily in all postal ballots. The Electoral Commission is evaluating the local authority pilot schemes that ran all postal ballots in the May 2002 local and mayoral elections, including issues such as security and privacy. The Commission will publish its report on 1 August 2002.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  CDC Capital Partners
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list(a) those to whom CDC Capital Partners' sold its enterprise investments in the last three years and (b) the enterprise investments sold to them. [67390]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer I1 July 2002]: In the last three years, CDC has sold the following significant equity investments to the following companies:
  575W

  2000:

  Investment

  Buyer

  Tip Top (Nicaragua)

  Sun Valley Foods (Cargill Inc)

  Usutu Pulp (Swaziland)

  Sappi

  Industrial Credit Company (Zambia)

  Loita Capital Partners

  Nanga Farms (Zambia)

  Incumbent management team

  PT Semen Andalas, (Indonesia)

  Lafarge

  2001:

  Investment

  Buyer

  Housing Development Finance Corp (India)

  Swiss Re Insurance Group

  Pan Africa Cement

  Lafarge

  Zambia Sugar Corporation

  Illovo sugar

  Eutco, Kawalazi, Sable (Tanzania and Malawi)

  Global

  Rwenzori Highlands Tea, Uganda

  James finlay

  CG Glass, (India)

  Koninklijke Philips Electronics

  There have been no outright disposals so far in 2002.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will break down by(a) region and (b) sector the representations her Department has received regarding the environmental impact of CDC Capital Partners' investments since 1997. [67367]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: In 1999 my Department received a representation concerning orange peel waste deposit by CDC in the Area de Conservacion Guanacaste, Costa Rica, under a local agreement. This was part of an experiment to recycle organic material to rehabilitate an area of degraded cattle pasture. In 2000 and 2001 representations were received concerning deforestation issues relating to oil palm plantations respectively in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. The latter included concerns about protection of the habitat of the Queen Alexandra's Birdwing Butterly.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list the debts to the Treasury by CDC Capital Partners. [67388]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: CDC owes Government £755m in respect of loans made to CDC by my Department in the past. These were in the form of exchequer advances funded from the development assistance programme. CDC does not owe any debt to HM Treasury.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what criteria are used in determining annual performance-related bonuses to CDC Capital Group executives [67371]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The annual bonus pool, from which individual bonuses are paid, is determined by the Board from a set of objectives which is agreed each year. These objectives cover the areas of financial performance, portfolio management and non-financial factors, and are weighted appropriately:

  Financial—accounting for 60 per cent of the pool

  Portfolio management—accounting for 20 per cent of the pool

  Non-financial—accounting for 20 per cent of the pool
  576W
  Individual bonuses also depend on a number of factors including a 360-degree performance review and the individual's performance against personal targets.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list the sub-Saharan agri-businesses advertised for sale in 2001 by CDC Capital Partners; and what proportion those businesses represented in 2001 in CDC Capital Partners' sub-Sahran agri-businesses. [67381]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The agribusinesses advertised for sale in 2001 are listed below. The figures in brackets represent their approximate proportionate value of the 2001 sub Saharan agribusiness portfolio.

  Rwenzori Highlands Tea (10 per cent)

  Shiselweni Forestry (2 per cent)

  Sulmac (3 per cent)

  York Farms (2 per cent)

  Mpongwe Farm (15 per cent)

  Kilombero Valley Teak (5 per cent)

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how many Commonwealth nationals employed by CDC Capital Partners have been made redundant since 1997. [67413]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Since 1997 a total of 217 Commonwealth nationals (including UK employees) have been made redundant.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what(a) current and (b) proposed (i) annual performance related bonus programmes and (ii) long term incentive plans exist for CDC Capital Partners' mid-level executives. [67373]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]:
  (i)(a) A current annual bonus programme exists which allows the Remuneration Committee to approve cash awards up to 50 per cent of an individual's base salary.
  (b) No additional or new bonus plan is proposed.
  (ii)(a) A long term incentive plan linked to NAV growth over a three-year period is in place.
  (b) No new long-term plan has been proposed.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what the proportional growth of CDC Capital Partners'(a) retail and (b) healthcare investments has been since 1997. [67393]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]:) (a) retail — in 1997, retail represented 0.86 per cent of CDC's portfolio; today, retail represents 4.61 per cent of CDC's portfolio

  (b) healthcare — in 1997, healthcare represented 0.16 per cent of CDC's portfolio; today, healthcare represents 3.25 per cent of CDC's portfolio

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list the countries where CDC Capital Partners(a) has received and (b) receives exemptions on environmental regulations on its investments. [67377]
  577W
  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: CDC Capital Partners does not ask for or receive exemptions on environmental regulations on any of its investments. CDC makes investments on the basis that any shortfall in the standards of social and environmental performance of the company, not only against local legislation but also against international good practice, will be addressed. Where substantial environmental improvements are required, it is possible that the investee company will request exemption from local environmental regulation in the short term, but this is only acceptable to CDC in the context of long-term improvement.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list CDC Capital Partners' agricultural investments in sub-Saharan Africa by country since 1997; describing the commercial activities in each case. [67361]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: CDC Capital Partners' new investments in agribusiness:

  Year

  Country

  Company name

  Commercial activity

  2002

  Tanzania

  Tatepa

  Tea blending and packaging business

  1999

  Tanzania

  South Highlands Tea

  Privatisation of smallholder tea factories

  1998

  Zimbabwe

  Ariston

  Diversified agribusiness

  1998

  Kenya

  Sulmac

  Modernise floriculture and develop vegetable enterprise for export

  1997

  South Africa

  New Farmers

  Agricultural Investment Fund

  1997

  Mozambique

  AGRIMO

  Cotton production and ginning

  Including the investments listed above, CDC has 37 agribusiness equity holdings as at end 2001.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list the countries where CDC Capital Partners(a) has received and (b) receives tax breaks on its investments. [67369]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: There are 44 countries in which CDC has a tax exemption not always available to other companies. Until recently CDC also received tax exemption in Costa Rica under an Operating Conditions Agreement (OCA) which CDC voluntarily gave up due to special circumstances in 2000.

  A list of the 44 countries where CDC currently receives a tax exemption is below:

  Country

  1

  Anguilla

  2

  Bangladesh

  3

  Barbados

  4

  Belize

  5

  Bolivia

  6

  Botswana

  7

  Cameroon

  8

  Cote d'Ivoire

  9

  Cuba

  10

  Dominica

  11

  Dominican Republic

  12

  Ecuador

  13

  Egypt

  14

  Ghana

  15

  Guatemala

  578W

  16

  Guyana

  17

  Honduras

  18

  Indonesia

  19

  Jamaica

  20

  Kenya

  21

  Laos

  22

  Malaysia

  23

  Mauritius

  24

  Montserrat

  25

  Mozambique

  26

  Namibia

  27

  Nicaragua

  28

  Nigeria

  29

  Pakistan

  30

  Philippines

  31

  Sierra Leone

  32

  Solomon Islands

  33

  South Africa

  34

  Sri Lanka

  35

  St Kitts & Nevis

  36

  Sudan

  37

  Tanzania

  38

  Thailand

  39

  Trinidad & Tobago

  40

  Uganda

  41

  Vietnam

  42

  Zambia

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the unsuccessful formal investments and sale tenders in which CDC Capital Partners has participated, by sector, since 1997; [67398]

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

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: This information is not kept by CDC.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list CDC Capital Partners' disposal of investments by(a) sector, (b) size and (c) country since 1997. [67342]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Full details are not available without disproportionate cost. However for a list of significant disposals, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question. [67390]

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list by(a) country and (b) sector the environmental impact studies (i) performed and (ii) contracted by CDC Capital Partners since 1997. [673781]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: An environmental impact study is carried out by CDC on every investment where the environmental risk is high, and where thorough mitigation, management and monitoring is therefore required. Where the risk is perceived to be medium or low, a detailed study and management plan is not required but a basic assessment of environmental issues will be undertaken by the Investment Manager, with advice from CDC's Business Principles Unit.
  579W
  CDC does not hold records of environmental impact studies going back to 1997, but the following investments made in each of the years 1997 to 2002 were subject to a detailed environmental review.

  Year

  Country

  Sector

  Client Company

  1997

  Ghana

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Abosso Goldfields Limited

  1997

  Kenya

  Other Sectors

  Nairobi Business Park Ltd

  1997

  Tanzania

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  East Africa Gold Mines Ltd

  1997

  Tanzania

  Property

  International House Property Ltd

  1997

  Uganda

  Property

  Rwenzori Courts Limited

  1997

  Zimbabwe

  Agribusiness

  Lake Harvest Aquaculture (Pvt) Ltd

  1997

  Indonesia

  Agribusiness

  PT Harapan Sawit Lestari

  1997

  Philippines

  Cement

  Alsons Cement Corporation

  1997

  Philippines

  Power

  Mirant Sual Corporation

  1997

  Solomon Islands

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Gold Ridge Mining Ltd

  1997

  Bolivia

  Other Sectors

  Sociedad Boliviana de Cemento, SA

  1997

  Nicaragua

  Agribusiness

  Tip Top Industrial SA

  1997

  Sri Lanka

  Power

  Asia Power (Pvt) Ltd

  1998

  Ghana

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Satellite Goldfields Ltd

  1998

  Mozambique

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Mozal SARL

  1998

  South Africa

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd

  1998

  Papua New Guinea

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Morobe Consolidated Goldfields Ltd

  1998

  Costa Rica

  Property

  Torre Mercedes SA

  1998

  India

  Power

  Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd

  1999

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Power

  Azito Energie SA

  1999

  Indonesia

  Agribusiness

  PT Agro Indomas

  1999

  Indonesia

  Agribusiness

  PT Harapan Sawit Lestari

  1999

  Guatemala

  Power

  Orzunil 1 SA

  1999

  Guyana

  Power

  Americas and Caribbean Power Ltd

  1999

  Nicaragua

  Power

  Empresa Energetica Corinto Ltd

  2000

  Kenya

  Other Sectors

  The Junction Ltd

  2000

  Kenya

  Power

  Tsavo Power Co Ltd

  2000

  South Africa

  Infrastructure

  Comazar (Pty) Ltd

  2000

  Zambia

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Konkola Copper Mines Ltd

  2000

  Indonesia

  Agribusiness

  PT Asiatic Persada

  2000

  Bolivia

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Compania Minera Colquiri S.A.

  2000

  Dominican Republic

  Power

  Hart Energy Haina Ltd

  2000

  Dominican Republic

  Power

  La Compania de Electricidad de San Pedro de Macoris

  2000

  Guatemala

  Power

  Puerto Quetzal Power Ltd Liability Company

  2001

  Sri Lanka

  Infrastructure

  South Asia Gateway Terminals (Pvt) Ltd

  2001

  South Africa

  Minerals Oil & Gas

  Aquarius Platinum Ltd

  2001

  Tanzania

  Power

  Songas Company Ltd

  2001

  Nicaragua

  Power

  Empresa Energetica Corinto Ltd

  2001

  Sri Lanka

  Power

  Ace Power Generation Anuradhapura (Pvt) Ltd

  2001

  Sri Lanka

  Power

  Ace Power Generation Matara (Pvt) Ltd

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list the investments visited by CDC Capital Partners for monitoring purposes; and how many times each has been visited since 1997. [67362]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: It is not possible to answer this question without disproportionate cost.
  580W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list, by country, the publicly guaranteed debt owed to CDC Capital Partners. [67386]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: As part of CDC's restructuring efforts, all outstanding public sector loans, guaranteed by host governments, were transferred to the Department for International Development in 2000. Therefore, there is no publicly guaranteed debt owed to CDC Capital Partners.

  The Government does not stand as guarantor for any debt owed to CDC.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list the funds containing private capital(a) managed and (b) joint-managed by CDC Capital Partners; and how much capital has been in each fund since 1997. [67364]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Between 1997 and 2000, CDC Capital Partners did not jointly manage any private equity funds. In 2001 CDC formed a joint venture fund management company with Norfund under the name Aureos Capital. A series of country funds which hitherto had been solely managed by CDC were rolled up as part of Aureos Capital and are now jointly managed.

  Funds containing private capital managed and joint-managed by CDC Capital Partners since 1997

  Country/region

  Launch date

  Size of fund (US$m)

  Managed regional funds

  South Asia Regional Fund

  South Asia

  1998

  108

  Comafin

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  1996

  60

  Managed country funds

  Enterprise Capital Fund

  South Africa

  1995

  20

  Managed and transferred to Aureos in 2001 (2001 onwards—joint management with Norfund)

  Central America Investment

  Costa Rica

  1996

  26.4

  Facility

  Ghana Venture Capital Fund

  Ghana

  1992

  5.8

  Acacia Fund

  Kenya

  1996

  19.7

  Indian Ocean Regional Fund

  Mauritius

  1999

  18.0

  Mauritius Venture Capital Fund

  Mauritius

  1995

  7.5

  Mozambique Investment

  Mozambique

  1998

  14.0

  Company

  Kula Fund

  Pacific Islands

  1997

  16.9

  NDBVI (Sri Lanka) "B" and

  Sri Lanka

  1993

  16.7

  Ayojana Fund

  Tanzania Venture Capital Fund

  Tanzania

  1993

  7.6

  Fedha Fund

  Tanzania

  1998

  13.0

  Zambia Venture Capital Fund

  Zambia

  1996

  12.5

  Takura Fund

  Zimbabwe

  1996

  6.3

  Aureos Capital Fund

  2002

  33

  Jointly managed with CGU in China

  CGU-CDC China Investment

  China

  2000

  100

  Company

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what discussions she has had with CDC Capital Group board members regarding annual performance-related bonuses to CDC Capital Group executives. [67372]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: There have been periodic discussions over the last two years between my Department, the Treasury and senior CDC
  581W
  management about the Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), which has been approved on an annual basis. Otherwise annual performance bonuses to CDC staff are the responsibility of the Board of CDC and its Remuneration Committee.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what proportion of CDC Capital Partners'(a) retail and (b) healthcare investments are in (i) low-income and (ii) least-developed nations. [67392]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: CDC has no retail or healthcare investments in low-income or least-developed countries.

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

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: It is not possible to answer this question without disproportionate cost.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's review period for the financial advice service provider in relation CDC Capital Partners(a) began and (b) ends. [69056]

  Clare Short
  An advertisement was submitted to the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) on 5 June inviting expressions of interest. The new contract is due to be awarded from 1 August 2002.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will renew the contract of CDC Capital Partners' chief executive. [69052]

  Clare Short
  The Chief Executive's contract is with CDC, not with my Department. The contract is automatically renewed unless either side (the employer or the employee) serves notice.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who(a) has participated and (b) will participate in selecting a financial advice service provider in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69044]

  Clare Short
  An advertisement was submitted to the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) on 5 June, in accordance with EU procurement rules, inviting expressions of interest. Formal bids have yet to be considered. The independent member on the evaluation panel has yet to be decided.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Treasury regarding her Department's solicitation of financial advice service providers in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69060]

  Clare Short
  No discussions have been held with the Treasury about the re-tendering of the financial advice consultancy to DFID for work on CDC. The Treasury has been kept informed about the exercise.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the status is of CDC Capital Partners'(a) chief executive and (b) chairman. [69050]
  582W
  Clare Short
  Information about the Chairman and the Chief Executive is contained in the annual review for 2001. Copies of this are available in the Library of the House.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what tenders criteria her Department uses in selecting financial advice service providers in relation to CDC Capital Partners; [69042]

  (2) what criteria were used in selecting a financial advice service provider in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69043]

  Clare Short
  Formal bids will be assessed according the following criteria:

  a. Demonstrated experience and knowledge of personnel and firm in (a) corporate finance, (b) private equity investment management (c) private equity and other funding instruments, (d) fund management contracts, (e) fund performance assessment. (f) incentivisation arrangement for fund managers and other personnel, (g) negotiation of transactions in these and related fields, and (h) access to current information on markets parameters and trends. (15 per cent).

  b. Demonstrated experience and knowledge in capital markets and investment conditions in the poorer developing countries. (10 per cent)

  c. Demonstrated capability to access potential UK and international investors and partners for CDC, including institutional investors, development finance institutions, and corporate investors. (5 per cent)

  d. Demonstrated recent experience and understanding of UK Government PPPs and privatisations. (20 per cent)

  e. Demonstrated appreciation of DFID's approach to pro-poor private sector development and the role of CDC in this context. (10 per cent)

  f. Methodology of work proposed. (5 per cent)

  g. Total cost, fees, average daily rates, number of days offered, special contractual conditions. (35 per cent)

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which financial advice service providers followed up on their expressions of interest regarding providing financial advice in relation to CDC Capital Partners; and when the follow-ups took place. [69058]

  Clare Short
  One firm of consultants, following its expression of interest, approached the department with a query about the form in which its proposal should be submitted. It would not be appropriate to identify the firm, and the query was answered promptly. A further firm, which was not invited to make a formal bid, has also now approached the Department to ask why it was not short-listed. The closing date for receiving bids was 18 July.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department expects to complete the tender for providing financial advice in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69054]

  Clare Short
  It is currently envisaged that the contract will be awarded on 25 July, with the new contract taking effect from 1 August 2002.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of CDC Capital
  583W
  Partners in improving the export competitiveness of lesser developed countries; and if she will make a statement. [69172]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the background investigations performed on service providers tendering expressions of interest in providing financial advice in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69046]

  Clare Short
  None. No background investigations have been performed.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received regarding private investors' expressions of investment interest in CDC Capital Partners since 1999; and which private investors expressed investment interest and when. [69049]

  Clare Short
  No direct representations have been received.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what responses she has received, and when, to her Department's notice seeking expressions of interest from financial advice service providers in providing her Department with financial advice in relation CDC Capital Partners. [69057]

  Clare Short
  As the re-tendering exercise is currently in progress, it would not be appropriate to divulge this information.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the current performance of CDC Capital Partners' chief executive would trigger a bonus payment. [69053]

  Clare Short
  Yes. The Chief Executive is eligible for a bonus along with all other CDC employees. Criteria are set each year in line with CDC's business plan. The amount is determined by the Remuneration Committee and, in the case of the Chief Executive, may be discussed with the Department.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the real terms expenditure of CDC Capital Partners was on(a) publicity, (b) advertising and (c) press and public relations in each of the financial years since 1997; and what the figures are for the present year. [69171]

  Clare Short
  An exact breakdown is not available except at disproportionate cost. CDC retained a UK public relations agency in 1997 and 1998, but stopped their services in mid 1999.

  CDC uses consultancies on a project basis, as and when required. CDC has no advertising/sponsorship campaign in place.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how long the contract is for the financial advice service provider in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69045]

  Clare Short
  It is currently intended that the contract will be for 24 months, with the possibility of an extension for up to twelve months.
  584W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with CDC Capital Partners' senior executives regarding her Department's tender for financial advisers in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69061]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the contract of CDC Capital Partners' chief executive expires. [69051]

  Clare Short
  The contract of the Chief Executive would normally expire on his 60th birthday unless terminated earlier.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the financial advice service providers with whom her Department is negotiating to provide financial advice in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69059]

  Clare Short
  It would not be appropriate to divulge which firms have been invited to tender for the financial advice consultancy.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the external consultants and advisors retained and used by her Department in respect of its plans to tender for financial advice in relation to CDC Capital Partners. [69055]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the implementation CDC Capital Partners privatisation plan. [69047]

  Clare Short
  In the current market conditions, the Government does not believe that it will be possible to sell a majority of CDC's shares in the near future at a price that represents good value for the development assistance programme. We are therefore exploring alternative ways to achieve the objective of the Public Private Partnership, to mobilise increased investment for the benefit of poorer developing countries.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's criteria are for private investors in CDC Capital Partners. [69048]

  Clare Short
  The willingness of private investors to invest in CDC or to work with CDC in joint ventures or at project level is entirely a commercial matter. Investors will, at the outset, be aware of the distinctive nature of CDC, and its commitment to investing for the benefit of developing countries and to ethical business principles.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information she has collated in respect of the humanitarian situation in the Sud Kivu region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and if she will make a statement. [70329]

  Clare Short
  We are trying to monitor recent developments in Sud Kivu, particularly the renewed fighting in the Hauts Plateaux region, although the current insecurity and problems of access have made it difficult for the international community to obtain a full picture
  585W
  of what is happening. We are aware of the distressing humanitarian situation for the many people who appear to have been displaced by the recent fighting there. Together with the wider international community and the UN we are pressing for the cessation of all fighting in the eastern DRC, the full implementation of the Lusaka peace accords and for the armed groups to allow full humanitarian access to the areas affected.

  We are helping to fund a range of humanitarian support in the Kivus through the UN and international NGOs. My officials are presently visiting this region to monitor progress on current projects, and for discussions with local and international NGOs on the scope for further DFID support for peace and reconciliation-related activities in the area.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the importance of economic factors in respect of the continuing violence in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [70330]

  Clare Short
  The primary factor in the continuing violence in eastern DRC is the absence of a political settlement between the main parties to the conflict and the attempt by forces that supported the genocide in Rwanda to invade the country. The final report of the UN Panel on resource exploitation in the DRC is due in the autumn. We shall study the report carefully and participate fully in the Security Council's deliberations on its recommendations. We are very conscious that the sad history of the Congo has meant that these resources have never been used for the benefit of the people of the Congo. We continue to believe that the surest way of converting resource exploitation into legitimate trade to benefit the Congolese people is to achieve an end to the conflict and restore peace in the region.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has made to(a) the Government of Rwanda and (b) the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie—Goma on the importance of maintaining peace and security in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [70331]

  Clare Short
  My Department maintains regular dialogue with all parties to the conflict in the DRC, including the Government of Rwanda and RCD-Goma. We strongly support the full implementation of the Lusaka accords in order to achieve a lasting peace for the DRC and the wider Great Lakes region.

  Angola
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the recent warning by the United Nations on the number of people in Angola facing starvation. [70236]

  Clare Short
  According to the United Nations, half a million people are facing starvation in Angola and more than a million others are completely dependent on food aid for their survival. The end of the long running civil war has increased the number of people within the reach of the humanitarian agencies by between two million and three million in a matter of months. The needy are widely scattered, with a greater range of needs than ever before.
  586W
  We are trying to respond as quickly and flexibly as possible. We have so far contributed £1.7 million to the 2002 United Nations appeals for Angola to ensure that critical humanitarian needs are met and to assist in the reception areas for ex UNITA fighters and their families. We await a further UN appeal, which is due later this month. We have also committed over £2 million to the ICRC and MSF, who are at the forefront of the humanitarian response

  Zimbabwe
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received that refugees in the Tongogara camp have been sexually abused by relief workers affiliated to non-Governmental organisations. [71127]

  Clare Short
  We understand that the allegations in this case, which relate to a camp in Zimbabwe, have been investigated and that two members of staff of the organisation involved have been dismissed.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) which non-Governmental organisations the Government are assisting to help small scale farmers revive maize production in Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement on these projects; [70889]

  (2) which non-Governmental organisations the Government are assisting to help poor farmers in the communal areas to increase food production in Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement on these projects. [70894]

  Clare Short
  The next season for dryland maize planting, which is mostly carried out by small scale farmers in the rural areas, starts in October. We are discussing with a number of NGOs proposals for inputs for planting, and will make allocations shortly.

  Burundi
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to aid the economy of Burundi; and if she will make a statement. [70264]

  Clare Short
  The UK does not have extensive developmental links with Burundi. We are supporting international efforts to promote an end to conflict and achieve a secure and lasting peace, which we believe is a necessary prerequisite for sustained economic development. We are at the same time supporting humanitarian programmes through non-governmental channels.

  The UK has pledged a contribution of just over $1 million towards the Burundi Multilateral Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). This has recently been established with the objective of providing transitional debt relief to Burundi during the period leading to its access to the Enhanced Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, and to increased inflows of donor assistance. The MDTF will help enable the country's debt to international financial institutions to be serviced in a timely manner. This is supplementary to the £3 million we are planning to spend in bilateral assistance and our

  587W
  contributions to the EU in this financial year. We will also be posting a DFID representative to Burundi to help in the process of donor re-engagement there.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information her Department has collated in respect of the recent numbers of extra-judicial killings by the Burundian army; and if she will make a statement. 170327]

  Clare Short
  I am not aware of any recent extra-judicial killings by the Burundian army.

  We are however aware of continuing fighting between the Burundian army and Burundian rebel groups and that there has been a recent escalation both around the capital in Bujumbura Rural province, and in the southeast of the country. We welcome the prospect of all the Burundian parties meeting later this month in Tanzania under the auspices of the Arusha Process facilitators to address outstanding issues delaying a full peace agreement.

  Food Shortages (Africa)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the barriers preventing the transportation of the surplus in cereal production in northern Mozambique to areas of the country facing food shortages; what steps her Department is taking to overcome these barriers; and if she will make a statement. [70872]

  Clare Short
  Along with relevant Government Departments, other donors and NGO's, DFID supported a recent FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission in Mozambique. The mission confirmed the forecast export surplus of about 100,000 tonnes of maize, available following increased cereal production in the northern region.

  Logistics and traditional trading patterns will result in most of Mozambique's surplus being exported to Malawi and other neighbouring countries — the worst affected countries in the region.

  Compared with imported South African grain, high internal transport costs make it uncompetitive to move the maize surplus from the north to deficit areas in the south and parts of the central region. The shortfall in these areas is expected to be covered mainly by food aid and commercial imports. This strategy takes into account the regional context as well as consideration of the options for alleviation within Mozambique.

  DFID is commissioning a short consultancy to advise on the most effective contribution we can make to alleviation and future prevention of the Mozambique food security crisis.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her counterparts in European Union countries on the World Health Organisation appeal for additional resources to help combat starvation in southern Africa. [70494]

  Clare Short
  We expect the health elements of the crisis to be covered in the country appeals due to be presented this week, and will then consult with other donors on our response.

  Northern Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the potential for political conflict arising from a shortage of water in northern Africa; and if she will make a statement. [70492]

  Clare Short
  My Department is supporting international partnerships advocating integrated water resource management, and is sponsoring research projects looking at ways in which management of transboundary waters can lead to reduced tensions.

  The ten countries in the Nile basin recognise the need to work together to manage Nile waters for poverty alleviation, resource protection, and mutually beneficial gains. Working with the World Bank, they have set up the Nile Basin Initiative to pursue the sustainable development and management of the Nile waters. The UK fully supports these efforts.

  DFID is providing some funds for the Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office (ENTRO) in Addis Ababa, and plans to support two projects in the Shared Vision Programme, designed to build confidence and the capacity of Nile countries to work effectively together on Nile management.

  Uganda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being given to the people of Northern Uganda affected by the civil war between the Ugandan Government and the Lord's Resistance Army. [71369]

  Clare Short
  Since 2000, DFID has committed almost £2m for conflict resolution programmes in the area. In addition, as an initial short-term response to the recent escalation in insecurity, DFID are providing humanitarian supplies for displaced persons through UNICEF, and supporting a programme for child welfare.

  Malawi
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the total monetary value of the aid given by the British Government to Malawi in the last financial year; and if she will list the three most important items of this aid. [70763]

  Clare Short
  Provisional figures indicate that the government provided £48 million to Malawi in the financial year 2001–02. This included £12.5 million in direct budget support. The three most important expenditures by value are in health, education and rural livelihoods sectors.

  Environmental Know How Fund
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 959W, what recommendations were published for, and what assessment she has made of, her Department's involvement in the Environment Poverty Workshop in Albania during 2001–02. [71250]
  589W
  Clare Short
  The purpose of the Government of Albania, DFID and World Bank Poverty and Environment Workshop was to sensitise and raise awareness among a broad stakeholder group of the issues and links surrounding effective environmental management, poverty reduction and economic growth in Albania. This was done in the context of Albania's preparation of a Poverty Reduction Strategy paper. The group agreed several recommendations which have not been published but which were taken into account in the preparation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy. A copy is in the Libraries of the House.

  As a result of my Department's involvement in the Workshop, a technical assistance programme has been developed with the Government of Albania, focused on institutionally developing and reforming the Ministry of Environment (formerly the National Environment Agency).

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 959W, which United Kingdom companies were involved with her Department's work in the Strengthening Partnerships for Municipal Sustainable Development project in Romania during 2001–02. [71249]

  Clare Short
  WS Aktkins International Limited.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 959W, if she will outline the (a) aims, (b) methodology and (c) outcomes of the Rural Livelihood Project. [71251]

  Clare Short
  1. The main aim of the Rural Partnerships Programme in the Baltics is to enhance the capacity of local communities to improve rural livelihoods on a sustainable basis.

  2. The methodology adopted by the project is centred on the use of participatory approaches for communities to assess their problems and needs, and plan and implement solutions and mechanisms for fuller representation through all levels of government. The project provides a range of experts and practitioners of community development and participatory processes, local government, regional development and EU who are transferring knowledge and skills through a number of different ways eg workshops, training, study tours, focus groups and mentoring.

  3. The project is working towards achieving six outcomes:

  (i) Area based strategies for tackling rural poverty and social exclusion.

  (ii) Increased capacity within municipalities in applying participatory approaches and in accessing EU funds.

  (iii) Community based projects developed and implemented through partnerships between community groups, NGOs, municipalities and the private sector.

  (iv) Enhanced local skill base to manage and influence the rural development agenda.

  (v) Improved capacity of rural business support/employment services as effective partners in the local development process.

  (vi) National and Regional policy agenda and framework embrace inclusive area based partnership approaches to rural development.

  590W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 959W, which United Kingdom companies have been involved with her Department's work in the Capacity Building on the Public Private Partnership project in Romania during 2001–02. [71248]

  Clare Short
  Mott MacDonald Limited.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 959W, (a) what assessment she has made and (b) what recommendations her Department has made of the Rural Livelihood Project in (i) the Baltic states and (ii) Central and Eastern Europe in 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [71246]

  Clare Short
  The Baltics Rural Partnerships Programme was formally reviewed in October 2001 and has been monitored on a regular basis since then. It is an institutional building project focused at local and national levels with communities, government, NGOs and Civil Society to enhance the capacity of local communities to improve rural livelihoods. The project is assisting the authorities in the three Baltic countries to change the way regional planning is implemented in line with good EU practice by the introduction of a more participative and bottom-up approach to decision making processes.

  DFID assessments have shown that the project is providing value for money in terms of its impact on (i) the progress being made in building local capacity and networks and (ii) links being made into the national policy debate to inform regional policy in preparation for accession to the EU and future effective use of structural funds. Recommendations to the Baltic authorities are made through on-going dialogue between the relevant authorities and institutions in the Baltics and project managers.

  The regional Central and Eastern Europe project consisted of a study on the appropriateness of the rural livelihoods approach in transition economies. I will place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department provides to internally displaced people in Afghanistan. [71141]

  Clare Short
  Internally Displaced People (IDPs), are targeted by UN agencies, the Red Cross Movement and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for the urgent provision of humanitarian assistance. The Afghan Transitional Administration and the international community are working to ensure the reintegration of uprooted Afghans — both IDPs and refugees — who wish to return home. Programmes coordinated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) are underway to facilitate return, build the capacity of communities to absorb returning families, and integrate short-term programmes with longer-term strategies to ensure sustainable reintegration of returnees. Since
  591W
  September 2001, my Department has contributed £5 million to UNHCR and £4.6 million to IOM for their programmes in the region.

  Pacific Rim Plantation
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received regarding(a) erosion and (b) soil degradation resulting from the Pacific Rim Plantation. [69040]

  Clare Short
  In 2000 my Department received representations from Down to Earth and a number of Indonesian NGOs about possible deforestation/land issues at two palm oil plantations in which CDC had invested in Indonesia. In 2001 representations were received from Friends of the Earth concerning deforestation issues in Papua New Guinea. I am content that CDC looked into the allegations fully.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received regarding the Pacific Rim Plantations environmental effect on Queen Alexandra's Birdwing butterfly habitat. [69039]

  Clare Short
  In 2001 my Department received representations by Friends of the Earth in relation to conservation of the Queen Alexandra's Birdwing Butterfly. The butterfly's habitat is in a province of Papua New Guinea where CDC has invested in the establishment of new oil palm plantations.

  Great Lakes Region
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the(a) World Bank and (b) IMF policy towards states in the Great Lakes region. [70328]

  Clare Short
  The World Bank and IMF both have key roles to play in the Great Lakes region in supporting programmes for the demobilisation and reintegration of armed groups, post-conflict reconstruction and longer term economic development, and I believe the two institutions are approaching these tasks constructively. However the primary requirement remains to achieve a settlement of the Great Lakes conflict, without which no regeneration programmes can be successful. We continue to believe that full re-engagement by the Bank and IMF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo should be contingent upon achievement of an inclusive political settlement as provided for under the Lusaka peace accords.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how long her Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form; [70467]

  (2) whether consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations;
  592W
  (3) in what format her Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations; [70469]

  (4) how many consultation documents published in 2001 in (a) electronic and (b) printed form her Department has monitered and evaluated in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations; [70470]

  (5) how many complaints her Department has received about its 2001 consultations in (a) electronic and (b) printed form; [70471]

  (6) which consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies; [70472]

  (7) whether her Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70473]

  Clare Short
  We attach considerable importance to engaging with a wide range of groups across society on our international development work, for example through our Development Policy Forums, publications and briefing notes on major international meetings. However, the nature of the issues for which my department is responsible mean that formal consultation processes are likely to be of interest only to a limited range of people. So while we take account of the principles set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations, and have appointed a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Code, we do not regard our consultation activities as generally falling within the full provisions of the Code.

  In 2001 we carried out limited consultations on one DFID Target Strategy Paper:
  (a) "Meeting the Challenge of Urban Poverty" which was made available for public consultation from November 2000 until 12 January 2001. The final document was published in April 2001.

  The consultation document was made available in print, and in electronic form via the DFID website. It is DFID practice to make consultation documents available in print and on line until the publication of the finished document. No complaints were received in 2001 regarding this document. At the close of the consultation period the results were published as a final DFID Target Strategy Paper.

  HIV/AIDS
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money the Government have spent on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programmes in developing countries in each year since 1997. [70493]

  Clare Short
  Under my department's bilateral programmes we have spent the following amounts on HIV/AIDS related work in developing countries;

  £million

  1997–98

  38

  1998–99

  45

  1999–2000

  75

  2000–01

  125

  2001–02

  200 (provisional)

  593W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 11 July, ref 68323, on HIV/AIDS, on what occasions HIV/AIDS related projects funded by her Department have been changed following impact assessments. [71136]

  Clare Short
  Examples of changes made to our HIV/AIDS programmes following impact assessments include:

  1. Zambia—a project to inform adolescents about HIV/AIDS was not reaching its intended audience. We have since co-funded a follow-on project which is better .designed to reach young adults through their peers.

  2. Cambodia—a brand of condom targeted at young people was found to be too closely associated with commercial sex. Consideration is being given to how the brand of condom can be repositioned.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 11 July, 2002, ref. 68323, on HIV/AIDS, what action her Department is taking to ensure information of good practice in high impact projects is shared for the benefit of other projects seeking to tackle the HIV/AIDS virus. [71135]

  Clare Short
  Regular contact between sectoral and geographical departments, including through our HIV/AIDS multi-sectoral task force, helps ensure that lesson learnt about the epidemic are disseminated widely, both internally and externally to DFID. Our communications systems have also been improved significantly and provide ready access to up to date technical guidance (including UNAIDS' best practice) and lessons learned from programmes. We are also working closely with other government departments to ensure a consistent government approach to the epidemic.

  Medicines
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what records her Department keeps of the(a) quantity and (b) type of medicines donated by UK drugs companies to developing countries. [70499]

  Clare Short
  The Government does not keep records of the quantity or type of medicines donated by UK drugs companies to developing countries.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps she is taking to prevent the donation of expired and nearly expired medicines to developing countries; [70496]

  (2) what guidelines exist to ensure that medicines donated by UK drugs companies to developing countries are suitable for the needs of the recipient country; [70507]

  (3) what steps she is taking to ensure medicines donated to developing countries are (a) properly labelled and (b) written in the language of the recipient country. [70497]

  Clare Short
  My Department worked closely with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to produce their "Guidelines for Drug Donations".
  594W
  The WHO guidelines clearly set out inter alia that drug donations should: constitute a sustainable contribution to government health strategies in developing countries; be based on need and relevant to the disease pattern of recipient countries; have at least 1 year remaining shelf life; be of a quality which complies with the standards of donor and recipient countries; be properly labelled and written in the language of the recipient country; and only provided after consultation and at the request of the recipient.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact the donation of free medicines from drug companies has had on local drugs markets in developing countries. [70498]

  Clare Short
  The Government worked closely with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to produce their guidelines on drug donations. These guidelines clearly set out that drug donations should only be provided after consultation and at the request of the recipient.

  WHO is responsible for monitoring the impact of drug donations on developing countries. In discussions with them, we have received no evidence that UK donations have undermined local drug markets.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report for each of the past five years. [70480]

  Clare Short
  The cost of publishing my Department's Annual Report for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £'000

  1998

  34

  1999

  65

  2000

  98

  2001

  107

  2002

  82

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average processing time was for housing benefit in each local authority area in Scotland for each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement. [69491]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Prior to the introduction of Best Value performance indicators in April 2000, information was not collected from local authorities on the length of time taken to process Housing Benefit claims.

  Performance indicators for Scotland are the responsibility of the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Information on the average time taken by each local authority in Scotland to process new Housing Benefit claims for 2000–01 is in the Accounts Commission publication "Performance Indicators 2000–01: Benefits, Finance and Corporate Issues", a copy of which is available in the Library.
  595W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of housing benefit claimants received their payment within the Government's 14-day target in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [65861]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when findings from the housing benefit review will be published. [61384]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The first publication of findings from the housing benefit review is expected in Autumn 2003.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions for fraud were undertaken by staff employed by his Department and its agencies in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and how many of these were successful. [69858]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 July 20021: In each year since 1997, over 98 per cent of prosecutions carried out by the Department and its agencies have resulted in convictions. Information on the number of prosecutions is in the table.

  Department for Work and Pensions investigations

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution

  Total

  1997–98

  11,700

  —

  11,700

  1998–99

  10,238

  2,835

  13,073

  1999–2000

  9,124

  11,029

  20,153

  2000–01

  11,403

  15,555

  26,958

  Source:

  Benefit Fraud Investigation Service and Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service

  Notes:

  (1) The data on cautions and penalties for 1998–99 is derived from the database preceding the current database and there may be some overlap with 1999–2000.

  (2) Administrative penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act (1997) with effect from December 1998.

  (3) From 1 April 2002, the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service became the Counter Fraud Investigation Service and the Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service became the Counter Fraud Investigation Division Operations.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of benefit fraud were established as a result of investigations carried out by the Benefits Agency in each year since 1997; and how many of these resulted in prosecutions. [45329]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For the number of cases of benefit fraud established as a result of investigations carried out by the Benefits Agency in each year since 1997 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Nick Gibb) on 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 88W.
  596W
  For the number of prosecutions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Nick Gibb) on 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 923W.

  Benefits Take-up
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of(a) the numbers of persons eligible for benefit who have not taken up their entitlement and (b) the total value of unclaimed benefits. [69734]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest available information is published in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-Up 1999–2000", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Alignment Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list all of the circumstances in which(a) interim payments and (b) alignment payments are made. [67859]

  Malcolm. Wicks
  Interim payments are discretionary payments on account of benefit which can be made to avoid hardship where the Decision Maker is satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement for the benefit are met. Interim payments can be made in a number of circumstances:

  where a benefit claim has been made but cannot immediately be determined and the delay is not the fault of the customer;

  in an emergency. This covers a variety of different situations from civil emergencies to industrial action;

  where a claim has not been made in the correct manner but it is not the fault of the customer, for example because the claim form has been completed incorrectly by a visiting officer;

  while an appeal is ongoing but the customer clearly has some residual entitlement to benefit;

  Interim payments follow the same payment cycles and periods as the main benefit being claimed and are not made before the person's first benefit pay day. The amount of any payment is recoverable from the main benefit when it is awarded.

  "Alignment payment" is an administrative term used to describe Social Fund crisis loans made to help with day to day living expenses to people awaiting a first payment of benefit which is paid in arrears. Any crisis loans made under these circumstances will cover the recipients' needs until their first benefit pay day, following which full or interim payments of benefit can he made. Alignment payments can also be made to people moving from benefit into work who need financial help until they receive their first wage.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 95W, on alignment payments, over what time alignment payments have to be repaid. [67861]
  597W
  Malcolm Wicks
  As with all Social Fund loans, the period over which crisis loan alignment payments are repaid varies depending upon the size of the loan and the weekly repayment rate. Repayment rates are flexible and take account of each individual's financial position.

  New Deal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of those going through the new deal for(a) long-term 25-plus, (b) 50-plus, (c) lone parents and (d) new deal 18–24 left for (i) unsubsidised employment, (ii) transferred to another benefit, (iii) left for an unknown reason and (iv) left for an unknown destination in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [66822]

  Destination of participants leaving New Deal programmes (April 2001–March 2002)

  Programme

  Total Leavers

  per cent of leavers moving into unsubsidised employment

  per cent of leavers moving on to other benefits

  per cent of leavers moving for other known reason1

  per cent of leavers moving to unknown destinations2

  New Deal for Young People

  178.500

  37.2

  11.6

  19.7

  31.5

  New Deal 25 plus

  63.600

  29.7

  21.2

  29.7

  19.4

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  90.720

  57.4

  1.1

  34.0

  7.5

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Notes:

  1Other known reasons include moving into education or training or moving abroad.

  2Includes participants leaving the New Deal programmes for an unknown reason.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest assessment is of the implementation costs of the Universal Bank. [70017]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Contracts are in place between the Government and Post Office Ltd for the provision of the new card account at the Post Office. Elements of the set-up costs are included in the contract, but information on detailed implementation costs is a commercial matter for Post Office Ltd.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the Universal Bank towards meeting its April 2003 deadline for the provision of banking services to benefit claimants; [70014]

  (2) what progress is being made with the Universal Bank; and if he will make a statement; [70018]

  (3) what his assessment is of the viability of the April 2003 implementation date for the Universal Bank; [70019]

  (4) what contingency plans are in place should the April 2003 deadline for the payment of all benefits via automated credit transfer not be met. [70020]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on Friday 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 630W.
  598W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the destination of people leaving New Deal 50 plus is not available. The only measure of participation in the programme is the number of people who move into work and claim the programme's in-work financial support, the Employment Credit. Up to April 2002, nearly 70,000 people had been helped into work through New Deal 50plus.

  The information on the other New Deals is in the table. In addition to those leaving for unsubsidised employment, independent surveys have shown that a significant proportion of leavers to unknown destinations also find work. For example, over 50 per cent of people leaving New Deal for Young People for unknown destinations move into work.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of benefit recipients received their benefit payments via automated credit transfer in each year since the introduction of ACT. [70013]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Brian Cotter) on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1263W.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people receive benefits by(a) automated credit transfer and (b) other methods, broken down in each case into recipients of each of the main benefits. [68485]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Statistical information, by benefit, is collected quarterly on the number of customers currently receiving benefit by ACT and other methods.

  The table below is based on information available at March 2002 and shows the number of people that receive their benefits by ACT and other methods of payment, broken down into each of the main benefits.

  For ease of reference, the figures have been rounded to the nearest 5,000 and the numbers paid by other methods are mainly by order book and girocheques with a small number of payable orders.
  599W

  Benefit

  Customers

  Number Paid by ACT

  Number Paid by Other Methods

  Attendance Allowance

  430,000

  280,000

  150,000

  Child Benefit

  7,005,000

  3,145,000

  3,860,000

  Disability Living Allowance

  1,925,000

  795,000

  1,130,000

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,465,000

  485,000

  980,000

  Income Support

  3,950,000

  695,000

  3,255,000

  Invalid Care Allowance

  400,000

  75,000

  325,000

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  800,000

  208,000

  590,000

  Retirement Pension, Widows Benefit & Bereavement Benefit

  10,250,000

  5.175,000

  5,075,000

  Veterans Agency (War Pension)

  270,000

  155,000

  115,000

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many, and what proportion of, benefit claimants have had bank accounts that are compatible with automated credit transfer in each year since 1997. [68484]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The table below sets out the number and percentage of benefit customers with access to ACT compatible bank accounts. These are estimated figures, taken from the annual Family Resources Survey. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Year

  Customers with ACT Number

  Compatible Accounts Percentage

  1997–98

  17,830,000

  83

  1998–99

  17,920,000

  84

  1999–2000

  17,830,000

  84

  2000–01

  17,590,000

  83

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in discussions with the European Commission about winter fuel payments being available to people in EEA countries. [72209]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have now concluded our discussions with the European Commission with regard to the extent of the UK Government's responsibilities under European law. As a result, generally EEA nationals who first qualify for a Winter Fuel Payment in the UK and currently reside in another EEA country may now be entitled to Winter Fuel payments. We will publicise the change, and give details of the claims procedure.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to introduce further measures to give the Child Support Agency power to take action against parents not paying their rightful alimony; [67043]

  (2) what action he will take to provide further support to single parents whose former partners are avoiding paying their rightful contribution to their child's upbringing. [67044]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The purpose of the child support reforms is to ensure that more children receive the maintenance that is their right.

  To achieve this, the Government has legislated, in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, for a new child support scheme. This is simpler than the
  600W
  current scheme. This reduction in complexity will translate into fewer resources being required for initial and further assessment of cases, enabling more resources to be put into ensuring that liabilities are enforced.

  To support the Child Support Agency in its administration of the new scheme, a new IT system is being built. The new scheme will only be introduced when the technical backup necessary to make a success of the scheme is in place. The combination of modern technology, informing the staff of the Child Support Agency of a failure to pay maintenance, and the Agency having more resources to act on that information, should ensure that maintenance due to children is paid.

  In further support of the new scheme, to deter those seeking to avoid their responsibilities, section 13 of the Act created two new criminal offences, of failing to give information and of knowingly giving false information. Conviction for either of these offences carries fines of up to £1,000. The provision has been in force since last year.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to introduce the changes to the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [70799]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made to the House on 20 March 2002 by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State (Mr. Darling),Official Report, columns 315–324W.

  Decision Making
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish his report into the standards of decision making in the Benefits Agency, Child Support Agency and Employment Service for 2000–01. [72210]

  Maria Eagle
  The report has been laid before Parliament today (HC 1017).

  This is the first report under the new decision making and appeals system introduced by the Social Security Act 1998. It covers the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, the first full year of operation of the new regime. The report shows variable standards in performance. As the report explains, steps have been taken to improve performance in all areas.

  Post Office (Cash Payments)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what actions his Department is taking to promote the use by benefit and pension recipients of cash payments from post offices from 2003 onwards. [70847]
  601W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Brian Cotter) on 11 June 2002, Official Report, column 874W.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the percentage of benefit and pension recipients who will wish to collect their benefit moneys(a) in cash from a post office and (b) by ACT payments in (i) 2003, (ii) 2004, (iii) 2005, (iv) 2006 and (v) 2007. [70848]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Between 2003 and 2005 we will move to paying all benefits and pensions direct into bank accounts ("automated credit transfer" or ACT). Already over 40 per cent of customers are paid this way.

  Even where a customer is paid directly into an account, they can still collect their cash at the post office, either through existing Network Banking arrangements between Post Office Ltd and several banks or, from 2003, through universal banking services at post offices. We have not estimated how many customers will choose to access their accounts at post offices, but research suggests that many will do so.

  Pension Inquiry
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the recently started pension inquiry will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the methodology of this inquiry. [68993]

  Ruth Kelly
  I been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Bill Wiggin dated 9 July 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the pension inquiry. I am replying in his absence. (68993)
  The National Statistician announced the review of pension contribution statistics in a statement on 2 July. The terms of reference, which have been placed in the House of Commons Library, state that the review should be completed by the end of September 2002.
  The objectives of the review are:
  To establish what information is needed, in terms of frequency, scope and quality, and to advise on the best available data.
  To comment specifically on the quality, coverage and methodology of the range of sources of private pension contribution statistics available.
  To advise on how this data should be presented.
  To recommend appropriate action.
  The panel will include representatives from ONS, industry, academic experts, the Department for Work and Pensions, Inland Revenue, HM Treasury and the Government Actuary's Department.

  Title of consultation

  Start date

  End Date

  Period in weeks

  Reason for shorter consultation

  Changes to Invalid Care Allowance

  July 2001

  July 2001

  12

  Amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

  July 2001

  July 2001

  12

  Pensions Schemes
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to support defined benefit occupational pension schemes with taxation breaks. [69996]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government keeps all taxes under review as part of the normal Budget process.

  The Government already provides very generous tax relief to encourage saving in pensions for retirement, including upfront income tax relief and tax-free lump sums on retirement, at a cost to the Exchequer of over £14 billion a year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Coleman
  TO ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to adjust arrangements for council tax benefit restriction(a) thresholds and (b) caps in 2003–04. [68889]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 383W.

  Consultation Documents
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the public consulations undertaken by his Department since 1997, indicating for each consultation(a) if copies were available online, (b) if copies were available in print, (c) the date the time period given for responses opened and (d) the date the time period given for responses closed. [69802]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how long the Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70083]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government's code of practice applies to written consultations which have a national impact on policy and services from January 2001. The Department for Work and Pensions came into being in June 2001. All copies of consultation documents are published online on both the Department for Work and Pensions and UK Online websites. Paper copies are also available.

  The Department for Work and Pensions follows the Cabinet Office's guidance on written consultation that sets 12 weeks as the standard minimum period for a consultation. The table lists the consultations the Department has begun, or completed since 8 June 2001. There were two occasions where shorter consultations have been conducted, and the reasons for this are included in the table. All the Department's consultations are published electronically with paper copies available.
  603W

  Title of consultation

  Start date

  End Date

  Period in weeks

  Reason for shorter consultation

  The Minimum Funding Requirement: The next stage of reform. Consultation on the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2001 (Occupational Pensions Minimum funding requirements)

  September2001

  September2001

  12

  Occupational Pension Scheme Winding up Notices and Reports (etc) Regulations 2001

  August 2001

  October 2001

  12

  Occupational and Personal Pension schemes (Disclosure of Information) Amendment Regulations 2001

  August 2001

  November 2001

  12

  Private Pensions Simplification

  October

  January 2002

  14

  Bulk transfer of accrued pensions rights without member consent

  December 2001

  March 2002

  13

  Revised code of practice on for gathering of information as required in Social Security Fraud Act 2001

  April 2002

  April 2002

  2 weeks

  This was a follow-up to a previous exercise to which minor technical changes were introduced.

  Consultation on Three Recommendations in the Myners' report—"Institutional Investment in the UK—a review."

  February 2002

  May 2002

  12

  Member nominated trustees and directors

  February 2002

  March 2002

  4 weeks

  The shorter period was needed to fit into a regulatory timetable.

  Measuring Child Poverty

  April 2002

  July 2002

  12

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) quinquennial review

  May 2002

  August 2002

  12

  The future of the Residential Allowance component of Income Support, Minimum Income Guarantee and Jobseeker s Allowance

  May 2002

  August 2002

  14

  Equality, opportunity, and independence for all [RRAA]

  May 2002

  September

  17

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many consultation documents published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form his Department has monitored and evaluated in accordance with the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [69845]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In accordance with the Government's guidance on written consultation the Department for Work and Pensions evaluates all written consultation documents.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints his Department has received about its 2001 consultations by(a) electronic and (b) printed means. [69829]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Of the consultations published by the Department of Work and Pensions since its inception, we have received one complaint on one document. This concerned the clarity of the wording of a specific proposal. Officials ensured that the point was clarified and gave additional time for a response, resolving the issue to the satisfaction of all parties.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the EU Advisory Committee on incentives in the field of employment is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [67738]
  604W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Committee on Community measures in the field of employment is due to meet next on 12 November 2002. Each Member State can only have one representative and for the UK the representative is drawn from the Department for Work and Pensions. That is because the business of the Committee is largely about the European Employment Strategy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has lead responsibility for the Strategy. However, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Scottish Executive Ministers, Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Ministers also have an interest. There is close contact between relevant officials to ensure that Ministerial responsibility is properly represented.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the EU Committee of the European Social Fund 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. [67741]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Committee of the European Social Fund (ESF) is next due to meet on 27 September 2002. Representatives from the Scottish Executive have attended the Committee but are not members.

  Funeral Grant
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of an average funeral; what the value is of the funeral grant; what items it covers; and he will make a statement. [67596]
  605W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We are committed to providing a payment for a respectful funeral to people receiving income-related benefits or tax credits who have good reason for organising the funeral. Social Fund Funeral Payments provide help with necessary funeral charges; the items covered are set out in regulation 7 of the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987, as amended, which are available in the Library.

  In addition, up to £600 is allowed for other funeral expenses. This gives the person arranging the funeral the freedom to select the items or services they consider appropriate.

  Funeral arrangements vary widely in expense and type across the country and it is not possible to price an average funeral. However, the average Funeral Payment award in 2000–2001 was £892. We keep the level of support provided to people with funeral costs under review.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52836]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Details of subscriptions taken by the Department's library and legal library have been placed in the Library. Subscriptions may also be taken at local level and information about these is not collected centrally.

  Buildings Value
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the buildings owned by his Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66942]

  Time provided on Training for Judges in relation to Domestic Violence

  Course/Seminar Criminal Induction

  Lecture

  Group Discussion

  Criminal Induction

  Sentencing exercise (15 mins)

  Criminal Continuation

  Sentencing exercise (15 mins)

  Civil Induction

  Domestic Violence 15 mins

  Civil Induction

  Committals 15 mins

  Civil Continuation

  Judicial Responses to Violence in the Home. 45 mins

  Syndicate Exercises (45 mins)

  Induction Course for District Judges Authorised under Section 8 Children Act 1989

  Emergency Applications (45 mins)

  Syndicate Exercises (45 mins)

  Current Issues in Contact and Making Contact Work (20 mins)

  Seminar for Potential Care Judges

  Proof of Fact in Physical/Sexual Abuse (15 mins)

  Induction (Private Family Law)

  Proof of Fact in Physical/Sexual Abuse Cases (15mins) Applications for Contact (4 hours) This comprises a talk by a circuit Judge with particular reference to the decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Re LVMH, this report by Drs Sturge and Glaser and the Guidelines produced by the Advisory Board on Family Law. A talk by a Child psychiatrist and a plenary discussion Exclusion Orders and Non Molestation Orders (40 mins)

  Syndicate discussion (1 hour 30 mins)

  606W
  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary (Paul Boateng) on 3 July,Official Report, column 339W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many hours of training are provided for judges and magistrates in relation to domestic violence. [68318]

  Yvette Cooper
  Judicial Training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is an independent non-departmental public body. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller.

  All newly appointed part-time judges, and all judges who are authorised to hear family cases, are required to attend a residential Induction course in the relevant jurisdiction. Thereafter, both full- and part-time judges attend residential continuation seminars every 3 years in each jurisdiction they exercise. The amount of training time provided on Domestic Violence in JSB courses and seminars is shown in the annexed table. Many judges also attend locally organised conferences.

  In addition all full and part-time judges sitting in the Crown Court attend an annual one-day Circuit Seminar on sentencing issues, for which the theme last year was Domestic Violence. This provided, on average, up to 5 hours of additional training on this subject in 2000–2001

  Although the overall framework for the training of magistrates is set by the JSB, statutory responsibility for delivery of training lies with individual Magistrates' Courts Committees. Information on the number of hours training on domestic Information on the number of hours training on domestic violence provided to magistrates in each committee area could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  607W

  Time provided on Training for Judges in relation to Domestic Violence

  Course/Seminar

  Lecture

  Group Discussion

  Continuation (Private Family Law)

  Split Trials in Domestic Violence Cases (15 mins)

  Syndicate discussion (1 hour 30 mins)

  Psychiatric Perspective of Children with a Violent Parent (45 mins)

  Injunctions and Committals (1 hour)

  Open Source Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69321]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor's Department ICT Strategy (www.courtservice.gov.uk/info/reps/ict_strategy.pdf) is committed to the use of open standards and the Department will follow the Government policy on the use of Open Source Software which is due to be published later in the summer. The draft policy on this subject is currently available at http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_docu ment.asp?doc num=429.

  No percentage figures are available for usage within the Department, however the current deployment of Open Source Software is limited to a small number of specialist applications.

  County Court Judgments
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans there are to take payment of fines, pursuant to County Court judgments by switch and debit cards. [69975]

  Yvette Cooper
  County Court judgments are principally paid directly to the person who is owed the money. Court leaflets advise the defendant to liaise with the claimant on which method of payment is most suitable, but suggest using a method which provides proof of payment. The only circumstance where payment of a judgment debt will be accepted by a court is where enforcement has been initiated, for example through a bailiff's warrant. In 2000 the Court Service piloted a system which gave the defendant the option of paying his/her judgment debt by debit card. The take up rate of this service was very low so it was decided not to implement this system across the courts at that time. We will keep this issue under review.

  At present fines issued by county court judges for contempt of court can only be paid by cash or cheque. The Court Service is considering ways of providing court users with more choices in a number of areas, including payment methods. For instance, users can already issue a claim on line via the Internet and pay the fee for that claim using a debit or credit card.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what consultations were entered into with hon. Members prior to the second reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill[Lords]; [71262]
  608W
  (2) what research his Department has undertaken on open lists, with specific reference to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Lords]. [71263]

  Yvette Cooper
  The European Parliamentary Elections Bill is a consolidation Bill, which re-states in a single Bill the law currently contained in a number of Acts, without any change to its substance. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, a committee of both Houses, in the usual way.

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

  Yvette Cooper
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 July]: This information is currently not collected centrally. In 19941995, the Home Office conducted a survey of 2,000 offenders who appeared in means courts. It found that only 20 per cent of male and 11 per cent of female offenders in the sample had any sort of job. We are considering ways to collect more information on the means of offenders.

  Ambulance Staff (Attacks)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many offenders have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2002 for attacks against ambulance service staff. [71101]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply. The Crown Prosecution Service do not hold this information centrally and could only provide it at a disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost to his Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) south-east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56514]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer of 16 May]: The cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from employing staff in London and the south east from employment agencies in each financial year since 1997 is as follows:
  609W

  Financial Year

  £

  1997–98

  445,944

  1998–99

  804,788

  1999–2000

  971,657

  2000–01

  1,255,817

  2001–02

  1,933,841

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by UK representatives to the UN Security Council concerning the General Secretary's special report on Western Sahara to be discussed on 31 July; and if he will make a statement. [70942]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Secretary General asked Security Council members to choose a suitable direction for his special envoy James Baker to pursue in helping the parties find a solution to the dispute in Western Sahara.

  We have been working with all Security Council members in New York and in their capitals, and have consulted the parties and interested observers in an effort to reach a consensus direction before 31 July.

  HMG continues to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General in trying to find a just and durable resolution to the dispute.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits to the Western Sahara have been made by UK diplomatic staff in the past year; which(a) individuals and (b) organisations they met; and if he will make a statement. [70943]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Five members of UK diplomatic staff from our Embassies in Rabat and New York have visited Western Sahara in the last year.

  The primary purpose of these was to visit MINURSO. Where time and schedules allowed they met as wide a range of Moroccan and Saharawi interests groups as possible. They also met UNHCR and OAU representatives.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Sudanese Government regarding its willingness to ratify the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [71371]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Sudanese government has signed the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Embassy in Khartoum has regularly lobbied the Government of Sudan to ratify the Convention. The Head of the joint FCO/DFID Sudan Unit also lobbied the Government of Sudan last month. We expect the Sudanese Government to present a Bill to Parliament in the near future.

  Indonesia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent violence in the Moluccas Islands directed towards Christians and other minorities by the 610W
  Liskar Jihad movement, and the breakdown of the Malino Peace Agreement between the Christian and Muslim communities. [70773]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Tensions remain high in the Moluccas with Christian and Muslim extremists trying to undermine the Malino Agreement. HMG deplores the continuing violence. The Indonesian Government is taking steps to improve coordination between the army, police and the civilian governor, including the appointment of a new regional military commander. A National Investigation Team has been appointed by the President to assess the progress of the Malino Agreement and to draw attention to areas of concern. We have offered to share with police officers in the Moluccas the UK experience of policing inter-communal conflict.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK Government are taking to encourage the Indonesian Government to promote inter-faith dialogue between the groups and to prosecute persons responsible for inciting violence between religious communities. [70774]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The FCO is sponsoring a visit to Indonesia by a mixed-faith delegation of Westminster Parliamentarians from 28 July to 2 August. The visit aims, amongst other things, to discuss inter-faith initiatives in Indonesia. The UK Government supports the Malino Agreement for the Moluccas and encourages the Indonesian Government to pursue inter-faith solutions to cummunal conflict.

  Indonesian authorities have arrested Laskar Jihad leader Ja'far Umar Thalib and Maluku Sovereignty Front leader Alex Manuputty, and are pursuing prosecutions against them. They have also sent additional judges and prosecuters to the Moluccas to tackle a back-log of criminal cases.

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nepal regarding reports of unlawful killings by Government security forces; and if he will make a statement. [71479]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have consistently made clear to the Nepalese government the need for Nepal to fulfill its international obligations in the field of human rights, and to investigate in a fair and transparent way any allegations of abuses of human rights. We have raised this issue with the Nepalese government at all levels and on numerous occasions. We have also lobbied in conjunction with other EU Member States to ensure the investigation of recent allegations of abuses by security forces in the Chitwan district—an investigation which led to disciplinary action being taken by the Army. We also lobbied for the investigation of recent allegations concerning the fate of the journalist Krishna Sen. We have made clear that continued international support for Nepal is dependent on firm action being taken to maintain human rights and investigate allegations of human rights abuses.

  China
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had during his visit to China about trade. [69698]
  611W
  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a substantive discussion with Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, during which our commercial interests in the oil and gas, ports and aerospace sectors were raised. In addition, the state of our bilateral commercial relationship was discussed more generally during talks with President Jiang Zemin.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send observers to the parliamentary elections in Macedonia on 15 September. [69778]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK attaches great importance to the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Macedonia. Holding these elections successfully and peacefully will be an important step in Macedonia's progress towards integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. To support this process, the UK will be sending seventy-five short-term observers (deployed for a week), two medium-term observers (for three weeks) and three long-term observers who will be on the ground for six weeks. This is, as is normal, 10 per cent of the OSCE total.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the Ankara Document laying out the participation of non-EU NATO member countries in the ESDP in the Library. [71564]

  Mr. Straw
  No. The arrangement for the participation of non-EU NATO member countries in ESDP are still under negotiation between the EU and NATO, and it would not assist the process of negotiation for the document to be made public.

  Export Controls
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on strategic export controls will be published. [72211]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The 2001 annual report on Strategic Export Controls is being published today. It covers arms export licensing decisions and exports in 2001, as well as domestic and international policy developments. Since 1997, the reports have established themselves as among the most transparent produced by any arms exporting country, giving Parliament and public the ability to scrutinise our export licensing policy as never before. This year's Report will be a clear restatement of that commitment to accountability and transparency in Strategic Export controls. The report will be available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) and through the Stationery Office.

  Gibraltar
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of meetings that have taken place between British and Spanish ministers under the Brussels Process since it was set in place. [70625]
  612W
  Peter Hain
  On 10 April 1980 Lord Carrington and the Spanish Foreign Minister (Sr Oreja) agreed a joint statement (the Lisbon Declaration) "to start negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between them on Gibraltar". On 27 November 1984, Sir Geoffrey Howe and the Spanish Foreign Minister (Sr Moran) agreed the Brussels Communique which established a formal negotiating process under the Lisbon Declaration. The Brussels Communique stated that "Both sides accept that the issues of sovereignty will be discussed in that process". Between November 1984 and February 1999 more than 60 meetings (including 16 at ministerial level) were held under the Brussels Process. Since the relaunch of the Brussels Process in July 2001, three ministerial meetings have been held (on 26 July 2001, 20 November 2001 and 4 February 2002).

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will construct the wording for any referendum in Gibraltar concerning its future status. [70722]

  Peter Hain
  No decisions have been made on the timing or modalities of any referendum because there is no Agreement to have a referendum about.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Docman IT project for the Serious Fraud Office by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49668]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The original contract, which covered the Docman project as well as the provision of internal IT services was signed in January 1998.

  The reasons for taking the PFI route were:

  The size of the task was too great for the SFO to manage in house;
  The main task was the creation of an on-line document management system and this represented a major item of software which was to be written by suppliers;
  The contract transferred the majority of the project risk to the suppliers;
  The contract included a significant element of service, which permitted the suppliers to be paid in terms of the number of cases using the completed system.

  The whole project represented value for money. It is not practical to quantify the savings, which would have been made from adopting the PFI route as opposed to a non PFI route as the Docman project did not proceed on the lines planned. The contract was amended in September 2000 to exclude the Docman project. This is now being carried forward separately on a non-PFI basis. The first case went live on the Docman system in June 2002.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68683]
  613W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]: The Spending Review involves a comprehensive assessment of the performance priorities and resource requirements of all the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible and a range of staff make a contribution.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if she will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60460]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: There are many performance targets contained in public service agreements or service delivery agreements that affect the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible. Government targets set and monitored centrally cover a range of initiatives and projects. The information provided below is based on additional performance targets:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999–2002 and 2001 to 2004, the CPS Business Plan for 2002–03 requires the following targets to be met:
  Serving committal papers to the defence within agreed timescales in 80 per cent of cases.
  Submitting briefs to counsel within agreed timescales in 83.5 per cent of cases.
  Reducing to 6 per 100,000 the number of cases dismissed on a submission of no case to answer in the magistrates' courts which are attributable to failures in the review process.
  Reducing to 5 cases per 1,000 the number of nonjury acquittals in the Crown Court which are attributable to failures in the review process.
  Increasing to 86 per cent the proportion of relevant cases where the prosecution comply with statutory duties of primary disclosure.
  Increasing to 83 per cent the proportion of relevant cases where the prosecution comply with statutory duties of secondary disclosure.
  Increasing to 7 per cent the proportion of advocates whose performance is significantly above normal requirements.

  Targets are set by the CPS Board and achievement against targets is monitored quarterly by the CPS Resources and Performance Group, who report to the CPS Board.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has one published target whish is not incorporated in the current Public Service Agreements. This relates to ill-health retirements. The Treasury Solicitor's Department will be seeking to achieve a level of ill health retirements consistent with or better than the best quartile of 3.72 retirements per 1,000 employees by 2005. The target is st by the Attorney General and achievement is monitored by the Treasury Solicitor.
  614W
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  The purpose of the Inspectorate is to promote continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the prosecution services within a joined-up criminal justice system through a process of inspection and evaluation, the provision of advice and the identification of good practice.

  The Inspectorate strives to achieve excellence in all aspects of its activities and in particular to provide customers and stakeholders with consistent and professional inspection and evaluation processes together with advice and guidance, all measured against recognised quality standards and defined performance levels.

  In the year 2002–03 the Inspectorate is committed to:
  completing the first cycle of inspections of CPS Areas and Headquarters Directorates;
  consulting with CPS Headquarters and Areas on its approach to, and the planning and organisation of, the second cycle;
  commencing the second cycle of CPS inspection activity;
  undertaking the pilot inspection of Manchester Customs and Excise prosecution function;
  conducting a joint inspection of West Midlands with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate;
  continuing with thematic and joint inspection activity.

  The Inspectorate's strategic plan for 2002–05 contains four strategic objectives and its Business Plan for 200203 contains 28 objectives which, taken together, provide the targets against which current Inspectorate performance will be judged.

  These objectives are systematically measured against criteria set out in the annual Business Plan which also contains a series of challenging deadlines for the achievement of each objective.

  The Inspectorate's Strategic and Business Plans are agreed by its management team in consultation with the Attorney General's Advisory Board. Progress against the Business Plan objectives is monitored monthly by the management team on the basis of information collected and supplied by the Inspectorate's Corporate Services Manager. At each of its meetings, the Advisory Board receives a report detailing the action which the Inspectorate has taken towards the achievement of its objectives.

  Further monitoring is provided by the quarterly and annual reports which the Chief Inspector provides for the Attorney General.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61649]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Any Christmas parties for staff in any of the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible will have been financed by the staff themselves.

  Information on their cost or numbers of attendees is not held.

  Serious Fraud Office Annual Report
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Director of the Serious Fraud Office will publish her Annual report. [72131]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have today placed copies of the Annual Report in the libraries of the House.

  Review of the Year
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the law officers will publish their "Review of the Year". [72130]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have today placed copies of the Law Officers' "Review of the Year" in the libraries of the House.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [68735]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]: All overseas travel by officials in the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible is undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in Chapter 8 of the Civil Service Management Code. The detailed information requested about individual trips is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the annual cost was of Ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [61037]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The following information relates to the financial year and the figures comprise of the salaries paid to the individuals together with Employer's Related National Insurance Contributions.

  6 April 1997–5 April 1998

  £141,044.89

  6 April 2001–5 April 2002

  £179,231.82

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61051]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding reply 17 June 2002]: The amount spent by each of the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible in each of the last five years is set out below.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  £

  1997–98

  1,234,217

  1998–99

  1,339,271

  1999–2000

  2,069,216

  2000–01

  2,700,903

  2001–02

  5,620,922

  616W

  Serious Fraud Office

  £

  1996–97

  127,051

  1997–98

  134,962

  1998–99

  124,949

  1999–2000

  180,936

  2000–01

  237.996

  Treasury Solicitor's Department Figures for the last four years are:

  £

  1998–99

  213,460

  1999–2000

  230,690

  2000–01

  337,900

  2001–02

  402,080

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  £

  1998–99

  13,820

  1999–2000

  8,800

  2000–01

  11,750

  2001–02

  10,500

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  Information is only available for the year 2001–02 as before 1st April 2001 the Inspectorate was part of the Crown Prosecution Service and training costs form part of the figures provided by the CPS. The sum expended on training in 2001–02 was £26,600.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60919]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002, official Report,, column 1402W.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50422]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Figures are only available for the year 2001–02.

  The figures for the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  £12.7 million

  Serious Fraud Office

  £303,000

  Treasury Solicitor's Department (which includes Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and HM cps Inspectorate)

  £1,065,000

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-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. [61023]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Figures for the year 2001–02 are not yet available.

  The departmental expenditure limit for the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which also includes expenditure by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, is set in net terms and takes account of receipts from charges to client Departments for legal services provided to them. It would be misleading, therefore, to show staff costs as a percentage of that figure. However, after allowing for receipts, £24,773,000 (60 per cent.) of Treasury Solicitor's Department's gross administrative costs were accounted for by staff costs in 2001–02.

  The departmental expenditure limit for the Serious Fraud Office for 2001–02 was £21,850.000, of which staff costs amounted to £7,785,000 (35.6 per cent.)

  The departmental expenditure limit for the Crown Prosecution Service for 2001–02 was £402,200,000, of which staff costs amounted to £196,600,000 (49 per cent.)

  Mr. Bercow
  ; To ask the Solicitor-General how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61013]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding reply 17 June 2002]: Reliable estimates for 2002–03 spending to 31 May are not available. Estimated outturn spending figures for 2001–02 can be found in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03 published in May 2002 as Command Paper 5401.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General which categories of important cases require the CPS to communicate directly with complainants; and what the purpose and outcome is of these communications. [60221]

  Table 1

  2000

  Area

  Staff In Post (SIP) 1.1.00

  Resignations*

  Transfers to other Govt Depts.

  per cent Turnover

  SIP 31.12.00

  Difference

  Derbyshire

  76.03

  10

  13.5

  71.09

  –4.13

  Hertfordshire

  62.95

  15

  24.9

  57.26

  –5.69

  Humberside

  76.38

  7

  9

  78.76

  2.38

  North Wales

  62.3

  6

  9.9

  58.25

  –4.05

  *All leavers during the year 1.1.00–31.12.00 as a Head Count.
  618W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Under the current Victim's Charter the CPS must, on request, meet families bereaved as a result of crime in order to explain the decision on prosecution.

  In addition, in April 2001 the CPS commenced a phased programme of implementation of the Direct Communication with Victims initiative. This follows recommendations made by Sir William MacPherson and Sir Ian Glidewell. All Areas who have implemented this initiative now:
  provide all identifiable victims with a written explanation when the prosecution decide to discontinue their case, or alter charges substantially; and
  in cases involving child abuse, sexual offences or racially aggravated offences, offer to meet victims to explain the basis of the decision if a further explanation is required.

  Full national implementation will be completed by October 2002.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the(a) reasons for and (b) impact of significant staff turnover within the (i) Derbyshire, (ii) Hertfordshire, (iii) Humberside and (iv) North Wales CPS regions, with reference to the training budget as a proportion of turnover on 1 January. [59657]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: As with any large organisation, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has turnover of staff. Table 1 (attached) shows that, there has not been a significant staff turnover in Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside or North Wales CPS, over the last twelve months, as compared to the national average for the CPS. The main reason for the loss of staff has been resignations.

  In recent months Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside have seen an increase in the number of staff employed.

  Loss of staff, particularly if they are experienced, impacts on the working of any organisation. New staff requires induction and training, which may vary from going on appropriate courses to "on the job" training. Inevitably this affects the training budget. It also means new staff members take some time before they are fully effective. However, the introduction of new staff, especially where they represent an addition to the existing numbers, is to be welcomed.

  Table 2 (attached) shows the proportion of each local Area budget spent on training against their total running costs.
  619W

  2001

  Area

  SIP 1.1.01

  Resignations

  Transfers to other Govt Depts.

  per cent Turnover

  SIP 31.12.01

  Difference

  Derbyshire

  71.09

  8

  10.2

  85.53

  14.44

  Hertfordshire

  57.26

  1.97

  3

  73.25

  15.99

  Humberside

  78.76

  5

  6.4

  76.21

  -2.55

  North Wales

  58.25

  1.49

  1

  4.1

  60.91

  2.66

  National (42 Areas)

  5.9

  2002

  Area

  SIP 1.1.02

  Resignations

  Transfers to other Govt Depts.

  per cent Turnover

  SIP 31.05.02

  Difference

  Derbyshire

  85.53

  3

  3.3

  92.11

  6.58

  Hertfordshire

  73.25

  1

  1.3

  76.57

  3.32

  Humberside

  76.21

  1

  1.2

  83.5

  7.29

  North Wales

  60.91

  0.51

  0.8

  59.93

  –0.98

  National (42 Areas)

  Jan, Feb & March

  1.9

  Table 2

  Table Showing Proportion of Area Budget Spent on Training 1.4.01–31.3.02 Against Total Running Costs Allocation.

  Area

  Running Costs

  Training Costs

  per cent

  Derbyshire

  3,136,018

  26,800

  0.85

  Hertfordshire

  2,731,565

  6,700

  0.25

  Humberside

  2,808,450

  12,716

  0.45

  North Wales

  2,361,101

  5,560

  0.24

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proportion of advocacy by the Crown Prosecution Service met the CPS's advocacy standards in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement.[[69107]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Advocacy standards form a part of the annual performance appraisal of all Crown Prosecutors and performance assessment markings are awarded to reflect the individual's overall performance throughout the whole reporting period. In each of the years since 1997, more than 99 per cent of Crown Prosecutors received a performance assessment marking of Box 3 (Performance fully meets the standard required) or better in advocacy standards.

  HMCPSI include advocacy standards as part of their inspections of each CPS Area. These are reported in their individual inspection reports but there is no aggregation of data in relation to any specific aspect of an Area's performance.

  Under the Department's training of Higher Court Advocates, candidates must additionally pass an assessment managed by the Nottingham Law School before they can be considered for deployment as advocates in the Crown Courts.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Health and Welfare
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on animal health and welfare expenditure trends shown in the Departmental report for 2002. [72082]

  Mr. Morley
  Tables 5.1 to 5.5 in the Departmental Report for 2002 contain a number of errors. These arose from differences in the way information is loaded on
  620W
  central data bases, complications with compiling historical information following the recent Machinery of Government changes, and the re-structuring of DEFRA with the revised objectives that followed. Unfortunately, the tight timetable for producing these tables interfered with the quality assurance procedures that would normally have applied.

  The Department's quality assurance procedures are being revised to prevent similar errors in future. Meanwhile, work is in hand to re-issue corrected tables. This is a significant task involving the re-loading of central data bases which are subject to a number of timetable constraints. The intention is to provide revised figures by the Autumn.

  Meanwhile, it is possible to clarify that underlying provision for resources available to control animal disease have risen in real terms over the period as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cash Outturn

  Cash Outturn

  Provisional Resource Outturn

  Resource Budget

  152

  183

  159

  206

  These figures exclude expenditure incurred on foot and mouth disease, given this was funded centrally out of the Reserve. The drop seen in 2001–02 can be explained by the diversion of state veterinary staff to tackling foot and mouth disease.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency for 2002–03. [72214]

  Mr. Morley
  I have set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency the following performance targets for 2002–03.

  Quality of Service

  1. To maintain current third party accreditations.

  2. To achieve IS09000 accreditation for the TSE Archive.
  621W
  Service Delivery

  3. To achieve a minimum of 85 per cent of ROAME project milestones.

  4. To meet 95 per cent of published turnaround time for export tests.

  5. To set a baseline for the customer satisfaction survey.

  Efficiency

  6. To achieve £500k savings on procurement spending.

  7. To achieve a 3 per cent improvement of overheads against turnover using the baseline established in 2001–02.

  Financial Performance

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

  Fisheries
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether Spain's Northern quota entitlements expire at the end of 2002 unless renewed, reduced or extended by agreement at the EC level prior to that date; and whether the same position will apply to Portugal.[[67317]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Yes. Our interpretation is that the special northern quota entitlements outlined in the Spanish Treaty of Accession will expire at the end of 2002, but that they will stand to be taken into account when determining future quota allocations in accordance with relative stability.

  Small Farms
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been paid to small family farms in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England in each of the last five years for environmental schemes.[[70438]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: Average environmental scheme payments to small full-time farms in England as recorded by the Farm Business Survey are given in the table. Requests for information on payments in Scotland should be referred to the Scottish parliament. Requests for information on payments in Wales should be referred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Average environmental scheme* payments to full-time small farms in England (£ per farm)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England

  350

  450

  630

  990

  980

  *Includes Environmentally sensitive area, organic farming, organic aid, countryside stewardship, woodland grant, farm woodland premium, nitrate sensitive area, moorland, habitat, countryside access and SSSI schemes

  Biodiversity
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) loss and (b) creation of UK
  622W
  biodiversity action plan habitat since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as a result of (i) inland flood defence schemes and (ii) coastal flood defence schemes. [68099]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: In 1999, under High Level Target 9, DEFRA put in place a mechanism for operating authorities to report losses and gains of Biodiversity Action Plan habitats as a result of flood management works. The first annual report was produced for DEFRA in July 2001. This report indicates an overall gain in BAP habitats during the reporting year of 53.37 Ha of fresh water habitats (plus 200 metres of chalk river) and 112.84 Ha of coastal or intertidal habitat. Copies of the 2000–01 report are available from Flood Management Division of DEFRA and annual reports will be available in subsequent years.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money her Department has successfully reclaimed from(a) the Duke of Richmond and (b) the Earl of March in respect of overpayments relating to the ESA scheme; and if she will make a statement.[[69403]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited entered into an Environmentally Sensitive Areas agreement in 1992. The area involved covered some 400 hectares. Some of the land, comprising less than 10 per cent of this area, was subsequently used for other purposes. The department reclaimed the relevant proportion of ESA support from the company, plus interest.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to issue a revised management statement to the Environment Agency.[[72083]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am please to inform the House that the Management Statement has been issued to the Environment Agency today. The statement sets out: the relationships between the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Welsh Assembly Government, exercising powers delegated by the National Assembly for Wales, and the Environment Agency; the framework within which the Agency will operate; and other guidance relevant to its functions. The Management Statement has been drawn up in consultation with the Agency and is being issued jointly with the Welsh Assembly Government.

  A copy of the Statement has today been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many calls have been received by(a) Eaga Partnership and (b) TXU Warm Front Ltd. call centres in each (i) local authority area and (ii) Government office region about delays in installations under the home energy efficiency scheme in each quarter for which information is available; [43569]
  623W
  (2) what proportion of heating installations have been completed by (a) Eaga Partnership and (b) TXU Warm Front Ltd. in each (i) local authority and (ii) Government office region in (A) less than a month, (B) one to two months, (c) two to three months, (D) three to four months, (E) four to five months, (F) five to six months, (G) six to seven months and (H) over seven months. [43570]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme has an overall target of improving 800,000 properties in the period 2000–04. Between June 2000 and March 2002, in excess of 113,000 heating measures were installed.

  The remaining information requested is not available without incurring disproportionate costs. But I have previously written to the hon. Member with information regarding measures installed under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. A copy of the letter and the data has been placed in the library of the House.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) types and (b) numbers of energy efficiency and conservation measures installed by (i) Eaga Partnership and (ii) TXU Warm Front Ltd in each (A) local authority and (B) Government office region in each of the last four quarters for which information is available. [43572]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme has an overall target of improving 800,000 properties in the period 2000–04. Between June 2000 and March 2002 almost 998,000 measures were installed under the scheme.

  To provide the data in the form requested would incur disproportionate costs. But I have previously written to the hon. Member with information regarding measures installed under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. A copy of the letter and the data has been placed in the library of the House.

  Water Level Management
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the water level management plans being implemented; and what percentage of the total number of water level management plans this represents. [69628]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: According to our records, there are 90 Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs) currently being implemented on the following sites:

  Gordano Valley

  Puxton Moor PSSSI

  Yanal Bog

  Fancott Woods & Meadows

  Tebworth Marsh

  Alderford Common

  Delph Bridge Drain

  Holme Fen

  Shippea Hill (Geol)

  Soham Wet Horse Fen

  Stow Cum Quy Fen

  Pevensey Levels

  Ashleworth Ham

  Chaceley Meadow

  624W

  Upper Severn Estuary

  Walmore Common

  Burley Dene Meadows

  Moseley Common

  Barton and Barrow Clay Pits

  Haxey Grange Fen

  North Killingholme Pits PSSSI

  South Cliffe, Hotham Carr & North Cliffe

  Holborough-Burham Marshes

  Preston Marshes

  Sandwich Bay & Hacklinge Marshes

  Stodmarsh

  Bratoft Meadows

  Horbling Fen

  Tattershall Old Gravel Pits

  Petney Blow Wells

  Ant Broads & Marshes

  Aslacton Parish Land

  Badley Moor

  Beetley & Hoe Meadows

  Booton Common

  Broad Fen Ditham

  Bryants Heath, Felmingham

  Burgh Common & Muckfleet Marshes

  Buxton Heath

  Calthorpe Broad

  Damgate Marshes, Acle

  Decoy Can, Acle

  Dersingham Bog

  East Ruston Common

  Flordon Common

  Halvergate Marshes

  Ludham-Potter Heigham Marsh

  Potter & Scarning Fens

  Priory Meadows

  Roydon Common Sea Mere

  Hingham

  Shallam Dyke Marshes

  Smallburgh Fen

  Swannington Upgate Common

  Upper Thurne Broads & Marshes

  Upton Broads & Marshes

  Whitewell Common

  Winterton to Horsey Dunes

  Yare Broads & Marshes

  Aubert Ings (River Midd)

  Bishop Monkton Ings

  Burr Closes

  Farnham Mires

  Forlorn Hope Meadow

  Hay-A-Park SSSI

  Heslington Tillmire

  Kirkby Wharfe

  Skipworth Common

  Mission Line Bank

  Mission Training Area

  Moorlinch

  Tealham & Tadham Moors

  625W

  Shirley Pool

  Went Ings Meadows

  Baswich Meadows

  Doxey & Tillington Marshes

  Rawbones Meadow

  Fox Fritillary Meadow, Framsden

  Lakenheath Poors Fen

  Minsmere/Walberswick: Tinker's Marsh

  Minsmere/Walberswick: Southwold Town Marshes

  Minsmere/Walberswick: Minsmere

  Minsmere/Walberswick: West Wood and Dingle Marshes

  Minsmere/Walberswick: Home Covert Marshes

  North Warren and Thorpeness

  Meare

  Pashford Poors Fen (Lakenheath)

  Sizewell Marshes

  Wilde Street Meadow

  Amberley Wild Brooks

  Pagham Harbour

  Waltham Brooks

  This represents 18 per cent of the total number of WLMPs. However this list does not include sites where the WLMP did not identify any changes to be implemented, or sites where the plan identified a need for further monitoring before effecting any changes. The implementation of a number of other plans was delayed by and access restrictions during the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department are taking to ensure that water level management plans comply with the EC Water Framework Directive; how many completed water level management plans comply with the EC Habitats and Birds Directives; and what steps she is taking to ensure that water level management plans deliver conservation benefits. [68169]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: When the EC Water Framework Directive is transposed into English and Welsh law, it will require consideration of all aspects of the water cycle with an emphasis on ecological water quality. In implementing the Water Framework Directive, it will be important to ensure effective integration between the Directive requirements and Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs). WLMPs are designed to be reviewed at regular intervals and should incorporate any guidance which arises as a result of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

  The operating authorities (Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards or Local Authorities) are the competent authorities in respect of ensuring that WLMPs comply with the Habitats and Birds Directives. They have a duty to ensure that their activities, including those relevant to water level management, comply with the Directives, as implemented in the UK by the Habitats Regulations. Under these Regulations they are required to assess whether any schemes which are not necessary for site management for nature conservation are likely to have a significant effect on the site. If so, an Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken before any works can be carried out. We are not aware of any Appropriate Assessments completed to date in relation WLMPs.
  626W
  English Nature and the operating authorities are working with DEFRA on guidelines to provide advice to operating authorities in undertaking such an Appropriate Assessment.

  Operating Authorities draw up WLMPs in consultation with English Nature, who propose conservation objectives for each plan. All WLMPs must be agreed with English Nature before implementation.

  In 1999, MAFF issued guidance to flood and coastal defence operating authorities on conservation benefits and WLMPs. This guidance was agreed with English Nature and the RSPB, as well as the operating authorities.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on whether internationally designated sites have(a) water level management plans for individual hydrological units and (b) a single water level management plan for numerous hydrological units.[[69178]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The decision as to whether a Water Level Management Plan (WLMP) is based on individual hydrological units or numerous units will depend on technical, environmental and economic factors which vary significantly between sites. As a result, all Water Level Management Plans are designed and implemented on a case-by-case basis and there is no policy on a preferred approach. In many cases, particularly for relatively small, discrete sites, operating authorities have prepared a single plan to cover all the hydrological units within an international site. However, for larger sites with separate hydrological units that have different operating authorities (e.g. the Somerset Levels), separate WLMPs have been prepared, for example, for each constituent Site of Special Scientific Interest.

  DEFRA is currently working with English Nature and the operating authorities to prepare guidance on the effects of the Habitats Regulations on Water Level Management Plans. Amongst other things, this will advise operating authorities on the geographical scale at which the implications for the Habitats Regulations should be considered.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) the Environment Agency, (b) the Internal Drainage Boards and (c) local authorities have spent on consultants to prepare water level management plans in each of the last five years.[[69180]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: I regret that DEFRA does not hold this information as preparation of Water Level Management Plans is the responsibility of the operating authorities. The information cannot therefore be obtained in the form requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on the preparation and production of water level management plans in each of the last five years.[[69179]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The flood and coastal defence operating authorities (Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards and Local Authorities) have funded the preparation of Water Level Management Plans (WLMPs) from their own budgets. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not fund
  627W
  preparation and production of WLMPs. We do, however, provide grant aid for flood management works required to implement WLMPs.

  Departmental Spending Plans
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the spending

  £ million

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Department for environment, Food and Rural Affairs Resource Budget

  2,443

  2,765

  2,742

  2,792

  Capital Budget

  241

  316

  344

  354

  Total Departmental Expenditure Limit1

  2,523

  2,902

  2,890

  2,944

  Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs1

  2,426

  2,808

  2,796

  2,850

  Forestry Commision1

  97

  94

  94

  94

  Near-cash spending in DEFRA DEL2

  2,341

  2.727

  2,710

  2,757

  1Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.

  2Consistent with previous control basis.

  When DEFRA was created, the objective was have a step change in the way environment, agriculture and rural issues were treated in Government. The aim was to create a department with sustainable development at its heart—and with responsibility for supporting sustainable development across Government. For DEFRA this means working to achieve a better environment at home and internationally. It also means a food and farming industry working within a prosperous countryside, producing the food that consumers want in harmony with the environment.

  For the Government as a whole, sustainable development goes much further. The vital importance of sustainable development for Government as a whole underlay the decision to make it a central theme of the Spending Review. As custodian of the Government's sustainable development strategy, I particularly welcome the elements of the Settlement, for my own Department and for others, which will deliver significant improvements in key policy areas. These include:

  Climate change—where we will invest in innovation to meet our Climate Change objectives, building on existing funding for renewable energy sources with an additional £38 million in 2005–06 compared with 2002–03, and make further progress towards our greenhouse gas emissions targets

  Health—where we have announced the biggest ever sustained spending growth in the history of the NHS, to improve health outcomes and the quality of care for patients;

  Education—where increased spending and further reforms are aimed at getting and helping 16–19 year olds into further education;

  And Crime—where extra funding for the police will help them target reductions in vehicle crime, domestic burglaries and robbery, and reduce the gap between the highest crime local areas and the best comparable areas In addition, new spending on transport and regeneration will improve the quality of our local environments. For example, capital expenditure on capital transport plans—which includes expenditure on home zones, cycling, walking and local safety schemes—is doubling in real
  628W
  plans for her Department and for the Forestry Commission are for the next three years following the 2002 Spending Review; and if she will make a statement. [72215]

  Mrs Beckett
  The results of the Spending Review for DEFRA and the Forestry Commission are summarised in Chapter 16 of the White Paper on "2002 Spending Review" (Cm 5570). The key figures are as follows:

  terms from 2001–2011 as part of the Ten Year Transport plan. The Neighbourhood Renewal fund is being increased from £400 million in 2003–04 to £525 million in 2005–06, in part reflecting an increased commitment to safer and cleaner communities.

  Let me now explain how the Spending Review settlement will impact on DEFRA's programmes over the next three years and will assist the Department in pursuing its aims and objectives.

  Departmental Spending Plans

  Sustainable Farming and Food

  When DEFRA was created, the farming industry was in crisis. Foot and mouth disease, coupled with the lowest farm incomes in many years—had destroyed farmers' confidence, and in some cases, their livelihoods. The Review provides DEFRA with the resources to make progress—working together with the industry—towards a more sustainable future for the farming and food industries. Investment totalling over £500 million over three years will be available to support the key recommendations of the Policy Commission chaired by Sir Don Curry, and to improve animal health and welfare:

  Action through the England Rural Development Programme, including:

  A new broad and shallow agri-environment scheme which will reward farmers for delivering environmentally friendly outcomes to be piloted over the next 2 years and then rolled out in full in 2005–06;

  An expansion of schemes such as the Rural Enterprise Scheme, the Processing and Marketing Grants Scheme, and the Vocational Training Scheme, to assist people in rural areas retrain, diversify and extend their businesses;

  A more efficient food chain;

  Enhanced farm advice;

  Further measures to improve animal health and welfare, including livestock identification and tracing systems, enhanced testing for TSE-type disease (such as BSE); and further action to prevent illegal meat imports.

  The additional funding will rise to £200 million in 2005–06 of which £75 million has been specifically allocated to fund, alongside equivalent EU funding, the
  629W
  full roll-out of the new agri-environment scheme in England. Additional funding will also he made available to the Devolved Administrations to allow them to increase expenditure on their Rural Development Programmes. In return for the investment in their industry, farmers will be expected to play their part in making the industry sustainable, for example by acting to reduce the risks of animal diseases. I know they will co-operate with us fully in achieving these joint goals.

  The Government will continue to press for radical reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) in the negotiations on the Mid-Term Review of Agenda 2000 which began earlier this week. But the resources allocated in the Spending Review allow DEFRA to press ahead with reform and modernisation of the farming industry now. The Department will publish its strategy for sustainable farming and food in the autumn. I am very pleased that Sir Don Curry has agreed to chair a Group which will act as a driver and overseer of change in the farming and food sectors through the implementation of the farming and food strategy, to ensure that we move rapidly towards a more sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food industry which contributes to a thriving rural economy. The Group will report to me.

  The Settlement recognises the need to prevent, control and manage the risk of animal disease, where we are driven by the memory of last year's outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease as well as the legacy of BSE. The additional resources provided will allow funding of a wide range of work on animal health issues These measures will be set in the context of a comprehensive animal health and welfare strategy, as recommended by the Policy Commission. This will address ways in which the industry should bear its share of the costs of animal health controls and services. I am also please to be able to announce that we have secured additional funds to deal with Bovine TB this year. These will be used to pay for the extra staff and resources already committed to work on the TB testing backlog and control measures, and additional casual staff who will be recruited to supplement this work. Testing is being carried out on the basis of a veterinary risk assessment, with those posing the greatest risk being tested first.

  A countryside for all to enjoy

  In addition to the new agri-environment scheme, which will play an important role in making the countryside more attractive and in helping to preserve biodiversity, the Spending Review has allocated an additional £5 million in 2004–05 and £10 million in 2005–06 for work in bringing our major wildlife sites into favourable condition. In addition, the extra funding of £5 million in 2003–04 and £10 million in the two following years to implement the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act will increase public access and enjoyment of our beautiful countryside landscapes.

  Thriving rural economies and communities

  The investment in sustainable food and farming, in improving the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and in opening up access to the countryside will benefit the wider rural economy. However, DEFRA's leadership role on rural affairs goes beyond this and our new rural PSA target reflects this. It commits us to reducing the gap in productivity between
  630W
  the least well performing rural areas and the English average and making services more accessible for rural people. DEFRA will work with other Government Departments and agencies to deliver this and to ensure that the rural-proofing of their policies and programmes helps to deliver real improvements in prosperity and access to public services. The Spending Review White Paper sets out a range of commitments from other Departments to deliver key services in rural areas, and ensure that rural people benefit from the extra resources delivered through the review. The extra £25 million allocated in the Settlement over three years, will further increase the additional funds announced in the Rural White Paper to help regenerate in market towns and improve the ability of rural communities and the rural voluntary sector to deliver services in support of the socially excluded and progress towards solutions to key rural concerns in each region.

  Protecting our communities from flooding

  Government investment in flood defence has increased significantly in real terms since 1997. Additional funding of £15 million a year was made available in the wake of the autumn 2000 floods. The new funds over and above this which have been allocated in the Spending Review will ensure that this growth will now accelerate to reach 8.6 per cent a year in real terms over the SR2002 period. The further allocation to the Department of £15 million in 2004–05 and £40 million in 2005–06, together with the amounts available for grants to local authorities and the revenues we expect to be able to raise from new funding mechanisms, will deliver an increase of £150 million in the third year of the Review. This level of resources, together with simplification of the administration of flood defences and effective partnership working with homeowners, local government, the Environment Agency, scientists and the insurance industry will allow us to reduce the risk of threats to life and damage to property from flooding.

  Sustainable use of resources: the challenge from waste

  The Spending Review Settlement takes into account the pressures on local government and provides for spending on environmental, protective and cultural services, including waste management, to rise by £671 million by 2005–06. The funds will also enable them to deal with the short-term problems of fridge disposal and changes to the legislation on hazardous waste. Final decisions on additional resources for addressing the challenge of growth in municipal waste and moving away from landfill disposal and on other policy measures will be made available when the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) publishes its report into sustainable waste management in the autumn. These decisions and those on landfill tax and the future of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) will deliver a step change in performance. DEFRA's PSA target of 25 per cent recycling and composting of household waste by 2005–6 demonstrates the government's commitment to radical reform of municipal waste management.

  Science

  Evidence-based policy work is central to DEFRA's approach. I want, at the very least, to maintain the Department's expenditure on research in real terms over the Spending Review period. This is consistent with our commitment to the development of a strong and high quality science base. It will ensure that DEFRA's policy

  631W
  making continues to be based in the latest evidence and scientific and economic analysis. We will aim to increase science spending in our identified priority areas. These include: environmental horizon-scanning, climate change and extreme weather, a supercomputer to strengthen the UK climate change research capability, non-food crops, organic food production, and animal disease. We will also examine the findings of the Foot and Mouth Disease inquiries closely and determine if any additional funding for research is required in these areas.

  Investment in the Department

  A theme of the Spending Review across all Departments has been ensuring that they have the necessary capacity to deliver. That has been a primary focus of the Developing DEFRA change programme that was set up after the Department was created last year. Additional funding of £140 million over the Spending Review period for investment in the Department will enable it to take forward the next phase of the change programme flowing from the recent Joint Strategic Review carried out with the Office for Public Service Reform (OPSR). The investment will give staff the tools they need to change their ways of working, focus on customers and deliver the high quality services that will build DEFRA's reputation as a respected, high performing, and efficient Department.

  Forestry Commission

  The Forestry Commission is funded on a net basis after taking account of the income it received, mainly from sales of timber from the public forests. Its timber income has fallen significantly in recent years due to a worldwide slump in timber prices. The Spending Review Settlement provides additional funding of £5 million a year on top of the 2003–04 baseline to enable the Commission to continue to drive forward the Government's England Forestry Strategy despite the reduction in timber income. This new money underlines forestry's important place in England's rural affairs and will allow the Commission to extend sustainable forests management, restore more native woodlands, increase community forests and the role of forests in tackling industrial dereliction. In addition to the funding shown in the White Paper, the Commission is also benefiting from special funding from the Capital Modernisation Fund and the Invest to Save Budget amounting to almost £11 million in the next 2 years.

  Conclusion

  Spending by the Department in 2005–06 will be more than £400 million higher than in 2002–03, supporting a programme of reform. It fulfils the Government's pledge to introduce a significant programme of measures to move the food and farming industries to a long-term sustainable basis, to create thriving and prosperous rural economies and communities and to improve the environment. And it takes full account of the Department's lead role in promoting sustainable development across Government for the good of our citizens, both now and in the future.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the letter of the hon. Member for Hexham of 2 April on the stay warm scheme. [65644]
  632W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: The Department for Trade and Industry have responsibility for the Warm Stay Scheme. The hon. Member's letter has therefore been transferred to that Department.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Advisory Committee on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes 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. [70575]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article 22 (3) of European Directive 86/609/EEC (on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes) provides for the Commission to establish "a permanent consultative committee within which the Member States would be represented, which will assist the Commission in organising the exchange of appropriate information, while respecting the requirements of confidentiality, and which will also assist the Commission in the other questions raised by the application of this Directive". The Commission made a decision on 9 February 1990 (90/67/EEC) for setting up the Advisory Committee on the Protection of Animals for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes under Article 22 of the Directive, including provision for representation and working methods. However, the Committee has never been established. The Commission has recently made a recommendation for the Directive to be revised. In its initial comments on what amendments might be considered, the United Kingdom has suggested that the Commission should consider either dispensing with or establishing the Advisory Committee.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress and for the Implementation of the Directive on Contained Use of Genetically Modified Micro-organisms 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. [68552]

  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 (HSE) represent the UK on the Committee. The Scottish Ministers and HSE comprise the Competent Authority for implementation of the Directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms in Scotland. HSE officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what extra financing has been secured for regional development agencies to create positive job creation in the manufacturing sector. [69076]

  Alan Johnson
  RDA funding will increase from £1.24 billion in 2000–01 to £1.80 billion in 2003–04. Alongside this, the Government has given the RDAs financial flexibility to pursue their regional priorities. From 1 April this year, the RDAs are getting their funding from Government as a single funding stream which they can use as they judge best in order to meet a set of agreed targets. Under this general framework there is also a modest component of extra funding specifically designated for manufacturing to match fund RDAs' Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence (delivering the Manufacturing Advisory Service) but their role is not specifically one of job creation. However, one of the underpinning objectives of the single pot is to increase competitiveness and therefore employment, including in the manufacturing sector. The RDAs are working closely with Government to put in place strategies at the national and regional levels which will encourage the development of a strong and forward-looking manufacturing sector.

  Construction Products
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Standing Committee on the approximation of the laws relating to construction products is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66423]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Standing Committee is due to meet on 10 and 11 September 2002. The United Kingdom delegation consists of officials of the Office of The Deputy Prime Minister and a representative from the construction industry. International negotiation is a reserved matter, and the Scottish Executive is not, and has not been, represented on the Standing Committee. However, officials consult regularly with their opposite numbers in the devolved administrations on relevant issues prior to such negotiation.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cultural Co-operation
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport when the EU Committee for the implementation of the programme establishing a single financing and programming instrument for cultural co-operation (Culture 2000) 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. [70898]

  Dr. Howells
  The Culture 2000 Management Committee last met in Brussels on 31 May 2002. There is no fixed date for the next meeting of the Committee, although this is likely to be in the autumn. No members of the Scottish Executive have been or are members of the Committee.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the EU Committee on the export of cultural goods 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. [70915]

  Dr. Howells
  The exact date of the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods is unknown. However, there are normally two meetings each year; and since the last meeting took place on 4 July, it is anticipated that the next meeting will be at the beginning of 2003. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not attended meetings of the committee. The Scottish Executive is not a member since the committee is responsible for advising the European Commission about a non-devolved matter. A representative of the Scottish Executive is, however, welcome to attend as an observer.

TREASURY

  Light Dues
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total income from light dues has been in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [70052]

  (2) what the total income from light dues, broken down by port, has been in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [70053]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply

  The total income from light dues in each of the last 10 years is listed on the attached sheet.

  We do not hold information on income, broken down by port but have provided information on income broken down by region, in the last 5 years. The information is not held beyond that period. The income listed to Trinity House is light dues payments made directly to Trinity House Lighthouse Service.

  Light Dues Income - Past 10 Years

  Year

  Income(m)

  2001–2002

  75.204 (Subject to Annual Audit)

  2000–2001

  71.445

  1999–2000

  69.261

  1998–1999

  67.452

  1997–1998

  62.141

  1996–1997

  65.550

  1995–1996

  64.344

  1994–1995

  64.785

  1993–1994

  64.307

  1992–1993

  59.859

  Source:

  The above figures are taken from the GLF Consolidated Accounts and are for Total Income. (Excluding Irish Government Contribution)
  635W

  Light Dues Income—By Region

  2001–2002

  2000–2001

  1999–2000

  1998–1999

  1997–1998

  Region

  North East

  5,583,008.09

  4,971,195.86

  5,471,943.10

  5,209,028.28

  5,228,123.75

  Region

  Humber

  5,877,628.05

  6,066,300.48

  5,585,431.42

  5,693,124.44

  5,696,374.21

  Region

  Anglia

  21,280,321.03

  19,534,780.26

  19,238,794.01

  19,769,960.81

  16,835,640.12

  Region

  South East

  18,862,406.94

  16,659,886.03

  14,878,951.56

  13,908,980.07

  13,092,694.40

  Region

  South West

  6,661,857.53

  6,620,724.19

  6,406,661.67

  6,141,404.97

  6,534,428.11

  Region

  North West

  3.604,506.58

  3,485,748.43

  3,422,853.70

  3,869,373.05

  3,617,378.13

  Region

  Ulster

  662,195.49

  599,414.51

  662,503.18

  617,011.16

  706,507.01

  Region

  Scotland

  8,536,210.39

  9,110,457.12

  8,929,663.47

  8,034,124.92

  6,628,360.51

  Isle of Man

  19,400.57

  19,012.13

  20,635.93

  44,424.38

  37,729.06

  Trinity House

  620,054.57

  584,976.03

  751,370.04

  350,439.58

  536,236.96

  Region

  Ireland (C & E)

  3,077,673.30

  3,416,674.55

  3,464,779.82

  3,131,480.85

  2,816,419.48

  Total

  74,785,262.54

  71,069,169.59

  68,833,587.90

  66,769,352.51

  61,729,891.74

  Source:

  The figures by Region are for General Light Dues only and does not include income from UK Fishing Vessels and Tugs.

  The figures do not include any Light Dues refunds that were made.

  The figures for Ireland are shown in £ sterling after conversion.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of an abolition of light dues on(a) shipping, (b) port business and (c) tourism; and if he will make a statement. [70051]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not intend to abolish light dues but are considering how the present system could be improved. We have issued a consultation document entitled "Light Dues Review: Meeting the Costs of Marine Aids to Navigation" seeking the views of the maritime industry on the structure of UK light dues. The consultation will consider whether charging can be extended to other users or redistributed among existing payers. We have asked consultees to identify the impact of light dues charges on their business operations.

  The consultation period ends on 31 July. In the light of responses received, we shall consider where improvements can be made to the present system and determine the strength of support for change within the industry.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average payment made to Treasury was per ship entering British ports, in light dues for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [70064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the level of light dues; and if he will make a statement. [70050]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans at present to change the current level of light dues. The rates are reviewed annually and set at a level to meet the expenditure requirements of the General Lighthouse Authorities.

  The consultation exercise on the Light Dues Review will determine whether improvements are made to the present system and if this will require changes to the regulations and current rates.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects the Penrose Inquiry into Equitable Life to be published in 2002; and if he will make a statement. [71613]

  Ruth Kelly
  Arrangements for publication will be considered once the report of the Penrose Inquiry has been received. No firm date has been specified for the completion of the Inquiry, though Lord Penrose is keen to ensure that the Inquiry proceeds as quickly as possible consistent with producing a thorough and authoritative account.

  UK Citizens
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of UK citizens were born abroad; and what the corresponding figure was in each of the past 30 years. [71132]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 19 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning what percentage of UK citizens were from abroad; and what the corresponding figure was in each of the past 30 years. (71132)
  The information you have requested is not available. Information on the citizenship of residents in the UK is derived from the Labour Force Survey. This identifies the number of British citizens resident in the UK, however, it is not possible to separately identify how many of these UK citizens arrived in the UK from abroad.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Contact Committee on certain schemes for collective investment in securities 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. [70902]

  Ruth Kelly
  The EU Contact Committee on certain schemes for collective investment in transferable securities is next due to meet in autumn 2002. A precise date has not yet been fixed.
  637W
  The UK is represented on the Committee by officials from HM Treasury and the Financial Services Authority. Financial regulation is not a devolved matter. Representatives of the Scottish Executive do not attend the Committee.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were(a) in employment and (b) in unemployment expressed as a percentage of the total population in (i) Leeds, (ii) Yorkshire and the Humber and (iii) London in each of the past 10 years. [69939]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Colin Challen, dated 19 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about employment and unemployment in Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber, and London. (69939)
  The table overleaf gives estimates of the employment and unemployment rates in spring (March to May) of each year from 1992 to 2001. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey.

  Employment rates1 by area of residence; all persons of working age2: 1993 to 2002

  Per cent

  United Kingdom3

  Leeds4

  Yorkshire & the Humber3

  London3

  1993

  70.4

  73.2

  71.0

  67.6

  1994

  70.8

  73.0

  70.2

  66.3

  1995

  71.3

  72.2

  71.7

  67.5

  1996

  71.9

  75.4

  71.8

  68.2

  1997

  72.9

  74.3

  70.9

  70.5

  1998

  73.4

  75.9

  72.4

  69.9

  1999

  73.9

  74.7

  72.9

  71.7

  2000

  74.6

  77.3

  73.9

  71.5

  2001

  74.9

  80.2

  73.8

  71.3

  2002

  74.7

  76.9

  73.4

  71.0

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  1People in employment as a percentage of the relevant population

  2Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  3Seasonally adjusted data for March to May

  4Not seasonally adjusted data; 4 quarter average ending May

  Private sector dwellings and houses in multiple occupation declared unfit: in 1997–98

  Total of which those declared unfit under Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (1)

  Serious disrepair

  Structural stability

  Dampness

  Ventilation

  Heating

  Lighting

  Water supply

  Prep/Cooking Food

  Bath/Shower Hand basin H & C/WC

  Drainage

  48.0

  22.2

  3.8

  11.2

  3.0

  3.5

  2.3

  2.1

  5.4

  3.7

  1.8

  Houses in multiple occupation declared unfit under sections 352 and 604 of the Housing Act 1985 in 1997–98

  Total

  Thousands

  Declared unfit under

  Reasons for unfitness under section 352(2)

  Section 604

  Section 352

  Total

  Storage/Prep. Cooking Food

  WC

  Baths/Basins showers HC

  Escape nfrom fire/fire precautions

  2.0

  8.0

  8.9

  1.0

  0.4

  1.0

  6.1

  (1) The number of reasons is greater than the numbers of dwellings identified because a dwelling or HMO can be unfit for more than one reason

  (2) A HMO can be unfit under both sections 352 and 604, therefore the total is less than the sum of the components

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Offshore Fire-fighters
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the level of risk to which staff fire-fighting on offshore facilities are exposed. [67329]

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

  The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has not commissioned any research into these matters However, duty holders of offshore installations are required to demonstrate to HSE they have evaluated the risks to which their personnel could be exposed during fire-fighting activities and that those risks are effectively controlled.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Departments and agencies have(a) adopted and (b) not adopted the revised guidance on securing the better use of empty homes published by the DETR in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [70261]

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

  Unfit Dwellings
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) houses, (b) houses in multiple occupation and (c) other dwellings were declared unfit for human habitation, broken down by (i) failure of gas appliance, (ii) failure of kitchen amenities, (iii) failure of bathroom and drainage facilities, (iv) structural failure and (v) other failures, in each of the last five years. [66676]

  Mr. McNulty
  The most recent information available is for private sector dwellings and houses in multiple occupation in 1997–98. This is shown in the table below.

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding he is providing to local councils for housing improvement grants in(a) England and (b) Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [64443]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government no longer allocates specific funding to local authorities for housing improvement grants. Each housing authority must decide how much it will allocate towards this purpose from the total capital funding provided to it by the Government each year.

  Total capital resources made available for housing purposes for all authorities in England for 2002–03 is £2.5 billion. For Gloucestershire the figure for 2002–03 is £16.6 million, an increase of 85 per cent on 1997–98.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent steps have been taken to speed up planning decisions. [71022]

  Mr. McNulty
  The comprehensive package of planning reforms announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July 2002,Official Report, columns 438–442W includes measures to speed up planning decisions. These include extra resources for central and local government, tough targets for delivery of plans and development control decisions, and proposals to improve the efficiency of the planning system and raise the quality of outputs.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much private investment there has been in urban renewal in each of the last five years. [69380]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on all the private investment that contributes to urban renewal is not collected by Government.

  Traveller Encampments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he plans to revise regulations regarding traveller encampments. [71096]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 5 July, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in conjunction with the Home Office, issued a joint news release outlining the Government's new approach to tackling unauthorised Traveller camps.

  The new procedures include stricter powers for the police to move on unauthorised Traveller encampments, provided the local authority have made adequate provision for sites in the area; producing new guidance on managing unauthorised camping and improved local Gypsy site provision.

  A copy of the news release has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will obtain a reply for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to the letter with regard to Mr. Pat 640W
  McGuinness that he sent on 13 March to the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local government and the Regions and to which that Department sent a holding reply dated 25 April saying that the letter had been transferred to the Planning Inspectorate. [68659]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 2 May,Official Report, column 902W.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his Department's departmental-owned residential property record. [70768]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not directly own residential property.

  London City Racecourse
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will make a decision on the planning application for the London city racecourse. [70750]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister expects that a decision on the London City Racecourse will be issued by the end of July.

  E-mail Press Release Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department intends to establish an e-mail press release service similar to that previously provided by the former Department of Transport, Local government and the Regions. [70656]

  Mr. Leslie
  We expect that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will establish a similar service by Autumn 2002.

  Delayed Discharge
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Government's strategy to tackle delayed discharge in London; and what resources will be needed to meet the level of demand. [69147]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  In September 2001 there were 1126 people who experienced a delayed transfer of care from an acute hospital bed in London. By March 2002, the target reduction to 901 beds had been met. London Boroughs received their share of the £300 million made available through the Building Care Capacity Grant to end unnecessary delayed discharges from hospital. Their total allocation was £42,560,387 over the two years 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  London Boroughs have agreed challenging targets for further reductions, averaging between 20 per cent and 25 per cent by March 2003. The targets were set as part of the conditions for receiving the grant. For Personal Social Services, we have already announced annual average growth in real terms of 6 per cent from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

CABINET OFFICE

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of(a) paper and (b) other goods purchased by his Department was recycled paper in each year since 1997; what the annual total cost of these purchases was; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65773]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office purchases all its standard photocopier/printer paper from "sustainably managed" sources. A small amount of high quality premium paper, which does not come from the same sources, is purchased and used for specific jobs. We are seeking a more "environmentally friendly" alternative to this product.

  We have successfully tested re-cycled paper for use in our office machinery and are now working in partnership with a number of other departments to establish a contract for the purchase of recycled paper.

  Information on other goods derived from recycled paper purchased by the Cabinet Office could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Strategy Unit
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what additional projects are planned for the Strategy Unit; and if he will make a statement. [72101]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Prime Minister has asked the Strategy Unit to carry out a project looking at how to tackle the problems associated with alcohol misuse.

  The large majority of people who drink do so without causing themselves or others harm. The focus of the project will be the harm that can be caused by excessive drinking. It will pay particular attention to issues such as alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour, problems faced by vulnerable groups such as children and what works best in tackling the problems of alcohol misuse.

  My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Public Health, will he Sponsor Minister for the project.

  The scoping note for the project is available on the SU website (www.strategy.gov.uk). There will be a wide-ranging consultation on the issues, commencing from this announcement, during which all interested parties are encouraged to contribute their views. The Strategy Unit aims to complete its study by Spring 2003.

  Monthly Audits
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many monthly audits of regulation have taken place since 1997 relating to(a) the number of new regulations introduced and (b) the number of regulations repealed. [71266]

  Mr. Alexander
  Regulatory Impact Assessments are produced for regulations that have an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector. These can be found in the House libraries. They are also reported monthly to the Cabinet Office. Since 1997 (inclusive), 27 Deregulation Orders have been made under the Deregulation and 642W
  Contracting Out Act; a chronological list is available on the Cabinet Office's website. In February 2002 the government published the Regulatory Reform Action Plan, setting 63 proposals for Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs). RROs enable government to repeal more easily unnecessary regulation.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Student Loan Company
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was to the Student Loan Company to issue cheques to each student in higher education every term in each of the last five years. [70155]

  Margaret Hodge
  Only the first loan instalment is paid by cheque each Academic Year. Subsequent instalments are paid by BACS. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Student Loans Company to write to my hon. Friend with further information, and to place a copy of the letter in the House library.

  Further Education
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact of the pay gap between schools and the further education sector on recruiting(a) music, (b) maths, (c) IT and (d) construction and engineering lecturers to further education colleges. [65078]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have not carried out an assessment of this type. As independent organisations it is for each college to recruit their own staff and to agree pay within the context of the overall resources available to them. We know that there are differences between salaries in general further education colleges and schools and this issue is being considered as part of the current Spending Review settlement.

  An additional £314 million is available for FE this year compared with 2001–02; by 2003–04 total funding for FE will be up by 26 per cent in real terms since 1997 and total funding per full-time equivalent student will be up by 16 per cent over the same period. In 2002–03, the Learning and Skills Council has increased colleges' participation funding rates by 2.5 per cent in cash terms, compared to a 1.5 per cent increase in 2001–02.

  As part of the overall funding allocation, we are investing more than £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI). TPI is an important initiative designed to help modernise further education (FE) pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain teachers and lecturers as part of the drive to improve teaching and learning. Alongside TPI, we are introducing Training Bursaries, Golden Hellos and, subject to the approval of Parliament, a scheme to pay-off over time the student loans of new teachers in FE shortage subject areas. All of these initiatives offer significant financial rewards both to students training to be FE lecturers as well as those taking up teaching posts in FE shortage subject areas.

  Marketing (Universities)
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collates on expenditure by individual universities on marketing. [70024]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not collated centrally. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects data annually which show the expenditure of each higher education institution broken down by various categories, but expenditure on marketing is not identified separately.

  City Academies
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what flexibility there is for city academies to choose(a) their catchment area for admissions and (b) the feeder schools they will work with. [69724]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is a condition of the Funding Agreement between the Academy and the Secretary of State that each Academy's admissions arrangements are consistent with the law on admissions and the Statutory Codes of Practice as they apply to maintained schools. Within these requirements Academies have the right to determine their own admissions policies and admission arrangements, including oversubscription criteria. Acceptable criteria can include catchment areas and transfer from named feeder primary schools, in addition

  Pupils in Independent Schools: Numbers and as a Proportion of Total Pupil Numbers

  England

  Independent Schools

  All Schools (1)

  Percentage of pupils in independent schools (2)

  Total boys

  Total girls

  Total all pupils

  Total boys

  Total girls

  Total all pupils

  Total boys

  Total girls

  Total all pupils

  January 2000

  Pupils aged: Under 5

  33,861

  34,030

  67,891

  501,506

  478,851

  980,357

  6.8

  7.1

  6.9

  5 to 10

  104,072

  99,044

  203,116

  1,980,145

  1,886,362

  3,866,507

  5.3

  5.3

  5.3

  Total Under 11

  137,933

  133,074

  271,007

  2,481,651

  2,365,213

  4,846,864

  5.6

  5.6

  5.6

  11 to 15

  110,253

  103,014

  213,267

  1,583,332

  1,513,934

  3,097,266

  7.0

  6.8

  6.9

  16+ (3)

  40,568

  35,718

  76,286

  196,339

  205,346

  401,685

  20.7

  17.4

  19.0

  Total Over 11

  150,821

  138,732

  289,553

  1,779,671

  1,719,280

  3,498,951

  8.5

  8.1

  8.3

  Total

  288,754

  271,806

  560,560

  4,261,322

  4,084,493

  8,345,815

  6.8

  6.7

  6.7

  January 2001

  Pupils aged: Under 5

  34,848

  34,918

  69,766

  498,930

  475,563

  974,493

  7.0

  7.3

  7.2

  5 to 10

  105,215

  100,379

  205,594

  1,968,070

  1,873,140

  3,841,210

  5.3

  5.4

  5.4

  Total Under 11

  140,063

  135,297

  275,360

  2,467,000

  2,348,703

  4,815,703

  5.7

  5.8

  5.7

  11 to 15

  112,274

  105,348

  217,622

  1,611,433

  1,540,200

  3,151,633

  7.0

  6.8

  6.9

  16+ (3)

  40,589

  35,682

  76,271

  199.850

  206,933

  406,783

  20.3

  17.2

  18.7

  Total Over 11

  152,863

  141,030

  293,893

  1,811,283

  1,747,133

  3,558,416

  8.4

  8.1

  8.3

  Total

  292,926

  276,327

  569,253

  4,278,283

  4,095,836

  8,374,119

  6.8

  6.7

  6.8

  January 2002 (Provisional)

  Pupils aged:

  Under 5

  35,322

  35,930

  71,252

  497,442

  476,675

  974,117

  7.1

  7.5

  7.3

  5 to 10

  105,677

  101,394

  207,071

  1,944,804

  1,851,210

  3,796,014

  5.4

  5.5

  5.5

  Total Under 11

  140,999

  137,324

  278,323

  2,442,246

  2,327,885

  4,770,131

  5.8

  5.9

  5.8

  11 to 15

  114,729

  108,094

  222,823

  1,630,271

  1,558,345

  3,188,616

  7.0

  6.9

  7.0

  16+ (3)

  40,881

  37,711

  78,592

  201,018

  209,860

  410,878

  20.3

  18.0

  19.1

  Total Over 11

  155,610

  145,805

  301,415

  1,831,289

  1,768,205

  3,599,494

  8.5

  8.2

  8.4

  Total

  296,609

  283,129

  579,738

  4,273,535

  4,096,090

  8,369,625

  6.9

  6.9

  6.9

  (1) Includes all pupils in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, maintained and non-maintained special schools, pupil referral units, city technology colleges, direct grant nurseries and independent schools.

  (2) Expressed as a percentage of the total number of pupils in all schools.

  (3) Excludes pupils in sixth form colleges and further education colleges.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.
  644W
  to others such as sibling links and distance from school. Academies will not operate in isolation but are required, as part of the Funding Agreement, to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the specialist schools for which progress reports were submitted in September(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, broken down by (i) local education authority, (ii) specialism, (iii) status of the school, (iv) the total number of applications for places, (v) the number and percentage of pupils selected by aptitude, (vi) the number and percentage of pupils with statements and (vii) the number and percentage of pupils receiving free school meals. [68173]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Statistics
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in secondary education in. England there were and: how many and what percentage of pupils were in fee paying(a) secondary and (b) primary schools, broken down by sex, in each of the last three years. [68171]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: The available information is shown in the table below:

  Foreign Teachers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance her Department gives to schools seeking to recruit teachers from abroad. [70181]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The Department does not give any special assistance to schools for overseas recruitment. But more broadly, my right hon. Friend has allocated £44 million from the recruitment and retention fund for 2002–03 to schools in areas where the cost of living can make it harder to attract and keep the best teachers, following the £33 million allocated last year. A new Recruitment and Retention Unit in the Government Office for London will also support London LEAs in, amongst other things, overseas recruitment.

  School Expulsions
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were expelled from school in Somerset over the last two years. [69398]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of Permanent Exclusions from schools (1) in Somerset Local Education Authority

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population (2)

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population (2)

  Somerset

  63

  0.09

  62

  0.09

  (1) Maintained primary and secondary schools and maintained and non-maintained special schools

  (2) The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the headcount of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools and special schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Further Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the reasons for the delays in notifying colleges of their funding allocations for 2002–03; and what instructions she has given the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that colleges, have adequate time to fulfil its requirement that corporations must approve a budget before the beginning of its funding year on 1 August. [68514]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: It is hard to compare progress on final allocations in 2002–03 with earlier years since the process is now different. In the past, the allocation of funding to colleges did not take into account colleges' previous performance. The old system of funding led to some colleges bidding and receiving funding for unachievable growth targets, retaining funds which their performance did not justify (last year estimated at over £150 millions) which could more usefully have been allocated elsewhere, and ultimately having to pay the money back.

  This year, as part of our drive to improve standards, performance and efficiency, and target funding where it can have the most impact, the Learning and Skills Council
  646W
  (LSC) has used its budgetary discretion so that money is allocated more effectively. It has introduced new arrangements which will stimulate growth, particularly for 16–18 year olds and basic skills, by putting in place a more robust allocations process and challenging those providers who have consistently been unable to achieve their projected performance levels in the past. This process has led to detailed and at times protracted negotiations with some providers. However it has ensured that we no longer have millions of pounds sitting in college bank accounts not working effectively towards our priorities.

  Despite this change which might have been expected to cause delays, by 5 July the LSC had made 313 (48 per cent) final allocations to colleges. This is well ahead of last year when only 16 per cent of institutions had received final allocations by the first week in July. We recognise however that there is still considerable scope for improvement and the LSC is looking at ways of doing better in the future so that final allocations can be made even earlier.

  Dyslexia
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training is required for teachers to deal with pupils diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. [70156]

  Stephen Twigg
  It is important that all teachers are properly prepared for the range of special educational needs (SEN) they will encounter in schools. That is why, as part of their initial teacher training, all student teachers must show that they understand their responsibilities under the SEN Code of Practice, and know how to seek advice where necessary. These skills are reinforced and developed during their induction period, when teachers have to demonstrate that they can plan effectively to meet the needs of pupils with SEN.

  There are no specific training requirements placed on teachers in relation to dealing with pupils diagnosed with either Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia. However, opportunities for in-service training and continuing professional development for teachers in post are supported under the training component of the SEN category of the Department's Standards Fund, through which £91 million of locally supported expenditure is available for SEN in 2002–03. Under the Standards Fund, LEAs and schools can draw on grant aid to address the training and development needs of teachers, and other staff, in relation to particular SEN conditions, including ADHD and dyslexia. The support on offer covers activity ranging from awareness raising events to more specialised in-depth training. It is, however, for individual local education authorities and schools to determine and prioritise the training and development needs of their staff, in the light of local circumstances. We have also introduced in 2002–03 two new £1 million funding streams, under the SEN Small Programme Fund and the SEN Training and Development Fund, to support the creation of new or extended training opportunities and resources for teachers and other staff. Under these initiatives, competitive bids were invited from voluntary organisations and higher education institutions. Included amongst the successful bids were a number of ADHD and dyslexia projects.

  Safe Routes to Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Safe Routes to Schools initiative. [69485]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We continue to work with the Department for Transport, and other partners on the School Travel Advisory Group, to make the journey to school safer. This Department has also produced guidance for schools, governors and local education authorities to help them put in place initiatives to promote healthier, safer and more sustainable school travel.

  Morley and Rothwell
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many mature students in Morley and Rothwell have applied for a child care grant. [69362]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on mature students who apply for a childcare grant is not available centrally.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in Morley and Rothwell received help from the Community Champions Fund. [69363]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Scarman Trust, who administer the Community Champions fund in the West Yorkshire region, have received five applications from people in the Morley and Rothwell area. Unfortunately, none of these applications were successful, either because they were from large, established community groups, or because they did not meet the criteria for Community Champions funding.

  However, we would welcome further applications from individuals and small groups in Morley and Rothwell who want to increase their skills to participate in the regeneration of their communities. In the first instance, they should contact the Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber at the address below.

  Natalie Bain

  GOYH

  PO Box 213

  Room 1252

  City House

  New Station Street

  Leeds

  LS1 4US

  Tel: 0113 2835884

  Annex 1

  NTO

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  NTO Total

  Accountancy NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  74,494.00

  85,000.00

  159,494.00

  Animal Care and Equine NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  10,455.00

  0.00

  0.00

  10,455.00

  Association for Ceramic Training and Development

  0.00

  41,455.00

  129,950.00

  108,813.00

  117,951.00

  398,169.00

  Bakery Training Council

  0.00

  25,000.00

  70,020.00

  195,770.00

  137,229.30

  428,019.30

  Banks and Building Societies NTO

  0.00

  115,000.00

  123,000.00

  119,000.00

  0.00

  357,000.00

  Board for Education and Training in the Water Industry

  90,590.66

  0.00

  31,950.00

  0.00

  0.00

  122,540.66

  648W
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in Morley and Rothwell have(a) taken up modern apprenticeships, (b) started a foundation degree course and (c) received help from Individual Learning Accounts. [69365]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) started modern apprenticeships.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  190

  248

  296

  300

  358

  (a) started a foundation degree course.

  Provisional figures for autumn 2001 show that there were 6 students on Foundation degrees.

  (b) received help from individual learning accounts.

  A total of 1,202 people have received help from the Individual Learning Account programme that was in operation from September 2000 to November 2001.

  Agricultural Colleges
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what help will be given to agricultural colleges to cope with the change in the rural economy resulting from the foot and mouth epidemic. [65145]

  Margaret Hodge
  Funding and planning of provision by agricultural colleges in the further education sector is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member providing the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library. Agricultural colleges in the higher education sector are responsible for their own management and development, in discussion with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

  Training Organisations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 26 June 2002 to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman),Official Report, column 910W, on training organisations, what payments were made to each NTO in each financial year since April 1997; and what the sector coverage was of each NTO in March. [70295]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The first NTO recognitions were in 1997. NTO recognition was withdrawn as of 31 March 2002. The totality of payments recorded for each financial year since April 1997 made by the Department in respect of work contracted by each NTO and sector coverage is as attached in Annex 1.

  Unfortunately in our response of the 26 June, one organisation's total was included twice. This explains the difference in the 2001–2002 figures.
  649W

  Annex 1

  NTO

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  NTO Total

  British Plumbing Employers Council

  206,420.30

  58,451.00

  116,853.30

  76,000.38

  85,000.00

  542,724.98

  British Ports Industry Training Ltd

  0.00

  148,483.00

  122,783.00

  155,000.00

  139,300.00

  565,566.00

  CAPITB (Clothing, Apparel, Leather Prod)

  177,427.70

  64,300.00

  15,732.00

  80,000.00

  75,000.00

  412,459.70

  Central Government National Training Organisation

  0.00

  36,552.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  36,552.00

  Chemical Manufacturing and Processing NTO

  65,200.00

  45,750.00

  74,245.00

  82,334.00

  80,000.00

  347,529.00

  Cleaning and Support Services NTO

  9,105.50

  78,050.00

  46,435.00

  72,464.00

  53,691.95

  259,746.45

  OPITO (Oil & Gas Extraction)

  0.00

  0.00

  48,331.00

  76,561.00

  43,747.16

  168,639.16

  Community Justice NTO

  0.00

  66,777.67

  163,620.00

  168,263.80

  170,000.00

  568,661.47

  Construction Industry Training Board

  198,002.80

  370,762.20

  1,033,125.00

  241,500.00

  240,907.00

  2,084,297.00

  Council for Administration

  266,423.90

  212,400.00

  242,575.00

  334,089.00

  248,941.00

  1,304,428.90

  Cultural Heritage NTO

  0.00

  37,773.00

  191,773.00

  71,000.00

  140,506.60

  441,052.60

  Custodial Care NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  74,911.03

  99,733.98

  95,000.00

  269,645.01

  Dairy Training and Development Council

  10,500.00

  17,000.00

  26,721.75

  68,134.50

  137,722.40

  260,078.65

  Distributive NTO

  0.00

  15,001.00

  187,646.00

  255,132.80

  127,549.50

  585,329.30

  Electricity Training Association

  23,368.60

  14,390.00

  59,450.00

  71,911.24

  58,000.00

  227,119.84

  Employment NTO

  0.00

  218,038.00

  373,528.00

  293,922.60

  407,968.30

  1,293,456.90

  EMTA (Engineering)

  237,212.90

  280,300.00

  832,142.60

  179,748.60

  157,500.00

  1,686,904.10

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  105,957.20

  19,213.55

  19,447.50

  45,859.11

  30,505.16

  220,982.52

  Engineering Services Training Trust Ltd

  0.00

  22,854.00

  166,362.00

  85,065.86

  90,010.73

  364,292.59

  EPIC (Extractives and Mineral Processing Industries NTO)

  0.00

  104,000.00

  87,519.00

  136,750.00

  85,000.00

  413,269.00

  c-skills NTO (formerly ITNTO)

  0.00

  521,737.20

  1,487,618.10

  981,595.96

  834,000.94

  3,824,952.20

  Financial Services NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30,000.00

  253,750.00

  283,750.00

  Food & Drink

  133,030.20

  72,107.25

  175,483.00

  135,944.80

  115,000.00

  631,565.25

  Footwear and Leather NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  56,282.00

  130,000.00

  66,000.00

  252,282.00

  Furniture, Furnishings and Interiors NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  69,551.25

  65,000.00

  134,551.25

  Further Education NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  278,300.00

  903,700.00

  1,016,646.00

  2,198,646.00

  Gas Industry NTO

  0.00

  22,000.00

  130,524.10

  129,121.00

  105,931.00

  387,576.10

  Glass NTO

  144,350.00

  57,424.64

  113,020.00

  331,201.00

  75,000.00

  720,995.64

  Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority

  217,582.90

  52,961.00

  88,490.35

  79,797.00

  126,998.10

  565,829.35

  Healthwork UK (Healthcare)

  0.00

  81,200.00

  263,630.00

  237,636.00

  147,000.00

  729,466.00

  Higher Education Staff Development Association

  0.00

  67,555.54

  193,565.00

  239,200.00

  185,000.00

  685,320.54

  Hospitality Training Foundation

  319,460.50

  303,060.00

  367,731.00

  335,120.00

  315,000.00

  1,640,371.50

  Housing Potential UK

  0.00

  59,772.38

  126,858.00

  60,000.00

  57,675.00

  304,305.38

  Information Services NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  66,290.00

  74,767.05

  141,057.05

  Institute of Customer Service

  0.00

  0.00

  61,066.00

  108,614.00

  104,999.90

  274,679.90

  Insurance and Related Financial Services NTO

  100,200.00

  105,000.00

  93,901.25

  118,000.00

  0.00

  417,101.25

  Languages NTO

  0.00

  259,988.00

  236,765.00

  225,344.00

  211,092.70

  933,189.70

  Lantra Trust (Landbased Industries)

  0.00

  403,287.00

  751,900.00

  792,352.50

  600,000.00

  2,547,539.50

  Local Government NTO

  5,000.00

  1,025,127.00

  245,995.10

  219,508.10

  205,329.50

  1,700,959.70

  Meat Training Council

  152,329.00

  56,131.00

  0.00

  46,295.58

  83,344.33

  338,099.91

  Merchant Navy Training Board

  0.00

  0.00

  47,486.00

  96,478.00

  78,000.00

  221,964.00

  Metals Industry Skills & Performance Ltd

  98,420.00

  70,530.00

  191,397.00

  197,800.10

  144,318.00

  702,465.10

  METIER (Arts & Entertainment)

  6,862.50

  234,976.00

  221,063.00

  234,486.30

  205,673.40

  903,061.20

  Motor Industry Training Council

  35,037.54

  36,432.01

  133,369.00

  186,631.00

  128,897.60

  520,367.15

  National Electrotechnical Training — NTO

  136,450.00

  135,400.00

  207,640.00

  230,700.00

  67,300.00

  777,490.00

  National Textile Training Organisation

  0.00

  0.00

  56,500.00

  58,550.00

  93,252.00

  208,302.00

  NTO for Early Years

  0.00

  241,854.38

  224,800.00

  147,000.00

  159,000.00

  772,654.38

  nto tele.com

  0.00

  140,000.00

  834,202.00

  109,948.00

  0.00

  1,084,150.00

  Paper Education and Training Council

  0.00

  34,275.00

  68,175.00

  36,568.00

  45,000.00

  184,018.00

  PAULO NTO (Community based L & D)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  51,830.00

  128,860.00

  180,690.00

  Petroleum Industry NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  64,596.50

  47,763.22

  56,988.75

  169,348.47

  Pharmaceutical Industry NTO

  0.00

  8,000.00

  25,500.85

  58,500.00

  60,000.00

  152,000.85

  Photo Imaging NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  50,000.00

  45,000.00

  31,500.00

  126,500.00

  Police Skills and Standards Organisation

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  110,000.00

  110,000.00

  Polymer and Associated Industries NTO

  0.00

  30,190.00

  66,310.00

  122,890.00

  62,600.00

  281,990.00

  Print and Graphic Communication NTO

  0.00

  28,064.32

  61,033.00

  180,914.80

  114,516.00

  384,528.12

  Publishing NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  148,093.00

  128,111.30

  276,204.30

  Rail Industry Training Council

  0.00

  105,675.00

  157,275.00

  115,315.00

  115,000.00

  493,265.00

  650W 651W

  Annex 1

  NTO

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  NTO Total

  Refractories and Building Products Training Council

  0.00

  25,416.00

  63,477.00

  85,000.00

  70,000.00

  243,893.00

  Road Haulage and Distribution Training Council

  163,899.40

  88,820.97

  221,095.90

  183,900.00

  180,000.00

  837,716.27

  Science, Technology and Mathematics Council

  379,758.20

  358,732.00

  322,351.00

  292,753.00

  188,150.80

  1,541,745.00

  Seafish Training

  114,480.10

  53,649.00

  93,022.00

  90,663.00

  90,000.00

  441,814.10

  Security Industry Training Organisation

  271,207.50

  224,159.00

  202,615.00

  41,308.00

  138,842.50

  878,132.00

  SKILLSET (Broadcasting, Film etc)

  0.00

  198,090.00

  671,391.10

  247,719.00

  145,000.00

  1,262,200.10

  Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative / METO

  0.00

  610,213.80

  784,692.73

  611,961.70

  401,465.90

  2,408,334.13

  SPRITO – NTO for Sport, Recreation and Allied Occupations

  261,116.20

  263,400.00

  457,609.00

  400,000.00

  332,371.00

  1,714,496.20

  The Property Services NTO

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  131,529.70

  65,000.00

  196,529.70

  Training Alliance for Surface Coatings

  0.00

  0.00

  22,800.00

  11,385.00

  15,000.00

  49,185.00

  Training Organisation for Personal Social Services

  0.00

  5,801.00

  113,612.50

  177,238.00

  205,000.00

  501,651.50

  TRANSFED (Passenger Transport)

  228,552.00

  13,109.33

  260,133.70

  228,125.00

  220,000.00

  949,920.03

  Ttento Ltd (Travel)

  0.00

  0.00

  51,170.00

  82,780.00

  92,691.00

  226,641.00

  Voluntary Sector NTO

  0.00

  150,719.00

  414,953.00

  230,000.00

  225,000.00

  1,020,672.00

  4,157,945.60

  8,136,408.24

  15,007,974.36

  13,213,648.88

  11,546,602.87

  52,062,579.95

  4.158

  8.136

  15.008

  13.214

  11.547

  52.063

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of her Department set out in the document Public Services for the Future 1998 have been met; and if she will make a statement. [68716]

  Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: Information relating to the Department's Public Service Agreement targets can be found in the Department for Education and Skills Departmental Report 2002.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68681]

  Estelle Morris
  The spending review involves a comprehensive assessment of the department's performance, priorities and resource requirements and a range of staff have made and will make contributions.

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in her Department. [69323]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Currently there is very little use of Open Source Software in the Department.

  Our future use of Open Source Software will follow the Government policy which is expected to be published in summer 2002.

  The draft policy document is available for viewing at http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_document.asp? docnum=429.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department has issued to primary schools, secondary schools, colleges, universities and education authorities relating to the purchasing of 652W
  computer software; and how much she estimates was spent by these bodies on computer software over the last five years. [70004]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not currently provide direct guidance to schools, colleges, universities and education authorities about which software products to purchase. There are however a number of sources of advice, such as the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), to help institutions make purchasing decisions.

  Guidance supporting the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund Grant for ICT encourages schools to spend at least 15 per cent of this grant on the procurement and development of educational and operational software.

  The Department does not routinely collect data on total spend on software however the 2001 ICT in Schools Survey did report that in 1999–2000 schools in England spent an average of £800 per primary school and £5,230 per secondary on Software and Online Content.

  Pressure-treated Wood
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the safety of CCA pressure-treated wood. [69627]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has discussed the safety of CCA pressure-treated wood with officials from the Department of Health. We have also discussed the issue with DTI who represent the views of the Construction Industry; and with HSE who carried out a risk assessment of CCA products used to treat wood, under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  In the UK wood preservatives are covered by the Control of Pesticide Regulations, and the Health and Safety Executive lead on such non-agricultural pesticides. CCA is approved for the pre-treatment of timber by pressure impregnation at industrial sites. This follows the

  653W
  advice to Ministers from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) that such products do not present any risk to human health or the environment.

  Recently the EU Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment advised that there was a small risk to children from the use of CCA treated wood in playground equipment. Applying the precautionary principle, the Commission have subsequently drawn up proposals under the Marketing and Use Directive, which would prevent the use of CCA treated wood, with some exceptions such as for railway sleepers and electricity and telephone poles. This would prevent its use in playground equipment.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations her Department has received regarding the number of playgrounds using CCA pressure-treated wood. [69626]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The Department has not received any representations regarding the number of playgrounds using CCA pressure-treated wood. However Copper Chrome Arsenic (CCA) pressure-treated wood preservative is the most common wood preservative for softwoods which are often used externally and have been used extensively in playgrounds. There are alternative materials which can be used in place of CCA treated wood in playground equipment.

  2001–02 Allocations

  Standard Spending Assessment

  Mental Health Grant

  Training Support Programme

  Children's services Grant

  Promoting Independence Grant

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Inner London

  City of London

  2,349

  29

  15

  83

  70

  Camden

  68,067

  1,218

  201

  3,372

  1,859

  Greenwich

  63,824

  1,067

  315

  3,032

  1,762

  Hackney

  77,171

  1,501

  198

  4,526

  1,914

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  51,577

  1,056

  264

  2,878

  1,331

  Islington

  67,954

  1,039

  229

  4,011

  1,700

  Kensington & Chelsea

  49,290

  891

  195

  2,390

  1,324

  Lambeth

  92,374

  1,563

  285

  6,034

  2,160

  Lewisham

  75,867

  1,551

  244

  4,216

  1,971

  Southwark

  87,510

  1,644

  345

  5,095

  2,116

  Tower Hamlets

  75,331

  1,337

  273

  3,956

  1,875

  Wandsworth

  74,746

  1,216

  312

  3,370

  2,117

  Westminster

  71,692

  1,088

  355

  3,216

  1,979

  Outer London

  Barking & Dagenham

  44,148

  622

  151

  1,640

  1,315

  Barnet

  63,692

  885

  283

  2,067

  2,060

  Bexley

  38,251

  599

  195

  1,203

  1,246

  Brent

  61,747

  1,068

  228

  3,448

  1,612

  Bromley

  49,695

  706

  184

  1,477

  1,687

  Croydon

  61,631

  1,030

  238

  2,780

  1,764

  Ealing

  68,086

  1,131

  251

  3,231

  1,886

  Enfield

  56,839

  863

  189

  2,097

  1,757

  Haringey

  61,138

  1071

  247

  3,723

  1,534

  Harrow

  39,300

  597

  274

  1,162

  1,298

  Havering

  38,514

  584

  210

  1,013

  1,328

  Hillingdon

  44,054

  783

  296

  1,616

  1,409

  Hounslow

  45,783

  725

  210

  1,953

  1,333

  Kingston upon Thames

  23,387

  515

  214

  767

  772

  Merton

  35,052

  868

  201

  1,300

  1,064

  Newham

  68,797

  1,561

  257

  3,951

  1,717

  Redbridge

  45,514

  638

  180

  1,434

  1,472

  Richmond upon Thames

  30,779

  482

  200

  804

  1,061

  Sutton

  31.174

  466

  176

  983

  1,015

  Waltham Forest

  56,900

  918

  305

  2,561

  1,623

HEALTH

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) the average fee paid per person per week in each social services authority in England on purchasing places in the private and voluntary sector by social services, (b) the percentage increase in each social services authority in England, (c) the retail price index change and (d) the average wage level change was in each year since 1993–94. [69715]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the average fee paid per person per week on purchasing places in the private and voluntary sector by local authority social services is not available centrally.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was allocated to each London borough through(a) personal social services standard spending assessment and (b) special grants in 2001–02. [69964]

  Jacqui Smith
  The tables show how much was allocated to each London Borough through(a) personal social services standard spending assessment and (b) special grants in 2001–02.

  In addition, the City of London was allocated £1,280,000 from the drugs and alcohol specific grant and was responsible for pan-London services for all London Boroughs.
  655W

  2001–02 Allocations

  Carers' Grant

  Deferred Payments Grant

  Improving Information Management Grant

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant

  Alds Support grant

  Building Care Capacity Grant

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Inner London

  City of London

  17

  1

  17

  2

  28

  17

  Camden

  519

  28

  17

  51

  803

  422

  Greenwich

  481

  51

  17

  48

  144

  430

  Hackney

  572

  16

  17

  66

  442

  421

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  395

  24

  92

  42

  592

  289

  Islington

  509

  16

  17

  59

  512

  390

  Kensington & Chelsea

  393

  26

  17

  37

  592

  265

  Lambeth

  714

  37

  17

  88

  1,000

  460

  Lewisham

  576

  54

  17

  63

  400

  464

  Southwark

  665

  26

  17

  80

  640

  475

  Tower Hamlets

  563

  13

  17

  64

  400

  421

  Wandsworth

  579

  57

  17

  52

  534

  481

  Westminster

  554

  32

  17

  51

  547

  422

  Outer London

  Barking & Dagenham

  315

  39

  17

  29

  60

  480

  Barnet

  496

  112

  17

  32

  240

  680

  Bexley

  294

  82

  17

  20

  41

  315

  Brent

  468

  65

  17

  48

  329

  359

  Bromley

  407

  126

  17

  24

  124

  827

  Croydon

  493

  101

  17

  44

  329

  403

  Ealing

  522

  78

  17

  48

  310

  424

  Enfield

  432

  94

  17

  34

  179

  743

  Haringey

  467

  39

  17

  52

  518

  409

  Harrow

  297

  79

  17

  18

  96

  324

  Havering

  302

  92

  17

  17

  25

  555

  Hillingdon

  342

  81

  57

  23

  121

  566

  Hounslow

  352

  53

  17

  30

  25

  312

  Kingston upon Thames

  190

  53

  17

  11

  121

  179

  Merton

  275

  60

  17

  21

  156

  248

  Newham

  505

  37

  96

  59

  451

  398

  Redbridge

  343

  92

  17

  23

  147

  369

  Richmond upon Thames

  253

  59

  17

  13

  92

  411

  Sutton

  249

  63

  17

  17

  60

  289

  Waltham Forest

  422

  57

  17

  40

  285

  560

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what vacancies there were for social workers and social care staff in London social services; what the average age was of social workers and social care staff employed by the London boroughs; and how many people took early retirement from social work and social care employment by the London boroughs in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [69963]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mutual Organisations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with mutual organisations which are delivering health and social care. [65013]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]: I hosted a seminar in June with experts and practitioners in the field of social enterprise to explore thinking around social enterprise activities, and their potential contribution in partnership with public services.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Morecambe Bay NHS Primary Care Trust will lift its temporary recruitment freeze on speech and language therapists. [68938]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust has not implemented a freeze on any posts, and this includes posts in the speech and language therapy service. Lancashire Education Authority recently provided additional funding of 0.4 whole time equivalent to provide speech and language therapy input to the paediatric services. The recruitment process is currently underway.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve paediatric(a) occupational, (b) physiotherapy and (c) speech and language therapy services in Morecambe and Lunesdale. [68939]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: Children's and adolescent services are one of the priorities for the Morecambe Bay health community modernisation programme. As part of this process, the group will be reviewing the needs of children with disabilities and the therapy resources which are available to support them.

  Medical School
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to encourage more men to attend medical school; and if he will make a statement. [70054]

  Mr. Hutton
  The overall number of medical school places is being increased by 2,150 places over 1997 levels. The increase will have been delivered by autumn 2005. As part of this increase 10 medical schools will be offering shortened graduate entry 4 year courses to students with appropriate qualifications. This is intended to broaden the base of medical school intake.

  Since 1997 the number of male entrants to medical school increased by over 250. We expect that trend to continue as the remaining new places come on stream.

  Both the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills are committed to ensuring that there is a balanced and diverse medical student population of the requisite quality to meet the demand for doctors. This is a matter for ongoing discussion with the universities and medical schools. The Department and Higher Education Funding Council for England joint medical expansion group will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Universities are autonomous bodies who are responsible for operating their own application systems but they collectively adhere to the "Guiding Principles for the Admission of Medical Students" issued by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools in February 1999. This guidance follows principles of fairness, diversity and equity in access.

  UK Plasma Products
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the safety of UK plasma products; and if he will make a statement. [68142]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Since 1998 United Kingdom plasma has not been used in the manufacture of plasma derived products, including clotting factors, supplied to the National Health Service. This step was taken to reduce the unknown risks of transmission of vCJD.

  Plasma products are tightly regulated by European and United States authorities to minimise the risk of viral transmission. This is achieved by the screening of donor blood and the anti-viral measures taken during manufacture. However no medicinal product can ever be completely free of risk.

  Live Kidney Donations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of live kidney donations. [69161]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced plans to increase organ donation and transplantation, including living kidney donation, at a transplant summit in February 2001. UK transplant, a special health authority established to carry out a range of functions to support transplantation, has been given increased funding to help more renal transplant units to set up live donor transplant programmes.

  Live Donors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for primary care trusts to contribute to a permanent fund for live donors. [69162]

  Mr. Lammy
  National Health Service commissioners are expected to provide for the cost of a live donor operation and to reimburse any reasonable expenses incurred by a live donor.

  Shipman Inquiry
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the first report on the Shipman inquiry. [72081]

  Mr. Milburn
  Dame Janet Smith, chairman of the Shipman inquiry published her first report today. I am grateful to her for the work she has so far carried out. Copies of the inquiry's report have been placed in the Library.

  Forced Marriages
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend Schedule 2, Part I, of the Children Act 1989, to require local authorities to have regard to the services provided to the victims and potential victims of forced marriages. [70074]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children who are the victims or potential victims of forced marriages fall within the scope of section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. That duty would not be strengthened by amending the wording of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the Act.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [64971]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following European Union Directives and regulations have been implemented through the Department in 2002:

  European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use, which incorporated Commission Directive 2000/38/EC on administrative action relating to medicinal products (pharmacovigilance), was implemented by SI 2002/236. There was no cost to public funds associated with implementing this directive.

  Directive (2000/70/EC) and Directive (2001/104/EC) was transposed by Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 618). No information is held on costs to public funds for this regulation but a regulatory impact assessment has been produced and placed in the House libraries.
  659W
  My Ministerial team is also responsible for making legislation in policy areas covered by the Food Standards Agency. Listed below are the relevant EU Directives and regulations that have been implemented in 2002.

  Directive 92/116/EEC and Directive 91/495/EEC were transposed by The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and inspection) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001 (SI 2002/3399)

  Directive 2001/50 EC was transposed by The Colours in Food (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001 (SI 2002/3442)

  Directive 2001/30/EC was transposed by The Miscellaneous Food Additives (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (SI 2002/3775)

  Article 9 of Directive 89/398/EC was transposed by The Notification of Marketing of Food for Particular Nutritional Uses (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/333)

  Directive 2001/52 was transposed by The Sweeteners in food (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002 (SI2002/379)

  Regulation 2001/466 and Directive 2001/22 was transposed by The Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2002 (SI 20/02/890)

  The cost to public funds of this EU legislation is not recorded centrally and could only he assembled at disproportionate cost.

  Prescription Charging
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the system of prescription charging, with specific reference to patients in(a) day wards and (b) in-patient centres. [70003]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is no charge for medication administered on hospital premises whether the patient is an in-patient, out-patient or day surgery case. Out-patients and day case patients are required to pay a prescription charge for any medication they are given to take at home, unless they qualify for free prescriptions under the extensive charge exemptions and remission arrangements or hold a pre-payment certificate. In-patients get their discharge medication free of charge. We have no plans to change the current charging arrangements.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by NHS hospital trust in England and Wales what has been spent on improving accident and emergency services and minor injuries services in each year since 1995. [69775]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not have this information by National Health Service hospital trust.

  A total of £150 million has been invested in accident and emergency departments through the accident and emergency (A&E) modernisation programme. It is the biggest investment in A&E services since the start of the NHS.
  660W
  The A&E modernisation programme enabled 180 A&E departments to be modernised. Work at 173 of these has been completed and the programme is currently 96 per cent complete.

  Delayed Discharges
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) progress of the London boroughs in meeting his targets for the reduction of delayed discharge from hospital between September 2001 and April 2002 and (b) outstanding challenges facing the London boroughs. [69965]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply. In September 2001 there were 1126 people who experienced a delayed transfer of care from an acute hospital bed in London. By March 2002, the target reduction to 901 beds had been met. London Boroughs received their share of the £300 million made available through the Building Care Capacity Grant to end unnecessary delayed discharges from hospital. Their total allocation was £42,560,387 over the two years 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  London Boroughs have agreed challenging targets for further reductions, averaging between 20 per cent and 25 per cent by March 2003. The targets were set as part of the conditions for receiving the grant. For Personal Social Services, we have already announced annual average growth in real terms of 6 per cent from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish and make locally available a document setting out which services and specialties are(a) now and (b) prospectively available to patients of Solihull hospital, and in particular details of accident and emergency services at that hospital. [67614]

  Mr. Lammy
  A wide range of information is available to local residents about emergency and other services provided at Solihull Hospital by the Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull National Health Service Trust. Any changes to the services provided will be published as part of the annual patient prospectus.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many admissions there were of residents and former residents of each Government office region to(a) NHS and (b) private hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983 in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [68905]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows numbers of admissions to National Health Service and private facilities, estimated by Government office region area, of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 in England, for 1999–2000 to 2000–01. Figures for 2001–02 will be available later this year.
  661W

  Admissions to NHS and private facilities, within Government Office Region areas, of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation, England, 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  NHS Facilities

  England

  25,200

  25,220

  North East

  1,070

  1,050

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1,950

  1,920

  East Midlands

  1,480

  1,930

  West Midlands

  2,290

  2,410

  South West

  2,130

  2,310

  East of England

  2,130

  2,050

  London

  7,540

  6,900

  South East

  3,390

  3,400

  South West

  3,220

  3,250

  Private Facilities

  England

  1,410

  1,410

  North East

  10

  10

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  40

  40

  East Midlands

  110

  40

  West Midlands

  30

  30

  South West

  50

  40

  East of England

  70

  150

  London

  770

  740

  South East

  230

  250

  South West

  110

  100

  Source: KP90

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten.

  Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  NHS facilities exclude high security psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he received concerning the new draft Mental Health Bill prior to its publication; and if he will place them in the Library. [67961]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The proposals in the Draft Mental Health Bill have 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. Responses to that document (where the respondent gave permission) were placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Since then there have been informal discussions with key stakeholders and letters have been received, for example following the publication of the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act published in December 2000. None of these, however, were part of a formal consultation process and there was no expectation by those making representations that the comments would be made public.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to the Minister of State, Dept of Health from the hon. Member for Salisbury dated 29 April about mental health services in South Wiltshire. [68930]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: A reply was sent on 17 July.

  General Dental Service: Number of exempt adult courses of treatment for the years 1996–67 to 2001–02 England

  Number of adult item of service claims

  Yearly change (exempt patients)

  Year

  Exempt

  Total claims

  Per cent of exempt patients

  Number

  per cent

  1996–97

  6,563,219

  24,720,185

  27

  ..

  ..

  1997–98

  6,648,036

  25,434,402

  26

  84,817

  1

  1998–99

  6,694,274

  26,316,085

  25

  46,238

  1

  1999–2000

  6,493,808

  26,058,380

  25

  -200,466

  -3

  2000–01

  6,449,067

  26,481,669

  24

  -44,741

  -1

  2001–02

  6,297,940

  26,390,667

  24

  -151,127

  -2

  Fostering
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many placements of foster children have taken place in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [61358]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The data available is shown in the table.

  Estimated number of placements in foster care starting during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001

  England

  Number

  Year

  Number of foster placements

  1997

  59,400

  1998

  60,000

  1999

  57,500

  2000

  56,900

  2001

  49,000

  Notes:

  The above table excludes children looked after under a series of short term placements

  It will also be noted that the fall in the number of foster placements starting in any one year is mirrored by the increase in their duration. That is, in any one year, whilst there are fewer placements, they last longer.

  Dentistry
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact dental charges are having on the provision of dental health care for people from low income backgrounds; [68825]

  (2) what steps the Government are taking to ensure necessary dental health care is provided to those who are working on low incomes and not receiving benefit. [68824]

  Mr. Lammy
  Working people who are receiving Working Families' Tax Credit or Disabled Person's Tax Credit at the full rate or maximum credit reduced by £72.20 or less per week do not have to pay National Health Service dental charges. Others on a low income may be entitled to free treatment via the NHS low income scheme and those not entitled to full remission of charges may get partial help under this scheme.

  The table below shows the number of exempt adult courses of treatment in England for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01. It is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the impact of dental charges from these figures, but the most likely explanation is that they reflect an improvement in economic circumstances. Research has indicated that increases in charges do not have any significant long-term effect on attendance. There are many factors that influence attendance patterns, the primary ones being attitude and habit.

  Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in his Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65954]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister for State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Alun Michael) on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 384–85W.

  The information provided does not reflect the current Department of Health position with regard to the procurement of Renewable Energy.

  The Department's main electricity supply contract was re-tendered in November 2001 and the approved supplier, London Electricity, provides 92.1 per cent. of our electricity requirement with renewable energy which is not subject to the climate change levy.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the empty residential properties in each London borough in the ownership of his Department and its agencies, giving(a) the type of accommodation, (b) how long each property has been vacant and (c) what the intended future use is of the property. [69495]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department and its agencies has no empty residential properties in any London borough.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 48W, on antisocial behaviour orders, how many of the antisocial behaviour orders given in each police/magistrates' court committee area between 1 April 1999 and 30 September 2001 have been breached; and how many of these breaches have resulted in a sentence of imprisonment. [46608]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is currently being collated, and I will write to the hon. Member when the results are known.

  Persons born in 1978 with a conviction for one or more standard list offences whilst aged 20 or under, by region and gender(1)

  Males aged 20 or under with a conviction: percentage with most recent conviction in region

  Females aged 20 or under with a conviction: percentage with most recent conviction in region

  Number of males aged 20 or under with a conviction, by region of most recent conviction

  Number of females aged 20 or under with a conviction, by region of most recent conviction

  All Regions

  100.0 per cent

  100.0 per cent

  45,300

  8,030

  North West

  16.9 per cent

  13.3 per cent

  7,600

  1,070

  London

  13.4 per cent

  16.2 per cent

  6,100

  1,300

  South East

  12.5 per cent

  10.2 per cent

  5,700

  820

  664W
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been applied by UK local authorities in the last year. [70404]

  Mr. Denham
  An anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) is a civil order made by a court which currently can be applied for by a local authority or the police or both combined. The table shows the number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued in England and Wales for 2001 (latest available). There were 11 ASBO applications during this period which were refused. Where an ASBO is refused we do not hold information on the applicant.

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders reported to the Home Office for 2001

  Applicant

  Total number issued

  Local Authority

  173

  Police

  94

  Joint application

  9

  Not known

  7

  Total

  283

  We are currently considering whether any further checks are needed to ensure the accuracy of the number of ASBOs reported.

  Matters relating to local authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland (Helen Liddell) and Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid).

  Young Offenders
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people aged 18 to 20 years have a criminal record by region expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) total number, ranked in descending order according to percentages for the latest date for which figures are available. [30593]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The latest available information relates to an analysis of a cohort of people born in 1978. Of the 307,000 males and 289,000 females born in 1978 it is estimated that 14.8 per cent of males and 3.0 per cent of females had a conviction for a standard list offence by the age of 20. No information is available on the number of persons with cautions, reprimands or final warnings.

  Information is not held centrally on the address of an offender. However the police force area in which an offender received his or her most recent conviction can be used as a proxy. The police force areas have been combined to show numbers and percentages convicted by Government Office region.
  665W

  Persons born in 1978 with a conviction for one or more standard list offences whilst aged 20 or under, by region and gender(1)

  Males aged 20 or under with a conviction: percentage with most recent conviction in region

  Females aged 20 or under with a conviction: percentage with most recent conviction in region

  Number of males aged 20 or under with a conviction, by region of most recent conviction

  Number of females aged 20 or under with a conviction, by region of most recent conviction

  West Midlands

  10.9 per cent

  7.9 per cent

  4,900

  640

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  10.1 percent

  10.8 per cent

  4,600

  870

  Eastern

  8.9 per cent

  7.1 per cent

  4,000

  570

  East Midlands

  7.9 per cent

  11.5 per cent

  3,600

  920

  South West

  7.4 per cent

  10.2 per cent

  3,300

  820

  Wales

  6.6 per cent

  5.0 per cent

  3,000

  400

  North East

  5.6 per cent

  7.8 per cent

  2,500

  620

  (1)The number of persons in the table is obtained by examining the criminal histories of all persons born during four weeks of 1978; the distribution of offences and geographic location is representative of all persons born during 1978; the numbers are scaled to represent all 1978 births. The region shown covers the police force area in which the individual received his or her most recent conviction; any previous convictions could have been recorded in other regions.

  Race Riots
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total public cost of the 2001 race riots was, broken down by local authority concerned. [25036]

  Mr. Denham
  The cost of the disturbances in the summer 2001; as broken down by local authority areas are as follows:

  Oldham (26–29 May 2001)

  £165,451

  cost to local authority;

  £2,244,354

  additional costs to Greater Manchester Police: at event;

  £32,097

  subsequent high visibility patrols;

  £218,077

  cost of repair and replacement of vehicles to Greater Manchester Police;

  Burnley (24–26 July 2001)

  £110,000

  cost to local authority;

  £1,266,851

  additional costs to Lancashire Constabulary;

  Bradford (7–10 July 2001)

  £121,347.03

  cost to local authority;

  £3,453,000

  additional costs to West Yorkshire Police;

  Stoke-on-Trent

  £870,000

  additional costs to Staffordshire Police.

  Greater Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire Police Authorities have also received claims for compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act (1886). I understand that the settlement process is still continuing.

  On 30 January I announced to the House, Official Report, column 302W that the Home Secretary had agreed to meet around two-thirds of extra cost of policing the disturbances, and had agreed grants as follows: West Yorkshire Police Authority £2.22 million; Greater Manchester Police Authority £1.44 million; Lancashire Police Authority £0.82 million; Staffordshire Police Authority £0.56 million. The sums paid are higher than would normally be provided under arrangements for special grant.

  Drug Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent figures are for the proportion of crime that is drug related in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North West of England and (c) Wales. [70321]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences; such as possession, and on acquisitive crimes, such as burglary, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.

  The New English and Welsh Arrestees Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme of interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police sheds some light on the links between drugs and crime, although the conclusions do not relate specifically to the North West region or to Wales. As a guide to the proportion of crime that is drug-related, research based on eight locations (1999–2000) indicates that more than three-fifths (by value) of acquisitive crime, is committed by users of both heroin and cocaine/crack.

  The numbers of acquisitive crimes recorded by the police in each of the three areas in 2001–02 are set out in Table 1. Acquisitive crimes are burglary, theft and robbery.

  Table 1: Acquisitive crimes recorded by the police, 2001–02

  Acquisitive crimes

  Lancashire

  98,559

  North West

  598,665

  Wales

  165,953

  Source:

  "Crime in England and Wales 2001–2002": Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested and (b) convicted of drug dealing in (i) Lancashire, (ii) the North West of England and (iii) Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [70323]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Arrest data are not available centrally to the level of detail required. The following table presents information for each area requested on the number of(a) drug dealing offences referred to court and (b) drug dealing convictions in 2000.
  667W

  Number of drug dealing offences in 2000

  Area

  Referred to court

  Convicted

  Lancashire (police force area)

  369

  249

  North West

  2,390

  1,706

  Wales

  1,078

  734

  (1) Police forces included in the total for the North West (Government Office Region) are as follows: Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. Police forces included in the total for Wales are: Dyfed Powys, Gwent, North Wales and South Wales.

  (2) The term "dealing" is taken to cover the following drug offences: possession with intent to supply unlawfully, unlawful supply, and unlawful import/export.

  Source:

  Drug and Alcohol Research Unit.

  Drugs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates to be the social and economic costs in the most recent year for which figures are available of illegal drugs in(a) Wales and (b) Lancashire. [70322]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The University of York, Centre for Criminal Justice Economics & Psychology (Culyer A., Eaton G., Godfrey C.et al., 2002) has recently completed a research report for the Home Office entitled "The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drugs Misuse in England and Wales, 2000". The report will be published as a Home Office Research Study (HORS) Autumn 2002, but does not include any country or regional breakdown of costs.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has collated of links between(a) acquisitive and (b) violent crime and the use of (i) cannabis, (ii) amphetamines, (iii) LSD, (iv) cocaine, (v) ecstasy, (vi) heroin and (vii) crack. [66664]

  Numbers of persons convicted of Class A and Class B drug offences in England 1993–2000, by region, showing Leeds separately

  Region

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Persons convicted of offences involving(1) Class A(2) drugs

  East

  234

  233

  363

  513

  620

  790

  892

  945

  East Midlands

  189

  203

  254

  316

  479

  615

  821

  1,034

  London

  1,598

  1,963

  2,076

  2,125

  2,184

  3,043

  3,651

  3,435

  North East

  174

  152

  167

  238

  328

  421

  538

  853

  North West

  867

  1,021

  1,319

  1,636

  1,902

  2,003

  2,071

  2,125

  South East

  374

  445

  622

  675

  857

  1,199

  1,508

  1,702

  South West

  296

  345

  603

  659

  814

  845

  1,070

  1,192

  West Midlands(3)

  270

  281

  404

  552

  827

  992

  1,177

  1,537

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  472

  528

  778

  1,226

  1,755

  1,983

  2,209

  2,214

  Of which:

  Leeds Petty Sessional Area(4)

  81

  72

  169

  220

  341

  431

  486

  416

  Total England

  4,474

  5,171

  6,586

  7,940

  9,766

  11,891

  13,937

  15,037

  Persons convicted of offences involving(1) Class B(2) drugs

  East

  1,231

  1,643

  2,037

  2,142

  2,593

  2,778

  2,669

  2,084

  East Midlands

  954

  1,247

  1,462

  1,574

  1,937

  2,163

  1,832

  1,546

  London

  3,267

  4,922

  4,345

  4,267

  5,137

  6,673

  6,279

  5,366

  North East

  648

  721

  814

  1,019

  1.132

  1,703

  1,924

  1,872

  North West

  2,850

  3,356

  3,886

  3,905

  4,558

  5,493

  5,046

  4,235

  South East

  1,836

  2,600

  3,095

  3,119

  3,533

  4,680

  4,379

  3,571

  South West(3)

  1,081

  1,389

  1,674

  1,671

  1,854

  2,348

  2,333

  2,038

  West Midlands

  1,082

  1,365

  1,626

  1,707

  2,335

  2,876

  2,620

  2,457

  668W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No statistical data are collected on offences that may have been committed due to specific drug taking. However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research published between 1998 and 2001 sheds some light on the links between drugs and acquisitive crime. The research is insufficiently advanced to reveal the precise links between drugs and violent crime.

  What the most recently published research does indicate is that users of both heroin and cocaine/crack (just under a quarter of the arrestees interviewed) are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the illegal income reported. Furthermore, 53 per cent of the arrestees reported having committed one or more acquisitive crimes in the last year. This increased to 62 per cent of those who had used any drug in the past 12 months, and 75 per cent of those who had used heroin and/or cocaine/crack in the last year. The latter group reported an average of 432 acquisitive crimes in the year—nearly 10 times the rate for non-drug-users. Therefore, drug use in general, and especially use of heroin and/or cocaine/crack, is associated with higher levels of crime.

  There is little evidence of any strong links between acquisitive or violent crime and cannabis, amphetamine, ecstasy or LSD use.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of(a) class A and (b) class B drug offences in (i) Leeds and (ii) each of the English regions in the past 10 years. [69953]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested, relating to persons convicted for(a) Class A and (b) Class B drug offences in Leeds and the English regions for the years 1993 to 2000 is shown in the table.

  A breakdown between the different classes of drug was not collected centrally prior to 1993. Statistics for 2001 will be available in the Autumn.
  669W

  Numbers of persons convicted of Class A and Class B drug offences in England 1993–2000, by region, showing Leeds separately

  Region

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1,629

  1,922

  2,326

  2,476

  3,003

  3,654

  3,318

  2,637

  Of which:

  Leeds Petty Sessional Area(4)

  326

  349

  514

  463

  570

  684

  481

  396

  Total England

  14,578

  19,165

  21,265

  21,880

  26,082

  32,368

  30,400

  25,806

  (1) Trafficking, production, supply, possession etc.

  (2) Excludes a small number of offences where the type of drug is unknown.

  (3) Staffordshire Police were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates' courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this high level of analysis.

  (4) Also includes convictions at the Crown Court where Leeds was the committing Magistrates' court

  Cannabis
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much cannabis a person would have to possess to be able to arrest them for dealing in the drug; [70137]

  (2) how many cautions a person will be allowed to receive for possession of cannabis; [70138]

  (3) what measures are in place to ensure that cannabis is not (a) used and (b) dealt near schools and other places where children are present; [70140]

  (4) which class A and B drugs are to have sentences for dealing and possession increased; and what the new sentences will be. [70139]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are no plans to increase sentences for supply and possession of any Class A or B drug. The table sets out the current maximum penalties.

  Misuse of drugs offences—current maximum penalties

  Offence

  Class A

  Class B

  Supply of a controlled drug

  Life or a fine or both

  14 years or a fine or both

  Possession of a controlled drug

  7 years or a fine or both

  5 years or a fine or both

  The police can arrest someone who is in possession of cannabis, as a dealer, if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed an offence of possession with intent to supply. The Home Affairs Committee, however, was not persuaded that an intent to supply should be presumed on the basis of the amount of a drug found and the Government has accepted this view. There would be considerable practical difficulty in setting a figure for the amount of cannabis possessed to constitute a criminal offence of possession with intent to supply. Dealers would exploit this by ensuring that the amount of the drug held by them remained below such a figure. The amount of the drug found in possession is an important factor, but not the only one, to consider in deciding on intent to supply. Other factors, such as other items in the person's possession or intelligence information gathered, might also be relevant.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers is currently developing a model for enforcing cannabis possession offences which they expect to issue this Autumn, following consultation. It is expected that the majority of first offences of cannabis possession by an adult will be dealt with by way of a formal warning from the police,
  670W
  together with confiscation of the drug. Further offending, or offending where there are aggravating factors, such as that involving a flagrant disregard for the law or which threatens public order, could result in arrest, followed by a caution or prosecution.

  Youth offenders will be dealt with in the same manner as they are for all other offences, as detailed in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Final Warning Scheme. Under that scheme, they should be reported for the offence and a decision should be made on their case disposal from the options of a reprimand, final warning or charge. A young person with no previous offending history should receive a reprimand. A second offence will lead to a warning or charge, depending on its seriousness. Any further offending following a warning will normally result in a charge being brought.

  Frequent use is an indication of vulnerability and this needs to be taken seriously. Hence, after a final warning, a youth offender must be referred to the Youth Offending Team to arrange a rehabilitation programme to prevent reoffending.

  We are currently launching local Safer Schools Partnerships with an initial 100 police officers in schools by September, which will help to make the communities around schools safer places to be. The Department for Education and Skills encourages all schools to have a drug incident management policy agreed by the governors, staff and parents in consultation with the local police. Schools are also encouraged to involve pupils in this process.

  We are considering the introduction of a separate criminal offence of supplying drugs to young people which would attract higher maximum sentences than are currently available. Those who deal near schools would be sentenced severely.

  Law Enforcement Priorities
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to individual police forces regarding priorities in law enforcement. [70410]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Police Act 1996 the Home Secretary sets strategic objectives for the police. These are commonly known as the Ministerial Priorities. For the current year, 2002–03, these are:To help create safe communities by reducing crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder through effective partnership working, including reducing the availability and use of Class A drugs.

  671W
  To reduce the fear of crime in all sections of the community and in particular to increase the trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities.
  To increase the number of offences for which offenders, and particularly persistent offenders, are caught and brought to justice, in partnership with other criminal justice agencies.
  Guidance on how best to achieve these priorities is not issued by the Home Office. It is for each Chief Officer, in consultation with their police authority, to determine the allocation of resources in a way which ensures that the Ministerial Priorities are complied with.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many frontline Metropolitan police officers have less than two years' experience, broken down by Greater London borough; and if he will make statement. [67007]

  Mr. Denham
  The information in the table has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Newly appointed Police Officers serve a period of probation which normally lasts for two years. The table shows the number of probationer officers by borough. They all perform frontline duties.

  Greater London Borough

  Probationer Strength as at 31 May 2002

  Kensington & Chelsea

  79

  Westminster

  216

  Camden

  101

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  70

  Hackney

  93

  Tower Hamlets

  92

  Waltham Forest

  61

  Redbridge

  54

  Havering

  52

  Newham

  90

  Barking & Dagenham

  29

  Lambeth

  118

  Southwark

  86

  Islington

  85

  Lewisham

  92

  Bromley

  58

  Harrow

  48

  Brent

  85

  Greenwich

  87

  Bexley

  51

  Barnet

  78

  Richmond upon Thames

  32

  Hounslow

  51

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  Merton

  34

  Wandsworth

  98

  Ealing

  90

  Hillingdon

  45

  Enfield

  72

  Haringey

  85

  Croydon

  85

  Sutton

  36

  Borough Total

  2.389

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the Metropolitan Police accommodation used to house police officers undergoing their intial training is owned by the Metropolitan Police Force; who owns the properties being
  672W
  used by the Metropolitan Police for accommodation which are not owned by the Metropolitan Police; and if he will make a statement. [66817]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the Metropolitan Police Authority owns or leases all the accommodation used to house police officers undergoing their initial training. Currently, 18 per cent of available bed spaces for recruits are leased from the Ministry of Defence at Mill Hill Barracks.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average gap between recruitment and enlistment of special constables was in the Metropolitan Police in the last 12 months. [65497]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the average processing time for applicants to the Metropolitan Special Constabulary in the past 12 months was 12 weeks (from date of receipt of application to attestation).

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in Buckinghamshire in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [68523]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: The Home Office records the number of special constables by police force, not by county. The number of special constables in Thames Valley Constabulary at 30 September between 1997–2001 is as follows:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  694

  587

  472

  463

  377

  Figures supplied by Thames Valley Police.

  Special constables are a key element of our police reform agenda. We are working on a package of measures to help reverse the decline in the number of special constables by improving the way they are recruited, managed and deployed. We are publishing guidance on good practice by the end of the year. We are also keen to improve liaison with employers and to encourage recognition of the wealth of skills and experience that specials bring to the workplace. We have also set aside £300,000 to help "specials champions" drive forward initiatives to improve recruitment and retention.

  Police Stations
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations(a) closed and (b) opened in each police authority area in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [66615]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: Data are only available from 1990–91. Copies of the table detailing the number of police stations closed and opened, and the total numbers of police stations for each police authority since 1990–91 will be placed in the Library.
  673W
  Information is available from all 43 forces for the total number of police stations for the three years to March 2000, March 2001 and March 2002. A number of forces

  Number of Police Stations Opened and Closed since 1990–1996

  Mar 90

  Mar 91

  Mar 92

  Mar 93

  Mar 94

  Mar 95

  Mar 96

  No of Police Stations

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Avon & Somerset

  82

  0

  0

  82

  0

  0

  82

  0

  -1

  81

  0

  -13

  68

  0

  -6

  62

  0

  -14

  48

  Bedfordshire (1)

  Cambridgeshire

  35

  0

  -2

  33

  0

  -2

  31

  0

  -1

  30

  0

  0

  30

  0

  0

  30

  0

  -1

  29

  Cheshire

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  City of London

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Cleveland

  17

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  17

  1

  0

  18

  2

  0

  20

  2

  0

  22

  Cumbria

  24

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  24

  10

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  Derbyshire

  Devon & Cornwall

  98

  1

  -5

  94

  0

  -2

  92

  0

  -3

  89

  2

  -7

  84

  1

  -7

  78

  4

  -8

  74

  Dorset

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  27

  1

  -1

  27

  0

  0

  27

  Durham

  41

  0

  -1

  40

  0

  0

  40

  0

  0

  40

  0

  0

  40

  3

  -1

  42

  0

  0

  42

  Dyfed-Powys

  45

  0

  0

  45

  0

  0

  45

  0

  0

  45

  0

  0

  45

  0

  0

  45

  2

  0

  47

  Essex (2) (3)

  (2) N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  114

  1

  -1

  114

  1

  -1

  114

  1

  -2

  113

  2

  -1

  114

  0

  0

  114

  Gloucestershire

  71

  0

  0

  71

  0

  -3

  68

  0

  -2

  66

  0

  -3

  63

  0

  0

  63

  0

  0

  63

  Gtr Manchester

  96

  0

  0

  96

  0

  0

  96

  0

  0

  96

  0

  -3

  93

  0

  -11

  82

  0

  0

  82

  Gwent (5)

  Hampshire

  126

  0

  -2

  124

  0

  -1

  123

  0

  -6

  117

  0

  -4

  113

  1

  -2

  112

  0

  -4

  108

  Hertfordshire (3)

  55

  1

  -1

  55

  0

  0

  55

  0

  0

  55

  0

  0

  55

  0

  -32

  23

  0

  0

  23

  Humberside

  38

  0

  0

  38

  0

  0

  38

  0

  0

  38

  0

  0

  38

  1

  -2

  37

  0

  -2

  35

  Kent

  46

  0

  0

  46

  0

  0

  46

  0

  -7

  39

  2

  -2

  39

  0

  -4

  35

  1

  -4

  32

  Lancashire

  111

  0

  -1

  110

  0

  0

  110

  1

  0

  111

  1

  -1

  111

  0

  0

  111

  2

  -2

  111

  Leicestershire

  26

  1

  -1

  26

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  26

  0

  -1

  25

  Lincolnshire

  45

  1

  0

  46

  1

  -1

  46

  3

  -1

  48

  3

  -3

  48

  2

  -2

  48

  0

  0

  48

  Metropolitan (3)

  Merseyside

  53

  0

  0

  53

  0

  0

  53

  1

  -1

  53

  0

  -1

  52

  0

  0

  52

  0

  0

  52

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  11

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  11

  Northumbria

  North Wales (1)

  North Yorkshire

  Noltinghamshire

  63

  0

  -1

  62

  0

  0

  62

  0

  -1

  61

  0

  0

  61

  1

  -1

  61

  3

  -1

  63

  South Wales (4)

  150

  26

  -2

  174

  2

  -13

  163

  4

  -9

  158

  1

  -2

  157

  2

  -4

  155

  3

  -5

  153

  South Yorkshire

  89

  0

  0

  89

  0

  -1

  88

  1

  0

  89

  0

  0

  89

  0

  -3

  86

  1

  0

  87

  Staffordshire

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  Suffolk

  51

  0

  0

  51

  0

  -1

  50

  0

  -23

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  27

  Surrey (3)

  33

  0

  -1

  32

  0

  0

  32

  0

  0

  32

  0

  0

  32

  0

  -2

  30

  0

  0

  Sussex

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  Thames Valley

  49

  0

  0

  49

  1

  0

  50

  2

  0

  52

  0

  0

  52

  1

  -1

  52

  1

  -1

  52

  Warwickshire

  18

  1

  -1

  18

  0

  -1

  17

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  17

  0

  -2

  15

  West Mercia

  110

  0

  -22

  88

  1

  -8

  81

  0

  -11

  70

  0

  -4

  66

  0

  -4

  62

  0

  -7

  55

  West Midlands

  77

  0

  0

  77

  1

  -2

  76

  0

  0

  76

  0

  -1

  75

  1

  0

  76

  0

  -1

  75

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire

  42

  0

  0

  42

  0

  0

  42

  0

  0

  42

  0

  -7

  35

  1

  -4

  32

  0

  -2

  30

  TOTALS (6)

  1843

  31

  -40

  1948

  7

  -36

  1919

  13

  -67

  1865

  21

  -53

  1833

  19

  -88

  1764

  19

  -55

  1728

  Number of Police Stations Opened and Closed since 1997–2002

  Mar 97

  Mar 98

  Mar 99

  Mar 00

  Mar 01

  Mar 02

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Avon & Somerset

  0

  -13

  35

  2

  -1

  36

  3

  0

  39

  0

  0

  39

  2

  0

  41

  1

  Bedfordshire (1)

  2

  (1)N/A

  11

  0

  -1

  10

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  29

  0

  -1

  28

  1

  -4

  25

  0

  0

  25

  0

  -1

  24

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  -1

  38

  0

  0

  38

  0

  -2

  36

  0

  -3

  33

  2

  0

  35

  0

  City of London

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Cleveland

  2

  0

  24

  0

  -1

  23

  1

  -2

  22

  0

  0

  22

  0

  0

  22

  0

  Cumbria

  1

  -1

  34

  0

  0

  34

  0

  -10

  24

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  24

  1

  Derbyshire

  25

  2

  0

  27

  1

  Devon & Cornwall

  2

  -5

  71

  1

  -4

  68

  3

  -3

  68

  1

  -4

  65

  1

  -1

  65

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  -1

  26

  1

  -1

  26

  0

  -1

  25

  3

  Durham

  2

  -4

  40

  1

  -1

  40

  0

  0

  40

  0

  0

  40

  3

  -3

  40

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  -3

  44

  4

  -1

  47

  1

  0

  48

  0

  0

  48

  0

  0

  48

  0

  Essex (2) (3)

  1

  -1

  114

  0

  0

  114

  1

  -1

  114

  1

  -43

  72

  4

  -19

  57

  1

  Gloucestershire

  0

  -1

  62

  1

  0

  63

  0

  -4

  59

  0

  -12

  47

  1

  -6

  42

  2

  Gtr Manchester

  0

  0

  82

  1

  -9

  74

  0

  -4

  70

  0

  0

  70

  0

  -2

  68

  0

  Gwent (5)

  57

  (5)N/A

  (5)-5

  52

  (5)4

  (5)N/A

  56

  0

  -7

  49

  0

  Hampshire

  5

  -9

  104

  1

  -3

  102

  0

  -8

  94

  0

  -2

  92

  1

  -4

  89

  0

  Hertfordshire (3)

  0

  0

  23

  1

  -1

  23

  0

  0

  23

  0

  -2

  21

  4

  0

  25

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  35

  1

  0

  36

  0

  -2

  34

  1

  -2

  33

  2

  -2

  33

  0

  Kent

  1

  -1

  32

  3

  -3

  32

  1

  -1

  32

  0

  0

  32

  0

  -2

  30

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  -2

  109

  0

  -1

  108

  1

  -1

  108

  0

  0

  108

  0

  -1

  107

  1

  Leicestershire

  3

  0

  28

  2

  -2

  28

  3

  -3

  28

  2

  0

  30

  0

  0

  30

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  -6

  43

  0

  -1

  42

  1

  -1

  42

  0

  0

  42

  0

  0

  42

  0

  Metropolitan (3)

  156

  0

  -12

  144

  4

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  52

  0

  -1

  51

  0

  -1

  50

  0

  -6

  44

  0

  -1

  43

  0

  Norfolk

  42

  0

  0

  42

  5

  Northamptonshire

  1

  0

  12

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  12

  0

  Northumbria

  36

  0

  0

  36

  0

  North Wales (1)

  (1)N/A

  -5

  54

  0

  -2

  52

  0

  North Yorkshire

  35

  0

  0

  35

  0

  Noltinghamshire

  1

  0

  64

  0

  -22

  42

  1

  -1

  42

  2

  0

  44

  2

  0

  46

  1

  South Wales (4)

  4

  -19

  138

  1

  -2

  137

  4

  -5

  136

  1

  -12

  125

  1

  -4

  122

  1

  South Yorkshire

  0

  -3

  84

  2

  0

  86

  0

  -4

  82

  0

  -2

  80

  3

  -6

  77

  6

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  39

  1

  -2

  38

  1

  -1

  38

  1

  -1

  38

  0

  0

  38

  2

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  27

  1

  0

  28

  0

  0

  28

  0

  0

  28

  0

  0

  28

  0

  Surrey (3)

  0

  0

  30

  0

  -2

  28

  0

  -2

  26

  0

  -4

  22

  6

  0

  28

  1

  Sussex

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  1

  0

  35

  1

  0

  36

  0

  0

  36

  0

  Thames Valley

  1

  0

  53

  1

  -7

  47

  9

  -1

  55

  2

  -2

  55

  0

  -4

  51

  2

  674W
  were unable to provide data on total police stations or on numbers opened or closed for earlier years and this is reflected in the table.
  675W

  Number of Police Stations Opened and Closed since 1997–2002

  Mar 97

  Mar 98

  Mar 99

  Mar 00

  Mar 01

  Mar 02

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Clsd

  Total

  Opd

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  15

  0

  West Mercia

  0

  -2

  53

  0

  0

  53

  4

  -4

  53

  1

  -1

  53

  1

  -1

  53

  1

  West Midlands

  0

  -3

  72

  0

  -2

  70

  0

  -1

  69

  0

  -1

  68

  0

  0

  68

  1

  West Yorkshire

  40

  0

  0

  40

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  -2

  28

  0

  -2

  26

  0

  -2

  24

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  24

  1

  TOTALS (6)

  25

  -76

  1677

  24

  -69

  1689

  36

  -74

  1651

  20

  -103

  1970

  35

  -80

  1925

  36

  (1) Comprehensive data for openings/closures for Bedfordshire and North Wales for 1999–2000 are not available. First "Total" numbers available are for March 2000.

  (2) Data not available for the total number of police stations in Essex at March 1990., or the number of openings/closures during 1990–91. The first "Total" figure available is for March 1991.

  (3) 12 police stations were transferred by the Metropolitan Police Authority to boundary forces in April 2000; Essex (2), Hefts (4) and Surrey (6).

  (4) In 1996–97 South Wales Police transferred nine police stations to Gwent.

  (5) Figures for Gwent opening/closures in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are net openings/closures.

  (6) The totals given for 1990 cover data from 33 forces only. Data was not available from the remaining 10 forces. The totals given for 1991–97 cover data from 34 forces. The total figures for the number of police stations for 1998 and 1999 cover data from 35 forces. Although the figures for the total number of police stations for March 2000 covers data from all 43 forces, data on the number of openings/closures in 1999–2000 are only available from 37 forces.

  Police (National Insurance)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much he estimates he would have to increase his Department's grant to the West Mercia Constabulary from April 2003 to meet the costs of the increased national insurance employers' contributions due from that month. [61281]

  Mr. Denham
  In common with other public sector employers, police authorities will be expected to meet any additional National Insurance employer's contributions within funding available to them from 2003–04.

  Speed Enforcement
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average(a) number and (b) proportion of each police force was employed in speed enforcement on roads in the last five years. [70409]

  Traffic Officers 1997/98 to 2000–01

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  FORCES

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  England and Wales

  7,951

  6.40

  7,806

  6.30

  7,522

  6.20

  7,238

  5.90

  Avon and Somerset

  211

  7.10

  207

  6.90

  200

  6.80

  211

  7.10

  Bedfordshire

  89

  8.20

  79

  7.60

  73

  7.10

  69

  6.70

  Cambridgeshire

  91

  7.00

  96

  7.50

  93

  7.50

  86

  6.60

  Cheshire

  204

  10.00

  205

  9.90

  196

  9.70

  187

  9.30

  City of London

  32

  3.40

  24

  3.10

  22

  3.00

  24

  3.40

  Cleveland

  82

  5.50

  67

  4.70

  68

  4.80

  63

  4.50

  Cumbria

  117

  10.00

  117

  10.40

  119

  11.00

  111

  10.60

  Derbyshire

  139

  7.80

  147

  8.40

  139

  7.80

  136

  7.50

  Devon and Cornwall

  215

  7.30

  212

  7.30

  215

  7.60

  202

  6.90

  Dorset

  93

  7.10

  77

  6.00

  83

  6.30

  86

  6.40

  Durham

  115

  7.60

  117

  7.50

  116

  7.40

  113

  7.10

  Dyfed-Powys

  89

  8.90

  97

  9.50

  93

  8.90

  83

  7.90

  Essex

  268

  9.20

  259

  9.00

  245

  8.70

  249

  8.60

  Gloucestershire

  83

  7.50

  82

  7.40

  68

  6.10

  69

  5.90

  Greater Manchester

  429

  6.20

  434

  6.40

  433

  6.40

  423

  6.10

  Gwent

  93

  7.50

  88

  7.10

  90

  7.10

  89

  7.00

  Hampshire

  261

  7.50

  278

  8.00

  251

  7.30

  240

  7.00

  Hertfordshire

  157

  9.00

  158

  9.20

  155

  8.80

  168

  8.70

  Humberside

  165

  8.20

  149

  7.50

  155

  8.00

  145

  7.60

  Kent

  149

  4.60

  119

  3.70

  103

  3.20

  104

  3.10

  Lancashire

  422

  13.00

  225

  6.90

  220

  6.90

  217

  6.70

  Leicestershire

  85

  4.30

  86

  4.30

  87

  4.40

  95

  4.70

  Lincolnshire

  95

  8.00

  95

  8.30

  93

  8.30

  88

  7.30

  676W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information in the form requested is not collected. Data is however collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) for the number of officers who are deployed to all traffic duties. The table shows the number of police officers, as at 31 March, for each year from 1998 to 2001 who were deployed to traffic duties in each force in England and Wales and what proportion this was of the strength of each force. Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  The basis on which HM1C classify police service staff changed in the year 1999–2000 so the figures for 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Some officers counted as deployed to traffic duties in earlier years may, from 1999–2000 onward, have been recorded as deployed to duties relating to traffic wardens.
  677W

  Traffic Officers 1997/98 to 2000–01

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  FORCES

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Traffic

  per cent of strength

  Merseyside

  197

  4.70

  200

  4.70

  185

  4.50

  130

  3.20

  Metropolitan Police

  823

  3.20

  782

  3.00

  824

  3.20

  686

  2.80

  Norfolk

  111

  7.80

  107

  7.70

  109

  7.90

  113

  8.00

  North Wales

  143

  10.20

  236

  17.00

  134

  9.60

  146

  10.10

  North Yorkshire

  127

  9.30

  128

  9.60

  96

  7.50

  129

  9.90

  Northamptonshire

  97

  8.30

  87

  7.60

  52

  4.70

  52

  4.50

  Northumbria

  164

  4.40

  162

  4.20

  158

  4.20

  158

  4.10

  Nottinghamshire

  177

  7.60

  182

  8.20

  167

  7.60

  175

  7.90

  South Wales

  155

  5.20

  220

  7.40

  224

  7.70

  238

  7.70

  South Yorkshire

  197

  6.20

  197

  6.20

  196

  6.20

  206

  6.40

  Staffordshire

  204

  8.90

  208

  9.30

  188

  8.70

  35

  1.60

  Suffolk

  68

  5.70

  74

  6.20

  70

  6.10

  63

  5.60

  Surrey

  176

  10.90

  177

  10.60

  173

  9.70

  197

  9.50

  Sussex

  206

  6.90

  197

  6.90

  191

  6.80

  190

  6.60

  Thames Valley

  272

  7.20

  265

  7.10

  251

  6.70

  251

  6.80

  Warwickshire

  102

  11.00

  106

  11.70

  102

  11.30

  96

  10.40

  West Mercia

  239

  11.90

  238

  11.70

  278

  14.70

  322

  16.50

  West Midlands

  412

  5.80

  405

  5.50

  394

  5.50

  380

  5.10

  West Yorkshire

  307

  6.00

  331

  6.60

  323

  6.70

  326

  6.80

  Wiltshire

  96

  8.30

  90

  7.80

  93

  8.30

  91

  8.10

  Deaths in Custody
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) deaths in custody have occurred, (b) public inquiries into deaths in custody have taken place and (c) convictions of police officers secured as a result of cases arising out of deaths in custody, in each year since 1990; [69838]

  (2) what procedures the police are required to follow when investigating a death in custody; and if he will place a copy of his guidance in the Library; [69839]

  (3) how many independent inquiries into deaths in custody his Department has participated in each year since 1990. [70092]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office publishes annual statistics of deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police. The figures for each year since 1990 are shown in the table. Statistics for 2001–02 are currently being finalised.

  Year

  Total number of deaths

  1990

  61

  1991

  60

  1992

  48

  1993

  31

  1994

  39

  1995–96*

  50

  1996–97

  57

  1997–98

  69

  1998–99

  67

  1999–2000

  70

  2000–01

  53

  There have been no public inquiries into deaths in police custody in any year since 1990. Statistics on the number of police officers who have been convicted as a result of cases arising out of deaths in police custody are not collected centrally.
  678W
  The Home Office have not participated in any independent inquiries into deaths in police custody in any year since 1990.

  The procedures relating to the investigation of a death in police custody are contained in sections 70–76 of the Police Act 1996. Where such a death occurs the police are required to refer the investigation to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) for supervision. It is the responsibility of the PCA supervising Member to approve the appointment of the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), either from the force where the death occurred or from another force, and to agree the terms of reference for the SIO covering the parameters of the investigation. The PCA recently published their supervision manual which sets out the Authority's approach to supervision and the standards its supervising members will apply.

  Investigatory Branch CIB 3
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of perjury at hearings of bail applications have been made against officers from CIB 3 during the last four years. [69325]

  Mr. John Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the Metropolitan Police Service complaints and discipline system indicates that there have been seven allegations in respect of perjury and irregularities in evidence against officers from the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service's Directorate of Professional Standards (formerly CIB3) in all types of courts during the last four years.

  Detective Chief Superintendent John Yates
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been carried out into a complaint of perjury by Detective Chief Superintendent John Yates at Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court on 18 January 1999. [69330]
  679W
  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Commissioner of the Metropolis that no investigations were carried out into complaints of perjury by Detective Chief Superintendent John Yates at Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court on 19 (not 18) January 1999. Two complaints were made by a convicted police officer and his father. After considering the complaints under the Police Act 1996, the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and as a criminal allegation, the Metropolitan Police Service decided that there were insufficient grounds to appoint an investigating officer.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41111]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave him on 11 July 2002,Official Report, column 1198W.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken with credit card companies in 2002 to help combat credit card fraud. [71098]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The Home Office in association with the trade association for credit card companies has set up a two-year pilot of a unique policing unit, the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit. The unit, based in London, was launched in April 2002, with the Home Office providing 25 per cent of the funding requirement.

  Total recorded crime by police force area England and Wales 1995–2000(3)

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–98(1)

  1998–99(1)

  1998–99(2)

  1999–2000(3) New boundaries

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset*

  152,886

  156,557

  143,128

  144,556

  131,955

  150,089

  147,104

  149,254

  178,991

  Bedfordshire

  51,104

  52,004

  47,426

  45,250

  43,947

  49,076

  53,607

  49,627

  52,239

  Cambridgeshire

  67,652

  69,513

  60,050

  58,864

  59,678

  67,256

  68,722

  64,343

  69,559

  Cheshire

  73,202

  66,214

  60,363

  60,716

  59,414

  65,119

  64,528

  63,288

  70,990

  Cleveland

  79,719

  78,608

  64,445

  63,634

  63,726

  67,030

  65,185

  64,357

  72,003

  Cumbria*

  41,230

  39,739

  35,810

  35,777

  35,171

  40,202

  37,729

  32,873

  37,324

  Derbyshire

  82,380

  78,896

  73,792

  74,436

  74,047

  84,459

  85,650

  81,668

  89,841

  Devon and Cornwall

  102,193

  103,121

  94,828

  92,800

  88,484

  110,644

  110,361

  102,853

  101,425

  Dorset

  54,582

  49,731

  44,104

  43,536

  43,903

  52,755

  52,332

  50,320

  54,951

  Durham*

  57,817

  51,849

  47,976

  47,311

  44,178

  50,413

  48,796

  44,702

  50,175

  Essex

  98,097

  100,758

  90,158

  89,380

  87,147

  95,797

  102,777

  108,305

  106,768

  113,150

  Gloucestershire

  55,448

  53,675

  47,533

  46,044

  44,000

  48,206

  50,993

  49,871

  50,467

  Greater Manchester*

  327,994

  327,976

  307,403

  315,000

  336,172

  362,450

  377,086

  363,454

  380,801

  Hampshire

  134,319

  135,915

  124,306

  121,042

  115,008

  128,253

  135,174

  133,553

  135,961

  Hertfordshire

  55,891

  54,441

  50,050

  49,426

  46,255

  49,309

  52,741

  65,015

  64,215

  67,437

  Humberside

  128,393

  126,931

  121,330

  123,722

  119,290

  130,691

  121,442

  110,312

  117,463

  Kent*

  155,251

  147,980

  122,955

  118,892

  I10,244

  129,340

  124,918

  128,382

  120,155

  Lancashire*

  124,921

  122,487

  119,755

  116,947

  105,161

  118,085

  108,866

  117,633

  137,760

  Leicestershire

  93,607

  94,124

  81,259

  81,183

  81,714

  93,397

  94,577

  86,422

  88,535

  Lincolnshire*

  48,015

  47,069

  43,381

  41,792

  39,718

  46,670

  46,170

  44,884

  49,797

  London, City of

  5,727

  4,831

  5,130

  5,137

  6,035

  7,144

  7,775

  8,255

  10,098

  Merseyside

  153,385

  145,956

  125,979

  125,312

  130,606

  140,874

  148,172

  142,807

  150,934

  Metropolitan Police

  817,082

  841,784

  791,732

  778,279

  767,880

  934,254

  1,052,047

  1,016,742

  994,233

  1,057,360

  Norfolk

  51,716

  55,314

  53,332

  52,580

  51,167

  57,129

  59,387

  57,259

  58,954

  Northamptonshire

  56,524

  57,378

  54,047

  53,645

  55,842

  65,466

  61,240

  56,731

  60,485

  Northumbria

  194,141

  169,656

  140,166

  134,457

  132,588

  151,298

  142,279

  134,777

  139,130

  680W
  The Home Office is also actively supporting the credit card companies in their work towards implementation of Chip and personal identification number (PIN) by April 2005. Under this initiative, microchips will be introduced into payment cards to help authentication. This will be combined with the introduction of PIN as a more secure method of authentication than signature.

  Officials are in frequent contact with the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) to discuss and encourage implementation of other credit card fraud reduction initiatives such as verification of Internet transactions.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 102W, on crime and disorder partnerships, what action he intends to take to ensure that police authorities obtain the views of people on the changes to policing. [68045]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 89W.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of offences committed in each police authority area in England in each reporting period since 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [56237]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The requested information is given in the table.

  The period requested covers the change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and the boundary change involving the Metropolitan Police on 1 April 2000. Some forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002. This may inflate the number of crimes those forces recorded.
  681W

  Total recorded crime by police force area England and Wales 1995–2000(3)

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–98(1)

  1998–99(1)

  1998–99(2)

  1999–2000(3) New boundaries

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North Yorkshire*

  63,539

  56,919

  50,252

  50,297

  48,372

  55,309

  53,554

  51,551

  59,149

  Nottinghamshire

  151,371

  144,060

  128,015

  125,097

  123,680

  135,255

  136.875

  139,903

  159,240

  South Yorkshire

  154,293

  151,577

  130,960

  125,907

  124,427

  133,059

  131,700

  125,179

  134,764

  Staffordshire*

  91,495

  92,155

  89,957

  89,820

  84,495

  91,919

  98,852

  104,705

  117,274

  Suffolk*

  38,233

  37,095

  35,639

  35,262

  34,280

  39,908

  43,355

  44,317

  50,492

  Surrey

  44,313

  42,014

  38,440

  38,015

  36,376

  42,467

  46,288

  63,791

  63,321

  61,970

  Sussex

  110,300

  118,086

  111,624

  110,320

  111,468

  130,402

  136,566

  136,920

  135,110

  Thames Valley

  178,702

  172,194

  157,423

  154,014

  161,646

  176,477

  191,875

  187,989

  196,980

  Warwickshire

  38.906

  38,926

  35,725

  35,604

  35,659

  38,485

  38,593

  36,963

  42,211

  West Mercia*

  80,013

  82,254

  76,762

  75,330

  69,451

  81,782

  84,797

  78,363

  102,149

  West Midlands*

  318,087

  317,892

  278,975

  277,970

  276,512

  314,628

  364,888

  364,879

  372,257

  West Yorkshire

  283,938

  268,716

  244,142

  242,646

  246,438

  273,809

  260,238

  258,908

  298,847

  Wiltshire

  36,428

  35,911

  33,039

  32,831

  32,984

  38,189

  38,461

  36,555

  38,889

  England

  4,852,894

  4,790,306

  4,361,391

  4,312,831

  4,259,118

  4,847,095

  5,045,700

  4,932,394

  5,285,317

  * Adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to 1 April 2002.

  (1) The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.

  (2) The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  (3) New boundaries for the police force areas of Hertfordshire. Essex, Metropolitan Police and Surrey came into effect on 1.4.2000. These figures are the totals for the new areas in the previous year.

  Elderly Crime Victims
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims of crime there were aged 65 and over in each year since 1997 in each constabulary. [56569]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime statistics collected centrally do not identify the age of the victim, and therefore the requested information is not available for individual police forces. Information on the age of victim is only available from the 2000 sweep of the British Crime Survey (BCS). The BCS estimates that in 1999 there were 273,000 personal crimes in England and Wales committed against those aged 65 and over. Those aged 65 and over represent 20 per cent of the population for England and Wales, but only experience 4.9 per cent of all personal crimes. The BCS also estimates that there were a further 1,090,000 household crimes against households headed by persons aged 65 or over. These BCS figures cannot be reliably broken down to constabulary level.

  Personal offences here covers assault, robbery, theft from the person, other personal theft. Household offences here covers bicycle theft, burglary, theft in a dwelling, other household theft, theft of and from vehicles and vandalism to household property and vehicles. The BCS does not cover crime against those not living in private households, for example in care homes.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to reduce crime against pensioners. [58365]

  Mr. Denham
  British Crime Surveys show that elderly people are far less likely to suffer crime than younger people. But we recognise the impact that crime can have on elderly people. In addition to the work we are pursing to reduce crime generally, we have funded several schemes specifically to tackle crime against the elderly.

  We have set up a Distraction Burglary Task Force, with £1 million Home Office funding, to gather data, publicise good practice, raise awarenes and provide guidance for victimes of this type of burglary, which is committed predominantly against the elderly.
  682W
  We have allocated over £1 million, under the Crime Reduction Programme, to three distraction burglary projects in Leeds, Sheffield and a consortium of forces led by Derbyshire.

  We have funded a two-year programme to provide home security upgrades for low income pensioners in areas with burglary rates above the national average. This scheme runs in conjunction with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA's) Warm Front scheme, which provides heating and insulation improvements. By the end of May, some 114,000 eligible homes had been surveyed, of which over 58,000 are receiving additional locks or bolts.

  We know that people over the age of 65 are among the most likely to fear crime despite being the group least likely to become a victim of crime. Research suggests this may in part be because the impact of crime can be far more traumatic for the elderly and vulnerable than for those of a younger age.

  We are working closely with Age Concern and Help the Aged to identify ways to tackle misperceptions about the risk of victimisation and also to educate the elderly as to the sensible precautions they can take to protect themselves. The Home Office are seeking to run a workshop at the Help the Aged annual conference in October during which these issues will be addressed; solutions identified will be incorporated into the Home Office strategy for reducing the fear of crime.

  Retail Crime
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the link between alcohol consumption and drug-related violent crime against retail staff. [69812]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No study has been undertaken to look specifically at the link between alcohol consumption and drug-related violent crime against retail staff. However, we are aware from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) ninth annual survey published this year of their concerns about the level of crime affecting retailers and the concerns they have that this is being
  683W
  driven by theft by drug and alcohol abusers. We are carrying out a commercial crime victimisation study of retail and manufacturing sectors later this year (the first for 10 years). This will give a firm basis for identifying the main crime problems affecting business and give valuable indicators of the best ways to tackle these issues.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to address violence against shop staff. [69809]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office is working with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to raise awareness of the need to tackle work related violence as part of the Health and Safety Commission's three-year programme of work (2000–03) to help reduce the incidence of work-related violence. The HSE published "Work-related violence: managing the risk in smaller businesses" on 9 July 2002. The publication includes 10 case studies on reducing risk of violence to staff. The HSE has also published specific guidance for the retail sector "Preventing Violence to Retail Staff". "Don't Discount Crime", a new user-friendly crime reduction guide for retailers became available in May 2002. This is being circulated among their members by retail trade organisations (including the British Retail Consortium), who were actively involved in deciding its content and design. It is of particular relevance to small retailers and includes basic guidance on what steps to take to reduce crime as well as what to do in crime situations.

  Karl Bluestone
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action was taken by the police authority in respect of(a) domestic violence perpetrated against his first wife and (b) subsequent incidents of domestic violence in the Bluestone murder case; [35655]

  (2) how many incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Mr. Bluestone were (a) recorded and (b) subject to disciplinary action. [35656]

  Mr. Denham
  Four incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Karl Bluestone were brought to the attention of Kent County Constabulary, and all were recorded. The alleged victim in each of these incidents was Jill Bluestone. The Police were not aware of the incidents perpetrated against Mr. Bluestone's first wife.

  In two of the incidents described above, reference was made to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided to take no further action. No disciplinary action was undertaken in relation to any of the incidents.

  Following the murders perpetrated by Karl Bluestone, a number of reviews have been convened to examine the behaviour of the different agencies that had contact with the family. Reports already received have made a number of recommendations for the police and other agencies in order to minimise the risk of further tragedies and highlighted the lessons to be learnt from this particular case. The Home Office has been working closely with Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to take forward those recommendations. Once the new ACPO lead officer takes up his duties in September, we shall set a target date for issuing guidance to forces on how to deal effectively with perpetrators of this crime who work within their ranks.

  Entry Refusal (Sexual Exploitation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been refused entry to the United Kingdom because of concerns that they would be sexually exploited in each of the last five years. [70282]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the reasons for which people were refused is not collated centrally and is therefore not available.

  Yarl's Wood Fire
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost(a) to date and (b) in the next year to the Bedfordshire police, arising from the Yarl's Wood fire. [68623]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire has informed me that the cost of the operation to date is approximately £2.9 million and that it is not possible to estimate future costs. The criminal investigation into the circumstances of the incident, and the forensic search of the material removed from the site is continuing.

  English Language Teaching
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people from(a) India and (b) Pakistan who are permanently settled in the UK and do not have a working knowledge of English. [68880]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is currently no information on the number of people from India and Pakistan who are permanently settled in the UK and do not have a working knowledge of English. However, the DfES has recently commissioned a large survey of adult basic skills needs, which should give us an indication of English language ability by ethnic group.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on English language teaching for(a) those from India and Pakistan settled permanently in the UK and (b) new arrivals with an inadequate grasp of English in each of the past five years broken down by constituency; and if he will make a statement. [68881]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Comprehensive data on the cost of providing English language training to these groups is not available.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been of people living in the United Kingdom for offences connected with the trafficking of women in each of the last five years; and of these, how many have been(a) convicted, (b) sentenced to imprisonment and (c) fined or deported. [70120]

  Beverley Hughes
  As there is at present no specific offence of trafficking, the police and other law enforcement agencies are not able to say how many people
  685W
  connected with the trafficking of women have been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, fined or deported in the last five years.

  The Government is creating a new offence of trafficking for the purposes of controlling someone in prostitution within the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament. It will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. This is a stopgap offence pending more wide-ranging offences of trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation when Parliamentary time permits.

  In May 2000, we set up Reflex, a multi-agency taskforce on organised immigration crime, including people trafficking. Led by the National Crime Squad (NCS), Reflex brings together all the key agencies from law enforcement, Government and the intelligence community, including the Immigration Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and police forces such as the Metropolitan Police, Kent Constabulary and the British Transport Police.

  Under Reflex, we have set up a joint operational unit comprising NCS and Immigration Service officers with sites at Gatwick and Heathrow. This will provide a significant new capability to respond to allegations of trafficking in women.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy is of the Metropolitan Police in combatting the trafficking of people into the London area for work in the sex industry. [70285]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Metropolitan Police Service is a member of Reflex, a multi-agency taskforce on organised immigration crime, including people trafficking. Reflex targets the organised criminals involved in the trafficking and smuggling of people.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the policy of the Metropolitan Police Service is to work with other agencies in detecting, prosecuting and, where appropriate, rescuing prostitutes, some of whom may have been trafficked, working both on and off the street. In order to tackle associated issues, kerb crawlers and those who affix prostitute cards are also prosecuted. Where there is evidence of trafficking for the purposes of prostitution, this is passed on to Reflex.

  Immigration Officers (Prague Airport)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British immigration officers are based at Prague airport; and what plans he has to increase this number. [71102]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: There are no British Immigration Officers based permanently at Prague airport.

  A bilateral agreement reached with the Czech government in February 2001 allows passengers travelling from the Czech Republic to the United Kingdom to be pre-cleared before their arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Under the terms of the agreement a team of 12 British immigration officers, attached to our Embassy in Prague as consular officials, operate a pre-clearance control at Prague airport.
  686W
  Pre-clearance operations in Prague are intended to be a short term and flexibly applied response, dependant on the number of inadmissible passengers arriving in the United Kingdom and are therefore re-introduced when operational pressures necessitate. The operation has been implemented on 12 occasions in total.

  There are no plans at present to increase the size of the team.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of ordinary written Questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58976]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Ordinary Written (OW) Cases answered within 7 days of tabling between 1 June 2001 and 25 June 2002

  Type

  Month

  Total

  Within 7 Days

  Percentage

  OW

  June 2001

  56

  37

  66.07

  July 2001

  302

  173

  57.28

  October 2001

  314

  172

  54.78

  November 2001

  399

  165

  41.35

  December 2001

  244

  100

  40.98

  January 2002

  464

  154

  33.19

  February 2002

  409

  145

  35.45

  March 2002

  351

  13

  3.70

  April 2002

  492

  43

  8.74

  May 2002

  391

  121

  30.95

  June 2002

  270

  56

  20.74

  Total

  3,692

  1,179

  31.93

  Named Day (ND) Cases answered on nominated day between 1 June 2001 and 30 June 2002

  Type

  Month

  Total

  Within 7 Days

  Percentage

  ND

  June 2001

  80

  57

  72.25

  July 2001

  192

  103

  53.65

  October 2001

  114

  45

  39.47

  November 2001

  222

  93

  41.89

  December 2001

  99

  15

  15.15

  January 2002

  197

  38

  19.29

  February 2002

  146

  22

  15.07

  March 2002

  160

  14

  8.75

  April 2002

  213

  16

  7.51

  May 2002

  132

  7

  5.30

  June 2002

  109

  4

  3.67

  Total

  1,664

  414

  24.88

  The Department recognises that our performance in answering PQs is not as good as it needs to be and we have implemented an action plan to improve the timeliness of our responses to PQs.

  Imams
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of imams in the United Kingdom who received their religious education and training outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [69788]
  687W
  Beverley Hughes
  We do not collect this information.

  Our recent White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven—Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" contains a proposal to allow those present in the United Kingdom (UK) in some other capacity to fill local vacancies as ministers of religion. It is envisaged that it is more likely that those who have already spent some time in the UK will have absorbed something of our culture and be better able therefore to relate their particular faith to the context of the UK. In addition, someone who has been in the UK is more likely to be able to speak English, which will enable him or her to play their part effectively as a religious leader and aid community relations. It will also be easier to verify the religious training or studies that have been undertaken by individuals whilst in the UK.

  Nuisance Neighbours
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation applies to nuisance neighbours in sheltered housing schemes; and if he will make a statement. [45621]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]There are a number of legislative measures that apply to nuisance neighbours. These include:The Housing Act 1996, which makes provision for eviction and injunctions.
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990, under which local authorities can deal with nuisance problems such as noise, smoke, fumes or gases emitted from premises.
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which introduced Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) which can be used to prohibit individuals from acting in a manner liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people in another household.
  The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which makes it a criminal offence to cause another to fear that violence will be used against him or her.

  The Government's consultation exercise on "Tackling Anti-Social Tenants" ended on 12 July. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will now be considering the responses and taking this work forward.

  Speed Cameras
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convictions relating to the use of mobile speed cameras there were for each police force in the last five years; [70408]

  (2) how many convictions relating to the use of fixed-site speed cameras there were for each police force in the last five years. [70407]

  Mr. John Denham
  Data on convictions for speeding as the result of the use of cameras in England and Wales are not available centrally. Court records reported do not separately identify proceedings where cameras have been used.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Government's response to the consultation on road traffic penalties; what plans he has to introduce an offence of negligent driving; what will constitute negligent driving for the purposes of the offence; and if he will make a statement. [69785]
  688W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We aim to publish the Government's response to the consultation exercise on road traffic penalties before the summer recess.

  There are no plans to introduce a negligent driving charge. However, one of the recommendations in the research report "Dangerous Driving and the Law" (Road Safety Research Report No. 26) commissioned by the Department for Transport, is that the Government should consult on the creation of an intermediate offence to deal with driving behaviour not amounting to Dangerous Driving but significantly more serious than Careless Driving, with more severe penalties than the lesser offence, including imprisonment.

  We are currently considering this recommendation and whether changes in the law or its administration are needed.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers police forces have in respect of road traffic offences carried out on unadopted roads. [70400]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Road traffic legislation applies to all roads, defined as any highway or other road to which the public has access. It would be for the courts to decide whether any particular unadopted road was one to which the public had access. Where the public does have access to such a road, the police are able to use their full range of powers to enforce road traffic legislation.

  Security Industry Authority
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Security Industry Authority will begin to operate a national register of those licensed to work within the security industry. [58171]

  Mr. Denham
  The Security Industry Authority (SIA) will begin to compile registers of licence holders as soon as personal licensing begins. The SIA will come into existence on 1 April 2003 and we anticipate personal licensing will begin later that year.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the extent to which the system of medical confidentiality allows for full access to a child's medical records, with specific reference to those held by general practitioners. [69759]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  Access to the confidential medical records of children, held by general practitioners or other parts of the health service, must be in accordance with the law. This would normally require the consent of a competent child or of someone with parental responsibility for the child. Where there is no one able to provide this consent, the best interests of the child might justify access. Where consent is withheld or it is not appropriate to seek consent, access would be possible where there is a statutory basis for permitting it or where the holder of the record feels that matters of public concern outweigh obligations of confidentiality.

  Passports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent improvements have been made to speed up the process of application for passports and renewing passports. [70134]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 14 January 2002, the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) introduced two new guaranteed services at its counters: a premium same day service for renewals and a fast-track one week service for all applications. The standard service, available by post or through the UKPS High Street partners (i.e. selected branches of the Post Office and Worldchoice travel
  690W
  agents) is two weeks. This is not guaranteed but is currently being met in 99.5 per cent of applications. A pilot exercise to test the possibility of extending the fast track service to the High Street partners is currently taking place. Applications for passports can also be completed by telephone or on the Internet; the completed form is posted to the applicant for signature. Improvements to the electronic application channel are being developed on which the UKPS has sought the views of the Consultative Panel of Passport users. It would be technically possible for the improved electronic application channel to be available through private sector partnerships but there are no specific proposals at present.