Sitting of 22 July 2002

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

INQUIRY INTO FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE 2001
Ordered,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Report, evidence and supporting papers of the Inquiry into Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned, conducted by Dr. Iain Anderson.—[Mr. Kemp]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill
    Siobhain McDonagh: If she will make a statement on her policy towards the licensing of televising of sport in public houses under the terms of the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill. [68956]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): As is the case with existing legislation, the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will not include the licensing of the televising of sport in public houses in its definition of public entertainment. A publican, of course, already requires and will continue to require a normal domestic television licence.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?
    Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents
    650
    following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Following that very welcome answer, does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between two musicians and seven musicians is irrelevant, and that the real issue is the amount of noise? A string quartet or an unamplified jazz group should be perfectly acceptable in a pub, should people choose to listen to them. Does he also agree that more venues for live music would give work to tens of thousands of amateur musicians and increase our country's cultural richness?
    Dr. Howells: I am very much in favour of live music in pubs, but I am not in favour of any Minister in Parliament trying to define what constitutes jazz, folk music or any other kind of music. I have been the victim of one man with an amplifier that nearly blew my head off.
    Mr. Speaker: Question 2. Mr. Mole is not here.

    Lottery
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If she will make a statement on the changes in the number of lottery tickets purchased over the last two years. [68959]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Total national lottery sales in the financial year 2001 to 2002 were £4,000—(Interruption.] I am terribly sorry, £4,983 billion—I am terribly sorry; wrong glasses—£4,983 million. In the last financial year, they were £4,834 million—a fall of 3 per cent.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the national lottery is obviously a little less popular than it once was, would the Secretary of State remind the public that it performs a great service in providing about £2,500 to worthwhile causes every single minute of the day? In particular, would she bear in mind the fact that in the Republic of Ireland, where spread betting on lotteries was introduced, the income of the lottery has been reduced by more than 20 per cent? Could she therefore give a clear assurance that after the gambling review, the Government will not introduce spread betting in Britain, observing that that practice is purely gambling in bookmakers and does not give any help to worthwhile causes?
    Tessa Jowell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which I know he has pursued very energetically. He will know that Sir Alan Budd's review of gambling law recommended opening up the possibility of side betting on the lottery. We considered carefully the potential impact on lottery sales if that reform were allowed. In view of the risk to lottery sales, we did not accept that recommendation, so we will not introduce legislation to allow side betting on the lottery.
    Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that lottery proceeds need to be considered together with grant in aid, money derived from local authorities, money from European sources, charitable

    651
    donations and box office receipts if we are to form an overall view of cultural funding? In congratulating her on the settlement that she secured in the spending review, may I put it to her that it is extremely important, as she considers the array of causes that deserve her Department's support, that she should be able to do substantially more for heritage and national museums and galleries?
    Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend is right to say that from the public's point of view, the source of funding is largely undifferentiated. The public are keen to ensure only that public money is well spent. My right hon. Friend is well aware that we have always sought to draw a distinction—not always an easy distinction—in relation to lottery funding, regarding it as additional to Exchequer funding, and not as a replacement or substitute for Exchequer funding. He draws attention to the spending review announcements made last week. I know that as a former Minister for the Arts, he will welcome, as the arts community has welcomed, the settlement that we announced for the arts.
    My right hon. Friend will be aware of our determination to ensure that national museums and galleries have the necessary funding to maintain the popular public policy of free entry, which has seen the number of people going to our national museums and galleries increase, in some cases, by up to 75 per cent. He will also be aware of our clear aim to increase the level of investment in regional museums and galleries—a long neglected quarter. We will make as much progress in that as we can. My right hon. Friend is right to welcome the settlement. It is important to maintain a clear distinction between lottery money, which is by and large a one-off, and Exchequer funding, which ensures sustainability in the public interest.
    Mr. David Cameron: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about recent media reports that village shops that do not sell many lottery tickets may have their terminals withdrawn? Is she aware that in rural areas such as mine, where often the shop serves a few hundred houses, sales may not be that great, but the lottery terminal has an important role in making sure that there is footfall into those shops and that there is custom? Will the Secretary of State have words with the lottery operator to make sure that it sticks to its licence obligations and maintains a thorough network of terminals?
    Tessa Jowell: As to the conduct of the lottery operator in accordance with its licence, the relationship is between the National Lottery Commission and Camelot. Yes, I am aware of the proposals by Camelot to withdraw terminals from a number of shops on the ground that they do not yield the maximum ticket sales. It is important to remember that, as with most of Camelot's decisions, that is a commercial decision. It is also important to remember that, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of shops that are queueing to be awarded the licence to run a terminal. It is good for trade, as the hon. Gentleman makes clear. The important point is that we have secured protection for precisely the kind of communities to which he refers, and Camelot has agreed that in about 1,000 areas, considerations other than mere profitability will be brought to bear. Hon. Members who may be concerned
    652
    should remember that even in isolated communities where there may be a threat of withdrawing the operating licence from one retailer, it is highly likely that there are other retailers in the same area who will be awarded a substitute licence because of the volume of demand to engage in such a highly profitable activity.

    Motor Sport
    Tony Cunningham: If he will visit MSport to discuss the promotion of motor sport. [68960]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I will be going to the north-east to visit Cumbria and my hon. Friend's constituency before the end of the year to see the very exciting MSport scheme, which I understand employs between 150 and 200 highly skilled people and plays a major role in the economy.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that Malcolm Wilson, the head of MSport, and the highly skilled work force at the facility will be absolutely delighted that he is coming to visit. The facility is superb; it is the headquarters of the Ford rallying team worldwide, and as he says, it has a highly skilled work force. Does he agree that motor sport plays a vital part in the economy not only nationally, but locally? Will he join me in congratulating the MSport team, which recently won the Kenyan safari rally with cars that were, of course, built entirely in my constituency?
    Mr. Caborn: Before the sketch writers start writing, let me say that I should have referred to the north-west and not the north-east. I always get mixed up about Cumbria; in my days in regional policy, it used to be in the north-east, until we changed that in 1997, so I correct the sketch writers before they mention that tomorrow.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the success that our teams are having in both Formula 1 and rallying. The UK has seven of the top 11 teams in Formula 1 and four of the seven top rally teams, which shows that our engineers, mechanics and designers—and indeed our drivers—are probably the best in the world. I congratulate him on the support that he gives to the Ford company. Since its takeover in 1998, it has done a tremendous job for the economy and in the success that its teams have had around the world, including in rallying.
    Richard Burden: May I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating MSport and the Ford rally team on their success, which, as he says, is another example of Britain's pre-eminence in motor sport generally? Does he agree, however, that although we currently lead the world in this field, there are signs of challenge from abroad? Will he explain to the House some of the practical steps that can be taken to ensure that British engineering, the British motor sport industry and British motor sport generally remain world class and ahead of the field?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the past two or three years, we have seen the industry and the sport come together, especially in Formula 1, which I am very pleased to support. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes

    653
    the same view—so much so that we will have a conference on 5 August with the industry and the sport to take forward the propositions that she has put to them.
    On the rallying side, a lot can be gained by bringing sport and the industry together. My hon. Friend is right that a lot of people out there would like to get their hands on the centre of excellence here in the UK, which plays a tremendous role in the automobile industry not only in motor sport, but in the luxury and volume car markets. As we have said before, what happens today in Formula 1 happens in the luxury car market tomorrow and in the volume car market the day after. We must be ever mindful of that and I know that he is playing a major role as far as Formula 1 is concerned in making that happen.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: As the former Conservative candidate for Workington, I should like to add my personal congratulations to MSport. Obviously, as we stand today, we have the world's pre-eminent motor sport industry. Does the Minister regret that the lead Department for the future of the sport now appears to be the DTI and that his own Department is playing second fiddle?
    Mr. Caborn: Ford was much more successful than the hon. Lady in using Workington as a launch pad to success. The matter is not about having a lead Department, but about partnership—something that is obviously very difficult for Opposition Members to understand. Departments can work together, although a lead Department is needed. Anybody who asks questions of the industry and the sport will find that they are saying very clearly that what is happening is very welcome. I do not know anybody in the industry or the sport who is criticising the role that the Government are playing in bringing those partnerships together. As I said, that is something to encourage, and I hope that she will encourage it, rather than knock it and shout from the sidelines. If all of us got behind our industries, such as Formula 1 and the rallying industry, the message of unity and partnership that would be sent out would be far better than denigration.

    Entertainment Licences
    Lawrie Quinn: What plans she has to reduce the cost of entertainment licences for live music in pubs and clubs. [68961]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Our plans for the modernisation of the alcohol and entertainment licensing regimes were set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform". The proposed new licensing system will remove at a stroke a considerable amount of existing red tape and reduce the licensing costs that currently deter many venues from providing live music and dancing. The reforms will be implemented by means of primary legislation to be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his recent excellent two-day visit to my constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two days?"] It is a big constituency. As he will remember, he had a listening brief on that occasion and, regretfully, turned down my invitation to go into some of the bars in Whitby to add
    654
    his baritone voice to the great deal of notable folk-singing that goes on in the area. Next time he visits my constituency, will the people of Scarborough and Whitby be able to hear his lovely voice?
    Dr. Howells: I could clear the entire Chamber within three bars.
    Mr. David Heath: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1182, tabled in my name? It has been signed by nearly 200 right hon. and hon. Members, which underlines the view across the House that it is a ridiculous law that needs to be amended at the first opportunity. May I extend a welcome to him to visit not only Scarborough but, in a spirit of amity across the Bristol channel, the Red Lion, just across the road, at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, where I, other hon. Members and Billy Bragg will be engaged in a little light singing that may or may not contravene the present law, but will serve to show what a ridiculous law it is?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will turn out to be a star performer, but it all sounds a bit left-wing for me.

    Local Commercial Radio
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What his policy is on the regulation of local commercial radio. [68963]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We set out our policy for the future of radio regulation in the draft Communications Bill, which was published on 7 May. Our general approach to the radio industry and to the communications market in general is deregulatory. Format controls and ownership restrictions will both be relaxed. However, we recognise the importance of maintaining the distinctive local basis of commercial radio. We therefore propose to retain key local ownership rules and to give Ofcom a duty to protect and promote local character.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. My area is very well served by local commercial radio stations such as Beach Radio and the local GWR stations. Does he agree that radio with a truly local focus is becoming increasingly popular? Such companies have welcomed many of the proposals in the draft Bill hut, on the regulation of ownership, they ask why, if there is to be a requirement for at least three local cross-media owners, further specific ownership rules are needed for radio through the complex points system. Why are two layers of rules required for local radio?
    Dr. Howells: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for our proposals in general, and assure him that we recognise the tremendous role that local radio plays in many respects. The three plus one formula to which he refers was adopted as a consequence of the commercial radio stations themselves saying a year ago that it was the best system. Now they are pushing the envelope and believe that it should be two plus one. We are in a consultation period, and if they come back to us with good arguments we will consider them carefully.
    Nick Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it makes sense to relax the rules on newspaper

    655
    and TV ownership while maintaining such strict controls on radio? Does he accept that plurality of ownership and diversity of choice and listening can sometimes run up against each other, and that the potential of digital radio might be better fulfilled by allowing one company to put out three different radio formats instead of insisting that three serve up the same sort of middle of the road diet? Given that we have cross-media rules, general competition rules and licences based on content format, does Ofcom really need the additional sledgehammer of such clumsy radio-specific rules?
    Dr. Howells: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), we are in a period of consultation and these are precisely the kinds of debates that we should have. I should like to think that we have adopted a wholly deregulatory role on radio, but I can see the sense in some of the hon. Gentleman's points. We will look at all of these arguments during consultation, and I hope that we will be able to come up with a set of regulations that will make the radio sector feel that it has been liberated rather than further constrained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I say that in good faith, because I want commercial radio to succeed. It is a great sector, and it has done some marvellous things for this country.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) is lucky to have two commercial stations. My constituency is stuck between two different FMs, so we have neither a commercial nor a decent public sector radio station. What is my hon. Friend the Minister's thinking on community radio, and on how such radio is to be paid for? I suspect that many more people will listen to community radio than currently listen to the BBC's digital radio, yet that is funded through the licence fee. Is there any chance that community radio could also be funded in that way?
    Dr. Howells: I agree with my hon. Friend. Community radio—or access radio, as it is sometimes called—can add a great deal to the radio service in this country. How it should be funded is, however, a matter that we have to look at very carefully. In my constituency, for example, it gets funding from lots of different places. The university of Glamorgan puts money into it, as do various community funds, and there is a real sense of ownership of access radio as a consequence. I would hate to see that disappear. This is the kind of radio whose raison d'?tre is to be part of the community, to grow from it, and to feel that it is serving it. The community should, therefore, have a sense of owning it, and that is rather an important consequence in terms of the way in which it raises its funding.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is the Minister completely happy with a system of regulation that allows the chairman of the body that regulates the BBC to share a platform with its director general at the launch of the annual report, and to use that platform to support Mr. Dyke against criticisms from MPs, bearing in mind that, in future, the equivalent procedure would be for the chairman of Ofcom to share a platform with the chief executive of BSkyB and to support Mr. Ball against other criticisms?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that I think it very important that there should be a
    656
    difference between the executive of a broadcasting corporation and the regulator. I have always argued the case for a sense of independence for regulation, and for a separation of regulation. I am sure, however, that Mr. Greg Dyke needs nobody to defend him; he is perfectly capable of doing that himself.
    Mr. Yeo: Does the Minister understand that he has just completely undermined the Government's position on the Ofcom Bill—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

    Archaeology
    Tim Loughton: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for archaeological excavation and research in the UK. [689641
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): In the policy statement, "The Historic Environment: a Force for our Future", published in December 2001, the Government recognised archaeological remains as an integral part of the historic environment, and affirmed their commitment to the maintenance of an effective framework of statutory protection for all elements of that environment. That includes the continued funding of archaeological excavation and research. In 2001, the Department, via English Heritage, provided more than £11.6 million; that figure is likely to be more than £11.8 million for 2002.
    Tim Loughton: The Minister will be aware that the all-party archaeology group has recently held a series of Select Committee hearings in the Lords with a number of people and groups involved in archaeology, from which it has become clear that British archaeology is in a state of crisis. Site and monument records are patchy throughout the country, and there is a real problem with archaeological education. There is also a lack of trained archaeologists—which is not surprising given that the average wage is just £13,000—and many archaeological sites are subject to deep ploughing without proper recording. Furthermore, when the British Museum celebrates its 250th anniversary next year, it will do so with 15 per cent. fewer staff than this year, and 30 per cent. less funding than it had 10 years ago. Will the Minister ensure that British archaeology is given a higher priority in his Department, and that some of the funding from the comprehensive spending review announced last week is used to that end?
    Dr. Howells: My Department takes archaeology very seriously. The recently published Government statement entitled "The Historic Environment: a Force for our Future" fully acknowledges that archaeological remains from all periods constitute a key component in the historic environment, and includes a number of proposals to help improve understanding of that key component. The report on the state of the historic environment is also directly relevant to archaeological remains, and the statement does not overlook the importance of marine archaeology.

    657
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the subject seriously, and that it will be taken into account in consideration about how money should be spent in the Department.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does not the brilliant and innovative, if gruesome and spine-chilling, restoration by the Guildhall of the Roman amphitheatre show what can be done? But what can be done to rescue archaeology when those practising it are not as well endowed as the City of London?
    Dr. Howells: There are various funds. If my hon. Friend tells us of specific projects that he does not think are being given proper attention, we will certainly try to help however we can.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister mentioned marine archaeology. He will know that under the National Heritage Act, which became law recently, responsibility for underwater archaeology is being transferred from his Department to English Heritage. Members on both sides of the House welcome that, but can the Minister assure us that appropriate funds will also be transferred? Indeed, given the backlog of work to be done on the subject, could a little more money he provided?
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I congratulate him on the work that he himself did to ensure that the transfer was conducted with such speed and style, and assure him that we are well aware of the need to provide appropriate funds for marine archaeology, which is an important part of our heritage.

    Museums (West Midlands)
    David Wright: What assessment she has made of the development needs of museums in the west midlands. [68965]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts regularly meets Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, chairman of Resource: the Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives, to discuss the needs of museums in all the English regions, including the west midlands.
    David Wright: As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency contains the Ironbridge Gorge, which attracts some 300,000 visitors to Shropshire every year. Can he reassure me that he will work with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that floods do not damage that UNESCO world heritage site?
    Dr. Howells: Yes. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, DEFRA has money for that great and vital project. We must make certain that what is now a world heritage site retains its status.
    Ms Joan Walley: Is my hon. Friend aware that he could boost tourism and help museums throughout the west midlands by engaging in
    658
    urgently needed talks between now and tomorrow morning, before the auction at Bonhams of the Minton collection, which is being sold by Royal Doulton, to establish whether eleventh-hour measures can be taken to save that national treasure for the museum in Stoke-on-Trent?
    Dr. Howells: I will certainly alert my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, although I am not sure that she would be able to get to the auction on time. I do not know whether it is happening this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

    Sport (Young People)
    Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of sport and recreation facilities for young people. [68966]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The need to improve and to extend the sports facilities available to young people was key to the decisions that we took when initiating the new opportunities fund, and when setting up the sport in schools and the space for sport and the arts programmes. In total, about £700 million is going into those two joint initiatives.
    Vernon Coaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most fundamental issues affecting young people? Many of the young people to whom I have spoken recently from Arnold, Carlton and Gedling in my constituency—I am sure that hon. Members have the same issues raised with them—have asked where the sports recreational facilities are. They say that more are needed much more quickly. As well as formal facilities, they also raise the question of informal space: spaces to kick a ball, to play, to skateboard, to do this or that. Are not those places lacking in our communities? Does not that often result in kids hanging around on the street because they have nowhere else to go? Will my right hon. Friend consider trying to accelerate the whole process and doing something about informal space for play, as well as formal sport and recreation facilities?
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Later this week, he will find out that the Government have been taking that matter seriously. Revised planning guidance on sports facilities and, for the first time, open spaces will, I hope, be published. We will be looking at the criteria laid down for sports fields. It is important that we get shot of the demarcation between sports facilities and open spaces. As my hon. Friend said, a synergy of the two can help young people to find recreation and to go into formal sport.
    The ministerial meetings that I chair once a month have brought together Health, Education and many other Departments of State. We are working with Sport England on a complete audit of all sports facilities. I believe that there will be better informed decisions on investment in sports facilities and open spaces, guided by the new PPG17—or the PPS17, as it is called—which has been long overdue for revision.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that we need not just the facilities—I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said

    659
    but, given that there is increased obesity among young people, the will to go out and enjoy sport and recreation? When he chairs his meetings with the Department for Education and Skills, what does he say to the Department about instilling in young people the need to get away from their computer screens and to go out into the streets, to recreation facilities or to open fields, to enjoy sports?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman should have been following the ever unfolding important debate about sports facilities and the whole question of obesity—[Interruption.] We will have to start banning lunches. As one doctor said to me the other day, a time bomb is being developed: diabetes in young children. We have to take that seriously. That is why we are bringing in two hours of PE or quality sports every week for every child from the age of six to 16. Some would say that that is only a minimum. I hope it is. We will move that forward, along with investment in sports facilities, our plan for sport, the development of coaching and the modernisation of governing bodies. A complete overhaul of sport not just in schools but in the community is necessary, not just for sport but for the well-being and good health of our nation.
    John Cryer: A number of sporting facilities in my constituency, one of which is attached to a secondary school, are crumbling; they are in a terrible state of disrepair. It is partly due to the low standard spending assessment that Havering council receives, which means that it cannot make the necessary investment—or at least, that is what it has always been telling us. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that any bids from my constituency to enhance those facilities will receive a fair hearing; and are there any plans to channel even more resources into such facilities?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not know the details of the application from my hon. Friend's constituency, but if he writes to me I shall look at it and ensure that it is dealt with fairly. A total of £581 million is being invested through the new opportunities fund via local education authorities, but the funding is conditional on the facilities being used by the community, too. That is important. Many people have been critical of investment in sports facilities that have not been available to the wider community. There is a change in culture and attitude among many in education—those who must ensure that those centres of excellence can be used by the whole community. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me, I shall look into the questions that he has raised.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister recognise that the single most useful step towards improving sports facilities for young people would be to ensure that all school children receive two hours of compulsory competitive sport every week of their school lives?
    Mr. Caborn: I understand the play on words about compulsory and non-compulsory. If the Conservatives, in nearly 15 years, had done a 10th of what we have done in the past four to five years, we would now have a much healthier nation than the one that we inherited

    Sports Clubs
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans to encourage sports clubs to seek charitable status. [68967]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I have written to 153 of sport's governing bodies, representing 90 sports, outlining the benefits of charitable status. The Government believe that the governing bodies should actively encourage their member clubs to apply. Through the governing bodies, we have distributed 140,000 leaflets advising clubs how they can access charitable status. The Charity Commission is working closely with my Department in trying to ensure that as many sports clubs as possible can get charitable status.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that local authorities could have a role in encouraging sports clubs to consider the benefits of charitable status? Will he meet the Local Government Association, and in particular the Association of London Government, to encourage them to take an initiative in this sphere? What does he think of the new club set up by Conservative Members to promote the sport of David Davis baiting—charitable or uncharitable?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Caborn: I have a dialogue with the Local Government Association, and we hope that, collectively, we can move the whole sports project forward. It is important also to note that, in the Finance Bill, which we hope will complete its passage through the House before the recess, the Chancellor announced a package of tax relief that will be available through the Inland Revenue. Charitable status and the new CASC—community amateur sports clubs—development in the Finance Bill, along with the performance and innovation unit report, form part of our agenda concerning whether an amateur sport should have charitable status as of right.
    I think that we are making considerable strides towards ensuring that more money is invested in sport at club level, where it is most needed, helping the clubs and all the volunteers who work in them.
    Bob Spink: I welcome what the Minister said about charitable status for sports clubs, but can he assure the House that the Charity Commissioners will not make over-burdensome bureaucratic demands on the clubs or interfere with their running in any way?
    Mr. Caborn: This is an important question. We are genuinely trying to take the load off sports clubs. The Charity Commission, my Department and Sport England are working together to set up a one-stop shop in every region, where small sports clubs without a lot of resources can get the answers to their questions. The Charity Commission, especially in the person of John Stoker, has played a fantastic role in helping my Department and Sport England to develop a far more comprehensive and user-friendly package for charitable status. We will continue to work to that end. We all know that many of

    661
    the clubs could not operate without the volunteers who do a full-time job. We must help them as much as we possibly can, and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of my long-standing interest in this matter, following the introduction of my 10-minute Bill more than two years ago. There is still a slight discrepancy between the charitable route and the CASC route through the Inland Revenue. There is also a serious question about rate relief for clubs. I welcome the one-stop shops, and I would encourage people to go through either of those routes, but the biggest bill that many clubs face is their rates bill. Will he apply pressure, in the dying days of this parliamentary Session, to ensure that rate relief is at the top of the agenda during the consultation process?
    Mr. Caborn: Yes, we will obviously raise that question with our colleagues in other Departments. We have come a long way in the past 12 to 18 months in instituting charitable status. Perhaps my hon. Friend should reflect on what the PIU report will say about charitable status for sports as of right. Perhaps when the report comes out it will be advantageous for him to resurrect the arguments that he has been deploying, skilfully and forcefully, for the past four months.

    Free Television Licences
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: How many families in the Wakefield district area are benefiting from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years and over; and if she will make a statement. [68968]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as licensing authority, is not able to provide precise geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 census indicate that there were approximately 20,400 people aged 75 or over living in the Wakefield metropolitan district council area.
    Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, the figures show something that we should concentrate on in future, but I should point out how welcome the free television licence is to the over-75s. Given that the Government's policy is to encourage more disabled and elderly people to be retained in, and to receive treatment in, their own homes, will my hon. Friend support the campaign to offer the television licence concession to those aged 70; and will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the representatives of other Departments whether that concession could be thus extended? Because of the Government's policy of withdrawing care beds, such people will have to remain in their own homes, and we need to look after their interests.
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the Chancellor will have heard those words. I remind my hon. Friend that 3.6 million households already benefit from this concession, at a cost of more than £370 million a year. That is a lot of money, and I am sure that all hon. Members will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Government on introducing that measure.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy
    Simon Hughes: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the level of spending on recruitment and retention of clergy (a) now and (b) 1991. [68942]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church has made no formal assessment within those parameters, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, during Dr. Carey's archbishopric, the number of attendees at selection conferences who were recommended for selection has risen to 71 per cent.—an increase of 16.6 per cent. during that period. Moreover, the number of ordinations has risen by 14.3 per cent.
    Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman spotted the purpose of my question. I was tempted to ask about the recruitment and retention of archbishops, but I shall not do so. Can he confirm that, under George Carey's charge of the Church of England, the number of ordinands has gone up in respect of full-time clergy, and that the number of non-stipendiary clergy and deacons has also gone up? Moreover, women can now be ordained to the full ministry of the Church—an historic move that has added to the quality, quantity and extent of the ministry in a way that can never be undone.
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the outstanding legacy of Archbishop Carey's time in charge has been the growth in the numbers of those ministering in the Church of England, while some other denominations in this country have sadly slipped in the other direction?
    Mr. Bell: I am sure that the archbishop will be very grateful to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I can build on what he has said. The national average stipend was £11,668 when Dr. Carey took office; in 2001, it was £17,030; and through its "Generosity and Sacrifice" document, the Church is aiming at stipends of £20,000.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed,
  representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral
  Commission, was asked—

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Party Funding
    Martin Linton: What plans he has to ask the Electoral Commission for a report on (a) limits on individual donations, (b) new limits on campaign spending and (c) increased grants for policy development. [68943]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): This summer, the Electoral Commission will launch a review of the funding of political parties, which will examine several issues, including the capping of donations. The

    663
    commission will also undertake a review of the policy development grant scheme, and a review of campaign expenditure limits for parties and candidates is expected to begin next year.
    Martin Linton: In considering the Electoral Commission's review, will the right hon. Gentleman note the comments of Lord Haskins? He said that the time has gone when we should allow our political parties to rely on large donations from individuals such as himself. He also said that we should allow more of the constructive work of political parties—policy development, training and international work—to be state funded, and that, as a quid pro quo, we should limit individual donations and reduce spending limits, so that people feel confident that their money is not just being spent on funding an escalating election spending arms race.
    Mr. Beith: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says and with what Lord Haskins says, although not on every subject. The reviews to which I have referred will consider the arguments on both sides of the issue, and that will take place soon.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Would not it be a great shame if comments and questions of the sort that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) were thought to be motivated by today's news that the Labour party is between £6 million and £10 million in debt? Would it not be an even greater shame if, as a result, the public purse were to be raided by this Government yet again?
    Mr. Beith: I am grateful for any means by which attention is drawn to this important subject, but it was clearly in the Commission's mind long before today's news came out.
    David Winnick: Would it not be a blessing, not only for political parties but for the electorate, if there were a curb on campaign spending in general elections? Is not there enough evidence to demonstrate that all the campaign spending has hardly any effect on the outcome? In those circumstances, political parties would need less money, and that would be a good thing.
    Mr. Beith: There is a curb on campaign spending in general elections and the only issue now is whether it has been set at the right level. We now have experience of the limit in operation, and we will have further experience in the Scottish and Welsh elections next year.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the
  Church Commissioners, was asked—

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Bishops
    Mr. Chris Bryant: How many bishops employed (a) drivers and (b) private chaplains last year. [68946]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In 2001, 33 bishops employed drivers, most of them either part time or combining the post with other duties. That equates to 19 full-time posts. Some 35 diocesan bishops employed full or part-time chaplains as part of their office staff allowance.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but would not it make more sense in these days of straitened ecclesiastical finances for the Church to appoint bishops who can drive themselves and even say their own prayers? In that way, more of the clergy could be devoted to the areas where they are most needed—in the parishes—not just to supporting bishops.
    Mr. Bell: I am always intrigued by my hon. Friend's questions and hesitate to suggest that his talents would be better deployed on subjects other than chauffeurs and bishops. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] That is meant as a kindly comment. The finances of the Church are not straitened. Bishops have learned to drive and do drive. However, we expect our bishops to be spiritual leaders, teachers, diocesan managers and local communicators. It is not unreasonable of them to accept such help as they can, and Professor Mellows' review "Resourcing Bishops" found that our bishops are by no means over-resourced, given all that they do.
    Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a large diocese—such as Lichfield, where the bishop is the Right Reverend Keith Sutton—the bishop must travel over a large area? While travelling to various locations, he has to prepare speeches and sermons. Is not it a good idea for him to use his intellect to prepare sermons and deal with documentation while he travels, rather than simply to drive himself?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He draws attention to the fact that bishops have a wide range of responsibilities at diocesan, provincial and national levels. It is important that they fulfil those responsibilities in the most efficient way that they can.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed,
  representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral
  Commission, was asked—

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Electronic Voting
    Bob Spink: What progress the Commission has made in considering electronic voting. [68947]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The Commission has evaluated the electoral pilot schemes held in 30 local authority areas in England in May 2002, including several schemes involving electronic voting. The Commission will shortly submit to the Deputy Prime Minister individual evaluation reports on each of the schemes from the local authorities concerned, and will also publish, on 1 August, a report making recommendations for the future development of the pilot

    665
    programme. The Commission also funded, together with the Local Government Association and others, the research report into the implementation of electronic voting in the UK which was prepared by a team led by De Montfort university and published in May this year.
    Bob Spink: I am grateful for that full answer. Will the Commission be prepared to look to the private sector for further innovative possible pilot studies? I am thinking especially of the Canvey Island company, Telephony, which produced a promising solution in Teletrack, which it launched with IBM, just over the river, last Friday.
    Mr. Beith: I can put the hon. Gentleman's constituents in touch with the Electoral Commission in case it can be of help to them.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: When the Commission considers the results of the pilot studies in electronic voting, which were held this year, will it consider differential access to such voting in terms of both age and social class and consider specifically the different experiences in the Church and Everton wards in Liverpool earlier this year?
    Mr. Beith: I assume that those wards were covered by the pilot project and therefore will be covered in both the individual evaluations and in the general review which the Commission is producing. The Commission is certainly aware that there are great differences between people—perhaps even between Members of this place—in their ability to cope with electronic means of doing things.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When the Commission is considering the entire process of trying to encourage greater use and participation, will it also have in mind the serious concerns that have been expressed in several areas about postal voting and postal ballots, which sometimes have not been returned on time? In some instances, the numbers of returns that have come in later than the last day have been more than the majority obtained in the election.
    Mr. Beith: Yes, these are all matters that the Commission has under consideration.

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Andrew Love: What research is being undertaken into procedures among local authorities as part of the Commission's review of electoral registration. [68948]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): I understand that as part of the Commission's review of electoral registration, research into local authority practice in managing the registration process is under way. There will also be consultation with local authorities and others as part of the review process. The Commission will report in spring 2003. A separate research project into local
    666
    authority practices in promoting registration has also been funded by the Commission, and is expected to be published in the autumn.
    Mr. Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I have been trying to ascertain the figures for the numbers of people prosecuted because they have not registered on the register. I have not been able to do that, although I have had contact with the Electoral Commission. Before the Commission starts to investigate the merits or otherwise of compulsory voting, would it be worth while it undertaking some research to see whether it is of merit to continue compulsory registration?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission does not have an enforcement role in electoral registration, and the figures are not held centrally or held by the Commission. The legal obligation to register has implications for other persons who would be resident in the household, not only for the individual who fails to register. These are matters that the Commission regularly considers.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the
  Church Commissioners, was asked—

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy Pensions
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the effect on clergy pensions of longevity, changes in taxation on pension funds and the recent stock market movements. [68949]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The latest actuarial review of the Commissioners' pension liabilities added a total £11 million a year to Church costs due to increased longevity. The withdrawal of the dividend tax credit from pension funds and charities has cost the Church some £12 million per year. Current stock market conditions disadvantage the Commissioners but help the new funds to be better and more cheaply invested. The net effect is broadly neutral.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, which I shall study with care. Is not the real problem the fact that the pension is so modest? I recognise the important part that the Church Commissioners play in meeting a sizeable proportion of pensions. However, will the hon. Gentleman consider the problem from the point of view of a modest pension and see what the Commissioners can do to safeguard pensions during this difficult time?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to clergy pensions. As he knows, the Commissioners are not entirely responsible for all pensions, but only for pensions entered into in the past. The question of having them under review is one that the Church always takes to heart, and keeps constantly under review.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Simon Thomas—the hon. Gentleman is not here. I call Mr. Michael Fabricant.

    Cathedral Repairs
    Michael Fabricant: What assessment has been made of the cost of repairing the fabric of cathedrals in each of the last three years. [68952]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am reminded of the Alice in Wonderland poem which goes something like, "I met a Member who was not there; he was not there again today; he was not there again tomorrow." Perhaps next time we will have more Members present for the final session before the recess of Church Commissioner questions.
    English Heritage has recently made an overall survey, in consultation with individual cathedrals and the Association of English Cathedrals for the purpose of assessing the continuance of its own programme of grant aid to cathedral repairs.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman, although he has a very short memory; he knows that I was "there" because I asked him a question only three minutes ago.
    With regard to Question 38, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that English Heritage was spending something like £10 million on restoring the fabric of English cathedrals only a few years ago. That sum has reduced to just £2 million. Can he use his best offices to ensure that cathedrals such as Lichfield's and others get the required money, because not just church-goers, but the whole community benefit from our great cathedrals?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that he was here three minutes ago. He was not here at the last Question Time, however, when I answered a very similar question. He will be delighted to know that I have written today to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointing out the discrepancies in the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers and inviting my right hon. Friend to use them as a submission for his next Budget.

Foot and Mouth Inquiries
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the foot and mouth disease inquiries.
Following last week's publication by the Royal Society of its independent examination of how we might prevent and combat future animal disease epidemics in the United Kingdom—chaired by Sir Brian Follett—today we publish the independent report of Dr. lain Anderson, in which he identifies the lessons he believes can be learned from the most recent of those: last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The Government are grateful to Dr. Anderson for the huge amount of work and effort that he has put in and to all the 800 to 900 individuals and organisations who gave him evidence.
Foot and mouth disease is a devastating and highly infectious animal disease, which is feared and loathed across the world because of its impact and virulence. In Britain alone, the experiences of the 1967 outbreak are a remembered nightmare in many rural communities, but what hit us in February 2001 was, as Dr. Anderson notes, due to a
"rare set of circumstances ⌦ one of the worst epidemics of FMD the modem world has ever seen. Numbers alone cannot capture the sense of what unfolded. The great epidemic of 2001 left an indelible mark on communities, businesses and people from all walks of life."
The Government are determined to learn the lessons of what happened in 2001. That is why we so quickly set up an inquiry process with three strands—each of them independent. That decision means that within six months of the United Kingdom regaining disease-free status, we already have the scientific review, the policy commission report charting the way forward for the industry and, now, the report of lessons that we need to learn.
Dr. Anderson's report, which concentrates primarily on the early part of the outbreak, is a sombre and thoughtful document—measured in its tone and content, though unquestionably grave in its import. What is crucial to future policy is that he makes a large number of strong recommendations, most, if not all, of which I believe we will be able to accept. Indeed, many of them suggest actions that the Government—while trying not to prejudge his report—have begun to address.
Separately, in his comments and observations, Dr. Anderson draws on the views and evidence put before him, about which there is certainly scope for different interpretation, even for disagreement. However, he asks in his introduction whether, as a first step, DEFRA can
"simply ⌦ admit that Government made mistakes during its handling of the crisis and that all involved are determined to learn from these mistakes"—
I can and I do. The House will know that I have always acknowledged that, in the desperate circumstances faced not only by the farming community, but by my Department and its officials, as well as by our departmental and ministerial predecessors, mistakes were bound to have been made.
Dr. Anderson shows complete understanding and sympathy for the terrible experiences of those in the field, but he also shows recognition of the dilemma of the centre, especially where there were clear or substantial
670
deficiencies in management information. He suggests that, for the first few weeks, the Government did not realise the seriousness of the measures that would be needed to control the outbreak. I accept—though it is with hindsight—that that is so, but he also shows how often the action taken was entirely consistent with the information and advice then available. But if we are to learn the lessons from those dreadful months, what we need most to consider is whether—while, as I say, there are bound to have been mistakes—there were structural defects.
Dr. Anderson does identify what he regards as mistakes of strategy. I think that it is right to say that many, if not all of those, the Government already acknowledge. Where there may be room for disagreement is, again, on how much of that was evident only, or at least primarily, with hindsight. On the issue of an immediate national ban on animal movements, Dr. Anderson himself says in the report:
"Even today the SVS"—
the state veterinary service—
"believes it would not have had the justification or the support immediately to introduce widespread restrictions".
Throughout the report the reader returns again and again to what was known and to what was without precedent and consequently unanticipated. For example, the report says:
"The disease could have been present at Burnside Farm for weeks, but it went unreported, despite the requirement of farmers to report suspected cases of notifiable diseases."
We now know, in fact, that there was virus present on at least 57 farms in 16 counties on the day the first case was confirmed, 20 February.
As to the unknown origin of the first case, both inquiries stress the importance of effective import controls to prevent exotic infectious diseases from entering the country. We have set in hand a wide-ranging programme of action against the risks posed by what must have been illegal imports of meat and animal products, but as both reports acknowledge, it will never be possible to reduce that risk to zero. So the necessary measures must be in place to limit the risk that, if disease enters the country, it will reach livestock and subsequently spread.
Both reports also highlight the importance of contingency planning. Dr. Anderson examines the pre-existing contingency plan, which was followed, but demonstrates that, though it met the international standards then expected—the European Commission judged the UK's readiness for disease outbreak as among the best in Europe—we can see, with hindsight, its deficiencies. But that is an admission that I make with hindsight. The European Commission is on record as having said recently:
"It cannot be reasonably expected from any Member State to design a contingency plan for the event of an epidemic causing more outbreaks within months than the 10 year's estimate for the whole Community".
On all those issues the analysis in the report is detailed. It shows that, in Dr. Anderson's own words—words echoed, among others, by Commissioner Byrne—the outbreak in Britain in 2001 was of a kind unanticipated in any country in the world.
Dr. Anderson makes some trenchant criticisms to which I shall return, but he also deals comprehensively with the myriad conspiracy theories in circulation then and since.

671
He does not just dismiss them; he investigates and dispels them. One in particular, the charge that the handling of the crisis was driven by concern over the timing of the election, lie explicitly rejects, saying:
"We have explicitly examined Government papers arid questioned Ministers and officials, but have found no evidence to support such a suggestion."
While awaiting the reports, we have already published a draft interim contingency plan and invited stakeholders and operational partners to comment. We will now review it comprehensively in the light of the inquiries' recommendations for regular updating, involvement of stakeholders and rehearsals, all of which the Government accept.
Dr. Anderson calls for a mechanism to assess potential domestic civil threats and for steps to improve our capacity to handle an emergency of national proportions. We have set up the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, reporting to a Cabinet Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which is intended to do just that through horizon scanning, an assessment capability and work with Departments facing disruptive challenges on how to prevent or manage crises. Dr. Anderson also identifies the need to establish "trigger points", where issues move to a new phase of crisis handling. Again, we agree.
Both reports make important recommendations about how the Government should improve their ability to respond effectively in the event of a disease outbreak. Again, I can say that we support the thrust of those recommendations, especially where they relate to the need for high-quality management information systems.
The Army is praised, rightly, for the role it played in helping to deal with the enormous logistical challenge—one that it has identified as being of larger dimensions logistically than the Gulf war. The Army did indeed do a remarkable job. I believe that had we had better information systems in place, it would have been called into action earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—but, as Dr. Anderson demonstrates, not in the context, as so often claimed, of the Northumberland report, but when at a much later stage disposal options were failing to keep pace with slaughter.
In addition, knowing what we now know, we would on any future occasion work on the presumption that a national ban on livestock movements would apply when the first FMD case was confirmed. However, because of the early, silent spread of disease in last year's outbreak, it is important not to assume that it would ever have been easy to check. Dr. Anderson himself says that
"even a perfectly implemented cull of infected premises within 24 hours of discovery would not, on its own, have controlled that epidemic until the disease itself had reduced the density of susceptible farms to such an extent that the epidemic ended naturally."
We do not intend, in the future, to permit local authorities to impose a widespread closure of footpaths. That, too, is a judgment made with the benefit of hindsight, and the House will know that it is a contested judgment. Some local authorities clung to a blanket ban long after the Government had encouraged its lifting.
Both inquiries have called for a strategic approach to animal health and disease control policies, and endorsed the call in the report of the Policy Commission on Food
672
and Farming, chaired by Sir Don Curry, for a comprehensive animal health strategy. My Department will in the near future open discussions with industry and other interests on the content and coverage of such a strategy. It would need to deal with the protection of public health, animal disease prevention and control, surveillance, animal identification, animal welfare and emergency preparedness.
Another key issue that has drawn much comment is the contentious issue of vaccination, on which both inquiries made recommendations. We can immediately accept two specific recommendations: that, as in 2001, we should ensure that the option of vaccination forms part of any future strategy for the control of FMD; and that any emergency vaccination policy should in future be not "vaccinate to kill" but, ideally, "vaccinate to live". That, however, does not require action from the Government alone; it requires acceptance of meat and meat products from vaccinated animals entering the food chain normally.
The inquiry reports rightly address most of their recommendations to the Government, but they both also recognise that the farming industry shares responsibility for minimising disease risks. Dr. Anderson concludes that the Government can do only so much to prevent a recurrence of disease; the farming industry has a crucial role to play, particularly with regard to biosecurity.
That reminder is particularly pertinent after last month's FMD scare in the midlands. It is not enough for any Government to have the right approach or proper rules to mitigate disease risk; everybody in the industry must follow those rules and they must be properly enforced. In that recent episode, existing pig identification rules were not followed. Had the tests confirmed disease, the effort to track down the source of the infection would have been severely hampered. The episode strengthens our resolve to continue to work with the livestock industry to establish better livestock identification.
Both this episode and the report lend weight to the call by Sir Don Curry's commission for farm assurance schemes, owned and operated by the industry itself, rewarding good farm management practice in biosecurity and other areas. The Government endorse that principle, too.
However, although we shall give full consideration to all the lessons in the reports, there are two areas where we can and will move forward more quickly. The emphasis in the reports on the roles that might be played by emergency vaccination and by pre-emptive culling underlines the importance of the passage of the Animal Health Bill, which my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be taking to a delayed Committee stage next week. The Bill contains powers that could be vital to the timely interventions for which the inquiries call.
Secondly, the Government need to take an early decision on the animal movement rules to apply from the late summer and, in particular, on the 20-day standstill. We shall consult quickly with industry stakeholders in the next week or two, in the light of what the two reports say, on interim rules to apply from late August.
Dr. Anderson's is a serious report into an outbreak of foot and mouth disease that was devastating for many parts of our country. I want once more to quote Dr. Anderson:
"Even had everything been done perfectly by all those concerned to tackle the disease, the country would have had a major epidemic with massive consequences ⌦ many farmers, local people and government

673
officials made heroic efforts to fight the disease and limit its effects. Through their efforts it was finally overcome and eradicated after 221 days, one day less than the epidemic of 1967–68."
The inquiry report makes many criticisms and addresses many concerns. It accepts, however, that all those involved did their level best to deal with a crisis of unprecedented importance. It makes criticisms that are accepted. It makes recommendations on which we will act. Above all, it fulfils its remit—it gives us the basis on which to learn lessons, and learn lessons we will.
Mr. David Lidington: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for giving me access to the Anderson Committee's report this morning and for the 30-minute sight of her statement?
Members on both sides of the House will agree that at this time we need to have in our thoughts and sympathies those thousands of people whose livelihoods were either threatened or completely ruined by the devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease last year. Although the report makes some trenchant criticisms of the Government, to which I shall allude in a little while, it is also right for the Opposition to make clear our appreciation of the work done by those many officials and veterinary surgeons, both in the right hon. Lady's Department and outside, working in the field and in London, who gave their all, often under impossible pressures and with inadequate support, to try to bring this dreadful epidemic under control.
The right hon. Lady drew attention to a number of the recommendations for the future in both the Anderson report and the Royal Society's report. We welcome the fact that she, like us, has been persuaded by the Royal Society's report of the need to incorporate emergency vaccination as part of a future strategy for containing further outbreaks of the disease.
Although I welcome, too, the Secretary of State's emphasis on the need to strengthen controls of illegal meat imports, can she confirm that 10 months after the end of the epidemic and three months after the publication of her Department's action plan, there have been only three spot checks on aircraft at our ports and that her Department is still wrangling with Customs and Excise over who exactly is in charge of those import controls? Is not it a disgrace that the Department should show such a lack of urgency in the wake of the devastation last year?
I hope that the Government will, as early as possible in the autumn, make time for a full parliamentary debate on the reports and that they will also make time for parliamentary scrutiny and debate of the contingency plan that they are drafting—as recommended in the Royal Society and Anderson reports. Will the Secretary of State use her best offices with her colleagues to ensure that those opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny are given to us?
The report amounts to a shocking catalogue of incompetence and confusion. Although the Secretary of State sprinkled her statement with the word "hindsight", is it not clear from any reading of Dr. Anderson's report today that many grievous mistakes were made, which ought to have been avoided on the basis of the evidence that the Government had available to them at that time?
674
Is it not the case that Dr. Anderson concluded about contingency planning that, although contingency plans were in place,
"maintaining and updating these plans was not a priority at national level."?
Why was it not a priority? Why did the Government ignore the Drummond report of 1999, which identified serious shortcomings in their contingency plans? Why were the concerns expressed by the chief veterinary officer in 2000 about the inadequacies in contingency planning never followed up?
Why did the Government ignore the warnings of the European Union's foot and mouth disease conference committee and of their own scientists in 2000 that a virulent new strain of the virus was spreading through Asia, the middle east and into Europe? Why was no effective action taken in the wake of the outbreaks of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1997 and in this country in 2000?
Will the Secretary of State explain why there should be such a contrast between the inaction shown on this side of the channel and the reaction of the Dutch Government, who reviewed their contingency plans in the wake of classical swine fever, tested their contingency plan, agreed it with stakeholders and had it approved by that country's Parliament?
Why were Ministers, right up until and even during the proceedings of the Anderson inquiry, refusing to admit to the failure of their contingency planning? Has the Secretary of State seen the passage in the Anderson report where Dr. Anderson states that Government Ministers told the inquiry that
"comprehensive contingency plans were in place.? We did not find this to be so."?
Does the right hon. Lady agree—even with hindsight—with Dr. Anderson's conclusion that the Government's plans were
"limited in scope, out of date ⌦ and not integrated into a national programme of rehearsal and testing"?
The right hon. Lady spoke of hindsight, too, in her discussion of the reasons why the Government did not at an earlier date, during the critical first three days, impose a ban on livestock movements. Can she explain why the Dutch Government acted with greater alacrity than ours, and imposed a ban two days earlier than she and her colleagues chose to do? Can she confirm that Dr. Anderson's conclusion about the importance of hindsight in that decision was somewhat at odds with her own, as just given in her statement? Dr. Anderson stated:
"Considering what is known about the infectious nature of this disease, we conclude that earlier movement restrictions would have been justified, and should have been ready to be put in place more quickly than they were."
The Secretary of State spoke about how her Department's response was handicapped by serious failures in management information, but might it not be considered, at least to some degree, the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that management information and systems were adequate? Does she agree with Dr. Anderson's conclusion on page 6 of his report that
"no one in command understood in sufficient detail what was happening on the ground"

675
and that, for the first two months of the outbreak, there was a
"serious deficiency in the reliability and completeness of the information available to those in charge of the disease"?
Why should that be so when we know, not least from the public sessions of the Anderson inquiry, that again and again farmers and others living at the sharp end of the epidemic were shouting from the rooftops about the failure of the Government's systems on slaughter and the disposal of livestock?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that knowledge of the Government's failures to implement their declared policies effectively was a key factor in undermining public confidence in the Government's policy to stamp out the disease? How much confidence can we now have that she and her colleagues can put things right when the Select Committee reported only last week that her Department had no strategy on information technology and that key financial data are either omitted from its annual report or given in an inaccurate form?
The present Administration make much of their philosophy of joined-up government. Does not that slogan seem somewhat ironic when contrasted with Dr. Anderson's description? He said:
"A sense of panic appeared, communications became erratic and orderly processes started to break down. Decision making became haphazard and messy".
The situation was serious enough, even early on, for a ban on all livestock movements to be introduced and for the countryside to be closed down, so why did it take Ministers 31 days before activating the Cabinet Office Briefing Room system, or COBR, to co-ordinate Government actions—31 days during which, in Dr. Anderson's words,
"a serious veterinary problem became a national disaster"
and there was an
"apparent vacuum in central advice and expertise on crisis management"?
Why, even after COBR was set up, was strategic decision taking involving the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture taking place outside COBR?
Does not all that add weight to the widespread suspicion that the Government were allowing concerns about the election date and their election plans to take precedence over effective measures to control and stamp out the disease? Nowhere was that more obvious than in the Government's delay in calling in the Army. It was hardly as if there was a shortage of people asking for that course of action. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) called for that action, their proposal was rubbished by the same Ministers who say that, with hindsight, they ought to have called in the Army earlier. Does the Secretary of State endorse the comments of her permanent secretary to the Public Accounts Committee on 3 July that the delay in calling in the Army was due to difficult), in getting approval from senior Ministers? Does not that verdict from her most senior civil servant suggest once again that we are right to say that concerns about presentation and electoral prospects counted for most with Ministers?
676
The Government's response to the epidemic is best summed up in a statement given not by the right hon. Lady but by the Prime Minister himself to Dr. Anderson on 22 January this year. When asked about the failures of Government policy, the Prime Minister responded:
"The Government had no reason to think about Foot and Mouth Disease before it broke out".
Does not that single sentence encapsulate the special blend of negligence, incompetence and complacency that has characterised the Government's handling of foot and mouth disease? It is not just farmers but the entire rural economy and all taxpayers who have paid a heavy price for that neglect and incompetence. Does the Secretary of State agree that it will take more than promises? It will take action and results to restore the trust of people in the countryside in Ministers, a trust that has been wholly destroyed by the grievous failure of her policies and those of her colleagues.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me so many questions that I am not entirely sure that I can reply to every single one—[Interruption.] Let us not get into a master class on how to be in opposition. He asked me first about the issue of spot checks. I do not recall his precise wording, but I think that he was referring to personal imports and checks at airports. I am not sure that his figures were correct, but even if they were, they were not, if I may say so, particularly relevant.
The hon. Gentleman will find when he has a chance to study the report at more length—I fully appreciate that neither he nor other hon. Members will have had the opportunity to do so—that Dr. Anderson makes plain that it is widely believed that, in so far as an illegal import might have been the source of the original material that caused the disease to enter this country, that is most unlikely because of the chance of its coming into contact with animals. The source is much more likely to have been some commercial import. Of course, very thorough and very many more checks are carried out on commercial imports—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members squawking about what they think; I suggest that they look at the report. Dr. Anderson makes it very plain that there are thorough checks, and details the nature of those checks and what they uncover.
Secondly, it is total nonsense to talk about us wrangling with Customs and Excise. We are in fact in close communication with the range of other officials who have the responsibilities in the field. We are awaiting the outcome of the risk assessment on the handling of imports, and we anticipate that when it comes in it will give us some recommendations on how we can even more improve our contacts.
The hon. Gentleman then talked about reviewing the contingency plans. He quoted rather selectively—inevitably, I suppose. He said, quite correctly, that Dr. Anderson stated that he and his team did not find comprehensive contingency plans in place. However, Dr. Anderson went on to point out that the contingency plans that were in place
"had been prepared and accepted by the European Commission and approved by the Standing Veterinary Committee."
Opposition Members have frequently alleged that there were no contingency plans. That is nonsense; there were contingency plans. They were not adequate to deal with the outbreak that hit us, but then nobody thought that they would have been.

677
The hon. Gentleman talked about why concerns expressed by the chief veterinary officer were not followed up. If the hon. Gentleman has been following that issue in the report, he must know that those concerns were shared internally in the veterinary service but not communicated to Ministers or the permanent secretary. I do not say that as any criticism. Although the issue was of concern, there were a range of other concerns and priorities on the mind of the state veterinary service at that time. I think not least of the outbreak that we had just had of classical swine fever, which tied up 80 per cent. of the resources of the veterinary service only a matter of weeks before the immediate crisis hit us.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not impose a ban on day one. I have explained that, had we done so, it might have made some difference to the degree to which the disease spread—although no one could quantify that. I deliberately shared with the House Dr. Anderson's specific wording in identifying—the facts very clearly show—that there is no question whatever but that the disease had spread so far before the first case was spotted, never mind confirmed, that such a ban would have made no difference in the end to the fact that Britain was bound to face a dramatic and terrible outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman asked about responsibility for management information. Of course Ministers accept—it is why I said this in my response to the report—responsibility for management information. We also accept that there is a need for much improved IT and services in the Department. I bid for that in the recent comprehensive spending round, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not something that anybody found when they took over the Department in 1997. So let us have a little less lecturing about the state of the Government machine from those who were in charge of it for 20 years. Indeed, with regard to the scientific outcome, Sir Brian Follett talks in his report about the problems that have been caused and suggests that significantly increased funding of research is needed to restore some of the cuts of the past 20 years.
The hon. Gentleman made three particular points to which I should now like to turn. First, on the Army, there is one thing that Opposition Members may not have had the chance to take on board and which I would like to make plain to them: Dr. Anderson considers with care the suggestions so often repeated, not least in this House, that anybody who looked at the Northumberland report would have known that the Army had to he brought in straight away. That is not true; what the Northumberland report says—indeed, I have pointed this out to Opposition Members before—is that when the capacity of civilian labour to dig the holes and make other preparations is exhausted, it will be time to call in the Army. The Army made it plain—I think that there were some colourful quotes from Brigadier Alex Birtwhistle—that one can get from the Yellow Pages people who can do such things. What the Army of today can provide is the logistical support and expertise in providing such support on the ground, especially to deal with carcases.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a remark—again, I accept that he cannot know that he has, to some extent, given the House a quotation that does not apply in the way in which he sought to use it—about the wording that Dr. Anderson used with regard to a sense of panic breaking out. Those are Dr. Anderson's words. I was slightly surprised to hear that, because that was not my
678
impression and it has not been confirmed to me by any of the observations that I have heard, from people at a range of levels in dealing with the crisis, related to the centre. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) will contain himself, I can say that I have asked Dr. Anderson what he means, and he has told me that, on the ground, he encountered junior officials, people in the control centres and so on—[Interruption.] I am not blaming anybody; hon. Members should contain themselves. I am simply explaining what Dr. Anderson meant—so he tells me and hon. Members are free to ask him—in making the comment that the hon. Gentleman quoted. I can understand his making the assumption that Dr. Anderson wanted it to apply to the centre, but that is not what Dr. Anderson is saying. He is saying that on the ground, as the scale and scope of the disease became apparent, there were considerable difficulties and indeed problems.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to what he believed was the key issue: the electoral impact and the reason for the decisions that the Government made. I should like to refer the House to what Dr. Anderson explicitly says on page 102 of his report, in paragraph 11.2:
"Many submissions ⌦ suggested that government ⌦ were heavily influenced by electoral considerations."
Again, I quote:
"We have examined government papers and questioned Ministers and officials but have found no evidence to support such a suggestion. Indeed"—
[Interruption.] I have not finished the quote:
"Indeed, officials at all levels and in many locations are adamant that they were never exposed to any pressures other than the need to control the disease in the best possible way."
Mr. Colin Breed: Lessons must be learned and this time they must be learned well, not because of the scandalous waste of public money or even the unnecessary culling of so many perfectly healthy animals, but because of the human misery that we all saw throughout the country. Farmers committed suicide, families were broken up, small businesses were lost and people suffered the emotional trauma of seeing their life's work destroyed before their very eyes.
It has to be said that the crisis had its genesis not very recently, but in the 1980s, when complacency set in. The state veterinary service was run down, MAFF offices were closed and valuable research projects were cancelled. But many mistakes were made last year and, although the Secretary of State cherry-picked some of the quotations in her statement, the overall thrust of the report is one of considerable criticism of many of the shortcomings that it exposes. It will require considered reading by those inside and outside the House to ensure that this time the lessons are truly learned. Will the Secretary of State ensure that this time those lessons are not eroded by the passage of time and that no complacency sets in?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that contingency plans are robust and that resources are made available, not only now, but next year and in the coming years? Will she ensure that those plans are properly rehearsed and constantly updated to reflect changes in risk, because it is clear that risk factors changed enormously and that the plans failed to keep up to date? Will she make those final contingency plans available to Parliament and ask Dr. Anderson to provide an overview so that we may

679
have the benefit of his experience and expertise? None of us wishes ever again to experience a crisis on the scale of last year, nor to see in our constituencies the human misery that was experienced by so many people, and for which so many are still paying the cost.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will not have had time to go through the report. I understand and sympathise with the concern that leads him to talk about the unnecessary culling of so many healthy animals, but he will find when he looks at the report with more care that Dr. Anderson does not find that masses of unnecessary culling was carried out. As regards the contiguous cull—which he says was highly controversial—he identifies the reasons for that being carried out and considers whether the Government may need to have greater powers during another outbreak in different circumstances. One of the points that he makes is that one must never expect precisely the same circumstances to be repeated. He discusses the possibility that on another occasion a pre-emptive cull could halt the disease in its tracks. I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes his point, but it is important that hon. Members do not get the impression that Dr. Anderson says that there was masses of unnecessary killing. He identifies mistakes and says that one can argue about what might have happened in the way of culling if we had had at an earlier stage the information to tackle the disease in the way that was ultimately required. He certainly does not suggest that it could all have been all right and that there was an easy solution—for example, that we could just have vaccinated and did not need to kill.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important for us to publish contingency plans—although they are not secret; they are on our website—and to encourage people, especially in the industry, to study them, take them on board, and carry out more trial and rehearsal. That is a point that Dr. Anderson makes in general, not only about this particular episode. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion about inviting Dr. Anderson to comment on the plans, and I will bear that in mind.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the report is critical—coming from Cumbria, I cannot see how it could be anything else—the Government got it right by setting up three separate inquiries, as less than 12 months since the outbreak finished, we have the results? Does she also agree that the Anderson report is not a whitewash, as Opposition Members said that it would be?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right. No doubt a great deal will be said today about how we should have listened to Opposition Members. If we had done so and waited to set up a public inquiry, experts with much more experience than I say that it would just about be setting up its secretariat. We should recognise not only the merits of having those three reports, each of which is demonstrably independent, but the importance of allowing each of them to concentrate on a specific sphere of the matters that needed to be considered. If we had set up one inquiry to examine all
680
the issues, whatever its terms or structure, we would never have got so quickly the information that we need to enable us to make the improvements that have to follow.
Mr. William Hague: May I welcome the Secretary of State's frank admission that some mistakes were made in the handling of this crisis? She also said, however, that better information systems would have been necessary to know that the Army was required at an earlier stage. May I ask her to concede that many of us in the House called repeatedly for the deployment of the Army, using only the time-honoured information systems of listening to our constituents and walking round with our eyes open during the administrative chaos that had descended on our constituencies? Looking to the future, will she lay the contingency plans not only on the website but before Parliament, and arrange for us to have a full debate on them, so that those of us who witnessed an economic catastrophe in our constituencies last year can influence those plans in public with a full debate?
The Secretary of State rightly undertook to look at the 20-day movement restriction. To ensure that it is rigorous but practical, will she consider aligning the rules in England more closely with those now prevailing in Scotland, so that they can be safely and efficiently applied before the beginning of the upland livestock sales, which are crucial to the economies of places such as Wensleydale and Swaledale in my constituency?
Margaret Beckett: I shall begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended, with the 20-day rule. We shall look with very great care at that issue, and we are already consulting with the industry on it. I am conscious of the difficulties that movement restrictions are causing to the industry, but both the reports give grave warnings about the implications of handling that issue. The right hon. Gentleman says that we heard much in the House about the Army—I sat through much of it, at the side of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown)—but what we heard was the Conservatives telling us to do as the Northumberland report said and call in the Army. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is not what the Northumberland report said, and that, when the Army felt able to come in and was ready and able to contribute, it was to play a very different role, in a very different context, from the one that it had played in the past.
As for saying that we should listen to what is said by right hon. and hon. Members, of course we do. We paid great attention not least to the right hon. Gentleman when he warned farmers on 5 June 2001, not in the House, for obvious reasons, but through the pages of the Daily Mail, that
"Ministers are already putting in place plans for a mass cull on Friday, as soon as the election is over."
We have heard a great deal about the criticisms and warnings uttered by Opposition Members, and all I can say to them is that, bearing in mind the millions of animals that they claimed were going to be slaughtered the day after the general election, a little modesty on their part might be in order.
Joyce Quin: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the recommendations in the report, in particular on

681
contingency planning. Does she agree that having an effective memorandum of understanding between the Government and all those likely to be involved in tackling a disease outbreak will be very important? I hope that there will he a longer debate on this subject in the autumn, because there are many points that it is impossible to make in a supplementary question to a statement, and they need to be brought out in such a debate. I also recommend to my hon. Friends a re-reading of Hansard, particularly in the light of some of the comments of Opposition Members. Hansard shows that, between February and May last year, the Opposition endorsed the Government's actions very strongly, and that there was co-ordination between Departments from day one.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing in the report contradicts the fact that the cause of the outbreak was two illegal acts: one a failure to heat pig swill to the temperature at which disease would have been eradicated, the other a failure to notify the disease of foot and mouth, which was the disease that farmers and those in the countryside rightly dreaded most?
Finally, I endorse the tributes that my right hon. Friend paid to the many people who worked tirelessly during the outbreak. Although mistakes were made and there are lessons to be learned, there are none the less many unsung heroes who deserve to be recognised.
Margaret Beckett rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, let me remind Members that they are entitled to only one supplementary question.
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the work that she did, along with the rest of the ministerial team in which she served, in helping to deal with the terrible consequences of the outbreak.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the need for a memorandum of understanding. One thing that emerges very clearly from Dr. Anderson's consideration of how crises of this kind can be handled is the need for better flows of information and communication, and for rehearsal and crisis planning. He obviously thinks we should be giving much more attention to that.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague): I forgot to respond to his request for a debate. While I recognise, as always, that the way in which business is scheduled is not a matter for me, I am well aware that Members want to explore these matters in more depth than is generally possible on occasions such as this.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that, whatever the origin of the specific source of infection, illegal acts were undoubtedly committed at the outset. That is something that none of us should overlook.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: If the Secretary of State is so confident that Dr. Anderson has cleared No. 10 of interfering and preventing the Army from coming in, why does she not ask him to publish tapes and full transcripts of the interviews with Ministers, so that the House can at least know the questions that were asked and the replies that were given?
Margaret Beckett: I realise that the Conservative party will be extraordinarily disappointed by what Dr. Anderson
682
has found. He has found that the Prime Minister performed a helpful role in dealing with the disease, and that there is not the slightest evidence of any kind that, in any way or at any level, there was political interference for electoral reasons in the running of the campaign. As for what Dr. Anderson decides to publish, this is, as I have said, an independent report, and it is for Dr. Anderson to decide what he wishes to do.
Mr. Russell Brown: I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend said about contingency plans and the need to review continually from now on. I was also delighted to learn of the genuine recognition that mistakes were made.
As for the question of bringing in the armed forces, it will not surprise my right hon. Friend to learn that the situation was dealt with better in Scotland. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland offered to bring in the forces six days before the local authority accepted that kind offer.
One issue that was not raised in the report, perhaps because it was not appropriate to do so, is that of not just the personal but the financial costs incurred by many people. May I suggest that when we debate this matter—as I hope we shall—we consider financial costs, and look seriously at the possibility of insurance, especially for farmers wishing to deal with rare breeds and pedigree stock?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the whole issue of financial costs and the way in which we can encourage and provide incentives for good practice in the industry. As he says, many people—not least, I suspect, members of the Select Committee—will want to consider all those matters.
Mr. David Curry: Dr. Anderson has written a clear, crisp and clinical report. He has judged the events against five criteria. He mentions planning, and asks whether the contingency plan was comprehensive, up to date and detailed. He mentions the speed of response, the provision of first-rate intelligence and information systems showing what was happening on the ground, the effective mobilisation of the wider resources of Government, and the establishment of trust and the communication between all players. He concludes that the Government fell down on all five criteria.
What is even more alarming, however—because this applied to a BSE incident as well—is the evidence, highlighted by Dr. Anderson, of a silo mentality and an aversion to risk in the Department. Senior people were concerned about the state of preparedness and about whether the Department could respond to an outbreak in terms of resources and mobilisation, but they did not communicate that to the most senior level of management or to Ministers. Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear to her Department not just that machinery should exist to enable people's concerns to reach the top, but that people should be not merely encouraged but obliged to communicate those concerns to the top, so that we can hold to account those who must ultimately take political responsibility?
Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is probably right in identifying that those are the areas where

683
Dr. Anderson has addressed his concerns. The right hon. Gentleman refers, rightly, to the issue of BSE, which I suspect lies underneath some of the problems of building trust and maintaining good communication.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded person. Inevitably, many of these things have an element of hindsight. I accept that, when it was thought that there was less than adequate resourcing in, say, the state veterinary service for the scale of problems that it was conceived might at some stage come along, that should have been communicated further up the Department, but those who were expressing those concerns at that time had foot and mouth disease as a relatively low priority on their agenda. Much more immediate issues had hit them.
In his report, Dr. Anderson identifies, for example, that the resources available to the veterinary service were very much what were thought to be adequate in the face of a severe outbreak of foot and mouth disease. What is clearly the case is that no one ever envisaged an outbreak of the severity and precise nature of the one that this country faced.
Mr. Tony Banks: I have not yet read the Anderson report—I will save it for the beach because anything is better than Frederick Forsyth—hut my right hon. Friend does not have to be defensive. It was not Ministers who went round creating foot and mouth disease. How many million pound cheques were issued to the farming community in terms of compensation? Who will apologise for the slaughter of all those millions of animals, many of which were totally unaffected by foot and mouth disease?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify that there were substantial costs associated with the disease. I cannot give him offhand the figures that he seeks, but he probably will find them in Hansard. If not, I am sure we can supply them. He is right to mention the terrible impact on the farming community, not least the animal population. One of the things that he will probably welcome in the report is Dr. Anderson's identification of the effects of the disease. I spoke about Dr. Anderson dismissing many of the myths. One that he dismisses is the often made assertion that foot and mouth disease is not a big problem and that it is like having a common cold. He identifies clearly that it causes considerable suffering to animals, although it is usually only fatal perhaps to very young animals. In consequence, as well as its economic impact, it is not a disease that any country should wish to let go unchecked.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady accept that in view of the nature of international trade it is likely that there will be future outbreaks of foot and mouth and other animal diseases? Does she accept that one of the problems that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food experienced was an absence of sufficient numbers of policy makers? Against that, will she give an undertaking that if there be future outbreaks she will draft in policy makers urgently? With regard to contingency plans, if they are not to become
684
stale, will she undertake that Ministers would personally cause them to be regularly and comprehensively reviewed?
Margaret Beckett: One of the recommendations that Dr. Anderson makes, which I have made clear, I hope. the Government accept, is for regular review and indeed regular rehearsal of contingency plans as a way of keeping them fresh. With his previous ministerial experience, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Northumberland report recommended that contingency plans should be reviewed regularly. At that time, foot and mouth disease had been so endemic in the country that the recommendation was that they should be reviewed, particularly if there had not been an outbreak for a couple of years. Of course, it was some 30 years before we had another major outbreak; there was a small one in the Isle of Wight under different circumstances.
As I have identified already, we all have to recognise that there is no such thing as zero risk. One of the instruments of policy development on which my Department is now diverting much work is improvement in our methods of risk assessment as well as risk management. That will inform the future work and the reform of the Department.
On the number of policy makers, the key point that comes through clearly from the tone and tenor of Dr. Anderson's remarks is that he feels that Government as a whole should rehearse more and get better at knowing when the trigger is to move things up a stage and involve local authorities, other Departments and so on. That is precisely why we have set up the civil contingencies unit. and we will study its work in the light of these reports.
Tony Cunningham: I welcome the report. As a Cumbrian Member, I fully appreciate the suffering not only of the farmers who had foot and mouth but of those who did not but lived in affected areas and were subject to the restrictions. Yet another group who suffered were people in the tourism industry. Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot again allow the widespread closure of footpaths, which had a devastating effect on tourism in many parts of my constituency?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. With hindsight, we may note that some local authorities resisted the lifting of the footpaths ban. We need to examine Dr. Anderson's recommendations in this respect more carefully. It is true that the farmers who were not hit by the disease but suffered the economic impact when they could not move their animals were in perhaps the worst position of all. I accept that those were very difficult circumstances. I note that the report says that the disease was thoroughly seeded in Cumbria before the first case was ever identified.
Mr. A. J. Beith: As well as accepting the criticisms in the report that are relevant to people in Northumberland, which was devastated in farming, tourism and other businesses, will the Secretary of State accept the specific suggestion in recommendation 45 that she should conduct research into compensation for communities affected by mass burials, bearing in mind the fact that not one penny of compensation has gone to

685
local businesses or individuals in the Widdrington area, where more than 100,000 carcases were buried and thousands more burned beside the beach?
Margaret Beckett: Dr. Anderson does indeed suggest that we research the issue, although he recognises that it is fraught with legal and other complications. I accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman's concerns for his constituents, but he will know that a great deal of investment has already had to be made to mitigate the impact of what had to be done. Certainly, the issue of how one handles something on this scale pervades the report, and Dr. Anderson has a great deal of value to say on it.
Mr. George Foulkes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a really excellent statement. Does she recall that her predecessor was also rightly praised for his skilful handling of the outbreak, by the National Farmers Union, the vets and even the Opposition—understandably, because he was following the advice of the National Farmers Union, the vets and, in some cases, even the Opposition—and that things changed only when the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) realised that he could make party political gain out of the situation in the run-up to the general election?
As the report is called "Lessons to be Learned", I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has read the article in the Glasgow Herald today, suggesting that there may be infected meat imported from China, and what action she intends to take.
Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend is kind enough to compliment both me and my distinguished predecessor. He is right to say that there was much in the latter's handling of an unprecedented and dreadful set of events that was worthy of praise, and indeed it received it in the House. It comes through clearly in Dr. Anderson's account of the dreadful situation that my predecessor and his ministerial team and officials did their utmost in the face of a situation in which they were not getting the information that they needed to deal with the crisis as effectively as they would wish.
I fear that I have not yet read today's edition of The Herald, but my right hon. Friend puts his finger on a point that was made a moment ago by a Conservative Member—perhaps it was the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—who said that there is no such thing as zero risk. There will always be risks, and it is important to maintain surveillance, and to ensure that we identify and obstruct imports; however, that is just the very first step. Even if disease enters this country, there is much more to be done to prevent it from coming into contact with the animal community and—should that happen—to prevent it from spreading. Great emphasis is sometimes placed on the role of imports, but one of the most important lessons in the report is that if disease comes in, we must also address issues such as handling.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Although nobody would impugn the integrity of her predecessor. does the right hon. Lady accept that this report is such a damning indictment of the Government's handling of the outbreak—and such a vindication of the many who offered criticism at the time by calling for vaccination,
686
and so on—that it will be incomprehensible to those whose lives were shattered if the Minister who formerly presided over the Department remains in the Government?
Margaret Beckett: I am really quite shocked at the hon. Gentleman, not least because he is a long-serving and normally sensible Member of this House. It is not true that the report bears out all the criticisms that were made of the use of vaccination; nor is it true that it, or the scientific report, says that vaccination offers an easy answer. Indeed, both reports make it plain that much work is still required before vaccination could be a tool to replace culling. I particularly deplore the hon. Gentleman's remarks because, as a regular and assiduous attender of this House. he was present when my right hon. Friend presented the Phillips inquiry report, and absolutely and adamantly refused to attribute blame to any of those involved, or to call for their resignation. In the light of that, the hon. Gentleman's comments are wrong and quite disgraceful.
Diana Organ: I welcome my right hon. Friend's straightforward and honest response to the report; indeed, that was the approach taken by her predecessor during the crisis. However, can she assure me that she will implement all the recommendations, and not just those that she mentioned in passing in her statement? The burning of animals on mass pyres should not be used as a strategy for disposal. It caused not only great distress but considerable damage to the rural economy—particularly to tourism—through the images that were seen on television and in the newspapers. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that, should we ever have to go down this route again, other methods of disposal will be at hand?
Margaret Beckett: I anticipate that we will accept almost all the recommendations—indeed, we may be able to accept them all—but there are some to which we will need to give further consideration. My hon. Friend will know the perils of saying never in politics, or in life in general. I accept that Dr. Anderson suggests that we should rule out the method to which she refers. If we can follow his other recommendations—such as developing a hierarchy and getting much more information on the capacity to use rendering, along with his various other suggestions concerning the disposal of carcases—it might not be necessary to proceed to such steps, should a similar event occur in future. That is certainly highly desirable, but I am cautious at this stage about saying never. Nevertheless, we will examine that recommendation with great care, along with the others.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Royal Society's report makes it clear that, in the past 15 years, animal diseases have cost this country £15 billion. Has the Secretary of State considered establishing a national centre of excellence to look into all aspects of animal disease? What work is planned to provide a better understanding of how foot and mouth disease spreads? It was the reaction to the disease, and our perhaps inadequate knowledge of how it spreads, that led to much of the countryside being closed down.
Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion, which I undertake to consider,

687
although I am not sure whether we need exactly the sort of institution that he suggests. I accept that we can always benefit from more information about the way in which the disease spreads. However, my understanding of the evidence that has been put forward so far is that it does so through contact, poor biosecurity and so on. Those are relatively familiar mechanisms of spread, although little mention has been made of the variety of strains of foot and mouth disease that exist. As it happens, the strain that hit this country in 2001 was less easily spread by plume. In other circumstances, with different viruses, the position could be different. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is much to be learned from the Royal Society's investigation, and the Government intend to learn those lessons.
Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State has already accepted one of the lessons to be learned from this tragic episode, which is the value of visitors to the countryside. When the footpaths were closed and local authorities such as Lincolnshire were hesitant and reluctant to open them, it was the pub, the local shop and the broader rural economy that suffered. Given that, will she move quickly with her already established policy to switch payments to farmers from subsidies for production to payments for creating a landscape and environment that people will want to visit?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct to say that one of the clear lessons from the outbreak was the impact on the wider rural economy, and Dr. Anderson makes it clear that we should take that into account in future planning. On my hon. Friend's final point, the Government will do as much as they can in present circumstances, but he will know that some element of common agricultural policy reform would be of great assistance in that change and that is why we are pursuing it.
Mr. Peter Luff: I preface my question by expressing the hope that the Secretary of State will find at least two full days for debating this important subject when the House returns in the autumn. Does she understand that the people of Throckmorton are still learning daily the lessons of foot and mouth, with continuing concerns about the environment, the health impact and the total inability to sell houses and rebuild their shattered lives? In the light of recommendation 45, will she look again at the question of compensation? Will she also launch a proper investigation of their concerns about the health and environmental impact of the foot and mouth disease landfill burial site that is located on their doorstep?
Margaret Beckett: I am conscious of the difficulties that have been experienced by the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I am also aware that he has constituency cases in which the issue that was raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concerning compensation particularly arise. I cannot say
688
any more than I have said in the past on that subject, but I accept the points that he makes. He may like to know that in the report Dr. Anderson also considers the environmental and health impacts, and his words about the investigations and inquiries he has made will—I hope—be of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know about the significant impact of the disease in north Yorkshire, especially the moorland areas. I pay tribute to the former ministerial team, the officials and the vets, especially for what happened in the hefted areas of the moorland. The BBC, the trading standards people and the national parks people all played an important part in disseminating information. In the light of the lessons learned about biosecurity measures, as outlined in the report, what training will be provided for people in agriculture and vets and what measures will be taken to improve information dissemination in remote areas in future?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point and, indeed, Dr. Anderson reports how, in several areas, the best and most effective source of information was the local radio, with regular bulletins and so on. Dr. Anderson is clear that that is one of the lessons that we can all learn. He also identifies the need for an overall communications strategy, not least about subjects such as biosecurity and ensuring better information, training and practice on farms to minimise some of the difficulties that were experienced in the outbreak.
David Burnside: The Secretary of State will agree with me that the whole of the farming community and inward tourism in the United Kingdom suffered in the same way, but will she not learn lessons from different parts of the UK? Northern Ireland managed the disease better; it had very few outbreaks. Given that the disease came into Northern Ireland with smuggled sheep from the north of England and that there are a lot of operators—not the whole of the farming community—in the dealers' yard who need to be penalised and sanctioned, will the right hon. Lady give a commitment to the House that in her review and her recommendations on contingency plans, she will include penalties for those who spread the disease through the mainland and into Northern Ireland?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. To some degree, but in a slightly different context, he echoes the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin): it was illegal behaviour on someone's part that led to the disease having any impact in the Province. It is clear that one of the things that we must do is to discourage such behaviour because of the dreadful consequences that it has had for so many.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next statement

Chinook Accident (Mull of Kintyre)
4.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the crash of Chinook ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre.
During a routine flight from Aldergrove to Inverness on 2 June 1994, all on board—the 25 passengers and four crew—were killed. What we must remember, above all, is that this was a tragedy. Twenty-nine families lost loved ones that day. The whole House will once again want to extend their sympathy to them. This was also a blow felt throughout the Royal Air Force and in the many other areas of the armed forces and the public service from which the passengers on board were drawn.
This has been the most extensively examined air crash in the history of British military aviation. Not only aviation and engineering experts but at least 10 Ministers from across two Governments—from the right hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind to, most recently, Lord Bach—have considered the case. Each new Minister has, like me, had the advantage of coming to this with an open mind. Every new Minister who has examined the facts of the case has come to the same conclusion.
The senior reviewing officers of the original RAF board of inquiry found the pilots grossly negligent. They concluded that the pilots had flown the aircraft at a consistently high speed at low level, and into poor weather that they had been warned to expect. These facts led the board of inquiry to believe that the only possible conclusion was that this accident was a result of a controlled flight into terrain.
Many have challenged this conclusion. As a result, in April last year a Select Committee was established in the other place to consider the justification for the findings by the senior reviewing officers. The Select Committee concluded that the reviewing officers were not justified in their findings that negligence on the part of the pilots "caused the crash".
The Government have now considered the Select Committee report extremely carefully. We have thoroughly examined the alternative explanations for the crash that were considered by the Committee in the other place. We have painstakingly reviewed the complex technical, legal and airmanship issues which the report raises. We have sought further clarification from Boeing on the points made about its original work conducted as part of the RAF board of inquiry in 1994.
In order to leave no question unanswered, we have also asked Boeing to undertake further work to review its original analysis, including a full FADEC simulation. Those familiar with this case will know that the FADEC system, by controlling the fuel supply, maintains approximately 100 per cent. rotor speed in all conditions and matches engine torque between the two engines on the aircraft. It has been argued that the failure of this system was a cause of the accident.
Our deliberations are now complete, and I am arranging to place in the Library, as well as in the Library of the other place, copies of our response, together with copies of the further work by Boeing. A number of theories have been put forward to explain the cause of the accident. Each theory depends on a particular interpretation of the
690
evidence. That is why at the outset I want to try to set out as best I can those facts that are not actually in dispute. We know that, as before every routine flight, the pilots received meteorological information, in this case, warning them of poor weather conditions in the vicinity of the Mull. They took that into account in planning their route from Aldergrove to the Mull lighthouse; on to Corran, near Fort William; and then up the Great Glen to Fort George, near Inverness.
We know that the first way point entered on the aircraft's navigation computer was very close to the lighthouse on the western tip of the Mull. That way point was the position where the pilots intended to change or adjust their course to head towards Corran. Taking into account the weather conditions, they planned to fly their route at low level under visual flight rules, which means that they needed to maintain at least 1,000 m of visibility. If they were unable to do so during the flight, they would he required under the rules either to turn away from the poor conditions or to climb to a safe altitude of 1,000 ft above the height of any known obstacle. They would then have flown under instrument flight rules, which would require them to fly with sole reference to their cockpit instruments.
We know that the aircraft took off from RAF Aldergrove at 17.42. We know from an exchange between the crew and air traffic control that at just after 17.46 the aircraft was 7 nautical miles from the Aldergrove radio beacon. A number of witnesses reported the aircraft flying low as it headed for the coast. Those sightings are consistent with a high-speed, low-level transit towards the Mull along the planned track.
We know from the data in the SuperTANS navigation system on board every Chinook that the aircraft was 0.81 nautical miles from the lighthouse when the pilots took the steps necessary to enter the second way point—89 miles away at Conan—into the computer. Given their training and experience, the pilots would not have performed that task if they had been experiencing any significant difficulty in handling the aircraft. The Committee in the other place accepted that it was highly unlikely that the pilots would have entered the way-point change if they had thought they were not in control of their aircraft.
We know from all the eye witnesses on the Mull that the weather there was generally foggy and very bad—indeed, consistent with the meteorological advice. The lighthouse keeper estimated visibility to be 15 to 20 m at most.
We know from the power down recording in the SuperTANS system that the time of initial impact was 17.59 and 36 seconds, giving a total journey time of just under 18 minutes. From those facts we can calculate that the ground speed of the aircraft from the air traffic control fix to impact averaged 158 knots, which shows that the pilots had selected a high cruising speed for their crossing to the Mull.
We know that the ground speed at impact was at least 147 knots from the evidence on the aircraft's instruments at the crash site and corroborated by data extracted from the global positioning system and the navigation computer.
We know that the aircraft hit the ground at a height of 810 ft above sea level. All the evidence clearly points to the aircraft having flared—or "pulled up" in layman's

691
terms—with its nose upward at an angle of 30 deg in the final few seconds of flight. That is shown not only by the physical evidence at the crash site—in particular, the alignment of the fuselage—but by the fact that the collective control, which controls power, was set at or near full travel at impact, with the cyclic control, which controls pitch or elevation, at 25 per cent. aft and 23 per cent. left of neutral, all indicating a demand for high power and nose-up attitude in what was probably a last desperate attempt to pull away. That evidence at the crash site also indicates that the aircraft was almost certainly responding properly to its controls, at least in the final seconds before impact.
Those then are the facts, which have not been seriously challenged by anyone. What remains at issue is what happened in the last 20 seconds or more of the flight, from the point at which the pilots entered the way point change into the navigation computer until moments before impact, when they pulled hard up in a clear attempt to avoid hitting the ground. Various theories have been put forward and we have considered each in turn. They are examined in detail in our fuller response which has been placed in both Libraries.
One hypothesis suggests that, because of the low cloud, the pilots had slowed down for the way point change, intending to turn left to hug the coast towards the way point at Con-an while remaining at low level. The Committee in the other place has accepted that the aircraft was performing satisfactorily up to and including the way point change. It suggests that, the aircraft having performed the required deceleration successfully, some catastrophic failure occurred in the last 20 or more seconds of flight. That failure caused the aircraft to accelerate out of control so that it flew at high speed into the Mull, with the pilots unable to control the aircraft, at least until the final few seconds.
Was it the crew's intention to slow down significantly for the way point change? Boeing's analysis shows that, given a normal rate of acceleration, it would not have been possible to achieve the speed conditions for the final flare if the ground speed was below 80 knots at the way point change. If the aircraft had slowed to around 80 knots at that point, an even higher average cruising ground speed from the air traffic control fix to the way point change would have been necessary and, crucially, the aircraft would have begun to decelerate about one mile before the way point change and, in the process, to reduce power considerably, adopting a nose-up attitude for a considerable period. Such a manoeuvre is not consistent with any of the evidence.
In addition, the further analysis from Boeing shows that, given a normal rate of acceleration, it would not have been possible to accelerate from below 80 knots and achieve the speed conditions necessary to be consistent with the final flare just before impact.
Even if the aircraft had performed the manoeuvres necessary to slow to 80 knots at the way point change, what plausible explanations could account for the pilots not being able to execute the turn and to cause the aircraft to accelerate to the known speed at impact? And what sort of incident could have cleared in time to allow the pilots to perform the final flare in the seconds just before impact?
692
It has been suggested that a control jam of some sort could have occurred. For that to have happened, the aircraft would first have had to be rotated nose down to an accelerating attitude, the power set to full and the controls "frozen" to such an extent that neither a heading change, nor a climb, nor a speed change was possible. Moreover, that condition would have had to have remained fixed throughout the significant period required to achieve the acceleration. To achieve those conditions either simultaneous multiple failures would have had to have occurred to the pitch of the aircraft and have frozen the controls, or the pilots would have had voluntarily to conduct at least some of the extraordinary control combinations needed themselves.
The Committee in the other place also explored the possibility that the thrust balance spring attachment bracket and other inserts detached before impact, as some of these flying control components were found to be detached at the crash site. But because the controls are hydraulically powered, such a fault would result in a change to the "feel" of those controls and would be detected by the pilots. Moreover, the aircraft would still be controllable. It is not credible that that could have caused the accident as it occurred. In any event, the report from the air accidents investigation branch indicated that the brackets were likely to have become detached during the post-accident break-up of the aircraft.
Despite suggestions from other commentators, the Committee in the other place accepted that the FADEC system and the trials of the Chinook Mark 2 which had been suspended at Boscombe Down had no bearing on this accident. In fact all the available evidence indicates that the engines were working normally up to the point of impact. The Committee was also satisfied that the E5 software fault, which has also been the subject of much media speculation, had no relevance to this accident.
We have examined in detail all the alternative hypotheses put to the Committee by witnesses. The question is, when taken in the context of the whole flight, are they, or is any one of them, plausible—plausible against the strict standard of proof needed at that time before a finding of negligence could be made against deceased aircrew?
As the Committee observes, the standard of proof of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" is even higher than that applicable in criminal cases. I am, of course, aware that four of the five members of the Committee in the other place are distinguished lawyers.
It also follows from this strict standard of proof that if there is another plausible explanation for what took place other than the one accepted by the board of inquiry, its conclusion cannot be allowed to stand. The reviewing officers in this case were required to be in no doubt whatsoever that the pilots' negligence was a cause—although not necessarily the sole cause—of the accident.
No investigation into a serious accident can ever hope to answer every question with absolute certainty. Negligence can itself be the cause of an accident, or it can be one of a number of factors. The reviewing officers were charged with considering all of the evidence as a whole; they were entitled to call on their own knowledge and experience of military flying, and to take proper recognition of the very high standard of airmanship that is required of RAF pilots.

693
It follows that if the senior reviewing officers were left with no "honest" doubt that the pilots were negligent, and that the negligence was a causative factor in what happened, they would have failed in their duty if they had not found the pilots to be negligent. It would have been wrong of the reviewing officers to avoid such a finding on the basis of a hypothesis for which there was no plausible evidence.
The senior reviewing officers' finding of negligence was not dependent upon whether the pilots could see the Mull at the time of the way point change. We can deduce that at some point the aircraft entered cloud—which the crew had been warned to expect—well below what was the safety altitude. The issue is whether at the time that they did so the aircraft was fully under the control of the pilots. There is no other plausible explanation for the accident: the only realistic explanation is that found by the reviewing officers of the board of inquiry.
As they approached land, the pilots would have been aware that their visibility was about to reduce significantly. Had they been flying with the minimum visibility allowed for visual flight rules, by the way point change they would have seen the landmass of the Mull and would have recognised their perilous position. They should have taken prompt action by flying higher or by turning away. The finding of negligence is therefore based on the fact that they failed to take such avoiding action.
This is a sensitive and emotive case. I recognise that some people would have liked to reach a different conclusion from that of the reviewing officers. Indeed, some former Ministers have since changed their minds about their original interpretation of the facts. However, we require senior military officers to make decisions on the facts at the time, applying their judgment as professional airmen against the high standard of airmanship to which the Royal Air Force adheres.
We have therefore reviewed the material put forward by the Committee with the very greatest care. We have considered the alternative hypotheses rigorously to see if there is any other plausible explanation that fits with the facts. We have agonised over whether there was some way in which we could exonerate the pilots posthumously, but on the basis of all the evidence, I am unable to do so.
Apportioning blame for such a terrible accident to men who lost their lives in it was not an easy task for those responsible. Reviewing the circumstances of the case has been one of the hardest duties that I have been asked to perform as a Minister. Nevertheless, where lives have been lost, we must be willing to examine the facts as carefully and dispassionately as possible, for the sake of all those involved. This we have done.
I know that this response to the Select Committee's report will be unwelcome to some. As I have consistently stated before, should new evidence come to light, I would certainly be prepared to look at that evidence again. Indeed, it was precisely the possibility of new evidence that led me to commission the further work from Boeing.
I hope that this statement and the supporting detailed analysis which is being published today will assist the House in understanding the reasons why we have not been able to support the conclusions of the latest report into this tragic accident.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement
694
and of the material which he is placing in the Library. I think that the House understands how difficult this case has been for Ministers to deal with, and we are grateful for the care that the right hon. Gentleman has obviously taken. However, we, like many others, continue to be drawn inescapably to the conclusion that this is not a safe verdict.
Today is another sad day for the families and all those who lost their loved ones on that fateful day, 2 June 1994—and especially for the families of the two pilots. I join the Secretary of State in reiterating our sympathy to all those who were bereaved. In criticising the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement today, I stress that the issue is one of natural justice, not one of party. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman noted, we have been pressing for the reversal of a mistaken decision taken under the previous Conservative Administration—a decision that the Secretary of State's predecessor, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the then Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, have said should be reversed.
May I also make it clear that we do not seek to challenge the honour or integrity of Ministers or senior RAF officers? However, we believe that they should be prepared to review their original decision in this matter, because the RAF rules in force at the time provided that the deceased aircrew should be found negligent only when there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is a very much higher standard of proof than "beyond all reasonable doubt" which is usually required in criminal trials in civilian courts. It means that every other possible explanation of the crash must be disproved, and in this case that cannot be done.
May I refer briefly to the Secretary of State's own statement today? At one point, he said:
"This evidence at the crash site also indicates that the aircraft was almost certainly responding properly to its controls, at least in the final seconds before impact".
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that "almost certainly" is not "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". He then went on to say
"These, then, are the facts".
I put it to him that these are not the facts.
Later on, the statement refers to senior reviewing officers who were left with "no honest doubt". I do not know the legal antecedents of that term "no honest doubt", but it is not the same as "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is the basis of the case expressed by those who object to this verdict.
The inquiry conducted by the Committee in the other place, chaired by someone who is not only a distinguished lawyer but a former judge in the Scottish Appeal Court, concluded that the Ministry's original report was not sufficiently based on fact, but was based on assumptions that have subsequently been challenged. I put it to the Secretary of State that most of the Boeing evidence is conjecture, not fact, and that even Boeing cannot be said to be the most impartial witness. I do not question the company's integrity but as manufacturer of the aircraft it certainly has an interest in the outcome of the inquiry. Pilots also question the reliability of data, to which the Secretary of State referred, from the SuperTANS navigation system.

695
How can the Secretary of State continue to sustain this position, except in the most legalistic of terms? He dismisses others who have challenged the board of inquiry findings. However, may I point out that the report from the other place supports three other independent inquiries? The air accidents investigation branch did not conclude that the pilots had been negligent. The fatal accident inquiry concluded that it had not been established
"on the balance of probabilities"
that the cause of the accident was due to the decisions taken by the crew.
The "balance of probabilities" is the weakest possible argument that a court would accept in a civil case. It is very much easier to accept a guilty verdict on the balance of probabilities than on absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
The Select Committee on Defence, while avoiding the question of blame for the accident, questioned the procedures that led to the controversies. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee found that the verdict of the RAF board of inquiry was "unsustainable" and recommended that it should be set aside.
Surely, after all that, the conclusions of the Select Committee in the other place cannot simply be ignored. For the Government to persist in their verdict is, in the minds of many, very difficult to accept.
The Secretary of State's mantra is that there is "no new evidence". However, the case made by both the PAC and the Select Committee in the other place is not that they have uncovered "new evidence" but that there was insufficient evidence at the time to reach the verdict of gross negligence beyond absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Ultimately, this is not a legal argument, but an argument about natural justice. Does the Secretary of State understand that pilots still serving in the armed forces feel utterly betrayed by the Ministry of Defence on this issue? Can the right hon. Gentleman really put his hand on his heart and tell the House today that he believes that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that these pilots, who were mostly highly trained, who had unblemished records and who were carrying such a notably precious cargo of intelligence officers, together committed the most cardinal and basic errors in airmanship? In the civilian world, is this not virtually the equivalent of finding the pilots guilty of manslaughter—despite the fact that the fatal accident inquiry could not reach that verdict even on "the balance of probabilities"?
In all honesty, some doubt continues to exist in the minds of many of those who have studied all the issues very closely. In all humanity, the Secretary of State should reopen the RAF board of inquiry and review the verdict.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his mostly dispassionate account of the response. I invite right hon. and hon. Members as they approach this issue to try to do the same. Perhaps once they have gone through my statement in more detail and looked at the fuller account that has been published and made available, they will see the care with which the Ministry of Defence has entirely dispassionately approached this issue.
I hope that my reasoning conforms to the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I have sought to demonstrate that there is no doubt whatsoever. I have done that by very
696
carefully relying on the facts about which there is no substantial dispute. I set them out for the benefit of the House. Perhaps with more time, right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity of considering those facts—and they are facts—extremely carefully.
The hon. Gentleman said that every other possible explanation must be disproved. I take issue with him only in that that should be "every other plausible explanation". We are not dealing with explanations that do not stand up. I hope that, when he looks more carefully at my statement and the material in the Library, he will see that each and every explanation has been gone through with a very considerable amount of rigour. Indeed, that was precisely why I specifically asked Boeing again to go through the material that it had made available to the board of inquiry, and to do so from scratch with appropriate care. That report is also available to hon. Members.
The point about honest doubt was simply a reference to the duty placed on the reviewing officers. I was not referring to the burden of proof at that stage. Again, if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at my statement, he will see that to be so.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Boeing report—I accept that he may not have had the opportunity to do so in detail as yet—he will see that these are not assumptions. These are very carefully worked-through facts arising from a detailed analysis of what took place during that flight.
On evidence and so on, what is important is that we consider the facts of the case and not simply how people may feel. I entirely recognise the obvious, understandable human sympathy. I have spent some considerable time since I was appointed to this office talking to helicopter pilots about the accident. Although there are certainly some who feel betrayed, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that there are others who feel very differently about the matter. So I do not think that the anecdotal experience of helicopter pilots is particularly helpful in these circumstances.
As the hon. Gentleman says—I make no argument with him—the issue is whether there was sufficient evidence. I invite right hon. and hon. Members dispassionately to consider that evidence, which is available in the Library. I hope that they will notice as they analyse my statement today that I have excluded pieces of evidence about which there is some doubt simply in order to rely on the known facts rather than to try to form a hypothesis based on disputed ones. I have consciously and deliberately excluded and not mentioned today pieces of evidence that are largely favourable to the reviewing officers simply because there is some doubt about its reliability. On the basis of evidence and the known facts, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to accept what I have set out to the House today.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I begin by associating myself with the Secretary of State's preliminary remarks about the terrible consequences of the tragic accident for many people? He urged us all to be dispassionate, and so we should be, but I regret that I cannot conceal my disappointment at the nature of his statement to the House of Commons. Nothing that he has said today has shaken my belief that the board of inquiry, in good faith, made an error of judgment and failed to apply the necessary high standard of proof. Its failure led to an injustice that the House ought to put right.

697
I find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State should attach so little weight to the views of Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Secretary of State for Defence, who says that he would not have accepted the findings of the board of inquiry had he known then what he knows now. Can the right hon. Gentleman recall a similar instance in which a former Secretary of State has publicly sought to reverse a difficult decision that he took during his tenure as Secretary of State? I most certainly cannot—it is a unique feature of this matter.
How can the Secretary of State justify ignoring the conclusions of the sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, conscientious to a fault, who presided over the fatal accident inquiry for 16 days, supervised two days of legal submission, and wrote a judgment in excess of 120 pages, but could not accept the Ministry of Defence's explanation of the way in which the accident occurred? How can the Secretary of State fail to accept the conclusions of a Select Committee of the House of Lords chaired by Lord Jauncey, one of Scotland's most eminent judges in recent times? He concluded that the standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" was simply not present and did not justify the conclusions of the board of inquiry? Do not those independent, impartial and painstaking conclusions fatally undermine the finding of negligence against those pilots?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has looked at the issue over a long period of time. I do not in any way take lightly his serious comments, but I hope that he will look at the further report from Boeing and my statement to the House today in considerable detail, as I believe that they will satisfy a number of his concerns.
I invited Sir Malcolm Rifkind to my office when it was clear that the matter would be raised again, and we had a thorough and detailed conversation. I accept that Sir Malcolm is not here to give his side of the story, but his essential point was that were he to look at the case again today he would reach a different view from that which he took at the time. While that is a perfectly proper position, it is not a sufficient reason for disturbing a carefully thought-through finding from the board of inquiry. As I indicated at the outset in my statement, at least 10 Ministers from two different Governments have looked independently and separately at the issue, serving their country and the House of Commons as best they could at the time, and each independently came to the conclusion that the findings of the board of inquiry were justified.
The weighing of evidence, however, from different sources, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others are undoubtedly seeking, is not necessarily the right approach. The right way is to look objectively at known facts that can be established beyond any reasonable doubt, and to apply the circumstances of the case to those known facts. I simply make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Committee in the other place accepted that at the way point change the aircraft was functioning normally. It is also clear that in the last few seconds the aircraft responded to a command from the pilots because it gained ground and hit the Mull in a particular way. It did not hit the Mull head on. It hit the Mull having responded to what was clearly an effort to pull up in time to avoid an impending crash.
698
In those circumstances, any plausible explanation of what went wrong must satisfy the pretty stiff test of what could have happened in those last 20 seconds that arguably cleared itself by the time the pilots were in a position to take what they tried to take—avoiding action. I should be grateful if right hon. and hon. Members would concentrate on that 20-second period, because it is the crucial period, as members of the Select Committee accepted. They accepted that the aircraft was functioning properly at the way point change.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and accept that it is not an easy duty for him to perform. I respect his attempt to be dispassionate, and his success in that, but it is difficult for me to be dispassionate. Under the previous Government, I was a member of the Defence Committee that decided not to hold an inquiry. I now regret that and I congratulate the House of Lords on holding its inquiry.
When people in our armed forces put their lives in harm's way to defend our country and our democracy, it is fair for them to assume that they have, at the very least, rights equal to those of every other citizen whom they seek to defend—in other words, that the onus of proof is not on the deceased, but on those who say that they were to blame. The onus of proof today, I say with respect to my right hon. Friend, is on him. I have not heard anything in his statement or read anything so far that supports the decision of the Secretary of State to come to the House and support a board of inquiry that consisted of two air marshals against a previous RAF inquiry that found that there were no human failures at all.
Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend studies my statement, he will see quite clearly that I accept—and I set it out for the benefit of the House—that it is a question of being able to show that there is no other plausible explanation. I conceded to the House, and I concede again, that if there is another plausible explanation, the test set by the board of inquiry under the relevant rules will not have been satisfied. There is no other plausible explanation.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: This simply will not do, will it? The Secretary of State accepts that he has to rule out all other plausible hypotheses, and in doing so he has to accept that, unless he can disprove something else that is plausible, it is not enough to say that there is no evidence that something did not happen; he has to disprove it. So will the Secretary of State please explain to the House why he personally has absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, for example, neither of the pilots was taken ill during the last two minutes of the flight?
Mr. Hoon: Because, again, as I told the House a few moments ago, having looked carefully at the facts as agreed—so far, none of the facts has been challenged by anyone in the House, although I recognise that everyone must have the opportunity of reading the reports in detail—the issue is what happened in those last 20 seconds or so. The Committee in the other place accepted that, at the way point change, the aircraft was working properly. The evidence is that in the last few seconds, there was a flare—the aircraft was pulled up suddenly in order to avoid what was clearly going to be a crash.

699
There is no evidence whatsoever of any possible reason why, in between, the pilots were not fully in control of the aircraft. In any event, the point that the right hon. Gentleman overlooks is that the reviewing officers found negligence even before the way point change, given the distances involved, the cloud cover of the Mull, and the altitude at which the aircraft was then flying. The issue is not what happened in the last 20 seconds, although I recognise that if there were any possible explanation, it would enormously help the effort that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have made to disprove the findings of the board of inquiry. However, I have heard nothing to suggest that that is the case.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I refer to the question that I asked on 19 March at column 244 of Hansard and repeat it: what explanation has been given by the Ministry of Defence as to why it did not tell Malcolm Rifkind that legal proceedings were taking place against Boeing?
Mr. Hoon: I am not in a position to answer that question precisely, as that was obviously a matter for previous Ministers. My hon. Friend will be aware of the rules affecting papers supplied to previous Ministers. In any event, the question of legal proceedings arose out of the testing procedures relating to FADEC. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will listen to the answer, I can tell him that the Committee in the other place made it clear that the FADEC issue was not, in its judgment, relevant to anything arising from the causation of the crash.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I commend the Secretary of State for having the courage to come to the House and make a statement about an accident which has understandably caused deep emotion? Is it not the case, however, that in analysing military accidents, or any flying accident, we must be guided only by the truth as the circumstances disclose it? Is it not true that the more one looks into the causes of this accident, the clearer it becomes that the original judgment of the reviewing officers, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, was correct? Is it not, prima facie, negligent to fly a serviceable aircraft in instrument meterological conditions in the proximity of high ground? In those circumstances, the finding was entirely correct. I applaud the Secretary of State on this occasion, and, as probably the only person in the House who spent his formative years in military cockpits, I think that most professional people will agree with the judgment that he has given to the House today.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would be less than honest with the House if I did not say that there were times when I thought that it might have been easier to take a different way out. I am grateful for his observations about the fact that I chose not to do so.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House to make the statement, as it would have been very easy for him to hide away for the recess. It would also be helpful for us to have a debate in the House after the recess, as well as the one that I imagine will be conducted in the House of Lords.
My right hon. Friend said that there had been a painstaking review of the complex technical, legal and airmanship issues raised by the report, and that he had
700
placed the Boeing evidence in the Library. I therefore believe that legal advice will also have been available to him. Will he place that in the Library as well, as it is that aspect that causes many of us the gravest doubt? As he said, in order to secure a judgment of gross negligence, there must be absolutely no doubt whatsoever. This is such a narrow area that it is important that we see what seems to have been the major stumbling block for Jauncey and others. Many of us think that 10 Ministers coming to the same conclusion on the basis of the same advice from the same group of officials is not a source of consolation.
Is it not the case that the black box cannot be found in military helicopters, that TANS is no substitute for a black box and that conclusions about anything that happened are drawn on the basis not of facts, but of hypotheses that can be challenged and in which lie the doubts that many of us have about the soundness of the judgment?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend chooses to phrase his comments about Ministers in that way; perhaps he will reconsider.
Mr. O'Neill: It is true.
Mr. Hoon: I assure him—I suspect that other Ministers can confirm this—that a new Minister in a Department who is faced with such an issue wants to ensure that it is considered thoroughly and properly. I knew that at some stage I would have to face the House of Commons, and that simply to accept the advice that was put in front of me would not necessarily equip me with the arguments and information that I would need to be able to answer right hon. and hon. Members' questions. It is for others to judge whether I am able to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that I personally—and other Ministers serving in the Department—have gone to a great deal of trouble to challenge the advice put in front of us.
On the legal advice, I doubt whether any Minister could have set a higher bar as regards what it is necessary for the Ministry of Defence to show in order not to disturb the finding of the board of inquiry than to say that there should be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that negligence occurred. I have accepted the highest legal standard that any Member of Parliament has ever proposed to the Ministry of Defence. In those circumstances, my hon. Friend's looking at the legal advice—which in any event, as he knows, is not something that any Department publishes—would not assist him, because I have accepted that there should be a very high standard for the Department to satisfy in order not to disturb the original finding.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the parents of Jonathan Tapper are constituents of mine? Jonathan Tapper was an officer with a completely unblemished record and a true professional of the utmost integrity. Given that three reports—the fatal accident inquiry, the House of Lords Select Committee report and the Public Accounts Committee report—overruled the finding of gross negligence, the parents of the two pilots were hoping and praying that the Secretary of State would follow those reports and quash the finding of gross negligence. Does he understand the heartache and grief that those families are suffering? Does he also understand that it is bad enough to lose a loved one, without having to endure the

701
slur of gross negligence, as well as the inference that, had they lived, the pilots would have been guilty of manslaughter? All that those parents are asking for is to have their sons' names cleared, so what advice can he give to enable them to do that?
Mr. Hoon: I understand to some extent. Although I do not claim possibly to be able to share the anguish that they have gone through, I understand the difficulties that they have faced and I have sought to face up to them myself. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I thought of taking what would have been politically a much easier way out than coming here to make the statement, but I felt unable to do that having personally considered carefully the facts of the case and having gone through an enormous amount of detailed information about the circumstances. I am sorry that I am unable to assist the hon. Gentleman in the way that he describes.
Mr. Frank Field: The Father of the House suggested that the Secretary of State should look at the papers that misled Sir Malcolm Rifkind in reaching his conclusion about the accident. Would my right hon. Friend welcome an initiative by Sir Malcolm to lift the ban on present incumbents looking at previous incumbents' papers?
The Secretary of State said that he felt unable at the present time to conclude that he should overturn the decision. On several occasions he told us to consult his statement carefully. I have a copy of it here. One of the phrases that he used is that there was to be "no doubt whatsoever that the pilots' negligence was a cause—although not necessarily the sole cause—of the accident." Does not that shift the grounds of the standard of proof from what we had all thought them to be—that is, "absolutely no doubt whatsoever"? Is not there a worrying trend among suppliers of armaments to the Government whereby when rifles do not work properly, the suppliers blame the service men for not being able to fire them, and when helicopters do not fly properly Boeing lends its weight to blaming the pilots?
Mr. Hoon: I would certainly be willing to look at Sir Malcolm Rifkind's papers and I have indicated all along that I would be willing to look at any new evidence. As I said to the House earlier, I commissioned a new report—which is now available to right hon. and hon. Members—specifically because I wanted to see from scratch the material that was available, so far as it could be, to Ministers. I am certainly willing to consider any further material that anyone supplies to me at any stage. I do not, however, accept my right hon. Friend's further observations; they are unfair, and that is not the way in which we have gone through this process.
Angus Robertson: May I express my disappointment at the missed opportunity to overturn the findings of negligence against the Chinook pilots, Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if there were to be an RAF board of inquiry today, it would not be able to reach a finding of negligence because the rules were changed after the crash on the Mull of Kintyre?
Mr. Hoon: That is absolutely right. After asking that question, however, the hon. Gentleman must ask himself
702
whether it would be right, once the rules have been changed, for us retrospectively to apply a different standard to events that occurred in the past. He is asking only half the question.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which he has approached this statement. If we were looking at these matters in terms of a balance of probabilities, he would certainly have a point. But, as the Public Accounts Committee found, that is not what we are looking at. The Committee—an all-party Committee—considered the legal and technical evidence as thoroughly as it could, and used very strong language to express the view that the Ministry of Defence, in continuing to support the two senior officers, was guilty of "unwarrantable arrogance". That was a very strong statement from the Public Accounts Committee, and it came to that conclusion because of the dispute about the words "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
I want to put a question to the Secretary of State, and he must answer it if he is to convince the House of Commons. Looking at what the House of Lords report said, is the Secretary of State telling the House of Commons that he has
"absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilots intended to overfly the cloud-covered Mull"?
Is he also telling the House of Commons that, in his view and in the absence of a black box, there was
"absolutely no doubt whatsoever that some mechanical failure had not caused a loss of control of the aircraft"?
Is that what the Secretary of State is telling the House of Commons?
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's observations about the term "unwarrantable arrogance". That represented one of the most disappointing aspects of the Public Accounts Committee's report, not least because the Committee failed, for example, to call the reviewing officers to give their own evidence. It struck me as somewhat inconsistent of the Committee to reach that very strong conclusion without having called all those who could give relevant evidence as to what had taken place.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question, I am entirely satisfied that at this stage there is no plausible explanation other than that the pilots themselves were responsible for negligently flying the aircraft into the Mull.
Peter Bottomley: May I say to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that I am glad that this is not a party matter? The Secretary of State has shown evidence that he has approached this with an open mind, that there is no other plausible explanation with any proof attached to it, and that those on both sides of the House who are asking for any implausible explanation to be ruled out by evidence are going far beyond the natural consequences of the decisions that, sadly, the pilots took when they flew that aeroplane in the direction that they did, at the height that they did and at the speed that they did.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would simply invite right hon. and hon. Members to look

703
carefully at the facts, and to deal with each of them as they are set out in the report that we have made available to Members of the House.
Mr. Robert Key: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that a large number of us are genuinely sorry—in my case, on behalf of my constituents at Boscombe Down—that a statement has been made this afternoon that changes absolutely nothing? Will he tell me whether he has at any stage discussed this statement and the outcome of his deliberations with the Prime Minister?
Mr. Hoon: The usual discussions have taken place across Government for many years. I come to the House presenting a settled Government view.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Given that a number of independent, qualified and distinguished individuals who have investigated have declined to blame the pilots, and given that it is really rather undesirable for the Ministry of Defence to have the final say, would it not be best to appoint a senior judicial figure to review all the existing evidence and make a report?
Mr. Hoon: That is certainly a possible option, and I would not rule it out. I think, however, that the senior judicial figure would be much better served if new evidence could be added to the existing evidence, because he or she would then have something to deal with.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman's statement was littered with uses of the word "plausible", referring to alternative explanations for the crash. Surely the problem is that what the Secretary of State, the senior reviewing officer and the board of inquiry are inviting us to believe is itself implausible. It is implausible that two pilots who had expressed doubts about the quality of their aircraft should then fly, at such a height and speed, into cloud and into the Mull, with a cargo of such value. There was no data recorder and no voice cockpit recorder, and one of the digital engine control units was destroyed in the crash. Does the Secretary of State accept
704
that he cannot ask us to uphold a wholly implausible view without "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", and that he has not the evidence to sustain that?
Mr. Hoon: Sadly for the hon. Gentleman, the only explanation that fits all the known and agreed facts is the conclusion reached by the board of inquiry: that the pilots flew the aircraft at high speed, low, in contravention of the "visual flight rules", into the Mull. Unfortunately, that is the only explanation that fits the known facts. I wish it were otherwise, but that is the position.
Dr. Julian Lewis: If the pilots had lived, albeit having done something negligent, would they not have been able to speak in their own defence? Was it not therefore deeply unsatisfactory that under the rules before this incident, deceased pilots could be blamed when they could not speak in their own defence? Is it not a fact that the reason for the belated recognition that that is unsatisfactory is this very case; and is it not a fact that a verdict of this kind could never be reached again as a result of dissatisfaction about what has happened in this very case?
Why does the Secretary of State not reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), and say that it would be possible to revisit the circumstances and decide that the application of the rules to this case at that time constituted a basic injustice? Surely the revoking of the rules represents a belated acknowledgement that they were unjust when applied to the deceased pilots.
Mr. Hoon: I certainly agree that the two pilots would have been the best witnesses. Part of the tragedy is the fact that they are not available to give us their evidence. Nevertheless, neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other Member should try to avoid the fact that the best evidence is not available on numerous occasions. On such occasions, we must still try to make judgments on the basis of what evidence is available. That, sadly, applies to this case.
The change in the system does not undermine the fact that the reviewing officers and the board of inquiry considered the case in the light of the test and the rules that applied at the time. If the hon. Gentleman applies his perfectly logical reasoning to the situation, he will realise that if that were not the case any single decision made at any tribunal or court in our history could be challenged simply because subsequent generations took a different view of what test should have applied at the time. That would simply not be satisfactory.

Point of Order
5.45 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, at columns 476-77 last Thursday, in relation to the statutory instrument Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 105) on Invest to Save Budget Round 4 Projects and Local Government On-Line, I raised the fact that, as at half-past 3 on Thursday, the relevant statutory instrument was not printed and was not in the Vote Office. The Chairman of Ways and Means gave a ruling at the time:
"It follows that there should be at least one copy in the Library. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, a supply of fully printed copies is not yet available in the Vote Office nine days after the laying of the document. that is indeed most regrettable."—[Official Report. 18 July 2002: Vol. 389, c. 477.]
That was a pretty strong ruling. I subsequently discovered that a copy was not even in the Library, which must be pretty close to contravening the rules of the House.
We discussed the statutory instrument in Standing Committee at 4.30 pm today, and we discovered that it had not even been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That seems to be pretty close to breaking the rules of the House, if not actually breaking them. It is certainly breaking the spirit of the workings of the House.
This is an extremely sloppy way of working the part of the Government. I raised the matter in Committee on a point of order. I asked for the instrument to be postponed. but the Chairman ruled that he was empowered to consider only whether it had been properly considered by the Committee. I would like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should follow better working practices when laying statutory instruments in the House. It was not even an urgent statutory instrument. It could have been laid in the House in the autumn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I believe that that procedure is not unprecedented.

BILL PRESENTED
  ENDANGERED SPECIES (OFFENCES)
  Mr. David Amess presented a Bill to provide for the punishment of offences relating to endangered species; to make consequential amendments to certain enactments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 1851.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
5.48 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has been debated in another place and I am pleased to say that it has been passed there without amendment. It is a short and perhaps slightly technical Bill but it seeks to tackle a fast-growing and significant problem: the theft of mobile phones. There has been much public, parliamentary and media concern in recent months about mobile phone theft and street crime in general. The Bill will help to deal with some of those concerns.
We are determined to tackle street crime through a comprehensive programme of measures across government, the police service, the courts and the criminal justice system. The Bill should be seen as a part of that wider programme. It is fully supported by the police and the mobile phone industry as part of the fight against street crime.
There is now a broad body of evidence, some of it anecdotal, some statistical, that the theft of mobile phones has contributed significantly to the rise in street robberies. Therefore, tackling mobile phone theft can play an important part in driving down street crime.
A Home Office report on mobile phone theft was published in January 2002. It showed that in 2000–01, mobile phones were stolen in 28 per cent. of all robberies, compared with 8 per cent. only three years previously. Since 1995, there has been a 600 per cent. increase in mobile phone owners. There are about 50 million mobile phone users in the United Kingdom. Clearly, the opportunity for mobile phones to be stolen is significantly greater than a few years ago. None the less, the only conclusion that we can draw is that robberies involving mobile phones are increasing at a much greater rate than robberies in general.
In the Metropolitan police area alone, the percentage of offences in which a mobile phone is among the items stolen has risen from 25 per cent. in 1999–2000 to 50 per cent. in 2001–02. In January this year, the police estimate that 31 per cent. of all robberies and snatch thefts in London targeted mobile phones alone, while 20 per cent. involved a mobile phone as well as other items, so 51 per cent. of all street crime in London in that month involved a mobile phone.
As we all know, the police in London and other major cities, where most street robberies take place, are clamping down on street crime. They are tackling mobile phone theft, with the support of the other criminal justice agencies, local authorities, schools and employment services.
One strand of that work has been to find ways of reducing the number of mobile phones stolen. In January 2001, we set up a steering group with the police and the mobile phone industry to consider the practical measures that needed to be taken. Significant progress has been made, especially with the network providers Vodafone, 02, T-Mobile, Orange and Virgin. Following extensive discussions throughout last year, and prompted by the

707
evidence of the scale of the problem in the report to which I referred, Vodafone and 02, which were previously not able to bar handsets on their own networks, have now invested in the technology needed to do so.
Michael Fabricant: The Bill has my full support and, I am pretty sure, that of my party. However, its whole effect is to stop the re-programming of the international mobile equipment identity, or IMEI number, and that will be effective only if the companies can disable the handset. How convinced is the Minister that Vodafone and 02 will have not only the hardware but the software in place by September, as set out in the explanatory notes, rather than later, in 2003, which would negate the whole point of the Bill?
Mr. Denham: I have of course been in contact with the operator companies throughout the past year, and my officials work with them through the standing group that we set up to tackle mobile phone theft, and my understanding as of today—it is the best information that I can give the House—is that, by the end of August, each of the five main operators will be able to bar stolen handsets on their own network.
The next stage beyond that is to prevent the stolen phone from being used on one of the other major networks, and the second part of the agreement that we have reached with the operators is that they will create a central equipment identity register, which will enable each of them to bar the use of stolen mobiles across all the networks. That decision was announced in February 2002, and we have the industry's assurance that it is on course for implementation of the shared database in September 2002. I have no reason to doubt that the target date will be met.
Michael Fabricant: I totally accept what the Minister says, and only time will tell whether his confidence is justified. If a phone is stolen and then exported, will there be a similar sharing of databases with other global system for mobiles—GSM—operators elsewhere in the world, because if not, all that will happen is that the phones will be usable everywhere but here?
Mr. Denham: I am anticipating some remarks that I shall make in due course, but in Europe, where the bulk of the other GSM operators are, our initiatives are being recognised as setting best practice standards for the whole region. We are considering how we should follow up in Europe the initiatives taken here. I cannot claim that everything is in place in Europe to mimic what we are doing here, but what we have achieved with the operators here has been noted as best practice. We shall continue to press on the matter. I shall shortly say something about the security of the phones themselves.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the export of phones. He is right to say that wider international action will help to tackle the problem. Although there is undoubtedly some theft for export, that is clearly a more complicated transaction than the simple theft and re-use of a mobile phone. I cannot claim that the Bill totally closes off the export route, but it will have a significant impact on the theft of phones for domestic use.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Clearly, if the technology exists to bar a mobile phone, irrespective of
708
its keeping its original IMEI number, it will not be able to be used. The Bill is aimed at criminalising the re-programming of the telephone, but if the technology exists for such re-programming to continue to be done on the black market—if people are willing to risk the penalties—it will be possible to continue to use it with a new number.
Mr. Denham: That is self-evident, I suppose. With the current generation of phones, we cannot make re-programming physically impossible. That is why we continue to press the industry, and especially the manufacturers, with the support of the operators, to make phones themselves more secure and more difficult to re-programme. Given that there is a fairly rapid replacement rate of the stock of mobile phones—fashions and designs change—we can look forward to a new generation of phones that are more secure. I believe that criminalising the act of re-programming, with tough but justified sentences, as proposed in the Bill, will help to make a significant impact on the problem.
We all know that there is no magic bullet that will instantly solve the problem, and we are pursuing other measures, educating mobile phone users and persuading schools to discourage pupils from taking their phones to school. All those measures have a role to play, but the Bill is a significant part of the process.
From September, customers who have their mobile phone stolen will be able to ring their network and get it disabled, just as they can ring their bank and cancel a stolen credit card. We have also worked with the industry and the police on promoting greater awareness of security and personal safety, and there is much more information on phone operators' and retailers' websites. The Government have issued 5 million crime prevention leaflets on avoiding mobile phone theft as part of the safer streets campaign.
In London, for example, the Metropolitan police have marked thousands of mobile phones with a permanent ultra-violet property code, making them instantly identifiable if they are stolen and subsequently recovered. In Birmingham, the police and youth offending teams and Victim Support are focusing on mobile phone security and crime prevention presentations, which they are delivering to all secondary school assemblies.
Hon. Members asked about wider issues. We are working with colleagues in Europe and discussing possible cross-boundary solutions, building on the good practice developed in the UK, because we want to prevent stolen phones from being used in other countries, too, so as to remove incentives for illegal export.
The Bill is specifically designed to complement the handset blocking measures taken by the mobile phone operators. Phones are identified and disabled by reference to a serial number on each handset, known as the international mobile equipment identity, or IMEI number—a 15-digit number both programmed into the handset and visible on its body. The number appears on the records of the network providers each time the phone is used. The operators' handset barring system works by reference to the IMEI number, so barring handsets in that way will prevent thieves from being able to use the phones that they steal, and if they cannot be used, they cannot be sold on. That, in itself, should act as a deterrent to mobile phone theft.

709
However, barring a handset is not fully effective if the IMEI number itself is changed. Changing the number makes it impossible for the operators to track and disable a handset, and that is what we believe is happening. A tracking exercise that operators have undertaken with the police has shown that the IMEI number of as many as 75 out of 100 stolen phones could not be traced on any of the UK networks' records. We can make a reasonable guess that these phones were not thrown away, but were re-programmed and were therefore untraceable. However, I accept that some were sent overseas to emerging markets.
Another indication of the extent of the re-programming problem was revealed last July when BT Cellnet—now 02—estimated that, potentially, the IMEI number of 1.5 million phones on that network had been changed from the manufactured number. Those who were re-programming mobile phones used duplicate IMEI numbers that they knew would work on the network. The most duplicated number on the BT Cellnet network had been copied more than 9,000 times.
Michael Fabricant: Has the Minister discussed with major telephone operators the introduction of a system through which the IMEI number is matched with the telephone number? Such a system is technically possible, and if it were adopted the duplication of an existing and correct IMEI number would not work, because it would not match up with the recognised phone number on the SIM card that is inserted in a GSM telephone.
Mr. Denham: We have looked at various technical arrangements, and the problem with that solution is that it is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests. All simple mechanisms that cannot be got round have been examined in detail by the industry, and by the consultants whom we have retained to advise us independently on these matters. The existence of so many duplicate IMEI numbers may well be a by-product of the particular software, often written by hackers, that is used for re-programming phones in the same place. Such software may inadvertently create the same IMEI number.
It is relatively cheap and easy to change the IMEI number of a mobile phone—all that is needed is the relevant software to re-programme the handset, a computer and a cable. The software is freely available; it may be bought, or downloaded from the internet. A kit can be bought for under £150. The Metropolitan police say that stolen and re-programmed phones can be sold for about half their retail price—up to about £100. Given the number of stolen phones and the estimated number of re-programmed ones, it is clear that the re-programming of stolen phones has the potential to produce large-scale criminal profits. At the moment, it is completely legal to re-programme a mobile phone. Re-programming services are lawfully offered and advertised by independent retail outlets, market stalls, car boot sales and internet companies, despite the fact that no legitimate reason exists for changing the number.
On the next stage in the process, to which I have referred, new international security standards that came into force on 1 June state that the IMEI number should not be changed, and should be resistant to change. I am pleased to say that manufacturers are now playing more of their part in the fight against mobile phone crime by hardening the IMEI numbers on their new phones,
710
in compliance with the new standards. That addresses the problem at source. We are also meeting manufacturers to discuss other measures that they can take to enhance the security of their products. However, as I said, at the moment the IMEI numbers of phones already on the market can be changed, and that is the issue that the Bill seeks to address.
In February, we made clear our intention to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity. It will create a new criminal offence: the unauthorised re-programming of mobile phone handsets. Specifically, it will be an offence to change, or to interfere with, the operation of a phone's unique identifier—the IMEI number. The Bill will also create linked offences of possessing, supplying or offering to supply equipment for that purpose. It will be an offence to he in possession of equipment with the intention of unauthorised re-programming.
There will be occasions when the manufacturer of a mobile phone will need to change the IMEI number. No offence is committed if the change is made by the manufacturer, or with their written consent. The new "either way" offences of changing, or interfering with, the unique identifier of mobile phones without authorisation, and of possessing or supplying the equipment for that purpose, will carry a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. In the magistrates courts, an offender may be punished with six months' imprisonment, or a fine of up to £5,000, or both. The offence will be an arrestable offence under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The penalty for the new offence is in line with those for the various offences of obtaining telecommunications services dishonestly, as provided for in the recently amended Telecommunications Act 1984.
We accept that these penalties are severe, but I believe that they are fully justified. A strong deterrent is needed for those who, in some cases, are hardened criminals engaged in several other criminal activities. However, such a deterrent is also necessary in the context of the wider street crime problem, which has certainly been fuelled by rise in mobile phone theft.
Norman Baker: My colleagues and I support the Bill and we will support it in the Lobby if there is a vote, but am concerned about the sentences to which the Minister has just referred. I accept that it is important to send out a clear message, but I fear that, if the sentences are too severe, we will simply encourage the exporting to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred. After all, if the penalties are severe, people are surely more likely to try to avoid them by taking phones across the channel to France to re-programme them, and then bringing them back.
Mr. Denham: I do not think that that is right, and even if such a consequence were to occur, that would be no reason for not adopting the appropriate range of penalties for the crime. It must have crossed the minds of those in this country who are carrying out this currently legal activity that they are playing a role in encouraging the theft and re-sale of mobile phones. Enacting a Bill that sends powerful sentencing messages is the best way to get across to those people that they should not take part in that activity.
The idea that we should confine the issue to home and treat it as a cottage industry by keeping the penalties low, rather than allowing British illegal activity to go abroad, is

711
not one that I have a great deal of time for, and I doubt whether that is what the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was really suggesting. We should set the appropriate penalty, and in the light of our discussions at European level, we hope that our stand might be replicated elsewhere in time.
The creation of these new offences will close the existing loophole in the law, and send out a strong message from Parliament. They will prevent businesses from advertising a re-programming service, thereby inadvertently fuelling street crime, and they will tackle those who must be aware of the way their activity relates to street crime. As a result, mobile phone theft will be considerably less attractive. Let us be clear: the aim of the legislation is not so much to generate the largest possible number of prosecutions, as to dissuade people from offering this re-programming service in the first place. If we can achieve that, it will be well worth while.
The new offences will make it easier for the police to prosecute cases involving the handling of stolen goods, which attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. At the moment, although the police may have reasonable grounds to suspect someone in possession of re-programmed handsets of being guilty of handling stolen goods, once the act of re-programming is itself a criminal offence, much stronger grounds will exist for prosecuting that person for handling stolen goods.
Michael Fabricant: The Minister is absolutely right to talk of the deterrent factor of stiff penalties, but have the very stiff penalties that exist for hacking into certain websites prevented such hacking from taking place? The evidence suggests not.
Mr. Denham: Several offences for which there are stiff penalties are still carried out by some people somewhere along the line. My guess in respect of the activity to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that those penalties do dissuade some people from carrying it out. I am pleased to say that, in anticipation of the Bill, some forces have already done the necessary preparatory work to bring about a change in attitude. For example, Merseyside police force has identified every second-hand mobile phone dealer across its area, and it is visiting each shop to provide advice and a contact helpline, should there be any future queries. That type of proactive initiative by the police is very welcome.
Legitimate businesses will not be adversely affected by the Bill. We have established with the industry that there is no legitimate reason for an individual to be involved in re-programming a mobile phone. We accept that equipment or software that can be used to re-programme a phone can also be used for other, legitimate purposes, but no offence is committed unless there is intent to use it unlawfully.
The Bill, though short, is an important part of the drive to stop the theft of mobile phones, which has fuelled robbery and underpinned a fear of crime on our streets. It should be viewed as part of a significant package of measures being taken in co-operation with the mobile phone industry and the police, and against the background of the wider initiatives we are taking to make our streets more safe. I commend the Bill to the House.
6.11 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: We greatly welcome the Bill. We are aware of the background that has brought it about, and the Government could rely on our support if the House were to divide at the end of the debate, although I think that most unlikely.
The Minister rightly highlighted the serious problem of stolen mobile phones. Various statistics have been bandied about, and we must bear in mind the fact that they contain some element of individuals claiming that mobile phones have been stolen as part of an insurance scam. I noted that some 8,210 more Nokia phones have been claimed as stolen than have ever been made. That figure should incline the House to a moment of caution when considering the scale of the problem, although I wholly acknowledge that the number of people who reported the theft of a phone in 1998–99 increased by 377 per cent. However we interpret the statistics, mobile phone theft has clearly been an important component fuelling crime, especially street crime.
I do not wish to take up the House's time, so I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss that—even though this is a Second Reading debate—I intend to consider some of the wider problems. When I intervened in his speech, he said that my comment was self-evident. It may have been so to him, but to the wider public it might not be self-evident that although the step that we are taking tonight is important, it can be only a component part of the total fight against the misuse of mobile phones through theft, because vast areas are still open to exploitation.
The Bill criminalises those who, without the manufacturer's express authority, decide to reprogramme a phone to change its IMEI number. That, taken together with the willingness of mobile phone operators to bar the IMEI number of mobile telephones that have been stolen, should—at least, we hope that it will—go some way to ensuring that it becomes much less useful to steal a mobile phone. After the short period when one may be willing to use a phone on the basis of its current SIM card, which most thieves dispose of quickly, it will be more difficult to have the phone re-programmed.
Let me strike a note of caution—the same point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Bill's success will depend on its deterrent effect on the large number of individuals who are willing to re-programme telephones. As the Minister pointed out, those people must be carrying out that operation now in the knowledge that they are almost certainly facilitating the commission of crime. They are acting for gain as the facilitators of those who wish to make a profit from the theft or robbery of mobile telephones. I hope that the Minister will understand my reservation, because I fear that those people who are willing to do that in the first place will not necessarily be deterred by the high sentences that will be imposed.
I see nothing wrong with the sentencing regime in the Bill; the problem will be enforcement. Re-programming is carried out at car boot sales and in shacks and garages, and it has been described by the industry as so easy that anyone with the basic technology could do it. We must hope that the Bill will have an impact, but I have slightly greater reservations than the Minister appears to have. This is not the first time that a Government have come

713
forward—this is not a political point—promising to criminalise an activity and therefore to stop it. For example, when the landfill tax was introduced, extra sentences were imposed for fly tipping, but it is still difficult to catch those who do it. I hope that the Minister will take that caveat in good part, because otherwise I entirely welcome the Bill's aim of criminalising re-programming.
The Minister will be aware that when the Bill was considered in the other place, only one amendment was tabled in Committee. The Bill refers to the custody and control of equipment that could be used to facilitate re-programming. It was suggested in the other place that the word "possession" instead of the words "custody" and "control" would make it easier to obtain convictions. I know that we will have a Committee stage on Wednesday, but I hope that it will be short. If the Minister has a view on that point at this stage, it might be useful if he shares it with us when he winds up this debate.
Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the burden of proof includes the intention
"to use the thing unlawfully for that purpose"?
Those are the words in the Bill, although a better word than "thing" could surely have been used. Does he agree that the inclusion of that necessary mens rea will make it difficult to obtain convictions?
Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not wish to see the criminal law become so onerous for an individual that it presents a real chance that the innocent will be convicted, but we may wish to consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises on Wednesday to see whether the Bill can be improved. I shall listen with great care to what the Minister has to say, because—given that he has been alerted to the point by the proceedings in the other place—I hope that he and his advisers have had the chance to mull over the matter. If we can improve the Bill, we shall seek to do so. I await the Minister's response.
The issue is clear. It is desirable that re-programming be outlawed, and the Bill will achieve that aim. Whether we can succeed in reaching the happy state in which stealing someone's mobile phone is a valueless activity will depend on the industry, and the Government's ability to co-operate with it in future moves. That may require further legislation or firm action by the industry, but it must be our aim. The Bill is a contribution in the right direction, and it therefore has our support.
6.19 pm
John Robertson: I shall try to make my speech as short as possible. The debate has attracted some Members who want to contribute to it—[Interruption.] Then again, perhaps not.
Mobile telephones have become increasingly prevalent in today's society. I had a mobile phone in 1998, and it was about as compact, portable and attractive as a breeze block. Nowadays, however, mobiles are much more elegant and stylish, and people want them. There are people who want to steal them so that they can pass them on to others and make a profit. They know that other people will purchase them because they wish to have the most up-to-date technology. Technological developments are making telephones more and more desirable, so we
714
must make things more and more difficult for thieves. I think that the Bill does that, and the Minister should be commended on it.
More than 700,000 mobile phones are stolen each year, and many of the thefts involve violent attacks. On new year's day, a 19-year-old woman was shot when her phone was stolen. Even worse, a 10-year-old boy was held at gun point, all for a mobile phone. We want to try to stop such crimes. Those under 18 make up nearly half of all victims. School surveys suggest that the number of incidents is far higher than the number reported. More and more young people own mobile phones and the progression of thefts will become worse if nothing is done.
Many people cite the use of a mobile phone as a safety measure: they want the comfort of a phone to use in case they feel threatened. However, people feel threatened when they use a mobile. We must try to stop mobile phone theft. Perhaps the Bill could have done more to achieve that.
Stolen phones can readily be turned into cash. SIM cards alone sell for between £10 and £60, and if a handset goes with a SIM card, the price is higher. I welcome the fact that the Home Office has been working with mobile phone companies. I chair the all-party group on telecommunications, and I have had many meetings with the companies. I have been trying to put them under pressure, because they could have done much more, much earlier, to help try to track down those who steal mobiles. It is a bit late for them to agree to help, but help will be welcome. Vodafone and 02 have done some good work.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that mobile phones will be taken abroad, re-programmed and then brought back into the UK, which will circumvent the Bill's objective of criminalising those who change the codes in this country. The Minister has said that he will be talking to his allies in the European Union. That is important, but we need to go further and ensure that other countries introduce similar legislation.
As things stand, changing the IMEI number makes it impossible for an operator to track and disable a stolen phone. As has been said, it is fairly easy and cheap to change that number. Using software to re-programme handsets makes the back-street selling of mobiles extremely desirable. It is important that the police be involved. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the Manchester police, and I hope that the Glasgow police have been listening.
I welcome the severity of the proposed punishment, but we should draw a clear distinction between those who seek to derive financial benefit from their crimes and those who steal phones because they seek possession of items that they do not have and cannot afford, and because peer pressure is put on them. I hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will consider the nature of crimes, and likewise the courts when it comes to sentencing. At the same time, we must have a go at the Mr. Bigs: some £4.2 million worth of Samsung phones have been stolen recently, to be re-programmed and sent out of the UK.
I appreciate that the Bill has not been introduced in isolation, but is part of a package of measures to combat crime. Young people experience particular problems with mobile phone thefts which the Bill does not address. Phone accessories, such as cases and covers, are largely targeted at the teenage market. Mobiles are made

715
fashionable and desirable, especially for those aged between 11 and 15, who are targeted as victims more than any other age group. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how we might protect those young people.
How do we deal with stolen phones that are sent abroad for re-programming? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what discussions he envisages having in Europe.
Once again, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill, and I commend the other parties in this place for supporting it. The Bill is an important step, but I reiterate that those who are the most vulnerable and the most affected by the stealing of mobile telephones are the young. That should be considered in more detail.
6.27 pm
Norman Baker: It is always pleasant to participate in a debate where there is such conviviality and wide agreement among the parties. That is not always the case with Home Office legislation, but it is today. That makes it less of an interesting story for those outside this place. I suspect that we shall not see headlines in tomorrow's newspapers stating, "Three parties agree on mobile phone Bill." That would not be newsworthy, but I think that there are 45 million mobile phone subscribers in the country.
Michael Fabricant: Fifty million.
Norman Baker: The number has increased since half an hour ago. It is obviously a significant number of phones with which to deal. Therefore, it is an issue that affects almost everyone in the UK.
I caution the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who said that he supported the Bill, and then mentioned one or two caveats. If he is not careful, he may find the Prime Minister declaring at Prime Minister's Question Time that the Conservatives are opposing the Bill and trying to wreck it, as has been the case with other legislation.
Mr. Grieve: I am used to the problem of my words going through some strange sort of misinterpretation as they percolate through the outer offices of Downing street. Anyone reading the entire text of what I had to say this afternoon might be rather hard pressed to imagine that the Opposition were opposing the Bill.
Norman Baker: I am sure that that is true. The problem is that some people might be selective and not choose to read the entire text. Time will tell.
I suppose I should declare an interest of a sort, because I cannot stand mobile phones. I try not to use one unless there is no alternative. I have a hatred of those who sit next to me on trains speaking extremely loudly into these devices. I say "devices" because the explanatory notes refer to mobile phones as "mobile wireless communications devices." I wonder whether we might not be better with "things", to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) drew attention, which appears in the Bill.
We are dealing with a serious issue and I think that there will be cross-party support on the wide principles. It is for the Minister to answer points that arise round the edges and
716
to try to ensure—I think that this is the most important aspect—that the Government reach agreement with other EU countries, and agreement more internationally, so that the good work that is reflected in the Bill is not undermined by others circumventing national boundaries within which the legislation will operate.
I was staggered when my researchers produced for me information to suggest that there were 470.000 phone thefts in 2000, and that school surveys suggested that there had been 200,000 to 550,000 thefts from 11 to 15-year-olds in 2000–01. Estimates from the police suggest that 330,000 offences had been committed. Those are staggering numbers by any account, and there have been big increases in such theft.
Incidentally, to digress for a second, that shows the value of having more police officers. They clearly have to deal with crimes that did not take place 10 or 15 years ago, so we have to increase the number of police officers to deal with the wider range of offences that now exist.
The Minister needs to reflect gently on the fact that, sadly, such theft may continue even if the mobile phones cannot be used because of the accessories point made by his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). The hon. Gentleman made the valuable point that possessions are being stolen because of their attractiveness, not necessary for their use.
I am sure that the Minister would accept—indeed, he said so in his opening comments—that the Bill does not represent the only way to deal with the matter; there has to be a package of measures, which includes education in schools. Although I understand that parents may want their children to have mobile phones for security purposes when they go to school, I cannot help thinking that some steps could be taken to try to educate children and, indeed, parents themselves that perhaps it is not always essential to carry mobile phones in certain circumstances. If fewer people carried mobile phones, the people who wished to carry out a theft would be less certain that a mobile phone would be found on someone and therefore there would be less crime as a consequence. So the Bill is part of package that we have to develop.
I am concerned that it is apparently quite easy to reprogramme mobile phones. I understand that Home Office research shows that the reprogramming can be done with commercially available equipment that costs about £30. According to the BBC, software packages allowing people to change the IMEI number can be bought via the web. With that software and a cable that connects to a laptop or a personal computer, the IMEI number can be re-chipped within a few minutes.
I should be interested to know, when the Minister responds, whether he thinks that much of the reprogramming that occurs is done on that low-level basis by opportunist criminals—perhaps by young people who are more streetwise on computers than people such as myself—or whether it is predominantly carried out by those involved in large-scale crime. One of the motivations for those involved in large-scale crime might be that reprogramming mobile phones might make it more difficult to track what they are doing, so it may provide them with a defence to prevent the law enforcement agencies from knowing what they are doing. Is that a motivation in such reprogramming? We have to consider how such theft can be tackled and who is being tackled.

717
I am very happy with the Bill, as I have said, and I do not think that much can be done to improve it. It seems that it will make such reprogramming less attractive for low-level criminals, which may well take out a range of people who are involved in what is currently a legal activity, although it is clearly inextricably linked with illegal activities. However, my great fear is that the Bill will not deter those who view such reprogramming as a big money-making operation, for whom it is perhaps an adjunct to other criminal activities. They may well feel that the necessity to go abroad to reprogramme mobile phones is, frankly, not much of an inconvenience. So the Bill will deal with one element of the activity, but not necessarily the more serious element.
It is good that the Minister has said that he recognises the need to take such proposals to the European Union and beyond. He needs to do that, and we need to reach some sort of international agreement—not simply European Union agreement—on those matters. I wonder what the Government are doing internationally.
I wish to refer to what is perhaps a side issue. Can the Minister say what the situation is in the Republic of Ireland? The legislation will apply to Northern Ireland, but if there is no agreement or co-working with the Republic of Ireland, frankly, it does not take much imagination to realise what will happen. In fact, I suggest that the legislation will become inoperable in many ways in Northern Ireland. So I hope that he has considered that point and has reached an agreement with the Republic of Ireland to take matters forward.
My other concern is to differentiate those who may be caught by the legislation. It is very important that there is strong message and a proportionate and, in some cases, severe penalty for the big boys—those in the organised networks and those who deliberately reprogramme mobile phones professionally—such as those who were subject to one or two criminal actions recently. Multi-million pound profits can be made, so it is absolutely right that those involved should be dealt with very hard. However, it is also important that the sledgehammer that rightly exists for the big boys is not applied to the odd youth who happens to be involved in what will now be more easy to prove as handling stolen goods. That is a low-level crime, and it should be deal with appropriately.
The Government have rightly said that, as part of their youth justice programme, they want to be careful about how youth crime is approached to try to ensure that young people are not unduly criminalised and sent on a road from which there is no return. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the penalties that may be appropriate for the big boys cannot be used inappropriately for the relatively low-level crime of handling stolen goods. The 14-year maximum for a 16 or 18-year-old who happens to have bought a mobile phone—perhaps in a pub or a boot sale—would be disproportionate, and I hope that the Minister can assure me that that is not the intention or the effect of the Bill.
I want to ask the Minister what steps he is taking to deal with insurance fraud. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned this in passing, but I understand that a significant percentage of the 700,000 mobile handsets reported stolen last year were never really stolen at all, according to the industry. The recent surge in mobile phone thefts is at least partly caused by fraudulent insurance claims, rather than by actual thefts. I wish to make two points about that.
718
First, we obviously want to stop fraudulent insurance claims, so I assume that the Minister is in discussion about that with the insurance industry, as well as with the mobile phone industry. Secondly, for the accuracy of Government statistics, we need to separate out the fraudulent insurance claims so that we can have as accurate a picture as possible of what is actually happening with thefts. If the Government want to demonstrate—I hope that they will—that the Bill will have a positive effect on reducing mobile phone theft, they need to be able to separate out the false insurance claims to assess accurately how effective the Bill has been.
The industry representatives that the Liberal Democrats saw recently claimed that at least 20 per cent. of reported mobile thefts were faked. That is a serious matter in itself, although it is not as serious as the multi-million frauds that have been going on and, no doubt, are the reason for introducing the Bill.
Finally, I refer the Minister to the amendment—no doubt, he will be familiar with it—tabled in the other place by his colleague. Lord Campbell-Savours, in seeking to ensure that the Bill was not too widely drawn. I ask the Minister not to interpret what I say. Before he or anyone else suggests that I am seeking to create loopholes, may I say that that is not the case? I simply ask—this is a proper question to pose—that he ensure that the terms used in the legislation are such that innocent people cannot be swept up inadvertently. The amendment tabled by his hon. Friend, Lord Campbell-Savours had some merit—I put it no more strongly than that—in clarifying the word "anything".
I wonder whether the Minister has reflected on that issue and whether he has concluded that it might be possible to amend the wording slightly to ensure that no innocent party can be swept up in the legislation, without in any way weakening the Bill, which is supported on both sides of the House. Having said all that, the Bill has our almost unqualified support. Certainly, the principles have our unqualified support, and I look forward to its becoming legislation as soon as possible.
6.39 pm
Ross Cranston: This is a little Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) has said, it will work only in association with other measures. I take the point about adequate enforcement made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I also take the obviously very important point about the European dimension made by him, and by the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who mentioned it in interventions.
The Bill creates a new criminal offence of reprogramming, without authority, a mobile phone's unique identifier, and associated offences such as having or supplying equipment that can be used for reprogramming. As hon. Members have said, it is important to try to stamp out such unauthorised reprogramming, because once it has occurred, the only information showing that a mobile has been stolen is eradicated. If mobiles cannot be reprogrammed, there is less incentive to steal them.
I want to focus on other parts of the story. The first point, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, concerns the common knowledge that

719
the theft of mobiles, often from young people, has become prevalent, especially in urban areas. My right hon. Friend quoted the Home Office report. "Mobile Phone Theft", published earlier this year, which showed a significant increase in the number of phones being stolen. Clearly, it is too simple to adopt a mono-causal opportunity theory of criminal behaviour because complex processes are involved in explaining why people commit crimes, but in this context the opportunity factor has a high explanatory force. Mobiles are easily stolen and, with reprogramming, can be easily reused or resold.
Moreover, given the ownership patterns, it is not surprising that half of mobile phone-related robberies involve victims under 20. The Home Office study found that most of the offenders involved in phone robbery were young, with a peak age of 16 for those being accused of the crime. Over two thirds of the incidents involved offenders working in groups, which is, no doubt, a more frightening experience for the victim. Mostly the crimes were male on male, and very disturbingly, at least 90 per cent. of the offenders were black, with the vast majority of the victims being white.
It is important not to get carried away. I am not trying to down-play the fact that it must be, at the very least, upsetting and, most probably, traumatic for any person to have their mobile stolen on the street or in a public place, even if both victim and offender are young. Indeed, it is a matter of great concern that over the past 10 years, there has, in robbery offences, been a marked increase in the number of young victims and young offenders. However, it is wrong to think that the increase in mobile phone robbery, or in robbery generally, is representative of a plague of violent crime in this country.
The recently published Home Office statistical bulletin reported the British crime survey finding that the number of violent incidents had increased by 2 per cent. compared to 2000, but that increase was not statistically significant. In fact, the estimate for violent crime has fallen by 22 per cent. since 1997 and by 17 per cent. since 1999. The British crime survey is a better indicator of crime patterns than are recorded crime statistics because it does not turn on police recording practices and, of course, it extends to crimes not reported to the police.
By contrast with the British crime survey figures, an increase in violent crime is being recorded by the police, but the authors of the Home Office statistical bulletin say that it
"appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces."
In the case of robberies, however, which are one category of violent crime, there is an increase of 28 per cent. That does not seem to be caused by increased recording by the police, although the authors of the bulletin say that
"it may have been affected by increased reporting by the public."
Apart from the numbers and the way in which they have to be treated, it is crucial to appreciate that in 50 per cent. of violent incidents there is no injury, with around two thirds of robberies and common assaults involving no injury.
Mr. Grieve: I have been listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I apologise for my unavoidable absence from the Chamber for a brief period when he was speaking. Robbery does not involve violence, but it is a
720
serious offence because it involves the threat of violence, as I am sure he will agree. I hope that he will forgive me for saying, therefore, that to suggest that one should not be too troubled by robbery merely because the victim has not been injured is not the best point.
Ross Cranston: Obviously, I appreciate that whether or not one is injured, the threat of violence is traumatic. My point is that the hysteria that we sometimes see in the media does not accurately reflect what is happening in the country.
There is undoubtedly an unacceptably high concentration of robbery in urban areas, and I welcome the street crime initiative, which was launched earlier this year and includes the west midlands. The 10 areas that are part of the initiative account for 83 per cent. of recorded street crimes. Like the youth justice pledge, the initiative will be instrumental in getting criminal justice agencies working together and fast-tracking offenders.
Earlier this year, in the cases of Q, L and S. the Court of Appeal sent out a very strong signal to the effect that custodial sentences would generally be imposed in cases of street robbery involving mobile phones, whatever the age of the offender. I know that the chairman of the youth justice board has expressed concern about that, saying that it has set back his attempts to tackle the causes of crime and boosted the number of young offenders in custody. The court was trying to draw together the principles involved in certain cases without laying down new guidelines, and when the problem of mobile phone theft is brought under control, it may need to reassess the matter. Perhaps guidelines are needed and the advice of the sentencing advisory panel should be sought.
My second point concerns the passage in a judgment in which the Court of Appeal
"urge the manufacturers and those who supply the means by which mobile telephones are used to make strenuous efforts to make the object of these offences more difficult to achieve."
There is now considerable learning about the relationship between design and crime, which can take a variety of forms.
Earlier this year, for example, the metropolitan borough of Dudley and the West Midlands police published a superb community safety supplementary planning guidance, the first such document published in the west midlands. It set out how, with good design and the lay-out of the physical environment, crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour can be reduced. Those measure are often quite simple. To reduce street robbery, for example, lighting is important. and other, longer term measures may be taken to create better connecting networks of streets and public spaces and more mixed use areas in town centres.
The other example of preventing or reducing crime by design concerns car theft. Car manufacturers have dragged their feet in that regard, but the introduction of immobilisation devices can reduce car theft. The same is true of mobile phones. I was somewhat disturbed to find that some of the networks were rather slow on the uptake. Even when mobile phone theft was becoming prevalent a couple of years ago, some of the networks did not take the necessary steps. Until early this year, Vodafone UK and BT Cellnet were still refusing, once a phone had been reported as stolen, to take action to blacklist the IMEI number. They have now come on board, and I

721
congratulate them on doing so, and the industry generally in trying to introduce measures to reduce the incentive for theft.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: What does my hon. and learned Friend think of the recent invention of chips for mobiles that will self-destruct on a signal from the network providers? Would not their introduction end, in one fell swoop, the attraction of stealing a phone?
Ross Cranston: Such technological advances can certainly help. I acknowledge that some of the industry finds it more difficult, because it entered the market early, to introduce some of those changes. However, with the new generation of mobile phones, it is possible to introduce devices such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
My point is that manufacturers and others should design their products and provide services in a way that minimises opportunities for crime. Sometimes, the Government have a lever to ensure that that happens: in the case of mobile phones, for example, the networks depend on Government for permission to operate.
Coupled with the measures introduced by the industry, the steps taken by the police and education measures such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes, this little Bill should ensure that many more stolen mobile phones will be useless in the UK. The problem of export remains, however, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address that. I can assure the House that the penalties under the Bill are consistent with those for comparable offences, such as copying or reprogramming of credit cards. To pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman for Lewes, judges will of course vary the penalty imposed according to whether a professional is involved or the offence is a casual one. I support the Bill.
6.50 pm
Michael Fabricant: I should declare an interest of sorts, in that back in about 1994, I was in my rather swish open-topped sports car, stopped at traffic lights on the A40 waiting to go on to the M40 to go up to Lichfield, when I was mugged for my analogue mobile phone. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that whether or not the crime is violent, having one's mobile phone stolen is indeed a traumatic event.
I want to make it clear that I, too, welcome the Bill. It is a good move, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, it is no panacea. First, as has been pointed out, even if the IMEI chip is re-programmed, nothing has changed that will make the mobile phone impossible to use. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there are moves afoot to encourage international mobile phone manufacturers to embed the IMEI number more securely, so that it cannot be changed using equipment that is readily available. Make no mistake about it: the equipment needed to change an IMEI chip is readily available from Tandy's and many other electrical stores.
I have to correct the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who said that the software can be downloaded from the internet for a small charge; in fact, it can be downloaded free of charge. I am concerned about how easy it is to change an IMEI number provided one knows
722
a little about chip programming. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concern that heavy penalties might fall on younger people, especially those who practise hacking. I am sure that judges will take such matters into account, but I am certain that these things are often done by 15 and 16-year-olds who, far from being in a factory, are in their bedroom while their parents are watching television downstairs.
The Minister made an interesting remark when he said that some investigation had been done into whether the IMEI number could be tagged up—linked to—the telephone number. I understand that the Minister has to go by what manufacturers and telephone companies tell him, but I am not wholly convinced that that cannot be done. Clearly, a much wider database would be required, but if the IMEI number had to be linked to the telephone number, changing the IMEI number would result in the phone being disabled—unless it was being used with the right SIM card; and as others have pointed out, the SIM card is not used for reasons that we already know.
One good thing on the horizon is the introduction of third-generation telephony, which will have such safeguards built in, but that is a long way off. I urge the Minister to visit one of perhaps only two places in the world where 3G telephony is operating. He could spend a great deal of taxpayers' money on visiting Tokyo, where there is a 3G network, or he could stay closer to home and visit the Isle of Man, where 02 is running an experiment. I can see the Minister weighing up the attractions of sushi and the local delicacies of Douglas, Isle of Man. I know that 02 has taken on board the very issues that I have mentioned.
The Minister, answering my intervention, addressed the question of phones being exported. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and others have said, there would be a problem if it were only the UK that enacted this type of legislation—and given the agreement on both sides of the House, I am confident that on Wednesday the Bill will be enacted. If that were so, all we would do is repeat the experience of IR35, whereby people started billing for services abroad. People would start exporting phones overseas. Nor is it simply a question of getting agreement in Europe: the area affected covers anywhere GSM networks can be used, which includes Africa, the far east and Australasia, as well as, if we are talking about tri-band telephones, north, central and south America. Unless worldwide agreement is secured, phones will simply be re-programmed outside the UK—and that is assuming that people will be sufficiently deterred by the legislation not to re-programme them here in the UK.
Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the desirable features of modern telephony that system designers try to include is telephone number portability—the facility that enables people who lose their telephone to continue to use their number on another handset? That facility would not be possible if the number were hardwired to a chip inside the phone.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. Yes, it would not be possible to take out the SIM card—although if the phone were stolen, the SIM card would be gone, too—and put it in another phone. Instead, owners would have to register with the company the fact that they now had a new phone. However, that is the only thing that they would have to do; they would still

723
have portability. The trade-off would be having to make a telephone call, set against the advantage of its being less likely that one's phone would be nicked. Personally, I think that people would be happy to accept that.
Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we might be becoming too enthusiastic about the Bill? Although it might stop people pinching mobile phones for the sake of the phones themselves, most people committing a street mugging are likely to take the phone simply because it is the means by which the person who has been attacked can summon help quickly. The danger is that a lot of mobile phones stolen on the street will end up being simply "whizzed"—thrown away—which could have considerable environmental consequences if they ended up in watercourses and similar places.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has introduced an interesting new element into the debate. It would be interesting to know how many of the 470,000 mobile phone thefts or attempted thefts in 2000 were committed for the intrinsic value of the telephone, and how many for the very reason that he gives—to prevent the person who has been mugged from using their phone to summon help. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that question when he winds up the debate.
I am concerned about the burden of proof. Although I endorse the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty, I sometimes think that too many guilty people get off in this country. The Minister says, rightly, that under clause 2 a person cannot be prosecuted simply for having
"in his custody or under his control anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".
That is because the same equipment can be used to programme chips in general. Many people who are interested in re-programming software devices own that equipment, which can cost as little as £20 or £30, and, as I said, the re-programming software is available for downloading free of charge. Clause 2 contains the additional burden of having to prove intention—mens rea, or guilty mind. Although that is good, because we do not want people to be prosecuted when they are innocent, I wonder whether that will mean that the burden of proof will be so great that the provision will not be as much of a deterrent as we would like.
I welcome the Bill; it is a useful first step. I praise the Minister for his good work in persuading 02 and Vodafone to introduce the software. I hope that he is right that the software and the hardware will be operational by September, although I am not totally convinced that it will be. Once we pass the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman's next step must be to tour the world to ensure that all parts that have GSM—that is, most countries—have similar legislation. Otherwise, all that we will find is that the stolen equipment will be exported.
7 pm
Mr. Grieve: I had not really intended to say anything at the conclusion of the debate, but the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) prompted me to do so. Properly, he widened the scope of
724
the debate, as one is allowed to do on Second Reading, in order to consider in a more general way some of the problems connected with robbery that we might be experiencing.
I do not share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that we are considering an inflated figure that does not reflect the reality on the ground, and that we should be guided by the British crime survey rather than the police's own statistics. We have statistics that show a 4.3 per cent. rise in reported violent crime and a 12.9 per cent. increase in the number of robberies in the year to March 2001. Therefore, there is a significant and real problem.
Furthermore, although I fully accept that statistics might be misleading, one has only to look at what I would describe as localised figures, as I know from my constituency. My constituency has had an extremely low robbery rate historically, as one might expect of an area outside London and not encompassing a large urban centre. The rise in robbery in my constituency in the same 12-month period has been of the order of 70 or 80 per cent. I cannot remember the exact figure.
Taken overall, those figures are significant and appear to reflect a worrying trend. There is a willingness—perhaps born of the fact that burglary has become more difficult for those who want easy pickings—to confront an individual in the street and threaten them with violence. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the fact that violence might not be used does not detract one iota from the traumatic nature of the experience suffered.
Ross Cranston: I did not in any way down-play the significance of what is happening. Robbery is a serious offence. The point that I was making was twofold: first, the British crime survey is a better representation of people's experience, and secondly, the crime recorded by the police depends on the extent to which the police record things and to which people report things to them. I am not saying that there is not a problem, but we have to take those factors into account.
Mr. Grieve: I fully appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I understand the way he puts it, but everything that I have seen suggests a growing problem of street crime—be it robbery or theft from the person, but particularly robbery—and that that involving mobile phones, which brings us squarely to the issue addressed in the Bill, has been a contributory factor.
If I have understood correctly what the Prime Minister has had to say at Question Time on a number of occasions over the past few months, he appears to think that there is a serious problem. If he did not think so, he would not apparently have been issuing his commands to the effect that there must be a marked reduction—I am not sure that it is even a marked reduction, but some reduction—in the statistical evidence by September. We shall all await the results with interest. I sincerely believe that there has been a significant increase. The fear of crime that has gone with that has also risen considerably. I judge this legislation on that basis.
As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope that the Bill will make a significant contribution. I also hope, however, that he will feel able to respond to the thoughtful comments made in this short debate about what can be done in practice. I did not raise the question of the exportability of these telephones in my opening speech,

725
but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) did so, as did other hon. Members, so I very much hope that the Minister will have some words to say on that subject. Given an open market and—let us face it—open transportability between Britain and France, one can imagine how it could be the easiest of things for people to escape the criminal sanctions in the belief that they will be able to import and export telephones or use them abroad as they wish.
I cannot get away from the point that I made that if rep-rogramming has become a cottage industry, the Government might find that the police have a serious enforcement problem. Listening to hon. Members' speeches, I began to see that some who know a little more about what happens on the ground see such re-programming as a cottage industry. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to young people being involved, in which case it is argued that the penalty should not be so high.
I would be much happier if I learned that such crime was the result of the activities of a number of cartels of criminals who had decided to focus on it as a way of making a profit. That would at least raise in me the hope that proper intervention would lead to the breaking up of those cartels. I think that many people have jumped on the bandwagon, and enforceability will be a key component of the Bill's success. If the Minister can provide us with any reassurance on that issue at this stage. I would be happy to hear it.
I await with interest the Minister's response to the debate. I repeat our assurance that we shall give the Bill a fair wind. If it receives Royal Assent on Wednesday as intended, as I have no doubt it will, it will probably have completed all its stages in the shortest possible time. That is a good thing; it is good that the House is able to do that. In that process, I very much hope that we do not lose sight of our objectives, and that if necessary the Minister will respond positively to any amendments that hon. Members may table to try to improve the Bill.
7.7 pm
Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for the way in which he has approached this debate. I shall try to touch on most of the issues raised. We have had notice of some of the issues that are likely to be raised in amendments. Although I shall not try to deal with them in full now, we will obviously consider them on their merit. I am grateful to hon. Members for giving us early warning of what we may be discussing on Wednesday afternoon. I am also grateful to hon. Members of other parties for their co-operation in the passage of the Bill. Despite the recognition on both sides of the House of the fact that the Bill does not wholly solve the problem we face, such co-operation shows that it is worth enacting as quickly as possible, rather than leaving things until the autumn.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) raised two questions: one about violent crime and the other about design in crime. We have to take a balanced view. The British crime survey shows pretty conclusively that, when taken as a whole across all categories, violent crime has fallen significantly in recent years.
When we launched the crime statistics a couple of weeks ago, we in government chose to use the recorded crime figure for street robbery as the best proxy for the
726
trend over previous years. We did not attempt to say that overall violent crime was down and that therefore the problem addressed in the Bill did not exist. We have acknowledged head-on that it does exist, and for a variety of reasons. It is a relatively rare type of crime and it features a significant number of under-16s who do not show up in the British crime survey. The British crime survey is not the best measure of street robbery. So the balanced view is that, yes, violent crime overall is down, but there is a particular facet of street robbery with which we must get to grips.
My hon. and learned Friend also talked about design in relation to the reduction of crime, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who spoke as the chairman of the all-party telecommunications group, referred to the role of manufacturers and operators. We have made it clear to the operating companies on several occasions during the past 12 months that we would if necessary be prepared to legislate to require the establishment of certain standards by the industry, but it has always been our preference not to do so—not least because with a fast-moving issue such as this there is a danger of legislating for the problem that existed two years previously rather than the problem that we might face in two years' time.
I am pleased that, albeit after some significant delays, Vodafone and 02 came on board and recognised the seriousness of the problem in January. They have helped to set in train the measures that we are discussing. In addition to the common database on IMEI numbers, they stressed the importance of legislation that made re-programming illegal.
In the nm-up to the debate, I was toying with the idea of naming those manufacturers who were not yet committed to introducing a hardened IMEI number, but I am pleased to say that following the assurances that we have received during the past few days I could no longer name with confidence any major manufacturer who was not adopting the new GSM number. That is important because the GSM standards are not legally enforceable internationally, so the pressure both of consumer demand and from operating companies and retailers saying that they will market only secure phones is crucial.
We are of course pursuing the matter internationally, not least in global forums. The European Union leads on certain trade issues and I am pleased to say that my officials have been invited to Brussels to discuss the measures that we are taking in this country as well as some of the international issues that we want to pursue. As we are a major market for mobile phones, I hope that if manufacturers implement the high standards demanded by consumers, operators and retailers in this country that will put significant pressure on the global market for mobile phones. That must certainly be our aim.
Questions were put about insurance fraud. The nature of "pure" fraud, when a claim is made but no phone has been lost or stolen, makes it difficult to obtain a real measure. The issue on which we have closely focused with the industry pertains to circumstances where a lost phone has been reported stolen in order to substantiate an insurance claim. We have been able to establish that the insurance policies offered by the mobile phone companies cover loss as well as theft, so there should be no need to require someone to report a phone as stolen in order to claim against a company insurance policy. That does not apply to some household insurance policies, however—

727
nor is the advice always properly or routinely followed by all retail outlets. Further work needs to be done to ensure that recorded crime figures are not artificially inflated by people who think that they have to state that a crime has taken place in order to make a legitimate claim on their insurance policy.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) talked about penalties and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked about their operation. As I made clear in my opening speech, there is more of a cottage industry than a cartel at present; as there is nothing illegal in offering a re-programming service, it is offered by independent retailers, at market stalls and car boot sales, through Internet companies and so on. Clearly, the aim is to persuade a large number of those people, who may be aware that they are operating in a dubious moral zone but have no desire to put themselves in an illegal position, out of that business. That will hopefully enable the police to concentrate their efforts on what I am confident will be a smaller number of people prepared to offer such a service knowing that it was illegal and what the penalties would be.
There will be flexibility in the penalties; this is an each-way offence and there are different ranges of tariffs in magistrates courts and Crown courts. However, we should not forget that someone who re-programmes a mobile phone is not really in a different category from someone who has gone into the street, hit another person and taken their mobile phone. In effect, people know where such phones come from and must take responsibility for their part in that chain of events.
There was some discussion of two issues raised by my noble Friend Lord Campbell-Savours in another place. The first was whether the Bill's wording would put at risk people who owned equipment for legitimate purposes. The second—perhaps the other side of that argument—was whether the difficulties of proving intent would be so great as to make prosecution ineffective.
The reliance on intent or belief protects the legitimate owner of equipment. I am sure that we shall debate the matter in more detail than is appropriate on this occasion, but my view is that the concepts of intention and belief are already used effectively in the criminal law without major difficulty. The Theft Acts, for example, create the offence of theft where a person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The concept is well established.
The Bill is worded so as to protect somebody who legitimately owned a piece of equipment that could be used for those purposes. In practice, it is self-evident that in most cases there is likely to be significant circumstantial evidence, such as a large number of mobile phones, that would be taken into account.
Important points were made about accessories, as opposed to the mobile phone itself. This Bill does not deal directly with that, but the Government are taking other initiatives. For example, we are working with schools to try to discourage students from taking their phones to school. The balance of advantage to students is very much that they should not take their mobile phones to school, despite the so-called security arguments. Local education
728
authorities in areas that suffer from the highest rates of street crime have already taken initiatives whereby police officers visit schools and that helps to address a range of youth crime issues, including mobile phone theft, so I hope that Members will feel that I have not ignored that point.
John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases parents ask their child to take their mobile to school and to ring up when they are ready to come home? The parents then come by car to collect their children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell them to walk."] Should we not be trying to educate the parents as well?
Mr. Denham: There are such pressures, but I have discussed the point with a significant number of head teachers, all of whom successfully pursue a policy of not allowing mobile phones in their school. They all insist that in the vast majority of cases it is not a major problem to make arrangements that do not rely on mobile phones. After all, as parents, we all seemed to manage without them until a few years ago. Schools can make arrangements for emergency calls and contacts. I am convinced that the balance of advantage for our young people is not to carry mobile phones; there is much evidence that the peak period for mobile phone theft, certainly in London, is during the hour or so after school ends. We need to realise that.
I do not want to detain the House too much longer—
Norman Baker rose—
Mr. Denham: I shall obviously have to detain the House for a little longer—I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Norman Baker: I rose only because I hoped that the Minister would respond to a point that I made earlier on the situation in Northern Ireland. What discussions has he held with his counterparts in the Irish Republic, given that the legislation is intended to apply to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Denham: The legislation will apply throughout the United Kingdom, but it will not apply to the Republic of Ireland. As I mentioned earlier, we are anxious to encourage states throughout Europe to harmonise their approach, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that this measure will deliver such a system outside the boundaries of the United Kingdom.
I hope that we have covered the key points. We have been given fair warning of the amendments that will be discussed later this week and I am grateful to the House for its co-operative and constructive approach to the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Question agreed to.
Committee tomorrow.

Select Committees
7.20 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That,
(1) with effect from 23rd July, Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to Government departments) be amended as follows:

In the Table

After item 9 insert

?Office of the Deputy

Office of the Deputy Prime

11'

Prime Minister: Housing.

Minister

Planning, Local

Government and the

Regions

Leave out item 13 and insert

`Transport

Department for Transport

11'

Line 11, leave out from `Committee' to end of line 12.
(2) That the unreported evidence taken by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee shall stand referred to the Transport Committee and the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions.
(3) That, with effect from 23rd July, the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended as follows:
Paragraph (2), after 'Northern Ireland Affairs' insert 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions'.
Paragraph (2), leave out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and insert `Transport'.
(4) That paragraph (2)(a) of Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees) shall not apply to nominations to any Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions and to any Transport Committee made before 23rd July, and any such nominations made by the House shall have effect from 23rd July.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That Tom Brake, Mr. Gregory Campbell, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Clive Efford, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Chris Grayling, Helen Jackson, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Graham Stringer and Mr. Robert Syms be members of the Transport Committee.
That Andrew Bennett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Clive Betts, Alistair Burt, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. John Cummings, Chris Mole, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Dr. John Pugh, Christine Russell and Mr. Gary Streeter be members of the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions.
Mr. Cook: The first motion is self-explanatory and simple—it contains no hidden tricks. It arises from the recent Government decision to separate the Department for Transport from the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We now have two new Departments—the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which embraces housing and local government and the regions.
It is a cardinal principle of the Select Committee system that our departmental Select Committees track Whitehall Departments, so any change in the Departments requires a corresponding change in Select Committees. The motion
730
gives effect to that change, which we are trying to introduce without disruption. The motion therefore includes a commitment that the new Committees will inherit the unpublished and unreported evidence taken by their predecessors; it was tabled just after the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions completed its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Local Government Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, for his flexibility, enabling us to introduce the motion in the House tonight. It is important that the House considers and disposes of the matter tonight, because if the motions are carried the new Select Committees will be able to meet before the recess, elect Chairs and take a preliminary look at their future programme of work.
The Government have recently demonstrated powerfully their commitment to the Select Committee system by the historic appearance of the Prime Minister before the Liaison Committee. The motion before the House demonstrates again our commitment to keep our Select Committee system in good order, and I commend it to the House. I cannot think of any conceivable controversy that might lurk within this simple and straightforward motion. I therefore hope that it can proceed expeditiously so that the House can address itself to the richer, more complex and diverse topics that will arise on the motion for the Adjournment.
7.22 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have tried to find something controversial in the motion, but I seem to have failed, so it falls to me to welcome the timely way in which the Government have introduced it. I accept what the Leader of the House said and the spirit in which he said it, and I urge the House to agree the motion.
7.23 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his congratulations, which are entirely undeserved as they apply to all members of the Committee of Selection. May I repeat that it is in interests of the House to deal expeditiously with the matter? If we do so, I shall move formally the motions tabled in my name.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be expeditious, but not quite as congratulatory as the Conservative spokesperson. It is not what is in the motions that is controversial—it is what is missing from them.
I am relieved that the motions have been grouped together, as that helps me to deal in a more businesslike way with concerns that I share with my colleagues. We accept the logic of dividing the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions into two Select Committees. We acknowledge that the Committee has worked extremely effectively, but it is obviously important to reflect the division of departmental responsibilities since the recent change—that is not a problem and we have no difficulty with it.
Our discussion of the motions, however, could have provided an implicit opportunity to redress an injustice that occurred after the general election. There is a long-standing convention, of which you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the arithmetic proportionality of

731
the membership of the House should be reflected not only in membership of Select Committees but in the allocation of chairmanships. Members in the Chamber will probably recall that there was a major injustice after the election—the Liberal Democrat party was allocated only one chairmanship, although we had two in the last Parliament, when we had fewer MPs—which has not be subsequently redressed.
The Leader of the House has acknowledged that problem, and he and his colleagues have borne in mind the difficulty caused by that allocation, but our debate could have provided a good opportunity to correct the problem. The Modernisation Committee has produced a report on Select Committees, paragraph 25 of which reiterated the principle that chairmanships should be allocated on an arithmetic basis. That recommendation was not a matter of contention when we debated the report and, as far as I am aware, has never been challenged since, so it is the obvious way to proceed and one that has a long history in the conventions of the House.
After setting up the two Committees, we naturally progress to agreeing from which party their Chairs should be drawn. Of course, it is usual practice for Committee members to elect as Chair someone who is a member of the party that has been allocated the chairmanship. We do not oppose the motions as they are inherently sensible, but we request an assurance from the Leader of the House that the matter that I have drawn to his attention will not be overlooked yet again in the weeks and months ahead. It has been a long wait to get justice and we require a firm assurance that the discrepancy will be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.
Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in 1997 and, I suspect, at the last election, the Liberal Democrats were offered an extra Select Committee—the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—but they chose not to take it up?
Mr. Tyler: That is not technically true. All sorts of offers are made and it is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman's party and the Conservative party sometimes ask that certain Committees have particular Chairmen. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my comments this evening are not intended as a reflection on the qualifications of certain Members to chair Select Committees—there is nothing personal in my comments. However, we would be grateful if the Leader of the House gave us an assurance that the conventions of the House will be obeyed in future.
7.27 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised the issue of who might chair the Select Committees. Strictly speaking, as he knows, that is not a matter to be debated on the Floor of the House—it is a matter for the Committees themselves. However, it is on record that we are creating two Committees from a Committee which had two sub-Committees. I mention this delicately because I do not know what those Committees will do, but the field is already rather crowded.
732
I am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's grievance, which he has raised on a number of occasions, and assure him that I am under no illusion about the fact that he will continue to raise it until I take action to remedy it.
Pete Wishart rose—
Mr. Cook: Ah, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has a grievance. I will give way in a second so that he can express it.
This is not the occasion to take action in response to the grievance of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I am conscious of it and shall bear it in mind. Should an opportunity present itself, I shall certainly welcome the occasion to remedy it, but many factors have to be taken into account when choosing the Chair of a Select Committee.
Pete Wishart: If the Leader of the House is in the business of addressing grievances, how does he feel about the fact that there is still not one member of Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National party serving on non-regional Select Committees?
Mr. Cook: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the list before the House in the motions to be moved by the Chair of the Committee of Selection includes one member of a minority party. In a total of 22 appointees, a member of one minority party strikes precisely the right arithmetical balance. I know of the hon. Gentleman's grievance. I know of the grievances of most parties in the House and most corners in those parties but, sadly, it is not within my power immediately to remedy them. However, I am conscious of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, and we shall certainly watch for an opportunity when we can put it right.
I was enormously encouraged by the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who failed to find any controversy in the motion, which gives me hope that when the motion is put to the House it will be carried. I commend it to the House, as it will enable us to make good progress on keeping our Select Committees in good order.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
Ordered,

Select Committees
  TRANSPORT
  That Tom Brake, Mr. Gregory Campbell, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Clive Efford, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Chris Grayling, Helen Jackson, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Graham Stringer and Mr. Robert Syms be members of the Transport Committee.
  OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: HOUSING, PLANNING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
  That Andrew Bennett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Clive Betts, Alistair Burt, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. John Cummings, Chris Mole, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Dr. John Pugh, Christine Russell and Mr. Gary Streeter be members of the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Summer Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
7.30 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I should like to raise a number of issues regarding regeneration initiatives in the Orchard Park ward of my constituency.
I remember the negative impact that Conservative policies had on the people of Hull, North during the 1980s and 1990s, especially on those living in the Orchard Park ward. There were high levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment, no commercial or retail activity, housing that needed improvement, and rising crime and delinquency. The Tory financial constraints imposed on local government meant that the council's Labour group had to look for other ways to raise funds, such as the flotation of Kingston Communications, to improve the quality of life for the people of Hull.
It seems strange that an article on the subject in The Guardian last Saturday expresses shock, horror and disgust that a Labour council is spending money on repairing dilapidated schools, repairing houses, installing central heating and double glazing, and building a suitable stadium for the people of the city—a shocking waste of money.
Thankfully, the election of the Labour Government saw a tide change for the people of Orchard Park. For the first time, central Government policies were having a direct impact. The new deal started to break the cycle of generational unemployment. The sure start scheme in Orchard Park aimed at child health and development is having a great and growing impact. The city learning centre at the Sir Henry Cooper school offers courses for local people to improve their basic skills and is helping to raise the standard of adult education.
In addition, the regeneration of Orchard Park has started, and it is about this that I shall voice most of my concerns. Those stem from what seems to be the political inexperience of the new Liberal Democrat leadership of Hull city council. Bit by bit, its decisions are unstitching the regeneration programme that had been put in place, and I fear that that will have a devastating effect on the local community, the quality of their environment and their hopes for the future.
Surplus housing stock had been a major problem in Orchard Park and the surrounding area. After much debate, the Labour council agreed a programme of demolition, and remodelling commenced. On the Danes, an estate in Orchard Park, I recently witnessed—to the delight of local residents—two tower blocks being demolished, as had been agreed by the Labour council, with a further 150 houses due for demolition.
I fully support the demolition of surplus housing stock. I equally support the remodelling of those areas but, worryingly, it is this second factor that the Liberal Democrats are refusing to acknowledge. There are plans to halt any further demolition in the Danes area, pending a re-examination of the entire future of that area. More importantly, the council has removed the £800,000 available to carry out the remodelling of the Danes area. That will mean that my constituents who live there will have to live in unacceptable conditions, with boarded-up houses next to improved properties and uncertainty about their future and their future housing.
734
In addition, the council's cabinet has agreed to delegate plans for further demolition to remove surplus stock to private consultants and the newly established citywide residents and tenants groups, which do not cover all the groups in my constituency. That will put on hold for at least a year the identification of surplus properties and the demolitions already agreed with the Danes residents. That is an unacceptable situation and is unfair to the people of Orchard Park. It is not consistent with the original council plan or the policies of the Labour Government, which advocate revitalising the area.
Given the content of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the House last Thursday, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could relay those concerns to the Minister in charge of housing and regeneration, to see what can be done to prevent any delay in the demolition of surplus housing and the remodelling of the area.
The second and more urgent issue is the proposed Department of Health LIFT scheme for Orchard Park. In his sustainable communities statement, the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised the need for adequate health services, but that seems to have gone unnoticed by the Liberal Hull city council. Hull was one of the 18 areas to be given approval for LIFT funding, with the aim of improving primary care services where they are desperately needed. That is of particular importance to the Orchard Park area, which has low health status compared with other areas of Hull. Unfortunately, it seems that that much needed investment is unlikely to occur—again, because of the decisions of the Liberal Democrats.
To summarise the situation, a regeneration plan for Orchard Park had been agreed between Hull city council and the West Hull primary care trust. The outline business case had been drawn up for the project and private finance initiative credits had been provisionally approved for the replacement community centre, citizens advice bureau and a new retail development to replace the substandard shopping precinct. In addition, it was agreed that, through the LIFT scheme, a number of retail shops would be purchased from the council and that the one-stop health centre costing £5.5 million would be located there.
The council's and LIFT's funding sources are interlinked, and failure by either party to fulfil its commitment would put in serious doubt the whole regeneration scheme. It is here that my concern lies, because Liberal Democrat-led Hull city council has indicated to West Hull PCT that it is not in a position to buy the retail shops.
That poses a number of serious issues for the future of the Orchard Park LIFT project. If the council had owned the shops, that would have reduced the risk and ensured the managed transition from existing retail units to the shops planned as part of the regeneration project. Without that, and leaving the shops at Orchard Park in third-party ownership, as the Liberal Democrats seem to demand, is inappropriate. If the shops were vacated piecemeal, that would result in some shops being boarded up, which would not add to the expected improvements resulting from the regeneration scheme. The council's purchase of the retail outlets is key to the entire LIFT scheme.
As a result, it seems that the burden will fall on the PCT to buy the shops. Current advice that I have received is that that option is likely to be rejected under the LIFT funding scheme. It therefore puts in doubt not only the

735
viability of the Orchard Park regeneration project, but the whole Hull LIFT scheme, both in my constituency and in that of the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Without the Orchard Park project, the Hull LIFT scheme would have a £5.5 million hole and therefore not enough critical mass to interest a private developer. That could delay the Hull LIFT scheme for at least a year, if not more, as new plans are drawn up.
It is sad that the actions of the Liberal city council are jeopardising Hull's LIFT scheme, which the Department of Health has described as
"one of the most exciting schemes in the country".
The Department is keen that it should proceed.
The Orchard Park regeneration scheme is vital not only to ensure better health provision, but to deal with employment, environment and community involvement, yet the Liberal Democrats are turning their backs on it. As it seems that the council is reneging on earlier promises, I should be grateful if my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health and the Minister with responsibility for regeneration could work together to investigate whether any alternative funding methods are available, so that the Orchard Park scheme can be included in the LIFT scheme, and the LIFT scheme can go ahead. That is most important in one of the most deprived wards in the whole of the United Kingdom.
7.39 pm
Virginia Bottomley: It is a great privilege to speak in this debate and I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I have an especially high regard for the vice-chancellor of his university, David Drewry, whom I have admired for many years. As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I was reminded that I am bereft, as an undergraduate from Hull who has been with me for the entire year, James Holden, has now returned to sunny Hull, abandoning me to a state of chaos and incompetence. I therefore have two reasons to be especially appreciative of his constituency. I also have a very strong point of contact with him in having to bemoan the destructive effects of much of the Liberal Democrat activity in my constituency.
It has been my privilege to represent my very beautiful tract of the country for the past 18 years, but I want to raise three issues that I think are especially serious. They relate to the good will and tolerance in areas such as mine, which pay very high taxes and are aware that increasingly high taxes are being charged through national insurance and the everlasting array of stealth taxes being introduced by the Government. Their tolerance of the inadequacy of the way in which the funding formulae work is growing very thin. The Prime Minister constantly says that such concerns are a plea for more money, but they are a plea for greater equity in the funding formulae.
I have the latest information, which shows that in Durham, the Prime Minister's health authority area, of the 12,000 patients waiting for in-patient treatment, only one has waited more than a year. In my health authority area, 13,700 patients are waiting for in-patient treatment—another 1,000 people—but 558 are waiting more than a year. I regret that, since the Government took office in
736
1997, they have consistently distorted the funding formula. There is genuine inequity in health service delivery and they know full well that that is the case, although I am sorry that the Department of Health provides such paltry responses to letters. The current state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory. Some 558 people in west Surrey are waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment. The Government have announced a very substantial increase in health funding, but my constituents feel extremely strongly that the money that is allocated should be delivered equitably.
With that in mind, two particular issues are causing concern in South-West Surrey. I give credit for the fact that Farnham's community hospital is at last under construction after many years of campaigning. Haslemere has the largest elderly population in Surrey. Very many elderly people live alone and they must be completely secure in terms of their community hospital. Frankly, I am confident that the hospital's future is secure, but following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Hull, North, there has been some scaremongering in the Haslemere community. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to obtain confirmation from Health Ministers that the Haslemere hospital is indeed secure.
In Godalming, the pressure in local accident and emergency departments and extremely serious waiting time problems have led to a request that a local care centre be developed. I strongly endorse that request and I know that Waverley borough council would act as co-operatively as it is able within the constraints of its resources. There is a serious issue: general practitioners are extremely cramped in their premises and there is a serious need for a local care centre. County councillor Maureen Nyazai and many others are working towards that, but if the Minister felt able to communicate with his colleagues, I would be more than grateful if he gave a fair wind to both those initiatives.
In passing, I should like to applaud the industry and endeavour of the health service managers who serve my constituency and the country generally. There has just been a meeting of our new strategic health authority, involving our new chief executive, Simon Robbins, and our chairman Terry Hawksworth, as well as our primary care trust chief executive Elizabeth Slinn and chairman Chris Grimes. People rarely thank health service managers, but I think that they are wrong not to do so, as the country is well served by their commitment and their trying to deliver services in the face of huge obstacles and, I am afraid, unrealistic rhetoric.
Our problems are compounded by the acute care sector crisis. I applaud the initiatives of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and their consistent approach in drawing attention to the problems of care homes. My hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and many others have drawn attention to the degree to which excessive regulation, lack of regard for the cost of living and many other issues have made the delivery of care home services acutely difficult. Woodlarks in Farnham is an example of a specialised and wonderful facility for women with physical disabilities, but it is having the greatest difficulty in managing to continue its work. The Meath home is somewhere that any of us would gladly wish any relatives with mild learning disabilities or epilepsy to stay. The pressure on those voluntary homes to make ends meet is formidable and unacceptable when one considers allocation of funding.

737
That brings me to the recent consultation paper on the local government finance formula on grant distribution. I speak on behalf of TACFIG, the town and country finance issues group. Waverley, my borough council, has led on much of the preparation in advancing the case. There are problems in areas with a high cost of living and a population that is not densely packed, and where the presence of several towns means that the service has to be delivered in rural and urban areas. The needs of such areas are not sufficiently or fairly recognised by the formula. If there is to be a sense of equity and justice throughout the country with regard to the use of taxpayers' money, I urge the Government to accept that it is inappropriate and wrong to force areas such as mine to confront a situation of public squalor amidst private affluence.
A further measure that is causing deep concern is the pressure on debt-free local authorities to hand over the proceeds of council house sales to so-called "more needy" authorities. It is well understood that every time the Government weight a formula with regard to deprivation measures, it is a veiled attack on areas such as mine. I have long believed in the principles of the welfare state, even though it should be modernised, updated and altered, but if there is such a sense of injustice, it will not be sustainable to suggest that the good will of constituents such as mine can be maintained.
Let me turn to the last concern to which I should like to draw the House's attention. I ask for the Minister's assistance in getting confirmation that the plans for the A3 at Hindhead are on target and that there has been no moving back from the commitment that there should be a tunnel past this appalling transport trouble spot. The Devil's Punch Bowl is a beautiful area that is scarred by the problems of traffic. The traffic lights at Hindhead are the only ones to be encountered when driving between Scotland and Portsmouth, as I have frequently told the four Scottish Transport Ministers. The Highways Agency has been extremely helpful, but in accordance with what the hon. Member for Hull, North said about the mischievous behaviour of the Liberal Democrats, scaremongering and rumourmongering are rife in the Hindhead area to the effect that the scheme has been abandoned. I do not believe that to be the case, but I urge on the House and the Minister the importance of the Hindhead tunnel not only for my constituents, but for the regeneration of Portsmouth, Southsea and, of course, that very important area, the Isle of Wight.
I hope that the Minister will take up those points and reply to me in due course before the House adjourns.
7.49 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I want to cover two issues of crucial importance on which I should like progress to he made before the House goes into recess. I make no apology for the fact that in the 19 years I have been a Member I have raised one of those issues in the House on more than 300 occasions, either in debate or in written and oral questions—that is, the empty housing in my constituency. More than 4,000 houses in Burnley are empty, many of them derelict and abandoned, and the problem gets worse week by week. Dozens of Ministers—virtually every housing Minister in those 19 years—have been to Burnley to look at the problem and accepted that it exists. Then, a year later, it is worse than when they
738
came. This is our last chance to do something. The Government have to give the council the means and the ability to tackle the problem. If, in 12 months' time, the people of Burnley cannot clearly be shown that progress has been made, we will face serious difficulties.
Last Monday, I welcomed the Chancellor's statement, in which housing moved up the agenda for the first time in several years. It identified two key problem areas: first, the south—I do not in any way want to diminish that problem—and, secondly, parts of the north such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, where we face the problem of empty houses that nobody wants. The statement said that money would be available to deal with those problems.
When we heard Thursday's statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, I hoped that we would get further information about what was to be done to help. He mentioned the figure that would be available, but unfortunately did not give much detail. I do not say that as a criticism—I realise that he had difficulty in covering every issue that he wanted to cover in the course of that statement. Nevertheless, Burnley needs to know more than what was said last Thursday. On Friday, I attended a meeting in Accrington, which had been arranged before the statement, in which east Lancashire council leaders, the chief executives of the councils and local Members of Parliament discussed the pathfinder housing renewal project. There are nine such projects, one of which is for east Lancashire, of which Burnley is a part. We know from a statement that was made a few weeks ago that £2.66 million has been made available up-front. That is welcome, but it will not scratch the surface of the problem that we have in Burnley, let alone in east Lancashire as a whole. Of course, it is not intended to—it is there to help to prepare the way for what local authorities are going to do. But local authorities need to know how much money will be available over the next three years in order to be able to plan the right type of programme to match the resources that they will get. Will it be £150 million, £50 million or £250 million? Everybody recognises that at least a 10-year programme will be required to solve the problem.
On 16 May, I took part in a debate in Westminster Hall and made several points that I do not intend to repeat today. I also referred to the issue during the debate on the Queen's Speech on 20 June, the very first day of the new Session.
A few years ago, the Bishop of Burnley, Ronald Milner, who is now retired—we have had two bishops since then—produced an independent report in which independent experts from several sources, including housing associations and the industry, considered housing in Burnley and east Lancashire. It identified a real crisis. A few weeks ago, the bishop was back in Burnley celebrating the fact that Burnley has had a bishop for 100 years. If he had gone around Burnley or east Lancashire he would have been amazed to find that the situation that he so clearly described in his report is no better—indeed, it is far worse—than at the time he published it.
The Deputy Prime Minister has been to Burnley twice in the past 12 months. He has seen the decay and despair and understands the problems that so many people in Burnley face. We have to recognise that many houses are beyond the stage at which they can be improved and therefore have to be demolished. About 2,000 houses need to be demolished very speedily—in my view, within the next 12 months. We then need to be able to concentrate

739
on improvements, whether it be knocking two houses into one or knocking alternate terraces down, according to the area. That is necessary because there is an oversupply of houses to meet an underdemand from people who would not want them even if they were in good shape and good repair, yet many are in an absolutely appalling state because they have been vandalised or used by drug addicts, causing great fear to people living in the area.
However, demolition is an extremely expensive option in a part of the country where after houses have been demolished there is very little or, in many cases, no site value available. That is completely different from the situation in London and the south. In Burnley, the houses are demolished and the area is cleared but there is nothing to go there. We cannot bring people into the area. If we could, we would do so, but we have to accept that we do not have the jobs for them. There is no point in saying, "Let's bring people from the south to relieve the pressure there", because there are no jobs to give them the security that they would want.
Every day I get at least one letter identifying a different problem. Today, I got a letter from the daughter of two old age pensioners aged 81 and 82. The father is critically ill. They are in an area that is to be demolished, but the resources are not there to allow for that, so it is not in this year's phase. I hope that it will be in next year's phase. Once the father is in hospital, it is likely that the mother will have to leave the house. Compensation will be based on the value of the house at the time when the council compulsorily purchases it. It has already lost a tremendous amount in value owing to the deterioration of the area. Just imagine what that house will be like in six months' or a year's time if the family leaves. Many of my constituents now live in negative equity. The value of their house has gone down, and the price that they are offered in compensation if they move out when it is to be demolished is less than they owe on the mortgage. When they get a new property, straight away they owe more than it is worth. It is a real problem, and the Government must show what they are going to do to help the people of Burnley, east Lancashire and the other pathfinder project areas.
I could speak for ages about this, because I am so concerned about it, but other hon. Members want to speak. The other issue that I want to discuss is mentioned on pages 1,4 and 5 of today's edition of The Mirror in an article by Steve Dennis. He spoke to me about it on my way to London today, as have people from other newspapers. The report is about the death of Christopher Alder at Hull police station in 1998. Hon. Members might wonder what my involvement in that case could be. His sister, Janet Alder, lives in my constituency, and she raised the matter with me just after her brother had tragically died in police custody.
Over the years, I have had considerable correspondence with the Police Complaints Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Hull police force, Ministers, the Home Secretary—the present one and the previous one—and the Attorney-General. You name them, I have written to them about this case. It is a matter of great concern that a youngish lad who had been a paratrooper in the British forces could have died on that day. I have seen the video that is referred to in the report, as has the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for
740
Blackburn (Mr. Straw), whose constituency is close to my own. Anyone who sees that video will be appalled at what happened at that time.
I have deliberately not raised this matter in the House before today, because I wanted to ensure that, when the case went trial, I would in no way have prejudiced that trial or assisted the police in saying that it should not proceed because I had prejudged the issue. The trial has now been heard and the case was thrown out a few weeks ago. The jury did not, in fact, take a decision on the case. So, it has gone.
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, who also represents a member of Christopher Alder's family, and I wrote jointly to the present Home Secretary a few weeks ago. My hon. Friend and I said in a press statement on 25 June that we were calling for a public inquiry into the matter. We stated:
"The decision to end the trial by the Judge last Friday raises many questions and all the issues flowing from that tragic night"—
in April 1998—
"involving the Police and others, and subsequent investigation and actions on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority, Crown Prosecution Service and the Court System need to be investigated fully by a Public Inquiry. Only this action will answer all the questions clearly and the family understandably feel justice has not been done."
Our statement went on to say that we were asking for an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary. He has said that he would prefer to wait until the police disciplinary action had taken place, and I understand that. Indeed, for that very reason, I have not tabled an early-day motion or called for an Adjournment debate in the House on the matter. In view of the fact that the case has now been made public, however, I want to make it absolutely clear that both my hon. Friend and I will pursue this case vigorously, because we are very concerned about it.
I do not want to make any judgment on the facts that have been reported in the press, and I am not going to refer to them tonight. All I will say is that I believe that the House should be concerned about what happened on that tragic night, and about what has happened since in all the investigations, and recognise that the only way in which we can satisfy the family and the wider public—because wider concerns are now being expressed—is by having a full public inquiry. I believe that it is right that I should make that point in this debate tonight.
8.3 pm
Mr. David Heath: The problem with these debates, particularly with the prospect of a long—in fact, over-long—recess ahead of us, is always one of what to identify as the key issues facing our constituencies. It would certainly have been possible for me to have spoken at length about the findings of the report on foot and mouth disease that were announced this afternoon, the catastrophic effect that the disease had on the whole of the west country's rural economy, and the implications of those findings for the treatment of future catastrophic epizootics such as foot and mouth. Suffice it to say, however, that the report underlines the lack of an early application of the advice of epidemiologists with relevant experience. It also illustrates that the ongoing paucity of numbers in the state veterinary service has to be rectified, and that the present import controls are insufficient for the task and not commensurate with those of other countries from which we could usefully learn lessons.

741
It would also be possible to talk at length about the formula for funding local authorities, to which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) referred earlier. Indeed, many of my constituents will have looked with care at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say in his statement on the comprehensive spending review last Monday, and will have read with interest the funding figure of £4,900 per pupil by 2006 that he promised. They will compare that with the present funding for a child in Somerset, which I believe is £2,529.18, and will assume that the funding per child is going to double in the space of three years. Nothing would please me more than to have it confirmed from the Dispatch Box tonight that that is the case, but my fear is that it will not be. I fear that this is another misapprehension on the part of my constituents. Indeed, the more I look at the proposals for the reform of the local authority funding formula, the more I see that they actually put those authorities that are already massively disadvantaged—in terms of the funding that they receive for education and other services—at an even greater disadvantage on most of the options offered. That is a matter of considerable concern.
I could also raise the matter of care homes, as did the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey. I have to say quite plainly to the Minister that the care home sector is in crisis in my county and in most of the south of Britain. The measures that have been taken so far have not been adequate for the task. The funding is still insufficient to keep the private sector care homes in place, which means that there are huge problems in store for our social services departments and for the acute services in our hospitals.
I could also ask for further information about the universal bank and the post office card account. I am not convinced that they will be ready by 1 April next year, and if they are not, that will have a catastrophic effect on the sub-post office network in my constituency, in all rural areas, and, indeed, in urban areas.
I want to focus, however, on another roads issue. It is one with which I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), will be familiar, because it deals with the A303, which runs through my constituency and on to the south-west. The hon. Gentleman will know that the long-awaited south-west regional multi-modal study report—the SWARMMS report—has now been published, and that it contains proposals for the A303. He will also know that there are controversial aspects to the proposals relating to the road where it runs across the top of the Blackdown hills, and to the alternative plans, proposed by consultants, for the A358 to Taunton to be dualled, and to direct traffic by that route.
I have to say to the Minister that I do not wish to debate the rights and wrongs of dualling over the Blackdowns; I have strong opinions on that, but those hills are not in my constituency. I see huge merit in the proposal for the A358 route, because it would provide not only the least environmentally damaging option but an additional north-south route, which the despoliation of the Blackdowns would not offer.
My concern, however, is to separate out from that issue the improvements to the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester that have long been agreed—not just considered, but agreed. That is a piece of road that needs improvement not to increase its capacity, as most measures propose, but to make it safe. It is a place where there are fatal accidents
742
every year, and there will be fatal accidents there this year as the holiday season comes upon us, with the huge increase in traffic from London and the south-east seeking the resorts of the south-west.
It is unfortunate that an inadequate piece of road should coincide with the point at which people get tired on their journey to the south-west. Their concentration is at its lowest, and, at that point, the road ceases to be a dual carriageway. It becomes a rather strange single carriageway plus, then recedes to a single carriageway over a rise where there is no visibility. That section of road clearly needs some attention, to make it safe.
All this was agreed years ago. We had a public inquiry. Uniquely, for road schemes of this kind, it was not seriously opposed by any particular group. Everyone agreed that the plans presented by the Highways Agency constituted the right way of dealing with an accident blackspot on a major trunk road. A public inquiry submitted proposals, and agreement was reached a long time ago, before the 1997 general election.
A moratorium was then imposed on road building of this kind. We were told that we would have to await the outcome of the multi-modal study. I do not know why: as I have said, not a capacity issue but a safety issue formed the basis of the multi-modal report. Anyway, we have waited and waited, and we now learn that this is somewhere in a queue of schemes for the south-west and, according to current plans, will almost certainly not be proceeded with until much more contentious issues further west are dealt with.
That cannot be acceptable to my constituents who, every day, run the risks involved in trying to use or cross the A303. It cannot be acceptable to those who want to use it to gain access to the south-west. Surely the safety issue can he detached from the capacity issues further down the road, and dealt with as a matter of priority. Surely it is possible to use plans that have already been agreed in order to make the road safe.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Marsh to Honiton section of the A303 goes to my constituency. It is not just a question of capacity; that single-carriageway stretch of road has a very bad safety record.
Mr. Heath: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but, as I have said, I am not qualified to talk about the road further west, and I do not want to enter into an argument with her or with any other Member about that.
I am simply saying that the scheme will stand or fall on its merits. It is solely to do with safety. There is no effective opposition to it, and the plans are ready to run; yet it has been held up by other considerations. I do not think that acceptable, and I ask the Minister to think about it. Perhaps he will pay attention to this stretch of road when he next travels to his constituency, or perhaps he will break his train journey to have a look at it. Sadly, breaking a journey on First Great Western is often quite easy nowadays.
Let me make a more important suggestion. Will the Minister ask his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to go and see what needs to be done? Perhaps he will then meet me, along with local people, so that we can discuss the matter.

743
This is very simple. All that is needed is a ministerial fiat. I urge the Minister to treat the issue as a priority, before another life is lost on the road
8.13 pm
Mr. Graham Stringer: I invite all Members to visit Manchester over the next fortnight or so. If they do, they will find the streets awash with red, blue, green and yellow bunting and flags to celebrate the start of the 17th Commonwealth games on Thursday.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) is not here, because I would have liked to pay tribute to her. What has made the event in Manchester possible is the support of Ministers in the last Government, including the right hon. Lady, the former right hon. Member for Henley—now Lord Heseltine—and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We have also received support whenever we have asked for it from the Liberal Democrat party leadership, and from our own Ministers. Before I sound as though I am being too nice to the Liberal Democrats, let me add that the excellence of their leadership has not always been mirrored by the behaviour of one or two nasty Liberal Democrat councillors "on the ground", whose perspective has been non-existent and who are now eating their rather unpleasant words.
I hope that people will go to the games and will recognise the work that has gone into their organisation. I am thinking of work done by Charles Allen of Granada Television, chair of the organising committee; Frances Done, chief executive; Howard Bernstein, chief executive of the city council; and Councillor Richard Leese. They have made major contributions, as have the Commonwealth Games Council for England and many sponsors, as well as thousands of volunteers.
No doubt over the next fortnight those people will be lying awake worrying, or having nightmares about things going wrong—as of course they could. I am sure that everything possible has been done to prevent that, but we should bear in mind the fact that the event will involve 4,000 athletes and that hundreds of thousands of people will attend 17 events, one of which—the shooting event—will take place as far away as Bisley in the south-east. The potential for organisational difficulties is enormous, but I have every confidence in those who have organised the event.
Three outcomes can be identified now. First, there will be no white elephants. All the sporting facilities will have an after-use, which is generally funded in partnership with other organisations. For instance, the aquatic centre is in partnership with the universities, which provides an excellent use for it afterwards. I confess to finding it difficult that Manchester City—not my favourite team—will be able to use the stadium afterwards. One of the oddest features of my career is the fact that I spent some of it securing an excellent stadium for the team in Manchester that I do not support. In any event, there will be no white elephants. That was not the case in Kuala Lumpur, and has not been the case after many other international sporting events in a stadium holding 100,000 people—a stadium that is now sprouting weeds.
The jobs benefit and the economic spin-offs are already there. The Commonwealth games will create more than 6,000 jobs, and independent financial advisers have told
744
us of more than £600,000 of direct investment in the area. That is certain, whatever else happens over the next fortnight to the biggest youth and sporting festival that this country has ever hosted.
Moreover, those who organise sport throughout the world will be in attendance. The perception of English, or British, sport will be changed by what people say. I am sure that they will be impressed when they see the facilities.
Finally, let me compare and contrast that with what has happened in the south-east and London. Money has been pledged, and things have not happened. Picketts Lock is just one example. It would have aspired to be a white elephant, but never quite made it. Another example is the world athletics championship. I believe that this country could have hosted it in Manchester or elsewhere, but we have damaged our standing with the international sports community by not getting the organisation right. The bid for the World cup, which I supported passionately, was not helped by the fact that we managed to support—shall we say—the less honest side of the FIFA organisation, continuing with the corrupt Havelange dynasty followed by Blatter. That was not a smart move in terms of our standing in Europe and the rest of the world. Finally, more money was spent turning Wembley into a derelict site than has been spent on producing an excellent stadium in Manchester for the Commonwealth games.
I make those comments not to have fun but to make a serious point. Some time ago—I have asked questions in the Chamber about it—the British Olympic Association, supported by the Government and much of the establishment, said that if Britain were to bid for the Olympic games again, they would have to be in London. London is a great world city with many facilities. However, that decision was not subject to a competition, unlike Manchester's bid for the Commonwealth games or different cities' bid for the Olympic games. In the light of the mistakes in relation to facilities in the south-east and what I am sure will be a success in Manchester, this country would have a stronger international bid for the Olympic games and would get more support around the country if there were a proper competition between the United Kingdom cities that wanted to host the Olympic games, be it Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or London. The issues could be fully aired in the light of the experience of the past four or five years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that issue up because competition in these issues strengthens our position in the international community. Often, assuming things will happen does not work.
I leave the Minister with one further thought, as the Government bring forward legislation to provide for direct elections to regional assemblies. What Manchester has done and what to a large extent London, Birmingham, Leeds and Glasgow do to project their image in competing to host events—whether it be the international city of culture, the Commonwealth games, the Olympic games or whatever—is very healthy. Had the north-west had a regional structure 10 years ago, I am not sure that it would have been as easy for Manchester to achieve investment of £250 million in sporting facilities—there has been a lot of private sector investment. It might have got stuck in a regional body where lowest common denominator politics predominated.

745
I believe that people associate themselves seriously with cities, are happy to support competitions such as that for the international city of culture, and are less happy to associate themselves with the regions, most of which are named after a point on the compass and have no real economic, cultural or political community association.
I shall finish on a positive note by inviting you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and everyone else to come and enjoy the events in Manchester over the next fortnight, and to reflect on the fact that our cities and towns are often the public face of this country. They are its economic engine and powerhouse. We need to ensure that our political structures reflect that.
8.23 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who made a telling speech about the excitement that he expects in Manchester over the next few weeks. Many people will watch with great interest as those games unfold, and recognise the tremendous amount of effort that the hon. Gentleman put into securing those games when he was leader of the city council.
This debate often gives us the opportunity to raise a number of issues that concern us and our constituents, the people we represent, before the House rises. This time, it rises for a long summer recess, but if the rumours are right we can rest assured that it will be the last time we have such a long recess. In future, we will be sitting in September. I for one welcome that. I would have welcomed sitting in September this year, but the Leader of the House told us that it was not possible because of works taking place outside the building.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House called for us to have extra time to debate a number of important issues that we have not had time to cover before the House rises. A number of hon. Members have said that one of the great sorrows is that we will not have time to talk about the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for local government finance reorganisation. By the time we come back in October, many fundamental decisions will have been taken and the House will not have had a chance to give its opinion on that important subject. A number of us were led to believe that the proposals would lead to a huge flow of new money into our counties, and it seems on a first reading of the consultation paper that that will not happen.
I want to raise some other matters that are local to my constituency of West Derbyshire. On 31 March 1987, I had an Adjournment debate that started, as they used to in those days, at 2.48 am. I had secured the debate the previous week. I rang some of the parents concerned and said that the Adjournment debate would take place the following Tuesday. They said, "Great. Can we come down to listen to it?" I rang on the Monday night and asked how many were coming, and I was told 170.
I was a new Member at that stage, and I found that I always learned something in this place. I went along to the person who was then sitting in the Serjeant at Arms chair and said. "Can I have some tickets tomorrow night for my Adjournment debate?" He said, "Yes, of course. How many would you like?" I said, "170." He said, "Can you come back in a few minutes?" I did so, and I got the 170 tickets. I learned that one could get 204 people in the Public Gallery. When I spoke to the organisers, I said,
746
"You must make sure that you are down at 9 o'clock, because I expect the Adjournment debate to start at 10 and it will not wait for you if you are late."
The three coach loads all arrived at 9 o'clock. I was slightly embarrassed as I went to tell my constituents that the debate was running somewhat late. However, 170 people insisted that they did not want to miss the Adjournment debate and went into the Public Gallery. At the time, my majority was 100. It concentrated the mind somewhat sitting in the Chamber, watching and waiting with eager patience for the Adjournment debate to start. A number of my colleagues kept coming in, looking at the Public Gallery and saying, "Who are all those people?" "It's McLoughlin's Adjournment debate," came the reply. "That'll teach him," they said.
The debate was on an important issue. At that time, the sixth form of a successful school in my constituency, Ecclesbourne school, was threatened with closure. That was eventually rejected by Kenneth Baker. It is a popular and successful school. As I said in that Adjournment debate, Ecclesbourne is
"of proven worth not because the headmaster says so and not because the teachers say so. It is of proven worth because the parents and pupils say so."—[Official Report, 31 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 1069.]
The school has been consistently led for quite a few years by Dr. Robert Dupey, who retires at the end of this term. The problem is that, as a very successful school, it tried to redraw its catchment area, part of which goes into the city of Derby. It tried to make a more sensible arrangement for its future. Both Derbyshire county council and Derby city council agreed that its proposals were sensible, but unfortunately they have now been thrown out by somebody known as the adjudication officer.
Children in the villages of Kirk Langley, Weston Underwood and Mugginton now do not know whether they will be able to go to the school. That is a big problem because the next nearest school for those villages is quite some miles away. It is not just a matter of getting a bus for another five or 10 minutes, as in urban areas. Such a decision in a rural area could add at least 12 to 14 miles to the journey, along some unfortunate country lanes.
A further housing development is now planned for Duffield in the next couple of years, and we can expect a high proportion of the properties sold to go to families with school-age children. Did the adjudicator consider that? No; the adjudicator did not even visit the area. The governors could see the problem looming and undertook a consultation process earlier this year. Sadly, the adjudicator chose to ignore that and told the school that it could not proceed.
The result is real disaster for families in the rural parts of my constituency. Because they live furthest from the school's flagpole, they may not get places when the demand is high. The situation will vary from year to year. The adjudicator has said that the catchment area must be based on the radius from the school's flagpole.
Derbyshire's local education authority is unhappy about that, because it will have to find the children places elsewhere in the county. It will have to provide and pay for transport to another town, quite some distance away. In my part of Derbyshire we have no nice straight dual carriageways with bus routes.

747
The school is unhappy, because it spent a lot of time and effort making what was a very difficult decision. I raised the matter a few weeks ago with the Leader of the House. As we have come to expect of him, he was very open and honest. He said that
"such matters and local issues are best determined locally, wherever possible…I understand the frustration of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if a decision is imposed by people outside their locality." —[Official Report, 27 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 965.]
That is at the heart of the problem. It was not a local decision and did not take into account the local issues, such as transport and communities. The adjudicator listened only to those parents who had complained about the school's decision and did not consider the consequences for those who believed that they were unaffected and were therefore not invited to comment.
Even though there is no right of appeal, the Secretary of State takes no responsibility for the decision, and nor does the Parliamentary Commissioner. The only avenue open to parents is costly and time-consuming legal action. No wonder they are deluging everyone they can think of with desperate letters.
I urge the Government to look at the whole matter again, and with some urgency. I would be naive to think that they could do that within the next two days, but it is their creation of the adjudication office that has brought the problem about, and they should very quickly review the consequences of what has happened in this case.
West Derbyshire is a large rural constituency and we have a huge number of visitors to the national park—it is the most visited national park. I have consistently raised the problem of transport and roads in the area. A new link road, the A50, which runs between the M1 and the M6, has recently been built. It has done a lot to relieve certain traffic congestion, but it has created several traffic problems that were not investigated thoroughly enough when it opened.
The A50 now attracts a huge number of heavy goods vehicles. The section through Doveridge was, unaccountably, given a concrete surface. We were promised that it would be resurfaced in the Government's 10-year plan, but we all know what has happened to the 10-year plan: two years on, we are told that the Secretary of State for Transport is rewriting it. We want to know when that section will be resurfaced, for the sake of the people of Doveridge and Somersal Herbert.
Just a few weeks ago, the A6 in another part of my constituency was de-trunked. There is growing demand from people in the Darley Dale area for more pedestrian crossings. There are two campaigns, which I support. A tremendous number of road deaths occur every year, but because they happen in ones and twos, we tend not to regard them in the same way as accidents in the public transport sector. One way to address that problem, particularly where roads are being de-trunked, is to consider the entire subject of pedestrian crossings.
The A515 comes off the A50, and since the A50 upgrade—the M1-M6 link road—there has been a huge increase in traffic on what are very narrow and winding lanes. I raised the matter two years ago with the then Minister responsible for transport, the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), whom I now shadow in another position. He said that there would be good news on those
748
roads and that he would ask the county council to investigate them as a matter of urgency. Perhaps he did ask them to do so, but nothing has happened since, and I hope that something will happen in the not-too-distant future, for the sake of the people in those areas.
I turn to the final issue that I wish to raise. Last week, the Government published a document entitled "The Review of English National Park Authorities". As I said, the Peak district serves a huge area in my constituency. It receives some 19 million day-visitors a year—a huge number—and covers some 143,000 hectares. Its national park authority comprises some 38 people. In referring to the governance of national parks, the Government document suggests that the number of people who serve on national parks should be reduced. I ask the Government to proceed very carefully in this regard. When I was first elected to the House of Commons, there was great local dissatisfaction at the fact that insufficient local people were being appointed to national parks bodies. When he was Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) introduced what he called parish representatives. Parishes were joined together, and they could have representation in respect of the national parks.
Having read the document, I very much fear that such appointments are under threat. That would be a grave mistake, because they bring a locally elected element to national parks that did not exist before. I urge the Government not to take the view that we need smaller authorities and a smaller decision-making process. The Peak district national park is unusual among national parks. It includes representatives from Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire county councils; Barnsley, High Peak, Kirklees, Macclesfield and Oldham borough councils; Derbyshire Dales, North East Derbyshire and Staffordshire Moorlands district councils; and Sheffield city council. It includes those councillors because it covers their boroughs and areas. I urge the Government not to change that level of representation, and to reject the recommendations—if only in respect of the Peak district. The Peak district is unique: it has the highest number of visitors of all the national parks.
It is said that the Peak district is within an hour's drive of some 60 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, including the people of Manchester, the west midlands, Nottingham and the Sheffield conurbation. It deserves to have a large governing body, and it is very important that that local element be represented, but such representation is under threat through the document's proposals. I hope that there is plenty of time to consider this issue, and that the Government do not proceed with their plans.
8.39 pm
Keith Vaz: I shall speak briefly, as many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I want to raise two issues of concern to my constituents, the first of which relates to the previous portfolio of the Deputy Leader of the House, who was Minister with responsibility for entry clearance.
Last weekend, I was inundated at my constituency surgery with complaints about the lack of visa facilities in respect of posts abroad, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan and India. I was astonished to

749
discover that the Government have closed the personal services that are offered to visitors who seek to come to this country for short-term visits.
As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, the entry clearance operation in India and Pakistan is the largest in the world. In 2000, 73,000 visas were issued in Mumbai, 70,000 in New Delhi, 64,000 in Islamabad and 32,000 in Karachi. The House will therefore understand the seriousness of the present situation. This is the busiest period for visitors visas, because this is the wedding season for the Asian community. That is acknowledged, because in the old joint entry clearance unit in London—now renamed UK Visas—additional staff were taken on at this time of year to deal with the extra applications. At the moment, very few applications are being dealt with, because the posts have closed to those who wish to make applications for visits.
We all understand the background to that decision—the tension between India and Pakistan and the decision taken by the Foreign Secretary to issue travel advice and to withdraw staff from India and Pakistan. However, the situation has improved. Indeed, tensions between India and Pakistan have receded and the ban on direct flights between Islamabad and New Delhi has been lifted. However, there has been no consequential increase in the staffing of our high commissions in those two countries.
The result is that I and, I am sure, other hon. Members have had constituents ringing to say that they cannot make simple applications for visitors visas. They are expected to drop their applications in a box in Mumbai or New Delhi. The applications are taken away and sifted, and the applicants are then contacted. People have little chance of getting a visa to come to a wedding or for a short visit to the UK if they have not applied before. That was confirmed to me by UK Visas just before the debate began. Those applying for a visa for a wedding or a visit for the first time will not be able to come this year. Indeed, they will not be able to come until the level of facilities has increased.
I have arranged a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for Wednesday, but I hope that before then some rapid progress can be made in the way in which those applications are handled. If the House rises before the difficulties have been resolved, constituents will make representations to hon. Members throughout the summer and we will have to contact the Foreign Office and disturb Ministers on their holidays or on other important business. That will not be popular. Therefore, I urge the deputy Leader of the House to pass on a message to the Foreign Office and remind his colleagues that the matter must be resolved immediately.
One constituent was told, when he visited the high commission in Delhi today, that he would be notified of his visa being issued through the national press in India. He has to make sure that he buys the newspaper every day to learn when the high commission is ready to issue the visas. That is unacceptable and I hope that something can be done.
My second point also relates to the travel advice in the subcontinent. I received an e-mail from the former chief justice of Goa. I declare an interest, because I went to Goa for my honeymoon, although it lasted only three days because I was summoned back to vote on the Maastricht
750
treaty by the present Foreign Secretary. The e-mail informed me that because of the travel advice, bookings for Goa—probably the most popular destination in India—have reduced to a trickle and flights are on the verge of cancellation. Annually, the bookings for the winter holiday season in Goa start in June and, by 31 August, 60 per cent. of the bookings have been made. The chief justice's message is that unless we receive some clarification about the travel advice that has been issued by the Foreign Office, the tourism industry in India will suffer greatly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will ask the Foreign Office, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whether he is in a position to review the travel advice that he has issued so far. We all understand why the advice was issued and when it was issued. We understand entirely the important role that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has rightly played in the war against terrorism, and his efforts to bring a diplomatic solution to the problems between India and Pakistan, and no one but him could have done it because of his knowledge of the sub-continent and his interest in the affairs of the Asian community. However, on reaching an important stage, we should consider the advice again and ascertain whether it can be refined and changed to allow British citizens to travel to the subcontinent.
I did not interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) because I know that many others wish to contribute to the debate, but he missed one important name when he referred to the list of people who had helped bring the Commonwealth games to Manchester. His role in achieving that, as leader of Manchester city council, needs to be acknowledged by the House. We are grateful for all that he has done. I know that he wanted to get the Olympic games to Manchester in the past, but was not successful. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to support his home city.
A part of my constituency is the Hamilton estate in the northern part of Leicester. It is a new estate, and the pledge is to build 4,000 homes. Two thousand homes have already been built. I was pleased to hear the statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister setting out his radical reform of the planning system. I welcome his statement, which represents the most radical planning moves for almost a generation. However, I am worried that there is no clarity on planning gain, which is one of the most important ways in which the local community can benefit from planning permissions being given to big developers. We do not have firm and fair rules on planning gain.
On the Hamilton estate, there are 2,000 homes. When they were built, there were the promises of a doctor's surgery, a community centre, leisure facilities and an additional school. None of these promises has been forthcoming. We have only a large branch of Tesco. I am not opposed to Tesco, where I shop occasionally. However, when people buy pretty expensive houses in that part of the city, they expect to get more than a supermarket. They expect to get everything that was promised. I do not think that the local council extracted a sufficient degree of planning gain when planning permission was given to the supermarket.
It is important that we remind developers that in exchange for the huge profits that they make by building new homes and securing new supermarkets, they must give something back. I am sure that this issue affects other

751
right hon. and hon. Members. It is important that developers realise that they must make a contribution at the start.
I hope that the message will go from the House before we rise for the summer recess that there is a need to ensure that the old section 106 agreements and the planning system are not merely made more efficient and more effective, although that is what we all want. We want a planning system that will not result in a huge amount of money being given to planning silks and planning inquiries, such as the terminal 5 inquiry, which cost almost £90 million. At a much more local level, developers who obtain planning permission should be told at the start that they will have to put something back.
I hope that the Minister will have sufficient information to pass on to relevant colleagues. If that can be done before the House rises for the recess. I know that my constituents will be grateful.
8.49 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, wish to raise an issue with the Government that relates to the operation of the licensing system. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has spoken on behalf of those of his constituents who are affected by visa delays; I wish to raise two constituency cases involving very small businesses that are being starved to death by regulation and, in particular, the inequitable operation of the licensing regime for arms export licences.
I shall not quote the name of the small firm because this issue is commercially very sensitive to that firm. It is only after having failed to get satisfactory replies to parliamentary questions and to letters to Ministers that I have decided that I must raise the issue in the forum of this debate; otherwise, after Wednesday, there will be no chance to save it from what will be its certain demise, unless the Government do something about the problem that I shall describe.
The firm employs about half a dozen people and 90 per cent. of its business is supplying spare parts for military aircraft to the Indian market, many of which go directly to the Indian Government. It has operated under an open individual export licence. Such licences are normally renewed every two years.
Last year, the firm applied for the routine renewal of its licence, but it received a temporary six-month extension instead of a renewal. It was then led to believe that the renewal would be granted as soon as that extension period expired, but a few days before that six-month extension expired, it was informed that the substantive renewal application still could not be determined and that it could have a further extension, but excluding exports to India. Of course that was not very helpful to the firm because 90 per cent. of its business is with India, particularly the Indian Government.
So the firm has been pushed into making standard individual export licence applications for each spare part that it wishes to export to India. Many of those spare parts are for the Jaguar aircraft, which is being built under licence in India—still, I understand, with the Government's approval. The company has made those individual applications, but it cannot obtain any decision.
752
The managing director has now sent me a letter in which he says:
"My company's position is precarious. We are now receiving thousands of pounds of equipment, which we cannot ship due to the fact that we have not received any standard licences. So far we have despatched forty-five applications to DTI for clearance and we still have a considerable number to send which are being processed."
He goes on to say that each licence application takes a long time for him to prepare and send, but he can get no result from the Department.
I have tabled parliamentary questions, and I have reached the conclusion that there is Government-inspired discrimination against that firm because another firm in Dorset still has an open individual export licence to supply exactly the same equipment to the Indian market. That firm has contacted the Indian high commission in the past 10 days to tell it that it is happy to supply the very goods that would have been supplied by the firm in my constituency. That is intolerable.
I have written to the Under?Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has expressed some surprise, although he is meant to be in charge not only of small businesses, but of export licensing. In raising this issue this evening, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will ensure that the firm, which will be well known to the Department of Trade and Industry and to the Foreign Office, gets early responses to its licence applications because it will go out of business unless it gets justice, which it deserves.
That is not just an isolated incident. A much larger firm in my constituency has told me that it has had an application with the DTI and the Foreign Office for an export order to Turkey—not one of our well known enemies, but a member of NATO, which we are delighted to see taking on our responsibilities in Afghanistan. That firm won an export order to Turkey at the end of last year. It is still waiting for a result on that application.
The firm wrote to the Foreign Secretary about a month ago and copied the letter to me, and it was led to believe that there would a very quick result. It has still not had that result. It has written an incensed letter to the Foreign Secretary, saying, "Hasn't he the courtesy even to respond to our correspondence?" That order is not small beer: it is probably worth £800,000 or more to that firm in my constituency, with a prospect of follow-on orders as well.
Last Friday, the Quadripartite Committee issued a useful report on export control. At paragraph 92 of that report, the committee condemns the Government, saying:
"Delays in processing of applications can adversely affect the companies concerned and it is essential that such effects are minimised."
The export control organisation is not small; it has a budget of £5.25 million and employs 137 staff, yet it seems totally incapable of monitoring its progress towards its own targets. It has a target of dealing with 70 per cent. of applications within 20 days.
The Department of Trade and Industry has been unable to answer a question that I tabled four weeks ago asking how many individual export licence applications had been outstanding for more than three months, more than six months or more than one year. The fact that it cannot answer that question in good time suggests that it is not compiling the basic statistics necessary to determine whether it is meeting its own targets, which is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

753
My final points concern a slightly different type of organisation, called Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. It is a registered, limited company run by volunteers, one of whom, the secretary, although not a constituent of mine, lives very close to my constituency in Dorset. He has involved me and other bee-keepers in my constituency in the plight of his organisation. It comprises bee-keepers who subscribe 60p per colony of bees to insure against the destruction of the hives if the bees become diseased with foul brood. The company's total annual income is £20,000. It has been incredibly successful in ensuring that the disease of foul brood has not become a problem for this country to the extent that foot and mouth disease has been a problem and that it has not run rife here as it has in other countries. Australia and New Zealand are considering using the model established by Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd.
What are the Government doing about that small voluntary organisation? Until a couple of years ago, the company paid an annual registration fee of £25 to the registrar of industrial and provident societies, but that fee, which is now paid to the Financial Services Authority, has gone up to £375 a year—a fifteenfold increase. The company also has to pay £130 to the financial services compensation scheme because apparently it has to contribute to the losses suffered by the Chester Street insurance company. It also has to pay £279 to the financial ombudsman service.
Apart from dealing with the costs imposed on the company, which total 5 per cent. of its turnover, the secretary has to spend a great deal of time on administration. He sends off all the paperwork to be dealt with by highly paid officials in the FSA, but he finds that his whole life is being dominated by the voluntary service that he has been providing to the bee-keeping community, which I am sure we all recognise and praise.
In a letter, the secretary says:
"The support and protection of the environment, and particularly the area in which we are involved, is not the prerogative of any one person, industry or authority but we all have responsibility towards it, including for that matter the FSA.
He continues:
"As a retired man I am prepared to undertake a reasonable amount of work for the benefit of others. In addition to my personal responsibility to my wife, family and grandchildren, I have been a Welfare Visitor for a National Charity for twenty-five years and a Business Mentor for the Princes Youth Business Trust … Unfortunately because of the excessive amount of time this business with the FSA is taking I have had to stop my work as a mentor for the PYBT. However I have previously informed you in writing that in November this year my wife and I will be back-packing around the world for six months which all the young people are doing now."
Because of the burden of regulation, that gentleman cannot find anyone who is prepared to take on the voluntary work he does running that important company, Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. I am not asking the Minister to provide a volunteer to replace that gentleman; I am asking him to create a climate in which it is possible for a volunteer to come forward to work for the good of the bees of this nation, and for its people.
9 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) I am trying to save a firm in my constituency. I also intend to discuss insurance matters; that is the second of three matters that I intend to raise, all of which have a common theme.
754
It might be an exaggeration to say this—there are countervailing forces to be taken into account—but it often seems that people are trying to close down my constituency by various different devices, and we have to fight to ensure that firms remain viable and continue to exist. The first item in my speech is an issue that arose two years ago. It is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), as I spoke about it at length in Committee and on the Floor of the House during proceedings on the Enterprise Bill, but it is also relevant to the points I shall make in this debate.
Two years ago, Biwater, a pipe manufacturer in my constituency, was taken over by a multinational company, Saint-Gobain. Biwater was profitable and had good export markets, and Saint-Gobain—to get rid of a competitor—quickly closed the firm, with the loss of 700 jobs. The area has suffered the loss of other manufacturing jobs. There has been a serious impact on Clay Cross in my constituency, where the Biwater works were centred. A once-thriving Saturday market is now much duller, and the pubs and shops are not as full as they once were, and several have closed.
The area is now in need of regeneration. There is plenty of effort and lots of plans, and the local councils and regeneration organisations work hard. A town centre development is in the offing, and a lot of work is being done by the East Midlands development agency and the Government office for the east midlands, but so far only bits and pieces have been put in place. There is an interesting development at Coney Green for small businesses, and some imaginative work has been done, but relatively few people have found employment in the small areas of growth. There is a large-scale plan for development at Markham, a former mining area, which will certainly bring employment and have a good knock-on impact in areas such as Clay Cross, but generally the area needs much more hands-on intervention by the Government, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry.
If there is a place that can be described as Labour's heartland, it is Clay Cross. Way back in 1931, when the Labour party was decimated in the general election, the Clay Cross constituency was held by Labour with a handsome majority. The area has always been a force in the Labour movement and it has produced many people who have been active in their communities and extended and developed their interests. It would be a pity if we did not repay their dedication over so many years. We must become more directly involved in ensuring better provision for the area.
The usual taskforce was sent in at the time of the closure, and various works were done. Some people have picked up jobs here and there, and some have started taxi firms and other operations in the area. However, the non-interventionist approach that is often adopted by the DTI led to the collapse of Biwater in the first place: the Department failed to ensure that the firm was defended, or that the matter was referred to the Competition Commission to try to stop the closure. Government must be more to the fore in the redevelopment programmes in the area.
Now, however, there are two fresh if smaller problems concerning employment in the northern end of the constituency in Eckington. One concerns Moorside Mining—the last underground coal mine in Derbyshire. It

755
is a small mine; only 27 people work underground. It should have an assured future, as it has good order books and has over a period obtained two out of three tranches of state aid, which have helped to turn it round considerably. However, the mine faces immediate closure. Its problem is with obtaining a renewal of insurance for employer's liability, which it is statutorily obliged to hold.
I raised this matter in a debate last Monday under Standing Order No. 24. Shortly afterwards, a deal was done, drawing from the insurance of another company. It looked as if work would be able to continue, and for two shifts the pit went back into production. However, the firm with which the deal was made began to be worried about its renewal, and the deal collapsed. So, from 11 am on Friday, the pit has again been out of production. If it does not receive some cover, production will end entirely and in the end the pit will flood.
The problem with insurance companies is that they have been hiking the level of payments considerably. For instance, the insurance deal under which the firm had been operating temporarily is costing seven times more than just over a year ago. The mine cannot now get insurance through brokers contacting Lloyd's or through other areas at any price; no offer is being made.
The Minister for Energy and Construction is very much involved in these matters. There are arguments that there is a need for universal cover—perhaps for small mines, but perhaps for the whole of the coal industry—but if that cannot be achieved very quickly, a bond or a waiver operated through the Department of Trade and Industry will become increasingly important. We face a crisis, and that is why the matter needs to be dealt with and pressure applied before the summer recess.
The Treasury needs alerting to the matter—something that I have attempted to do. The problems concerning employer liability insurance do not just affect small mines. They may affect the whole mining industry, including quarrying, rail supplies and small-scale manufacturers. The question of the operation of an insurers' ramp needs to be investigated carefully, and appropriate action needs to be taken to overcome it, which may involve the Government playing a role or threatening to involve themselves in order to try to bring insurers into line.
The third point that I want to raise also relates to Eckington, where the Moorside mine is situated. We face the prospect that the Eckington jobcentre will close.
Four years ago, we were involved in a campaign to save it. At the time, there were rationalisation proposals to get rid of five jobcentres, two of which, unfortunately, were in neighbouring parts of north-east Derbyshire. We mobilised a campaign against the threatened closure of the Eckington and Dronfield job centres, including visits to the appropriate Minister.
We won one—we held on to Eckington; but we lost Dronfield. However, we are back to the same situation as regards Eckington, although, the context is different. The current reorganisation is related to the proposals for the Jobcentre Plus programme for Derbyshire, which will involve the closure of the New Mills, Bakewell and Eckington jobcentres.
The Derbyshire unemployed workers centre is greatly involved in the campaign to save the job centre and has christened the proposals "Jobcentre Minus". Jobcentre
756
Plus will amalgamate benefits—apart from pensions—and employment services; that synthesis will ensure that they work together.
In effect, the proposals put flesh on the 1997 new Labour slogan "Off benefits, into work". I always thought that was the wrong way around and it should have been "Into work, off benefits", to show that heavy pressure would not be put on people who were in receipt of benefits. They also fit in with the idea that people should be given a hand up rather than a hand-out.
Unfortunately, it will be difficult and costly for people to use jobcentres in Staveley and Chesterfield instead of Eckington owing to the poor quality of the local bus services. A campaign was launched in Eckington on Friday.
The centre also serves Killamarsh, the very place where Moorside is hoping to produce coal. Given the amount that the Government were able to take from miners pensions funds, it is appropriate that great attention should be paid to the current insurance problems in the mining industry. In the light of the unfortunate experiences at Selby, small mines, such as Moorside, should have assured markets in future. Like Biwaters at Clay Cross, it is a viable firm and should not be closed.
9.13 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I do not want to delay the House for too long. Before we rise on Wednesday for the summer recess, I want to raise two very pressing issues of great importance to my constituents.
The first concerns the perennial problem faced by many Members—the erection of telecommunications masts in residential areas of our constituencies. During the past 14 months, there have been 29 applications in West Chelmsford, most of them in highly residential areas. Tomorrow, there will be an inquiry about an application in the village of Little Waltham, and on Wednesday an inquiry will be held about the decision relating to Linnet drive in a residential area of Chelmsford.
Many of us feared that the planning regime would be too antiquated to cope with the problems following the second wave of telecommunications and the resultant masts that would have to be erected all over the country, especially because—as hon. Members will be aware—masts of less than 15 m do not have to comply with the traditional planning rules that apply to many types of building. My own borough council has robustly reflected the wishes of local residents and has refused applications time and time again, although many of those refusals have been brushed aside on appeal. It is crucial that the Government do more to reform and update the planning regime to empower people so that they have more influence in their local community and more say on what they have, and do not have, to put up with.
The Government, and certainly the Under-Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), would say that they have undertaken reform, as they have revised PPG8. In a recent letter to me, the Under-Secretary said:
"The general policy is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems while protecting the environment."
Most of my constituents would certainly agree that the Government's policy facilitates the growth of telecommunications systems but does little to protect the

757
environment outside the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It does not do a great deal to protect the environment of people who live in residential areas in towns and villages.
The Under-Secretary said that on 22 August last year the Government significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development, and listed what had been done. The Government, he said, had
"strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below and for masts on buildings and structures so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission".
Frankly, many of my constituents would turn around and say "big deal", because nothing has changed. The local authority may refuse permission to erect a mast, but more often than not, permission is granted on appeal, so there do not seem many extra powers for local residents to express their views. The Under-Secretary said that the Government had
"increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days".
Big deal if, in the end, the company gets permission to erect a mast.
Another grave concern for my constituents is the question of whether or not there is a significant impact on individuals' health. The Government's Stewart report cleared the masts of having any impact on health, but other reports do not take such a rosy or cosy view of their health implications. I am not scientifically qualified to determine whether the conclusions of the Stewart report are correct or whether those of other reports are more accurate. However, the perception is that there is a knock-on effect on people's health. The jury is out until there is conclusive scientific evidence that there is not a problem. I urge the Government to err on the side of caution before allowing masts to go up.
Mr. Mark Francois: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that the Stewart report advocated the so-called precautionary principle—in other words, playing safe—and that PPG8 does not allow local authorities to embrace it?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is quite right—the precautionary principle has been brushed aside and PPG8 does not fully take account of conclusions in the Stewart report.
Tomorrow and on Wednesday, many of my constituents will be at the Chelmsford Civic Centre giving their views to the inspector on two inquiries. Sadly, once those inquiries are completed, there are more than a dozen applications pending. They have been submitted to Chelmsford borough council in the last few months, and all are in residential areas. It is a matter of urgency that the Government act to empower people, as we sought to do in our manifesto at the last general election, so that there is a bottom-up, rather than a top-down, approach to a significant problem for many of our constituents.
The second issue, which is also pressing, concerns housebuilding in the Chelmsford local authority area. On Wednesday night, Chelmsford borough council, which is a hung council but is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, will take its final decision on its draft structure plan. As I have mentioned before in the House, we have a problem
758
in my constituency and in my local authority area, because we have been told that by 2010 we must build more than 11,000 extra houses, of which a significant number are to be built in my constituency.
It may surprise the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister, but my constituents do not want to see the greenfield sites of West Chelmsford concreted over and becoming one massive sprawl. As I have said on one other occasion in the House, the Liberal Democrat-controlled council will force one of my villages, Boreham, to be totally destroyed, because the council intends to impose 2,000 houses on that village, which currently has only 1,800 houses.
Hon. Members on the Labour Benches, and certainly my hon. Friends, will know better than most people the way in which Liberal Democrats behave. We know from the general election, as we do from other elections, that the Liberal Democrats can walk down a street, meet 30 individuals in 30 different houses and tell them different viewpoints if they think that it will win them a vote. That is their hallmark. We can laugh about it, because we are used to the Liberal Democrats' two-faced approach to politics. It is not such a funny matter to the people of Boreham.
Two years ago this month, a by-election was held in Boreham. It was caused by the retirement of one of the Liberal Democrat councillors who ironically had been the chairman of planning some years before, but who had become so disenchanted with the Liberal Democrats in Chelmsford that he resigned his seat, forcing the by-election. The Liberal Democrats presented their candidate, their leader was wheeled out, photographs were taken for their focus groups, and promises were made to the people of Boreham that the houses would not be dumped on Boreham—it was too important a local community, and a vibrant village that would be destroyed if the houses were dumped on it.
Funnily enough, the Liberal Democrats lost the by-election on a 31 per cent. swing to the Conservatives. A mere five months later, the Liberal Democrat council announced that 2,000 houses were to be built in the village of Boreham. They had promised that they would not do that to the village, but being Liberals, they can do anything. That is what we are faced with: a village destroyed by the swamping of the area with extra housing that the village does not want.
On Wednesday night, the council, with all the Liberal councillors turning up and the promises long forgotten, will vote through the structure plan which they hope will force the houses on to the village. I look forward to the public inquiry next year, when we will seek to get common sense to prevail and the decision overturned.
Given the Deputy Prime Minister's statement last Thursday; given that Chelmsford borders the Stansted corridor which has been identified as a significant area for development; and given that in the south of the county we have the Thames gateway, where the Deputy Prime Minister also identified significant development and housing, what will be the impact on mid-Essex? Two thousand of the houses that it seems we must have in Chelmsford have nothing to do with the anticipated housing needs of Chelmsford. The development is intended to relieve pressures in the south of the county, but if the Thames gateway is to be developed, with substantial housing to sustain that development, could not

759
the 2,000 houses be given back to the Thames gateway instead of being put in an area where they are not needed to fulfil the housing needs arising in the next decade or so?
Finally, in the light of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, will there be any impact on the timetable for a public inquiry on the structure plan next year? If things are to change because of new developments, especially in the Stansted corridor, what relevance might that have in the Chelmsford and Mid-Essex area and in terms of holding a public inquiry next year, when the proposed approach might be completely thrown out or altered because of changes that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced in the past week?
9.26 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I am pleased to report that Stafford is in good shape. The town is currently ablaze with riotous colour, as flowers abound in baskets and beds because it is going all out to win this year's Britain in Bloom award. It has also just completed another very successful annual festival, whose highlights included open-air Shakespeare at the castle, where Matthew Kelly and Julie-Kate Olivier in "The Taming of the Shrew" played every night to crowded, sell-out audiences. My favourite was the folk dancing in the market square by dancers in traditional folk costume from our Spanish twin town of Tarragona on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, with the sun shining out of a perfect blue sky, which must have made them feel very much at home and delighted the audience of Stafford people. At the same time, Staffordshire organised another successful young musician of the year contest, which delighted the audience, including me, who saw some glimpses of the talented artistes of the future. They performed with such skill and poise that I went home that night with great confidence and optimism for the future of a society in which we are bringing up such talented young people.
I should like to mention some concerns about two issues affecting my constituency: education and transport. On education, like several other hon. Members who have spoken, I am angry about a system of allocating central Government money to education that leaves Staffordshire at the bottom of the pile year after year. For several years, I have joined delegations seeking to persuade Ministers to change the system, and I have often been accompanied by my constituent Eunice Finney, a tireless campaigner on the subject, who likes to show the Ministers two school photographs. One of them is of her children, Richard and Amy, and the other is of a friend's children who attend schools in Hertfordshire. She asks Ministers to explain the difference between those smiling pictures of happy and healthy children. To all intents and purposes, they look the same, but she points out the difference in the value that the system places on the children in the schools that they attend. Richard, who attends a primary school in Stafford, is valued at £300 less a year than the child attending the primary school in Hertfordshire. Amy, who attends the secondary school in Stafford, is valued at £360 less a year than the child attending the secondary school in Hertfordshire. In a secondary school of, say, 600 pupils, that adds up to more than £200,000 a year by which a Staffordshire high school is losing out.
760
That issue is so significant that, when Ofsted recently inspected Staffordshire local education authority, it made a point of mentioning the underfunding of schools in Staffordshire. While many local education authorities have received a pasting from Ofsted about the abysmal state of their education service, Staffordshire received a glowing report, with the exception, I admit, of its special educational needs provision, which needs some attention. The Ofsted inspectors drew attention to the above average academic achievements that are made in Staffordshire while it is underfunded because of the way in which the Government distribute money for education. I know that the Leader of the House has allocated a full day in October for a debate about the Government's proposals to change that system of funding from next April, so I will wait until then to join in that debate.
I want to mention a scheme, which I followed from start from finish, that attempts to tackle bullying in schools in Stafford. It involved four schools and was sponsored by Barclays new futures, and focused on teaching children the skills of co-counselling. That enabled pupils themselves to confront bullying and to bring it out into the open, thereby overcoming it. It has been so successful that the talented teacher who led it, Netta Cartwright, is to promote the practice of co-counselling throughout the schools of Stafford, and hopefully beyond.
When we go off on our recess in two days' time, the busiest time of year begins for the parliamentary education unit as it starts to welcome more senior students from schools around the country for its summer educational programme, which involves Members of Parliament, peers and staff contributing their time to the education of those young students. The staff cope with some 8,000 students every September, while we are away, and they do a tremendous job. If we return to sit in future Septembers, we must give careful thought to how that successful education programme can continue at the same time. During the times at which we are sitting, the parliamentary education unit engages in teacher seminars, pupil parliaments, Wednesday visits for 12 to 14-year-olds and citizenship visits. On that last point, the Government have ordained that from this September all our secondary schools will teach citizenship as a curriculum subject—a move that I applaud. I hope that when hon. Members return from their summer holidays, I will be in a position to deliver to each of them a pack to help them to cope with the inquiries that they will receive from teachers in their constituencies asking for their help in teaching that new subject. I hope that that will be of assistance.
Turning to transport, the big story in Stafford at the moment is the way in which passengers are being treated by the national bus company, Arriva, which has a monopoly of services in the town. For the second time in two years, at short notice, it has made major changes to services, almost completely depriving elderly residents in Gravel lane of a service; depriving the elderly residents of Trent close of all services; upsetting all the Highfields residents who have to walk further to catch a bus and can no longer use it to go to their doctors' surgery; and upsetting all the Coton fields residents by rebadging their bus and sending it down streets about which nobody knows, so they cannot catch it. I recently received a petition carrying 139 signatures about the disappearance of the bus stop at the back of Marks and Spencer. I wish that the company would pay more attention

761
to its passengers so that I did not have to receive that kind of attention from my constituents. Following those complaints, I tabled early-day motion 1405, which has so far attracted the support of 72 hon. Members, to draw attention to the great amounts of public money that bus companies receive through fuel duty rebates, concessionary fares and direct subsidies, and asking whether that money does not at least entitle us to a quality, comprehensive and accountable bus service from those companies.
The subject of transport brings me to the west coast main line, which is a very important transport link for Stafford and beyond. Today's news that £100 million has been paid to Virgin Trains out of public money is a stark exposure of what was wrong with Railtrack, the company that was supposed to be running our railway network. It promised in a binding agreement to upgrade the west coast main line for Virgin Trains so that it could take trains running at 140 mph. On the basis of that agreement, the company spent more than £1 billion on the new Pendolino trains. Now we learn that Railtrack was unable to complete the upgrade, and I cannot foresee when trains will be able to run at 140 mph on that line.
On the subject of railway companies that do not keep their promises, Stafford railway station was promised an upgrade for years. The two councils—borough and county—carried out their side of the bargain by improving the environment outside the station and moving bus stops next to it to provide integrated transport, but Railtrack has not completed the passenger lifts that it promised and Virgin Trains has not completed the foyer refurbishment or building of the car park that it promised. I have now arranged for representatives of the Strategic Rail Authority to come to Stafford and face local passengers, and to explain how the rail companies can expect to increase passenger numbers on trains when they cannot deliver the services that they promise to the public.
Looking to the future, I want to say a few sentences about renewable energy sources, and about Stafford's contribution to them. With a history in the power industry going back more than 100 years, Stafford is well placed to play its part in promoting renewable energy. Some hope came to manufacturing industry and farms in Stafford at the county show this year. when I was privileged to launch a new scheme for energy crops that would involve 20 farmers growing miscanthus, or elephant grass, for burning and conversion into electricity to sell to the national grid. That is very much a way forward for manufacturing and farming in many areas such as Stafford, and I hope that many hon. Members will consider it for their areas, too.
9.36 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I suppose I could say that it is a blooming pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I wish him and Stafford great success in the Britain in Bloom competition. I agree with his remarks about the House of Commons education unit, which does absolutely first-class work, and I hope that all hon. Members will try to give at least one day to the unit to help it with the education programme for children who come into this place from all over the country, and who, I believe, thoroughly enjoy what is often their first glimpse of our parliamentary system.
Before we go into recess, I would like to raise a few issues about my constituency of Chesham and Amersham, which is a pleasant and, indeed, highly desirable place to
762
live. Non-residents sometimes perceive it as an area without problems, but we all know that things are not often as they first appear. Indeed, I wonder whether it is because the Government seem so obsessed with appearances rather than fundamental facts that they appear determined to starve my constituency and others in Buckinghamshire of resources, and to ignore the wishes of local people. Their policies, which result in financial deprivation, are now beginning to ride roughshod over the area, and are affecting the quality of life of my constituents in many ways.
I am not sure what we in Chesham and Amersham have done to the Deputy Prime Minister, but he seems to have it in for us. I hope to illustrate that tonight. At county level, the planning reforms trumpeted by the right hon. Gentleman have been greeted with dismay and disbelief. The proposals have been widely criticised by respondents to the Government's own consultation, with 90 per cent. opposing the abolition of county structure plans, and 88 per cent. rejecting a proposal to replace structure and local plans with a new local development framework.
Local decision making in Bucks is going to be significantly reduced, and there is now a great deal of uncertainty over future development in the county. The despair felt by my councillors can hardly be expressed, and our cabinet member for planning and transportation, Councillor Rodney Royston, is urging the Government to rethink their plans, and not to rush through ill-conceived proposals that have no widespread support. This is just the latest blow to our hard-pressed county council, which is facing growing burdens on its social services budget—not to mention problems in education—and which has been demoralised, not least by the restructuring forced on it by the Government's reforms.
The cabinet system of portfolio holders means that the roles of ordinary back-bench councillors are vastly diminished—so much so that their roles are marginalised while an unbelievably heavy burden falls on the portfolio holders. I actually think that the Government's ultimate aim is to get rid of county councils, but they appear quite willing to kill off some of the councillors in the process. Unless something is done about this structure, we shall face meltdown not only in my county council but in others as well.
The situation is much the same for district councils. Chiltern district council is one of the six local authorities that receive no revenue support grant from central Government. All that it receives is a refund of some of the national non-domestic rate. The leader of the council, Don Phillips, has pointed out that the revenue support grant and national non-domestic rate grant will be replaced by a formula-based grant. Chiltern starts with a disadvantage, because it does not receive revenue support grant. It seeks a compensatory payment to put it on the same footing as the vast majority of district councils. Councillor Phillips has described the new arrangements as "unjust and inequitable", and they will certainly impinge on council tax payers in Chesham and Amersham.
The local government settlement for 2002–03 continued the discrimination against shire district councils. Buckinghamshire county council's revenue support grant fails to acknowledge the level of spending required to support social services and, in particular, care for the elderly. It was hoped that reparations might be made in the proposals for future local government

763
funding, but that has not happened. Proposals were made recently by—yes, again, the Deputy Prime Minister. It looks as if, rather than a recognition of the needs of shire counties such as Buckinghamshire. there will be an outflow of funds to other less prudently run authorities, whether in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Can that possibly be right? Council tax payers in my constituency should not be expected to shore up inefficient authorities, whether near or far.
There is a lack of funding in Buckinghamshire which needs to be redressed. It can be illustrated by an incident at Chalfont St Peter at a time when residents were looking forward to celebrating the Queen's Golden Jubilee. A contingent of travellers pitched camp in the village on Monday 3 June, and mayhem ensued. The police estimated that at any one time there were 30 to 40 vehicles with trailers and other equipment. The behaviour of the travellers—I regret to say that it was often children under 10 who behaved in an antisocial fashion, with no supervision by their elders—led to the logging of more than 60 complaints with the local police. Complaints about criminal damage, harassment and acts of vandalism were coupled with a disturbing list of allegations of physical assaults—including one sexual assault—and revolting behaviour such as public defecation, urination and indecent exposure.
No community should be expected to put up with behaviour of that kind, but the mechanism enabling the travellers to be moved on could not be put into action because public offices were closed for the bank holidays. The police, too, were hampered by a lack of resources over the holiday period. It was Wednesday 12 June before the county council could enact its eviction order.
I welcome what the Home Secretary has said about refusing to allow behaviour by travellers that would not be tolerated in other sections of the community. That is fair. Indeed, the local police sector commander has acknowledged publicly that there must be a good level of support from the police when such incidents occur. Incursion by travellers will be dealt with robustly. Funding for the police, however, is tied in with funding for local government, and, as we know, Buckinghamshire has been systematically starved of central Government support.
While I welcome the Home Secretary's approach, I want it to be backed up with hard cash for police forces such as the Thames Valley force so that when such incidents take place their hands are not tied by a lack of resources. Perhaps the Home Secretary should consider the impounding of vehicles if travellers do not leave any site promptly. Perhaps he will consult—yes, the Deputy Prime Minister. He has published the details of a new approach to tackling illegal encampments, and new guidance is promised for the autumn, but we shall have to wait until then, and yet again there is no extra money for the tackling of those illegal encampments.
It should not be forgotten that it cost £9,000 to clear up after the incursion. The impact on businesses is hard to calculate, but the events of that week will form part of residents' memories of what should have been a peaceful celebration.
764
Perhaps we would have a better chance of dealing with such incursions, and with other criminal and antisocial activities, if we had the requisite number of policemen in the Thames Valley area. At present we face growing problems, with little real recognition or action from the Government. Admittedly the incidence of burglary and robbery has fallen in the Chiltern area, but the number of car crimes has increased in the past year, as has the number of sexual offences. So many officers are now leaving the force that my local newspaper, The Bucks Examiner, reported this week that our chief constable is calling for the introduction of a £10,000 transfer fee. Other forces would have to compensate Thames Valley when officers transferred. Even if that bright idea were accepted by the Home Secretary, it would be too late for one of the great backbones of law and order in my constituency: the special constable.
Mr. David Cameron: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Thames valley, we have lost so many police constables and there is such a recruitment crisis that the chief constable estimates that within 12 months one out of every two police officers will be a probationer?
Mrs. Gillan: I am familiar with that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
We are facing a sad situation in the Thames valley. In 1997, when the Government took office, we had 694 specials in the Thames Valley constabulary. A written answer on Friday to a question that I tabled said that, today, the number stands at a miserly 377. The Government should be ashamed that they have presided over such a decline in a key element of our policing. How on earth will the Government prevent the haemorrhaging of special constables in the Thames valley and in other areas?
I pay tribute to the police in Chesham and Amersham, who are doing a fantastic job in trying circumstances. We all think a great deal of them. As the editorial in the Bucks Free Press said this week:
"we need to make sure police are responding to low level crime and disorder … we have every confidence our police can do it provided they are given the manpower."
We need a police force that is manned to its full strength to ensure that my constituents are allowed to live in peace.
My constituents strongly value the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. I was particularly pleased when I was recently asked to open purpose-built housing for workers at Amersham hospital. I hope that the people who have moved in will enjoy living in Amersham. Indeed, I welcome them particularly as neighbours; they live just down the road from me.
The Government are concerned with housing and housing for key workers, but while they have been focusing on that they have slipped out something else. My constituents are very concerned about one of the ideas being floated by Downing street: a stamp duty on property that would increase the longer the family had lived in the home. The idea, a chief economist at the Department of Health told The Daily Telegraph on 9 July, is
"to encourage people to move around".
As one of my constituents in Amersham put it, she had always understood that even in the Soviet Union one had to commit a crime before the state drove an individual into exile. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing but I

765
think that he understands that that is a daft Downing street dodge that would undermine the strong communities in my constituency. Rather like the mean-spirited child in the playground who sees another child with a toy he envies, the instinct is not to steal the possession but to smash it up. It is the strong communities in Chesham, Amersham, the Chalfont villages, Hazlemere, Penn and Jordans whose quality of life this Government are breaking down.
I hope that I have voiced some of the issues we face in Chesham and Amersham this summer, although there are many more: care home shortages, pension shortfalls, burdens on schools and teachers, teacher shortages, bed blocking, transport chaos and disastrous rural policies to name but a few. They all add up to an attack on my constituents quite unprecedented in previous years.
Mr. Ken Purchase: It is such a deprived area.
Mrs. Gillan: You may mock but we do have deprived areas in Chesham and Amersham. I invite you to visit Pond Park.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to visit the hon. Lady's constituency but I am keen to get back to Springburn on Wednesday.
Mrs. Gillan: Mr. Speaker, you are always welcome to go back to Springburn via Chesham and Amersham.
All these measures add up to an unprecedented attack on my constituents. They are paying much more in stealth taxes and now they are getting much less. Let us face it: they contribute so much to our society that surely they deserve some respite from the relentless march of this over-regulating, over-taxing and under-performing Government.
I am sure, because he is very good at it, that the Minister will give the usual smooth answers in a speech honed by spin doctors, but as I said, we in Buckinghamshire are not taken in by appearances, and only real solutions will do. I hope that he will provide some tonight.
9.50 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). I would like to see the real facts and figures on investment in police, the health service and social services in her constituency. I fully appreciate that there are pressures, as there are in many areas, but there is no question but that there has been huge additional investment in social services, for example, with a real terms increase to date of 3.3 per cent. a year under this Government, compared with 0.1 per cent. under the Tories—and it will be up to 6 per cent. over the next three years.
Mrs. Gillan: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has chosen to start her speech by attacking me. The figures for the reduction in special constables are from a parliamentary answer that the Home Office gave on Friday, and they are a disgrace.
Ms Drown: I do not question those figures, but I would be interested in the figures for investment in criminal
766
justice as a whole in the hon. Lady's constituency, as well as the wider investment in health, social services and education. The Government's record across the board shows that they are investing significantly more than the Tories did. That cannot be questioned, just as I do not question the pressures that exist in her constituency and others throughout the country.
I want to refer to bids for Home Office action in the Gracious Speech, following serious concerns that have been brought to me by constituents. In proceedings on the Police Reform Bill I raised the question of being able to impose antisocial behaviour orders in county courts as well as magistrates courts for behaviour associated with prostitution. I was pleased that there was cross-party support for that. I appreciate the fact that the Government did not want to respond, because antisocial behaviour orders are very new and more guidance is to be issued, but I hope that they will keep the matter under consideration and, if it is seen to be necessary, introduce the changes soon. Antisocial behaviour associated with prostitution blights the quality of life of many of my constituents, especially in central Swindon, and they see this as a possible solution.
Last week, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on rape reform that was well supported in the House. It is essential to get the current laws on consent, which mean that many rapists still walk free from our courts every year, off the statute book.
Home Office action is also needed on fireworks, a subject about which I get an increasing number of letters. People are worried about the increasing number of fireworks being discharged and the dangers that they pose to people and animals. The initial response to a survey that I am conducting makes it clear that the majority of people want public firework displays to be controlled only by qualified people. They want fireworks to be allowed only at certain times of the day and sold only at certain times of the year. Current legislation does not give the authorities enough powers to deal with fireworks.
There is another matter that is increasingly raised in the House and that crops up repeatedly in my postbag and at constituency advice surgeries. The increasing number of incidents involving airguns and replica guns is an issue that has been raised in this House before, but it deserves to be raised again because such guns are causing an increasing number of injuries to animals and people. In South Swindon in the past 12 months, there have been 80 incidents involving the use of ball-bearing guns and replica guns, 36 of which involved shootings at people or at animals. Shots have also been fired at vehicles, houses and shops, there have been threats to kill, and three robberies were committed using such guns. In one case, a nine-year-old boy was shot at by teenagers. It is clear that a real problem exists, and something must be done to address it.
The Government banned handguns in 1997, but it is clear that far too many are still in circulation. Indeed, the number of incidents involving handguns has increased, which shows that more action must be taken to get them out of circulation. However, in doing so, we must ensure that the problems to which they give rise are not repeated—and that the good work is not undermined—through the proliferation of airguns, ball-bearing guns and replica guns.

767
People in South Swindon have made it clear to me that they want this problem to be addressed. I have heard from bus drivers who have been threatened with such guns, and I have received many letters from concerned people. They are concerned either because they have already experienced suffering as a result of such guns, or because they are scared of doing so. Police officers have visited my local surgeries and called for a ban on these weapons, not only because they have front-line experience in dealing with such attacks and the associated problems, but because they are genuinely concerned that, one day, someone will get hurt by the police themselves. The police might have to decide to take action because they cannot distinguish between a replica gun or a ball-bearing gun, and the real thing.
It is police officers in particular who have told me about the escalation in gun-related incidents, albeit involving ball-bearing or replica guns. That escalation is placing a huge demand on our specialist firearm officers. Toys and hobbies involving ball-bearing and replica guns put the police in an impossible position. Too often, they are unable to tell whether they are confronted with an airgun, a replica gun or the real thing. At some point, to protect others, an armed response unit will have to consider shooting someone who is carrying a gun, and the result could be a tragedy. For example, an armed response unit was called out in Swindon after two boys threatened passers-by with an air pistol. The unit had to make a difficult judgment as to whether it was a ball-bearing gun, or the real thing. I do not want a child or adult to be shot, only to find out later that they were merely playing, but that is getting very close to happening.
David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have already been several cases of people being shot? In a recent incident, a man carrying a table leg in a plastic bag was killed because it appeared to the officers concerned that he was carrying a deadly weapon.
Ms Drown: I am very aware of those incidents, which show the huge dangers that we need to address. Such guns should not be regarded as toys or as some form of hobby; they are very dangerous, and they put the public at risk.
There are several different measures that the Government could adopt. Countries such as France and Belgium have banned uncertified look-alikes and toys, and have demanded that airguns be suitably differentiated from the real thing. That would certainly reduce the chance of a fatal accident involving the police, and it would minimise the use of such guns in robberies. However, it would not address the other problem: the injuries that such weapons can—and do—inflict on our constituents by being legally and freely available. The Government should listen to the Association of Chief Police Officers, which says:
"The police view the availability of replica and imitation firearms as a real risk to public safety … The police believe these weapons should be subject to strict controls or banned."
I concur with that view, and I hope that the Minister will pass on to his colleagues the views of my constituents and the many others throughout the country who want an end to the availability of these dangerous weapons.

Summer Adjournment

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That at this day's sitting the Motion for the Adjournment in the name of Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again prosposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  10 pm
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Compared with other hon. Members, I shall keep my remarks brief, but they are relevant as the House is about to enter its long summer recess. It will come as no surprise that I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the future of the Belfast agreement, if only to point out that the Government are deluding themselves with the pretence that it can survive in its present form. It is already fatally holed below the water line and will sink.
  The Government need, therefore, to spend time over the summer considering the process of negotiating an alternative agreement that can command widespread support throughout the community from Unionists as well as nationalists. For as long as I can remember, the essential component for any constitutional proposal to win Government support was its ability to achieve cross-community support. Repeatedly, proposals proffered by Unionists were rejected by both Conservative and Labour Governments, because they did not enjoy nationalist support. In more recent times, the unspoken benchmark was that any proposal had to be capable of gaining Sinn Fein-IRA support.
  Nobody would quibble with the need to have sufficient support for new institutions. No structure will have the necessary stability to last without the support of both sections of our people, but if this condition was an imperative when it was used to ensure that proposals had nationalist endorsement, it must be equally appropriate that any proposal has Unionist support.
  The Belfast agreement does not have such Unionist support. Only a minority within Unionism, represented by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and half of his party, supports that republican agenda. The majority of Unionist votes cast in every election since the agreement was signed have been cast for candidates opposed to it. That is true of the last election for the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European election and both the local government election last June and the general election. Indeed, eight out of the 11 Northern Ireland Unionists returned here were elected on an anti-agreement ticket.
  While the Government would never dream, or dare, to run a proposal that did not have the support of a majority of nationalists, they are quite prepared to thumb their nose at the democratically expressed voice of Unionism. The policy is shortsighted because the Government cannot dodge the electorate for ever. If the policy of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is built upon the hope that the process will be bedded down by the passage of time, he has not been reading the collective mind of Unionism very well. There is more opposition to the agreement today than when it was first signed.
  The Secretary of State and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party might choose to believe that the opposition is to the manner of the agreement's implementation,

  769
  but those who operate at the grass roots know better. For my part, I am opposed to the agreement. I am opposed to what it has done in placing unreformed terrorist representatives at the heart of government; in setting up unaccountable all-Ireland institutions; and in releasing murderers on to our streets to re-engage in "what they do best". I am also totally opposed to how the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC has been destroyed under the remit the agreement set.
  My opposition does not stem from the way in which the agreement has been implemented. It is being implemented in precisely the manner that I expected. Those Unionist leaders who now bemoan the way in which the agreement is operating only expose their own lack of political judgment and foresight. For trusting the IRA and being prepared to buy a reduction of terrorism at the cost of their heritage, future generations will curse them. Indeed, they will not have to wait for future generations. The truth is that the IRA always saw the agreement as a transitional process, whose purpose is to divest Northern Ireland of every shred of Britishness and Unionism, and convey it in a steady and relentless process towards a united Ireland.
  During this period of transition, Unionists will have to stomach the elevation of murderers and their still active terrorist organisation. Every concession demanded by the IRA is granted and every wrongdoing is ignored. The House has forced on Northern Ireland standards and procedures that it would not have accepted in any constituency outside Northern Ireland. The evidence of the IRA's continuing terrorist involvement is too legion to list. Its enormity makes it all the more preposterous that the Government refuse to acknowledge that the IRA has broken its ceasefire. They immorally attempt to defend closing their eyes to IRA activity while still rewarding it with more concessions.
  Later this week, the Prime Minister is scheduled to tell the House what he intends to do about the many and continued breaches of the IRA ceasefire. Sinn Fein-IRA still enjoys the fruits of the Belfast agreement without feeling obliged to conform to the rules of peace and democracy. My judgment tells me that the Prime Minister will refuse to take any action that punishes Sinn Fein-IRA for these terrorist activities and will merely, as the BBC put it at the weekend, show it the yellow card again.
  The Government have lost their credibility and have no policy that is capable of delivering good government and providing stable political structures in Northern Ireland. The Government cannot deliver that goal without Unionism, and they cannot bring Unionism along with the present policy. Change is needed, and should not be resisted by any politician who believes in democracy. The Government might find democracy awkward and it might obstruct their carefully laid plans, but the duty of us all is to find a way through.
  Without wishing to sound confrontational, the truth is that, like it or not, the time is not long off when the Government and the House will be faced with the reality that a renegotiation is unavoidable. The balance of the process will have to be redressed, to be capable of providing the one ingredient that is demonstrably absent and palpably needed, which is Unionist consent.
  10.8 pm
  Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) makes her case. I think that most people would rather have peace through the political process, or even a flawed agreement, rather than killing and no peace. Events in the middle east show what a terrible alternative there might be to the political process. We do not want to return to the bad old days in Northern Ireland.
  Before the House rises for the summer recess, I want the House to consider the role of BP in Colombia. I shall quote from an article that appeared in Labour Left Briefing in March about "the latest capitalist misbehaviour". The article reads:
  "BP's oil pipeline companies are refusing to pay compensation to 300 peasants in Colombia whose livelihoods have been ruined. The families were forced to abandon their land after two pipelines passing through their farms caused extensive environmental damage. The families now live in acute poverty in shanty towns in the city of Medellin."
  The Government have been involved in this issue; they met the legal representatives of the local farmers on 23 April this year. The Government's line has been that BP's role is a matter for the Colombian courts, but the Government have not been critical of BP, even though it has acted in clear breach of the Government's voluntary principles, which were launched in December 2000, after dialogue between the businesses that operate in Colombia and local non-governmental organisations.
  Although that was a voluntary agreement, it stressed that oil and mining companies should assess the risks to human rights of their activities, including the use of private security firms. The Government said that their voluntary principles could produce real benefits on all sides, but they did not produce benefits to those farmers and their families in Colombia, and BP ignored them anyway, yet the Government are still not critical.
  What about the court case that the Government put their trust in? Well, it is unbalanced—peasant farmers against one of the richest multinational companies in the world. The lives of those 300 farmers and their families have been devastated. Violence was used to get them out. Colombia is a violent country, as we know, and the fear must have exceeded the injustice that those people must have felt—it must have been enormous.
  Let me add that the article in Labour Left Briefing also states:
  "BP is the largest foreign investor Colombia, a country with the world's highest trade union murder rate. Ninety members of Colombia's oil workers' union (USO) have been murdered since 1988, six in the first three months of 2002. BP's drilling sites are militarised and the company refuses to meet the union or allow them to visit drilling sites. An army brigade is dedicated to defending oil infrastructure in Casanare, the region where BP operates, and has been implicated in extra-judicial killings. BP also employs a private security firm, Defence Systems Limited, a London-based company set up by former SAS members, now being investigated by the Colombian state prosecutor for allegedly training the Colombian police in lethal counter-insurgency tactics"—
  very much in breach of the voluntary agreement that the Government launched. The Government have been weak on that issue and, as I have said, they have not been critical of BP.
  I shall give another example. I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary—he was then at the Foreign Office—and I sent him a copy of the 8 March 2002

  771
  edition of Middle East International. I pointed out that a leaked document from the Sudanese Government showed that a Canadian oil company, Talisman and Lundin Oil, had been directly involved in similar activity. The document said that
  "fulfilling the request of the Canadian company, the armed forces will conduct cleaning-up operation in all villages".
  The article reported that
  "over 1,000 government forces swept through Ruweng county, killing scores of civilians and burning more than 6,000 homes—reportedly 60 per cent. of the total in the area."
  I protested, saying that the Government should protest to the Canadian Government about that. I have had a reply, but there has been no protest whatever from the Government, and we now know the reason: their own near complicity in washing their hands of BP's role in Colombia when human rights abuses take place there. The Government refused to protest to Canada because, presumably, the same sort of action was going on in Colombia, with a British company.
  Globalisation is supposed to be about free and fairer trade, but if that includes oil companies bullying peasant farmers, such as those in Colombia or Sudan, public acquiescence in globalisation will be very severely damaged, and the Government should take that on board.
  Those BP executives have shamed Britain by their actions in Colombia, and the Government are wrong to handle the issue with kid gloves and to turn a blind eye to such human rights abuses.
  The so-called free press in this country is not doing its job either. The media have not properly reported what happened in Colombia. They should bring those executives to account and force them to apologise. Every now and then we see Japanese executives apologising on television when they have done something appallingly wrong and shamed Japan. They are forced to apologise publicly, and BP executives should be forced to do the same concerning their displacement of farmers in Colombia.
  Anji Hunter, the Prime Minister's personal assistant, who went on to work in public relations for BP, is an honourable, decent woman, and she should not have to apologise for BP's shabby treatment of those farmers. Those executives have brought Britain into disrepute; they should apologise, and the Government should take a stronger stance on such human rights abuses.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The House will not be surprised to hear that I wish to raise an issue that I have raised before in the House—the future of the Royal Hospital, Haslar. I had hoped to spare the House this speech because after a massive demonstration—a rally and march of 22,000 people, parliamentary petitions and enormous public support in south Hampshire—it looked as though we were moving in the right direction.
  After extensive consultation by the health authority, we won as a concession an accident treatment centre at the Royal Hospital to be manned 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. After the hospital was moved to the clinical management of the NHS on 1 April 2001, it looked as though plans were set for the future. Indeed, Haslar was one of the first hospitals in the country to be designated a diagnostic and treatment centre.
  772
  For the few colleagues who have not heard me speak on this subject before, I should give the background. The Royal Hospital, Haslar is the only military hospital in the United Kingdom, which is why it was necessary, after the decision in December 1998, for the Ministry of Defence to close it so that it could be moved to civilian control in 2001. It looked as though I might be able to save the House this speech. It looked as though we were set fair for progress because, after all, no Government would spend millions of pounds building up a hospital as a diagnostic and treatment centre only to close it in 2007, but I find, to my disbelief, that that is the current policy.
  The new chief executive of the hospital's trust, Alan Bedford, whom I do not criticise personally, has said that he is considering the possible closure of the accident and treatment centre at night because the number of patients does not justify its being open. The hospital was apparently rather slow to apply for support from foreign doctors, nurses and paramedical staff to run the centre.
  My response is that if that well-equipped centre is not being used widely, as we hoped it would be, surely it is up to the trust and those in the NHS who are responsible to advertise its facilities more widely, to instruct ambulance crews to take more patients there and to encourage local doctors to make their patients aware of it. The centre exists, and the fact that it is not being used is the fault not of patients who go elsewhere but of those who fail to advertise it properly.
  It looked as though Haslar's future was good, with the clinical management under the control of the NHS, which meant that the defence medical services were able to use the facilities.
  Colleagues present this evening know the importance to the armed forces of defence medical services. The fact is that in key faculties—general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, general medicine and anaesthetics—defence medical services are approximately two thirds, or even three quarters, short of the specialists they need. I believe that we have 26 anaesthetists rather than the 121 we need. That defence medical services can be improved by closing the only military hospital and instead opening facilities in Birmingham that are not much loved by defence medical services personnel beggars belief.
  I felt that we were on the right course. If anyone thinks that I am angry about what has happened, they are wrong: I am very angry that the Government are continuing on their course. The accident treatment centre is under threat and it is planned to build up the diagnostic and treatment centre as a production line for orthopaedic and other surgery until 2007, and then to close it. How can a Government contemplate closing a hospital that has nine operating theatres, state of the art out-patient facilities, excellent telecommunications facilities, and high-technology imaging facilities, when the whole of the area in which it is situated knows that it is desperately needed?
  Ms Drown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Viggers: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but even though the debate will probably continue until about midnight, I am conscious that we are short of time and many colleagues still wish to speak.
  Much has changed in the world of hospital planning since the original decision to close Haslar was made—originally, the closure was not to take place before 2002.

  773
  There has been a vigorous debate on the issue of admitting all accident and emergency cases to district general hospitals, the consequences of which are congestion in those hospitals and often bed blocking when it is not possible to move people back to local hospitals. Daily, patients are taken by ambulance at speed to the district general hospital at Cosham, the Queen Alexandra hospital. There, they wait an average of four to six hours, and they are often then taken back by ambulance to Haslar because there are not the facilities to admit them to the Queen Alexandra hospital.
  Some years ago, split-site working was not thought acceptable for doctors and nurses. There was a belief that all facilities should be concentrated in super-hospitals. However, there has since been a relaxation of views and now the feeling is very much that local hospitals—especially diagnostic and treatment centres that can provide a production line for surgical cases—provide excellent places in which to train doctors, nurses and other medical staff, and that split-site working is not at all unacceptable.
  The concept of telemedicine has been gaining currency, and Haslar is a world leader in telemedicine, using its radio and television links to provide telemedical advice to UK civilian facilities. It is, moreover, the centre of the telemedicine world, so that patients, whether they are in Haslar or Sierra Leone, can benefit from Haslar advice.
  It is admitted that defence medical services are in crisis. I submit, as I did last Thursday to the Secretary of State for Defence, that if we wait for a major crisis in defence medicine—for the armed forces to face a large number of casualties—before we act, we will be too late. The Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health should work together, provide some of that much-vaunted joined-up government, recognise that their plans to close Haslar are wrong, change course and retain Royal Hospital, Haslar within the national health service.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: By definition, mine is not a winding-up speech because several colleagues have yet to speak, but I wanted to respond to some of the points that have been made before making my own contribution.
  I recall during the last Adjournment debate, before the Whit recess, commenting that we had not had the pleasure of the company of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I assumed that that meant that the Royal Hospital Haslar had been reprieved, given a full new status and a fresh lease of life. Sadly, that is obviously not the case, and we wish the hon. Gentleman well in his continuing campaign.
  Several themes have run through this evening's debate. We often raise individually matters of constituency concern that are echoed in other parts of the country. That is surely the proper role for Parliament. We are of course here as representatives of our constituency, but we are also here to try to ensure that issues of national interest that override constituency concerns receive the attention of the national Parliament. I wanted to spend some time trying to draw out some of those themes and to add to them from my point of view.
  The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is not present at the moment, but we recognise from what he has said as well as from the media attention given to
  774
  the city of Hull that the former ruling group has led it into considerable difficulties. No doubt the Government will be trying to assist him and his city to retrieve the situation.
  A number of Members have referred to the local government settlement. It would be remiss of me if I did not put it on record that Cornwall would suffer if the options currently proposed were put into effect without dramatic reform. It is interesting to hear Members who represent constituencies in places such as Buckinghamshire and south-west Surrey complain that they have been short-changed. We in the more remote and peripheral parts of the United Kingdom think that it is we who have been short-changed. Other Members from all parties who are present would agree with that.
  I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on empty homes. That problem is not exclusive to the major cities of the north; it can be found in many other parts of the country. From his description, it is obvious that his town has a deep-seated problem. It will be important to see whether the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals, which were put before the House last week, will address the problems of lack of take-up of accommodation and lack of investment in housing stock in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's—as well as my own. In my area, we have suffered from the Ministry of Defence deliberately keeping properties empty for long periods, and then from those properties not being made available to the local authority but being handed instead to an arm's-length private company that does not make them available for local needs.
  I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) concern about the A303. I spent quite a lot of time in a traffic jam on that road while coming in this direction on Saturday. I was amazed to find that people seemed to be leaving Cornwall as well as going to it at this time of year. Why should anybody want to leave Cornwall, which is of course the most beautiful place in the UK to spend July or August?
  Mr. Heath: They were going to Somerset to visit Camelot.
  Mr. Tyler: Before my hon. Friend gets excited, it must be said that many more people were on the other carriageway heading west. Even so, I entirely endorse what he said about that particularly dangerous stretch of road. Any Government who put the issue of increasing the speed by which people can travel on the road on the same basis as a safety issue are clearly missing the point.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) made an important point not just about the Commonwealth games but about Britain's international reputation for attracting such a major sporting event and taking full advantage of it.
  In my more responsible past before I fell into the deep trough of parliamentary representation, I was vice-chairman of a national park committee. I therefore very much share the view of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that we must ensure that the management of the national parks retains a local as well as a regional and national element. If we do not do so, the people who live in the national parks will not feel that they have proper influence over planning.
  I am sure that all Members will, in recent weeks, have experienced similar difficulties to those of the hon. Member for. Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in obtaining visas

  775
  for visitors from the Indian subcontinent. Surely now, with the relaxation of tension in the area, the Government should he doing what they can to try to ease that problem.
  In my past, as well as being a councillor, I was a part-time beekeeper, although I had to give it up when the bees stung me. I am a sensitive soul and they managed to close both my eyes completely so that I looked like a Mongolian baby. After that, I kept well clear of bees. However, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is not in his place at present, made an important point about the beekeeping community and the difficulties that it experiences with insurance.
  In a curious way, that linked to the next speech: the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) also described how insurance companies have an extraordinary hold on all sorts of activities. In his case, it was a colliery. It surely cannot be right that when we as a nation invest large sums to maintain—in that case—a colliery, although it could be any business, it should be put on the rack by the failure of insurance brokers to find cover for the business. It is absurd that public money invested in an operation can be put at risk by the private company that provides insurance and by the insurance market.
  I confess that I did not hear the whole of the speech made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) as I had left the Chamber for a restorative banana. He deployed an extremely good argument about the enormous number of telecommunication masts that are apparently being permitted—it must be said—by a fast-track procedure introduced by the Conservative Government.
  One of the most absurd situations that has ever occurred in planning was when that Government, who had an opportunity to do so, did not tell telecommunications companies, "Yes, you may have a mast, but you can have only one mast in an area for all the operators". However, once the Government had given consent to one operator. it was difficult to resist applications from others. It would have been perfectly possible to insist that all operators use the same mast. I am given to understand that there would be no technical problems; indeed, there would be real cost savings. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford said that there were 29 applications in his constituency. The position is similar in my constituency and I very much regret that the then Secretary of State did not insist on joint use of masts.
  I wanted especially to refer to the support expressed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for the parliamentary education unit. A number of us are working hard in various ways to try to make this place more than an interesting historical monument, although I am very fond of it. This is a great building; it is an interesting example of the results of an architectural competition. Indeed, the architects who won that competition were ahead of their time in many, many ways.
  What is most important for visitors to this place, however, is that they see a working democracy. That is what it should be all about. The hon. Member for Burnley and I sit on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and one of our most important functions is to try to ensure that Parliament is seen to be modern, working for the community and the nation, rather
  776
  than merely an interesting museum full of old pictures. I very much hope that various proposals will make that more evident in the future.
  The parliamentary education unit is a critical part of the way in which we deploy our resources to ensure that people better understand what we do. I hope that it will reduce the extent to which people feel detached from, and unable to contribute to, the political process.
  It was interesting to discover that Members throughout the United Kingdom have so much in common. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) complained about policing in rural areas. Her area is not as rural as mine, so I can claim that we have an even greater crisis—as other hon. Members might do. too. The problem is more about retention than recruitment, however. Retention of police officers is a major problem, not only in the south-east but in many parts of the country.
  We have lost a large number of specials. Having been a member of a police authority, I know of the important role that specials can play. Of course, many of them go on to become full-time police officers, so the number of specials who have been recruited or retained may not be really indicative of the problem. The important point is whether total police manpower is sufficient for a particular area.
  The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised two issues that are important to our communities—I know that many other hon. Members have similar views—the danger, inconvenience and disturbance caused by fireworks and more seriously by airguns. There cannot be a single Member who has not had complaints from individuals or communities about the increased use of airguns, which can be incredibly dangerous, by all ages, not simply teenagers or youths. The hon. Lady rightly pointed to the additional problem of police officers believing them to be real firearms, from which they must protect the community.
  I fear that I do not follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) in her depressing analysis of what she termed the failure of the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. Members on both sides of the House may share her concern about the future in Northern Ireland, but they have yet to see any new proposals that they would wish to support to try to make the existing peace process work.
  Before I come to my own contribution, I want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). I do not know the details of the case in Colombia to which he referred, but it is important that we have accurate information on such issues, because BP, a major international company, is based in Britain.
  My brief contribution—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Brief?"] We have got all night I am given to understand—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is speaking.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I wanted to speak briefly about the funding of democracy. Not only is it claimed that the Labour party is in considerable debt, and is no doubt beginning to reconsider its position, but the Conservative party is in difficulty because it has to raise a great deal of money

  777
  from a small number of individuals. The case for the state funding of political parties rests on the fact not that some parties are getting into financial difficulties, but that otherwise all political parties, especially those in government, can get into a position where they may be suspected of selling influence, which is dangerous for parliamentary democracy. Whether the parties concerned are hugely in debt is not the issue.
  I want to cite—this is almost incredible—the leading article in The Sun last Friday, which urged the leader of the Conservative party to accept that it could have a long-term problem if a small number of organisations or individuals effectively continue to fund political parties. The perception is inevitably that they are buying access and influence, and whether it is Lord Ashcroft or the RMT, that is damaging to the health of parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Burns: What about Lloyd George?
  Mr. Tyler: That was a long time ago, and my father did not know Lloyd George. However, I readily admit that Lloyd George did what he did—I have accepted in the House that this is a valid criticism of past political funding—precisely because, as now, parties had lost touch with their membership. In his case, he had lost his party and was no longer party leader. The only way in which he could maintain financial support was to sell honours.
  I respect the decision of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House not to give what the Leader of the House described as an oath of loyalty to the RMT union. They are right, but we must go the whole hog and recognise that any organisation or individual who pays millions of pounds into the coffers of a political party gives the impression that politics and democracy are for sale. That is wrong, and I hope that before we return from the summer recess the Government and, indeed, all political parties, will reassess their position and introduce concrete proposals for the House to discuss.
  10.39 pm
  Bob Spink: I hope that, after a number of years, I can be promoted to the ranks of the usual suspects in these debates. The defining characteristic of the usual suspects is that each cares passionately about constituency matters and his or her special interests, as we heard from a number of excellent speeches tonight. They care so much that they give up their time to promote those interests, and Parliament and the country are richer for that. I thank all hon. Members for staying on tonight and for their diligence in being in the Chamber.
  Unlike the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I thought that the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) made a particularly effective contribution, with which many hon. Members would associate themselves.
  There are many issues that affect my constituency. My constituents are overtaxed by a Government who promised much, but who have delivered little. My constituents feel that things are getting worse. However, I shall put party politics to one side tonight and review a few issues in a non-political way, starting with the important matter of the funding of hospices.
  Little Haven hospice in my constituency receives about 2 per cent. of its funding from the Government. That figure is far too low. We want to retain Little Haven and
  778
  other hospices as essentially voluntary bodies funded largely by charitable donation, but they need a proper amount of Government funding. That should be nearer 18 or 20 per cent., not just the miserly 2 per cent. that they currently get, which is a disaster for the sick children.
  I raised the matter about a year ago in Prime Minister's questions. I am not the only local Member to raise it or to fight for hospice funding. My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is in his seat, for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who is in his place, have all supported improved hospice funding, and I congratulate them.
  I warmly congratulate the local Evening Echo and the Newsquest newspaper group on their campaign to get fairer funding for our hospices. They are running an effective campaign, and have particularly caught the public's imagination with their latest headline, which reads, "Fair deal for our sick children". I could not have put it better. The hospices do the country, the health service and families that need to use them a very great service. I take the opportunity to congratulate all hospice staff, both medical and other, throughout the country on what they do.
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that some months ago, when leading a debate on hospice funding, I brought to the attention of the House the fact that the previous Administration had given a promise that in the medium term—that delightful unspecific phrase—Government funding would be found to match the private sector funding on which the vast bulk of hospices depend. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate that in 18 years it was not possible for the Conservative Government to deliver on that commitment?
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman has shown a long interest and a great expertise in the hospice movement, and he makes a valid point. I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to make that point tonight.
  I could not speak in one of these debates without mentioning Canvey Island's third access road, in addition to the possibility of Canvey Island getting a rail terminus station on the island to help to alleviate congestion and to provide a safe environment for the island people. That is a matter on which I continue to press.
  I hope that the hon. Members for Basildon (Angela Smith), who is on the Treasury Bench tonight, and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is not in his place, although he is an assiduous attender of the House. will urge their local councils not to try to block the needs of Canvey Island people, whose road must pass through their areas. Their councils are stopping Canvey getting its third road, and we must put an end to that.
  Tomorrow, there will be an announcement about airports in the south-east. I am sure that it will be of great interest to my constituents, as well as to people elsewhere along the Thames estuary and in north Kent. I shall have to wait and see what is said, but I believe that, while taking the opportunities that a new airport would offer and allowing this country to move forward and compete on a wider global scale by providing the necessary new infrastructure and capacity, we must ensure that our constituents' interests are carefully looked after. I am sure that all hon. Members will seek to protect those interests.

  779
  I should like to raise two specific issues about housing. I refer first to the very serious issue of homelessness. Castle Point has more than 30 families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is absolutely disgraceful, and it is outrageous that Castle Point borough council did not even take the trouble to bid for money that the Government made available to deal with homelessness a few months ago. I hope that we can get our local council to focus on the homelessness problem and provide the resources that are needed to deal with people—especially those with families—at a very vulnerable time in their lives.
  I welcomed the announcement that the Government made a few months ago that they would eradicate the practice of keeping homeless people with families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but I was saddened that they later qualified their statement—this Government often seem to do so—by saying that they intended that homeless families would not be kept in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks and that that aim would not be achieved for 18 months. I would like a far more stringent target to be set to help homeless people.
  My second point about housing concerns the Deputy Prime Minister's recent announcement about the increase of building in the south and particularly in the Thames gateway area, which includes my constituency. We simply do not have any brownfield land available. We shall have to release green-belt land to build the 2,400 houses that have been forced on us by the Government's Serplan announcement of a year ago. We do not know where the vast numbers of houses are going to be built. We still have not identified plots for them. We know that we shall have to release chunks of the green belt, but my constituents do not want that to happen, not only because we are already overdeveloped in terms of the existing infrastructure, but most of all because no announcement was made about providing new infrastructure to deal with those new people and cars. No new roads were announced; in particular, no announcement was made about Canvey Island getting another rail station or a third road. No new doctors' surgeries or genuine offer of new housing that would be affordable to teachers, medical staff and policemen were announced. That causes me great concern and I shall fight the overdevelopment that is being forced on my constituency.
  Mr. Pike: Would not better regional policy to develop jobs, industries, commerce and so on in other parts of the country help to deal with problems in the south and also those in my constituency, which are the exact reverse? Sensible regional planning is important, as a lot of the jobs no longer need to be in London and the south.
  Bob Spink: I do not see what is wrong with the planning that is currently undertaken by the county councils. I do not see why we need another body to do yet more planning. To me, that smacks of the dead hand of more and more bureaucracy being piled on to us by a Government who are basically control freaks.
  Hon. Members would be very disappointed if I were to speak in this debate without finishing on my usual serious note by referring to the Cyprus problem. I ask the Minister for clarification following Lord Hannay's reported
  780
  comments implying that there might be a suggestion of a solution based on two states in Cyprus. That would not be a fair settlement. It would not be sustainable in law, in international diplomacy or in justice. We must stick to our position—the position that I always thought the Government held, and that I trust they still hold—that Cyprus will gain accession to the European Union irrespective of the settlement. Turkey must not have the ability to frustrate the entry of Cyprus into the EU. We must also stick to a solution of a bi-zonal, bi-communal single state.
  The talks between President Clerides and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, have not yet borne fruit, and I am sure that that brings great sadness to everyone in the House. We have not had the breakthrough that we hoped for, but I congratulate President Clerides on his flexibility and his positive approach to those talks, and I encourage him to go forward. We need flexibility to achieve a solution, but only a solution based on a single Cypriot state, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that matter for us when he winds up the debate.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I want to raise two points tonight. The first concerns the care of the elderly in Birmingham. My constituency regards itself as very different from Binningham, but it comes under Birmingham for local government purposes. We are, therefore, affected by the way in which Birmingham social services department handles the care of the elderly. I want to draw to the House's attention the last early-day motion that appears on the Order Paper, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the shadow Health Secretary, and a number of other hon. Members. It is early-day motion 1670, and it states:
  "That this House expresses its grave concern about the crisis in care for the elderly in Birmingham and elsewhere in England; is alarmed that over 80 care homes have closed in Birmingham over the last 18 months; and recognises that a main contributory factor to this crisis is the decision by Birmingham Social Services to pay substantially less than the real cost of providing care for the elderly in care homes and that this practice is threatening to force good quality independent care homes out of business, causing grave distress and confusion to vulnerable, frail and elderly residents in Birmingham."
  I have quite deliberately not sought to raise this matter in the House over recent months, because I simply could not believe that it would not have been sorted out by the Government and Birmingham city council. It is astonishing that the situation has been allowed to reach this stage. A constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Pearce, who is the chairman of the Birmingham Care Consortium, has raised with me the treatment of his members, and it is no exaggeration to say that it is a thoroughgoing scandal.
  More than 80 care homes for the elderly have closed in the last 18 months—as is set out in my hon. Friend's early-day motion—and the trend continues. There is no contingency plan in place to accommodate our elderly residents. Indeed, over recent days, three more independent care homes for the elderly have given notice to Birmingham social services that they, too, will have to close. It is no exaggeration to say that below-cost fee levels and the absence of contracts for funding are putting 1,600 elderly residents of independent care homes at risk.
  There are 452 beds blocked in Birmingham hospitals, because Birmingham social services department claims that it does not have the funds to move elderly patients

  781
  into care homes, because it has spent the money elsewhere. Eighty-six independent care homes refuse to renew service contracts for elderly care because the terms dictated by Birmingham social services involve below-cost fee levels, and it would be financial suicide for them to accept them. There will also be no referrals for consortium members who do not sign up to the unsustainable contracts that Birmingham city council has put forward.
  It is possible that Government funding for Birmingham's elderly might be enough to cover the costs, but that money is being spent elsewhere by Birmingham social services, and not reaching our elderly folk. The problem is that, as the situation has got worse and worse for elderly people in my constituency and throughout the Birmingham area, the Government have said, "It's nothing to do with us. We have given the money to Birmingham." The council, however, says that it does not have the money and cannot meet the costs that it should be meeting.
  The picture is, in fact, infinitely worse, given that Birmingham social services pays its own homes double the fees that it is willing to pay the independent sector. It pays its homes at least £522 per resident per week, as opposed to the £260 on which it expects other homes to survive. That represents a subsidy of nearly £13.5 million a year for its own homes. The situation is outrageous. Because of the way in which local government operates, we delegate this power to councils. We expect them to accept responsibility and ensure that elderly people are looked after in homes, rather than behaving in such an appalling way.
  There is a shortfall in provision of elderly care beds in Birmingham anyway. It has been calculated that if an elderly person remains in hospital, the cost will be some £1,700 per patient per week. We have done our bit: Conservative members of Birmingham city council, both behind and on the scenes, have pleaded with the social services department to put the matter right. In a debate in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford eloquently made the case for Government action. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, went to Birmingham only last week and met owners of homes for the elderly to hear what they had to say.
  It is vital for the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible. Birmingham's social services department is a shambles. Last week the department's head, Sandra Taylor, resigned. It is a rather unattractive feature of political life that this civil servant, rather than her political masters, should take responsibility; but in any event she has gone, and no doubt someone else will be appointed. Money is not reaching front-line services. If Ministers believe that they have given Birmingham adequate funds, I can only say that they are not getting through. Ministers must act now to resolve what is becoming a long-standing problem.
  Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend recall that under the last Government money in the social services budget for personal social services was ring-fenced, so it could not be drained away to other services?
  Mr. Mitchell: I do indeed. My hon. Friend will have noted that there is a rather better system in Scotland—a new system ensuring that money allocated specifically to the care of elderly people reaches those people.
  782
  Most outrageous of all, surely, is the blatant discrimination practised by Birmingham's social services department against the independent sector. How can it justify admitting that it must pay £522 a week for its own homes, while expecting independent homes to get by on half that? It is a thoroughgoing scandal, and it must be addressed. I do not know whether responsibility lies with the Labour Government or with Labour-controlled Birmingham city council, but I do know that it lies with one of those two Labour entities. Elderly people in my constituency and throughout the Birmingham area are suffering, and it behoves the Government to remedy that rapidly.
  My second point relates to the Pension Service, and the way in which elderly people can gain access to it. I have raised the issue on a point of order. It was subsequently raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) in business questions, and last Thursday it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), shadow leader of the House, again in business questions. It has been raised no fewer than three times by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.
  The issue is this: how can an elderly person who is, or is about to be, a pensioner gain access to the Pension Service? Can that person ask for a home visit, or must he or she rely on the decision of the provider? In other words, will this be the elderly person's choice or that of the bureaucrats in the Pension Service?
  That was raised in public evidence in the Select Committee. In the Committee, I said to a senior and respected official in the Department for Work and Pensions:
  "I was very encouraged when the Minister told us that home visits would be an integral part of the service, that it would be a matter of choice for pensioners whether or not they could ask for home visits."
  I was somewhat surprised that the Department said that it was
  "clear that whether or not a home visit took place was very much up to The Pension Service and that it would be used where there was no reasonable alternative available. Those are different approaches to this."
  Were we being spun by the Minister, or was he correct and the brief wrong? The senior civil servant said:
  "We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit."
  Neither I nor the Select Committee was satisfied with the response.
  On 4 July, the Minister received a letter from the Select Committee, in which we noted that apparently two completely different explanations were given to the Committee. The first was by the Minister for Pensions, who said:
  "Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres … or receiving home visits … By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time.—[Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 4.]
  One would have thought that the position could not have been clearer.
  When we asked for an explanation and the Minister came to the Dispatch Box because, as I have tonight, I gave him notice that I was going to raise these points,

  783
  he made many cogent, interesting and helpful points but did not answer the specific question. Nor did his helpful letter of 10 July. It pointed out that
  "around 67 per cent. of customers in the pensioner client group expressed a preference for contacting the organisation by telephone",
  and that
  "The Pension Service is aiming to have a dedicated local service nation-wide."
  It pointed out a range of things but did not deal with the point that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the Chairman of the Select Committee have made.
  In the letter, the Select Committee makes clear its concerns. In his responses, the Minister for Pensions did not address the Committee's chief concern, which was related solely to the provision of home visits by the Pension Service. Again, the Chairman of the Select Committee made it clear that the Minister said:
  "Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres such as the one at Motherwell or receiving home visits and participating in other local activities"—[Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 4.]
  but the senior civil servant, Ms Alexis Cleveland, stated during her oral evidence on 12 June:
  "We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit."
  She reinforced that view in a supplementary memorandum where she said that the local service was not designed to be a visiting, on-demand service and that the department would expect such occasions to be rare.
  It is clear to anyone who listens to the evidence that those two views cannot both be correct. Either, as the House was told by the Minister for Pensions, pensioners will be able to choose whether to receive a home visit or use the telephone; or as is clearly consistent with Government policy, the official was correct in saying that the department will choose which customers receive a home visit based on need. In the response to the Select Committee, nothing gainsays those remarks.
  There is a most important point at issue. Parliament has not been treated with the candour that we have a right to expect. Hundreds, possibly hundreds of thousands, of pensioners have been misled. They have been told that the choice is theirs but it is not: the choice is the officials'. Nor is the model the Pension Service has developed capable of delivering the choice promised to pensioners by the Minister.
  To some it may seem a small point. Some of my hon. Friends may have become cynical about what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box. They may say that all Governments behave like that. I do not believe that that is true. I ask the Minister to come to the House before we go into recess, to apologise to the House and to thousands of elderly and vulnerable pensioners. This is a point of substance and the Government need to address it before we adjourn.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I want to raise several issues before the House adjourns for the summer recess. Today, I had the honour to introduce a Bill to give
  784
  protection to endangered species. The current law, with an offence that is not arrestable and carries a maximum sentence of two years, is crazy. My Bill would make the offence arrestable and extend the maximum sentence to five years. We all enjoy watching films about dinosaurs, but we do not want to create any more, which we will unless we protect endangered species.
  I am also very concerned about law and order. We meet in the House in order to make laws, but increasingly I feel that my constituents are less than happy with the way in which laws are enforced. Police morale is at rock bottom, and our constituents are often disappointed when the crimes that they report are not followed up. It does not matter what the Government say, because the general public feeling is one of a lack of confidence in law enforcement.
  I have asked the Library to conduct an analysis—it will take a great deal of time—of just a few Acts of Parliament, to find out on how many occasions the laws have been enforced. In 1988, I had the honour to introduce the Protection against Cruel Tethering Bill, which became an Act of Parliament, yet I had a letter only this week from a constituent complaining that she had reported horses being inadequately watered and improperly tethered but that absolutely nothing had been done.
  My constituents complain that when they ring the local police station they are put through to a call centre—it could be in Chelmsford or, on another occasion, in Croydon—with no local knowledge. That, too, has caused a reduction in confidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) mentioned mobile phones. The House may be aware of my own prejudices on that issue. Earlier today, we debated a related subject. It really is not good enough for Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and pray in aid the Stewart report and sit on the fence, when we all know that the law is an ass. Local authorities do their best to turn down applications, but the operators get their way on appeal.
  Ministers have said that it is not lawful to drive a motor car while talking on a mobile phone, but every single day I see a legion of people with the mobile tucked under the chin, having detailed conversations and taking not a blind bit of notice of what is going on. Two months ago, someone was convicted and went to prison for three years because he had been talking on a mobile phone and killed someone, but the law is scarcely ever enforced.
  Only recently, we had the case of Dr. Shipman, a man who has been found guilty of murdering 250 or 280 patients, and who perhaps killed another 100. That had been going on since 1975. What confidence can the general public have in law enforcement when this doctor's performance was not even properly monitored? It is an absolute disgrace. If I was one of those murdered patients' relatives, I would not be satisfied with the way in which the matter seems to have been dealt with so far.
  On law enforcement, the Government have kindly sent us all a consultation paper called "Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud." In 1993, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to provide for voluntary identity cards; indeed, I think that that was the first time such a Bill was not opposed. Ten years later, the current Government want us to reflect on their consultation paper, but I need not do so. I cannot understand why any law-abiding citizen would object to identity cards. Before beginning my speech, I thought,

  785
  "Shall I take out my wallet, which looks a bit bulky?" It is stuffed full—not of money, unfortunately, or of losing lottery tickets, but of plastic cards. If we had identity cards, that particular problem could be dealt with. If this House is to be relevant to our constituents, we must consider carefully the fact that it is no earthly good our continually passing laws and not providing the work force to enforce them.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for West Chelmsford, mentioned the crisis in care homes. My hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and I are served by the excellent Southend Times, and I certainly praise the efforts of the editor, Michael Guy, in trying to highlight a number of related issues. One headline ran, "Care Homes in Crisis: One home a month is closing in Southend". I should point out that, of the 659 constituencies in this country, mine is 33rd in terms of the number of senior citizens.
  David Cormack, chief executive of Southend Derby and Joan organisation and chairman of South Essex Care Homes Association, told the Southend Times that care homes are closing because the proprietors are not being given enough money to run them at even a tiny profit. Also, as a result of the standards and guidelines imposed by the National Care Standards Commission—the regulatory body that took over responsibility for ensuring good standards in the care home sector—it has been pretty well impossible for such homes to remain viable.
  We are all familiar with the story of the lady—she was well into her 90s—who went on a starvation protest a few weeks ago because she did not want to be moved from her home, and who eventually died. I served on the Committee that considered the Care Standards Bill, which eventually became an Act. We tried then to warn Ministers that most elderly people are not bothered whether their room is 2 in too small, or whether their home is the all-singing, all-dancing affair that such homes used to be; what matters is the love and care given by the proprietors. Although I have a great deal of time for the Minister with responsibility for such matters—he always tells me that he is doing his best to allow the owners of care homes to meet the new standards—I very much regret the fact that so many care homes have had to close.
  In the Whitsun Adjournment debate, I raised the case of Mrs. Narwar's son, who was imprisoned in Egypt together with several other people after going on a trip there. Unfortunately, he is still in prison. Baroness Amos is dealing with the matter, and I understand that she must do so very carefully. However, I am finding it increasingly difficult to convince Mrs. Narwar that her son is being treated in the way that she would hope. Several important issues of justice are involved.
  The Friday before last, I had the privilege of shadowing—in the nicest sense—a nurse at Southend hospital. I arrived at 6.50 am, when the night shift was just finishing, and for more than three hours I saw at first hand the excellent work that is being done at that hospital. Mrs. Janet Cornell, a constituent of mine, wrote recently to say that we only hear about the poor aspects of the NHS, but, she continues:
  "We as a family are so appreciative and realise the enormous cost of all the treatment extended to my husband, and we are so very grateful."
  786
  She goes on to praise the wonderful work that is done at Southend hospital. However, I also saw at first hand how pressurised the staff are.
  Another constituent, whom I will not name, wrote to me recently about what he considers to be the abuse of the ambulance service. I do not mean to attack our GPs, who do magnificent work, but the constituent told me of a dialogue with a GP whom he had wanted to come out to see his wife. The doctor was a little short with my constituent on the telephone, refused to come out and suggested that he call an ambulance. My constituent eventually did so, and the ambulance driver told him that this was not a one-off event, claiming that locums are increasingly taking that course of action because they, too, are under great stress.
  Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) thought that he would not need to mention his hospital, I did not think that I would need to mention the Palace theatre, because, as far as I was concerned, its future was not in doubt. However, unfortunately and dramatically, it has now closed. Several of my constituents feel that that is because of a lack of funds from Eastern Arts. I shall not take this opportunity to have a go at the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), but apparently Colchester theatre gets £450,000 as a subsidy, whereas the Palace theatre in Southend gets nothing. That cannot be fair.
  Bob Russell: I am grateful for that welcoming introduction. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that since Colchester is the cultural capital of Essex, it is only right that it should receive appropriate funding?
  Mr. Airless: The hon. Gentleman has probably had a good dinner, but I have not yet had the opportunity to do so. Colchester is a wonderful town, but the hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates its position. It is a disgrace that the Palace theatre receives nothing while Ipswich and the other theatres get a lot of money.
  Recently, we staged an Agatha Christie festival, which was feted not only in the UK but all over the world. It was absolutely first class. The present owners of the theatre, managers Green and Lenigan, thought that Eastern Arts would give them £250,000, but they received nothing. The Palace theatre had intended to run a young people's theatre summer school. It was fully booked, but it has had to be cancelled. I hope that the Minister will have a word with the appropriate Department to see if we can obtain some extra funding.
  Several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), have said that their towns will win the bloom contest, but Southend, which won the gold medal at the Chelsea flower show, will be a tough act to beat. I hope that hon. Members will consider visiting Southend for their summer holidays this year. I am delighted to say that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting recently visited Southend and we are grateful for the interest that he showed in the town and, in particular, in our pier, which is the longest in the world. We have recently opened a new lifeboat station, we have millennium illuminations and a new sewage disposal system—I doubt whether that will be of huge interest to visitors. We are constructing the new pier entrance, including the installation of a lift. We are reconstructing the area of the pier head that was substantially damaged

  787
  by fire in 1976. There is also the renovation of walkway shelters and pier-head toilets and the installation of CCTV cameras. I hope that all these things will act as incentives to visitors.
  Let me move on quickly to my three final points. Many Members feel strongly about religious broadcasting. The appropriate Department has been sending us letters with which I feel slightly uneasy. Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding tax-paying people throughout the country have been asking for Christian broadcasting for more than 12 years. Yet the Department for Culture, Media and Sport still justifies its ban by continuing to say that its aim is to satisfy as many viewers and listeners as possible. I join the organisation in asking the Government to remove the disqualification of religious persons from the draft communications Bill and to replace it with Parliament's previous provision for Christian religious broadcasting.
  My penultimate point relates to Westborough's residents association, which was keen that I should raise the issue. I attended its meeting a few days ago—one of the best-attended residents' meetings to which I have ever been. Of the nine wards in my constituency, Westborough is probably—I know that no local residents will take offence—the most deprived area. When we had a Liberal-Labour council—I am glad to say that we now have a Conservative-controlled council in Southend—and we tried for assisted area status, Westborough would have been one of the two wards to receive some European funding. However, it was taken out of that.
  There is a large old timber yard in Fairfax drive, and unbelievably there is an application—I understand that the council is to debate the matter at full council on Thursday—to turn it into a residential area. The one thing that Westborough does not need is more housing. There are so many people living in cramped conditions—97 people per hectare. The area is within the top 10 most densely populated wards in the United Kingdom. It is not good enough that local residents be given more housing. There is asbestos in the timber yard and there is great difficulty in getting access to the area. Many residents have been complaining that there is need for another school. We need more doctors and another community centre.
  Local residents understand what the Deputy Prime Minister said about wishing to build 200,000 houses in the south-east, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the residents of Westborough. Given that the average population density is 4.2 people per hectare and that in Westborough it is 23 times that, the situation is unacceptable.
  I enter the summer recess on a jubilant note, because yesterday I completed my charity walk. I mentioned on another occasion that I would walk down every road, cul-de-sac and lane in my constituency. The walk was completed yesterday. I do not quite know how the pedometer works and I am slightly nervous to find out exactly how far I walked. I have given the instrument to a council official. However, I can tell the House that we hope—I say "we" because I did the walk with my black labrador Michael—that when all the money is collected, we will have raised more than £10,000. That will be shared among three charities. I do not feel guilty about putting my feet up for a little while during the summer
  788
  recess. I hope that all other right hon. and hon. Members and those who work so hard to support us in the House have a happy and enjoyable summer recess.
  11.24 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I should like to make a plea for help to the deputy Leader of the House. For some time now, I have been trying to get from Ministers information, help and assistance for my constituents, but to no avail. I shall begin with an issue that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), will find very easy because he already knows about it, and it will come as no surprise to him that I want to raise it again today.
  In July 2000, the Prime Minister visited Exeter in the company of the Parliamentary Secretary, and he made a promise to my constituents about the A30 between Honiton and Exeter—a road covered in concrete that I discussed in an Adjournment debate on 16 January 2001. The Prime Minister promised the residents who live adjacent to the road that the Government would resurface that very noisy road. In fact, it is deemed to be the most noisy road in Britain.
  The fact that a Prime Minister took the trouble to intervene personally in a somewhat localised matter was seen by local people as a very good sign, but I am sorry to have to report that, despite my raising the issue on the Floor of the House and having exchanged umpteen items of correspondence with Ministers, we still have no idea at all when the road will be resurfaced. So the encouragement to my constituents to celebrate following that prime ministerial promise has turned rather sour. Indeed, the Government have said that a list of all the noisy roads in Britain will be produced and that the A30 will be assessed to find out where it will come in the pecking order.
  On 23 August 2000, I received yet another letter from the then Minister, Lord Whitty, who said:
  "I will ask the Agency to write to you again in the autumn when we should have further news on when resurfacing work on this length of the A30 will commence."
  We are still waiting. I suppose that if I were asked to choose a title for the issues that I want to raise tonight, I would say, "Nothing to do with me, guv"—spelled either "gov" or "guv." Both spellings apply because all these are matters where the Prime Minister or other Ministers have become involved in something, made a promise and then somehow everything has run into the sand.
  I tell the Parliamentary Secretary, whose constituency neighbours mine and whose beaming picture appeared next to the Prime Minister's on that fateful day in July 2000, that I know of no one in the Government who could have more influence on that matter than the hon. Member for Exeter, so I hope that I will not have to return during the debate on the next Adjournment and spoil his Christmas by asking about the issue yet again.
  Mr. Tyler: As I mentioned earlier in the debate, I travelled on that the road just last weekend and, yet again, I was amazed at the surface. I wonder whether the hon. Lady can tell us when, how and why that surface was specified for the road in the first place. It is quite extraordinary.
  Mrs. Browning: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the Adjournment debate on the subject that I initiated on

  789
  16 January 2001, he will see that I raised the issue before the road was built. He will also see all the detail of how I was misled, orally and in writing, by the Highways Agency and, subsequently, by the contractors, which assured me that what he travelled on last week was something called whisper concrete. [Interruption.] Yes, even the Parliamentary Secretary is laughing, and well he might. Nothing about that surface has anything to do with whispers; it is the noisiest road in Britain, and we would like it to be resurfaced, so I leave that with him.
  I have another problem—this time, with education. Uffculme secondary school in my constituency has written to me, and I visited it as a result. We keep hearing Ministers talking about increased funding for education, yet this school for 11 to 16-year-olds, which is, I hasten to add, very good—people move house so that they can get their children into it—has very serious problems. As I was aware that the recess was coming up, I wrote to the Minister for School Standards on 31 May, asking for a meeting, but I did not get a reply, so I had to write again. Only yesterday, nearly two months later, did I get a letter saying that the Minister would not grant my request for a meeting because he did not think that it would help matters as far as Uffculme school is concerned, as the matter is really one for the LEA.
  I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) at the beginning of the debate, which seems almost a lifetime ago, and I recall him saying that after constituents visited him last Saturday, he had secured a meeting with a Minister for this Wednesday, just five days later. I want to put it on record that I am now monitoring the occasions on which Ministers refuse me a meeting. I say that as someone who served for three years as a Minister and never once refused a meeting to a Member of Parliament of any party who asked if they could come and see me. Indeed, sometimes, from the Dispatch Box, I would offer Members a meeting because I felt that it was in their best interests to come and discuss a matter with me personally.
  I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not write to Ministers for trivial reasons. Uffculme school is having severe problems. It is having to consider the fact that its statutory obligations cannot be met. Governors were told that if they did not set a balanced budget, the LEA would dismiss them and take over the running of the school. This is not a sink school; it is one of the best schools in my constituency. It has produced a budget but it simply does not provide enough money to meet health and safety requirements, to provide the statutory curriculum, to pay creditors or to meet statutory obligations on special educational needs.
  The problem is not that Devon LEA has not passed on the full amount from the standard spending assessment. In his letter to me the Minister admitted that the LEA has passed on the full SSA. Clearly, something is wrong with the education system when such an excellent school, which has never had such problems before, cannot meet its statutory obligations.
  I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that when MPs have these serious problems it is not acceptable for Ministers to dismiss them, two months later, by refusing a meeting and thinking that a letter will do—it will not. If I cannot get the Minister to meet me, then I may apply for an Adjournment debate after the recess. I should not have to drag Ministers to an Adjournment debate just to
  790
  have a dialogue with them, but it is up to them—I am sure that they look forward to such exchanges with great pleasure.
  I turn now to hospices, another matter of which the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware because he and I cover an area of Devon that shares a hospice in Exeter. Hospice care is funded by the local authorities in Exeter, Mid Devon and East Devon. and it has a crisis. I listened with great interest to what a Labour Member said about the previous Conservative Government, but I have to say that under that Government hospices in Exeter received higher funding than they do today. The situation is dire.
  On 7 May, I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), on behalf of the hospice in Exeter, and I am still waiting for a reply. I asked whether the Department would consider interim funding to help the hospice with its serious problems. Its budget has been so reduced this year that although it asked for £235,000, it got approximately £20,000, which leaves a massive shortfall. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have heard about those figures in his constituency postbag.
  It is no good Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box and giving us a lot of hype about health funding if, on the ground, our hospitals and hospices cannot continue and are worried about closing. In the same way, I do not want to hear any more waffle from the Chancellor about education, education, education, when excellent schools such as Uffculme cannot meet their statutory obligations.
  Ministers appear to be quite divorced. They come to the Dispatch Box to make great flowing statements, but when we get down to the nitty-gritty and say, "Yes, but what about this or that in my constituency?", the answer is, "It's nothing to do with me, guv." We are told that it is the LEA's responsibility, or the health authority's—as though Ministers do not have ongoing responsibility for what happens after they leave the Chamber. It really will not do.
  There is another matter that the Government do not want to know about, which I find astonishing. When they entered office, the Government suddenly discovered e-commerce—and a lot of other e-things. The Prime Minister even introduced a whole new plan for delivering e-government. One of the keys to extending opportunities, especially for businesses, is to ensure that throughout the country people have access to broadband, which speeds up access and makes life a great deal easier. However, in my part of Devon, which is rural, small businesses situated in remote areas do not have access to broadband.
  One of the problems is that BT has held back from proceeding with the changes that it needs to make. BT has told my local business community that there is not enough demand for broadband, so it will not make the investment. It is a chicken-and-egg situation: if BT does not make the investment, people will not latch on to broadband as a means of accessing the web more quickly and more extensively. There are other options, and on 21 May I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking when broadband was likely to be made available to the 01884 exchange area in my constituency. I received a rather anodyne reply that. in essence, said that it was nothing to do with the Government; the decision was for the companies concerned.

  791
  That is not compatible with what we hear Ministers saying at conferences and at the Dispatch Box, or what we read in the Government's reports. One would think that they were at the forefront—at the cutting edge. Ministers keep telling us about the Government services that are to be rolled out through e-this and e-that, but if people cannot access those services, or can access them only from certain parts of the country, it is up the Government to prod BT and other companies to make the services available and to ensure that there is equal opportunity of access throughout the country.
  What I have described this evening is a mere soupcon of the dozens of cases that I could have raised. One gets the impression that the Government are at the forefront on some things, but the moment they are challenged on the detail, suddenly it is nothing to do with them; it is for someone else—anybody but a Minister. If I have to return at the Christmas Adjournment debate and raise the same cases yet again, or if I have to raise another set of cases in which Ministers have been reluctant to respond to letters promptly or to answer straightforward written questions, or they have refused meetings—I do not ask for meetings every week; I only ask when the issue is an important one. such as Uffculme school—I hope that the Speaker will take it upon himself to examine the opportunity that we Back-Bench Members of Parliament have to get the sort of service that we deserve from the Government. We are not getting that service at the moment.
  I hope that it is not only Conservative Members who are not getting that service. I hope that there is no discrimination in terms of access to Ministers and prompt replies. There are Cabinet Office rules about replies to Members of Parliament, but the rules are not being adhered to, especially in respect of the most difficult questions. I hope that the Minister has a lovely holiday and that he does not have to travel too often on that noisy road, but I hope also that he will put the issues that I have raised tonight at the top of his list, because they are extremely important to the people of my constituency.
  11.39 pm
  David Burnside: Like many hon. Members who have contributed to this summer Adjournment debate, I would have liked to take some time to promote the positive aspects of Ulster, Northern Ireland and tourism in the Province. I would not, like the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), promote holidays overseas. I would promote holidays in the United Kingdom in order to help the very depressed tourism industry following foot and mouth and the events of 11 September. If I made such a speech, it would probably be more like that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), as Northern Ireland has had a very wet summer. In fact, we have not even had a summer.
  I would like to be promoting tourism in my constituency, encouraging people to go to places such as Royal Portrush, which makes Muirfield look like a pitch and putt course when the wind is blowing heavily off the Atlantic, and to be promoting all the great attractions of Strangford and Northern Ireland generally, but I shall take this opportunity to raise the continuing problem that depresses us and makes those of us who represent
  792
  Northern Ireland constituencies more serious than we want to be and not just concentrate on constituency matters.
  We are suffering a serious lack of consent and confidence among the Unionist people in the Province on the big issue of the constitutional arrangements—the Good Friday or Belfast agreement. Nearly all of us in this House have differences of opinion, but we have a basis of respect for each other. Although we question each other and argue, respect is felt in this House across all the political parties, but there is no trust left in Northern Ireland for the word of this Government.
  One sees from the press over the weekend what stage that lack of trust has reached. The president of Sinn Fein-IRA, Gerry Adams, declared over the weekend—this is rich: if it were not a farce, it would be a joke—in an interview on the 30th anniversary of the terrible atrocity of Bloody Friday:
  "I have been active, and it's a matter of public record, in Sinn Fein for all of my time within Republican politics".
  He then added:
  "I have not been a member of the IRA".
  Is that the reality of the debate? The leader of the republican movement in Northern Ireland need only listen to the public response in the Province to such a statement. It is a con job and a farce.
  Unfortunately, the Prime Minister said at Hillsborough a few weeks ago that he had complete faith and confidence in Sinn Fein's commitment to the peace process. The law-abiding people of the Province do not share that sentiment, and that lack of confidence crosses the Unionist community and a large section of the constitutional nationalist and Catholic community. There is no trust any longer.
  Before the House rises for the recess on Wednesday, I hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to outline how they define a breach of the IRA-republican ceasefire. I hope that they will consider the events in Colombia since 1998; after the Good Friday agreement was struck—the sequence is important—$2 million was earned in training terrorists, and that drug money was taken to the United States of America to fund Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make public before the recess, first through this House, the fact that Sir John Chilcot's interim report, which has been on the right hon. Gentleman's desk for more than a week, outlines only one line of inquiry into the break-in at Castlereagh special branch: Robert "Bobby" Storey, a senior commander of the provisional IRA in the city of Belfast. Perhaps the Secretary of State wants his summer recess and does not want the pressure from this House.
  Let us consider everything in the four years since the agreement, especially the treatment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I find it rich to listen to English, Welsh, Scottish and Government Members talking about declining morale in the police and the need for more police on the beat when I see the finest police force in the United Kingdom decimated and humiliated.
  All the evidence proves that the hopes and expectations of 1998 have been dashed. We need new hope and new support from democrats. We do not want to enter a spiral of depression where we constantly say that things can

  793
  only get worse—they can get better. The democrats elected to this House from Northern Ireland—the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the constitutional nationalists, the Social and Democratic Labour party Members, who do not come to this place often—can come together and provide an alternative.
  In the Liberal Front-Bench presidential address that we heard some time ago, we heard the usual claim that there is no alternative. There is an alternative to compromising the democratic process and to making it morally corrupt and dishonest to the people of Northern Ireland. We need something better.
  There is another way forward. I have admired the Prime Minister's fight against international terrorism. The stand that he has taken has won support on both sides of the House. I ask him to remember the promises that he made—the promises that he has broken—and to come to the House and try to restore some confidence for the Unionists and law-abiding people in democratic processes.
  It is no good supporting a flawed process that has failed, even though it received much support and consent from just over half the Unionist community and a large majority of the nationalist community. We are where we are. To keep pushing a failed and flawed process shows a lack of judgment on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government.
  I ask the Prime Minister to renegotiate with the democratic parties in Northern Ireland to find something better. That means facing reality and marginalising Sinn Fein-IRA who have been exposed by their performance, by their continuation as a terrorist organisation, by their criminal activities in Northern Ireland and Colombia, by Castlereagh, by their crimes and shootings and by the lies, deceit and hypocrisy that come from the mouths of their spokesmen and women every day of the week.
  Let us cut out the deceit and the lies and find a better way forward for a peace process for Northern Ireland. It is wanted by democrats and the majority of people, both Protestant and Catholic, and we are not getting it at present.
  I am sorry that I had to raise this issue. All matters are important to our constituents; the smallest problems with hospitals or schools are every bit as important as the big constitutional issues in Ulster that I have been talking about. However, those issues affect the whole United Kingdom. The peace process is not working for the benefit of democracy in Northern Ireland.
  The House may have to meet during the long recess. We are coming to a crunch so I hope that the House will meet again. This subject may be depressing but it will not go away. The Prime Minister must take hold of what he has let go in Northern Ireland—the trust and consent of democratic people.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: Before the House rises for the summer, I want to raise two issues. The first relates to the possible effects of recent changes to regulations governing local authority property searches. The second—to row in behind my parliamentary neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Southend. West (Mr. Amess)—is the siting of mobile telephone masts.
  794
  On 1 July this year, new regulations came into force governing property searches for house purchases. People already have the statutory right to paid access for such information under legislation such as the Local Land Charges Act 1975 and the Town and Country Planning Acts. A number of people pay solicitors or private search companies that specialise in such work to carry out property search inquiries on their behalf when buying a house. The new regulations require additional information to be made available as part of that process, particularly on the so-called CON 29 form, which is integral to the procedure. A number of local authorities, however, appear to be using the regulations as an excuse to restrict private search companies' access to their records, while offering to facilitate the work themselves for a fee.
  That change threatens the livelihood of a number of successful personal search businesses which specialise in undertaking detailed property searches on behalf of prospective purchasers and now risk being shut out by the local authorities which hold the records. The Government have acknowledged that the issue is genuine, and set up a working group some months ago to draw up guidelines under which local authorities and personal search companies could agree a level playing field in light of the new regulations. Lengthy discussions, however, have still not produced a final set of workable guidelines on which both sides can agree, although the regulations are already in operation. As I understand it, that impasse has led to the prospect of legal action between personal search companies and local authorities.
  If a suitable compromise cannot be reached, the matter may have to be referred to the Office of Fair Trading for an independent review and assessment of whether the local authorities are behaving anti-competitively in seeking to prevent small businesses, which are effectively competing for that work, from accessing records which are intended to be publicly available by law. That is an important matter, not only because it affects the livelihood of a number of successful small businesses across the country but because it threatens to delay the process of house purchase for purchasers and ultimately vendors too. I therefore urge Ministers to take the issue seriously and see what can be done in the near future to alleviate the problem and prevent the situation from deteriorating any further.
  The siting of mobile telephone masts is of increasing concern in my constituency, as it is in many others. I have one particular case in Hockley, where local residents are very much opposed to a proposal to erect and operate a new mast in the middle of a residential area. Many Members will have experience of dealing with the problems generated by applications from mobile phone companies on the siting of telephone masts and will know of complaints and petitions from local residents strongly opposed to such proposals. They will also know that those protests are conducted against the backdrop of a set of planning rules which are heavily weighted in favour of the applicants. Masts under 15 m in height are classified as permitted development and local authorities have limited powers to object to applications, a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford. They can concentrate only on aspects such as aesthetic qualities, visual amenity and environmental grounds. They are effectively prevented by planning policy guidance note 8—PPG8—from objecting to the siting of masts on health grounds, even though the vast majority of concerns relate to precisely that issue.

  795
  Most of us are not qualified scientists, and I certainly do not feel qualified to proffer a definitive opinion on the health implications of such masts. However, because of the uncertainty surrounding the situation, the Government commissioned an eminent scientist, Professor Stewart, to look into the issue in great detail. He concluded that the evidence was not decisive either way and, as a result, recommended the use of the precautionary principle in the siting of such masts. In particular, he recommended that they should be situated away from schools and other places where young people, who may be more susceptible to the signals emitted by masts, might gather.
  Crucially, however, the law has not kept pace with the implications of the Stewart report, and does not allow local authorities to adopt a precautionary approach of their own, effectively leaving them with Hobson's choice—sticking up for their residents and rejecting the application, knowing that it is highly likely that under the current guidelines, the mobile telephone companies will ultimately win on appeal, including the award of costs against the local authority, or giving in, very much against the wishes of the people who elected their councillors to represent them.
  The roll-out of so-called third generation or 3G technology will only worsen the situation, with a requirement for yet more masts in residential areas. It is difficult to escape the suspicion that because the Government have accepted some £22 billion in payments from the third generation licence operators, they are particularly reluctant to change the law. However, I believe that the law does need to be changed to allow the precautionary principle recommended by the Government's own appointed expert to be taken into account, and to permit local authorities to take potential health effects fully into consideration when deciding on mobile phone mast applications. That is necessary not just to allay public fears, but to seek to restore integrity to the planning process, which is hopelessly lopsided when it tries to determine these issues.
  I end by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) in support of the hospice movement, including Little Haven, which is in his constituency. It is a children's hospice, for which I had the privilege of opening a shop in Rayleigh just a few weeks ago. Hospices deserve much greater Government assistance for the very important work that they do. I add my support to the call tonight for them to receive more funding.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I am delighted to take part in the debate. It was in danger of becoming an all-Essex affair, with so many Essex boys in the Chamber.
  I want to raise an issue that is important for my constituency and for Oxfordshire as a whole: that of adult placements, the social service function that is a form of foster care for those over 18. It is provided under the aegis of social services in Oxfordshire, as it is around the country.
  I cannot mention social services without making a brief reference to the funding crisis that Oxfordshire faces. "Crisis" is an over-used word, but I believe that it applies to social service spending in the county of Oxfordshire.
  796
  Although we are spending £20 million more than what the Government think we should spend—the standard spending assessment—damaging cuts are being made to home care, respite centres and other support for children. Many of the most vulnerable people in our community are suffering from such cuts. We have launched a campaign in Oxfordshire, particularly among Conservative Members, to ask the Government to think again about the funding of social services. That campaign will continue. The Government must react and relent.
  The issue that I intend to raise tonight is not funding, but regulation. I say to the Deputy Leader of the House on the Front Bench that it is a matter which the Government can sort out. Adult placements are a very small part of social services provision in Oxfordshire, as they are in the rest of the country. The budget in Oxfordshire is less than £1 million, and it is not being cut. There are 94 carers in Oxfordshire who take adult placements, and they look after some 250 users across the county.
  Who are the users? Some are people who were previously in foster homes with families, who have now turned 18; some come from care homes; some have learning or other difficulties; and some have been referred from the mental health care trust. They are all people who have had a difficult start in life. Many cannot cope entirely on their own, and need love and care. The people who look after them are, in my view, heroes and heroines in our society.
  The carers provide care and love in their homes—not in an institution, but in a family and a home setting. They provide an excellent service not only for those who are placed there—people who have had a bad start in life—but for all of us. Just consider the huge cost if all those people had to be in institutions of one kind or another. It is therefore a service that we should support.
  So what is the problem? Quite simply, it is that the providers of adult placements have been made subject to the Care Standards Act 2000 and must register with the National Care Standards Commission. I do not believe that the Government intended to over-regulate the sector. Indeed, in one of their many documents, "Care Homes for Younger Adults", they say:
  "The Government is keen to support adult placement schemes and not to overburden individual carers attached to such schemes."
  Those are fine words, but I am afraid that what has happened is quite the opposite. The adult placements have been completely overburdened and the situation will get worse, as I hope to show.
  We all want the highest standards in social services and proper safeguards. We all know what can go wrong if the wrong sort of people are put in charge or there are no proper inspections. Having considered the problem, however, I believe that it is unnecessary for adult placement providers to register with the National Care Standards Commission and to be registered under the Care Standards Act 2000.
  On Friday, I met social services representatives in Oxford. They explained what happens to people who volunteer to take on an adult placement. They must be assessed in a process that involves more than 40 hours of interviews. They supply references from two referees, one of whom is interviewed by social services. Their home is visited by social services and the decision about whether they can take an adult placement is decided by a panel.

  797
  It is right that the process is long, as those involved will be looking after vulnerable people in their own homes. Indeed, it resembles the process associated with adoption or becoming a foster parent, as it is very rigorous and involves the most rigorous checks. We can see that that already happens, even before we consider the Care Standards Act and the National Care Standards Commission—the new pieces of bureaucracy that the Government have put in the way of the adult placement service. That is why they are making a fundamental mistake. They are dealing not with care homes, but with the homes of ordinary people in which caring is taking place. Those two things are not the same.
  I recognise that it is not enough to say that that extra bureaucracy is unnecessary; I want to show that it is damaging. I should like briefly to quote a letter that I received from social services:
  "As information on the National Minimum Standards for adult placements and associated regulations is becoming available to Adult Placement Carers in the county, this has been generating considerable anxiety about the degree of responsibility placed on them as individuals, and the degree of intrusiveness within their own family lives."
  I repeat that these are ordinary people who are taking adult placements in their own homes. The letter continues:
  "One of the department's Adult Placement Carers has already resigned, and many more are considering doing so."
  I must report that since that letter was written, we have lost six of our 94 carers. People who have been cared for in private homes will be put into institutions because of the new regulations and bureaucracy. Those are real people and they are subject to real effects. What is happening is not necessary and it is not progress.
  I say to the Government that it is not too late to act and I shall suggest the remedy in a minute or two. First, I shall explain how the registration process and standards are causing the services to be withdrawn. I shall begin by pointing out the extent of the paperwork. Let us assume that we belong to a family that wants to take an adult placement. We have been in the process for many years and been inspected by social services, had the interviews and been in front of the panel. The matter has been agreed, but this new bureaucracy has suddenly come into our lives. First, we get a registration pack, which is about an inch thick. We then have to look through the national minimum standards for care homes, which are 75 pages long. We then receive the national minimum standards for adult placements, which are another 40 pages. As if that is not enough, we then have to read the care homes regulations, many of which apply to us—a further 27 pages. That is 142 pages landing on somebody's doormat. Imagine the impact on the families that have been providing adult placements for years, but suddenly face all that bureaucracy.
  My next point concerns bureaucracy. At the end of the national minimum standards—I have been through them very carefully, as you would expect Mr. Deputy Speaker—there is a set of policies that someone accepting adult placements must accept. There are 33 of them. Let us remember that we are talking about a family home; it would have to accept policies on communicable diseases, infection control, equal opportunities and race equality, food safety and nutrition, individual planning and review,
  798
  and whistleblowing—there has to be a policy on whistleblowing. An ordinary family must have policies on all those things.
  Mr. Francois: That is madness.
  Mr. Cameron: It is madness, as my hon. Friend says.
  The third reason that all this is unnecessary and, more than that, damaging is the extra cost involved. I am talking about the extra cost not of bringing in the standards, but of registering. That used to be £1,000 per scheme, so the Oxfordshire scheme would have to register, and it would have cost £1,000. Under the new rules, each provider must register at a cost of £100. If there were 90 of them, that would cost £9,000. That is another extra cost for the providers of this very useful service.
  Next, I shall deal with some of the policies and standards. I shall start with registration. Someone who wants to provide this service might already have been a foster parent for many years and their child might just have turned 18. They would get a document through their door from the National Care Standards Commission, which states:
  "Applicants must provide the documentation and statements asked for, they must be able to demonstrate that they are suitable to provide or manage the service, and the proposed service is suitable to meet the needs of those who will be using it."
  That is tough stuff. They will have to do all those things. The next page of the document states:
  "To be sure that your service can meet the standards for registration, you need to refer to:
  Care Standards Act 2000
  Children Act 1989 …
  National Minimum Standards—Care Homes for Older People"
  and so it goes on and on. There are about 20 different long documents to which an ordinary family taking someone in would have to refer. I can think of nothing more likely to put off the people who provide that excellent service. There is evidence that that is already happening, and we are already seeing the service being withdrawn.
  The rest of the standards—the minimum standards that the Government have produced—contain many sensible and good things. A lot are, I have to accept, a statement of the obvious. For example, standard 13 states:
  "The registered person supports the service user to have access to and choose from a range of appropriate leisure activities."
  Those are statements of the obvious, and perhaps unnecessary if someone has already had their 40 hours from the social services department and been passed by a panel.
  Some of the standards dwell slightly on the legalistic aspect and almost appear to be trying to set up a legal tension between the adult who is being placed and the person providing the service. There is a lot of talk about "Service User Plans", and I worry that the person being placed might feel that the process would be open to legal challenge. As I have said, however, it is not the standards that are wrong but the enormous amount of bureaucracy with which people providing this service will have to deal.
  I say all this with some urgency, because I believe that things are going to get worse. I mentioned briefly the position of foster carers. Let us imagine foster carers with one or perhaps two children with them. When those children turn 18, the carers will suddenly have to register

  799
  and do all those things. In one case in Oxfordshire, this has already happened; the parents have thrown in the towel and the child will have to go into an institution. It is a tragedy when that happens, because it is completely unnecessary.
  The other reason I think things are going to get worse is—as Oxfordshire social services department has told me—that there are more standards to come. We shall have a whole new set of these things for domiciliary care—for when we are caring for someone in their home rather than in our own—and there will be yet another set of standards for day care.
  Let us take the example of a registered provider who has adult placements. Let us assume that he or she cares for some people overnight in his or her own home, offers some day care, and sometimes goes to people's homes to provide domiciliary care for them. That provider will have to work through and be inspected under another three sets of standards.
  The answer to this problem is simple: the Government should say that it is not necessary for adult placements to be registered under the Care Standards Act 2000, and that the Act does not apply to them. They should also not have to be inspected by the National Care Standards Commission, because they are already policed effectively by social services.
  Let me give just one example—children's services. Each social services department's fostering scheme is regulated and registered by the new bodies, but that does not apply to each foster parent. Why can we not do the same in the case of adult placements? It makes sense. The services I have mentioned are dealt with in that way. Care homes, rightly, are registered nationally and must be inspected by the new bodies; foster parents are not. Surely the same should apply to adults.
  I ask the deputy Leader of the House to consider this over the summer as a matter of urgency. I think that the Government have made a mistake. I do not think they meant to get it wrong; they simply opted for unnecessary over-regulation, which is damaging a service provided in Oxfordshire for some of the most vulnerable people—people who need our help. That is a tragedy that we could do without.
  12.10 am
  Mr. David Rendel: I hope to make a speech that is rather different from those made by most Members tonight. Most of them have raised—as is their right—difficulties or worries relating to their constituencies. My purpose is different: I want to give the House some good news, which I hope all Members will use on behalf of male constituents in their early or middle sixties.
  My constituent, Mr. Gordon Ashby, aged 63, falls into the group now entitled to the winter fuel payment following the ruling of the European Court on non-discrimination between the genders. On hearing that he might have a chance to claim the payment retrospectively, Mr. Ashby obtained the forms needed to enable him to make his application late in the spring of 2000. Unfortunately for him—and, obviously, for his wife—his wife became ill that year and had to go into hospital on several occasions.
  800
  Needless to say, Mr. Ashby's energies were mostly focused on looking after his wife. The forms that he had obtained in the spring were put aside until he had a better chance to fill them in and send them off. He did not send them off until July 2001, at which point the Benefits Agency turned down his claim on the ground that it was too late: it should have been returned by the statutory claim date of 31 March.
  The form did not state that there was a cut-off date for the application. A letter accompanying the form sent to Mr. Ashby, dated 5 May 2000. merely said:
  "It would be helpful if you could return your completed claim form, along with any supporting documents, within 4 weeks."
  Mr. Ashby allowed the four weeks to expire by a good many months, whereas the letter had merely said that it would be "helpful" for him to return the form.
  When Mr. Ashby finally got round to claiming his payments in July 2001, he was amazed to find that he received his payments for the two previous years—because there was no cut-off date for those—but was denied a payment for 2000–01. It seemed logical to him that, after an initial payment had been made for earlier years, subsequent payments would be automatic, given that he had clearly reached the qualifying age. After all, sadly, none of us gets any younger as the years go by.
  Mr. Ashby appealed against the decision. He went through the appeals system, right up to a tribunal. The tribunal, however—like all the earlier appeal bodies—upheld the original decision. Interestingly, in the decision made on 21 November 2001, the tribunal admitted that the explanatory note did not specify a deadline for returning the claim form. In dismissing the appeal, it nevertheless stated:
  "This might be an instance when an ex gratia payment is appropriate."
  Sadly, despite that, no ex-gratia payment was made by the Benefits Agency.
  In response to a letter from Mr. Ashby, who got in touch with me in January this year, I wrote to the Benefits Agency again on 5 February to raise his case. I received a reply from the Department for Work and Pensions on 14 March, but that simply reiterated the position as upheld on appeal—that Mr. Ashby's claim was disallowed because it was made after the statutory closing date.
  Mr. Ashby was asked to send in the form within four weeks because it would be helpful. It was absurd that some months after that he should be told that there was a cut-off date. The next step was to take the matter to the parliamentary ombudsman, which we did on 8 April this year. By that stage, we had sent a number of letters, between us, to both the Benefits Agency and the Department; it was some eight months after the initial decision.
  The ombudsman, as he always does, made some initial investigations and started talking to the Department. He has now sent me his final conclusions. I am delighted to say that he tells me that the Department for Work and Pensions has capitulated. Faced with the likelihood that the ombudsman would find this a clear case of maladministration, the Department has paid Mr. Ashby not only his £100 winter fuel payment, despite his late claim, but an extra, well-deserved £50 to compensate him for all the hassle that he has had to go through. A clear injustice has been rectified, although only after a year of trying.

  801
  Now we come to the real reason why I wanted to raise the issue. Potentially, there are implications for a very large number of other men of a similar age, who may have been misled by the Department's failure to make it clear that there was a closing deadline for claims—a cut-off point for sending applications. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister tonight that he will get the relevant Department to write to all the other men whose claims have been turned down because they were late, telling them that they can have their payments after all.
  The Government are always keen to claim that they will ensure that everyone who should get benefit payments of any sort does so when they are due. They must know by now who all the claimants are who have been refused winter fuel payments because they made a late application for the years concerned. I urge the Government to put their money where their mouth is and to send the overdue payments to all those who so far have been wrongly denied.
  12.18 am
  Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is no longer in the House as I thought his speech was both clear and extremely powerful. I hope to be able to follow him on an issue that is not a local matter but concerns the whole of the nation—probably the whole of the world, I regret to say.
  It is clear that the much vaunted and signalled campaign in Iraq seems to be grinding inevitably into action. The United States President has made it fairly clear in speeches to West Point and other establishments that he intends to go to war in Iraq. With the departure of United States troops in Saudi Arabia, their seeking to go to other countries such as Qatar, and the rapprochement between America and Jordan, it is clear that American plans are well advanced but it raises the question: exactly where does this country stand? What decisions have been made by this country? What will be the fate of this country's men and women when and if we go to war alongside America?
  I want to refer to three quotes from the Prime Minister. The first is from March this year:
  "This is not something that just America is talking about. It is something we have to deal with."
  The second quote is also from March:
  "I think we have got to act…if we don't act, we may find out too late the potential for destruction."
  Only last week, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that the lesson of 11 September is that if there is a
  "gathering threat or danger, let us deal with it before it materialises, rather than afterwards."
  It seems clear to me that our Prime Minister has made a decision that we are going to act in concert with the United States of America in a war against Iraq. In fact, our forces are already in action against Iraq. Every day, our pilots risk their lives flying over Iraq. Every day, they come under fire to a greater or lesser extent.
  Our senior military officers have made it clear to naval and other audiences that war is expected in the near future. The commanding officer designate's course, run at the school of infantry for majors and lieutenant-colonels
  802
  who are going on to command battalions and regiments, was told by a senior military source that the officers must be prepared for active service within a few months.
  Our troops are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. I am delighted, and I pay tribute to the work done by 45 Commando Royal Marines and by the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment and the first battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment over there. The soldiers and marines are now back in this country, regrouping, we assume, for further operations.
  We also hear that our garrison in the Balkans is to be withdrawn, or at least heavily run down. What exactly are the plans for Macedonia? The NATO mandate for Operation Amber Fox runs out at the end of October. It is widely supposed that the Euro-army—the European security and defence policy troops—will get their first outing at that stage. Exactly where will British involvement lie? Currently, it is planned that British numbers in Macedonia and the southern part of the Balkans will fall. Should a Euro-group go into Macedonia, surely that will mean that British numbers have to increase. That cannot fit easily with what lies ahead, one assumes, in Iraq.
  We also hear that reservists have been nominated to take over from regular soldiers in Afghanistan. To my best knowledge, that has not happened since a company group of Territorials took over work in the Falklands in the late 1980s. It is a wholly unusual move for reservists to be used in a theatre that is still highly dangerous.
  I want to echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I am a walking example of the work of the Royal Hospital at Haslar. I may not be a very convincing instance of what it can do, but it certainly kept me up and running. I am worried by the state of the defence medical services, and he perhaps rather undersold the problem. If we are going to war in Iraq, we should have 14 field ambulances, but we have only three that are currently operational. The newspapers, at least, seem to think that a conflict is forthcoming—hence all their words about doctors and other medics standing by.
  Last week, the Defence Secretary announced plans for additional defence spending. By anybody's estimate, it is a considerable tranche of money for the armed forces, not just for the war against terrorism, surely, but for whatever operations lie ahead.
  I do not want to take a stance for or against the operation, but I believe that there are questions that the House needs answers to before our troops take part. For instance, what will be the size and shape of the coalition? Will only the United States and Great Britain take part? I hope not.
  What form of initial settlement will there be in the middle east, before our troops sally forth into Iraq? What initiatives will come from America—and, indeed, from the Prime Minister—to solve this most difficult of problems? How will moderate Arab opinion be affected? What exactly is Iraq's involvement with weapons of mass destruction? I hear a lot and I am told a lot, but there is not actually much to see. Is there a real connection? Do we know, before the inspectors are allowed back in, what Iraq's potential is to strike with weapons of mass destruction?
  What are the links between Iraq and terrorist organisations, if any? We have been told that the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda are largely assumed; they are

  803
  not proven. What of the regime change of which we hear so much? If Saddam Hussein is indeed toppled, who will follow him? What treasure will it take from this country, and from the United States and the other allies, to prop up that regime? What guarantee have we that the next ruler will be any better than the one toppled?
  I posit these questions for the simple reason that the House and the nation needs to know the answer to them before we take such measures any further. I understand that the alliance may well be sabre-rattling on a grand scale, and I applaud that. Bringing about defeat without destruction strikes me as both sensible and laudable, but I want to know the answers to these questions, and the House and the nation have a right to know them.
  The last time that British troops were committed not to peacekeeping but to combat operations—in other words, when we sent 45 Commando to Afghanistan—the House was not consulted. I believe that that was wrong, and if we are to go down the route of war in Iraq, this House and the nation should have the chance to voice their opinion.
  12.27 am
  Mr. Andrew Turner: It is a pleasure to be able to address two issues. One is of interest to only a couple of my constituents, and the other is of interest to all of them—and, indeed, to the welfare of many of our fellow citizens on the mainland.
  Mr. X, who is a United Kingdom citizen, met Mr. Y, who is a foreign national, on holiday in March 1998. They kept in touch, met again by arrangement and decided to live together. They decided that Mr. Y would come to England to study and to improve his English, and made such arrangements. Mr. Y entered this country in March 1999 on a student visa, and was given leave to remain until June 2000. Since his arrival, he has lived with Mr. X and has continued his studies.
  In June 2000, Mr. Y applied for leave to remain on the basis of a subsisting relationship with a British citizen. His application was rejected, and an appeal was launched. It was rejected because, at the time that it was made—20 June 2000—Mr. X and Mr. Y had been living together in England for only 15 months. By the time of its rejection—28 September 2000—they had been living together for 18 months. They are more than able to maintain themselves, without recourse to the public purse. Four days later—2 October 2000—new immigration rules took effect. They set out 10 requirements to be met by an applicant seeking leave to remain as the unmarried partner of a British citizen.
  In this case, nine of the 10 requirements were met. The only one that was not—immigration rule paragraph 295D(vi)—requires that
  "the appellant and his partner have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage which has subsisted for two years or more".
  The adjudicator had no problem with the meaning of "two years"; the problem was when that was to be assessed. At the time of the adjudication, the relationship had persisted for two years and seven months. The adjudicator asked for specific assistance in identifying authority, in terms of when that period should be measured, but writes:
  "None has been forthcoming … I have found no authority on the issue myself."
  804
  The Home Office concedes that this is a genuine relationship. The couple have numerous letters of support from friends, neighbours, family and employers; theirs is clearly an exclusive, stable and loving relationship. The adjudicator makes the point that Mr. Y could have sought to extend his student visa, waited a few more months and then applied in March 2001. The adjudicator says:
  "I fail to see how, in good conscience, he should be penalised for rejecting such an easy subterfuge … Were he to apply now … I would expect him to be successful."
  He points out that the decision was made only a matter of days before the European convention on human rights came into force. Finally, the adjudicator says:
  "It ill behoves the Government to compel couples to engage in subterfuge in order to comply with Home Office criteria … I would he ashamed as a representative of the British system of justice to think the Secretary of State would feel justified in taking a narrow and pointless view of this circumstance.?
  The implication is that he would be doing so, were he to reject the application.
  I wrote to Lord Rooker on 6 February on those two points. I wrote again on 18 March and again on 1 May, but I have received no reply. I wrote on 9 May asking for a meeting, but I have had no reply, despite the fact that I was supported by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). In a letter dated 17 May, he says that he believes that
  "a gross injustice is being done here."
  I wrote to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on 24 June, and the right hon. Gentleman wrote on 25 June, asking for a meeting, and again I have had no reply. Still I have heard nothing.
  Mr. X and Mr. Y have been very patient, persistent and wholly honourable in their use of the immigration procedures. I urge the Minister to ask his hon. Friends to get to grips with their responsibilities and make the necessary decisions.
  The second issue is a much more public matter. On 8 March, a drug smuggler was jailed for 26 years for leading an operation to bring a record £90 million consignment of cocaine into Britain by yacht. He and five of his accomplices were caught by 150 Customs officers on the Isle of Wight after the smugglers' landing was hampered by storms at the end of a 3,000-mile voyage across the Atlantic from the Caribbean. They had planned to unload 879 lb of cocaine on a private beach at Orchard Bay house near Ventnor, but the weather and the failure of their outboard motor forced them to deposit their cargo on another beach at Windy bay, about a mile away. They were trapped and arrested after members of the gang had spent hours carrying large bales of cocaine along a treacherous cliff-top path to their destination.
  Officials knew about the smuggling because the men had been kept under surveillance by excise men from the Cowes Customs house, among others. I understand that the smuggler had paid £657,000 for the Orchard Bay property. Customs officers on the island had been tipped off that something big was about to happen, and Operation Eyeful, which was a joint investigation with the National Crime Squad, began. It resulted in the successful apprehension of five smugglers.

  805
  The right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was customs Minister at the time and he welcomed the conviction, saying:
  "This is an excellent result for Customs and the National Crime Squad and demonstrates that by working abroad as well as at home, we can have a huge impact on class A drugs in the UK."
  Therefore it is extraordinary that it should now be proposed that the customs facility on the island should be withdrawn to the mainland. That proposal has met with astonishment and incredulity from all quarters on the island. It is inconceivable that people who are not based on the island could have access to the intelligence that is required in that small community. Those who turn up from the mainland in a motor car with London number plates are unlikely to be as effective as island-based Customs officers in obtaining the necessary information about what is going on. That is the first point.
  Secondly, Cowes is in the process of developing still further as the world's centre of yachting, and a great deal of effort is being made to build up the businesses there. The Customs officers in the Customs house do a bit of all sorts of different things, some of it related directly to Customs and some to immigration because there is no one else there. They provide Customs clearance for boats, which is especially important during the yachting season. They deal with all non-EU traffic and some intra-EU commercial traffic needs for Customs documentation, and they provide import and export document processing. which enables local businesses to have manual endorsement. Finally, the officers carry out checks on movements of small craft and light aeroplanes, using small boats. That is an important role and not one that can easily be done from a base on the mainland.
  Thirdly, much smuggling still happens in the UK, particularly along the south coast through what are called non-canalised points of entry. It is easy to know when people are smuggling when they are going through channels that are conveniently marked red and green in places such as Dover. It is rather less easy to be sure of what is going on along the 57 miles of the coastline of my constituency. The Lord Lieutenant of the island, Mr. Christoper Bland, wrote in the Isle of Wight County Press:
  "I have no doubt we should hang on to the presence"—
  that is, of Customs and Excise—
  "on the Isle of Wight. The island has traditionally been a haven for smuggling and I do not think that anything has changed. It used to be alcohol but now it is drugs and you need people on the ground to combat that. You cannot make arrests electronically."
  This is especially apposite in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.
  That has been added to by the high sheriff of the island, Anne Springman, who reminds me that in the old days the high sheriff was Customs and Excise and a great many other things besides. She points out that the Isle of Wight has been
  "a high-risk area for smuggling over the last 500 years."
  That has been the position, if not for longer. A number of Mrs. Springman's forebears have been high sheriff of the island over that period. She should know. She says:
  "To remove the presence of Customs and Excise Officers for any reasons seems to be absolute madness and leaves the Island as the unguarded gateway into the UK."
  806
  It is not only in the interests of my constituents that I am asking for the Government to take action to ensure that the Customs house in Cowes remains open. That is also in the interests of citizens throughout the kingdom. I ask the Minister to promise before the House rises for the recess that the Customs house will still be open when the recess ends.
  12.38 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I have no illusions at this hour that the House is anxious to hear what I have to say about the debate. Having listened to most of the debate, I know that questions were rightly addressed to the Minister, and colleagues will want to listen to his words. However, it has been noticeable that a number of issues have been raised again and again during the debate by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would be convenient—it might even help the Minister—if I took a few minutes to put these issues into their different categories.
  The issue of regeneration was raised in different ways by the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). The hon. Member for Hull, North asked, interestingly, for the demolition of a number of properties to aid a regeneration project, while the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire talked about the closure of a mine and a jobcentre.
  The reason why those matters are important to hon. Members and their constituencies and the context in which they were proposed is that it would appear that the Government's regeneration efforts are not having the desired effect on the ground in the areas where that should be happening. It is therefore absolutely appropriate for hon. Members to raise the issue to try to ensure that what happens on the ground reflects the rhetoric that we hear nationally.
  A similar thing occurs if one considers what I have broadly defined as planning issues. That definition subsumes housing and telecommunications masts, which more than one of my hon. Friends mentioned. I noted that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Castle Point (Bob Spink) expressed their anxieties—all in their different ways—about the possible impact of the recent rather fuzzy and ill-defined announcements made by the Deputy Prime Minister on housing, for example, and about the likely impact on my hon. Friends' constituencies in particular.
  At the same time, very real concerns are now arising in my constituency about the apparently uncontrolled development of telecommunications masts—something with which the Government claim to have dealt, although it is perfectly obvious from what my hon. Friends have said that the issue is not being dealt with on the ground and that it is still causing very considerable worry.
  The subject of roads came up over and again. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) was the first to mention them. The A303 was then mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but other hon. Members claimed some interest in the A303, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) then connected the A30 to that.

  807
  I know that part of the country only slightly, but I drove down those roads recently. That was a very pleasurable experience for me, but it is perfectly obvious that it is not always a pleasurable experience. The Minister has an interest in that matter as well, so I would expect him to give a very full and informed reply about the A30, A303 and connected roads because his constituents want to hear about it, too. That matter will therefore claim the particular attention of the House.
  Health—in particular, hospices—was mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends. In particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point, for Rayleigh and for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned hospices. I have a constituency interest in the issue, and it interests and worries many hon. Members because there is a feeling that the hospice movement has been shortchanged by the Government. We are repeatedly told that huge amounts of money are going into the national health service, but we would like to hear how much of it is going to hospices, because they must surely have an equal claim on the moneys that go to health and other areas—not least, to the defence medical services, which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer).
  It would appear that those services are now in a state of critical decline. Again, given the boastful nature of what Ministers have said recently about the defence budget generally, I would hope that the Minister could give some reassurance that defence medical services will receive some of that money.
  Under the heading of constituency issues, but rather unusually as this stands on its own, was the point about arms exports made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Again, it appears that the Government are getting into a real muddle about arms exports. The issue is certainly global, but my hon. Friend asked some very specific questions about two specific cases, and I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that they will at least be considered in the DTI and dealt with properly.
  Schools were a subject raised by my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire and for Tiverton and Honiton and by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). There are real local problems with regard to schools. What seems to be happening is that schools are being obstructed and bedevilled by what the Opposition consider to be the centralising tendency. I am delighted to see the Minister for School Standards sitting in his place. I suspect that he is probably here to answer the short Adjournment debate, but I am glad to see him because he should know that bureaucracy is causing a number of real problems in schools, so I hope that he will study this debate tomorrow and get his official to do so.
  Mrs. Browning: I think it fair to say that it was the Minister for School Standards, now in his place on the Treasury Bench, who after two months declined to see me to discuss the important issue of Uffculme school.
  Mr. Forth: I am shocked to hear that. I cannot remember in my five years as an Education Minister ever refusing to meet a Member of Parliament, and I hope that it is not going to become the practice of Ministers, even
  808
  keen, fresh, newly appointed Ministers—in fact, especially not them—to refuse to meet my hon. Friend. I am sure that it was an oversight and that the Minister has made a careful note—in fact, I see him doing so. I expect that my hon. Friend will get an invitation tomorrow—now that I look at the clock, today—to meet him.
  I shall briefly mention what I describe as more generic policy issues that were raised by several hon. Members, confining myself to those who have had the courtesy to return to the Chamber for the winding-up speeches. We heard two particularly knowledgeable and deeply felt speeches from the hon. Members for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and for South Antrim (David Burnside). I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office listened carefully to their speeches. Whenever our colleagues from Northern Ireland speak, we should all listen to what they say.
  The hon. Member for South Antrim made the point that those of us who represent English constituencies should be careful in our pronouncements about matters relating to Northern Ireland, and we should listen that much more carefully when we are given both an update and an analysis by Northern Ireland Members, especially in these most difficult times. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary listened to the points made about the Belfast agreement, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the current extremely stressful circumstances in Northern Ireland. This debate provided an opportunity to get those messages across.
  The hon. Member for Manchester. Blackley (Mr. Stringer) spoke about a far more positive matter, the Commonwealth games, to which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward, and Manchester's success in mounting a world-class sports event. Although, as a London Member, I slightly regret the comparison that he made with London, we have to acknowledge that the London aspect of our national sporting effort has gone badly and repeatedly wrong. I wish that the Government could engineer the same success for London—and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, for Birmingham and this land's other great cities—as we have happily seen achieved in Manchester. I hope that the lesson can be learned and that we can build on it, and that Manchester can build on its success following the Commonwealth games.
  Care homes were discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Witchell) and others. The Parliamentary Secretary will understand that so repeatedly is that matter being raised now that it is one to which the Government must turn their attention. We do not want spin or the sort of silly assertions that have been made that everything is all right and there is more money in the Budget; our point is that it is the regulatory regime that is driving care homes out of business and denying places to elderly folk who need them so much.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newark took us into foreign and defence policy, raising several important questions about our potential involvement in Iraq and Macedonia. Those matters will be raised more frequently in future, because there is a feeling of anxiety, which was reflected in my hon. Friend's remarks. With the House about to go into the long summer recess, we are all nervous that some of those matters might be progressed rather rapidly without the House being able to have any input. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something to us about that. At the very least, Members on

  809
  both sides of the House would want to be reassured that such matters will not be dealt with in the absence of any parliamentary input or involvement. The subject causes great anxiety among Members of all parties—not least, I suspect, among Government Members.
  If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I think I have said quite enough. I have tried to do justice to a long, good debate; I counted 27 contributions to it. The sheer scale of interest in and contribution to the debate has, if nothing else, fully justified the stance that we on the Opposition Benches took in opposing the Government's attempt to restrict this debate to a pathetic and minuscule three hours. I therefore hope that the Government, and the Minister in particular, as he has influence in these matters, will have realised the interest in such Adjournment debates and will from now on follow this example and allow the debate to find its own length.
  Having said that, I look forward along with the rest of the House to hearing the Minister's detailed reply to the points made in the debate.
  12.51 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Many issues have been raised during 28 speeches and several hours of what has been a very civilised and highly interesting debate that has ranged from the future of Cyprus to the difficulty of finding health insurance for bees. I shall do my best to respond to as many issues as I can. If I am unable to do so, I shall pass hon. Members' comments to ministerial colleagues and ask for a full response to be sent to them as soon as possible.
  I congratulate all those who have played their part in contributing to this evening's debate. All Members present have been prepared to stay late and wait—some for a long time—for the chance to speak on behalf of their constituents, which I hope will be appreciated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke at some length and with a depth of knowledge about regeneration in his constituency and especially the problems faced at the moment by Orchard Park. Many of us can quote examples—I can certainly do so from my constituency—of very welcome regeneration schemes over the past few years. He specifically asked about the problems with the delay of demolition of housing in Orchard Park, and asked me to draw that to Ministers' attention. I am very happy to do so.
  My hon. Friend also had some words of criticism for the Liberal Democrat local council, which he felt had failed to use the LIFT scheme to improve health care in the area, which would have brought not just health benefits but a number of other benefits in a series of public sector areas. That is another question that I shall be happy to draw to Ministers' attention on his behalf.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) has been particularly assiduous in attending the whole of the debate given that, as I understand it, this is sadly her last Parliament, so she is not even seeking re-election. She made a number of points, mentioning along with other Members the funding formula for local government. I stress that a consultation process is being conducted; we are all faced in our various local authority areas with a number of options. I urge hon. Members to make their feelings plain to the Government during the consultation process.
  810
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has assured Members that there will be a chance to debate that matter as soon as we return in October. I am sure that Members will want to make the points that they have made today at greater length then. I simply point out that some of the changes in the margins about which people are worried pale into insignificance given the enormous overall increases in public investment that this Government have promised.
  The right hon. Lady made a number of specific points about her local health service. I should point out to her that in March 1997, 31,000 patients had been waiting for more than a year. That figure had come down to 20,000 by May this year. The number of those waiting for more than 15 months was 5,000 in 1997, and was down to 334 by May 2002. As the right hon. Lady probably knows, the Government are committed to reducing waiting times to six months by 2005.
  The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues: whether the Haslemere community hospital was secure; that people wanted a local care centre in Godalming; and whether the A3 Hindhead tunnel scheme was on time. I shall be happy to obtain responses from Ministers to those specific questions on her behalf. As with health, the transport decisions that she wants for her constituency depend on investment. As I am sure she and Opposition Members are aware, their party is not committed to matching our spending, except on defence and international development.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke about a serious problem in his constituency—empty houses. He told us that he had raised the issue 300 times. A number of us on both sides of the House would be grateful for his problem. I hope that he was encouraged by the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister last week and by the fact that investment in housing will be £4 billion, compared with only £1.5 billion when Labour came to power in 1997. The Government are aware of the problem. We all realise that housing has moved rapidly up the political agenda.
  My hon. Friend also asked for a public inquiry into a court case in his constituency. The Government do not want to comment on the case until the outcome of the police disciplinary action is known, but I shall certainly pass on his concerns to the Ministers responsible.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised a number of points, including foot and mouth, which we discussed at some length earlier after the statement. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware of the feeling in the House that there should be a fuller debate when we return in the autumn.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke about the funding formula, which I have already touched on. I urge him to make his feelings plain as part of the consultation process. Like a number of other Members, he referred to the problems in the care home sector. He and several other Members were kind enough to acknowledge that the main problem is the level of fees, rather than—as the Leader of the Opposition suggested recently—the new standards that are being introduced. The best solution to the fee increases is more investment. That investment, too, has not so far been matched by the Opposition. Indeed when we increased real-terms investment in social services by 6 per cent. this year, it was opposed by the official Opposition.

  811
  The hon. Gentleman was the first of several Members who spoke about road schemes in the south-west. He spoke about the A303 and about the A350 which runs between his constituency and Taunton. He will be aware that the regional assembly in the south-west has rejected the main premise of the SWARMMS report and I am sure that the Government will listen with great care to what the assembly has said.
  I was not sure from the hon. Gentleman's speech whether his point about the Sparkford to Ilchester section of the A303 was a local or a trunk spending issue. If it is a local issue, it is for his county council to order its priorities. I hope, however, that he welcomes the extra investment that the Government are making in transport infrastructure in general and in roads in particular.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) did the House a great service by reminding us that the Commonwealth games start shortly and that they are based in his constituency. Our thanks go to him for all his work both as leader of the council and as a Member of Parliament to secure Manchester's bid. The games are a huge logistical exercise, but I am sure that Manchester will meet the challenge extremely well.
  It has been a great summer for British sports people in the World cup and at Wimbledon. To a certain extent, the achievements of our athletes so far have been under-reported, but I hope that Manchester will make up for that. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will have heard what my hon. Friend said about his hope that in future Manchester may be an Olympic host.
  The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised local government finance and the redrawing of the boundary of Ecclesbourne school in his constituency. He said that both the city and county councils agreed with local people, but that that decision was thrown out by the adjudicator and there was no appeal. I was surprised to learn that an appeal could not go to the Secretary of State, and I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to look into the matter, as the situation is surely not unique to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There may be good reasons why a system was set up in which politicians are removed from decisions about education, but nevertheless that is strange, so I promise to look into it on the hon. Gentleman's behalf.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the problem of the A50 link road in his constituency, which he acknowledged had brought benefits as well as concomitant problems. That tends to be a complication with new roads and improved roads—one problem is solved, but another is created. The hon. Gentleman, like my neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), raised the problem of a noisy concrete road surface. I shall come on to the specifics of the A30 a bit later, but I remind both Members that those roads were ordered in that form of concrete by the previous Government, and that this Government promised to get rid of them and have come up with the investment to do so. I am sorry that the time scale is not quick enough for the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, but we have pledged to replace those noisy concrete roads and shall do so. I will also make sure that the Minister responsible is aware of his concern about
  812
  national parks and the representation, in his case, of the Peak district, where many different local authorities are involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised the significant problems faced by many of our constituents in connection with obtaining visitors visas in India and Pakistan. He rightly said that that is a huge operation as it is currently the wedding season, when traditionally there are large numbers of applications. In the current tense stand-off between India and Pakistan, the measures that the Government have had to introduce have had a serious impact on our ability to deliver a good service. My hon. Friend made the point that we have set up a drop box system, and people who have already visited the United Kingdom should not experience enormous problems coming here again. However, there is a genuine problem for people who have not applied for a visa before, and I shall certainly speak to my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether the situation can be improved as the tension between those two countries eases. It is, however, the responsibility of any Foreign Secretary to ensure that the safety of British staff and their dependants is paramount. The situation between India and Pakistan has been worrying and it is by no means over yet. My hon. Friend mentioned that he would meet my successor at the Foreign Office on Wednesday, and I am sure that he will raise his concerns with him then.
  My hon. Friend also raised the problem of travel advice. I agree that it is incredibly important that the Foreign Office update its travel advice quickly when a situation changes—there is no point in people being deterred from visiting a place when it is perfectly safe to do so. Again, however, the Government have a responsibility to try to maximise the safety of British citizens.
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of the Hamilton estate, an expanding estate in his constituency, and planning gain. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have heard what he said, but I shall certainly write to them to pass on his concerns. Many of us have probably had a similar experience in our constituencies—we feel that local authorities have not extracted as much as they might have done from developers or that the developers have not delivered what they promised. I hope that the position will be improved by some of the changes that the Government are proposing to introduce.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised a number of issues concerning local firms in his constituency that had experienced difficulty in rapidly obtaining export licences for equipment. That is a serious issue, particularly where local firms are put under threat. The hon. Gentleman will understand that more than one Government Department takes such decisions, which sometimes leads to delay. The Government must adhere to the consolidated criteria. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the Quadripartite Committee report to which he referred, criticisms were made that the Government had been too lax in their granting of export licences to India and Pakistan during the period in question.
  It is important that the Government pay attention to those criteria, but it is also important that decisions be made quickly, even if they are negative. Most firms, rather than being kept in limbo, would like to know quickly whether an export licence is likely to be granted to them.

  813
  On the specific licences to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I will ask the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office to give him a response as quickly as possible. I know that the Prime Minister is extremely keen that the process be speeded up and that Departments keep to the guidelines that they have set themselves. We must also be aware of the concerns in many parts of the House that equipment should not be exported to parts of the world where it could be used in contravention of the guidelines to which we have signed up.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch raised the problem of disease in bees, and the problems that one of his constituents had encountered in organising a voluntary insurance scheme for bee-keepers. The Government welcome the efforts of Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. to encourage bee-keepers to play their part in the identification of notifiable bee diseases, and to bring any suspected incidence of those to the attention of the Central Science Laboratory's national bee unit. Because the fragmented nature of the sector makes concerted bee health action difficult for bee-keepers, we are spending about £1.4 million in England this year on our bee health programme.
  The payment of filing fees is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. I believe that the FSA has consulted the finance industry on several occasions concerning its fee-raising arrangements. Payments of insurance contributions to the financial services compensation scheme, which was created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, are a matter for the FSCS. The payments are applicable to all DTI-approved insurance companies. I understand that the secretary of Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. has been in correspondence with the FSCS about the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was exercised about the takeover of a local firm. If I remember rightly, he said that the firm had closed as a result. He was also concerned about the general health of manufacturing industry in his constituency. Manufacturing productivity is 12 per cent. higher now than it was in 1997. What matters most to manufacturing industry is a stable economy, a good regional policy and infrastructure investment, and the Government are strongly committed to all three.
  My hon. Friend raised the matter of the Eckington Moorside mine and the fact that it was under threat. The Government are aware of the position and we are urgently considering possible solutions to the immediate problems of Moorside and to the general problems of the coal industry in relation to employer liability insurance. There are no quick-fix answers, but we are examining the matter closely. We are monitoring the generic problem faced by a number of sectors in securing employers liability insurance. My hon. Friend also raised the problem of the Eckington jobcentre being under threat. I will happily take that up with the Minister responsible.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was the first of several hon. Members to raise the problem of mobile telephone masts. He referred to the Stewart report. There is some misunderstanding about that. Although there has been a report, Professor Stewart is still conducting his investigations. As and when he comes up with more hard-and-fast research, the Government will release it. This is a difficult issue for Government. A balance must be struck between consumers' desire to own
  814
  mobile telephones and the environmental and possible health impacts of telephone masts. From the number of hon. Members who raised the issue tonight, it is clearly one about which our constituents are extremely concerned. I shall certainly draw their concerns to the attention of the Minister responsible
  At a recent meeting in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—I think that it occurred in Tiverton town hall and that she may have helped to set it up—one of the members of the committee working under Professor Stewart, Professor Lawrie Challis, said:
  "When you look at the intensity from a mast 50m away, which is the worst position for you to be in, the actual intensity … is 5,000 times less than that from a mobile phone."
  Mrs. Browning: For the record, I think that the Minister will find that the research that is being done after the Stewart report is not on the safety of masts, but on that of mobile phones, which is very different.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I think that the hon. Lady will find that Professor Stewart is not restricting himself to the safety of telephones, but I shall certainly correct myself if I am wrong by writing to her.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford also referred to housing, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members—especially those representing constituencies in the south-east that are likely to be affected by some of the announcements that the Government made last week. Again, a balance needs to be struck between his desire to protect the environment of his constituency and the need for affordable housing, which I am sure is shared by his constituents. Most hon. Members recognise that we have a challenge on our hands with regard to housing, that more housing will be needed and that some difficult decisions will have to be made. However, I shall certainly pass on his particular concerns to the Minister who is responsible for those matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred to education funding and pointed out that Stafford was hoping to do well in the Britain in Bloom competition. I am sure that we all share his hopes in that regard. On his point about education funding, as I have mentioned, consultations are currently under way, and I am sure that he will stand up vigorously for his constituency. He also commended the parliamentary education unit and paid tribute to the work that it does, especially in the summer. He might like to know that I shall be involved in some of the unit's work by participating in a question and answer session, as I always do. I join him in paying tribute to the excellent work of the unit.
  My hon. Friend offered to provide all hon. Members with a citizenship pack. That would be extremely useful; I know that many of our constituents and schools are very excited about the prospect of beginning the compulsory citizenship courses when they are introduced in September. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to visit their schools and engage with young people. All the research shows that when MPs personally engage with young people, they tend to take a rather more positive view of politics and political engagement.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gill an), in what I thought was an uncharacteristically partisan speech, gave us a catalogue

  815
  of misery that her constituents were apparently suffering as a result of the Government having it in for her constituency. I cannot believe that her constituency has not benefited from some of the measures that the Government have introduced, such as the stable economy, rising living standards and increased investment in her schools, the NHS and other public services. She made similar points about local government formulae, which I hope I have already addressed. She also raised the very difficult issue of problems caused by travellers. I hope that she recognises that the Government have tightened up that issue already and are planning to take further measures that will make it easier to deal with travellers who cause problems.
  The hon. Lady graciously acknowledged that burglary and robbery were down in her constituency, but highlighted a problem that a number of hon. Members outside the Met area have been having with police numbers, as they are finding that police officers are being attracted to the Met by the inducements that are being offered to solve its recruitment problems. The Home Secretary acknowledged that problem in making his statement to the House about the comprehensive spending review, so I can assure the hon. Lady that he is aware of it. I remind her that crime has fallen nationally by 23 per cent. since 1997, whereas it doubled under the previous Conservative Government. As with health, education and all the other public services, we need to invest—if we are to get crime down, we need to invest in the police. I point out to her that her party is not committed to matching our spending plans on the police.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised a number of Home Office issues, all of them very important. She wanted an extension for antisocial behaviour orders, and reform of rape law, about which she has spoken eloquently in the House before. She was also concerned about fireworks, as are we all. The Government are considering what further measures can be introduced to control fireworks and replica guns. I shall be happy to take up all those issues with the Home Office on behalf of my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Members for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and for South Antrim (David Burnside) both spoke, understandably, on the future of the Belfast agreement. They spoke with passion and conviction, representing the views of at least some of their constituents, and I am sure that the Ministers responsible will read their comments with interest. There will be a statement—on Wednesday this week, I believe—by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I hope that the hon. Members will avail themselves of the opportunity to be here and to make the same points to him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made a passionate speech about the behaviour of oil companies in the developing world, and made specific allegations about the behaviour of BP in Colombia, based, I believe, on an article that he had read in a Labour Left Briefing. I shall not respond directly to those allegations, because I was not aware of them before. I shall, however, draw them to the attention of the Foreign Office Minister responsible for that part of the world, and get him to respond to them. I would say, however, that, in my experience, the role of the British oil companies in the world is a responsible one. It is not in their interests
  816
  to upset local populations or Governments. From my experience in the parts of the world for which I was responsible before I took on this job, the oil companies do a very good job. They are welcomed by local people and by Governments, and they have a very high consciousness of the need to act responsibly. I shall certainly look into the specific allegations that my hon. Friend has raised, however.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the issue of the Royal Hospital, Haslar—I hope that that is the correct pronunciation. The Ministry of Defence has provided me with a statement on this matter. It has decided to close the Royal Hospital because
  "the hospital does not have sufficient patient volume and casemix to be viable as a stand-alone facility."
  The Ministry has also said that
  "Haslar will not close until the new MOD Hospital Unit is opened at the Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham. The MOD Hospital Unit will form part of the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra Hospital by the Portsmouth Hospitals Trust … Final closure of Haslar will depend on progress on the redevelopment project, which is currently expected to be completed towards the end of 2007. The establishment of an NHS Diagnostic and Treatment Centre at Haslar does not affect the decision to close the hospital as a military facility."
  All that might already be known to the hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly pass on the points that he made tonight to my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence, and if there are any points that I have not responded to properly, I hope that they will do so.
  I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, although I am not sure that he was right to say that there is a policing crisis in Cornwall. My constituency of Exeter is also covered by the Devon and Cornwall police and, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are one of the many areas of the country that is currently enjoying record numbers of police officers. Spending on policing has risen 20 per cent. since 1997 in Devon and Cornwall, and crime is down by more than the national average of 23 per cent. The hon. Gentleman also made some interesting points on the future of party funding. I welcome that debate, but I do not think that tonight is the time to have it.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised a number of local issues. He was the first Member to mention the situation facing hospices, which was subsequently raised by a number of other hon. Members. I know from conversations that I have had with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that he is aware of hon. Members' concerns on this matter, but I shall certainly pass on the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I think that I am right in remembering the Secretary of State for Health saying that the Government were committed to increasing the proportion of spending on hospices that comes from the public purse, but I will certainly check on that and write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.
  The hon. Gentleman will await the statement on airports tomorrow; I do not intend to say any more about that tonight. He went on to raise the problem of homelessness in his constituency, and of families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In the next breath, however, he argued against extra housing. There was something slightly contradictory about that, but let me deal with the problem of people staying in bed and breakfasts. There will be more homes and, in particular,

  817
  more affordable homes. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under this Government the incidence of rough sleeping has halved, thanks to our rough sleepers initiative.
  If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not say anything about Cyprus; I will simply pass on his points to the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond in due course.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) drew attention to early-day motion 1670, relating to care homes in Birmingham. He acknowledged that the level of fees was the problem, rather than care standards, but let me say to him and to others who raised the problem of care homes that the high capital values of the properties has also played a significant role in the selling or marketing of a number of them—as has the Government's increased use of home care packages, which many elderly people want. The answer to increased fees is increased investment in social services, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will put pressure on his own Front Bench to match our spending plans.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a social services problem in Birmingham. I did not know of it, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. He also asked for a specific answer to the question of home visits for pensioners. Again, I will ask my colleagues to clarify what he described as a discrepancy between what Ministers had said and what officials had said. I know, however, that a Minister has been told:
  "Where a pensioner requires a home visit, we expect to be able to provide one?.
  I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised a number of issues. I apologise for not being present for all of his speech: he is the only Member to whom that applies. Let me touch on two issues he raised that were not raised by others. The first is cruelty to animals, and the fact that the police in his constituency were not taking as much action as he would like. Essex is another part of the country that has a record number of police officers. I am sorry if they are not taking the issue of animal cruelty seriously enough. I think we all know how seriously our constituents take it, and how upset they are by reports such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  The second issue is that of people talking on mobile telephones while driving. That is a bugbear of mine: every day when I cycle in and out of this place I witness people driving badly—not concentrating, perhaps driving with one hand on the wheel—while speaking on mobile phones. It is very dangerous. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is possible under existing legislation to prosecute people who use mobile phones while driving, but the Government are considering whether it would be a good idea to introduce a specific offence. I am sure that the Ministers responsible will report to the House when they reach decisions.
  My neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, raised the question of the A30 resurfacing. I congratulate her on her active campaign, and that of Maureen Jones and her other constituents. Let me tell her what I told the hon. Member for West Derbyshire: a Conservative Government commissioned the building of the roads using that horrible loud concrete, and a Labour
  818
  Government have said that they will get rid of them. I am sorry if it is taking too long. It is taking longer than many of us would like, but the Government have committed the money and committed themselves to the resurfacing. We all hope that that will happen sooner or later, but again let me suggest that those who want it to happen sooner should support our spending plans.
  As for Uffculme school, the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who arrived in a very timely fashion, will have heard how outraged the hon. Lady was at being refused a meeting with him. Funding for schools in Devon has risen by £550 per pupil since the 1997 general election, and following the comprehensive spending review it will increase even more.
  I share the hon. Lady's concern about hospice care. Hospices do an excellent job in Exeter—I know many of those involved—and I will take up not just the local issue but the issue of national funding with the Minister responsible. I think I am right in saying, however, that the Government have committed themselves to increasing the proportion of spending on hospice care from the public purse.
  On access to broadband, the hon. Lady is right: it is a commercial decision for BT. However, I will speak to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and see what more can be done in that respect.
  All hon. Members will share the hon. Lady's frustration at the time it takes for some Ministers in some Departments to reply to letters. I would like to think that I was not guilty of that in my previous job and I hope I am not guilty of it in my current one. I do not think that the point can be made too often in this place that hon. Members should have prompt replies to letters.
  The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) repeated a point he made about a week ago about search charges. The Government take that matter seriously. We are aware of the problem and have acknowledged that there is genuine interest in the matter. I will draw to the attention of the Minister responsible the more recent hiccups to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He also spoke about mobile phone masts and pointed out that the roll-out of the next generation will cause more problems. It is something that will not go away, and I am sure Ministers' minds will be concentrated by the number of hon. Members who have raised that matter in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) raised the general question of social services funding, which I hope I have dealt with, and then made interesting and serious points about the impact of regulation on adult services in his constituency and nationally—an impact that he felt the Government did not intend following the introduction of the Care Standards Act 2000. I will make those concerns plain to the Minister responsible and ask him to respond to the hon. Gentleman's concerns as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) raised the case of his constituent, Gordon Ashby, who I am pleased to say has now benefited fully from the Government's winter fuel payments. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to the popularity of the payments and indeed everything else that the Government have done to help to alleviate pensioner poverty. I am glad that his constituent's story had a happy ending and I am sure that it was in no small part due to the excellent job that he did on his constituent's behalf.

  819
  I will draw the result of his campaign to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department responsible and ask them whether there are any implications for people who may be in the same situation.
  The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a speech about speculation about military action against Saddam Hussein. I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee last week but he and other right hon. and hon. Friends have constantly reassured hon. Members on both sides of the House that if and when any decisions are made the House will have ample opportunity to debate them.
  The hon. Gentleman congratulated our armed forces on the excellent job that they have done in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. I associate myself entirely with those remarks. I share his hope that we can make progress in the middle east peace process, which is vital not just for the region but for world security. I was pleased that he welcomed the Government's big increase in defence spending.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised a problem concerning one of his constituents, who is having problems getting a residency for—
  Mrs. Browning: I realise the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks. I just wanted to say how appreciative the House is of the full and detailed reply that he has given to the debate.
  Mr. Bradshaw: It is very kind of the hon. Lady. One always comes under some pressure to be as quick as possible, particularly when other hon. Members are waiting patiently, but I am grateful for her remarks. I have not finished quite yet.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised a serious point. I was slightly puzzled, because my understanding of the new rules was that Ministers would look flexibly at the co-habitation requirement. One of the problems for unmarried couples—same-sex or heterosexual couples—is that to meet the two-year cohabitation requirement, they have to be in the same place and for many of them it is difficult under the immigration rules to be in the same place. My understanding, from cases in my constituency, was that the matter would be considered flexibly and a two-year provable relationship would suffice. I will certainly raise the issue with Lord Rooker.
  I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman's constituent contact the Stonewall immigration department, which runs an excellent advice service for couples such as those he referred to. I would point out, however, that until this Government came to power, there were no immigration rights for same-sex or unmarried couples.
  820
  The hon. Gentleman also congratulated the Cowes Customs and Excise office on the excellent job that it did recently in busting a multi-million-pound cocaine smuggling operation, and asked me to promise not to close it. I cannot deliver that promise, but I will pass on his concerns to the Minister responsible and say how much he and his constituents value the office's work.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) usefully identified a number of subjects that have come up repeatedly in this debate. These debates are an excellent barometer of constituents' concerns. Ministers in all Departments should scan this debate for areas of concern. I shall certainly draw several matters to the relevant Ministers' attention.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a little unfair about what happened last Thursday. I do not mind the fact that we have been here for five or six hours, but he must realise that insisting on a Division last Thursday could have meant that we had no debate at all tonight. The Government did the right thing in ensuring that we have had a full debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he enjoyed travelling to the south-west recently. I am sure that it was a pleasurable experience for us to have him. I hope that many hon. Members, present and not present tonight, will take the opportunity of the summer recess to visit Devon and Cornwall—which brings me to my final point.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the long summer recess, without exception hoping that it would be the last one. They thought that it would be right for us to sit in September. I hope that they will support the package that we hope to propose to the House to ensure that that happens. On that note, I wish all the right hon. and hon. Members who stayed until 1.30 am for this debate a very happy recess, and happy holidays.
  Mr. John Heppell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Ordered,

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    MERCHANT SHIPPING
    That the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1473) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    RAILWAYS
    That the Railways Interoperability (High-Speed) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1166) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Education (Castle Point)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
1.33 am
Bob Spink: As we have been here since yesterday afternoon, my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) took me to the Tea Room and bought me a mug of tea and a rock cake. I now know why they are called rock cakes, but I will try to struggle on.
I hope that we can have a positive exchange, welcoming the education successes and addressing the issues, both large and small, in my constituency. Schoolchildren and staff alike will go off for the holidays tired and happy, but also a little anxious about the results that will come out in August. They deserve a wonderful break, because they work so hard, and they deserve the excellent results that will be returned in Castle Point, where the story of education is a tale of excellence. Governors, staff, pupils and parents in Castle Point can all be rightly proud of their great achievements, and I thank them on behalf of the whole community that I represent. The results in August will show another superb year, building on previous extraordinary years of achievement. I should like to add my thanks to the lollipop ladies and gentlemen who come out in all weathers to keep our children safe. They deserve our respect and our gratitude no less than all the other members of the school staff.
I thank the Government for increasing education funding—so far as it has gone. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills told me that
"we are already in the middle of the most sustained increase in funding we have ever had, and our new plans represent another significant step forward."
I accept her sincerity, and I do not seek to make political points, but the funds do not seem to be getting through to the schools in Castle Point, and I shall adduce evidence to that effect as the debate progresses. That lack of funds is exacerbating a serious staffing problem—if not a crisis—in those schools, which is also affecting several schools across Essex.
On funding, all Essex secondary schools are suffering in the 2002–03 financial year. In cash terms, the standard spending assessment increase is 6.7 per cent. After taking account of pupil number increases, the cash increase for Essex secondary schools is 4.3 per cent., but the actual increase in the cost of staffing Essex schools is considerably more, requiring a cash increase of approximately 9.5 per cent. As a result of interplay between the Learning and Skills Council and the local education authority, all schools for 11 to 16-year-olds, and many for 11 to 18-year-olds, have received cash increases of between 2.9 per cent. and 3.5 per cent. only. All but a minority of Essex secondary schools have a revenue budget shortfall for 2002–03 of between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent.
Many schools will be forced to divert spending from standards fund targeted allowances in order to produce a balanced budget. For other schools, it will not be possible to produce a balanced budget for this financial year. I am grateful to the Association of Secondary Heads in Essex for that information, and particularly to Ted Rowley,
822
an Essex head teacher. The association is not a Conservative source; it is a highly independent and extremely reliable source of information.
Does the Minister agree with the idea of schools running a deficit budget, and if not, should they sack teachers instead? I shall be interested to hear his reply. I hope that he does not try to blame Essex county council for the shortfall. It was given a very limited amount of cash this year, and it has to spend an enormous amount to maintain social care of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is why it was unable to meet all schools' needs.
If that were not enough, the Government now seek to change the funding rules for next year in such a way as to remove even more cash from schools in Essex and in Castle Point. In essence, the Government propose to redistribute money from shire counties in the south of England to deprived areas in metropolitan cities in the north, and to the inner London boroughs. As the front-page headline of the 9 July edition of The Times says, "Labour will tax Tory voters to fund heartlands". As Lord Hanningfield, the leader of Essex county council, says, the Government's proposals
"are crude and unjust. They are based on assumptions about South East being exclusively well off, when in reality we have areas of real deprivation."
The various Government options for change next year in education funding show a possible loss of £46.5 million in option EDU4. That is the result of a combination of the change in the education formula, plus a loss in the area cost adjustment. Teachers, parents and governors in Castle Point view the recent promise of £50,000 direct cash for schools in the context of losses of £100,000 to £250,000 for their schools. Put simply, the public, especially governors of schools, have lost trust in this Government.
It is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain teachers in Essex, without that further burden from the Government. The proposed changes in the education formula and area cost adjustment would damage Essex and Castle Point schools enormously. I hope that the Minister will say how much more the Government will give to Castle Point schools. Does he think that Castle Point school heads and governors have been incompetent in recent years, or does he think that Castle Point has a real problem?
One local special school will have a crisis in staff vacancies in December this year. Two secondary schools, one on the mainland and one on Canvey island will each lose 17 teachers in September. I recently received a letter from a Castle Point school dated 2 July. It reads:
"Dear Bob, Thank you for coming into school last Friday and it was also good of you to come to the Summer Fayre on Saturday.
I promised to write to you about the major issues facing our school. They are … staffing: we are having to appoint unqualified teachers because we cannot attract qualified staff … Housing is very expensive here … and a teacher's salary of £17,500 does not go far on rents or mortgage. In Basildon, staff receive a Fringe Allowance which is not available here … The budget reduction … combined with a reduction in pupil numbers, means that we are working to an impossibly tight budget … Ofsted will be inspecting our school shortly and it is impossible to meet all of their requirements given our budgetary constraints and the staffing crisis"—
those are the two key issues. The letter finishes:
"Perhaps you will be able to do something to help us."

823
I will not identify the school, because it could be one of many in Castle Point or in Essex. I have written to the Secretary of State and to Councillor Iris Pummell, who has responsibility for the education portfolio in Essex, and I hope that we can obtain some positive help for that school and for others. It would be a travesty of justice if we allowed Ofsted to damage that school and to set back all the excellent work done in Castle Point and on Canvey island to improve the image and profile of education in the borough, and to improve public and parent confidence in, and engagement with, education. That would be neither just nor constructive. It would do irreparable damage to our efforts to build up the importance of education locally. It would send negative signals to teachers looking for jobs and set back our ability to recruit and retain even further. It would damage local education, the community and, of course, our children.
I say to the Minister, "Let us work together now to solve this problem with that school and others." That would, first, cost less money than an adverse Ofsted report and, secondly, protect and enhance our educational achievements across the community. The teachers and public will not forgive the Government if they ignore those words and pleas and, through Ofsted, trash schools that have already suffered in terms of money and teacher vacancies through no fault of their own.
I thank the Government for some education blessings. The Deanes is an excellent specialist sports college. It has worked successfully with a large family of more than 40 schools in raising standards and developing opportunities in supporting gifted and talented performers, curriculum development, professional development, ICT development in physical education, dance and community sport. The Deanes, through its successful record, has received much interest from national governing bodies of sport with a view to their delivering their national strategy across Deanes and its family of schools. We welcome this partnership involvement.
The King John school has just been awarded specialist maths and computing college status, for which I am grateful to the Government. The school has a fantastic wide-ranging list of plans and will truly add to Great Britain plc. It achieved a 64 per cent. gold standard. That is five or more GCSEs at C grade or above in the past year. That is a remarkable achievement for a school with a very mixed intake.
Appleton school remains at the forefront of achievement as well. I hope that it will secure specialist college status in the near future.
The three Canvey secondary schools are currently bidding for joint or co-operative specialist status on a well-balanced portfolio of Castle View as science, Cornelius Vermuyden as arts—that is visual—and Firtherwick Park 11 to 18 school as maths and computing.
Canvey Island is a special and separate community. It is a close knit, supportive and friendly community with great skills and excellent head teachers across the board. I hope that the Minister will meet me to discuss how we can best promote the collaborative three-way bids. It is an excellent approach that has great merit, and success is much needed to help solve some of our local difficulties on Canvey Island, and locally in education.
824
We are making enormous steps forward in education on the island, and this progress must not be put at risk, especially not by Ofsted, which should be constructive. Helen Marsden, a Canvey teacher, said that
"after just a term on Canvey Island I began to rediscover my commitment and enthusiasm … because teaching here is fun! … the staff here are experienced. dedicated, loyal professionals who have helped to instil an ethos of respect".
If that does not bring teachers rushing to Canvey Island to teach in our schools, I do not know what will.
Another local success is Glenwood school for children with complex learning difficulties. It achieved beacon status, and was the first Essex school to do so. The head, the staff and the parents are to be much congratulated on that. Essex is taking a collaborative approach with closer integration of the three agencies—education, health and social services—to help these children find the right way forward. I congratulate all those who are involved in that approach.
The Glenwood chairman of governors, Alan Bennett, and his governing body are to be much congratulated and thanked for the work that they do. We must never forget that our governing bodies are voluntary. They do what they do out of the goodness of their hearts because they passionately believe in their communities. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because Alan Bennett and his superb kids, Nickie and Jamie, who attend Glenwood school, often join me at Canvey Island football club to cheer on Britain's premier giant killers—Canvey Island, of course.
Glenwood school is not the only excellent special school in my constituency. Cedar Hall is equally excellent, under the superb headship of Chris Bent. I sometimes feel that our special school heads are some of the best heads in the country. There is a strong place for special schools. Too much inclusion would be much against the interests of the children. We need a balance. Children with global learning difficulties need their peer groups as much as other children.
I end this contribution where perhaps I should have started it: the nursery sector—the most important foundation stage, where we give children the joy of education, discovery, learning and the essential social skills and discipline to launch them successfully into their school careers. There are many excellent nurseries in Castle Point. I shall mention just one in each of the three main communities in my constituency: Pumpkins on Canvey Island, First Class in Benfleet, and Sandcastles in Hadleigh provide superb and caring environments for our young children and are a model to all nursery schools throughout Essex. There is but one cloud on the nursery school horizon: Ofsted.
Since Ofsted took over inspection from social services, things have started to go wrong. Ofsted must not seek to gold-plate regulations or apply them over-vigorously. That would be very counterproductive. Ofsted must try to work co-operatively and flexibly. In other words, it must be constructive and find solutions and stability. It must not create uncertainty or even bring about the abandonment of much-needed and excellent resources, especially when no alternative is available.
EDNA—the Essex Day Nurseries Association—has had cause for concern about Ofsted and has called a meeting to deal with the problem. For example, our most experienced and valuable nursery managers, who have

825
qualified pre-1989 and have been doing the job for decades and are currently training and testing new staff up to NNEB level 3 must not be made to retrain so long as they have updated themselves regularly on the various courses.
Ofsted inspectors must act fairly and not seek to entrap nurseries simply to justify their own position and work, as has happened. I could give the Minister specific details if he wished to question me on them. Ofsted needs to use common sense, sensitivity and courtesy in dealing with our nurseries. I hope that we have now put a shot across its bow and that we will not need to return to the issue. If that is not the case, watch this space!
1.52 am
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on securing this debate. In fact, I shall congratulate him on two other things: first, on persuading his two colleagues—the hon. Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)—to remain with him at this late hour. If he speaks to me after the debate, I shall tell him which one was yawning during his peroration.
The second reason to congratulate the hon. Gentleman is that this is, in fact, his second speech tonight. I was recently a humble Back Bencher, so I know that it is an honour—it is humbling—to speak once a month. It is a rare privilege to speak twice a month, but to speak twice in one night suggests that one has a relationship with the Whips Office that would be a source of great suspicion among one's colleagues; but I congratulate him none the less.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate the teachers and pupils in his constituency. It may be for the benefit of the House to know that key stage 2 results—in other words, those for 11-year-oldsin the hon. Gentleman's constituency last year were 75 per cent. in English, 71 per cent. in maths, 87 per cent. in science. There were rises across all those three categories, and those improvements in standards were reflected at the age of 14, at key stage 3.
The hon. Gentleman was gracious enough also to congratulate the Government on their £600 a year increase in funding for each pupil in Castle Point. I am very glad that he is as pleased as I am that that is going ahead. Funding in Essex has increased from about £470 million in 1998, to £630 million in 2002–03—an average increase of more than 5 per cent. a year. He will know that the standards fund has also increased from about £7 million in 1998–99, to £45 million in 2002–03. The school standards direct grant. which goes direct to head teachers, is now worth more than £7.5 million a year.
No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that the recent spending review confirmed those record rises in investment. He congratulated the Government on how far we had gone. That sounded like a plea for even more spending, so I welcome him to the ranks of the rebels in the Conservative party. I trust that he will continue to advocate higher spending on education, despite the unwillingness of his party's Front Benchers to do the same.
The hon. Gentleman is legitimately concerned about funding being passed through to schools. He read out a letter dated 2 July; I, too, have it to hand, and I will not
826
mention the name of the school that wrote to him either. He left out from his reading point 3 of the letter, which set out a complaint about the passporting by Essex LEA of the funds given by the Government to schools. In 2002–03 Essex county council received an increase in its education standard spending assessment in excess of £37.5 million—a boost of about 6.35 per cent., which was above the national average of 5.7 per cent. Essex LEA chose not to reflect that increase in its education budget, and that failure to passport may have prompted some of the concerns that led Essex heads to write to me and to the hon. Gentleman.
For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I will give him a preview of the letter that will soon be winging its way to him in response to his letter to the Secretary of State. Among other things, it says:
"The Secretary of State wrote to the leaders of all councils with education responsibilities in January urging them to make sure that all of the increased funding was actually spent on education. However, I am sure you are aware, we cannot compel them to do this. It is up to each local authority to decide how it allocates funding to the various services it provides, taking account of local circumstances. Once the Department became aware of Essex's intent, I"—
that is, me—
"wrote to the leader of the Council expressing my disappointment at their decision."
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about proposals on reform of the funding system. The proposals that the Government have put on the table are about producing the best possible match between the distribution of funding and LEAs' relative needs and costs. The current consultation process aims to try to find a way forward that balances those two needs. He will know that the consultation runs until 30 September, and I hope that he and his colleagues will make representations to that review.
Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way, especially as I did not notify his office of my intention to intervene. I am grateful for his courtesy.
I have two brief points. First, the Minister will be aware of the great concern in Essex about the entire restructuring of SSAs. I am therefore glad to hear his comments, and we shall indeed all make representations.
Secondly, is it not a fact that Essex passes on a greater proportion of its funding to schools than any other shire LEA in the country—with the possible exception of Lincolnshire, according to last year's figures?
Mr. Miliband: I chose my words reasonably carefully. I did not want to launch an all-out attack on local government when putting forward the proposals. I believe that it is true that Essex LEA's delegation is about 87.1 per cent., which is an honourable record; however, this year the increase in SSA given by the Government was not passported on, which is a source of some regret.
The hon. Member for Castle Point expressed concern about teacher recruitment. He will be as pleased as I am that the national vacancy rate has fallen from 1.4 per cent. in 2001 to 1.2 per cent. in 2002, which is the result in part of the 9,000-person increase in the teaching force achieved over the past year—the fastest rise in 20 years—and in part of the increase in teachers' pay. In addition to the overall pay increase, teachers and heads will be especially interested in the extra recruitment and retention initiatives that have been made available by the Government.

827
The hon. Gentleman's area, I know, falls outside the areas receiving London fringe allowances, and we recognise that that causes problems, but I hope that he will accept from me that we want to address such issues in the context of the local government funding review that we hope will come into play in the next financial year. He should know that there is a special recruitment and retention fund available for the recruitment of teachers, from which Essex received £2.1 million this year—the second-highest allocation of any LEA in the country. We are not complacent about the issue: we are working with the Teacher Training Agency and other relevant bodies to ensure that we make progress, not least on housing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman was good enough to pay tribute to the work of the specialist schools in his area. We know from Ofsted's evaluation that in four out of five schools, specialist designation has been a catalyst for innovation in the schooling system and has helped to sustain the momentum of improvement. The specialist school programme is about celebrating the different strengths of individual schools within a revitalised comprehensive system.
I heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the innovative proposals being developed locally for a new specialisation proposal involving several schools. I hope that he will understand when I say that, as the judge of
828
that competition, it would not be right if I were to meet him and individual heads. However, my Department makes itself and its officers available to discuss with schools proposals that they might make, as does the Technology Colleges Trust.
I shall certainly also pass to David Bell, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, the hon. Gentleman's concerns about early education and the Ofsted inspection regime. If he cares to write to me with the individual complaints, I shall certainly take them on, because we take them extremely seriously.
I conclude by once again congratulating the hon. Gentleman. Even at this late hour, he has held the attention of the House with his lucid exposition. I assure him that education is safe in the Government's hands. I look forward to continued support for the measures that we are taking both to invest in the educational system and to reform it in order to support high standards.
The independent inspectorate—Ofsted—reports that we have the best generation of teachers ever in this country. We certainly know from test and examination results that we have the highest scores ever. I believe that those are the result of hard-working teachers and hard-working pupils doing their best in the nation's schools. There are great things happening. I look forward to greater things, both in Castle Point and in the nation at large.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Licences
  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the awarding of digital licences by the Independent Television Commission. [68958]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Independent Television Commission are solely responsible for the award of licences under the Broadcasting Acts. They considered that the BBC/Crown Castle joint proposal was best suited to ensure the long-term future of digital terrestrial television, subject to conditions mainly designed to prevent any competition issues. This will give a fresh start to the platform, offering free-to-view digital TV and enabling many consumers to enjoy the benefits of digital television.

  School Sport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last discussed the subject of sport and physical education in schools with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. [68969]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions on this subject with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and their last formal meeting was on 2 July.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is available to local councils for sports facilities for schools. [68983]

  Mr. Caborn
  Funding for the development and improvement of sports facilities at schools is available to local education authorities through the New Opportunities Fund PE and Sport Programme which is providing £581 million in England, the Space for Sport and Arts Programme which is providing £130 million in England and Sport England's Lottery funded School and Community Sports Initiative. All facilities provided under these programmes are available to the local community.

  Theatres (Barnsley)
  Mr. Risley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received regarding theatre provision in Barnsley. [68970]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received no representations regarding this subject.

  Sydonia Swimming Pool
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to promote the reopening of Leominster's Sydonia swimming pool. [68972]
  692W
  Mr. Caborn
  Local authorities are key providers of sport and recreation facilities and play a central role in the delivery of sport in the community. The provision of swimming facilities is a matter for local authorities to consider in the light of local needs and the appropriate mixture of pubic and private provision. The Government support the provision of sport and leisure facilities through various means including funding from the Sports Lottery Fund, and I understand that Leominster city council has applied to Sport England for such funding.

  Arts (North-East)
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government support for the arts in the north-east. [68973]

  Tessa Jowell
  In 2003–04 Northern Arts will distribute almost £14 million in grant in aid in the north-east.

  A further £4 million has been earmarked for Creative Partnerships to invest in the Tees Valley, Durham and Sunderland. Since 1995, almost £132 million of Lottery funding has been awarded to the north-east region by the Arts Council of England.

  These awards have funded 956 projects including the BALTIC and Music Centre, Gateshead.

  Arts Board
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the changes proposed to the regional structure of the Arts Board. [68974]

  Tessa Jowell
  On 1 April 2002 North West Arts Board joined with other Regional Arts Boards and the Arts Council of England to create a new single arts funding and development organisation for England. The Arts Council will be producing a progress report on the development of the new organisation which I will consider in due course.

  Sport (Young People)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with Sport England and other sports councils in the UK to discuss provision made to nurture sporting talent to compete successfully on the world stage. [68975]

  Mr. Caborn
  Officials from my Department hold regular meetings with members of Sport England to discuss the programmes in place to nurture sporting talent. My Department also maintains contact with the devolved Administrations concerning their programmes to support talented young athletes as well as fund athletes with the potential to win medals in significant future international competitions through Lottery funds.

  Lord Nelson
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to(a) purchase and (b) put on public display the collection of Lord Nelson's personal artefacts to be auctioned in the autumn. [68976]
  693W
  Tessa Jowell
  My Department does not acquire historical artefacts for public display and has no locus to intervene in the sale of private property. The purchase and subsequent display to members of the public of any of Lord Nelson's personal artefacts to be auctioned in the autumn is a matter for the Trustees or governing bodies of museums with an interest in such material.

  Tourism
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the tourism industry's recovery since the foot and mouth outbreak and 11 September last year. [68977]

  Dr. Howells
  According to the latest International Passenger Survey, in the three months to May this year, inbound visits and expenditure by overseas visitors were both 2 per cent. up on the same period in 2001.

  Domestic tourism has also performed well. Data from the UK Tourism Survey show that, in the first quarter of 2002, trips were up 13 per cent. on 2001, while tourist spending was up by 18 per cent.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to support tourism in Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds; and if she will make a statement. [68980]

  Dr. Howells
  The Southern Tourist Board has produced a tourism strategy setting out the potential role for tourism in Oxfordshire and has distributed promotional literature to both domestic and overseas markets. The Regional Development Agency is also working with South West Tourism on a 10-year plan for tourism which directly involves representatives from around the Cotswolds.

  The Government have also put £20 million into their biggest ever campaign for attracting visitors from abroad to the United Kingdom—the Million Visitors Campaign, whose aim is to attract that additional number to Britain, benefiting the whole country, including Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds. On 13 May, we announced proposals for the modernisation and reform of tourism in England. Our intention is for more resources to be devoted to marketing all of the English regions.

  Music
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she will take to promote music as a cultural and economic activity. [68978]

  Tessa Jowell
  I recognise the central role played by music in our economic and cultural life. My Department works closely with all sections of the music industry and other Government Departments to identify and take forward a wide ranging work programme to ensure the continued success of the UK industry and our artists, at home and abroad.

  Summer Play Schemes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department is giving for summer play schemes involving sport. [689791
  694W
  Tessa Jowell
  We are today, jointly with the Youth Justice Board, launching a comprehensive programme of summer activities aimed at children and young people at risk of offending. The programme—Splash Extra—builds on the board's excellent Summer Splash programme.

  Resourced through the New Opportunities Fund, Splash Extra is aimed at children and young people aged nine to 17 identified as at risk of offending and living in 300 estates in and around the street crime 'hotspot' areas.

  It will provide a varied programme of quality sports, arts and other cultural activities, as well as personal development and education. We expect to reach at least 48,000 children and young people and possibly many more.

  Splash Extra will be supported by key workers from Youth Offending Teams, the Connexions Service and the Children's Fund. As well as providing something to do over the summer for those at risk of offending, the programme will also support them back into education and training once it finishes.

  Sport England is also supporting a range of activities mainly through work in Sport Action Zones including in West Cumbria, Luton, Bradford, Liverpool and East Manchester.

  BBC Charter
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she plans to announce the timetable for the review of the BBC Charter. [68981]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have already made clear that I expect the process of BBC Charter review to start in 2004.

  Crime Initiative
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department is doing to support the Government's street crime and robbery initiative. [68982]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department is playing a full part in the Government's drive to tackle street crime. We are today, jointly with the Youth Justice Board, launching a comprehensive programme of summer activities aimed at children and young people at risk of offending in the street crime areas. The programme—Splash Extra—;builds on the Board's excellent Summer Splash programme.

  Resourced through the New Opportunities Fund, Splash Extra is aimed at children and young people aged 9 to 17 identified as at risk of offending and living in 300 estates in and around the street crime 'hotspot' areas.

  It will provide a varied programme of quality sports, arts and other cultural activities, as well as personal development and education. We expect to reach at least 48,000 children and young people and possibly many more.

  Supported by key workers from Youth Offending Teams, the Connexions Service and the Children's Fund, Splash Extra will not only provide something for those at risk of offending to do over the summer. It will also ensure that they are supported back into education and training once the programme finishes.

  Euro
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she has recently met the English Tourism Council to discuss the acceptance of euro notes and coins. [68984]

  Dr. Howells
  No I have not. The British Tourist Authority have, in consultation with the tourism industry and HM Treasury, issued guidance entitled "The Euro—A guide for small tourism businesses" to assist tourism firms. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 25 March.

  Tennis
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Lawn Tennis Association and the All England Lawn Tennis Club on developing access to tennis coaching for children from poorer neighbourhoods. [68985]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met the chief executive and representatives from the LTA on 5 September 2001 to discuss the City Tennis Scheme which encourages children from inner city areas into the sport. I discussed the scheme further while attending the Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Championships on 6 July.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met either the Lawn Tennis Association or the All England Lawn Tennis Club specifically to discuss this subject.

  Historic Buildings (Public Access)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 314W, how many of the properties (a) grant aided through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Government Act 1985 and (b) aided by the Heritage Lottery fund allow some public access. [68299]

  Dr. Howells
  129 properties in London have received grants administered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Government Act 1985. There is no power under this legislation to require public access as a condition of the grant. These grants are for external repairs and improvements which can be viewed by the public from the street. Some buildings do allow an element of public access by virtue of their function, such as places of worship and shops.

  As part of the condition of grant, the Heritage Lottery Fund requires that grantees ensure that the general public has appropriate access to properties and that no one is unreasonably denied access.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2002.Official Report, column 315, for what reason there is no automatic access requirement when properties are grant-aided under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 1985. [68300]

  Dr. Howells
  The grants English Heritage is empowered to give under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Government Act 1985 are wide in scope. They are a transfer of responsibility from the former Greater London Council to English Heritage, along with the special statutory powers that the former 696W
  Greater London Council held. There is no power under this legislation to require public access conditions. The grants are normally given for listed buildings at risk where they make a contribution to the appearance of a conservation area and where the works can be seen by the public from the exterior.

  Historic Buildings (Grant)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what requirements are placed on the owners of buildings of historical interest who are grant-aided by English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund to refund the grant or part of the grant, if the property is sold. [68302]

  Dr. Howells
  For grant aid administered by English Heritage under Section 3A of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Act 1953, the whole grant is usually recoverable if the property is disposed of within 10 years of the original offer. Recovery conditions may be omitted where it is considered unnecessary or unenforceable.

  Grant aid administered by English Heritage under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 includes the following condition:

  "The grant or any such part of it as the Council sees fit, may be recovered from the grant recipient under Sections 58 and 80(7) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 if:
  (b) during the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the grant is made, the recipient disposes of the interest held in the property on that day (the relevant interest), or any part of that interest, by way of a sale exchange or lease for a term of not less than 21 years."

  When an applicant is awarded a Heritage Lottery Fund grant a contract is issued containing conditions of grant relating to the project. These include the following condition:

  "If you [the applicant] sell or dispose of a property we [the Heritage Lottery Fund] have funded within the period specified in our contract, we may ask you to repay our grant."

  These conditions of grant are detailed on pages 8 and 9 of the Heritage Grant application pack, which is available on-line at www.hlf.org.uk.

  Drugs (Sport)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to create an independent body responsible for drug-testing in sport. [69726]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Sport currently has responsibility for the anti-doping programme in the UK. UK Sport is subject to scrutiny by the British Standards Institute, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the International Standards Organisation and the National Audit Office. Its achievement of certification by these bodies provides an independent assessment of the validity and effectiveness of its anti-doping programme and procedures. UK Sport's anti-doping programme, as it currently stands, provides appropriate levels of independent scrutiny and is well respected throughout the rest of the world.

  South Bank Centre
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the South Bank centre has spent
  697W
  on (a) accountants, (b) legal advisers, (c) planning consultants and (d) other professionals, to work on the Rick Mather master plan to develop the south bank. [70997]

  Dr. Howells
  Between April 1998 and March 2002 the South Bank centre has spent £1.493 million, of which £300,000 has come from private donations, on the development of the master plan for the redevelopment of its three arts buildings, the British Film Institute Film Centre and the 27-acre riverside estate.

  Of this sum, £399,000 was architectural costs, £160,000 was for planning advice, £224,000 legal costs, £149,000 was for other professional advice and £217,000 for public consultations. Other costs relate to technical studies, an economic option appraisal and the cost of international architectural competitions.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [70977]

  Dr. Howells
  A number of the consultation documents published in 2001 referred to the consultation criteria although none reproduced them in full.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many consultation documents published in(a) electronic or (b) printed form in 2001 her Department has monitored and evaluated in accordance with the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [70979]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department regularly monitored and evaluated consultations in 2001.

  Pride of Place
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 13 May 2002,Official Report, column 414W, how many copies of "Pride of Place" have been sold. [70869]

  Dr. Howells
  This figure will not be available until the end of August. I have asked the Arts Council to write to the hon. Member directly once they have it and also to confirm how many projects have taken up their offer of complimentary copies.

  Spectrum Scarcity
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on spectrum scarcity in the digital environment; and what implications her policy has for the continuation of a statutory ban on religious organisations holding a wide range of broadcasting licences. [71712]

  Dr. Howells
  Although digital broadcasting has relieved some pressure on spectrum, scarcity remains an issue. The Government's aim is to ensure that limited spectrum is distributed so as to satisfy as many viewers/listeners as possible, and in terms of religious broadcasting, to avoid giving one religion an unfair advantage over another, so that everyone's beliefs are equally respected. The Government's position is set out in the document "The draft Communications Bill—The 698W
  Policy" which states that, where there is sufficient spectrum availability, restrictions on religious bodies holding licences will be removed (paragraph 9.3.3).

  The Radio Authority, which licences all independent radio services in the UK, is currently given discretion under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to award local analogue, satellite and cable licences to religious bodies, subject to compliance with the Authority's codes, and the ITC can also award cable and satellite TV licences to religious organisations.

  The draft Bill increases the number of types of licences which religious bodies can hold by giving OFCOM discretion to award local digital sound programme service licences, digital additional service licences, digital programme service licences and TV restricted service licences.

  S4C
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the cost of the 10 hours of programmes provided by the BBC for S4C each week in each of the last five years. [71757]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost to the BBC of providing programmes to S4C in accordance with section 58 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, in each of the last five years, was:

  £ million

  1997–98

  16.7

  1998–99

  16.3

  1999–2000

  16.9

  2000–01

  16.0

  2001–02

  16.4

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if she will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if she will make a statement. [70203]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's spending on information literature in 2001–02 was £300,591.

  No advertising or campaign material was produced during this period.

  Creative Partnerships Programme
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of the Creative Partnerships Programme. [68957]

  Tessa Jowell
  We have established Creative Partnerships in 16 of the most deprived areas of the country. Each partnership will offer children and young people the opportunity for unprecedented access to creative learning, through bringing cultural and educational institutions and practitioners together. The first projects will begin with the new school year in September.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 28 June about the number of road and carriageway closures in Royal Parks; and if she will make a statement on the delay in responding. [71191]

  Tessa Jowell
  I received the hon. Gentleman's letter on 1 July 2002. As the subject of his letter is an operational matter for the Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency, I asked him to respond on my behalf and I understand that he did so on 17 July 2002.

  My Department aims to reply to Members' correspondence within 18 working days of receipt. In this case a reply was issued to the hon. Gentleman in 13 working days.

  Sport (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans to develop sport in the Chorley constituency. [68962]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for participation in sport for all people, particularly youngsters, in all parts of the country. My Department is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills to improve access to and quality of PE and school sport in all parts of the country. I am aware that Chorley Council is working with a number of organisations including Lancashire Sport, the Chorley and District Sports Forum and Sport England to improve sporting provision in the Borough.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  European Parliament Elections
  Norman Baker
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what consideration is being given by the Commission to the merits of the method of election used for elections to the European Parliament. [68950]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand that no such consideration is being given by the Commission. However, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Commission will conduct a review of the next scheduled elections to the European Parliament in June 2004.

  Local Government Elections (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what work the Electoral Commission plans to undertake on electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. [68951]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand from the Chairman that the Commission has no plans at present for work on local government electoral arrangements in Wales.
  700W
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what consultations he has had with the Electoral Commission on recommendations relating to local government elections in Wales. [68954]

  Mr. Beith
  The Speaker's Committee has not had any consultations with the Electoral Commission on this subject.

  All-Postal Voting
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, if the Committee will ask the Electoral Commission to undertake research on the impact of all-postal voting pilots on the secrecy of the ballot. [68953]

  Mr. Beith
  The Electoral Commission is currently preparing its evaluation of the all-postal voting and other pilot schemes that took place in May 2002. The evaluation, which will be published on 1 August, will consider the impact of the pilot schemes on the secrecy of the ballot. The Commission is also undertaking a wider review of the law and practice in relation to absent voting, which includes consideration of secrecy and security of the ballot and related issues.

  Franchise
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, whom he will be consulting on the question of reducing the voting age to 16. [68955]

  Mr. Beith
  I understand the Commission intends to start work on its formal review of the minimum age for voting in UK elections in January 2003. The Commission intends to include in its review a significant period of open public consultation, giving interested individuals and organisations the opportunity to make their views known.

  The Commission will also be approaching a number of groups directly, including young people's representative forums and agencies, Members of Parliament, and the devolved bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what separation distances she recommends should be imposed between GM and non-GM or organic crops of(a) sugar or fodder beet, (b) maize and (c) oilseed rape, to avoid contamination of the non-GM or organic crop above 0.01 per cent. [46621]
  701W
  Mr. Meacher
  There are insufficient data to determine separation distances between crops that would achieve a cross-pollination threshold of 0.01 per cent. Furthermore, 0.01 per cent. is below the level at which an incidental GM presence can reliably be quantified with current analytical methods.

  In 2000 the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) reported on the separation distances required to ensure that cross-pollination is below specified limits. These distances for oilseed rape and maize are shown in Table 1. NIAB did not recommend a distance for beet crops because beet is biennial and generally does not flower in the year of harvest, and any "bolters" can and should be removed before flowering. In addition, incoming pollen would not affect the vegetative parts of the plant (beet root and foliage). In 2001 the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment augmented the NIAB advice in respect of maize (Table 2). The NIAB study took account of work undertaken for the Soil Association by the National Pollen Research Unit (NPRU) which recommended separation distances to achieve an incidental GM presence which was not quantified but described as "very low risk". These distances are shown in Table 3. The NIAB study also reviewed work from a variety of researchers, such as Jones arid Brooks—"Effectiveness of distance and border rows in preventing outcrossing in corn"; Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station, Technical Bulletin No. T-38, 1950.

  Table 1: Summary of separation distances (m) required to maintain cross-pollination of the whole fields at below specified levels for fields of 2ha or more

  metres

  Threshold levels of cross-pollination

  Crop

  1%

  0.5%

  0.1%

  Oilseed rape (B. napus and rapa)

  Conventional varieties and restored hybrids

  1.5

  10

  100

  Varietal associations and partially restored hybrids

  100

  1—

  1—

  Maize/sweetcorn

  For grain

  200

  300

  1—

  For silage

  130

  200

  420

  1 Insufficient information to produce a recommendation (see report for more detail).

  Source:

  NIAB report "Review of the use of separation distances between genetically modified and other crops", August 2000.

  Table 2: Summary of ACRE's advice on cross-pollination in relation to Farm Scale Evaluations of Genetically Modified Maize, 1 May 2001

  metres

  Separation distances from GM maize1

  Adventitious GM presence in the grain or silage (upper limit)

  Neighbouring crop (organic and non-organic)

  1%

  0.5%

  0.1%

  Maize grown for grain (sweetcorn, seed crops)

  130

  200

  420

  Maize grown for silage (forage maize)

  80

  130

  290

  1 The table refers to varieties of GM maize, such as that used in the farm scale evaluations, which are heterozygous for the GM trait. For any homozygous varieties the amount of GM presence will be approximately double the above figures at the same separation distances.

  702W

  NPRU's recommended "very low risk distances", January 2000

  metres

  Crop

  Very low risk distance

  Maize

  3,000

  Sugar beet

  1,000

  Oil seed rape

  6,000

  1 3,000 metres were recommended between GM beet and organic seed production.

  GMOs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish her detailed response to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission report; and if she will launch the public debate on genetic modification. [65519]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are considering the details of the advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on a public debate on GM issues and will respond as soon as possible. Our intention is that the public debate will start as quickly as possible once the detailed arrangements have been finalised.

  Committee LIFE
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [56724]

  Mr. Meacher
  Council Regulation EC 1655/2000 establishes the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE). The LIFE Committee is a regulatory Committee provided for under Article 11 of the LIFE Regulation. The mandate of the Committee is to assist the Commission with the establishment of guidelines for the type of projects to be funded, and to approve the lists of projects selected for funding.

  The Committee has met twice in the last 12 months. Two representatives are permitted from each member state. The Commission pays for one representative to attend from each member state. Additional representatives from the UK cost around £400 per meeting. The cost of attending this Committee over the last 12 months was approximately £800.

  The main issues being considered by the Committee are the guidelines and application process for the Instrument, communication and lists of projects to be funded under both LIFE Environment and LIFE Third Countries.

  Swillfeeding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on British businesses of the ban on swillfeeding. [68492]
  703W
  Margaret Beckett
  The change in national legislation was based on the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer in the context of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and is consistent with the requirements of forthcoming EU legislation on Classical Swine Fever and animal by-products. The index case of the FMD outbreak was at premises where the producer has been subsequently prosecuted for feeding unprocessed catering waste.

  The proposal to ban swillfeeding was the subject of a full public consultation and a Regulatory Impact Assessment. The majority of respondents were in favour of a ban on the feeding of catering waste containing meat or meat products as swill to livestock. The final RIA was published with the Animal By-Products (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 and a copy is available from the Library of the House.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk to animal health from the use of waste cooking oil as an additive in animal feed. [68488]

  Margaret Beckett
  Used cooking oils are almost solely of vegetable origin in the UK and are not in themselves unsafe, although there is a risk that they may become contaminated. That risk can be removed if an effective control and traceability system is in place.

  TB
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the scope, progress, timetable and conclusions of her Department's research projects on TB in wildlife other than badgers. [68505]

  Margaret Beckett
  There are currently two research projects under way which focus on TB in wildlife other than badgers. Summary details are given in the table:

  Title of research project

  Start date

  End date

  The risk to cattle from Mycobacterium bovis in wildlife species other than badgers

  1 May 1999

  30 April 2004

  The risk to cattle from wildlife species other than hadgers in areas of high herd hreakdown risk

  1 January 2000

  31 November 2003

  The research projects are proceeding according to plan. Following completion the findings of each project will be published.

  Water Level Management
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many water level management plans have received grant aid for implementation from her Department in each of the last five years; and what assessment she has made of the adequacy of this level of expenditure. [68192]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA provides grant towards the cost of approved capital works undertaken by the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), inter alia, to implement water level management 704W
  plans (WLMPs). The numbers of works in relation to WLMPs approved for grant in each of the last five years is:

  Number

  1997

  2

  1998

  2

  1999

  3

  2000

  2

  2001

  3

  2002 (to date)

  1

  The Department is committed to its WLMP initiative. In February 2001 in order to encourage implementation of plans I announced an increase in grant rates for IDBs to 80 per cent. for sites of international importance, and 50 per cent. for sites of national importance.

  The operating authorities have a High Level Target in relation to completion and implementation of WLMPs. Part B of this target is to have in place a detailed programme for implementing and reviewing WLMPs:

  For European and Ramsar sites (by April 2002)
  For other SSSIs (by April 2003).

  The Environment Agency is also required to report to DEFRA on operating authorities progress in implementing and reviewing WLMPs against their published programme. We will be reviewing the information received from this reporting process to see whether expenditure is adequate.

  Floods
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many feasibility studies have been(a) commissioned and (b) completed by the Environment Agency following the flooding of autumn 2000; what (i) flood alleviation measures have resulted and (ii) expenditure has been incurred up to April of this year; and if she will make a statement. [69191]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has developed a database to monitor progress at all the flood locations identified in their Lessons Learned Report on the autumn 2000 floods. The database covers locations for which local authorities are considering flood management options as well as those for which the Agency is taking the lead, and is reviewed every six months. A current review is nearing completion and I understand that the results will be available in early August. I have asked the Agency to provide you with the information requested as soon as it is available. Since the floods of autumn 2000, DEFRA has approved for grant aid a total of 274 new flood and coastal schemes and studies at an estimated cost of £386 million, although of course not all relate to locations flooded that year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on flood defences in England broken down by(a) constituency and (b) Government regional development agency in the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [70606]

  Mr. Morley
  Expenditure on flood defences in England is incurred primarily by the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards. The Agency does not keep financial records on the basis of
  705W
  constituency or government regional development agency. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) who will be responsible for the policing of the baseline/12 mile limit zones under the proposals for post 2002 in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; [69389]

  (2) whether (a) the baseline/six mile limit zone and (b) the six to 12 miles limit zone are to be merged to form one zone of baseline/12 mile limit zone within the proposals for the post 2002 CFP; [69387]

  (3) to whom the management of the baseline/12 mile limit zone would be accountable under the proposals for the post 2002 CFP; [69391]

  (4) whether the competency for the baseline/12 mile limit will be returned to member states within the proposals for the reformed Common Fisheries Policy post 2002; [69386]

  (5) whether the establishment of a permanent baseline/12 mile limit fishing zone to the member state concerned would require a treaty change; [69390]

  (6) whether the consultation of management will include all those member states who have fishing rights within the six to 12 mile limit zone within the present proposals for the CFP post 2002. [69388]

  Mr. Morley
  The Communication from the Commission on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ("Roadmap") (Com(02) 181) makes it clear that the Commission proposes to continue the current regime applicable to the six to 12 mile zones.

  Bushmeat Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department has approached Governments in countries in Central and West Africa to establish mechanisms to control the illegal international trade in bushmeat. [70305]

  Mr. Meacher
  As a result of my Department's representations at the eleventh Conference of CITES Parties in April 2000, the CITES Bushmeat Working Group was established. We have contributed £55,000 to the Group, which aims to help Central and West African range states develop and implement their own solutions, including the revision and harmonisation of their wildlife policies and legislation. We have also funded research analysing existing knowledge and expertise on the bushmeat trade, highlighting gaps in data and understanding, and making recommendations on further action. The results of this research have been made available to the CITES Working Group and we expect them to be discussed at the Group's next meeting, due to take place in Brazzaville later this month. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) hopes to represent the UK at this meeting.
  706W
  Through the FCO, we have also been using the UK diplomatic missions in Harare, Accra, Abuja, Cairo, Pretoria, Kampala, Abidjan, Maseru, Dakar, Luanda, Nairobi, Kigali, Mbabane and Tunis to raise awareness of the restrictions on importing meat into the UK.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to raise the issue of the unsustainable bushmeat trade at the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species. [70301]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretariat to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has prepared a progress report on the work of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group, and a draft Decision extending the life of the Working Group, for consideration by the forthcoming Conference of CITES Parties in November. We shall support the draft Decision and continue to encourage and support the work of the Working Group.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the Department for International Development to establish a joint approach to tackling the unsustainable bushmeat trade. [70303]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department and the Department for International Development (MID) already takes a joint approach to tackling unsustainable trade in bushmeat, and are in regular contact on this issue. For example, officials participate in the UK Tropical Forest Forum's Bushmeat Working Group; DEFRA and FCO are represented on the Steering Group for DfID's Wildlife and Poverty research study; DflD represented UK (including DEFRA) interests at the IUCN's Bushmeat Seminar in Yaounde in September 2001, and officials from DflD and the Overseas Development Institute produced DEFRA's bushmeat paper for the last CITES Conference in April 2000.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department plans to support Type 2 Initiatives arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [70310]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK is enthusiastic about the inclusion of partnerships (the so called "Type 2" Initiatives) within the outcomes of the World Summit since Governments alone cannot implement sustainable development. My Department is supporting the development of a range of partnerships in the run up to the summit, as are others, and we hope that a number of these will be registered as Type 2 initiatives. These include the EU initiative on water, several energy partnerships including the Global Village Energy Partnership, the EU Energy for Sustainable Development Initiative and the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development, the UK-led Partners for Water Supply and Sanitation and Sustainable Tourism initiatives, the London Principles on Sustainable Finance and the US-led Caribbean Partnership on improved marine management. Final decisions on the level of UK support for these and other partnerships will be made nearer the time.

  Plastic Waste
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what waste products are produced when plastic products are disposed of by(a) incineration and (b) burial in landfill sites. [70258]

  Mr. Meacher
  Plastics products comprise a wide range of polymerised organic compounds mixed with additives to enhance particular properties. By-products produced on disposal will depend on the type of plastic. When incinerated, plastics will mostly form carbon dioxide and water. Chlorinated plastics, such as PVC, will produce hydrochloric acid. In general they will not degrade to any great extent in landfill and will make little contribution to the production of leachate and landfill gas.

  Organic Foods
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls are in place on the spraying of organic foods with chemicals by(a) wholesalers and (b) retailers. [70245]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Regulation 2092–91 (EEC) prescribes the standards which must be observed if food is to be labelled as organic, including the inputs which may be used in the production and preparation of organic food. The Regulation permits only a restricted range of inputs to be used.

  Countryside Stewardship Schemes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what countryside stewardship schemes are available for small dairy farmers. [70246]

  Mr. Morley
  There are a number of existing options under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme that may be relevant to dairy production. For example, buffer strips within improved grassland are designed to protect habitats and conservation features from potentially damaging agricultural operations. Capital works programmes under the Scheme can also be relevant to livestock units, including those that are primarily involved with dairy production. In addition, we have recently begun a six-year research programme to investigate a range of possible environmental measures that would be compatible with intensive dairy farming.

  Following the announcement of the outcome of the Spending Review on 15 July, the way is now open to implement the recommendations of the Curry Commission on an 'entry-level' agri-environment scheme. This will be designed to be as accessible as possible to all farmers, including those in the dairy sector and will be piloted for two years and rolled out in 2005–06.

  New Forest National Park
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will delay the commencement of the public inquiry into the proposed New Forest national park until the current public inquiry into the proposed development of Dibden Bay by ABP has been concluded. [71026]
  708W
  Alun Michael
  Following a pre-inquiry meeting on 1 July, the Inspector has produced a draft programme for the New Forest inquiry. This shows that most of the parties involved in both inquiries are not due to appear at the New Forest inquiry before January. The Inspector has indicated that he is prepared to be sensitive to difficulties experienced by such parties in the programming of their appearances at this inquiry.

  I therefore do not intend to delay the start of the public inquiry into the New Forest national park as that would not be in the public interest. I recognise that the October start date may be inconvenient for some who are also involved in the current Dibden Bay inquiry, but that inquiry is due to close in December. Much of its work will therefore be over by October when the New Forest inquiry opens.

  Vehicular Access
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the criteria by which roads and pathways will be categorised under the Countryside, England Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002. [71232]

  Alun Michael
  No such criteria exist because the only rights that can be created under the regulations are private ones. The regulations apply where the owner of premises can show vehicular use of any piece of land for such a time and in such a manner that, had it not been an offence to drive across the land, a prescriptive right would have been acquired. The only categorisation of the type of land is that it must be land over which it is a criminal offence to drive.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many village halls were built in England between 1997 and 2002. [71235]

  Alun Michael
  This information is not held centrally in the manner requested and the information could be secured only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Village halls can play a vital role in rural communities as multi-purpose community centres and hubs for village life. We are supporting the development of active local communities and parish and town councils in a variety of ways; the village hall as a hub for social activity and

  709W
  service provision fits in well with our policy objectives, and support of village halls and the activities that take place there is available from a range of public sector and other sources.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report and those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in each of the past five years; and if she will provide a breakdown of the cost incurred. [70105]

  Mr. Morley
  The DEFRA annual report for 2001–02 was produced with the assistance of the Central Office of Information at a cost of £17,887, exclusive of VAT.

  £1

  Description

  Proofreading

  3,962

  Design, layout and cover

  13,400

  Production of web version

  525

  Total cost excluding printing

  £17,887

  1 ex-VAT

  DEFRA did not incur any of the print production costs. The Stationery Office prints and distributes the annual report as a commercial venture.

  The production costs and any print costs for the previous five annual departmental reports for MAFF could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2001–02 Annual report for the Pesticides Safety Directorate. [72776]

  Mr. Morley
  The 2001–02 Annual report and accounts for the Pesticides Safety Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Banned Pesticides/Plant Treatments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the five pesticides and plant treatments which are banned in the United Kingdom but most widely used elsewhere. [60836]

  Mr. Morley
  There are 25 agricultural pesticides which have had approvals revoked in the United Kingdom but are still available in the rest of the European Union or elsewhere. The majority of these are the organophosphate and carbamate compounds that were not supported in the UK anticholinesterase review, for example, carbofuran. There is a much larger number of substances which have never been approved for use as pesticides in the UK, but may be used in other countries. Differences in approvals between countries can arise because different approval conditions are applied or because commercial approvals are not sought in all countries.
  710W
  However, it is not possible to list the five pesticides which are banned in the UK but most widely used elsewhere. Accurate information on the quantities of pesticides used elsewhere could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what formal consultation has(a) taken place and (b) is planned relating to the EU Directive 2002/15/ED; and if she will make a statement. [70741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department is consulting informally with both sides of industry on the transposition of the Directive into domestic legislation and on how it might operate. We expect to launch a formal consultation exercise early next year.

  Timber Procurement
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact the draft EU public procurement directive will have on the ability of the EU to ensure that all timber procured is from legal and sustainable sources; and if she will make a statement. [68034]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposals for amending the public procurement directives include provisions which make clear the scope to take account of green production processes, eco-label criteria and environmental management systems at the appropriate stages of the procurement process. These provisions should, therefore, enable contracting authorities to be clear about their ability to specify, in a non-discriminatory way. that timber and timber-related products should be obtained from legal and sustainable sources. The Government are currently considering its approach to the procurement of sustainable and legal timber in the light of the proposed new directive and the Commission's interpretative communication on environmental issues which preceded it.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions there have been relating to proposed European Directive on public procurement, Article 53 so as to ensure that timber used on EU projects in future will come from legal and sustainable sources; and if she will make a statement. [68033]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have been heavily involved in discussions, both domestically and in Brussels, on the scope to take environmental considerations into account under the EC procurement directives. The proposals for clarifying, simplifying and updating these directives, on which political agreement was reached at the Internal Market Council on 21 May, make it clear that relevant green production processes and eco-label criteria can be used in specifications (Article 24). This clarification should enable a procurer to specify—in a non-discriminatory

  711W
  way—timber from legal and sustainable sources and to exclude offers which are non-compliant in this or other relevant respects. The award stage (article 53), which is concerned with the evaluation of compliant bids on the basis of various value for money criteria, is too late in the process to introduce such specification issues. However, environmental considerations which provide a benefit to the contracting authority, in terms of the most economically advantageous tender, can be taken into account at that stage.

  Energy Shortfall
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to address the future shortfall in energy from traditional sources. [71931]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government launched a consultation on energy policy on 14 May with a view to publishing a White Paper around the turn of the year.

  The consultation document seeks views on the supply of energy from traditional and renewable sources as well as on issues relating to demand such as energy efficiency.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, pursuant to the answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1277W, on recycling, if she will publish the monthly data; if she will add the recycling of plastic bottles and plastic covering to the list; and if she will make a statement. [70217]

  Mrs. Roe
  The monthly data will be placed in the House of Commons Library. Plastic will not be added to the list at present because the quantities generated here are relatively small and priority is being given to maximising the recycling of the other materials on the list.

  Computer Access
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will enable hon. Members to log onto their systems via hon. Members' computers in the Library. [71454]

  Michael Fabricant
  It is already possible for Members to use the computers in "A" Room to gain access to their e-mail accounts. New instructions are being provided to explain the necessary log-in procedures more clearly. These computers are primarily intended, however, to provide access to on-line information systems available on the parliamentary intranet and the internet. For the convenience of Members, other applications, such as word-processing and spreadsheets, are also provided.

  There are also connection points throughout the Members' Library to allow Members to gain access to the Parliamentary Data and Video Network using their own laptops.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council how many(a) full time equivalents were employed by his press office and (b) secondees were placed in his press office in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [70534]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8 March 2002,Official Report, columns 605W, and both my replies to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 69W.

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 83W, to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), on parliamentary pensions, if he will estimate the additional cost to the Exchequer of that part of those improved pensions which are not covered by the increase in hon. Members' contributions over the period before the full cost of the accrued rate is borne by hon. Members. [71677]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Exchequer contribution to the parliamentary pension scheme is set by the Government Actuary, as part of his triennial valuation of the scheme. The Government Actuary is currently working on his valuation of the scheme as at 1 April 2002. He will take into account, in setting the Exchequer contribution to apply from April 2003, the number of hon. Members and office holders who choose to pay higher contributions to secure a higher pension accrual.

  The Government Actuary has estimated the cost of the improved pension as 5.1 per cent. of pay. If all hon. Members arid office holders were to decide to opt to pay increased contributions of 9 per cent. of pay rather than 6 per cent. with effect from 15 July 2002, the additional costs to the Exchequer over the period to 31 March 2003 may be estimated as being in the order of £600,000 in the year 2002–03 and £860,000 for a full year.

  Privy Council
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council who was present at the meeting of the Privy Council on 26 June; and what business was transacted. [71795]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The following were present at the Council held on 26 June:

  The Queen

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  The Attorney-General

  The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Minister for Sport)

  The Clerk of the Council.

  The following Orders were approved at the Council. For statutory Orders the enabling power is given in brackets.

  Orders appointing Dawn Primarolo, MP, George Foulkes, MP, and Dr. Oliver Letwin, MP members of the Privy Council;

  713W
  Proclamation determining the specification of three £5 coins commemorating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and an order directing the Lord Chancellor to affix the Great Seal to the Proclamation (Coinage Act 1971);
  Order approving the grant of a Charter of Incorporation to the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health;
  Order amending the Charter of the Institute of Materials;
  Order appointing Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville to be a member of the Council of the University of London;
  Order appointing Angus John Allan one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education in Scotland (Education (Scotland) Act 1980);
  The Consular Fees Order 2002 (Consular Fees Act 1980);
  The Air Navigation (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2002 (Civil Aviation Act 1982);
  The General Dental Council (Constitution) Order 2002 (Dentists Act 1984);
  The Exempt Charities Order 2002 (Charities Act 1993);
  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2002 (Scotland Act 1998);
  The Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2002 (Scotland Act 1998);
  Three Orders approving the following Acts of the States of Jersey:

  1. Criminal Justice (Evidence of Children) (Jersey) Law 2002;

  2. Companies (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 2002;

  3. Public Finances (Administration) (Amendment No. 10) (Jersey) Law 2002;

  Order approving an Act of the States of Guernsey entitled "The Terrorism and Crime (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2002";
  Order approving an Act of the Chief Pleas of Sark entitled "The Conveyancing (Sark) Law, 2002";
  Order under the Burial Act 1853 giving notice of the proposed discontinuance of burials in three places;
  Seventeen Orders confirming pastoral schemes of the Church Commissioners (Pastoral Measure 1983).

  Information on the dates of Privy Council meetings is now available on my Department's website, www.privycouncil.gov.uk. A list of the Orders approved at each meeting is published on the site shortly after it has taken place.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth Education Projects
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department has taken in 2002 in connection with education projects within the Commonwealth. [70614]

  Clare short
  The Government are strongly committed to the Millennium Development Goals on education: achieving universal primary education by 2015 and eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. Since May 1997, DFID has committed over £700 million to support primary education for poor people, mainly in the Commonwealth. We are using these funds to support national education policies which form part of developing country Governments' broader poverty reduction strategies. In 2002 our priority is to implement successfully these long-term programmes and to develop new partnerships with Commonwealth Governments.
  714W
  Achieving these education goals will require a strong commitment from Commonwealth Governments to prioritise primary education within their spending plans. Many Commonwealth countries will also need considerable external assistance. The Government are working to mobilise the international community in support of Education for All. Our aim is to achieve consensus by the end of 2002 on well co-ordinated international action for mobilising new resources and better co-ordinated programmes designed to meet this goal. We are giving high priority to working with the World bank to develop its new Action Plan for accelerating progress towards Education for All. We believe the Action Plan's fast track initiative provides an opportunity to try to ensure that no country genuinely committed to economic development, poverty reduction and good governance is denied the chance to achieve universal primary education through lack of resources.

  The bank's fast track initiative offers seven poor Commonwealth countries the chance to qualify for additional financing for primary education if they can demonstrate that their Government is fully committed and has effective policies in place. A further four Commonwealth countries can apply for assistance in building capacity, filling gaps in data and developing effective policies for primary education. We will continue to support the fast track proposals and participate in on-going discussions with the World bank about implementation arrangements.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of attacks on aid workers in Afghanistan. [71139]

  Clare short
  There have been a handful of attacks on aid workers in some areas of Afghanistan and we remain concerned about reports of insecurity in northern Afghanistan, including attacks on aid workers. We support the actions of the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Lakhdar Brahimi, who has written to President Karzai, and visited the north to discuss security issues with the various factions.

  We shall continue to monitor the situation closely and to encourage the transitional Administration to work to ensure that all parts of Afghanistan are as safe as possible in order to allow aid work to continue across the country.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Defence Secretary regarding his Department's assistance in reconstruction work in Afghanistan. [71143]

  Clare short
  I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a number of issues. Reform of the security sector is vital to the future stability of Afghanistan. DFID, in consultation with colleagues in the FCO and MOD, is working for the creation of accountable national military and police forces subject to the rule of law and under central and civilian control; anti-narcotics activities; and the re-establishment of an appropriate judicial system. The UK has in principle committed $33 million to this process.
  715W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of pledges made to fund Afghanistan's reconstruction at the Bonn Conference have been met. [71140]

  Clare short
  Pledges for the reconstruction of Afghanistan were made at the Tokyo Conference. Precise data on the disbursement of aid to Afghanistan are not yet available. However, we estimate that donor pledges to Afghanistan amount to a little under $2 billion in 2002, of which about $1.1 billion has been committed and about $0.8 billion disbursed. The pace of further disbursements will now depend on improvements in security and access and on the completion of the National Development Framework and development budget.

  Liberia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to support civil society groups in Liberia. [71145]

  Clare short
  We have no development programme to Liberia. Over the last few years my Department has supported a limited number of projects, most of which have been delivered through civil society organisations. These have included community development projects, and projects to enhance peace and promote reconciliation between ethnic groups. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also provided support to promote democratic values and reduce tension between ethnic groups.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what she estimates the main benefits were for heavily indebted poor countries arising from the recent G8 talks. [70833]

  Clare short
  At Kananaskis last month, the G8 reaffirmed their commitment to the full financing of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, and agreed to provide an additional US$1 billion for the HIPC Trust Fund to help the multilateral development banks meet their share of HIPC costs. The additional money will provide the remaining financing required under the HIPC initiative, and will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices will get enough debt relief to enable them to exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of how money was spent by her Department in each year since 1998–99 on each programme listed in table 4 of annex 1 to the departmental report 2002 under the headings:(a) bilateral country and regional programmes, (b) middle east and north Africa, (c) south Asia, (d) east Africa and Pacific, (e) Asia regional, (f) Latin America and Caribbean, (g) Europe and Central Asia, (h) overseas territories, (i) conflict and humanitarian affairs, (j) research and economic policy, (k) education, (l) enterprise development, (m) health and population, (n) international trade, (o) private sector policy, (p) rural livelihoods and environmental policy,
  716W
  (q)other non-country/regional specific programmes,(r) regional development banks and (s) the European Community Attribution programme. [71149]

  Clare short
  Further information on expenditure against these programmes is given in tables 7–7.5 and 8 of the 2001 edition of "Statistics on International Development", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The expenditure comprises contractual payments, grants, core contributions and encashments of promissory notes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of how money was spent by her Department in each year since 1998–99 on each programme listed in Table 2 of Annexe 1 of the departmental report 2002. [71150]

  Clare short
  Details of the form of "bilateral development assistance" are given in tables 7–7.5 of the 2001 edition of "Statistics on International Development", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This expenditure comprises contractual payments for the supply of goods and services, grants to recipient country governments and civil society organisations. as well as the provision of technical co-operation and humanitarian assistance.

  "Multilateral development assistance", including contributions to the "Global Environment Fund" and the "EC development programme", comprises grants to international organisations as well as drawdowns on promissory notes deposited in accordance with UK agreements. Details of the organisations involved are given in Table 8 of "Statistics on International Development".

  Expenditure on "conflict prevention" covers activities funded from the inter-departmental Conflict Prevention Pools established in 2001–02.

  "Overseas Superannuation": this expenditure relates to pensions paid to former colonial service and Indian Empire officers and their dependants for which the Government have agreed to assume responsibility under the Aid Programme and the index-linked increases paid on these pensions under the UK Pensions Increase legislation.

  About 90 per cent. of the 24,000 pensions paid to former colonial and Indian Empire pensioners are paid direct to bank accounts worldwide, with the remaining 10 per cent. paid direct to pensioners by payable order.

  The "Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund" benefits Spanish people who worked in Gibraltar and contributed to the fund. It takes the form of pension payments.

  "Administration costs" cover staff costs (salaries) and general administrative overheads such as travel, training and accommodation costs.

  Central African Republic
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact the use of child labour in the diamond trade of the Central African Republic is having on efforts to educate children in the country; and if she will make a statement. [70871]
  717W
  Clare short
  None. The Central African Republic is not a country with which we have a close relationship. Our development assistance is provided through multilateral channels.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to bring good governance to the Central African Republic. [70870]

  Clare short
  DFID has no programme in the Central African Republic and contributes through multilateral channels. The European Commission's ninth EDF programme sees institutional capacity building and the promotion of good governance as a priority area.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that HIV/AIDS detection facilities are available in the Central African Republic. [70880]

  Clare short
  Our assistance to the Central African Republic (CAR) is provided through multilateral channels. We provide support to UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation who are currently assisting the CAR improve HIV/AIDS surveillance and detection facilities through the implementation of their national AIDS strategy. The EC programme in CAR, to which we contribute, includes work on HIV health education.

  Food Shortages (Africa)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the money allocated by the Government for the procurement of maize meal in Lesotho has been spent; and if she will make a statement. [70873]

  Clare short
  Of the £18.75 million that we allocated to the World Food programme for their emergency operations in Central and southern Africa, £1.5 million was earmarked for their emergency operation 'in Lesotho. The WFP tell us that our allocation in Lesotho has purchased 2,560 tonnes of split peas, 555 tonnes of vegetable oil and 400 tonnes of beans.

  Sierra Leone
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has offered to the President of Sierra Leone to ensure the provision of basic services in the country. [70876]

  Clare short
  This year we plan to provide around £40 million of development assistance to Sierra Leone, of which some £10 million is in the form of direct budgetary support, in part to help meet social sector expenditure. When I met President Kabbah last month, I indicated that the UK was prepared to make a 10-year commitment to maintain a high level of support to Sierra Leone, so long as the Government remained firmly committed to raising standards of governance. Tackling corruption, thereby ensuring resources (including those going to health and education) were no longer wasted, would be a tangible indicator of this commitment.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what programmes the 718W
  Government are funding to fight AIDS in Africa; how much the Government are planning to spend on this in the next three financial years; and what other measures the Government plans on this issue. [71012]

  Clare short
  DFID currently commits over £180 million to bilateral programmes working to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. Major DFID HIV prevention and care programmes are currently running in Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Malawi.

  Considerable additional financial support continues to be provided by DFID to institutions such as WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, UNFPA, the EC and to NGOs and civil society organisations in a coherent effort to combat this disease and support those already living with it. We have committed over £25 million to International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa which specifically supports action in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi and Ghana.

  New initiatives are being planned in a number of countries across Africa. A £20 million HIV/AIDS programme is currently being developed in Zambia aimed at behaviour change and HIV prevention. In South Africa, DFID is planning to invest up to £40 million in a multisectoral response to HIV/AIDS programme. In Nigeria, a £25 million HIV/AIDS multi-sectoral programme is currently under design to complement a £52 million national behaviour change programme started earlier this year.

  African Union
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department intends to give to the new African Union. [71138]

  Clare short
  DFID has worked with the African Union through its transition from the Organisation of African Unity into the new African Union. DFID provides support to the African Union's Conflict Management Centre, to enhance its capacity to prevent, resolve and manage conflict in Africa. Capacity is being built through the funding of staff posts, including four specialists, to increase early warning analysis and to improve recommendations to the secretary general.

  In financial terms, DFID expects to provide £480,000 from 2002–03 to 2003–04, through the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool, and provided £530,000 between 1999 and 2001–02.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the African Union. [71137]

  Clare short
  I warmly congratulate the African Union on its inauguration, and endorse the message of support sent by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to its first summit. The African Union has great potential to play an integral part in resolving the many problems faced by Africa today, including the need for a resolution of conflicts, better economic management and integration, improved health and education systems.

  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects have so far received funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. [71011]

  Clare short
  Since approving its first round of proposals, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria has been working intensively with recipients to agree financial management and monitoring arrangements. Funding will flow as soon as these arrangements are in place.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress made by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in fighting AIDS. [71009]

  Clare short
  The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria is now legally established as a foundation in Switzerland. WHO is providing administrative support and the World bank is the trustee. The first board meeting of the fund took place in Geneva in late January 2002 during which the legal and framework documents for the purpose, scope and operations of the fund were approved. The second Global Fund Board in April made two key decisions. It selected Richard Feachem as Executive Director, and approved funding for the first tranche of proposals. Of 380 proposals received, 40 programmes in 31 countries were approved, totalling $378 million over two years. A further 18 proposals from 12 countries were approved subject to clarifications, totalling $238 million over two years. Total pledges to the fund now amount to around US $2 billion. The UK has pledged $200 million over five years, and has already distributed its first tranche of $40 million.

  Over the coming months, the fund will be clarifying fiduciary and other arrangements for approved first round proposals, with funding flowing as clarifications are received. It is also engaged in improving the application process for the second round. There will be a policy Board in October and a second round of proposals for which the closing date will be around early October and which will be considered at a January Board meeting.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she intends to continue to fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in the next financial year. [71010]

  Clare short
  As I have made clear we have committed £500 million to the Global Fund over the next five years.

  Angola
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the United Nations regarding the protection afforded to internally displaced people in Angola. [71144]

  Clare short
  The United Nations estimates that more than four million people have been displaced from their homes in Angola. Three million of these require urgent nutritional and medical assistance. The UK made strong representations to both the United Nations and the Government of Angola to agree a framework for humanitarian assistance and we have made contributions of £3.3 million this year, including £1.65 million to the 720W
  UN, to meet urgent needs. I have met Ibrahim Gambari, the UN SGSR for Africa three times this year to discuss the situation in Angola.

  With a genuine peace agreement now in place, people are starting to return to their homes. It is vital that human rights are respected during this time. This is the responsibility of the Angolan Government though we expect the UN to monitor the process. The UK are assisting with the disarmament, demobilisation, and re-integration of former UNITA combatants. My Department also has an emergency response team assessing the humanitarian situation in Angola at present. We will continue to monitor the situation as access to more remote areas becomes feasible and maintain a dialogue with the UN.

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority her Department accords the promotion of human rights in its development policy. [71147]

  Clare short
  Details of our commitment to a rights based approach to development are set out in my Department's publication, "Realising Human Rights for Poor People".

  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 proportion of the funds in 2001–02 were supplied to United Kingdom (a) companies, (b) organisations and (c) other bodies; and if she will list them. [71247]

  Clare short
  A list of the projects and the companies contracted has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to monitor the effectiveness of voluntary corporate social responsibility strategies of United Kingdom companies which invest in developing countries. [72053]

  Clare short
  My Department supports a number of initiatives aimed at monitoring the impact of the corporate social responsible strategies of UK companies on developing countries. For example, in the retail sector, we have supported the work of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) since its establishment in 1998. The ETI is an alliance of 28 UK businesses (with a combined turnover of over £100 billion), NGOs and trade unions that work to improve labour conditions in the supply chains of the company members. The ETI is conducting research to assess the impact of its code of conduct on workers and suppliers, and the business case for adopting such codes.

  DFID is also funding research on measuring the impact on poverty of companies' international investments and operations. This will include looking at both the direct impacts, such as welfare provision and training, and the indirect impacts, such as taxation payments to national Governments.

  Departmental Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) full-time equivalents were employed by her press office and (b) secondees were placed in her press office in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [70540]

  Clare short
  We currently employ four press officers, and this number of posts has remained the same since January 1997 and we have had no secondees in that time.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if she will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if she will make a statement. [70210]

  Clare short
  We have since 1997 published all our major strategy documents, including two White Papers, all country and institutional strategy papers, as well as

  Company

  Size

  Sector

  Country

  Date

  Digicel

  US$20 million

  Telecoms and converging technologies

  El Salvador

  July 2002

  Southern Cone Power Ltd.

  US$70 million

  Power

  Peru, Chile, Argentina

  March 2002

  DVI, Inc.

  US$25 million

  Healthcare

  Americas

  March 2002

  UTI Bank

  26 per cent.

  Financial institutions

  India

  December 2001

  Medi Kredit

  57 per cent.

  Healthcare

  South Africa

  November 2001

  NorthPole Ltd.

  US$30 million

  Consumer business

  China

  October 2001

  Songas

  US$18 million

  Power

  Tanzania

  October 2001

  MSI Cellular

  US$40 million

  Telecoms and converging technologies

  Pan Africa

  September 2001

  Medscheme Ltd.

  9 per cent.

  Healthcare

  South Africa

  September 2001

  Vancouver Airport Services

  US$30.5 million

  Transport

  Americas

  April 2001

  Ace Power

  US$2.7 million

  Power

  India

  April 2001

  Praxis Active Equity Fund II

  US$8 million

  Healthcare

  South Africa

  February 2001

  Aquarius Platinum

  US$12 million

  Minerals, oil and gas

  South Africa

  January 2001

  The Medicine Shoppe

  US$1 million

  Healthcare

  India

  January 2001

  MRO-tek

  US$1.12 million

  Telecoms and converging technologies

  India

  December 2000

  Prime Cure Clinics

  12 per cent.

  Healthcare

  Africa

  December 2000

  Gateway Container

  £12 million

  Transport

  Pan Asia

  December 2000

  Regal Forest

  US$15 million

  Consumer business

  Central America

  December 2000

  Puerto Quetzal Power Project

  25 per cent.

  Power

  Guatemala

  October 2000

  Corporacion Fischel SA

  US$5 million

  Healthcare

  Costa Rica

  September 2000

  DFCU

  35 per cent.

  Financial institutions

  Uganda

  May 2000

  Tsavo Power

  US$19 million

  Power

  Kenya

  May 2000

  Konkola Copper Mines

  US$30 million

  Minerals, oil and gas

  Zambia

  April 2000

  San Pedro de Macoris

  US$25 million

  Power

  Dominican Republic

  April 2000

  Cineplex

  US$4.9 million

  Consumer business

  Peru

  March 2000

  Compania Minera Colquiri (CMC)

  US$10 million

  Minerals, oil and gas

  Bolivia

  January 2000

  China National Offshore Oil Company

  US$25 million

  Minerals, oil and gas

  China

  January 2000

  Empresa Generadora de Electricidad

  US$74 million

  Power

  Nicaragua

  January 2000

  SSB Bank

  20 per cent.

  Financial institutions

  Ghana

  December 1999

  Satyam Infoway

  US$12 million

  Telecoms and converging technologies

  India

  December 1999

  Guyana Power and Light

  50 per cent.

  Power

  Guyana

  October 1999

  Orzunil de Electricidad Limitada

  US$20 million

  Power

  Guatemala

  September 1999

  Kingdom Transport Ltd.

  US$6.9 million

  Transport

  Ghana

  September 1999

  South Asia Gateway Terminals

  US$42 million

  Transport

  Sri Lanka

  August 1999

  Ferrocarril Central del Peru

  30 per cent.

  Transport

  Peru

  July 1999

  Protea Hospitality Corporation

  40 per cent.

  Property

  Pan Africa

  April 1999

  African Lion Ltd.

  US$8 million

  Minerals, oil and gas

  Pan Africa

  February 1999

  Kondapalli Power Corporation Ltd.

  25 per cent.

  Power

  India

  January 1999

  722W
  major consultation papers and speeches. Our publishing output continues to expand.

  We do not produce anything which we would regard as campaign material. Our spending on publications over the period in question is as follows:

  2001–02: £1,060,000.

  We do not have a specific advertising budget. However, the bulk of our paid advertising is in relation to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. The cost in 2001 calendar year was £1.208 million.

  CDC Capital Partners
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list CDC Capital Partners' investments by(a) sector, (b) size and (c) country since 1997. [67348]

  Clare short
  CDC's new investments since the beginning of 1999 are listed in the table, ranked by sector, size and country. Relevant information for 1997 and 1998 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, owing to a change in CDC's portfolio accounting systems.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Hunting With Dogs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners. if the Church of England has contributed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on hunting with dogs. [68945]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners have made no contribution to the current DEFRA consultation on hunting with dogs, but I understand that other bodies within the Church of England are looking at this issue from an ethical or theological point of view.

  Clergy (Terms and Conditions)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, when he expects to make an announcement about terms and conditions of service for the clergy. [70772]

  Mr. Bell
  The Archbishops' Council, which in its role as Central Stipends Authority is responsible for these matters, publishes details of the stipends paid to clergy in its annual report to the Church of England's General Synod. The report for 2001 was published in January this year; a copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The Archbishops' Council is in the course of considering the Department of Trade and Industry's discussion document on employment status in relation to statutory employment rights, published earlier this month.

  Church Property
  Michael Fahricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what role(a) English Heritage and (b) the chancellors of each diocese have in approving schemes of work on church property; and if he will make a statement. [70721]

  Mr. Bell
  In general, work of substance may not be carried out to a parish church or certain other Church of England places of worship without a "faculty" or permission from the Chancellor of the ecclesiastical court of the diocese or, in some cases involving less significant changes, from the archdeacon. (Separate controls apply to cathedrals.) The faculty system is a legal system of controls which has been strengthened by recent legislation; it predates secular listed building controls, is broader in scope and also applies to unlisted buildings. Because it satisfied Government requirements for "ecclesiastical exemption", Church of England churches are not in general subject to listed building control, though they are not exempt from the need for planning permission where that applies.

  It is for the court alone to decide whether to grant the faculty or permission, but with limited exceptions the Chancellor or archdeacon must seek the advice of the Diocesan Advisory Committee before doing so. Three members of that committee are appointed in consultation with English Heritage, with the National Amenity Societies and with Local Government associations.
  724W
  There is also statutory provision in the faculty jurisdiction system for consultation with a range of bodies, including English Heritage, in appropriate cases. Parishes contemplating changes to listed churches are in any case encouraged to seek its informal advice and that of the Amenity Societies as early as possible. English Heritage will need to approve any works for which it is providing grant aid, and must also be consulted where it has in the past made a grant to a particular church.

  Church property not used for worship is subject to normal secular controls.

WALES

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by his Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64627]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1 January my Department has introduced three statutory instruments, revoked none, and amended one. Costs and savings are not readily available.

  Building Value
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the buildings owned by his Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66945]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Asset Register, published in July 2001 (Cm5221), lists assets owned by each Department and their valuation.

  Sunderland Commission
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Government colleagues concerning the Sunderland Commission. [71770]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about a range of matters affecting Wales.

  The Sunderland Commission was established by the Assembly. It is therefore for the Assembly initially to respond to its recommendations.

  Assembly Finance Minister, Edwina Hart has announced that there will be a wide consultation, over the summer and early autumn, on all the Commission's recommendations.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if he will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if he will make a statement. [70208]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 752W.

  Departmental Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) full time equivalents were employed by his press office and (b) secondees were placed in his press office in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [70543]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department is staffed entirely by secondees. Since the establishment of the Wales Office on 1 July 1999 it has employed three press officers.

CABINET OFFICE

  IT Procurements
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the Government policy is on the use of open source software to enable increased value for money in IT procurements across the public sector. [72633]

  Mr. Alexander
  This Government are intent on securing the best value for money in its IT procurements by encouraging the development of a flourishing IT industry which supplies both proprietary and open source software solutions to the public sector. Government procurement decisions will be based on the ability of the solutions to deliver effective and economic systems and services.

  I am pleased to announce new policy on the use of open source software within UK Government. It explains how we will consider open source software solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurements and award contracts on a value for money basis, seeking to avoid lock-in to proprietary IT products and services. In addition, the UK Government will consider obtaining full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) software it procures, wherever this achieves best value for money. It will also explore further the possibilities of using OSS as the default exploitation route for Government-funded R&D software.

  The open source software policy has been formulated for use within UK Government because we seek to embrace the fast moving pace of the software industry and to acknowledge the clear potential for open source software to change the software infrastructure marketplace. It also serves as an appropriate response to the recent European Commission's Action Plan for the initiative eEurope—an information society for all. UK Government, in joining with its European partners to explore the availability of open source software solutions, will seek to realise the significant potential for cost-savings in the future and to achieve an increased flexibility in the development, enhancement and integration of our IT systems.

  Centre for Management and Policy Studies
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the annual report and accounts for the Centre for Management and Policy Studies. [72617]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have today placed copies of the second annual report and accounts for the Centre for Management and Policy Studies for the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 in the Libraries of the House.
  726W
  The report and accounts show that financial targets have been met. The quality targets were met, and in some cases, exceeded. The volume targets for participants in training and development were exceeded in the aggregate.

  The changes to Cabinet Office announced by Sir Andrew Turnbull, and presently being implemented in advance of his arrival in September, will have a significant effect on CMPS as an organisation.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the outcome is of the review of policy towards executive agencies. [72632]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government have today published the report of the review which was jointly sponsored by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. Pam Alexander led the review.

  The review has far-reaching implications for improving the delivery of central Government services. It concludes that the agency model has been a success in improving, and in some cases transforming, services and functions delivered by central Government and has brought customer focus and a performance culture into the civil service. However, it find that agencies have in some cases become detached from Ministers and from Departments' increasing focus on strategic aims; controls over processes have reduced effectiveness and responsiveness without providing a shared strategic direction

  The report makes 12 recommendations to achieve and maintain strategic connection and improve service delivery. These include:

  departmental leadership which values equally policy and delivery skills and agency management with a clear understanding of ministerial objectives;
  simpler governance structures providing strategic direction from Departments and external challenge from non-executive directors on management boards;
  alignment of departmental and agency key targets and a cycle of reviews to ensure that structures and processes across Departments support the achievement of key objectives; and
  maximum use of financial and managerial delegations to support responsive, flexible and effective delivery.

  The Cabinet Office and Treasury will be working with Departments to put the review's recommendations into effect over the coming months as part of the wider drive to improve the effectiveness of public services and place a culture of delivery at the heart of Government.

  Copies of the review's report and recommendations have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  E-Government
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research has been carried out to assess the level of(a) awareness in the population analysed by socioeconomic group, (b) usage by the population analysed by socio-economic group, (c) repeat usage by the population and (d) satisfaction of users with respect to the website www.ukonline.gov.uk; and what the findings were. [70520]
  727W
  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) gave to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 55W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the budget is for the website www.ukonline.gov.uk in respect of(a) site development and maintenance, (b) marketing and (c) other matters for the financial years (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [70522]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) gave to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 484W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much has been spent on the website www.ukonline.gov.uk for(a) design and build prior to launch, (b) development and maintenance since launch, (c) marketing, (d) other and (e) the project in total in each of the financial years since the inception of the project. [70519]

  Mr. Alexander

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), gave the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 484W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the savings which have arisen for each Government Department as a result of the website www.ukonline.gov.uk [70521]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) gave to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 54W.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to introduce new framework legislation on emergency planning; and if he will make a statement. [71184]

  Mr. Alexander
  My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston is chairing a sub-committee of the Civil Contingencies Committee to press forward with work on laying the foundations of a Civil Contingencies Bill. The first meeting of the committee was held on 17 July 2002. A wide range of stakeholders will be involved in the agreed work programme, including those from relevant Government Departments, their agencies and non-departmental public bodies, the devolved Administrations, the local authorities, the emergency services, the private sector and outside organisations.

  The Government plan to introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Public Servant (Definition)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how the Government define the term "public servant"; if 728W
  he will provide a list of who is included in this definition; and what the average annual salary is for public servants, broken down by region. [71016]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  For the purposes of the New Earnings Survey (NES) public servants are defined as public sector employees in each of the following areas:

  (a) Central Government—Government Departments and establishments, directly employed health staff (excluding trusts) and various government-financed organisations. (The armed forces are not covered by the NES).

  (b) Local government—Local government authorities (including education authorities), police service and various other organisations.

  (c) Public corporations—Nationalised industries, NHS trusts, and other publicly-constituted trading organisations.

  Average annual earnings for the Public Sector in 2001 are as follows:

  Gross annual earnings

  £

  2001

  North East

  20,199

  North West

  21,377

  East Midlands

  21,705

  West Midlands

  22,048

  South West

  21,743

  East

  22,604

  London

  26,925

  South East

  22,658

  Wales

  21,044

  Scotland

  21,544

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  21,620

  Public Sector Average (GB)

  22,435

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey April 2001

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to introduce new pension arrangements for the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement. [72618]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am today laying before Parliament, under the provisions of the Superannuation Act 1972, three amendment schemes. The first of these amends the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) and introduces new provisions for those joining the pension scheme on or after 1 October 2002. The second amendment scheme makes consequential changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, and the third amendment scheme removes the injury benefit provisions of the PCSPS to a separate scheme.

  Pension arrangements for civil servants (and those in employments and offices listed in Schedule I to the Superannuation Act 1972) will change on 1 October 2002. New entrants joining after that date will generally be given the choice of a final salary pension or a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. The new arrangements are being introduced on a cost-neutral basis for employers.

  We recognise that pensions form a significant part of the Civil Service remuneration package, and we want civil servants to be able to choose the pension that suits them

  729W
  best. Today's Civil Service does not offer a job for life and is benefiting from greater interchange with other sectors at all levels within the organisation. Final salary pensions may be good for those who spend a long period with one employer, but those who change jobs frequently during their career may prefer their employer to contribute to a stakeholder pension. By giving our new staff a choice of two good quality pension alternatives we aim not only to support a more diverse Civil Service but also to raise awareness and appreciation of the value of the pension element of the pay package.

  The new final salary option will be known as the premium scheme. It will provide a pension based on one-sixtieth of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Other features of the premium scheme include:

  option to exchange part of pension for lump sum on retirement;
  ill-health pensions varying in amount depending on the extent of incapacity;
  death-in-service lump sum of three times pay;
  pensions for surviving spouses of 3/8ths of the member's pension;
  pension payable to a surviving eligible unmarried partner if the member does not leave a spouse;
  pensions for children

  Existing members of the PCSPS will have the option of joining the premium scheme or remaining with the current provisions (to be renamed the classic scheme). Members opting for classic will continue to earn a pension based on 1/80th of pay for each year of service plus a retirement lump sum of three times pension. Members opting to join the premium scheme will have their past service reduced—typically to 92 per cent. of its previous amount—to reflect the improved benefit structure. Members may also opt for classic plus; this option effectively provides premium scheme benefits for service from 1 October with service before 1 October continuing to be pensioned broadly on the classic model.
  730W
  We are moving to the new arrangements on a cost-neutral basis, with the entire cost of benefit improvements being met by increased contributions by members. None of the cost of the benefit improvements will fall on the taxpayer. All premium and classic plus members will pay the new contribution rate of 3.5 per cent. Members opting to remain in the classic scheme will continue to pay contributions of 1.5 per cent. of pay.

  The stakeholder pension alternative will be known as the partnership pension account. Employees will choose their pension provider from the following panel:

  AMP Corporate Pensions Scottish Widows

  Scottish Widows

  Standard Life

  TUC

  Employees opting for a partnership pension account do not need to contribute, but will be encouraged to do so by having their contributions matched up to 3 per cent. of pay. In addition, the employer will pay contributions based on age, varying from 3 per cent. of pay for those under 21, to 12.5 per cent. of pay for those aged 46 and over. Lump sum benefits of up to three times pay on death in service and on ill health retirement will be provided separately, and will be the subject of future schemes under the Superannuation Act.

  Civil Service remuneration is set having regard to the need to recruit, retain and motivate staff of the appropriate quality. Full account is taken of the value of pension arrangements, including the cost of index-linking, in setting the balance between the pay and pension elements of the reward package.

  The Civil Service unions have been involved throughout the development of the new pension options, both in negotiating the terms and also in appraising their members of the options open to them. The unions' constructive involvement throughout this process stands as a testament to the value of partnership working.

TRANSPORT

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EC-Bulgaria Joint Transport Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [718301

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee is established under the provisions of Article 13 of the Agreement of 26 July 2000 between the European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the agreement. I am not aware that it has met in recent times or that there are any plans for it to meet in the future. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been—and would not in the future be—members of the committee as the matters for which it has responsibility are reserved.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EEC-Slovenia Joint Transport Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [71831]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee is established under the provisions of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Slovenia in the field of transport which was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 29 July 1993. The remit of the committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the agreement. I am not aware that it has met since the conclusion of the agreement or that there are any plans for it to meet in the future. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been—and would not in the future be—members of the committee as the matters for which it has responsibility are reserved.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EC-Romania Joint Transport Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [71829]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee is established under the provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and Romania establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the agreement. I am not aware that it has met in recent times or that there are any plans for it to meet in the future. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been—and would not in the future be—members of the committee as the matters for which it has responsibility are reserved.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the European Energy and Transport Forum 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. [71821]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand the European Energy and Transport Forum will meet for the first time later this year. Members of the Forum were selected by the European Commission following a call for applications 732W
  published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 7 June 2002. I do not believe any representative of the Scottish Executive has been appointed as a member of the Forum.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EC-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Transport Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [71828]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee is established under the provisions of Article 22 of the Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the field of transport which was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 18 December 1997. The remit of the Committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. I am not aware that it has met in recent times or that there are any plans for it to meet in the future. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been—and would not in the future be—members of the Committee as the matters for which it has responsibility are reserved.

  Workplace Smoking
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to implement a code of practice on smoking in the workplace; and what consultation there has been with trade unions, health welfare and medical organisations on this issue. [71177]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The White Paper on Tobacco, "Smoking Kills", stated that the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) would consult on whether to introduce an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) on passive smoking in the workplace.

  HSC has completed that task and announced, in September 2000, that it favoured the introduction of an ACoP. Representatives from trade unions, health welfare and medical organisations were all involved in the consultation.

  The Government are giving careful consideration to the Commission's proposals. As part of this process, the Commission has been asked to consider further both the implications of an ACoP on the hospitality sector and small businesses generally, and the role the Public Places Charter could play.

  Residential Property Record
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library his Department's departmental-owned residential property record. [707711

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not maintain a central residential property record. Nevertheless, two of the Department's agencies own residential property:

  (1) the Highways Agency, as the operator of the strategic road network on behalf of the Secretary of State, keeps a database of residential property acquired for road schemes. This contains information restricted under the Data Protection Act 1998 and cannot be released in its current form; and

  (2) the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency owns three residential properties: two are official residences and one is currently on the market for sale.

  Travel/Retail Information Report
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a copy of the final report on research conducted for his predecessor Department by Cap Gemini Ernst and Young on Travel Information and Retailing Policy Information in July 2000. [70737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A copy of this report was placed in the House of Commons Library last year. The summary of the report is also available on the DfT website, at http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/transdirect/capgem/index.htm

  Departmental Press Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [70657]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We expect that the Department for Transport will establish a similar service by autumn 2002.

  Flight Paths
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been made to aircraft flight paths and altitudes over London and the south-east in the past five years. [712341

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been numerous minor changes and adjustments to air traffic routes and procedures over London and the south-east during the past five years. The most significant changes have been:

  the introduction of a second terminal holding pattern, 'ABBOT', and associated reconfiguration of arrival routes for London Stansted airport in April 1999;

  minor changes were made in 2000 and 2001 to the noise preferential routes and standard instrument departure (SID) procedures from London Stansted airport to improve track-keeping and airspace management; and
  new SID was introduced in 1998 from London Luton airport to improve traffic flows in the light of the traffic growth at Luton airport.

  Airport Construction
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) received on the economic consequences of building new (i) airports and (ii) runways; [70866]

  (2) what recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) received on the economic consequences of building new (i) airports and (ii) runways. [70867]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Appraisal Framework for Airports in the South-East and Eastern Regions of England published in November 2000 sets out the approach that the Department is applying in considering options for the development of airport capacity. This includes the economic benefits to passengers, and the air transport industry as well as wider benefits to the economy. In the regional airport studies that the Department has subsequently commissioned, these economic benefits together with the environmental and other impacts of airport development have been assessed.

  Ten-Year Plan
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the impact of the increased spending announced in the spending review will be on the 10-year plan, in terms of(a) public investment expenditure, (b) public resource expenditure, (c) total public expenditure and (d) private investment in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04, (iii) 2004–05, and (iv) 2005–06. [71066]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The funding for transport announced in the spending review maintains the 10-year plan public and private spending total at £181.9 billion, as previously announced. In addition, the Settlement takes full account of the Government's guarantee of full funding for the first 7 ½ years of the tube modernisation plans at an average of £1 billion per annum.

  Journey Times
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 221W, on journey times, what research reports have been produced by (a) the Highways Agency and (b) the Department as a result of the research and studies to which he refers; and if he will place copies of these reports in the Library. [70734]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A report is being prepared for the Highways Agency on the research it commissioned to investigate the feasibility of displaying journey times to selected destinations on variable message signs. The report is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

  A paper entitled 'Driver Information On Journey Time Variability Using Automatic Number Plate Recognition Data' was presented to the Eleventh International Conference on Road Transport Information and Control in March 2002. A copy of this report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  As part of the current Departmental research to provide a better understanding of the causes of journey time variability in congested conditions on motorways, three technical papers on this subject are expected to be presented to the European Transport Conference in Cambridge in September 2002. They are: Understanding and Valuing Journey Time Variability; Supply Models For Use In Modelling The Variability Of Journey Times On The Highway Network; Assessing Measures Which Reduce Incident Related Delays And Travel Time Variability, and will be placed in the Libraries of the House when published.

  Transport Direct
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on recent changes to Transport Direct. [70738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Direct team is currently in the process of letting a contract for construction of a web portal, which will be the initial means of distributing Transport Direct. The contract will be let in the autumn with the first stage of the portal to be ready in 2003, in line with the targets set out in the 10-year plan.
  735W
  Transport Direct is also extending the number of real time information systems for travellers. £20 million was recently given to 19 local authorities to improve bus real time information; schemes are to be in place by the end of 2003. Transport Direct is working with the rail industry and Strategic Rail Authority to extend rail real time information. Work is also continuing on developing standards and technical details for the extension of real time information systems.

  My Department has recently appointed Nick Illsley as Transport Direct Chief Executive to carry the Transport Direct programme forward.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted for his Department on Transport Direct; and if he will make a statement. [170736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently undertaking a programme of market research to support Transport Direct. This programme is designed to tell us what specific characteristics and features the service should possess in order to satisfy the requirements of its prospective users; what demand there will be for the service; and what it will be used for. The results of this research will be disseminated in due course.

  A review of existing travel information systems, and recommendations for Transport Direct, was conducted last year. The report can be viewed on the Department's website at "http://www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/transdirect/travinf/pdf/travinf.pdf".

  Research has also been completed on standards, and standards-like initiatives, likely to be relevant to Transport Direct. The study also considered whether any further standards needed to be developed in order to ensure that Transport Direct is successful. The report can be viewed at: http://www dtlr.gov.uk/itwp/transdirect/standards/index.htm

  We are also researching areas related to the overall Transport Direct vision. For example, we will shortly place a contract for market research to inform us as to the future direction on behalf of the traveline service.

  A study is under way into the business case for bus real-time information. This work aims to provide a tool for Local Authorities and transport operators which would quantify the benefits of such systems and thus facilitate their development and adoption. We also hope to publish best practice advice.

  We also have some minor contracts which include research into putting cycling into journey planners and preparatory work for the business plan. We hope to publish the cycling study on the DfT website very soon.

  Transport Projects
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the timescale for achievement of the delivery reform measures to which transport funding increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 July are linked. [71258]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The White Paper makes clear that action is already under way under the Government's 10-year plan for Transport to improve mechanisms for the delivery of transport improvements.
  736W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the criteria to be used in assessing whether the connection between national objectives for transport and local delivery have been strengthened. [71257]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: My Department will monitor the extent to which local transport authorities' local targets reflect the national targets in our 10-year plan and the progress they make in delivering against those targets.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the delivery reform measures to which the transport funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 July is linked. [71256]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002): These reforms are set out in the White Paper on the 2002 Spending Review published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 July.

  A404(M)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 143W, when work to widen the approach to the M4 from the A404(M) will start; how long the work will take to complete; and if he will place a copy of the planned changes in the Library. [71945]

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

  Letter from Richard Thorndike to Mrs. T May, dated 22 July 2002:
  Tim Matthews has been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent question about the proposed work to widen the approach road to the M4 from the A404(M). I am replying since Tim is currently away on Highways Agency business.
  This work at M4, junction 8/9, is programmed to start in January 2003 and will take about ten weeks to complete.
  In the meantime we will make the necessary arrangements to place plans of the proposed changes in the Library as soon as they have been finalised.

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the position is of the road user charging research project to be carried out in Leeds; and if he will make a statement. [72629]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The road user charging research project in Leeds known as DIRECTS (Demonstration of Interoperable Road User End to End Charging and Telematics Systems) is progressing well with the full co-operation and assistance of Leeds city council. DIRECTS is research into the feasibility of an electronic system for charging drivers to use busy roads. It is intended to help local authorities interested in setting up their own local charging scheme; it should also assist the design of the national lorry charging system.

  Temporary equipment will be set up on a small network of roads in south-east Leeds and local volunteers will have a small electronic charging unit fitted inside their vehicles to test the system. No-one will be charged for their journeys and the project will not affect other drivers using these roads.
  737W
  We are now moving towards the first stage of infrastructure installation. The roadside apparatus to support the charging equipment will begin to be installed in September this year, and fitting of in-vehicle units to volunteers' vehicles will follow early next year. Recruitment of volunteers will also begin shortly. Once preparations for the demonstration are complete, it is expected that full trials will start around September 2003 and run for about a year.

  Since the project was first planned, the Chancellor announced in the last Budget statement the Government's intention to introduce a distance-based road user charging scheme for lorries from 2005 or 2006. Many features of the DIRECTS research complement this objective.

  In keeping with previous undertakings by Ministers, I have today written to all Leeds constituency MPs to explain to them in more detail what progress is being made locally, and copies of the letter have been placed in the House Libraries. I understand the city council is planning its own briefing for Leeds councillors. We will continue to work closely with Leeds city council to ensure that the interests of local people are met as fully as possible for the duration of the project.

  Roads
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the current condition of local roads and (b) the condition of local roads as at July 2000. [71344]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Trends in the defects index of local roads between 1984 and 2001 are shown at Table 3.1 of the "National Road Maintenance Condition Survey: 2001", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. The index improved between 2000 and 2001. Data on the current condition of local roads are being collected at present and will be published next year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the road network in(a) England and (b) Great Britain was at 100 per cent. or greater stress in (i) 1996, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002 to date. [71340]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: A stress map for the English Trunk Road network was published by the Department for 1996 based on actual traffic counts. It showed 3 per cent. of the network was operating above 100 per cent. stress and 10 per cent. of the network between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. A map based on estimated 2000 traffic flows was included in the published 10-Year Plan. The Plan reported that 7 per cent. of the network was operating above 100 per cent. stress and 13 per cent. of the network between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. More recent data are not available.

  Data for the whole of the English road Network and for Great Britain are not available.

  The 'stress level indicator' is not a precise measure and is intended for illustrative purposes at the National level.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will define the major local road improvements, other than bypasses, as given in para 6.61, page 65, of the 10-Year Plan. [71324]
  738W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Our guidance to authorities on local transport plans specifies major local road projects as any local road scheme with a gross capital cost exceeding £5 million. Examples of schemes other than bypasses are urban relief roads, rural widening schemes and new/improved accesses to development sites. It is for local authorities to decide what, if any, major schemes they wish to bid for under the local transport plan process.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted(a) by and (b) for (i) his Department and (ii) the Highways Agency in relation to the (A) M60 J5–8 widening, (B) M25 J12–15 widening, (C) A46 Newark-Lincoln improvement, (D) A43 M40-B4031 dualling, (E) All Roudham Heath-Attleborough dualling and (F) Al WillowburnDenwick improvement; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [70682]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the 1997 Roads Review a key objective was to develop a clear and open framework to appraise and inform the prioritization of trunk road proposals. To achieve this the Government developed a new approach to appraisal which is based on the following five criteria:

  (i) Environmental Impact

  (ii) Safety

  (iii) Economy

  (iv) Accessibility

  (v) Integration.

  Under this appraisal system, my Department and the Highways Agency worked in partnership to produce one-page summaries showing the economic, environmental and social impacts of each trunk road scheme under consideration. The results of the Roads Review were published in July 1998 in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads In England". At the same time "A New Deal For Trunk Roads In England: Understanding The New Approach To Appraisal" was published which included one-page summaries for all the schemes considered during the review including those listed in the question. Copies of both these documents were placed in the Library at that time.

  The above named schemes were added to the Targeted Programme Of Improvements (TPI) in July 1998. Once in the TPI these schemes would have been subject to environmental, traffic and structural assessments. However due to the large volume of documentation it would be impractical to place copies of these in the Library.

  Al Willowburn—Denwick, All Roudham Heath and A43 M40-B4031 Dualling are currently under construction and are all due to open to traffic by the end of this financial year. Construction of the remaining schemes is either under way or will begin in the next year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted for his Department and the Highways Agency on the differential costs between programmed maintenance and ad hoc repairs; and if he will make a statement. [70739]
  739W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The strategy for maintenance, which is based on the principles of minimising whole life cost, has been derived over the years from a number of studies. The effect of ad hoc repairs is always considered within a maintenance scheme against planned maintenance as part of a value management process and thus ensures value for money. The process, which has been developed over time, takes account of historical records of ad hoc repair costs and the effects of delaying planned maintenance for the specific network length under consideration.

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents on all roads in each of the last three years. [71502]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The table below provides figures for the number of people (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents in Great Britain in each of the last three years.

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1999

  3,423

  39,122

  2000

  3,409

  38,155

  20011

  3,443

  37,094

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional.

  Road and Bridge Maintenance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 7W, on road and bridge maintenance, if he will make a statement on the methodology used when calculating the authorities' funding requirements for road and bridge maintenance from 2001 to 2006. [71373]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The Local Transport Plan indicative allocations for highway maintenance announced in November 2000 for 2001–02 and 2002–03 were mainly based on the size and condition of the individual authorities' road networks and the number of their bridges requiring strengthening and structural maintenance. Some large maintenance schemes above £5 million in value were approved individually. Authorities were also told that their maintenance allocations for each of the three years 2003–04, 2004–05, and 2005–06 would be at least 75 per cent. of their allocation in 2002–03.

  Consultation on the methodology for the full maintenance allocations in the next three years is currently taking place.

  Road Improvements
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the major local road improvements, as given in para 6.61, page 65, of the 10-year plan(a) started and (b) completed since July 2000. [71325]
  740W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The latest information that we have available from the local authorities shows:

  Work on the following major local road schemes has been started and completed since July 2000:

  Burntwood Bypass Phases I and 2 (Staffordshire)

  A143 Broome/Ellingham Bypass (Norfolk)

  A511 Ashby Bypass Stage 2 (Leicestershire).

  Work on the following major local road schemes has been completed since July 2000:

  A174 Skelton and Brotton Bypass (Redcar and Cleveland)

  Avon Ring Road II: B4465 Shortwood—A420 Warmley (South Gloucestershire)

  South Thames-side Development Route 4 (Kent)

  Dearne Towns Link Road (Barnsley)

  A22 Dualling Nightingale Farm (East Sussex)

  West Central Route (Newcastle upon Tyne).

  Work on the following major local road schemes has been started since July 2000:

  Bridgwater Northern Distributor Road (Somerset)

  Dawdon to Seaham Town Centre Link Road (Durham)

  AI31 Great Leighs Bypass (Essex)

  A689 Sedgefield to Wynyard Improvement (Durham)

  A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (Nottinghamshire)

  Wyre Piddle Bypass (Worcestershire)

  A53 Hodnet Bypass (Shropshire)

  A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement (Nottinghamshire)

  A6042 Manchester/Salford Inner Relief Road (Manchester/Salford)

  South Stockton Link (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3 (Barnsley)

  A6023 Denaby Main Diversion (Doncaster).

  Road Travel
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle kilometres were travelled on roads in(a) England and (b) Great Britain in 1996. [71331]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The total traffic on the roads in England and Great Britain in 1996 are estimated to be 377.0 and 442.5 billion vehicle kilometres respectively.

  Fuel Duty
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of fuel duty rebate available to community transport services. [71341]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Eligible community transport services will receive fuel duty rebate at the same level as applies to other eligible bus services. The current rates are as follows

  Pence per litre

  Fuel

  Rate of rebate

  Ultra low sulphur diesel

  36.68

  Other diesel

  36.68

  Lead replacement petrol

  34.30

  741W

  Pence per litre

  Fuel

  Rate of rebate

  4-star petrol

  40.16

  Unleaded petrol

  34.30

  Ultra low sulphur petrol

  34.30

  Gas

  19.00

  1 Pence Per Kilo

  Strategic Road Network
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) proportion and (b) length of the strategic road network requires maintenance. [713331

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David York to Mrs. T. May, dated 22 July 2002:
  Tim Matthews has been asked by the Transport Minister for the Department for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the proportion and the length of the strategic road network currently requiring maintenance. I am replying since Tim is currently away on Highways Agency business.
  The Highways Agency aims to ensure that the network is retained in an optimum, safe condition on a basis that minimises costs over time. To achieve this requires that the proportion of the network requiring maintenance is held between 7% and 8% which equates to between 2,400 and 2,700 lane km.
  An assessment of the network was made at the end of March 2002 and this indicated that 7.5% of the network required maintenance.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the slight casualty rate was on the strategic road network in each year from 1994 to 2002; and what the annual average was for 1994 to 1998. [71503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The slight casualty rates on the English trunk road network were as follows:

  Per 100 million vehicle kilometres

  1994

  21.88

  1995

  21.01

  1996

  22.35

  1997

  23.09

  1998

  22.28

  1999

  21.40

  2000

  20.82

  The figure for 2001 is not yet available.

  The average slight casualty rate for 1994 to 1998 was 22.14 per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were(a) killed and (b) seriously injured on the strategic road network in each of the last three years. [71501]
  742W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The number of people killed and seriously injured on the English trunk road network were as follows:

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1998

  628

  4152

  1999

  664

  4217

  2000

  599

  3950

  Note:

  Figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  Traffic Lights
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a direction under section 30(7) Greater London Authority Act 1999 in relation to the phasing of traffic lights in Greater London. [71366]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The power in section 30(7) is a power to issue guidance as to the exercise of the general power of the Greater London Authority. It is not a power to direct Transport for London to alter traffic signal phasings.

  Drink-Driving
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many serious injuries have resulted from crashes caused by drivers with(a) more than 80 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream, (b) between 50 and 80 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream, (c) between 20 and 50 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream and (d) a trace of alcohol, but less than 20 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream, in each of the last 10 years; [70959]

  (2) how many deaths have resulted from crashes caused by drivers with (a) more han 80 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream, (b) between 50 and 80 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream, (c) between 20 and 50 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream and (d) a trace of alcohol, but less than 20 milligrammes alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in their bloodstream, in each of the last 10 years; [70958]

  (3) how many people were (a) killed, (b) seriously injured and (c) slightly injured on roads in England and Wales by a driver who was over the drink-drive limit in each of the last 10 years. [70955]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates of the number of casualties resulting from road accidents in Great Britain where at least one driver (or rider of a two-wheeled motor vehicle) was over the drink-drive limit are given in the table.

  Estimates of casualties resulting from accidents involving illegal alcohol levels: Great Britain 1991–2000.

  Casualties

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1991

  660

  3,610

  13,610

  17,880

  1992

  660

  3,280

  12,770

  16,710

  1993

  540

  2,660

  11,780

  14,980

  1994

  540

  2,840

  11,780

  15,160

  1995

  540

  3,000

  12,450

  16,000

  1996

  580

  3,010

  13,450

  17,040

  743W

  Casualties

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1997

  550

  2,940

  13,310

  16,800

  1998

  460

  2,520

  12,610

  15,590

  1999

  460

  2,470

  13,980

  16,910

  20001

  520

  2,530

  14,980

  18,030

  1 Provisional data

  National road accident statistics do not identify cases where drivers' blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was below the prescribed limit.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crashes on roads in England and Wales involving multiple fatalities were caused by a driver who was over the drink-drive limit in each of the last 10 years. [70957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of accidents in England and Wales involving multiple (2 or more) fatalities where a driver was over the drink-drive limit, are shown in the table:

  Fatal accidents involving two or more fatalities on roads in England and Wales where a driver was over the limit1: 1991–2000

  England

  Wales

  All

  1991

  11

  0

  11

  1992

  15

  1

  16

  1993

  10

  1

  11

  1994

  9

  2

  11

  1995

  6

  1

  7

  1996

  13

  1

  14

  1997

  16

  1

  17

  1998

  7

  1

  8

  I999

  8

  0

  8

  2000

  10

  0

  10

  Total

  105

  8

  113

  1 Driver tested positive or refused to provide a test.

  Bus Services
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 976W, on bus services, if he will list those traffic commission areas in which bus compliance officers have surveyed the performance of bus operators in each of the last five years. [71367]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) started its bus monitoring function in 1999–2000. In each of the three years since, VI has undertaken monitoring exercises in each of the eight traffic areas.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of households in rural areas were within 13 minutes walk of an hourly or better bus service for the last(a) quarter and (b) year, for which figures are available. [71342]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The proportion of households in rural areas in England within 13 minutes walk of an hourly or better bus service was 42 per cent. for 1998–99. Rural areas are defined here as settlements of less than 3,000 population.

  The source is the National Travel Survey and normally three years of data are aggregated because the small number of rural households in the sample means that
  744W
  estimates for single years may not be reliable. The rural sample numbers were exceptionally low for 2000, casting doubts on the validity of using the data for that year within the indicator, so the average for 1998 and 1999 has been used instead of the average for the three years 1998–2000, as previously published. Figures for the average of 1999 and 2001 will be published when the results for 2001 are released on 25 July. Quarterly figures are not available.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the powers of bus compliance officers with regards to(a) setting operators' punctuality targets and (b) enforcing operators' punctuality targets. [71346]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Bus Compliance Officers function is to monitor the reliability and punctuality of local bus services registered with the Traffic Commissioners, who can impose penalties on operators who fail to comply with the registered particulars of the service. It is for the Traffic Commissioners to determine the punctuality target. Bus Compliance Officers provide the main source of evidence on which the Traffic Commissioners judge whether the appropriate level of punctuality has been achieved on individual services.

  Twyford Railway Bridge
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work on the Twyford railway bridge will be completed. [71483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I understand from Railtrack that work is expected to be completed in late August.

  Train Operating Franchises
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of safety case work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the(a) re-letting and (b) extension of train operating franchises has been since 7 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [70643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 7 June 2001, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has only assessed one re-let franchise safety case, for the Chiltern Railway Company, which was completed on 10 July 2002. However, it is not possible for the HSE to separately identify the costs of the assessment work.

  Extensions of existing franchises do not normally result in additional safety case assessment costs.

  Potter's Bar Crash
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) contractors and (b) subcontractors involved in accident investigation into the Potter's Bar crash under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive. [70652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In addition to all the work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) internal laboratory, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL), HSE engaged AEA Technology Rail to assist with the
  745W
  investigation of the derailment and the examination of the points. The investigation is continuing and further contracts may be let in due course.

  Railways Vandalism
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance and directions have been given by his Department to the(a) British Transport Police, (b) Health and Safety Executive and (c) railways industry, regarding vandalism on the railways; what plans there are to update such guidance; and if he will make a statement. [70647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, columns 772–73W.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made as to the effect of changing the guidance issued to the SRA on the SRA's obligations under the funding package to be structured for the purposes of the SRA's accounts in such a way that disbursements under the funding package only constitute liabilities of the SRA for the accounting period in which the obligation to make disbursements arises, as issued on 22 March in the letter to Richard Bowker; and if he will make a statement; [68388]

  (2) what assessment he has made as to the effect of changing the guidance issued to the SRA with regards to Railtrack, or any company which acquires its assets, becoming part of the public sector, as issued on 22 March in the letter to Richard Bowker; and if he will make a statement; [68386]

  (3) what assessment he has made as to the effect of changing the guidance issued to the SRA with regard to Railtrack, or any company which acquires its assets, being consolidated into the SRA's balance sheet, as issued on 22 March in the letter to Richard Bowker; and if he will make a statement; [68387]

  (4) what assessment he has made as to the effect of changing the guidance issued to the SRA with regards to Railtrack, or any company which acquires its assets, becoming an entity under public control, as stated on 22 March in the letter to Richard Bowker; and if he will make a statement; [68385]

  (5) with regard to his letter of 22 March to Mr. Richard Bowker concerning the Railtrack successor body, his letter of 21 June to Mr. Nick Newton concerning the Railtrack successor body and his statement to the House of 27 June 2002, Official Report, column 971 on Network Rail, what representations he received from (a) the SRA, (b) Network Rail, (c) the ONS and (d) the NAO regarding the initial guidance that the Government do not wish Railtrack or any company which acquires its assets to (i) be consolidated into the SRA's balance sheet, (ii) become part of the public sector and (iii) become an entity under public sector control; and if he will make a statement. [68619]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement about Network Rail made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 27 June 2002, Official Report,
  746W
  columns 971–73, and the two associated minutes which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before the House on the same day.

  The letter of 22 March 2002 gave the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) certain directions and guidance as to the manner in which the SRA was to negotiate a funding and outputs package with any bidder seeking to become the network operator. Since then, negotiations progressed with Network Rail with the result that the transaction contemplated did not entirely reflect the directions and guidance issued on 22 March.

  Consequently, my right hon. Friend wrote on 21 June to replace the guidance and directions issued on 22 March and to give the SRA new directions and guidance as to the manner in which the SRA was to seek to conclude the transaction with the Network Rail Group.

  No representations were made on the initial guidance by anyone other than the SRA, as it was a letter to them, which was not published until recently.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his letter of 22 March to Richard Bowker Esq, concerning the Railtrack successor body, his letter of 21 June to Nick Newton Esq, concerning the Railtrack successor body, and his oral statement of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 971, what representations he received from (a) the Strategic Rail Authority, (b) Network Rail, (c) ONS and (d) the NAO, regarding the initial guidance on the structure and disbursement of the Strategic Rail Authority's obligation under the funding package; and if he will make a statement. [68374]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given her today [68388].

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2002,Official Report, column 465W, on Railtrack, on what date he expects to authorise the change of control; and if he will make a statement on the conditions that must be satisfied by Network Rail before he authorises the change of control. [71374]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I understand that Network Rail will shortly make an application. I will need to be satisfied that any change of control of Railtrack will not have an adverse effect on the ability of the operating company to continue to discharge its licence obligations.

  Central Railway Project
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the SRA's latest assessment of the Central Railway Project; and when he expects to publish the Government's response. [71680]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA is expected to provide a report to Ministers by September 2002. We expect to announce our decision about Central Railway's proposal as soon as possible thereafter, after giving it careful and due consideration.

  London Underground
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made as to the change in capacity on London Underground resulting from the PPP proposal; and if he will make a statement. [71387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 24 June 2002, Official Report, column 660W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the loss of station capacity resulting from work planned under the proposed PPP; and if he will make a statement. [71497]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Nothing on the scale of the modernisation plans for the Underground has ever been undertaken and some disruption is inevitable while the contractors are maintaining and renewing the entire network. Most of the work will be done at night; the plans have been specifically designed to minimise disruption to passengers.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on what powers(a) he and (b) the London Mayor (i) have and (ii) will have in order to place the Tube Infracos into administration; and under what legislation these powers are in place. [71052]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given him today [70813].

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the criteria for assessing journey times on London Underground services for the purposes of judging performance against the PSA targets for transport set out in the 2002 Spending Review. [71618]

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 808W. on London Underground, if he will make a statement on the methodology used to determine London Underground's weighted measure. [71482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Journey times on the Underground are assessed by London Underground using the methodology described in the document "The Journey Time Metric" (published by London Transport in 1999), copies of which I have arranged to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 668W, on London Underground, if he will publish (a) the data and (b) the calculations, used in order to produce chart 6j (overcrowding on the London Underground today), on page 67 of the 10-year plan. [71375]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 20021: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 9 July 2002, Official Report, column 794W.

  EU Committees (Scottish Executive Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on the movement of air or sea passengers' baggage (principles) is next due to 748W
  meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [70912]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  This committee has not met in the past five years and has no outstanding items under consideration. No further meetings have been timetabled. One official from HM Customs and Excise attended previous meetings, representing all of the UK.

  Chemical/biological Warfare
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of guidance provided for(a) the public, (b) local education authorities, (c) local health authorities and (d) other public institutions in the event of deliberate release of (i) chemical and (ii) biological weapons; and where this information is available to the general public. [50856]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health issued restricted guidance to Directors and Regional Directors of Public Health in March 2000. The Cabinet Office issued guidance to local authorities in October 2001 and a copy of that guidance, which is being revised, has been placed in the Library. General advice is available via the website www.ukresilience.info.

DEFENCE

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the checks needed to(a) ensure accountability, (b) avoid human rights violations and (c) avoid legal actions by the private military companies; and if he will make a statement. [38796]

  Dr. Moonie
  The paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation", which was published on 12 February 2002, examines the various activities of private military companies and sets out options for their regulation. It is a consultation paper, and invites comments from all interested parties by mid-August 2002. A full regulatory impact assessment would be drawn up once final decisions on any legislative proposal have been made.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what private military companies have been granted licences to operate from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [67841]

  Dr. Moonie
  Private military companies operating from the United Kingdom are not at present subject to a licensing regime in respect of the provision of military services. One of the options set out in the FCO's Green Paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation", published on 12 February 2002, is for the introduction of a licensing regime.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British servicemen have been waiting for more than one month for(a) an NHS operation or consultation and (b) admittance to a waiting list. [64817]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service patients in the United Kingdom are mainly treated in Defence Secondary Care Agency administered Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) situated in NHS Trusts. Service patients can opt to be treated in other NHS hospitals and are referred

  Waiting time

  0–13 weeks

  13+ weeks

  0–3 months

  3+ months

  Total waiting

  Outpatients

  Number of Service patients waiting1

  1,916

  437

  —

  —

  2,353

  Admitted patients2

  Number of Service patients waiting3

  —

  —

  1,464

  1.029

  2,493

  1 Number of patients waiting at four MDHUs (Peterborough, Frimley Park, Derriford and Northallerton).

  2 Inpatients plus daycases.

  3 Number of patients waiting at all five MDHUs (Portsmouth, Peterborough, Frimley Park, Derriford and Northallerton).

  This information is provided by MDHU host NHS Trusts. Patients are normally added to the outpatient waiting lists on receipt of a referral from their GP to a consultant. They are normally added to the admitted patient waiting list when the consultant decides that an admission is required.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas trips on departmental business that have been undertaken in each of the last five years by officials in his Department; and what the(a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) result was in each case. [68724]

  Dr. Moonie
  All overseas travel by officials is undertaken in accordance with the principles set in Chapter 8 of the Civil Service Management Code, and the detailed rules and guidance set out in the Ministry of Defence Civilian Overseas Travel Manual. The detailed information requested about individual trips is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the Spending Review. [68696]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Spending Review involves a comprehensive assessment of the Department's performance, priorities and resource requirements and a range of staff make a contribution.

  British Troops (Accidents and Reparations)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to minimise the possibility of an accidental attack on civilians by British troops on active service; and what his policy is on reparations to families of civilians accidentally killed by troops of the United Kingdom. [67803]
  750W
  to these where there is a need for specialised care not available in the Defence Medical Services or for geographical reasons.

  The MOD only maintains central records on the number of Service patients awaiting a first outpatient appointment or admitted patient treatment (inpatients plus daycase patients) at MDHUs. MDHU waiting list information as at 31 March 2002, the last date for which information is available, is provided in the standard NHS reporting format in the following tables. This excludes outpatient information in respect of MDHU Portsmouth due to the validation of information at that time.

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: All members of HM forces are carefully briefed on their rules of engagement (ROE) for an operation and on when they may be justified in using force. I am withholding details of the ROE in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Additionally, HM forces take all possible measures in the preparation and conduct of operations to minimise possible loss of civilian life and damage to property.

  When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so.

  Service Accommodation
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2002,Official Report, column 525W, on married quarters, if he will make a statement on the safety attribute used by the Defence Housing Executives and if he will list the married quarters that are unsatisfactory using this criterion, indicating for what reasons; [68802]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2002, Official Report, column 525W, on married quarters, if he will list the married quarters that fail the safety attribute; and if he will list the Standard 4 married quarters. [68803]

  Dr. Moonie
  The safety-related criteria used by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) to measure performance are:

  Upper windows—fire compliant

  Upper windows—child safe

  Safety of low level glazing

  Safety gate fixings

  Smoke detectors

  Lockable bathroom cabinet.

  Of the 5,921 service family quarters in Wiltshire, 398 do not fully meet the criteria above for Standard 1 for Condition (S1FC). 253 of these properties have one

  751W
  smoke detector fitted, whereas the criterion requires two. (This figure includes 83 properties which are to be handed back to Annington Homes). The remaining 143 properties do not reach S 1 FC because they do not fully meet a combination of the other criteria above. The addresses of these properties could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The location and numbers of Wiltshire married quarters which do not meet the smoke detector criterion are as follows:

  Location

  Number of properties

  Bulford

  4

  Colerne

  1

  Devizes

  131

  Larkhill

  71

  Boscombe Down

  11

  Tidworth

  18

  Upavon

  31

  Wroughton

  152

  Wilton

  10

  Shrivenham

  20

  Winterbourne Gunner

  4

  Total

  53

  1 Planned for handback

  The following Wiltshire properties are at Standard 4 for Condition for the above criteria.

  Location

  Number of properties

  Devizes

  2

  Hullavington

  2

  Larkhill

  16

  Boscombe Down

  1

  Upavon

  19

  Wilton

  4

  Winterbourne Gunner

  1

  Total

  45

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total amount spent on renting private accommodation for armed services personnel was(a) in 1999, (b) in 2000, (c) in 2001 and (d) since January 2002; and if he will make a statement. [69546]

  Dr. Moonie
  The tables show the expenditure on substitute service accommodation in Great Britain, rented by the Ministry of Defence from the private sector, when accommodation according to entitlement and within the travel to work zone could not otherwise be provided for service personnel and their families. The figures are available by financial rather than calendar year.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Rent

  Fees

  Other1

  Total

  Substitute service single accommodation (SSSA)

  1998–99

  13.239

  0.809

  0.191

  14.239

  1999–2000

  18.506

  1.004

  0.344

  19.854

  2000–01

  19.378

  1.001

  0.437

  20.816

  2001–02

  21.950

  1.230

  0.511

  23.691

  April–June 2002

  5.860

  0.321

  0.079

  6.260

  752W

  £ million

  Financial

  year

  Rent

  Fees

  Other1

  Total

  Substitute service family accommodation (SSFA)

  1998–99

  7.020

  0.197

  0.019

  7.236

  1999–2000

  8.522

  0.182

  0.026

  8.730

  2000–01

  8.096

  0.146

  0.043

  8.285

  2001–02

  8.859

  0.196

  0.039

  9.094

  April-June 2002

  2.158

  0.032

  0.014

  2.204

  1 TV Licences, dilapidations, administration/check-in fees, inventory fees, etc.

  The table excludes utilities, i.e. council tax, water, gas, electricity and telephone line rental, for which information is available by calendar year as follows:

  £ million

  SSSA Utilities

  SSFA Council tax/water

  1999

  3.462

  1.281

  2000

  2.626

  0.917

  2001

  3.729

  1.109

  2002 to July 2002

  3.292

  0.898

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, columns 159–60W, on service accommodation, what plans he has to improve the standard of service families' accommodation in Warminster. [71554]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive is planning a number of minor works schemes to improve the general surroundings of the service families' accommodation in the Warminster area. These include:

  Replacement front doors—I66 family quarters

  External decorations—8 family quarters

  Internal decorations to stairwells-12 blocks of flats.

  In addition, the possible upgrading of some 400 family quarters is in the early planning stages.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) single living accommodation and (b) service family accommodation was released to Annington Homes Ltd. in each month of 2001; what grade these were at the time of release; what percentage of the total number of upgraded homes this represents; and if he will make a statement. [70009]

  Dr. Moonie
  The agreement with Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) covers service family accommodation only. Under the 1996 sale and leaseback agreement the following vacant service family quarters were handed back to AHL during 2001:

  Month

  Number

  January

  41

  February

  204

  March

  2,098

  August

  116

  September

  1

  October

  29

  December

  167

  Total

  2,656

  753W
  375 of these properties were at Standard 1 for condition at the time of release. This represented 2 per cent. of the total number of service family properties in GB at Standard 1. Whenever possible, the houses released for disposal are those at lower standards, but the sale agreement requires that properties are released in groups rather than individually. This can result in some higher standard properties being released because of their location. Defence Housing Executive area managers maintain close liaison with local service commanders on the selection of surplus properties for disposal.

  Bowman Radio System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been of developing the Bowman tactical radio system; and if he will make a statement. [70057]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of developing the Bowman tactical communication system up to the award of a Supply and Support contract to GD UK Ltd., last September, was £405 million. The Supply and Support contract is worth £1.9 billion. To date, £156 million of this contract has been spent on development.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charges are made for(a) food and (b) accommodation for British armed forces personnel serving in Afghanistan. [69523]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: We do not normally charge personnel on operations for food and accommodation.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to(a) ensure that the Defence Medical Services are able to deal with the problems of service men while still in the armed forces and (b) make the DMS more approachable. [70130]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Medical Services (DMS) provide primary care and range of secondary care services to members of the armed forces in the United Kingdom and overseas. Where specialist services are not provided by the DMS, service personnel are normally referred to the NHS. Service personnel should feel able to contact DMS staff when necessary.

  Veteran Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to help the ex-services Mental Welfare Society locate veteran rough sleepers in the UK. [70131]

  Dr. Moonie
  The St. Botolph's Day Centre, which is funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Homelessness Directorate, provide a Contact and Assessment Team (CAT) worker, who is linked into the Ex-Services Fellowship Centre to specifically assist rough sleepers with an armed forces background. Rough sleepers with an armed forces background who wish to be assisted can be referred to New Belvedere House in Stepney. Once placed in permanent accommodation, the CAT worker will continue to assist them by linking them 754W
  up with a number of support providing organisations, including charities such as the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society (Combat Stress), depending on the nature of individual's needs.

  Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the closure of the Duchess of Kent Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick in April 2003; what will happen to the patients there; and if he will review the decision to close the hospital. [70133]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Medical Quinquennial Review recommended the closure of the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital (DKPH). Following advice from a leading independent consultancy in mental health services, it was recommended that defence mental health services should be switched toward care in the single service community, in line with the approach already well established in the NHS. Most service patients requiring mental health care are already treated by the Defence Community Psychiatric Service, where the emphasis is on local, out-patient care. The reduced requirement for in-patient facilities means that DKPH would no longer be required. Closure of the hospital is currently subject to consultation and no final decision has yet been taken. However, we would not close the hospital until absolutely satisfied that high quality replacement facilities were in place and that suitable alternative arrangements had been made for existing patients.

  Service Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service psychiatric hospitals there are in the UK; and what proposals there are to open more hospitals for service men. [70132]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital at Catterick is our only military psychiatric hospital. We have no plans to open any additional military hospitals.

  Harriers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the variation in maintenance costs between the engines on the Harrier GR8 and the GR8a. [70161]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: There are no variants of the Harrier designated GR8 or GR8a.

  Currently the Harrier GR7 fleet is fitted with the Pegasus Mk105 engine. However, in a programme which is due to commence in February 2003 and be completed by the end of 2005, 30 aircraft will be upgraded to GR7a standard by the integration of the Pegasus Mk107 engine.

  In addition, all Harrier GR7 and GR7a aircraft will receive avionics and weapons upgrades to provide the aircraft with a much improved capability, in particular, the ability to deliver the new generation of smart weapons that are about to enter service. These aircraft will be designated Harrier GR9 and GR9a.

  The information requested for the Pegasus Mk105 and Mk107 engines is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the

  755W
  Mk107 engine will have lower support costs due to increased reliability and reduced scheduled maintenance requirements, and over the planned in-service life of the Harrier GR7a and GR9a, it is expected that the resulting cost savings will be in the order of £2 million per year.

  ECGD Funding
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish his review of ECGD funding for defence projects. [70160]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has responsibility for the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). There is no review of ECGD support for the defence sector.

  Army Website
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what total expenditure has been on the Army website for(a) construction and (b) maintenance; and if he will list total traffic on the home page for each month since 1997. [69672]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: Since the creation of the Army website in 1996, approximate total expenditure on construction has been £2.4 million and £230,000 on maintenance.

  The Ministry of Defence did not retain information on the total traffic on the home page until November 2001. Figures since then are as follows:

  Total traffic

  2001

  November

  118,913

  December

  91,749

  2002

  January

  140,272

  February

  103,401

  March

  126,845

  April

  151,310

  May

  143,987

  June

  140,551

  More in-depth figures on the total website usage for the period shown are available on the internet: http://armydev.dera.gov.uk/stats/index.html.

  Royal School of Artillery
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many overseas students were sent to the Royal School of Artillery in each year since 1997 broken down by country of origin. [69669]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Australia

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Austria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Brunei

  7

  2

  1

  4

  1

  0

  Canada

  2

  0

  3

  4

  1

  0

  Denmark

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Egypt

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  France

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  756W

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Republic of Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Italy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Jordan

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kuwait

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  3

  1

  5

  10

  4

  5

  Nigeria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Slovenia

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Turkey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  United Arab Emirates

  2

  1

  4

  2

  0

  4

  1 To 15 July 2002

  Royal Military Academy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's total expenditure relating to Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in each year since 1997. [69649]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  23.655

  1998–99

  24.191

  1999–2000

  23.961

  2000–01

  25.510

  2001–02

  26.961

  The figures quoted are cash costs and represent the running costs of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst excluding salary costs of students.

  Colombia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's forces are assigned to tasks in Colombia; and from which units these personnel are taken. [70751]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Attached and Assistant Defence Attach�are the only British military personnel currently in Colombia.

  Portsmouth Naval Base
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to dispose of land occupied by the Portsmouth naval base; what the time scale is for the process; how the land will be disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [70759]

  Dr. Moonie
  The only disposal currently contemplated at the naval base, Portsmouth, is of land adjacent to Unicorn Gate. This is required to facilitate the road improvements associated with the Portsmouth city centre re-development scheme. Discussions are under way between my Department and the developers. It is too early to say what the disposal arrangements will be, and the time scale is dependent upon a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations.

  Land Disposal (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use for land disposed of within the Portsmouth naval base would be acceptable to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [70760]
  757W
  Dr. Moonie
  Any alternative use of land within the naval base would be subject to operational and security considerations, and if a change of use was involved, this would be subject to the normal planning process.

  SA80A1/SA80A2
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many injuries have occurred to service men and service women as a result of the SA80A1's reliability problems. [70703]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what faults have been reported with the(a) SA80A2 and (b) SA80A1. [70710]

  Dr. Moonie
  Approximately 24,000 SA80 A2 rifles have now been deployed to the armed forces and eight Equipment Failure Reports (resulting in an inoperable weapon) have been received from units. These reports includes weapons deployed with service shooting teams and infantry units as well as troops deployed to Afghanistan. Three of these reports relate to the trigger guard, three to magazine related parts, one was a welding failure on the sighting system and one related to stoppages experienced. Those reports that related to damage in transit have been disregarded since they are not an equipment failure.

  There have been 1,361 recorded faults (resulting in an inoperable weapon), with the SA80 Al in the last three years. A breakdown of recorded faults with the SA80 since 1986 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department has made into the reliability and accuracy of the rifle grenade-launching capability of the SA80 A2; and what impact it has had on the accuracy of the rifle's optical sight. [70693]

  Dr. Moonie
  The SA80 A2 rifle entered service late last year. There have been no indications of reliability or accuracy problems when using the A2 in conjunction with the Rifle Grenade General Service (RGGS). Tests were conducted by QinetiQ prior to the A2's introduction to validate with the modified rifle the results of earlier exhaustive performance trials using the SA80 Al with the RGGS. Some rifle-launched grenades no longer in use did on occasion cause damage to the Al and its optical sight, but since its introduction into service in 1996 the RGGS has been found to be safe in this respect. For maximum accuracy it is used with a dedicated prismatic sight.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the(a) SA80A1 and (b) SA80A2 rifles to be admitted to the NATO nominated weapons list. [70702]

  Dr. Moonie

  The modified SA80 A2 was accepted onto the NATO nominated weapons list in March 2002. We have no intention of seeking the readmittance of the SA80 Al onto the list as it is being replaced by the modified SA80 A2.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of the SA80A2 rifles failed to meet the target of 10,000 rounds before failure during testing in Kuwait under hot/dry conditions; [70707]
  758W
  (2) what proportion of the SA80 (a) A2 and (b) A 1 rifles failed to meet the target of 10,000 rounds before failure during testing; [70700]

  (3) what proportion of the SA80A1 rifles failed to meet the target of 10,000 rounds before failure during testing under hot/dry conditions. [70706]

  Dr. Moonie
  Both the SA80A1 and the SA80A2 were tested during trials in 2001 against the Battlefield Mission rather than a 10,000 round target. The 10,000 round figure relates to the manufacturer's expected life of component parts of the weapon. The new Battlefield Mission requires the rifle to fire in a number of different environments over a prolonged period of time. These included cold and dry conditions in Alaska, hot and wet conditions in Brunei, hot and dry conditions in Kuwait and temperate conditions in the United Kingdom.

  The SA80A2 averaged 98 per cent. reliability during trials across all climates and during testing in Kuwait achieved 95 per cent. reliability. The target set for SA80A2 is 90 per cent. reliability. The SA80A1 averaged 55 per cent. reliability across the various climates and during testing in Kuwait achieved 6 per cent. reliability.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries were made by his Department into whether the use of the stabiliser developed by Warminster was considered in SA80 modifications. [70701]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the stabiliser the hon. Member is referring to is the Vortices Activated Muzzle Stabiliser (VAMS), which was designed to improve the accuracy of the Light Support Weapon. Trials were undertaken at Warminster in 1992 using SA80 Als, but when fitted with the VAMS, the weapon failed to meet accuracy requirements. The VAMS was not therefore procured.

  Phoenix UAVs
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if UK Phoenix UAVs were deployed in recent operations in Afghanistan. [70764]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Heavylift Aircraft
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on hiring heavylift aircraft since 1 July 1998 for use in UK defence or aid-related activities. [70782]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: From 1 July 1998 to 4 July 2002, the Ministry of Defence has committed to the charter of civilian heavylift aircraft up to the value of £43.9 million.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the future of HMS Nottingham. [70786]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Repair options for HMS Nottingham are still being considered.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if warships will be brought out of(a) reserve and (b) extended readiness to replace HMS Nottingham while she is out of service. [70785]
  759W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: No warships are in reserve at present. Decisions on whether to change the readiness state of other warships will be taken once we have a clear assessment of the damage to HMS Nottingham.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy warship will be deployed to replace the duties undertaken by HMS Nottingham. [70948]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: HMS Nottingham deployed for duties associated with the Five Power Defence Arrangements including Exercise Stardex. She was subsequently assigned to Coalition maritime operations in the Middle East, and was being held at notice for this purpose while deployed to the Asia Pacific region. She was also programmed to undertake a series of port visits in support of our defence diplomacy goals and wider security objectives in the region. It will not be possible to deploy another ship to undertake the full range of these duties. However, HMS York has been nominated as the ship held at readiness in support of the fight against terrorism, and options are being investigated for United Kingdom participation in Ex Stardex.

  HMS Southampton
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the repairs to HMS Southampton cost following her accident in the Gulf in 1988; and how long the repairs took to make. [70784]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The repairs to HMS Southampton were combined with the ship's 1989 refit. It is not possible, from existing records, to separate the cost of repairs from those for the refit. However, the overall cost of this package of work including replacement equipment was some £45 million at that time. The duration of the repair and refit was 92 weeks.

  Fleet Submarines
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to extend the service life of fleet submarines. [70788]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Plans to extend the service life of fleet submarines are kept under review as part of the Ministry of Defence's normal planning processes.

  C-17 Aircraft
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the RAF's C-17 aircraft have exceeded the flying hours agreed under the terms of their lease; and if he will make a statement; [70783]

  (2) what the projected cost is of the lease of C-17 aircraft throughout its entire term. [70780]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 15 May 2002, Official Report, column 640W.
  760W
  Since entering service with the RAF the C-17 fleet has now flown just under twice the hours upon which the support was modelled. The additional support costs arising from this level of flying are in the order of £10 million.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the cost of leasing four C-17 aircraft is greater than purchasing individual C-17 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [70781]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The detailed lease costs and the underlying aircraft price are commercially sensitive and I am withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Chilean Government have expressed an interest in existing type 23 frigates or new build vessels; and if he will make a statement. [70789]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 July 2002, Official Report, column 852W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenking).

  Army Cadets
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of Army cadets in Bridgwater, Somerset. [71240]

  Dr. Moonie
  I understand that there has been recent progress in the negotiations with Sedgemoor district council in order to identify a suitable location in which to provide a joint cadet centre for both the Army and Air Cadets in Bridgwater. Until these negotiations are concluded, however, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. Once they are completed I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Navigators
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the redeployment of navigators when the Tornado is replaced by the Eurofighter. [71180]

  Dr. Moonie
  The planned replacement of the Tornado F3 aircraft by Eurofighter will lead to a phased reduction in the requirement for fast jet navigators in the Royal Air Force over the next 10 years. Those F3 navigators who do not leave at an extant exit point during the draw down will be offered employment opportunities on other aircraft types. They will be redeployed as appropriate, taking account of individuals' skill sets, personal aspirations and service needs.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on HMS Fearless; and what plans he has to bring the ship back into service while the launch of HMS Albion is delayed. [71534]
  761W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 July 2002,Official Report, column 275W. to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), and on 2 July 2002, Official Report, column 234W. to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  Wind Farms
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the development of large scale wind farms in the North sea on(a) existing radar defence and (b) the UK's ability to co-operate with the USA in respect of the Missile Defence programme; and if he will make a statement. [70045]

  Dr. Moonie
  All wind farm proposals are examined on a case-by-case basis to establish whether they are likely to have an adverse effect on air defence radar. Rotating turbines can send false returns to radar heads and a study is currently being undertaken in conjunction with the DTI to see what measures, if any, can be taken to mitigate this.

  An independent review of the United Kingdom's air defence radar was instituted following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, and this work will inform on-going work on SDR New Chapter.

  No assessment has been made of the impact of wind farms on the type of radar currently used for missile early warning, or on those that might be developed for missile tracking, but there is no reason to expect wind farms to affect such radars in view of their different operating characteristics.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if he will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if he will make a statement. [702051

  Dr. Moonie
  The expenditure for information literature, advertising and campaign material is spread among many different budgets and budget holders. The information is not therefore held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. More general information on advertising and publicity is expected to be included in the 2001–02 departmental performance report which, will be published later in the year. Copies will be available in the Library of the House.

  Royal Military Music School
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's total expenditure relating to the Royal Military Music School, Kneller Hall, Twickenham for each year since 1995. [70517]

  Dr. Moonie
  Costs are not available for the complete period requested. Information available is as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  1.805

  1999–2000

  2.546

  2000–01

  2.414

  2001–02

  2.287

  762W
  The figures are cash costs and represent the running costs of the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall excluding the salary costs of students.

  Overseas Deployments
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom soldiers were deployed overseas on(a) peacekeeping missions and (b) active service operations in each year since 1997; and how many United Kingdom soldiers are expected to return from such missions by 1 September. [72075]

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

  Mine Countermeasures Vessels
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine countermeasures vessels are operational. [70787]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Of 22 Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels, 19 were operational on 16 July 2002. Of the remainder, one is undergoing a refit, one is at Extended Readiness in her base port, and one is undergoing post-build trials prior to entering fleet service.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; when and where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which Irish Government Departments were involved in each meeting; and which Ministers and officials from the Irish Government attended each meeting. [63069]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 533–34W. by the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the overseas trips on departmental business that have been undertaken in each of the last five years by officials in his Department; and what the(a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) result was in each case. [68720]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The FCO's expenditure on overseas trips on departmental business was £9 million in 1997–98, £10.3 million in 1998–99, £9.5 million in 1999–2000, £9.7 million in 2000–01 and £10.9 million in 2001–02. This expenditure covered travel, accommodation and subsistence costs. Detailed information about individual trips is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All such trips are undertaken in support of our foreign policy objectives and the results are collectively reported to Parliament in the FCO's departmental report. All overseas travel by officials in the FCO is undertaken in accordance with the principles set out
  763W
  in chapter 8 of the Civil Service Management Code, and the detailed rules and guidance set out in the FCO's Code of Management.

  Botswana
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what scrutiny has taken place of spending on the programme for supporting and improving protected reserves agreed between the European Union and the Botswanian Government; and with what results. [69226]

  Mr. MacShane
  No money has yet been disbursed under the EU programme. A steering committee will meet once a quarter to monitor expenditure when the programme has begun. The programme will also be subject to a mid-term review after two-and-a-half years and an end of project review after five years.

  G8 Summit
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for developing a market access initiative for all least developed countries at the G8 level. [69472]

  Mr. MacShane
  The G8 Action Plan for Africa includes commitments on market access for least developed African countries. These reaffirm pledges made at the United Nations' Third Conference for least developed countries in Brussels in May last year, and reiterated in the context of the Doha development agenda of multilateral trade negotiations. We are keen to see action by other G8 countries to open their markets to LDCs, matching that taken by the EU in its February 2001 "Everything but Arms Initiative". Acting on the Kananaskis commitment to African LDCs would be an important step in this direction.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for taking forward the commitments made at the G8 summit to support African peace keeping capacity building. [69470]

  Mr. MacShane
  With its African partners, the G8 intends to deliver a joint plan, by 2003, for the development of African capability to undertake peace support operations (PSO), including at the regional level. This will involve improving co-ordination of existing donor peacekeeping training programmes, especially those of the UK, US and France in West Africa and elsewhere. Joint donor missions will be carried out to assess the logistical and training needs of sub-regional organisations like ECOWAS and SADC to improve, where possible, their capacity. Plans are already well advanced for the co-ordination of G8 support to the establishment of the Kofi Annan Peacekeeping Training Centre in Accra, Ghana. Bilaterally, the UK is already expanding the capacity of its PSO training programmes in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa and considering how best to provide regional PSO training support in Southern Africa.

  Thai Airways Crash
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the crash investigation report into Thai Airways flight TG261; and if he will make a statement. [70761]
  764W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The crash investigation report into Thai Airways flight TG261 has not yet been finalised but we are expecting this to issue shortly. Once it has been published and we have received a copy I will be happy to place one in the Library.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he last met and (b) plans next to meet representatives of the Kingdom of Thailand in relation to the British nationals killed in the crash of Thai Airways flight TG261 at Surat Thani in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [70762]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), raised the interest of families of British victims in the 1998 Surat Thani crash report with Pracha Guna-Kasem, Chief Adviser to the Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart when he visited Thailand in December 2001. The British Embassy in Bangkok has raised and will continue to raise this matter regularly with the Thai authorities. The most recent contact was on 17 July.

  Kenya
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the President of Kenya's proposal to change the law allowing an extension of his presidential term; and if he will make a statement. [69866]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 17 July. 2002]: On 11 July a KANU spokesman announced that the party would wait to see whether the constitutional commissioners could deliver a draft constitutional Bill by September, before taking any decision on an extension of Parliament or the Presidential term.

  Turkey
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Turkish Government with regard to the political situation in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [71033]

  Peter Hain
  We have regular discussions with the Turkish Government and are following developments in the Turkish political scene with interest.

  Mr. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and. Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Pakistani authorities to commute the death sentence passed on Mr. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh; and if he will make a statement. [70792]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: I spoke to the Pakistani High Commissioner about Mr. Sheikh the day that the sentence was announced. I reminded him of our opposition to the death sentence under all circumstances, and made clear our hope that the Pakistanis would consider commuting the sentence to one of imprisonment.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what EU funding, which is
  765W
  not available to the people of Gibraltar, will be made available in the event of an agreement to share the sovereignty of Gibraltar between the United Kingdom and Spain. [71165]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 614W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next round of talks under the terms of the Brussels Process will take place. [71595]

  Peter Hain
  We hope to hold further discussions in the autumn.

  Middle East
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 181W, if he will place in the Library his letter to the Board of Deputies of 20 June; and if he will make a statement. [72048]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A copy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's letter of 20 June to Mrs. Jo Wagerman, President, The Board of Deputies of British Jews, about anti-Semitic articles in the Arab media, has been placed in the Library. The letter sets outs the Government's concern about anti-Semitic incidents and what action the Government have taken to address them.

  Overseas Territories
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 175W, on Overseas Territories, which seven Overseas Territories have produced and published statistics over the five year period up to and including either 2000 or 2001; and if he will in each case indicate the years in that period that no publication was made in respect of each overseas territory. [71570]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Further to my answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 175W, on Overseas Territories, the following seven Overseas Territories have produced and published statistics annually over the last five year period: Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falklands Islands, St. Helena, and Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 175W, on Overseas Territories, if he has assessed the recent publication of a compendium of statistics by Gibraltar to be of a standard and detail satisfactory to his Department. [71572]

  Peter Hain
  Following his request to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has recently received a copy of the Abstract of Statistics from the Government of Gibraltar. We will be assessing its contents in due course.

  Kamp van Zeist
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what the total 766W
  capital costs were of providing the Kamp van Zeist facilities; and what percentage of those costs were met by (a) the UK Government, (b) the US Government and (c) the Scottish Parliament; [63702]

  (2) what total current costs were incurred with respect to the Kamp van Zeist facilities; and what percentage of these costs were met by (a) the UK Government and (b) the Scottish Parliament. [63709]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Scottish Executive was responsible for the conduct of the Lockerbie trial and incurred all of the associated capital costs. These capital costs, currently estimated at £11.5 million, were fully reimbursed by the Government. To date, the US Government have contributed some £15 million to the overall costs, both capital and current, of the trial and subsequent appeal.

  Total current costs are estimated to be £63.8 million over the financial years 1998–99 through to 2001–02, but final audited figures for 2001–02 have yet to be finalised. It is also likely that there will be some further current costs into the current financial year 2002–03, though the sums involved will be relatively small. The site was returned to the Dutch Government on 2 April 2002. 80 per cent. of the current costs are being funded by the Government and 20 per cent. by the Scottish Executive.

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47153]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date there have been two occasions when a special adviser has accompanied Scotland Office Ministers on overseas visits.

  The details of these visits are as follows:

  Year

  Occasions

  Country visited

  Cost of visit (£)

  2001–02

  1

  Belgium Spain

  2002–03

  1

  545.87 728.61

  All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Handbook.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47112]
  767W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 552W.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49116]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office policy on overtime follows the principles detailed in Section 9 of the Civil Service Management Code. This sets out terms and conditions relating to hours of work and how staff should be compensated for working outside their normal pattern of attendance.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible in each of the last five years. [50306]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department is responsible for one non-departmental public body, the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  Salary costs for the Commission were as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  37,018

  2000–01

  41,885

  2001–02

  54,163

  Prior to 1999, staffing support for the Commission was provided by the former Scottish Office.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [60999]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations and outside bodies which were in receipt of grant in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is(a) individually and (b) in aggregate; which organisations and outside bodies which were not in receipt of grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost (i) individually and (ii) in aggregate is. [62049]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 137W.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies.. [66198]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not use 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66950]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 339W.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the subjects of the gender impact assessments drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [66733]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, no gender impact assessments have been drawn up by the Department.

  Data Series
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new data series, separated by(a) gender, (b) race, (c) disability and (d) age have been commissioned by her Department since August 1997. [66735]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date no new data series has been commissioned in the Department.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved. [66736]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: My Department does not deliver executive services to the public. No baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment has been drawn up.

  Open Source Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in her Department. [69328]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not currently use open source software. The Government will publish its policy for open source software in summer 2002.

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since 1997, indicating for each consultation(a) if copies were available on-line, (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. [69798]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, the Department has undertaken one public consultation exercise, on the size of the Scottish Parliament.

  Copies of the consultation paper were available in print and on-line. The consultation was launched on 18 December 2001 and the period given for responses closed on 29 March 2002.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of publishing her Department's and its predecessor's annual report for each of the past five years. [70484]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present from on 1 July 1999. The cost of publishing my Department's annual reports were as follows:

  1999–2000: £1,020

  2000–01: £3,160

  2001–02: £3,869.

  The costs of publishing reports of the fonner Scottish Office are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Press Officers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time equivalents were employed by her press office and (b) secondees were placed in her press office in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [70546]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date the Department has had four full-time press officers. No secondees have been placed in my Department's press office.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if she will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if she will make a statement. [70207]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 2001–02, my Department spent £180,000 on advertising material. Most of this expenditure related to election or electoral registration matters.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49117]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [60998]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [669511

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 339W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Further Education
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the effect the pay and conditions of service of further education lecturers has on her strategy for raising standards in the further education sector. [65076]

  Margaret Hodge
  As independent organisations it is for further education (FE) colleges to agree the pay and the terms and conditions of their staff within the context of the overall resources available to them.

  Extra resources have been made available to FE colleges to support improvements in pay and conditions and to help raise standards in colleges. The total funding for FE has increased by over £1.1 billion between 1997–98 and 2002–03, a 20 per cent. real terms increase. 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. We planned to increase total spend on FE by over £300 million in 2003–04. However, the Chancellor's statement of 15 July giving additional resources for education, including a 1 per cent. per annum real terms increase for FE in the unit of core funding, will mean more money in 2003–04 than originally planned, and further real terms increases in future years. We also expect to announce in due course substantial additional resources to take forward elements of the "Success for All" strategy for reforming further education and training.
  771W
  As part of the overall funding allocation, we are investing more than £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) to help modernise FE pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain teachers and lecturers as part of our drive to improve teaching and learning. We want to see all staff in the sector have a more attractive career structure, increased rewards for their efforts, and support for continuing professional training and development. Developing excellence in teaching and leadership is a key goal in our strategy for reforming the FE sector.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the unit of funding was for each student in FE and HE in each of the years 1992–93 to 2001–02 as expressed at 2001–02 prices. [65397]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: The unit of funding expressed at 2001–02 prices for FE and HE are set out in the table:

  Unit of funding

  FE total funding

  Higher education

  1992–93

  —

  6,320

  1993–94

  3,910

  5,970

  1994–95

  3,810

  5,810

  1995–96

  3,560

  5,550

  1996–97

  3,470

  5,190

  1997–98

  3,390

  5,030

  1998–99

  3,350

  5,030

  1999–2000

  3,600

  5,020

  2000–01 (provisional)

  3,640

  4,970

  2001–02 (plans)

  3,810

  5,020

  Average1 GCSE/GNVQ point score in academic year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (a) All pupils

  Maintained mainstream

  37.0

  38.0

  39.1

  39.8

  40.0

  Specialist pre 1996

  41.2

  42.5

  43.8

  45.0

  45.5

  Specialist post 1996

  37.9

  38.8

  40.2

  40.7

  41.2

  (b) Pupils in upper quartile

  Maintained mainstream

  59.4

  60.9

  62.0

  62.8

  63.4

  Specialist pre 1996

  62.8

  65.0

  65.9

  67.2

  68.1

  Specialist post 1996

  60.0

  61.5

  62.3

  63.5

  64.5

  (c) Pupils in lower quartile

  Maintained Mainstream

  13.4

  13.8

  14.9

  15.2

  15.0

  Specialist pre 1996

  17.6

  18.2

  19.6

  20.7

  20.4

  Specialist post 1996

  14.3

  14.7

  15.9

  16.2

  16.1

  1 The average GCSE/GNVQ point score is calculated as the total points achieved by all 15-year-old pupils in the relevant schools divided by the number of 15-year-olds attempting GCSEs.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if she will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if she will make a statement. [702141

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In 2001–02, the Department spent £11.688 million from its centrally held Advertising and Publicity Budget, which covers information literature,

  Medical Students
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 674W, on medical degree places, how many students applied for medical degree courses in each year since 1997. [71159]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The information is shown in the table.

  Students applying to pre-clinical medical courses in the UK

  Year of entry

  Applicants1

  1997

  12,076

  1998

  11,807

  1999

  10,972

  2000

  10,226

  2001

  10,231

  1 Home and overseas students applying via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Despite a substantial increase in the number of students studying pre-clinical medicine from 5,020 in 1997 to 5,928 in 2001, the number of applications to places remains just under two to one.

  GCSE
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total GCSE points score for(a)all pupils, (b)pupils in the upper quartile and (c) pupils in the lower quartile was in (i) specialist schools designated on or before September 1 1996 (ii) specialist schools designated after September 1996 and (iii) all schools in each of the last five years. [69693]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is shown in the following table.

  advertising and campaign material. There is additional spend from departmental programme budgets on publicity activity but this could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  It is possible, however, to list advertising campaigns drawn from all departmental budgets. Campaigns where the spend exceeded £250,000 were as follows:

  Science Year

  New Deal 50+

  Child care Recruitment

  773W

  Foundation Degrees

  Adult Basic Skills ("Get On")

  Connexions

  Fast Track Teaching

  Parents' magazine ("Parents + Schools")

  Widening Participation in Higher Education (Aim higher)

  Millennium Volunteers

  Child care Link

  Modern Apprenticeships.

  Youth
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU committee for the implementation of the Community action programme concerning co-operation policy in the youth field, including European voluntary service and youth exchange within the Community and with third countries (YOUTH) 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. [70897]

  Margaret Hodge
  The EU Youth Committee normally meets twice a year in June and December. As yet no date has been finalised by the European Commission for the next meeting.

  The UK is represented on the committee by one official from the Joint International Unit of the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. The Scottish Executive is consulted in advance about the content of the meetings, and makes its views known, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many asylum-seeking children(a) entered and (b) left school in each Government Office region, broken down by (i) age profile and (ii) the first language spoken, at the latest date for which figures are available. [69971]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information on the number of children of asylum seekers in schools is not collected centrally.

  The Refugee Council has estimated that there are in the region of 80,000 children of asylum seekers and refugees in schools in the United Kingdom.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [68732]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All overseas travel by officials in my Department is undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in Chapter 8 of the 'Civil Service Management Code', and the detailed rules and guidance set out in the departmental 'Travel and Transfer Guide'.774W
  The detailed information requested about individual trips is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices closed in Scotland in each year since 1997, broken down by local authority area. [71126]

  Mr. Timms
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that data on post office closures are not collated on a local authority area basis but will in future be collated on the basis of UK parliamentary constituencies.

  I am also informed that data by country on net post office closures are not available before 1998 but that net closures in Scotland by financial year since then were as follows:

  Number of closures

  Year to end March 1999

  25

  Year to end March 2000

  27

  Year to end March 2001

  63

  Year to end March 2002

  26

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1388W, on the Post Office, if she will make a statement on the level of performance of first class deliveries between Wirral and London in 2001. [697791

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: Targets for the Royal Mail's scheduled services and standards are set in the licence issued by the Postal Services Commission (Postcomm) and agreed between Consignia and the Consumer Council for Postal Services (Postwatch). As the level of performance of first class deliveries between Wirral and London is a matter for the company I have asked Consignia chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being proposed for Post Office staff and customers to deal with(a) balance disputes, (b) lost or stolen cards and (c) lost PIN numbers for Post Office card account holders; and if she will make a statement. [70190]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters which fall within the day to day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibilities she holds in respect of genetic modification; how this connects with(a) DEFRA and (b) the Department of Health; and if she will make a statement. [69773]
  775W
  Ms Hewitt
  DEFRA has the lead responsibility for genetic modification (GM) policy, sets the regulations concerning the deliberate release and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and funds a research programme to underpin these regulatory activities. Although DTI has no formal responsibility for GM policy, it leads on competitiveness issues and sponsors the biotechnology sector. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) in the DTI supports the Chief Scientific Advisor in his oversight of transdepartmental science and technology. The OST also funds the Research Councils.

  The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), the Government's independent strategic advisory body on biotechnology issues affecting agriculture and the environment, advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the devolved Administrations, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Government Departments, including DEFRA, DTI, Department of Health, and the devolved Administrations and agencies work closely together to ensure a co-ordinated approach on GM. In particular, all three Departments are represented on the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Biotechnology—SCI(BIO)—whose terms of reference are
  "to consider issues relating to biotechnology—including those arising from genetic modification, biotechnology in healthcare and genetic issues—and their economic impact; and to report as necessary to the Committee on Science Policy".

  Mineworkers' Pension Funds
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to complete her review of the usage of the surpluses of the two mineworkers' pension funds. [71470]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 18 July 2002,Official Report, column 442W.

  Farm Bill
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she is making to the US Government on the proposed Farm Bill; and if she will make a statement. [67598]

  Ms Hewitt
  HMG are in continual dialogue with the US Government at all levels concerning the US Farm Bill (the "Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002"). We have made clear to the US Government our considerable disappointment with the Farm Bill, especially in the context of the Doha Development Agenda, which committed all WTO members to substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.

  The US believes the Farm Bill is compatible with their World Trade Organisation commitments and have stressed their intention to remain fully engaged in the Doha negotiations. I will continue to strongly encourage them to do so and to put forward practical proposals to achieve the Doha commitments in agriculture.

  US Steel Tariffs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the US steel tariffs. [69481]

  Ms Hewitt
  The US action is unjustified and deeply regrettable. The Government fully support the European Commission's robust response in immediately pursuing WTO action and took a lead in pressing for EU safeguard action to protect the UK and EU steel industry against diversion of trade.

  We are also proactively negotiating in support of the efforts of UK companies to secure product exclusions from the US measures.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to control imports of goods produced by child labour. [69743]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are opposed to the use of trade sanctions to enforce labour standards and believes that the setting and monitoring of labour standards are matters to be dealt with by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

  The Government strongly support the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which reaffirms the commitment of all ILO member states to respect, promote and implement fundamental labour standards, including the abolition of child labour. The UK has ratified ILO Conventions 138 (Minimum Age) and 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour), and supports the ILO's International Programme on Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC).

  Russian Federation (G8 Assistance)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what budget she has allocated for 2002–03 to implement the G8 agreement on assistance to the Russian Federation with nuclear security and decommissioning. [69533]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government initiated a £84 million programme to address the nuclear legacy in the Former Soviet Union in April 2001, and the budget for 2002–03 is £27.4 million. The programme is expected to support a wide range of nuclear legacy issues across the Former Soviet Union with much of the work undertaken in Russia associated with the decommissioning of nuclear submarines, plutonium disposition and the development of Non-weapons related employment in closed nuclear cities.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial support was granted to the Russian Federation for nuclear security and decommissioning, broken down by title of each individual project supported in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [69534]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 588W, in which I provided information

  777W
  on Government expenditure on decommissioning of nuclear installations and equipment in the Former Soviet Union.

  The UK has provided support to countries of the Former Soviet Union through a Health and Safety Programme and the 'Nuclear Safety Programme' since the mid 1990s. However, there has been only one UK funded Russian Federation project associated with the decommissioning of RBMK reactors. This was in 1997–98 and UK contribution was (£30,000). There is a further £66,000 decommissioning project concerned with reactor sealing at the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant of units but absence of a legal agreement covering liabilities, site access and tax issues which we are negotiating with the Russian Authorities is delaying its start up.

  On security, the UK has assisted with the provision of a physical protection system for the icebreaker 'Sevmorpue in the Murmansk Shipping Company's atomic fleet. This was in 2001–02 and total cost to UK was £458K.

  The UK (DTI) has also funded a range of activities with the Russian Federation both to help improve understanding of nuclear safeguards generally and also to improve arrangements for nuclear materials accountancy at specific Russian facilities. The programme has included nuclear safeguards and materials accountancy seminars and training courses for Russian regulators and facility operators (approximately £550k since 1993), and co-operative projects to improve nuclear materials accountancy arrangements at the Mayak RT-1 reprocessing plant (approximately £500k since 1994) and the Angarsk enrichment plant (approximately £110k since 1998).

  Employment Relations Act
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the Employment Relations Act 1999. [71792]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 11 July 2002 to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), which announced a review of the operation of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The terms of reference of the review and a schedule describing the Act have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  National Business Debtline
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have received advice from the National Business Debtline; if the pilot project will be extended beyond three years; and if she will make a statement. 1702011

  Nigel Griffiths
  At the end of business on Friday 12 July 2002 the Business Debtline had answered calls from 11,008 different businesses since the pilot started. Approximately 19–20 per cent. of the callers ring on more than one occasion and this is not reflected in the 11,008 calls referred to above.

  The project will be evaluated in the coming months and a decision will be made in the light of the results of the evaluation and in conjunction with the banks, who are our partners in this, as to whether it will be extended beyond three years.
  778W

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the costs were of the survey, in October 2001, to measure the success of the advertising campaign in the autumn regarding the Business Link brand. [70199]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Pre and post campaign tracking research for the autumn 2001 advertising campaign cost £61,270. This cost excludes VAT.

  The tracking research measured a number of factors before and after the campaign to assess the impact of the advertising activity. These included: awareness of Business Link; claimed source of awareness; recognition of the national Business Link advertising; and usage of Business Link.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the costs were of the advertising campaign in autumn 2001 to promote the Business Link brand. [70198]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The cost of the autumn 2001 advertising campaign was £2.3 million.

  This cost excludes VAT. This total cost also includes the cost of all research undertaken for the campaign.

  This campaign consisted of TV, national press and online advertising, and direct mail.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much debt is guaranteed by the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [70200]

  Nigel Griffiths
  During the financial year ending 31 March 2002 the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme guaranteed loans to the value of £255 million.

  Since the Scheme started in June 1981, over £3 billion of loans have been guaranteed.

  Business University
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on plans to create a business university for business support. [69679]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Business Link '11' has been established for the Small Business Service (SBS), Business Link Operators (BLO) and partners, fulfilling the 2001 Small Business Manifesto commitment to "Create a Business University for Business Support". The 'U' is the world's first virtual corporate university for business development professionals.

  Progress so far includes:
  management structures are in place, including the appointment of a 'U' Governing Board, Principal and Director;
  five initial faculties have been set up (core, customer facing, leadership, marketing and business development);
  learning needs analyses have been conducted for business advisers;
  'Subject Area Expert' teams have been identified from within the SBS/BLO network and training will commence in September.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding the encouragement of venture capital in the UK. [71023]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We have received no recent representations regarding the encouragement of venture capital. However, the Government fully recognise the importance of the venture capital industry to the UK economy and, since coming to office, has taken a number of measures aimed at creating an economic environment in which it can flourish. We have also been working closely with venture capital firms on programmes such as Regional Venture Capital Funds, the UK High Technology Fund and the Community Development Venture Fund. This has involved regular contacts with representatives of the venture capital industry at both ministerial and official level.

  Export Credits Guarantee
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of export credit guarantees in 2001 was for environmental technology or services exports. [69413]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: For the financial year 2000–01, 1.2 per cent. of ECGD business issued/underwritten during the year was in respect of environmental technology projects or investments. This figure rose to 7.2 per cent. in 2001–02, a five-fold increase on the previous year.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards establishing a trading fund for the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [72213]

  Ms Hewitt
  Earlier this year on 7 February 2002, Official Report, column 1074W, I told the House that ECGD would give priority to its business and systems in order to make itself ready for establishment as a capitalised Trading Fund, my preferred option for its future operation. Work has now progressed sufficiently for me to confirm that ECGD will become a Trading Fund.

  In making this commitment, I am conscious of the need for ECGD to complement market provision of export insurance and guarantees. As a result, ECGD should do more to stimulate the private market and develop new ways of working with them to benefit the UK economy by supporting UK exporters and investors in overseas markets.

  ECGD will have greater operational autonomy as a Trading Fund. This will offer an improved service to customers, who have expressed concern during the programme of work, about ECGD's ability to provide adequate levels of support to exporters. Customers can expect greater clarity and certainty as to the levels of ECGD's support. I have also asked ECGD to improve its customer care for new customers and make it easier for them to access its support.

  Research jointly commissioned by ECGD and HM Treasury from National Economic Research Associates
  780W
  (NERA) to quantify the net benefits to the UK economy of ECGD's operations will be published in due course.

  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who has been closely involved with this whole process—and I have jointly commissioned ECGD and the Treasury to develop multilateral strategies to secure more robust financial disciplines in respect of Government supported export credit agencies.

  Work will now continue to prepare ECGD for Trading Fund status. I will review the position—including the need to hold a further consultation—and will announce a timetable in the autumn.

  Industrial Growth
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which industrial sectors within the UK she estimates have the greatest growth potential. [63804]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not make predictions about which UK sectors have the greatest growth potential. We look at a range of factors that impact on productivity and competitiveness across the UK economy.

  Export Licences
  Norman. Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those countries which have during the last 12 months imported defence equipment from the USA which incorporates equipment exported from the UK to the USA following the granting of an export licence by her Department. [69110]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation does not hold records on actual exports of defence equipment from the USA to a third country.

  All relevant export licence applications, including where it is understood that the items are to be incorporated into products for onward export, are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign. Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 8 July 2002, Official Report, columns 650–52W.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will determine export licence application 33863 in respect of(a) an order for CHAFF and (b) a repeat order for defensive infra-red flares. [70794]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Licences to export arms and other items whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Export Control Organisation.

  A decision has not yet been reached on export licence application 33863, but will be taken as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved.

  E-Commerce
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps she is taking to encourage the private sector to invest and participate in the consumer market for e-commerce services; and if she will make a statement; [71599]

  (2) what steps she is taking to encourage the private sector e-commerce and software industries to serve the public; and if she will make a statement. [715981

  Mr. Timms
  The Government recognise the importance and the potential of ICT industries which increasingly underpin much of what is happening elsewhere in the economy. There are many initiatives under way, often in partnership with industry, that aim to encourage growth and awareness of e-commerce and the ICT industries, including UK online for business, the Information Age Partnership and e-Shopping.

  Open Source Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in her Department. [69329]

  Ms Hewitt

  I support the use of open source software where it would provide long-term benefits to the Department.

  To date, there is minimal use of open source software in the Department's core IT services, but UNITA,S regularly review whether its application would benefit the Department and if this is found to be the case, its introduction would be supported.

  The Office of Government Commerce and the Office of the eEnvoy have published a draft policy on the use of open source software which was made available for consultation from December 2001 until March 2002. The draft policy is available for viewing on the OeE Govtalk website reference http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_document.asp?docnum=429 and it is planned to publish the policy in summer 2002. The DTI's use of open source software will follow the Government Policy when published.

  Computer Hacking
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of computer hacking her Department has recorded in 2002; and on how many occasions in 2002 her Department's computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers operating(a) within and (b) outside her Department. [69454]

  Ms Hewitt
  During 2002, there have been no reported or detected occasions that my Department's computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers, either from within or outside.

  Policy Review of Fusion
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will publish the findings of the Policy Review of Fusion. [68858]
  782W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The findings of the Policy Review of Fusion were incorporated into the report on the Quinquennial Review of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, published on 28 November 2001, and as such are already in the public domain.

  BNFL
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the viability of BNFL's business plan of 2000. [66100]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department and its advisers review BNFL's Corporate Plan annually as part of the strategic oversight of the company. The 2000 plan was subject to a review as part of that process.

  Uranium Mining
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from(a) UK non-governmental organisations, (b) non-UK non-governmental organisations and (c) other Governments regarding (i) uranium mines, (ii) uranium milling plants, and (iii) uranium tailing waste disposal facilities from which the United Kingdom has obtained its mined uranium. [69442]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent information she has received and what measures she has in place to monitor the health and safety of workers and environmental standards at(a) uranium mines, (b) uranium milling plants and (c) uranium tailing waste disposal facilities from which the United Kingdom has obtained its mined uranium. [69452]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. You should take up any issue about the environment with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and any issues on health and safety of workers with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Nuclear Power
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding unfulfilled overseas nuclear fuel contracts; and what the expected cost overruns are in respect of these contracts. [66101]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am assuming the question relates to existing contracts between BNFL and overseas electricity utilities for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rather than to contracts for the supply of fresh fuel. The Government's position is that these contracts are binding, are supported by intergovernmental agreements and should be honoured. Details of contract prices, operating costs and throughput schedules are a commercial matter for BNFL and its customers.

  Sellafield
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department
  783W
  has received regarding (a) current leakage levels of technetium-99 into groundwater at Sellafield and (b) the point source origin of such leakage. [69505]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. However, I have replied to two previous questions on this matter tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on 13 May 2002,Official Report, column 80 and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Liew Smith) on 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 562.

  Nuclear Reactor Safety
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received concerning nuclear reactor safety regulations reform; and if she will make a statement. [69444]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the course of its regular contacts with companies in the nuclear industry, my Department has received representations in recent months on aspects of the nuclear safety regulatory system. Where appropriate, I have taken these into account in the White Paper 'Managing the Nuclear Legacy' published on 4 July, which also made reference to the joint review being undertaken on nuclear regulation by the Government's advisory committees, the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. I look forward to receiving comments on the White Paper, including its consideration of regulatory issues, by the closing date for consultation, 18 October.

  Nuclear Industry
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) at what intervals reviews are conducted of the level of nuclear industry liability in respect of a nuclear accident; and when the next review is planned to take place; [71477]

  (2) what measures are used in setting the nuclear industry's level of liability in respect of a nuclear accident; and what account is taken of inflation. [71476]

  Mr. Wilson
  With regard to liability of the UK nuclear industry in the event of a nuclear accident, the UK is a contracting party to the Paris and Brussels conventions on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy. One of the underlying principles of the Paris convention is that all liability arising from a nuclear accident is channelled to the operator of the nuclear installation on a no fault basis. Present UK legislation requires operators to cover their liability by insurance, (the Nuclear Installations Act 1965) and operator's liability is currently limited to a maximum £140 million per accident.

  Liability amounts are reviewed by the UK along with our international partners and were last increased in 1990. The Paris and Brussels conventions are currently in the process of revision with a view to substantially increase the operator's liability to £430 million per accident.

  On entry into force, the revised Paris and Brussels conventions will provide for a review of liability amounts every five years.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are applied in varying the salary of the BNFL chairman. [71512]
  784W
  Mr. Wilson
  The starting fee of £150,000 per annum for the chairman of BNFL was set in October 1999 for a period of three years. The increase, effective from 1 October 2002—equivalent to just over 3 per cent. per annum—was considered to be an appropriate increase in recognition of the service provided by Mr. Collum since he became chairman. This is close to the average level of increase awarded to BNFL staff in each of those three years.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals her Department has received regarding the extension between refuelling periods for nuclear reactors. [71546]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received regarding the continued operation of BNFL magnox stations. [71532]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL informed the Department of its intention to bring forward the closure dates of the Calder Hall and Chapelcross stations on 22 May 2002.

  The Government launched a consultation on energy policy on 14 May with a view to publishing a White Paper around the turn of the year. The role of nuclear is one of the key issues raised in the document. We shall be posting the replies to the consultation on the DTI's website.

  Nuclear Waste
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received concerning the adequacy of security provision in the event of(a) an accident and (b) a terrorist attack involving the transportation of nuclear waste in (i) an urban and (ii) a rural environment. [69137]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received a large volume of representations from hon. Members, their constituents and others over safety and security in the civil nuclear industry, including the transport of nuclear material in all environments, in the period since the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tonnes of nuclear waste was imported and reprocessed in the UK in each year since 1997; and what the projected amount is in(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. [69037]

  Mr. Wilson
  The United Kingdom does not allow the import of "nuclear waste". Spent nuclear fuel belonging to overseas owners is imported for reprocessing in the UK. Details of fuel deliveries and the programming of reprocessing fuel owned by individual customers are operational and commercial matters for BNFL and its customers. It can be noted, however, that BNFL published in 1993 a document setting out the economic and commercial justification for THORP. This included details of the amounts of fuel contracted for reprocessing during the baseload period of THORP's operation. From this it can be seen that the total amount of overseas owned fuel to be reprocessed during that period is 4,547 tonnes.
  785W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much nuclear waste was(a) generated and (b) reprocessed within the UK in each year since 1997. [69034]

  Mr. Wilson
  Radioactive waste is defined as

  "any material which contains or is contaminated by radionuclides and for which no use is foreseen".

  Such waste is conditioned for long-term storage. Information on the amount of radioactive waste that is held in the UK and also on predicted future arisings of such waste is published every three years by DEFRA and NIREX Ltd. in the National Radioactive Waste Inventory. The most recent inventory was published in 1999. A copy is in the Libraries of the House. An updated edition of the inventory is due for publication later this year. Reprocessing is an activity carried out in order to recover reusable materials from spent nuclear fuel and to separate out the waste contained in the spent fuel. Radioactive waste is not reprocessed. Details of annual throughput at the reprocessing plants at Sellafield are an operational and commercial matter for BNFL.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tonnes of nuclear waste were transported by rail in the UK in each year since 1997; and what was(a) the source and (b) the destination of the waste. [69135]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am assuming the question relates to movements by rail of spent nuclear fuel discharged from UK nuclear power stations. Spent nuclear fuel from the UK's Magnox and Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor power stations is routinely transported by rail to the Sellafield site in Cumbria for reprocessing. The power stations that are the source of the spent fuel are situated throughout Great Britain.

  The total volume of spent fuel that is transported in any given year would depend entirely on operational factors. Such transports are undertaken by Direct Rail Services (DRS), BNFL's rail freight subsidiary. DRS does not collate information on the total tonnage of fuel that is transported each year. To try to obtain the information requested from the records held at the power stations and Sellafield would involve disproportionate time and cost.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to(a) review and (b) increase security measures for (i) nuclear facilities and (ii) transportation of nuclear materials including (A) MOX plutonium and (B) nuclear waste following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. [69138]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator, sets stringent standards for security at nuclear sites and for the security of nuclear material during transportation. Security precautions are kept under regular review and have been reviewed in the light of the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. Security has been enhanced since the events of 11 September. It is not Government policy to disclose details of these security arrangements.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received concerning the length of time a786W
  train carrying nuclear waste may safely be left stationary and the (a) environmental and (b) health implications if this time scale is exceeded. [69041]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what security measures are employed, and at what cost, during the transportation of nuclear waste within the UK. [69133]

  Mr. Wilson
  Security measures for nuclear material during transportation are regulated by the DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken in connection with nuclear material. The costs of security measures are met by the operators.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what statutory powers Ofgem operates. [72561]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ofgem derives its powers from the Gas Act 1986; Electricity Act 1989; Gas Act 1995; Utilities Act 2000; Fair Trading Act 1973; Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976; and the Competition Act 1998.

  It also has powers under the Stop Now Orders (EC Directives) Regulations 2001 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

  Downstream Oil Industry Forum
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference are of the Downstream Oil Industry Forum; who the members of the forum are; when the first meeting of the forum will be; who will chair the forum; and if she will make a statement. [70326]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have invited the main trade associations in the oil distribution and marketing sector (Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents (AUKOI), Federation of Petroleum Suppliers Ltd. (FPS), Petrol Retailers Association (PRA), UK Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA)), and some of their members to join me for a discussion on 24 July 2002.

  This will be an informal discussion under my chairmanship and there are no formal terms of reference. Discussion will focus on the following:

  (a) The distribution infrastructure (including its longer-term maintenance, use and implications for security of supply).

  (b) Service to motorists in rural areas.

  Carbon Dioxide (Underground Sequestration)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the sites under consideration for underground sequestration of carbon dioxide. [71524]

  Mr. Wilson
  While no decision has yet been made with regard to specific sites as planning is currently only at the initial stages, those currently under consideration all lie in the UK offshore economic zone.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the United Kingdom's electrical power came from wind power in the last year for which figures are available; and what is being done to increase the amount of wind farms. [70802]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2001, the last year for which figures are available, electricity generation from wind power in the United Kingdom was 965 GWh. This was 0.3 per cent. of total UK electricity generation for that year.

  Wind energy, along with other forms of renewable energy, stands to benefit substantially from the introduction of the Renewables Obligation from 1 April this year. This places an obligation on electricity suppliers to supply a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. The level of the Obligation is set to rise each year reaching a target of 10 per cent. by 2010, by which time its value could be up to £1 billion per year. The Obligation has been set up for a 25 year period (2002–27), providing the right climate for expansion of wind energy and renewable energy generally.

  Wind energy, along with other renewables, also benefits from exemption from the Climate Change Levy.

  The Government have assigned £74 million over the next three years for capital grants for offshore wind energy projects, where initial capital costs are greater, and the technology is less well established, than is the case for onshore projects. 19 schemes for the development of offshore wind farms have so far been granted leases of areas of the sea bed by the Crown Estate.

  We are encouraging a positive approach to new renewable energy proposals, including new wind farm proposals, through regional renewable energy plans and targets.

  National Wind Power's Windworks scheme offers farmers and landowners an opportunity to share in the profits of small-scale wind energy projects developed on their land.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many proposals to develop(a) onshore and (b) offshore wind farms her Department has received in 2002. [71583]

  Mr. Wilson
  So far in 2002 the Department has received applications for three offshore wind farms (North Hoyle 90 MW, Rhyl Flats 100 MW, Barrow 108 MW) but none for onshore wind farm proposals.

  Renewable Energy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's renewable energy supply target is for 2020. [71529]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government launched a consultation on energy policy on 14 May with a view to publishing a White Paper around the turn of the year. This consultation covers the issue of a renewable energy supply target to 2020, following a recommendation to Government by the Performance and Innovation Unit that this target should be 20 per cent.

  The Government's views will be made known in the White Paper.
  788W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which factors have added uncertainty to her predicted future generating costs of power from(a) wind power and (b) photovoltaic cells. [64343]

  Mr. Wilson
  Estimates of the future costs of generating electricity from wind and photovoltaic cells are set out in:

  chapter 6 and annex 6 of "The Energy Review", which was produced by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit (http://www.piu.gov.uk/2002/energy/report/index.htm): and
  chapter 5 and annex C of the Inter-Departmental Analysts Group's report, "Long-Term Reductions in Greenhouse Emissions in the UK" (http://www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/index.htm).

  Both reports were published in February 2002 and copies of them are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The above publications discuss factors that contribute to uncertainty surrounding future generating costs of different forms of renewable energy. I am not aware of any significant developments since these reports were published that would affect these factors in a material way.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding the intermittency of renewable energy. [71579]

  Mr. Wilson
  Problems experienced by smaller intermittent generators were raised in the context of the consultation exercise on New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) and smaller generators. A conclusions document was issued in April entitled: "Government Response to the Consultation on NETA and Smaller Generators of 1 November 2001", a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  A number of proposals that smaller intermittent generators suggested to assist them, such as the removal of barriers to consolidation and the reduction of gate closure to one hour, have already been implemented.
  Other issues, such as the cost-reflectivity of the balancing mechanism under NETA, will be examined in Ofgem's review of the first year of operation of NETA. The review is expected shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library. The Government will consider in the light of this review whether further changes are required to NETA.

  Company Information
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the information that companies are required to provide her Department, indicating where these items are subsequently published. [69401]

  Ms Hewitt
  Companies registered under the Companies Act are required to deliver certain statutory information to Companies House. This includes their annual financial accounts, details of their directors and shareholders as well as other notifications of changes or events within the company. Under the provisions of the Insolvency Act, they must also deliver details of any insolvency proceedings.

  All information delivered to Companies House is made available for public inspection, except in the case of the residential address of directors/secretaries who are

  789W
  beneficiaries of a Confidentiality Order who would be at serious risk of violence or intimidation if their address was made public.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60941]

  Ms Hewitt
  The levels of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. From May 1997, in this Department there was one Cabinet Minister at an annual salary of £43,991; three Ministers of State at a total annual salary cost of £1 14,088; and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at a total annual salary cost of £47,246. From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister at an annual salary of £68,157; three Ministers of State at a total annual salary cost of £106,068; and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at a total annual salary cost of £53,670.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68682]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Spending Review involved a comprehensive assessment of the Department's performance, priorities and resource requirements and a range of staff made a contribution.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [61015]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report for each of the past five years. [70485]

  Ms Hewitt
  The costs incurred by the Department for design and artwork of the last five Expenditure Plans Reports are as follows:

  £

  Cost

  2002

  32,161

  2001

  35,006

  2000

  32,727

  1999

  38,125

  1998

  34,962

  These figures also include the costs incurred in placing electronic versions of the reports on the Departmental website.

  Printing costs are met by The Stationery Office, who recoup these costs through sales.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas Party; and how many people attended. [61650]

  Ms Hewitt
  Christmas parties are held on an individual directorate basis and at no direct cost to the public purse.

  Secondees
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of secondees from her Department to British embassies and consulates overseas in the last 12 months. [67784]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI does not second staff to British embassies and consulates overseas. DTI staff taking up postings overseas go on loan to the FCO at no cost to DTI. One position overseas is currently funded by DTI and in the last 12 months the total cost to the Department has been circa £100,000. DTI does, however, fund short-term training attachments to overseas posts for DTI staff under the "Overseas Attachment Training Scheme". This provides for up to 12 staff each year to work in a commercial section overseas for six months. The total cost to the Department in the last 12 months was approximately £400,000.

  Stationery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1376–77W, on stationery, when the next tender process is due to take place; and where it will be advertised. [64341]

  Ms Hewitt
  The existing stationery contract expires on 31 May 2003. Currently we are exploring options that include using existing Government stationery contracts or conducting our own procurement exercise. In the event of undertaking our own procurement an advert will be placed via OJEC.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66955]

  Ms Hewitt
  The National Asset Register, published in July 2001 (Cm5221), lists assets owned by each Department and their valuation.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66937]

  Ms Hewitt
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance, which is set out in Government Accounting, Chapter 30, para 30.2.5, which notes that the Government do not need to purchase insurance to protect the viability of its business, and should consider insurance only where the value of claims met would exceed the cost of insurance premiums. Commercial insurance of a building is acceptable in cases where
  791W
  (a) insurance is a condition of a lease (b) the lessor will not accept a Government indemnity (c) incurring the total cost of the accommodation in question, including the cost of the insurance, is more cost-effective than other accommodation options [Government Accounting, para 30.2.114 Therefore, my Department does not normally insure the buildings it occupies. However, in some instances our landlords do insure their buildings and we make annual payments of around £100.000 to cover this. These payments have not risen since 11 September 2001.

  RDA (Newspapers and Magazines)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money each RDA spent on newspapers and magazines over the last two years. [69397]

  Ms Hewitt
  The RDAs are not required to report their spend to this level of detail, which could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Each RDA reports a single figure for total spending on administration. Individual RDAs are free to decide the level of detail in their own internal accounting subject to the requirements of Government Accounting and other restrictions.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 11 July 2002,Official Report, column 1092W, if she will make a statement on the nature of the business requirements referred to; and how many 0870 numbers are used. [71129]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department uses 0870 numbers for the United Kingdom Information Society technology helpline (UKISHELP) and the Publications Orderline. The Publications Orderline uses three 0870 numbers (general orderline, fax and Minicom).

  The use of 0870 numbers conforms with the Office of e-Envoy's Guidelines for UK Government Call Centres and offers a number that is chargeable at the same rate from any fixed telephone regardless of the location of the caller within the UK.

  The call centres for both UKISHELP and the Publications Orderline are provided by contractors and an 0870 number has the advantage of providing a geographically independent portable number owned by my Department, so that in the event of a new contractor being appointed the number can be seamlessly transferred without any inconvenience to enquirers.

  Written Consultations
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70996]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's designated consultation co-ordinator is Philip Martin of the Better Regulation Team. He can be contacted by telephone on 020 7215 6206, by fax on 020 7215 0480 and by e-mail at Philip.Martin@dti.gsi.gov.uk
  792W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what format her Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations. [70992]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department is committed to the Cabinet Office Code Of Practice on Written Consultation. The Code of Practice requires that decisions in the light of consultation should be made public promptly with a summary of views of expressed, and clear reasons for rejecting options that were not adopted. As far as practicable, this information should be made available to those who responded, including on the Departmental website.

  Information on the format of results in each consultation exercise is not held centrally.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [70995]

  Ms Hewitt
  All Departmental consultation documents are made available as paper copies.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultation documents published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form her Department has monitored and evaluated in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70993]

  Ms Hewitt
  All departmental consultation exercises are subject to the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations which came into force on 1 January 2001. The Cabinet Office Code and internal guidance are available to all staff when preparing consultation documents.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for each area-based initiative for which her Department is responsible the amount originally budgeted for in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02, stating in each year what funds budgeted for were not spent and if they were carried forward. [71460]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department is not responsible for any area-based initiatives, as listed by the Office of Deputy Prime Minister Regional Co-ordination Unit.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Financial Services Sector
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Minister for Women what the take-up has been of equal pay questionnaires by women within the financial services sector. [70617]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Employment Act 2002 provides the power to introduce the equal pay questionnaire through regulations. We will be consulting interested parties on the design and content of the form later this year.

  The questionnaire will make it easier for individuals to request key information from their employers about whether they are suffering pay discrimination.
  793W
  There has as yet been no take up of the questionnaire because it is not yet available to the public.

  Returning to Work
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent bilateral discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on access to training for women returners to work. [63081]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and I are both committed to expanding opportunities for women returners. My officials from the Women and Equality Unit consulted with officials in the Department for Education and Skills on the unit's recent successful programme of work taster days for women returners. This programme was aimed at women over 40 who had been on extended career breaks or may have never worked and needed help acquiring skills and information to return to paid employment.

  The Government, through their range of new deal programmes and employment service programmes, offer back to work help for women returners. Almost 2.4 million women aged 50 to state pension age are in work and 46 per cent. of women aged 50 and above are learners in formal, informal or workplace settings.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Noise
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he has sent to local authorities on the procedures for notifying those against whom complaints have been made about excessive noise prior to an investigation being made; and if he will make a statement. [70008]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no formal procedure for notifying those against whom complaints have been made about excessive noise prior to an investigation being made. However, the types of noise complaints that local authorities are called upon to investigate vary considerably and not all will be considered by the investigating officer to constitute a statutory nuisance. It is common for complaints to receive at least some investigation before the person or business against whom the complaint is made is approached or advised of its receipt. In some instances this may be because the officer handling the complaint decides to try and witness the noise before determining whether or not it merits further investigation as a potential or actual statutory nuisance. In other circumstances it might actually frustrate the investigation of the noise if the person causing it is alerted in advance.

  Some individuals take exception to being approached by a local authority without any effort having been made to establish the credibility of the complaint made against them, others may be upset that they have not been contacted immediately. It is not practicable to set out procedures that will satisfy all situations and it is often best that the most appropriate response to a particular complaint is judged by the case officer in the light of his or her knowledge and experience.
  794W
  An example of the procedures adopted by local authorities is contained within the "Nuisance Guidance Note" published by Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council on their web site at http://www.ellesmereport-neston.gov.uk/. This sets out their particular procedures with regard to noise nuisance and envisages cases where the complainant may not wish monitoring visits to start until after a letter has been sent to the person complained about. Otherwise it seems monitoring is carried out before or at the same time as a letter is sent.

  In 1997 the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) produced a noise management guide titled "Guidance on the Creation and Maintenance of Effective Noise Management Policies and Practice for Local Authorities and their Officers". This provides guidance to local authorities on best practice and procedures to be adopted when dealing with noise complaints. To reflect the changes in the noise environment within the UK and the availability of new techniques, CIEH and DEFRA have agreed to jointly revise the document over the next nine months. When this becomes available we will circulate it to all local authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and place copies in the House Libraries.

  The CIEH guidance is referred to in the Department of the Environment Circular 8/97 dealing with the Noise Act 1996. The Circular provides advice on the investigation of noise complaints but makes it clear that, in the context of that Act,

  "the purpose of the initial investigation is to decide whether or not the noise complained of, exceeds, or might exceed, the permitted level…".

  The Cabinet Office promotes the adoption and use of the Enforcement Concordat by central and local government organisations with an enforcement function (details are available on their web site). To date 96 per cent. of all such organisations have adopted the Enforcement Concordat. Under the heading "Principles of Good Enforcement: Procedures" is included the following:

  "Before formal enforcement action is taken, officers will provide an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the case and, if possible, resolve points of difference, unless immediate action is required (for example, in the interests of health and safety or environmental protection or to prevent evidence being destroyed).
  Where immediate action is considered necessary, an explanation of why such action was required will be given at the time and confirmed in writing in most cases within five working days and, in all cases, within 10 working days."

  In certain circumstances an investigation might necessitate the use of covert surveillance methods, as defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The Home Office Code of Practice on Covert Surveillance provides guidance to public authorities in such cases.

  Complaints about excessive noise in the workplace that might be harmful to the hearing of employees in premises that are regulated by local authorities normally would be taken up immediately with the employer.

  Crime Reduction Directors
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been allocated to each of the 10 regional crime reduction directors. [69816]
  795W
  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follows:

  £000

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Region

  Expenditure

  Budget

  East

  13,569

  10,472

  East Midlands

  15,938

  13,277

  London

  31,911

  37,863

  North East

  11,063

  10,081

  North West

  24,496

  27,729

  South East

  18,409

  21,487

  South West

  12,826

  17,102

  Wales

  8,080

  10,162

  West Midlands

  18,297

  18,504

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,346

  23,593

  Total

  173,935

  190,270

  Funding covers measures and interventions under a range of programmes: the Crime Reduction Programme, Safer Communities Initiative, Communities Against Drugs, Partnership Development Fund (interim allocation for 2002–03), Security for Small Retailers in Deprived Areas.

  Crime Reduction Directors also work with their colleagues in the Government offices for the regions and the National Assembly for Wales to ensure that crime reduction is reflected in the delivery of other Departments' programmes. Total funds spent on combating crime in the regions go wider than those administered through Regional Crime Directors.

  Retail Crime
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what proportion of each Government office in the regions' annual spending for 2001–02 was allocated to combating retail crime. [69810]

  (2) how much was spent on retail crime partnerships in each statutory crime and disorder partnership in the financial year 2001–02. 169811]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table sets out the amounts spent by regional crime reduction directors on specific business, (including retail) crime reduction initiatives in 2001–02 and shows these as a proportion of their total spending on crime reduction initiatives. These figures do not include funding spent on non-specific schemes, such as town centre closed circuit television, which will usually benefit

  Name of consultation paper

  Opening date

  Closing date

  Representative Claims—proposed new procedures

  1 February 2001

  1 May 2001

  Community Legal Service—Financial Conditions for Funding by the Legal Services Commission

  12 March 2001

  1 May 2001

  Pre-Action Protocol for judicial Review

  15 March 2001

  7 June 2001

  E-conveyancing—A draft order under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000

  19 March 2001

  25 June 2001

  Distress for Rent

  8 May 2001

  3 August 2001

  Report of the Review Group on the Royal Peculiars

  18 July 2001

  1 October 2001

  Enforcement Review Green Paper

  19 July 2001

  12 October 2001

  The Administrative Court: Proposed changes to Primary Legislation following Sir Jeffrey Bowman's Review of the Crown Office List

  31 July 2001

  23 October 2001

  Payments in to Court in Satisfaction of Claims

  16 August 2001

  12 November 2001

  Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt

  16 August 2001

  30 November 2001

  General Pre-Action Protocol

  12 October 2001

  31 January 2002

  Payments to Witnesses

  5 March 2002

  31 May 2002

  796W
  businesses in the areas where they operate and which will often have been identified as a priority in consultation with the business community.

  The Home Office does not record the amounts spent on retail crime partnerships in each of the 376 statutory crime and disorder partnerships.

  Region

  Spend on business crime, including retail crime, projects in 2001–02 (£)

  Column 2 as a proportion of annual spending of regional crime reduction directors in 2001–02 (percentage)

  Eastern

  132,262

  1.0

  East Midlands

  221,064

  1.4

  London

  336,225

  1.1

  North East

  262,718

  2.4

  North West

  952,162

  3.9

  South East

  251,500

  1.4

  South West

  94,549

  0.7

  Wales

  132,262

  1.6

  West Midlands

  469,199

  2.6

  Yorkshire and Humber

  325,128

  1.7

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates have resigned from the bench since 1 May 1997 other than for reasons of age. [66338]

  Yvette Cooper
  Between 1 January 1997 and 30 June 2002 6,659 magistrates resigned for reasons other than age.

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her 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. [69792]

  Ms Rosiie Winterton
  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation applies to all formal national public consultation documents issued by Departments from 1 January 2001 and the information requested is not available before that date. All public consultation papers since January 2001 have been available online and in print. Since 2001, the details are as follows:
  797W

  Name of consultation paper

  Opening date

  Closing date

  Damages for Future Loss: Giving the Courts the Power to Order Periodical Payments for Future Loss and Care Costs in Personal Injury Cases

  13 March 2002

  7 June 2002

  Freezing Injunctions and Search Orders in Civil Proceedings

  21 March 2002

  12 June 2002

  Promoting Inter-Agency Working in the Family Justice System

  27 March 2002

  5 July 2002

  Making Decisions: Helping people who have difficulty deciding for themselves

  10 April 2002

  9 July 2002

  Selection Procedures for the Circuit Bench and Recordership

  8 April 2002

  5 July 2002

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of publishing his Department's annual report for each of the past five years. [70482]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The costs which fell directly on the Lord Chancellor's Department of publishing its Departmental Reports for each of the past five years are: £13,527.07 (1997–98), £8,715.85 (1998–99), £14,614.65 (1999–2000) and £12,109.00 (2000–01). The final invoice for 2001–02 has not yet been received. Other costs of printing and publication are met directly by the publisher, The Stationary Office Limited (TSO), and do not fall to Government.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the review process for a freedom of information complaint. [70887]

  Yvette Cooper
  The right of access to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will come into force on 1 January 2005. Until that date, requests for Government information will be dealt with in accordance with the non-statutory Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  It is for individual bodies to make their own arrangements for the procedure used to review cases internally where information has been refused and the applicant has made a complaint. However, the Guidance on Interpretation of the Code, published by the Cabinet Office, makes it clear that:

  "[Internal Review] should in all cases be a single stage process. The aim should be to ensure that the applicant has been fairly treated under the provisions of the Code, that any exemptions have been properly applied and that charges are reasonably and consistently applied. It is good practice to allow for such review to be conducted by someone not involved in the original decision".

  Details of the various internal review procedures which have been adopted by Departments and most agencies or bodies which fall within the scope of the Code of Practice are set out in the annual monitoring reports on the Code. Copies of these reports are available in the House Library. In my Department reviews are carried out by the Head of the appropriate Division and the decision approved by the Permanent Secretary. The target time for responses is 20 working days.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what legislation governs individuals' freedom to request information from the Government. [70888]

  Yvette Cooper
  This Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act which gives individuals a statutory right to Government information. The Act will 798W
  be fully implemented by 1 January 2005, 11 months before the deadline set out in the Act itself. Until that date, requests for information are handled in accordance with the non-statutory Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 832W, on rape, if he will place in the Library the content of the Serious Sexual Offences seminar to which he referred. [70890]

  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.

  The content of the Serious Sexual Offences seminars held on 2–3 July 2001 and 26–27 November 2001 is described in the annual report of the Judicial Studies Board for 2001–02, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, whether the Serious Sexual Offences seminar is attended by judges(a) before and (b) after they are authorised to hear rape trials. [70679]

  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 Circuit Judges and Recorders are required, by the Lord Chief Justice, to attend a JSB Serious Sexual Offences seminar before they are authorised to hear rape trials. Thereafter, both Circuit Judges and Recorders authorised to hear these cases attend Serious Sexual Offences seminars every three years.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who teaches the Serious Sexual Offences seminars to judges authorised to hear rape cases. [70685]

  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.

  The Serious Sexual Offences seminar is chaired by a High Court Judge. The most recent seminar, 8–9 July 2002, was chaired by Mr. Justice Pitchers. The Seminar Director is Judge John Sessions.

  Contributors on the most recent seminar were Professor Di Birch, Mrs. Maggie Dodds, Ms Ruth Mann, and Mr. Justice Crane. Details of previous seminars are set out in the annual reports of the Board, copies of which are in the Library.
  799W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what steps he will take to ensure improved education for judges into the gender issues in rape trials. [70686]

  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.

  The subject of education for judges in gender issues, including education for judges in rape trials, is kept under constant review by the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee of the Judicial Studies Board. Gender issues are also covered in Chapter 13 of the JSB's Equal Treatment Bench Book, a copy of which is given to every judge on appointment.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) by when the Judicial Studies Board will have considered the comments made on rape trials by the HMIC/CPSI Thematic report; [70683]

  (2) what plans there are for the Judicial Studies Board to report back to her on its consideration of the HMIC/CPSI Thematic report; [70684]

  (3) what reports she has received from the Judicial Studies Board in connection with the comments made on rape trials by the HMIC/CPSI Thematic report; [70687]

  (4) to whom in her Department, and when, the Judicial Studies Board will report on its consideration of the HMIC/CPSI Thematic report. [70688]

  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.

  The HMIC/CPSI Thematic report has been referred to the Criminal Committee of the JSB which will consider its response and the manner and form in which this should be communicated to the Lord Chancellor.

  New Cities
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what criteria she uses to determine city status for local authorities; [70815]

  (2) how many new cities she expects to create in the next three years. [70816]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  City status is not a right that can be claimed by the meeting of specific criteria, but an honour granted by Her Majesty the Queen under the Royal Prerogative, on the advice of Ministers. Important Royal anniversaries (such as The Queen's Golden Jubilee) are the usual occasions for awards of city status to be made. Awards were made, exceptionally, to mark the Millennium. Her Majesty has not yet expressed a wish to create any more new cities and no awards are foreseen in the near future.

  Departmental Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time equivalents were employed by The Lord Chancellor's
  800W
  press office and (b) secondees were placed in his press office in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [70539]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of people who were employed in press or publicity work (excluding internal communications, website developers and administrative support) was as follows:

  Number

  1997

  5

  1998

  5

  1999

  5

  2000

  9

  2001

  9

  20021

  12

  1 July

  The increase in press and publicity staff in 2000 reflects new work connected with the Community Legal Service and the Court Service. The increase in 2002 reflects new responsibilities transferred to LCDHQ from the Home Office, Cabinet Office and DTLR.

  There have been two secondees working in The Lord Chancellor' s Press Office during this period. The first was seconded to work on the launch of the Community Legal Service in April 2000 and is not included in the figure for that year. The second secondee is included in the figure for 2002.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if he will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if he will make a statement. [70211]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have listed the required information for the financial year 2001–02. My Departments did not conduct any campaigns costing over £250,000 during that period.

  LCDHQ:
  £34,002—Information Literature

  Court Service:
  £212,720—Information Literature

  HM Land Registry:
  £140,000—Information Literature

  Public Record Office:
  £33,400—Information Literature; £5,250 Advertising; £28,500 Campaign Material.

  Public Guardianship Office:
  £68,761—Information Literature

  Northern Ireland Court Service:
  £27,885—Information Literature.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the nature and status of the Public Record Office projects which were to have been funded by revenue from the 1901 census on-line. [70852]
  801W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The PRO did not take account of net income from the 1901 Census online service when assessing funding requirements for its other online projects. However, if there were to be any net income from the service, this would be used to fund the future digitisation of earlier census records.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what proportion of the testing programme for the 1901 census website has been completed; [70854]

  (2) whether a million users per hour test has been run on the 1901 census website; and if she will make a statement; [70857]

  (3) when she expects the testing programme on the 1901 census website to be completed. [70858]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd, which is the contractor responsible for setting up the 1901 census online website and providing the online service, has been making technical improvements to it.

  QinetiQ is currently testing the site and the Public Record Office is also carrying out its own independent test programme. By the very nature of testing, solutions to particular issues often require a more general retesting, to verify that there are no adverse effects on the system as a whole. It is therefore not feasible to quantify what proportion of the testing programme has been completed at any particular time. The Public Record Office's own independent test company has undertaken a test to simulate the experience of one million user per hour accessing the system. These results will be analysed along with the other test results as soon as they are available. The final testing is now under way and it is anticipated that this will be completed by the end of July.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what changes QinetiQ has made to the 1901 census website; [70856]

  (2) when QinetiQ started to make changes to the capacity of the 1901 census website; [70859]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the ability of QinetiQ to put right the problems preventing public access to the 1901 census website. [71267]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd, who are responsible for the technical aspects of the service, have made the following technical improvements to the site:

  increased ISP bandwidth;
  dedicated firewalls within the ISP, both to protect the 1901 census online site and also to avoid impact to other sites;
  improved load balancer configuration to divert overload;
  additional database server engine and the necessary configuration to enable operation with multiple database servers.

  QinetiQ has been working on the above enhancements to the site in order to improve its resilience and this should increase its ability to provide a good experience for more users. It will also enable a decision to be made as to whether the system is sufficiently robust to provide general online access. The final testing is under way and it is anticipated that this will be completed by the end of July.
  802W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if she will make the agendas and the minutes of the Public Record Office Online Services Advisory Panel available(a) in the Library and (b) on her Department's website; [70853]

  (2) what date has been set for the next meeting of the Public Record Office Online Services Advisory Panel; what the present membership of the panel is; and if she will make a statement. [70855]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The minutes of the Public Record Office (PRO) Online Services Advisory Panel are available from the PRO website: http://www.pro.goli.uk/census/advisory.htm

  These are usually published within one month of the last meeting.

  The terms of reference of the advisory panel, listing the organisations from which the panel membership is drawn, can be found at this site. The agendas and current membership of the advisory panel are apparent from the published minutes. The next meeting of the panel will take place on 5 September 2002.

  Arrangements are being made to place copies of the advisory panel's minutes and other papers in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if she will make a statement on progress with the Public Record Office's plans to digitise the 1881 and 1891 censuses; [70947]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to exclude QinetiQ from handling the project to digitise the 1881 and 1891 censuses. [70860]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Making the 1881 and 1891 censuses available in electronic form is a high priority for the Public Record Office because census records are very heavily used by family historians, who constitute its largest single user group. Any organisation can seek a non-exclusive licence to use digital images of material contained in public records on a commercial basis. Such licensing contracts do not constitute any form of partnership between that organisation and the Public Record Office. MyFamily.com has already applied for, and received, a licence to digitise the census returns from 1841 to 1891 and make this material available on the internet. Other organisations have sought non-exclusive licences to make CDs of the images of these censuses and some for the 1891 census are already on the market. It is open to QinetiQ Ltd to apply for, and to be granted, a licence in a similar manner.

PRIME MINISTER

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of(a) paper and (b) other goods purchased by his Office 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. [65762]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 19 July 2002.

  Galileo
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the US Government regarding the proposed Galileo satellite navigation system. [70698]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received no representations from the US Government regarding the proposed Galileo satellite navigation system.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the proposed refurbishment of numbers 10 and 11 Downing street will include the(a) extension and (b) alteration of air-conditioning facilities; and if he will make a statement on compliance with the Government's policy on the use of HFC refrigerants. [71355]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no planned work on the air-conditioning system.

  Senior Civil Servants
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he takes in ensuring that senior civil servants maintain proper standards of conduct while carrying out their duties. [71495]

  The Prime Minister
  The standards of conduct required by civil servants are set out in the Civil Service Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Catherine Meyer
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the German Chancellor concerning the case of Catherine Meyer. [715881

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is in regular contact with Lady Meyer. Her case has been actively pursued by both FCO Ministers and officials with their German counterparts. The FCO continues to offer Lady Meyer whatever consular support and assistance it properly can.

  Government's Annual Report
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will resume publication of the Government's Annual report. [71719]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 12 July 2001,Official Report, column 638W.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 219, what evidence he has evaluated that a move away from single-handed general practitioner practices improves the quality of care that people receive. [71888]

  The Prime Minister
  There is research suggesting a positive association between practice size on the one hand, and effective clinical governance and chronic 804W
  disease management on the other. However, it is also the case that many single-handed practices provide high quality care.

  Downing Street (Expenditure)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the methods by which expenditure on the fabric of(a) 10 Downing street and (b) 11 Downing street is (i) formally agreed and (ii) made publicly available. [71794]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure incurred in respect of No. 10 Downing street offices plus the flat at 11 Downing street is included within the overall Cabinet Office budget. Annual budgets, within the departmental limits approved by Parliament, are agreed by the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary as the Accounting Officer. Actual expenditure against these budgets is recorded in the Cabinet Office resource accounts.

  Expenditure incurred in respect of No. 11 Downing street offices plus the flat at 10 Downing street is included within the overall HM Treasury budget. Actual expenditure against these budgets is recorded in HM Treasury's resource accounts.

  Accounts for both Departments are published annually and presented to Parliament in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

  Johannesburg Summit
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an assessment of the total amount of carbon emissions that will be accounted for by the attendance of the British Government delegation at the earth summit in Johannesburg. [71775]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision has yet been taken on the size and composition of the final UK Government delegation for the World summit on sustainable development. The official delegation will include Ministers, MPs, businessmen, representatives from non-governmental organisations and officials. The Government, of course, want to offset the carbon emissions from the delegation's attendance.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the UK Government's priorities for his attendance at the World sustainability summit in Johannesburg in September; and if he will make a statement. [71776]

  The Prime Minister
  The World summit on sustainable development is important both for the planet and people's future prosperity. We strongly support the priority areas of poverty eradication and the sectoral themes of water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity identified by the UN Secretary-General. The developed world must also take concrete steps towards sustainable development by actions to improve our own use of resources. We are also committed to sustainable development in developing countries as witnessed by the increasing proportion of the UK's gross national income devoted to international aid which will rise to 0.4 per cent. by 2005–06, and through taking forward the important commitments of trade and development made at Doha.

  Departmental Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) full time equivalents were employed by his press office and (b) secondees were placed in his press office in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [70545]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 469W and the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

  In October 2001, my Press Office introduced a short-term secondment programme for press officers from other Government Departments to widen their experience. Eight press officers have taken part in the programme.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Secretary of State for Health to reply to the letter to him dated 25 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miss Irene Boyd. [72136]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health has replied to my right hon. Friend's letter.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Claimants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what format the information provided to benefits claimants regarding their choice of means to access their entitlement will be given; and if he will make a statement. [70530]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 874w.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much it will cost a benefits claimant to collect their entitlement in cash from a post office using(a) a Post Office card account, (b) a basic or no frills bank account and (c) an ordinary bank or building society account; and if he will make a statement. [70529]

  Malcolm Wicks
  People using univeral banking services—access to the banks' basic bank accounts at post office branches and the card account at the Post Office—will be able to access their money free of charge from the Post Office.

  The Post Office also has network banking arrangements with a number of banks which allow customers to access current accounts at post office branches. The banks involved do not normally charge their customers for making withdrawals from their accounts.

  Customers who have current accounts with banks outside the network banking arrangements can cash a cheque at the Post Office, but will be charged for doing so.
  806W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research has been compiled on the cost savings relating to the changeover of benefit payments from payment book to ACT; and if he will make a statement on the results. [70191]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The move to payment directly into bank and building society accounts assures a safe, convenient, more modern and efficient way of paying benefits and pensions and will bring very substantial savings. Against this, we will incur some additional costs, including those to Post Office Ltd. for the provision of the new card account at the Post Office. The precise costs will depend on the number of card accounts.

  Our costings in this area have been based on a number of sources, including the administrative costs of current methods of payment and losses from instrument of payment fraud.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has made for emergency benefit payments if the system for providing benefit claims collapses; and if he will make a statement. [70531]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has contingency arrangements in place to maintain continuity of benefit payment in the event of benefit system failure. The specific contingency response would be determined by the type and extent of the failure presented.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when and what information will be given to benefit claimants regarding their choice of means to gain access to their entitlement; and whether the information given will be impartial. [70605]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is currently planning an information campaign to give customers the information they need about the move to paying directly into bank/building society accounts. The campaign will aim to present information on the changes in a straightforward way that helps our customers make the best choices for their circumstances. This will build on the research we have already undertaken to get a first hand understanding of customer needs. Customers will be contacted directly when it is their turn to change.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he plans to place an explanatory leaflet in post offices before the introduction of the universal bank, explaining to customers the different options that will be open to them for claiming their benefits once the universal bank is established. [71787]

  Malcolm Wicks
  the Department is currently planning a campaign to give customers the factual information they need to make an informed choice. We are working closely with the Post Office and others to ensure that this information can be provided in a consistent way across a range of sources. One possible option is to provide material at post offices but no final decision has yet been taken.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for enabling the temporary collection of benefit payments by persons other than the benefit recipient; and if he will make a statement. [70532]
  807W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Already payments for over 40 per cent. of customers are paid directly into bank and building society accounts. They have a number of options for when they are unable to get to the bank or the post office, and these will continue.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) Benefits Agency staff, (b) Jobcentre Plus staff and (c) council officers have been (i) disciplined, (ii) suspended, (iii) dismissed, (iv) prosecuted and (v) convicted for matters relating to benefit fraud in each of the last five years; and how much benefit was defrauded in each case. [71779]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We treat any suspicion of involvement in benefit fraud by the Department's staff very seriously and all cases are thoroughly investigated and appropriate action taken where necessary.

  The Department does not hold information in respect of council officers.

  The information available on individual cases is in the table.

  Outcome

  Monetary loss (£)

  1997–98

  Prosecuted and convicted1

  5,000.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  99,000.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  2,500.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  2,874.99

  Prosecuted and convicted

  340.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  7,000.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  9,600.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  9,097.04

  Prosecuted and convicted

  25,455.08

  Prosecuted—found not guilty

  7,683.38

  Prosecuted and convicted

  983.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  2,896.00

  Total

  172,429.49

  1998–99

  Disciplinary action—formal reprimand

  0

  Resigned

  2,000.00

  Dismissed without prosecution

  16,969.45

  Disciplinary action—formal reprimand

  0

  Dismissed without prosecution

  0

  No action—insufficient evidence

  0

  No action—insufficient evidence

  1,185.95

  Resigned

  0

  Disciplinary action pending

  0

  Disciplinary action—formal reprimand

  0

  Dismissed without prosecution

  2,400.00

  No action—insufficient evidence

  0

  No action—insufficient evidence

  0

  Total

  22,555.40

  1999–2000

  Prosecuted and convicted

  8,820.77

  Prosecuted and convicted

  30,000.00

  No action—insufficient evidence

  0

  Prosecuted and convicted

  1,118.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  957.56

  Dismissed without prosecution

  0

  Prosecuted and convicted

  210.00

  Prosecuted and convicted

  7,799.10

  Dismissed without prosecution

  3,255.54

  Prosecuted and convicted

  1,753.00

  Dismissed without prosecution

  75.80

  Dismissed without prosecution

  723.83

  808W

  Outcome

  Monetary loss (£)

  Pending

  4,462.97

  Prosecution pending

  17,880.80

  Pending

  1,947.08

  Resigned

  134.40

  Resigned2

  0

  Prosecution pending

  11,184.08

  Dismissed without prosecution

  3,690.80

  Prosecuted and convicted

  4,224.28

  Total

  98,238.01

  2000–01

  Dismissed without prosecution

  534.64

  Prosecuted and convicted

  9,335.84

  Dismissed without prosecution

  6,683.46

  Pending

  887.18

  Pending3

  0

  Prosecuted and convicted4

  0

  Pending5

  4,272.33

  Prosecuted arid convicted6

  0

  Pending

  0

  Pending

  10.00

  Disciplinary action—formal reprimand

  426.14

  Pending

  218.57

  Pending

  1,807.10

  Total

  24,175.26

  2001–02

  Pending

  2,346.00

  Dismissed without prosecution

  2,660.72

  Pending

  0

  Resigned

  0

  Pending

  5,000.00

  Pending

  2,904.00

  Pending

  0

  Prosecution pending

  0

  Resigned

  0

  Pending

  0

  Pending

  0

  Pending

  3,005.00

  Pending

  0

  Pending

  150.00

  Pending

  2,700.00

  Pending

  126.00

  Pending

  0

  Pending

  0

  Prosecuted and convicted

  180,000.00

  Total

  198,891.72

  1 Housing benefit fraud. Loss to local authority funds £7,000.

  2 Housing benefit fraud. Loss to local authority funds £3,186.

  3 Housing benefit fraud. Loss to local authority funds £3,697.06.

  4 Housing benefit fraud. Loss to local authority funds £2,820.18.

  5 Housing benefit fraud. Loss to local authority funds £7,631.37.

  6 Housing benefit fraud. Loss to local authority funds £2,140.

  Notes:

  1. Details of prosecution cases for 1997–98 are provided but information on cases not referred for prosecution is not readily available.

  2. The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. Prior to this incidents of suspected benefit fraud within the former Employment Service (ES) were investigated by the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service (BFIS) and included within the overall fraud returns. They are not identifiable separately.

  3. All the information for 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01 covers BA staff only. The figures for 2001–02 are inclusive of BA and ES staff. (Relevant information from ES for April to June 2001 was included in the 2001–02 DWP Treasury report).

  4. The outcomes are recorded according to definitions provided by HMT for the annual Treasury report.
  809W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the average cost to a local authority of a prosecution for suspected benefit fraud in the last year for which figures are available. 171780]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the cost to a local authority of a prosecution for suspected benefit fraud is not collected by the Department, so it is not possible to provide an estimate of the average cost.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the baseline figure is for assessing progress in meeting his target of reducing fraud and error in housing benefit by 25 per cent. by 2006, detailed on page 119 of the 2002 Spending Review. [71781]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The housing benefit review which is under way will enable us to establish a baseline level of fraud and error for the financial year 2002–03. The results of this review should be available in autumn 2003.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if benefit claimants who receive payments by order book and who already have a bank account will have the option under automated credit transfer of opening(a) a basic bank account accessible through a post office and (b) a post office card account. [71786]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Yes. They will also have the option of using their existing account. Customers will be provided with the information to help them make the best choice for their circumstances.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made on the implementation of a national call centre to deal with emergency payments following the introduction of ACT; and if he will make a statement. [70188]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are no plans for the implementation of a national call centre to deal with emergency payments.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government propose to start the advertising campaign to promote the new ACT procedures due to come into operation in April 2003; how much is to be allocated for this campaign; and if he will make a statement. [70523]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The campaign aims to give customers the factual information they need about the choices they have as we reform the way we pay benefits and pensions. This will begin in October 2002 when we will start to issue mailings to customers as the first stage of an information campaign we are currently developing.

  This will be followed by the wider information campaign using a range of media from early next year. As this campaign is currently being developed the final budget has yet to be decided.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) which Minister in his Department is responsible for monitoring the risk presented by the modernisation of payments; [70421]
  810W
  (2) at what level in the risk ranking and evaluation of process stage 2 of the DWP Risk Management Framework, the controllability of the risk concerning the modernisation of payments and controlling the potential for escalation is considered to be; [70419]

  (3) whether the modernisation of payments is considered a risk managed at strategic level; [70420]

  (4) if, in the risk ranking and evaluation of process stage 2 of the DWP Risk Management Framework, the modernisation of payments risk is considered a red, amber or green risk; [70418]

  (5) what assessment has been made of the risk presented by the modernisation of payments in process stage 1 of the DWP Risk Management Framework were the assumption to turn out wrong; [70425]

  (6) to whom the modernisation of benefits payments is risk-assigned; [70424]

  (7) what action is being taken to mitigate the risk presented by the modernisation of benefits payments by his Department; [70422]

  (8) at what level the stability of the assumption that universal banking services will be established on time has been identified in process stage 1 of the DWP Risk Management Framework. [70417]

  Malcolm Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for dealing with all of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets.

  All DWP projects, including modernisation of payments, are subjected to a gateway process staged review and approval by the director of project management throughout their lifecycle. They are subjected to structured independent peer reviews and undertake a formal risk assessment using the Department's assumption based risk identification methodology.

  Risk identification is carried out at a very senior level and this provides an outward facing strategic approach to risk presence.

  A similar approach is being taken with the cross-Government universal banking programme.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of benefit recipients receive payments via bank or building society accounts or girocheque broken down by benefit type. [70414]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Over 40 per cent. of payments for benefit claimants are already paid directly into their bank or building society. This provides a more modern, secure and efficient way of making payments. The table provides details broken down by benefits as at March 2002.

  Girocheques are not a normal method of payment option for any benefit other than JSA. The estimated number of JSA customers paid by girocheque is 77 per cent.
  811W

  Benefit

  Percentage paid direct into bank or building society

  Retirement pension, widows benefit and bereavement benefit

  40

  Child benefit

  45

  Incapacity benefit

  25

  Income support (estimated)

  18

  Disability living allowance

  34

  Invalid care allowance

  16

  War pensions

  53

  Attendance allowance

  21

  Industrial injury, death and disability benefit

  22

  Jobseeker's allowance

  23

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 1058W, to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), on benefits (payment methods), in what order customers of particular benefits will be transferred to payment via automated credit transfer. [70413]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We will adopt a phased approach to transfer customers to payment into bank or building society accounts.

  Social Security Fraud Act
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 on(a) the public and (b) the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement; [69490]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the impact of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 on public housing waiting lists; and if he will make a statement; [69489]

  (3) what discussions the Government have had with the Scottish Executive regarding the impact of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 on (a) the public and (b) the private housing sectors in Scotland; what action is planned to address resulting issues; and if he will make a statement. [69488]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Social Security Fraud Act 2001 provides powers for a range of measures to strengthen our fight against benefit fraud, including information gathering, the exchange of information overseas and disqualifying from benefit people convicted of two or more benefit fraud offences within a three-year period. We have not received any report that these provisions are having any impact on the public housing waiting list or the public and private rented housing sector.

  Green Minister
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who his Department's Green Minister is; when they(a) have attended and (b) plan to attend meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee; what the outcomes of meetings were for his Department's activities; and if he will make a statement. [65980]

  Maria Eagle
  Our Green Minister is my noble Friend the Baroness Hollis of Heigham and she was appointed to the ENV (G) Committee in July 2001.
  812W
  Following the general election in June 2001, the previously informal Green Ministers Committee was upgraded to a Cabinet Sub-Committee of ENV and it is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  In October 2001 DWP published its first annual, free standing Sustainable Development report which details progress across all DWP activities. This is available in the Library and on the internet at www.dwp.gov.uk. The second report will be published in the coming autumn.

  Disability Advice Officers
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability advice officers are employed by(a) the Benefits Agency and (b) the Employment Service; and how many of them are able to use sign language. [65524]

  Maria Eagle
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive, Leigh Lewis. 1 have asked him to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Alan Campbell, dated June 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of disability advice officers and their ability to use sign language. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Since 1 April 2002 the functions formally performed by the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency relating to people of working age have been brought together in a new agency, Jobcentre Plus. There are currently within the agency approximately 650 Disability Employment Advisers. No figures are held on how many of those advisers are able to use sign language, but all Jobcentre Plus offices have access to sign language interpreters when required.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentres (New Forest)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about proposals to close jobcentres in the New Forest district. [61921]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive, Leigh Lewis. He will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Desmond Swayne, dated June 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the implementation of Jobcentre Plus in the New Forest area. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Plans are currently being drawn up to implement the new integrated Jobcentre Plus service in Hampshire. As part of this exercise feasibility studies are underway to examine the options for the future delivery of services within the New Forest area. One such option is to acquire new premises in one location in place of the existing Jobcentres in Ringwood, Lymington and Hythe. However, no final decisions have yet been taken.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Lone Parents
  Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents were on Income Support in the Portsmouth, South constituency in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [65375]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table. While these estimates suggest a slight increase in the number of lone parents in Portsmouth, South receiving Income Support, they have been drawn from a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support recipients and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Estimate of lone parents in the Portsmouth, South parliamentary constituency receiving Income Support

  Number

  1999–2000

  1,600

  2000–01

  1,700

  2001–02

  1,800

  Notes

  1. Figures are based on an average of 5 per cent. samples taken four times in each year. They are subject to a degree of sampling variation.,

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Lone parents are defined as single people with dependants and who do not receive a pensioner or a disability premium.

  Source

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1999 to February 2002.

  Departmental Offices (Gosport)
  Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether replacement offices for the present Gosport jobcentre and the Gosport Social Security office will be located within Gosport. [61883]

  Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive, Leigh Lewis. He will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated June 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the implementation of Jobcentre Plus in Gosport. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Plans are currently being drawn up to implement the new integrated Jobcentre Plus service in Hampshire. As part of this exercise feasibility studies are underway to examine the options for the future delivery of services within Gosport. One such option is the acquisition of new premises within the town from which the full Jobcentre Plus service can be delivered. However, no final decisions have yet been taken.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Care Home Claimants
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of children leaving local authority care homes that go on to claim social security benefits in the last year for which figures are available; and what recent research his Department has published into the number of children leaving local authority care homes that go on to claim social security benefits. [68986]
  814W
  Maria Eagle
  Under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, local authorities have a duty to assess and meet the needs of young people aged 16 and 17 who they continue to look after or who have left care. Income-related benefits are therefore not available to these young people. However, other benefits intended to meet a person's special needs, such as non-contributory Incapacity Benefit, may be available. Once they reach 18, care leavers are eligible to claim benefits in the normal way, and in general, the local authority no longer has the major responsibility for their welfare.

  The Department holds no data, nor have we published any recent research, on the number of children leaving local authority care homes who go on to claim social security benefits.

  Following the introduction of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Department of Health has commissioned the University of York to conduct an evaluation of the costs and outcomes of young people leaving care. The evaluation report is due early in 2004.

  Consultation Documents
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [69831]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Yes.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many recipients of Disability Living Allowance there are aged under 16 years broken down by local authority in Scotland; [69540]

  (2) how many recipients of awards of Disability Living Allowance are also in receipt of Child Benefit, broken down by local authority in Scotland. [69541]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information, which refers to 30 November 2001, is in the table. Figures for the numbers of people in Scotland who receive both Disability Living Allowance and Child Benefit exclude cases where different members of a family receive the Disability Living Allowance and Child Benefit.

  Number of people in Scotland who receive both Disability Living Allowance and Child Benefit

  Number of Disability Living Allowance recipients aged under 16 in Scotland

  All Scotland

  16,400

  21,300

  Aberdeen City

  400

  800

  Aberdeenshire

  600

  1,000

  Angus

  200

  300

  Argyll and Bute

  200

  300

  The Scottish Borders

  300

  400

  Clackmannanshire

  200

  100

  West Dunbartonshire

  300

  400

  Dumfries and Galloway

  400

  500

  Dundee City

  500

  700

  East Ayrshire

  400

  500

  East Dunbartonshire

  100

  300

  East Lothian

  300

  300

  East Renfrewshire

  200

  300

  City of Edinburgh

  1,200

  1,500

  Falkirk

  400

  700

  Fife

  900

  1,600

  815W

  Number of people in Scotland who receive both Disability Living Allowance and Child Benefit

  Number of Disability Living Allowance recipients aged under 16 in Scotland

  Glasgow City

  3,000

  3,100

  Highland

  500

  900

  Inverclyde

  300

  400

  Midlothian

  200

  500

  Moray

  200

  400

  North Ayrshire

  500

  500

  North Lanarkshire

  1,500

  1,700

  Orkney Islands

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  200

  400

  Renfrewshire

  400

  800

  Shetland Islands

  —

  100

  South Ayrshire

  200

  300

  South Lanarkshire

  1,400

  1,200

  Stirling

  300

  300

  West Lothian

  800

  900

  Cornhairle nan Eilean Siar

  —

  100

  Note

  Figures under 500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation, and '—' denotes nil or negligible.

  Source

  ASD Information Centre, figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample and rounded to the nearest 100.

  Post Office Banking Facilities
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to persuade banks which have not already done so to offer cheque clearing facilities at post offices without charges; and if he will make a statement. [70555]

  Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  These are matters which fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Benefit Sanctions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants had benefits sanctioned for failure to comply with a community service order in the last 12 months; what the sanction was; and over how long it operated, broken down by sex of claimant; [66729]

  (2) what data he has collated on fixed period sanctions to the income-related Jobseeker's Allowance for each year since the sanctions were first applied, subdivided according to whether claimants have without good cause (a) failed to carry out a reasonable jobseeker's directive, (b) failed to apply for a compulsory training scheme or employment programme where this has been notified to them, (c) given up a place on, or failed to attend, a compulsory training scheme or employment programme, (d) neglected to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a training scheme or employment programme and (e) lost a place on a compulsory training scheme or employment programme because of misconduct; and if he will break down these figures according to whether (i) two or (ii) four weeks' sanction was applied; [66721]

  (3) against how many claimants sanctions have been taken since the introduction of the Jobseeker's Allowance; how many cases were because (a) they lost their job
  816W
  through misconduct, (b) left their job voluntarily without just cause, (c) failed to apply or to accept a job notified by the Employment Service without just cause, (d) neglected to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of a job without good cause and (e) other causes; and if he will break this data down by whether the claimants were (i) men and (ii) women and by the age of the claimants, noting for each category the average length during which the sanction applied; [66723]

  (4) how many claimants committing fraud have lost benefit on their second offence over the last 12 months; and if he will list the size of the benefit lost and the duration during which the sanction has been or is being applied, broken down by sex; [66722]

  (5) against how many people aged 18 to 24 on the New Deal a (a) two week, (b) four week, (c) 26 week and (d) 52 week sanction has been applied, broken down by (i) the reason for the sanction being applied and (ii) sex of the claimants. [66724]

  Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: We have taken powers in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 to strengthen benefit fraud investigation and punish persistent offenders more severely. The provision to sanction people convicted of two separate benefit fraud offences in a three year period came into force on I April 2002, and can be applied only to people who commit two separate benefit offences after that date. It is therefore too early for this new sanction to have been applied in practice.

  The new community sentence and benefits measures are being piloted in four probation service areas from 15 October 2001. We are giving a clear message to offenders that their rights to benefits must be matched by the responsibility to comply with their community sentence orders. Sanctions are applied when people receiving a relevant benefit are found by a court to be in breach of their orders. The sanction lasts for a maximum period of four weeks.

  The available information is in the tables.

  Benefit sanctions for failure to comply with a community service order by gender

  Percentage

  Female

  Male

  JSA (100 sanction)

  10

  69

  IS (40 sanction)

  21

  27

  IS (20 sanction)

  1

  2

  Total number of people sanctioned

  32

  98

  Notes

  1. All figures are unrounded.

  2. Figures include a small number of people who have been sanctioned more than once.

  3. Data are from clerical returns received at the DWP Information Centre between 15 October 2001 and 28 June 2002, and relate to the period 15 October 2001 to 7 June 2002.

  4. There are four probation service pilot areas: Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and West Midlands.

  5. IS recipients have their benefit entitlement reduced, depending on the circumstances of the individual or family unit, by either 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the single person's personal allowance. Those in receipt of JSA incur the withdrawal of the whole of their benefit but may apply for a hardship payment.
  817W

  Jobseeker's Allowance: fixed-period sanctions—October 1996 to March 2002

  October 1996 to March 1997

  April 1997 to March 1998

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999to March 2000

  April 2000 to March 2001

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Refused/failed to carry out Jobseeker's Direction

  215

  1,027

  2,218

  7,277

  5,542

  3,819

  Refusal of place on training scheme/employment programme

  616

  1,108

  380

  1,335

  838

  308

  Giving up place on training scheme/employment programme

  881

  2,631

  3,888

  6,146

  4,236

  2.859

  Neglect to avail of place on training scheme/employment programme

  1,246

  1,714

  527

  1,089

  956

  144

  Losing place on training scheme/employment programme

  183

  1,049

  2,222

  5,671

  6,465

  6,178

  Failure to attend place on training scheme/employment programme

  14,528

  33,208

  7,028

  12,637

  17,652

  19,493

  Notes

  1. The data refer to the number of sanctions applied; data are not collected on the number of individuals sanctioned. An individual may receive more than one sanction in the course of a year.

  2. Separate data on whether income-based or contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance is in payment at the time the sanction is imposed are not collected.

  3. Data on the length of sanction applied are not available.

  Source

  Employment Service Labour Market Statistics, Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions/Sector Decision Making, for years ending 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2002.

  Jobseeker's Allowance sanctions October 1996 to March 2002

  October 1996 to March 1997

  April 1997 to March 1998

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  April 2000 to March 2001

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Losing employment through misconduct

  7,155

  22,357

  22,682

  18,888

  16,430

  15,939

  Leaving employment voluntarily

  36,573

  109,994

  103,206

  86,226

  85,965

  73,186

  Refusal of employment

  4,098

  21,906

  11,118

  19,169

  26,370

  38,216

  Neglect to avail of employment

  86

  244

  146

  85

  57

  52

  Others

  24,780

  40,749

  16,268

  34,163

  35,694

  32,807

  Totals (all sanction questions)

  72,692

  195,250

  153,420

  158,531

  164,516

  160,200

  Notes

  1. The data refer to the number of sanctions applied; data are not collected on the number of individuals sanctioned. An individual may receive more than one sanction in the course of a year.

  2. Data are not collected by gender, age or length of sanction.

  Source

  Employment Service Labour Market Statistics, Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions/Sector Decision Making, for years ending 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2002.

  The number of people claiming Jobseekee s Allowance has fallen from 2,002,400 in October 1996 to 947,600 in March 2002.

  Jobseeker's Allowance: Sanctions under the New Deal for Young People (NDYP)

  Reason for sanction

  Number applied

  Leaving option voluntarily

  12,932

  Misconduct

  16,835

  Refusal of option

  1,983

  Neglect to avail of option

  1,864

  Failing to attend option

  23,679

  Total

  57,293

  Notes

  1. The data refer to the number of sanctions applied; data are not collected on the number of individuals sanctioned. Some individuals may have received more than one sanction.

  2. Figures cover the period from the introduction of NDYP on 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2002.

  3. Data are not available by length of sanction or by gender.

  4. There is no 52 week sanction.

  5. NDYP options are: subsidised employment option; voluntary sector option; further education and training option; and environmental task force.

  Source

  Decision Making and Appeals Computer System

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the CSA will reply to the letter of 28 May from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent, ref. 1040714323. [69258]
  818W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Winnick, dated 22 July 2002 The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will provide a substantive reply from myself to your letter of 28th May regarding constituent ref. 1040714323.
  I apologise for the long delay in replying to this letter. My reply was sent on 10 July.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1215W, on the Child Support Agency, what estimates he has made of the costs of new IT for the Child Support Agency in the period 2001 to 2004. [54515]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 23 May 2002 The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.

  819W
  You ask pursuant to his Answer of 19th April Official Report column 1215W on the Child Support Agency what estimates he has made of the costs of new IT for the Child Support Agency in the period 2001 to 04.
  I am sorry that I cannot provide the costs of the new IT for the Child Support Agency for the period 2001 to 2004 as it is commercially confidential.
  I can say that the planned total cost of the project to implement Child Support Reform over the 10 year period of the business case was £651 million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have had their driving licence withdrawn for failure to pay arrears to the Child Support Agency. [67315]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Ms Gisela Stuart, dated July 2002 The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask how many people have had their driving licence withdrawn for failure to pay arrears to the Child Support Agency.
  In the period from April 2001 to 12 June 2002 one non-resident parent has had his driving licence withdrawn and in a further three cases the disqualification has been suspended giving the non-resident parent a further, and final, opportunity to pay outstanding amounts.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in the implementation of new computer systems in the Child Support Agency. [68088]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Michael Weir, dated July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask what progress has been made in the implementation of new computer systems in the Child Support Agency.
  The testing of the new IT system to support Child Support Reform is progressing well. There is no firm date for the completion of testing and associated work. When this work is complete I will advise the Secretary of State accordingly.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when quarterly statistical information on the performance of the Child Support Agency was last placed in the Library; and whether he plans to place such information on the performance of the Agency in the Library on a regular basis. [67234]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The "Quarterly Summary Statistics for the Child Support Agency—February 2002" was placed in the Library on 13 June 2002.

  Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have been referred to the special payments department by the CSA over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [63419]
  820W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Bill O'Brien, dated 18 July 2002 The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask how many cases have been referred to the Special Payments Department by the Child Support Agency over the past three years; and if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement.
  Each year the Child Support Agency receives over 300,000 new applications. It has a caseload of 1.1 million cases. Against that background it has referred 31,232 cases to its Special Payments Team for consideration of re-dress or a consolatory payment following a complaint.
  I hope this is helpful.

TREASURY

  Sickness Absence (Public Sector)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has succeeded in delivering on the Government's plans in Cm 4011 to reduce public sector sickness absence by 20 per cent. between 1998 and 2001; and if he will make a statement. [66282]

  Boateng
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: These targets were recommended in the Cabinet Office report on the management of attendance in the public sector, ("Working Well Together").

  It is not possible to say at this time whether the target has been met. Management data for the civil service and a number of other public sector employment groups are published in financial years format and will not be available before the autumn.

  Network Rail
  Mr.Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the documents which have been studied by the Office for National Statistics in deciding on the classification of Network Rail. [70511]

  Mr.Boateng
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 22 July 2002 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking if copies of all the documents which have been studied by the Office for National Statistics in deciding on the classification of Network Rail could be placed in the Library. (70511).
  In deciding on the sector classification of Network Rail, the main documents that the ONS used were: international statistical manuals—The European System of Accounts (1955) and The System of National Accounts (1993), copies of which are available from the Library. The ONS also studied many legal documents, provided on a commercial and confidence basis. These documents are exempt from disclosure under section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Office for National Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2002, on the ONS, if he will place in the Library the recommendations that ONS made on each classification considered since 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [70752]

  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. Matthew Taylor, dated 22 July 2002 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question pursuant to the answer given on 8th July on the ONS, concerning what the recommendations the national statistics made on each classification considered since 1" January and if these recommendations could be placed in the Library. (70752)
  We have already announced that in due course we will put all key national accounts classification decisions in the public domain. We are working towards full implementation of this policy. Four important decisions are already on the National Statistics website with supporting explanations.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the ONS annual report and accounts for 2001–02 to be published. [72628]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Office for National Statistics annual report and accounts is being laid before the House today.

  ZANU-PF
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many United Kingdom bank accounts have been frozen as a result of the EU selective sanctions against leading members of ZANU-PF; and what the value is of the money in those accounts. [71452]

  Ruth Kelly
  European Council Regulation 310/2002 places limits on the extent to which details regarding individual accounts and amounts frozen can be disclosed. However, a total of £76,000 in accounts belonging to two individuals listed in the regulation has been frozen.

  Shooting Rights
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figures he collates relating to VAT raised from the sale of shooting rights; and if he will place them in the Library. [71941]

  John Healey
  VAT is charged on shooting rights sold in the course of business unless they form part of a VAT exempt freehold sale of the land over which they may be exercised. No information is collected about the amount of VAT raised from shooting rights.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in financial year 2001–02; if he will list the campaigns that spent over £250,000; and if he will make a statement. [70213]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) full-time equivalents were employed by his press office and (b) secondees were placed in his press office in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [70538]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 328W.

  As to secondees, records are not maintained.

  Double Taxation Convention
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the draft Order in Council and schedule containing the new Double Taxation Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America will be submitted to the House for ratification; and if he will make a statement. [72630]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The text of the Convention together with an amending Protocol has been published today as a schedule to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House. The Protocol amending the Double Taxation Convention was signed on behalf of the two governments on 19 July 2002. The text is available on the Inland Revenue's website.

  Community Budget
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be publishing the statement on the 2002 Community Budget. [72631]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have today laid before Parliament the Statement on the 2002 Community Budget, entitled "European Community Finances". This White Paper is the 22nd in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the Community Budget. It also describes the Community Budget for 2002 as adopted by the European Parliament, and details the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the Community Budget for calendar years 1996 to 2002 and financial years 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  I have placed copies of the White Paper in both Libraries of the House.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision of the London VAT tribunal in the Kingscrest case on the implementation of free nursing care and the affordability of fee levels; [71678]

  (2) if he will amend VAT regulations relating to the VAT status of care homes. [71508]

  John Healey
  In March the High Court judgment in the Kingscrest Associates Ltd. and Montecello Ltd. case threatened to limit the VAT exemption for residential care. We immediately acted to put this exemption beyond question through the Value Added Tax (Health and Welfare) Order (Statutory Instrument 762/2002).
  823W
  The decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal in this case, and the later High Court judgment, do not impact upon any provision of nursing care.

  Game Bird Farms
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many game farms were registered for game bird rearing in the UK; and how many initiatives there were to identify the valuation relating to game bird farms in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [71942]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is responsible for the valuation of business property for rating purposes. One of the difficulties for valuation officers (VOs) in identifying game farms is the fact that most of them are in remote rural areas and operate on land which was, quite properly, exempt from rating as agricultural land.

  Game farms are not exempt from rating, but VOs have difficulty in keeping their records up to date to show when land that was exempt is no longer in agricultural use and should be assessed as a game farm. Billing authorities are responsible for notifying the VOA when such changes take place, but this does not always happen.

  In May 2000 the Game Farmers Association provided information to the VOA that there were about 400 game farms in the United Kingdom. This includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, for which the VOA has no responsibility.

  The VOA also received representations from a number of bodies including Wales Opponents of Pheasant Shooting and Animal Aid, requesting confirmation that specified game farms are assessed for rating.

  In addition, the VOA has been requested by the Game Farmers Association to ensure that their membership and others in the industry are all treated fairly in relation to rating.

  The VOA has responded to these approaches by checking its records to identify which of these game farms are already assessed and which require to be assessed for rating purposes. A total of 40 additional game farms were included in rating lists as a result of this initiative.

  The VOA does not hold details of the number of game farms registered for game bird rearing.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many properties which were identified as operating as a game farm had not been assessed for non-domestic rates; and what proportion of those properties were(a) allowed to remain open and (b) closed down, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [71943]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) in England and Wales has assessed a total of 85 game farms for rating purposes.

  It is not known how many game farms not in assessment that should properly be assessed.

  The VOA takes action to assess game farms as soon as they are brought to their attention.
  824W
  The VOA has no statistical information as to the proportion of game farms that have remained open or have closed down in each of the last 10 years.

  Airport Construction
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) received on the economic consequences of building new (i) airports and (ii) runways. [70868]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Department for Transport is giving him today at column 733w.

  Public Service Monitoring
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2002, on public service monitoring, which targets are considered value for money targets for each Government Department; and if he will make a statement. [70753]

  Mr. Boateng
  The value for money targets are clearly identified in "Public Service Agreements 2001–04" (Cm 4808).

  Financial Advisers (VAT)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimates he has made of the amount of VAT(a) due on commission payments to independent financial advisers and (b) on commission payments to independent financial advisers collected in the latest year for which figures are available; [71310]

  (2) if he will ensure that HM Customs and Excise communicate to independent financial advisers the fact that sales commission attracts VAT. [71309]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise has set out the VAT treatment of the services provided by independent financial advisers in the VAT public notice 701/49, "Finance and securities", published in March 2002. They will be issuing more detailed information specifically for such advisers shortly. Where VAT is due on an adviser's services, it will be at a rate of 17.5 per cent. There are no estimates available for VAT collected on such charges.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the 2000 Spending Review PSAs as referred to in paragraph 1.15 of Public Service Agreements 2003–06, Cm 5571, before 24 July; and if he will make a statement. [71302]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  As indicated in public service agreements 2003–06, the Treasury has today published details on its website of how all the headline 2000 spending review PSA targets translate into the new PSAs. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Street Crime
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,
  825W
  Official Report, column 634, on street crime, what resources are available to the Metropolitan Police, what information he has received regarding those of the New York Police Department; and if he will make a statement. [44397]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The net budget requirement for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in 2001/2 was £1,980 million which has risen to £2,038 million in 2002–3. At the end of September, 2001. there were 25,374 police officers in the MPS, a rise of 679 from September 2000. At the same time, there were 10,240 civilian staff (93 more than the previous year) and 669 traffic wardens (60 fewer than the previous year).

  In February I met Mr. Rudolph Giuliani. the former Mayor of New York City and Mr. Bill Bratten, the former Commissioner of the New York Police Department to discuss issues of policing, including police resources. I understand that estimates show that in 2000 there were 29,123 police officers and 11,582 civilian staff in London (which comprises the MPS, City of London Police and British Transport Police) compared with 38,779 police officers and 16,629 civilians in New York City.

  The Government is pursuing a major initiative to tackle street crime in the ten forces with the highest levels, which includes the MPS. We have drawn together resources, expertise, and initiatives, from Government, the police and other relevant agencies, to help free our streets from robbery and drug driven violence.

  Mobile Phone Theft and Crime Figures
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of offences of(a) theft and (b) robbery relating to mobile phones in the last three years have involved both offenders and victims who are school-age children; [40008]

  (2) how many offences of (a) theft and (b) robbery relating to mobile phones were (i) reported and (ii) recorded by the police in the last two years where those offences took place on school premises. [40006]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The requested information is not routinely collected centrally.

  A research study, 'Mobile phone theft' (by Victoria Harrington and Pat Mayhew, Home Office research study 235), included provisional results of a survey of 15,000 11–15 year olds which estimated that 12 per cent. of those questioned had been a victim of phone theft at least once in the last year. However, this survey was conducted in deprived areas.

  A MORI survey in early 2001 of 5,000 11–16 year olds, also quoted in the research study, estimated that 5 per cent. had been a victim of mobile phone theft at least once in the last year. The sample used was regarded as being more representative.

  The research study separately estimated that, overall, in police areas where the research took place, 48 per cent. of all victims of phone robbery, and 63 per cent. of those accused of the offence, were under 18.

  We are working with the police and the mobile phone industry to reduce mobile phone robbery, undertaking public awareness campaigns and joint tracking exercises. Our discussions with operators have recently borne fruit.
  826W
  By the summer all five of the main operators will be able to bar stolen handsets by reference to the unique IMEI number which identifies the handset. All of the operators are also working together to develop a shared database of stolen phones, which will allow them to disable stolen phones if there is an attempt to use them on a different network. We believe that this is a very important step forward, as it should remove one of the major incentives for robbery.

  Operators have also agreed to improve security as they invest in new systems. We are pressing the handset manufacturers for similar commitments. A start has been made, but more needs to be done before Britain's mobile phone system can lead the world in security. The mobile phone industry needs to show more interest in the security of phones they are selling to British consumers and, as the motor industry has done, do more to prevent their customers from becoming the victims of crime.

  Crime Reduction
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital resources are made available for initiatives to change the physical arrangement of an area to reduce crime in residential neighbourhoods in England. [63148]

  Mr. Denham
  Several crime reduction initiatives provide the opportunity for funding for such projects.

  Under the crime reduction programme CCTV initiative up to £80–85 million will be spent in 2002–03 on 279 CCTV schemes in residential areas. Funding for a number of these schemes also includes provision for improved street lighting.

  Under the communities against drugs initiative the £50 million funding for 2001–02 (crime and disorder reduction partnerships' baseline allocation) comprised 32 per cent. for capital expenditure. Some partnerships' use of the funding includes regeneration works.

  Under the safer communities initiative £20 million funding is available in 2002–03. There is no specific capital element but funding can be used to purchase capital items. Partnerships' plans are still being developed.

  There is also funding from the capital modernisation fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their businesses—£3 million in 2001–02, £6 million in 2002–03 and £6 million in 2003–04. While this funding is not specifically directed towards residential neighbourhoods, environmental improvements such as better lighting and landscaping of shopping parades may well impact on crimes affecting residential neighbourhoods as well as those impacting on small retailers, since many small shops and parades of shops are located within, or close to, residential areas.

  Approximately a fifth (£380 million) of the £1.9 billion allocated over ten years to the new deal for communities areas and a fifth (£180 million) of the £900 million allocated over three years to the 88 neighbourhood renewal areas will go towards tackling crime. Money allocated to an area is spent according to priorities agreed by the area and its local strategic partnership. Central records of this spending are not kept and so it is not possible to set out how much is spent specifically on initiatives to change the physical arrangement of an area.
  827W
  In addition, the cross-cutting review on improving the public space, announced in July 2001 by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been exploring how Government policies, funding and targets could produce improvements in the safety and attractiveness of the public space—the local environment where people lead their lives. The lead Minister Lord Falconer presented the review's final report to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in April, in order to inform spending review decisions.

  Speeding (Surrey)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists have been caught speeding by police cameras in Surrey in each of the last five years. [66492]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: Data supplied directly from the police showing the number of prosecutions and fixed penalties notices issued for speeding offences as a result of the use of cameras are given in the table.

  Prosecutions and fixed penalties for speeding offences detected by camera within the Surrey police force area, 1996–2000

  Disposal

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Prosecutions

  483

  145

  326

  196

  2,353

  Fixed penalties

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2,195

  5,274

  1 Not available

  Police Reform Bill
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for the implementation of section 31A, part 4 of the Police Reform Bill. [70363]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: The legislation to which I assume the hon. Member refers is section 31 A of the Transport and Works Act 1992, which is to be inserted by clause 59 of the Police Reform Bill.

  The provision is parallel to the new section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be inserted by clause 57 of the Bill. Both make provision for blood specimens to be taken without consent where, after an accident, a person cannot for medical reasons give valid consent.

  It is customary for provisions within a Bill to be brought into effect no sooner than three months after Royal Assent. Subject to that, we intend that these measures should be brought into effect at the earliest possible moment. We have already entered into discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on the issue of appropriate guidance to the police and shall be liaising with the Department of Health, the British Medical Association and the Association of Police Surgeons in order to ensure that the new procedures run smoothly.

  Capita
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) central and (b) local government contracts with Capita whose performance was reviewed by his Department prior to awarding that company the Criminal Records Bureau contract. [69275]
  828W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: As part of the agency benchmarking exercise, the Criminal Records Bureau procurement team obtained references from the Driving Standards Agency, the Teachers Pensions Agency, operated by Capita Group plc for the Department for Employment and Skills at Darlington and the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) contact centre in Belfast.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the use of urine samples for detection of illegal drugs on the types of drugs used by prisoners; and what plans he has to change his policy of mandatory drug-testing. [70359]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: There is no substantive research evidence that the use of urine samples for detection of illegal drugs permanently affects the types of drugs used by prisoners. However, in light of anecdotal evidence that prisoners may be switching from cannabis to heroin in order to avoid detection (because the latter can be detected in the body for a shorter period), research has been commissioned from the Institute of Psychiatry and the Office for National Statistics which is due to report in December 2002. The implications of this research will be considered carefully.

  Prison Suicides
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides of(a) women and (b) men occurred in prison in England in the (i) last six years and (ii) most recent year for which figures are available. [70609]

  Hilary Henn
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of self-inflicted deaths for males and females in prisons in England and Wales, 1996 to 20021

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1996

  62

  2

  64

  1997

  65

  3

  68

  1998

  80

  3

  83

  1999

  86

  5

  91

  2000

  73

  8

  81

  2001

  67

  6

  73

  20022

  44

  3

  47

  Total

  853

  39

  892

  1 To 15 July 2002

  2 To date

  The Prison Service employs the term "self-inflicted death" (which includes all those deaths where it appears that the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life) rather than suicide.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1239W, on prison hospital suicides, if he will make a statement on the timetable for the Prison Service review of the suicide prevention strategy; and what progress has been made. [68261]
  829W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: The Prison Service suicide prevention strategy was reviewed in 2000 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then Home Secretary, announced the launch of the new three-year suicide and self-harm strategy in February 2001. Work on the development of the new strategy started in April 2001 and will run to March 2004.

  One of the projects currently being developed as part of the new strategy is the Care of Prisoners project. This project includes a review of procedures for prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm (the F2052SH system) referred to in the answer to my right hon. Friend's question of 26 February. A new process for managing at risk prisoners is being developed and will be piloted in the autumn.

  Police Stations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many functioning police stations there were, broken down by(a) police force and (b) local authority area, in each year since 1997. [42371]

  Mr. Denham
  Chief constables have provided information on the number of police stations functioning in the years since 1997. This is given in the table. Police and local authority areas now coincide.

  Comprehensive information is available for the three years to March 2000, March 2001 and March 2002, but in some cases forces were unable to provide data for earlier years. This is reflected in the table.

  Police station numbers 1997–2002

  Force: at March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon and Somerset

  35

  36

  39

  39

  41

  42

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  11

  10

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  28

  25

  25

  24

  24

  Cheshire

  38

  38

  36

  33

  35

  35

  City of London

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Cleveland

  24

  23

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Cumbria

  34

  34

  24

  24

  24

  25

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  25

  27

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  71

  68

  68

  65

  65

  64

  Dorset

  27

  27

  26

  26

  25

  25

  Durham

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  38

  Dyfed-Powys

  44

  47

  48

  48

  48

  48

  Essex1

  114

  114

  114

  72

  57

  55

  Gloucestershire

  62

  63

  59

  47

  42

  40

  Greater Manchester

  82

  74

  70

  70

  68

  68

  Gwent

  —

  57

  52

  56

  49

  49

  Hampshire

  104

  102

  94

  92

  89

  89

  Hertfordshire1

  23

  23

  23

  21

  25

  25

  Humberside

  35

  36

  34

  33

  33

  32

  Kent

  32

  32

  32

  32

  30

  30

  Lancashire

  109

  108

  108

  108

  107

  106

  Leicestershire

  28

  28

  28

  30

  30

  30

  Lincolnshire

  43

  42

  42

  42

  42

  41

  Metropolitan1

  —

  —

  —

  156

  144

  148

  Merseyside

  52

  51

  50

  44

  43

  43

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  42

  42

  45

  Northamptonshire

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  36

  36

  36

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  54

  52

  51

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  35

  35

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  64

  42

  42

  44

  46

  47

  South Wales

  138

  137

  136

  125

  122

  119

  South Yorkshire

  84

  86

  82

  80

  77

  75

  Staffordshire

  39

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Suffolk

  27

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Surrey1

  30

  28

  26

  22

  28

  29

  Sussex

  34

  34

  35

  36

  36

  35

  Thames Valley

  53

  47

  55

  55

  51

  53

  Warwickshire

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  830W

  Police station numbers 1997–2002

  Force: at March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  West Mercia

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  West Midlands

  72

  70

  69

  68

  68

  69

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  40

  40

  40

  Wiltshire

  28

  26

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Totals

  21,677

  21,689

  21,651

  1,970

  1,925

  1,919

  1 The apparent loss of 12 stations by the Metropolitan police service between March 2000 and March 2001 reflects transfers to boundary forces in April 2000; Essex (2), Herts (4) and Surrey (6)

  2 Individual force figures are given where available. Some forces are unable to provide numbers for years before March 2000.

  Police Numbers (London)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police officers have been drafted into London after the events of 11 September. [28935]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that no officers were drafted into London from other forces following the events of September 11. However, officers from all London boroughs were deployed to meet security needs. Crime statistics published on 12 July (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02) showed that, in the period following this redeployment of officers, there were falls in recorded burglary in Westminster and rises in outer London boroughs. A less marked effect was seen in relation to levels of vehicle crime, but there was no noticeable impact on robbery in Westminster during the same period. Operational deployment is a matter for the Commissioner.

  Jurors
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research he has commissioned on(a) improper influence of jurors and (b) intimidation of jurors. [67653]

  Hilary Benn
  No recent research has been commissioned on the improper influence and intimidation of jurors. The Home Office has commissioned more general research into juries and jurors' experiences and perceptions of the criminal justice system. A report is scheduled for publication later this year.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been made in south Tyneside. [3070]

  Mr. Denham
  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are community-based civil orders, which can be applied for by the police or local authority, in consultation with each other against an individual or several individuals whose behaviour is antisocial. Applications are to the magistrates court acting in its civil capacity.

  ASBOs were introduced from 1 April 1999. The data given in the table cover the period up to the end of December 2001 (latest available).

  We are currently considering whether any further checks are needed to ensure the accuracy of the number of ASBOs reported.
  831W

  Number of antisocial behaviour orders issued, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001 within Northumbria by local government authority

  Area

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Total

  Police force area/MCC2

  Northumbria

  8

  5

  5

  18

  Local government authority

  Gateshead MB

  3—

  3

  —

  3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3—

  —

  2

  2

  North Tyneside

  3—

  —

  2

  2

  South Tyneside

  3—

  1

  1

  2

  Sunderland, City of

  3—

  1

  —

  1

  1 Total figure available only for Northumbria police force area within this period. Local government authority not known.

  2 MCC—magistrates courts committee area.

  3 Not available.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he plans to publish a report on the use and effectiveness of ASBOs; [37773]

  (2) what evaluation of ASBOs he has carried out; and what evaluation of ASBOs he has published. [37802]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: A commitment was made to Parliament during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill to review the antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) after two years. A review, covering their use and effectiveness, has been undertaken and will be published shortly.

  Work Permits
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Work Permits (UK) has approved permit applications on the grounds of shortage occupations criteria when the specific skills possessed have been described as IT skills; [71545]

  (2) what steps are being taken to ensure that work permits applied for under shortage occupations criteria are only granted in circumstances where the skill required is classified as a shortage occupation skill; [71541]

  (3) how many work permit applications have been (a) granted and (b) refused by Work Permits (UK) on the grounds of shortage occupations criteria in each month since June 2001; [71542]

  (4) what process of investigation is undertaken by Work Permits (UK) into work permit applications that are submitted on the grounds of shortage occupations criteria; [71544]

  (5) how many documented cases his Department has received from the Professional Contractors Group relating to employers in the technology sector importing labour from abroad in an effort to reduce employment costs; and what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that the work permit system is not abused in this way. [71543]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 15 July 2002,Official Report, columns 107W.

  Informal Warnings
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent informal warnings are used against people under suspicion of committing an offence. [71209]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not collected.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are serving a life sentence in prisons in England and Wales. [70278]

  Hilary Benn
  On 31 May 2002 (the latest available data) there were 5,128 people serving life sentences in prisons in England and Wales. Of these 4,965 were male, and 163 were female.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women in prisons in England and Wales are serving a life sentence for sexual offences. [70279]

  Hilary Benn
  Data show that on the 31 May 2002 (the latest available data) there were 539 people serving life sentences in prisons in England and Wales for sexual offences. All of these were male.

  Police Vice Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities in the United Kingdom have a vice unit. [70284]

  Mr. Denham
  There are four police forces in England and Wales who have dedicated vice units: Metropolitan, Nottinghamshire and West Midlands police forces and Hampshire constabulary. In the remaining forces issues such as prostitution and pornography are investigated in a variety of ways most often at the level of basic command units (BCU) who would have discretion to form vice units locally. To contact all the BCUs in England and Wales to find out if they have a vice unit would incur disproportionate cost.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women serving a prison sentence
  833W
  have their children with them in prison; and how many children are living with their mother in prisons in England and Wales. [70277]

  Hilary Benn
  There are currently four units for women serving a custodial sentence to have their children with them while in prison. The prisons are Askham Grange, Holloway, New Hall and Styal and provide 68 places. On Monday, 15 July 2002, there were a total of 56 children living with their mother in prisons in England and Wales.

  Prison Inmates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates under the age of 21 years were serving a prison sentence in England and Wales on 1 July. [70276]

  Hilary Benn
  On 31 May 2002 (the latest available data), there were 8,827 sentenced young offenders in prisons in England and Wales. Of these 8,358 were male, and 469 were female.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies there are to assist people who have been trafficked into the UK; what financial support is given by the Government to promote such policies; and if he will make a statement. [70287]

  Beverley Hughes
  As set out in chapter 5 of the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain", in co-operation with the voluntary sector the Government are looking at how to offer the victims of trafficking particular support so that they can escape their circumstances and, in certain cases, help law enforcement against organised criminals. Where victims are willing to come forward to the authorities, we are considering special arrangements for their protection. We will also consider whether it would be appropriate to allow them to remain here.

  Where they are to return home, we are looking at how to assist them to do so, providing them with initial counselling, ensuring that they have suitable accommodation to return to, and providing help to enable them to reintegrate into their own community and find employment.

  We are developing a best practice toolkit on trafficking, which will be a guide for immigration officers, police and others potentially dealing with trafficking. In particular, it will raise awareness of the difference between trafficking and smuggling, and help those concerned to treat trafficking victims fairly.

  The Government are also working with the voluntary sector to identify the cost implications on the provision of support to the victims of trafficking. The Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are running a number of prevention projects aimed primarily at raising awareness and educating potential victims (mostly women and children) of the dangers of being trafficked. We have given £3 million for the International Labour Organisation's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) programme in the Greater Mekong region (parts of Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam). This
  834W
  involves a number of inter-linked interventions to raise awareness, prevent trafficking and to support community reintegration for victims of trafficking.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of trafficking of people for the purpose of sexual activities have been investigated by police authorities in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [70286]

  Hilary Benn
  As there is at present no specific offence of trafficking, the police and other law enforcement agencies are not able to say how many such cases have been investigated in the last five years.

  Reflex, the multi-agency response to organised immigration crime, is currently supporting a number of investigations into trafficking. Reflex is also engaged in Bosnia supporting anti-trafficking operations there and, with the Romanians, developing a team to target traffickers.

  We have included a new offence of trafficking for prostitution in the current Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, as a stop-gap measure pending introduction of offences covering trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation when parliamentary time permits.

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many number one governors in prisons in England and Wales are women; and in which prisons they are in place. [70221]

  Hilary Benn
  As at 16 July 2002 there are 27 number one governors (or directors, the private prison sector equivalent) who are women. Their locations are as follows.Location

  Albany

  Brockhill

  Buckley Hall

  Bullingdon

  Cookham Wood

  Dover

  Elmley

  Everthorpe

  Guys Marsh

  Highpoint North

  Hindley

  Huntercombe

  Lancaster

  Leeds

  Littlehey

  Maidstone

  Morton Hall

  New Hall

  Onley

  Ranby

  Rye Hill

  Stafford

  Stoke Heath

  Styal

  Swansea

  Thorn Cross

  Weare.

  835W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women from an ethnic minority background hold the rank of prison governor in prisons in England and Wales. [70127]

  Hilary Benn
  Three men and one woman Senior Operational Manager (Governor Grade) are recorded as being from an ethnic minority as at 13 July 2002.

  Care Home Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters his Department has received from(a) care home owners and (b) hon. Members with regard to delays in the vetting of care home staff applications by the Criminal Records Bureau. [71105]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The information sought by the hon. Member on this sector is not available in the format requested.

  Information is currently not recorded by sector, either business or voluntary.

  Deputy Chief Constable of Sussex
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the early retirement of the Deputy Chief Constable of Sussex. [22781]

  Mr. Denham
  We have set out our position on ill health retirement and disciplinary procedures in the White Paper. We have recognised that the current procedure can be damaging to public confidence. Police authorities should consider whether it would be right to exercise its discretion not to retire the officer where public interest in completing the proceedings in a misconduct case outweighs the medical condition. The White Paper says that"the Government believes that it is wholly unacceptable for sickness or medical retirement to be used as a means of avoiding discipline".

  Rape
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he plans to do in response to the recommendations of the Joint Inspectorate Domestic report on rape; and if he will make a statement. [71057]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: An inter-agency working group, led by the Home Office and with representation from the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Court Service, was formed in response to the Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary/Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate report into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape. The group is producing a detailed action plan for implementing the report's findings. It will detail measures across the whole of the criminal justice system, from police recording procedures and investigation, through review and decision making by the Crown Prosecution Service, to the trial itself and post-trial support for the victim. The action plan is being published today. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has recently had with the Police Federation with regard to changing the pay and terms and conditions of police officers. [52319]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary held his most recent meeting with representatives of the Police Federation for England and Wales on 8 July. At that meeting, he discussed with them the implementation of the package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service that was agreed on 9 May by all parties in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB), including the Federation.

  Drug Rehabilitation Programmes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been in drug rehabilitation programmes in the Portsmouth, South constituency in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [64587]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information requested on the number of people who have been in drug rehabilitation programmes in the Portsmouth, South constituency is not available. Figures are collected by the Portsmouth Drug Action Team (DAT), which covers a much wider area than Portsmouth, South.

  The total number of people who have been in drug rehabilitation programmes over the last three years has increased significantly. In 1999–2000 the number of people accessing these services was 283. This number rose in the next two years to 307 in 2000–01 and 417 in 2001–102.

  Retail Crime
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of money drawn from the Criminal Justice Reserve will be allocated to retail crime reduction. [54470]

  Mr. Denham
  No money from the Criminal Justice System Reserve has been allocated to retail crime reduction. However, £15 million has been allocated under the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas and funding for retail crime reduction measures can also be allocated through various other schemes such as the Targeted Policing an Safer Communities initiatives.

  Derek Jack Tully
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason, in relation to the case of Derek Jack Tully, the Parole Board has imposed the parole condition of non-marital residence against the expressed wish of his wife; and if he will call for a report from the Probation Service on why they attempted a late evening supervision in his daughter's home; on how many occasions they tried to arrange two supervisions on the same day; and if he will make a statement. [70093]

  Hilary Benn
  The inclusion of additional licence conditions in the parole licence of prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more is a matter for the Parole Board. The Parole Board is an independent body; and
  837W
  therefore, it is not appropriate to comment upon its decisions in individual cases. I have referred the hon. Member's inquiry to the Chairman of the Board, requesting that he reply direct.

  Furthermore, it is not normal practice to comment on an individual case supervised by the Probation Service. I have asked the National Director for the National Probation Service to request a report of the circumstances from the Chief Officer for the Essex area and will write to the hon. Member when this has been received.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits from local probation officers prisoners in category B prisons are expected to receive in advance of release; and how many were received per prisoner released from each category B prison in the last year for which information is available. [67193]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: Figures on the information requested are not collected centrally. There is no requirement for the home supervising (local) probation officer to carry out a minimum number of visits to a prisoner in a category B prison who will be subject to supervision on release. Probation officers are expected to use their judgment to ensure that there is sufficient contact at a pre-release stage to enable the successful resettlement of the offender and the preparation of a supervision plan.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons he has visited; and when these visits took place. [67928]

  Hilary Benn
  Since becoming Home Secretary in June 2001, my right hon. Friend has visited two prisons; Leeds on 8 August 2001 and Belmarsh on 24 January 2002. Further visits will take place in due course.

  Policing (Christmas)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were required to be on duty on Christmas day, as a percentage of the normal staffing levels. [30937]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. Constables and sergeants who are required to do duty on Christmas day may elect to receive either a payment at double time or time off in lieu equal to twice the time they were required to do duty. In addition, where they receive less than eight days' notice of having to work on Christmas day, they also receive a day off in lieu.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what format his Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations. [70503]
  838W
  Hilary Benn
  The majority of the results of public consultation documents issued by my Department in 2001 have been published in both printed and electronic form.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70502]

  Hilary Benn
  The seven consultation criteria were published in one of the consultation documents issued by the Home Department in 2001.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70501]

  Hilary Benn
  Yes.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [70504]

  Hilary Benn
  All the consultation documents published by my Department in 2001 were available in both written and electronic form. 13 published consultation documents were monitored and evaluated in accordance with the Code of Practice on Written Consultations.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints his Department has received about its 2001 consultations in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70505]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Department received two complaints about consultation exercises published in 2001. The first concerned the consultation exercise on justification for the use of X/Gamma radiation scanners by the Immigration Service for detecting people seeking to enter the United Kingdom illegally in vehicles and/or freight, by clandestine means' and was received in printed format. The second concerned the 'consultation paper on revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact' and was in electronic format.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [70506]

  Hilary Benn
  All the public consultation documents published by the Home Department in 2001 were available in printed form.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long his Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70500]

  Hilary Benn
  I have listed details of the length of consultation period allowed for those public consultation exercises published by the Home Department in 2001. The length of the consultation period was the same for documents in printed and electronic form.
  839W

  Title of Consultation

  Length of consultation period

  Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Review of the Ethical Review Process

  11 January 2001 to 23 March 2001

  Animal Rights Extremism: Government Strategy

  28 March 2001 to 27 April 2001

  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

  22 February 2001 to 15 May 2001

  Proceeds of Crime: Consultation on draft legislation

  5 March 2001 to 29 May 2001

  The Law on Extradition: a review

  12 March 2001 to 8 June 2001

  Review of the Victim's Charter

  27 February 2001 to 15 June 2001

  Guidance for the use of an intermediary under S.29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  8 May 2001 to 29 June 2001

  Funding Community Groups: a consultation document

  3 May 2001 to 23 July 2001

  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: A consultation leaflet

  1 May 2001 to 31 July 2001

  Justification for the use of X/Gamma radiation scanners by the Immigration Service for detecting people seeking to enter the United Kingdom illegally in vehicles and/or freight, by clandestine means

  17 July 2001 to 27 August 2001

  Extension of the Civil Penalty to rail freight shuttle wagons

  18 July 2001 to 29 August 2001

  Consultation Paper on the Review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997

  30 July 2001 to 19 October 2001

  Making Punishment Work: Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales

  5 July 2001 to 31 October 2001

  Assessing Communications Data Draft Code of Practice

  13 August 2001 to 2 November 2001

  Review of Family visitor appeals

  29 October 2001 to 14 December 2001

  Ratification of the European Union Driving Disqualification Convention

  25 September 2001 to 18 December 2001

  Consultation paper on revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact

  14 December 2001 to 31 January 2002

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since 1997, indicating for each consultation(a) if copies were available online, (b) if copies were available in print, (c) the date the time period given for responses opened and (d) the date the time period given for responses closed. [69805]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Department holds central records on issued consultations from 1997 for the Home Office, its non-departmental public bodies and agencies. Current consultation papers can be found on the website on

  Title of consultation

  Electronic copies available

  Printed copies available

  Start date of consultation period

  End date of consultation period

  Animal (Scientific Procedures Act 1986) Review of the Ethical Review Process

  Y

  Y

  11 January 2001

  23 March 2001

  Animal Rights Extremism: Government strategy

  Y

  Y

  28 March 2001

  27 April 2001

  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 New Laws for A successful multi racial Britain

  Y

  Y

  22 February 2001

  15 May 2001

  Proceeds of Crime—consultation on draft legislation

  Y

  Y

  5 March 2001

  29 May 2001

  The Law on Extradition—a review

  Y

  Y

  12 March 2001

  8 June 2001

  Review of the Victim's Charter

  Y

  Y

  27 February 2001

  15 June 2001

  Guidance on the use of an Intermediary under Section 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  Y

  Y

  8 May 2001

  29 June 2001

  Funding Community Groups

  Y

  Y

  3 May 2001

  23 July 2001

  Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

  Y

  Y

  1 May 2001

  31 July 2001

  Justification for the use of X/Gamma radiation scanners by the Immigration Service for detecting people seeking to enter the UK illegally in vehicles and/or freight, by clandestine means

  Y

  Y

  17 July 2001

  27 August 2001

  Extension of the Civil Penalty to rail freight shuttle wagons

  Y

  Y

  18 July 2001

  29 August 2001

  Review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997

  Y

  Y

  30 July 2001

  19 October 2001

  Making Punishment Work: Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales

  Y

  Y

  5 July 2001

  31 October 2001

  Assessing Communications Data Draft Code of Practice

  Y

  Y

  13 August 2001

  2 November 2001

  Review of Family Visitor Appeals

  Y

  Y

  29 October 2001

  14 December 2001

  Ratification of the EU Driving Disqualification Convention

  Y

  Y

  25 September 2001

  18 December 2001

  Revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact

  Y

  Y

  14 December 2001

  31 January 2002

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code A

  Y

  Y

  11 March 2002

  19 February 2002

  The Motor Salvage Operators Regulations 2002 (Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001)

  Y

  Y

  4 January 2002

  1 March 2002

  Secure Borders, Safe Haven White Paper Consultation

  Y

  Y

  7 February 2002

  21 March 2002

  Extension of controlled drugs licensing

  Y

  Y

  11 February 2002

  1 May 2002

  Proposed changes to the Misuse of Drugs legislation

  Y

  Y

  4 March 2002

  17 May 2002

  Review of Crime Reduction Training

  Y

  Y

  4 March 2002

  27 May 2002

  Review on Workpermit Policy on Recruitment and Employment Agencies and Contractors

  Y

  Y

  18 March 2002

  14 June 2002

  Charging for the consideration of Workpermit applications

  Y

  Y

  15 April 2002

  5 July 2002

  840W
  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consult_papers.htm. Archived consultation papers can be found on http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consuarchive.htm.

  Providing all the details requested would involve disproportionate cost. However, the online archive does contain details of the consultation period for most of the consultation documents listed.

  Listed in the table are the details available for 2001–02 Home Office consultation exercises.
  841W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public consultations have been commenced by his Department since 1 April; and

  Title of consultation

  Closing date

  Website address

  Charging for the consideration of work permit applications

  5 July 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consult—papers.htm

  Merger of CDRPs/DAT: consultation exercise

  26 July 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consult—papers.htm

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act consultation on Code of Practice (Code B-E)

  16 August 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consult—papers.htm

  Working Holiday Maker Scheme consultation document

  23 August 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consult—papers.htm

  Review of Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme 2002

  23 August 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/atoz/consult—papers.htm

  Breaking the Circle: A report of the review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

  13 September 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/new.htm

  Criminal Justice System White Paper: Justice for All

  9 October 2002

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/new.htm

  Entitlement Card and Identity Fraud: A Consultation Paper

  10 January 2003

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/new.htm

  Police Houses
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each English police authority, how many specialist police houses have been sold in the past three years. [36620]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The only information available relates to the sale of police dwellings. The number of dwellings sold in the past three years by English police authorities is detailed in the table.

  In its report entitled "Action stations—Improving the Management of the Police Estate" (published March 1999), the Audit Commission recommended that police forces identify and dispose of buildings that were unsuitable or had maintenance liabilities which were beyond the forces' means. further it recommended that the remaining residential estate was rationalised. In some cases, for example, it may be appropriate to sell off some vacant accommodation in order to refurbish and bring back into use other accommodation.

  In those areas where high housing costs are hindering recruitment and retention of police officers, allocations from the starter home initiative (SHI) will help about 1,100 police staff to buy first homes over the three years to March 2004. (In London about 550 police staff are expected to benefit from the first round allocations announced in September 2001).

  We have also recently agreed with the Department of Health that the role of the national health service housing co-ordinator will be extended to cover the police service and a secondee from the police service is due to join the co-ordinator's team shortly.

  Number of police dwellings sold

  Police authority

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  19

  8

  8

  Bedfordshire

  7

  1

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  54

  5

  Cheshire

  18

  10

  8

  City of London

  1

  2

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  1

  Cumbria

  10

  34

  12

  842W
  what the (a) closing date and (b) website address of each were. [72061]

  Hilary Benn
  The details requested are listed in the table:

  Number of police dwellings sold

  Police authority

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Derbyshire

  8

  9

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  13

  8

  5

  Dorset

  12

  7

  14

  Durham

  6

  3

  1

  Essex

  19

  34

  36

  Gloucestershire

  10

  37

  8

  Greater Manchester

  21

  17

  16

  Hampshire

  14

  30

  18

  Hertfordshire

  106

  141

  34

  Humberside

  13

  14

  8

  Kent

  28

  33

  19

  Lancashire

  24

  21

  12

  Leicestershire

  2

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  5

  11

  7

  Merseyside

  1

  5

  5

  Metropolitan

  138

  265

  149

  Norfolk

  3

  3

  3

  Northamptonshire

  1

  9

  6

  Northumbria

  30

  35

  30

  North Yorkshire

  11

  82

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  13

  2

  South Yorkshire

  8

  6

  7

  Staffordshire

  10

  10

  15

  Suffolk

  4

  4

  7

  Surrey

  30

  16

  14

  Sussex

  35

  56

  16

  Thames Valley

  46

  33

  25

  Warwickshire

  6

  8

  0

  West Mercia

  11

  5

  1

  West Midlands

  47

  45

  39

  West Yorkshire

  9

  11

  14

  Wiltshire

  13

  9

  3

  Total

  762

  1,090

  574

  Cyber-terrorism
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the cyber-terrorism threat to the energy industry; and what assessment has been made of NISCC cyber-terrorism counter measures since January. [69639]
  843W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: No representations from the energy industry have been received to the date concerning the threat from cyberterrorism, but the National Infra Structure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC) keeps its assessment of the threat of electronic attack to the United Kingdom's critical national infrastructure, which includes the energy industry, under constant review.

  Murder and Manslaughter Statistics
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, convicted of(a) murder and (b) manslaughter who have been released from prison or other custodial institutions, have recommitted (i) murder and (ii) manslaughter following their release in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [65203]

  Hilary Benn
  For the period 1992 to 2001, those people known to have recommitted homicide following release for their first offence are given in the table. The figures exclude persons who may have been convicted outside England and Wales (for whom there is incomplete information).

  Offenders convicted of homicide who have committed a second homicide following release

  Year second offence recorded

  Number of offenders

  1992

  5

  1993

  2

  1994

  2

  1995

  6

  1996

  1

  1997

  2

  1998

  2

  1999

  5

  2000

  2

  2001

  0

  Computer Hacking
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of computer hacking UNIRAS has recorded in 2002; and on how many occasions in 2002 his Department's computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers operating(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [69640]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: Between 1 January and 12 July 2002 the Unified Instant Reporting and Alert Scheme (UNIRAS) received 21 reports of hacking incidents. No cases of computer hacking have been detected in the Home Office this year.

  Road Traffic Penalties
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department plans to publish its response to the road traffic penalties consultation; and if he will make a statement. [70975]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are currently in the final stages of producing the Government's response to the consultation exercise on road traffic penalties. We hope to have this published before the summer recess.

  London Probation Service
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards the requirement for preparation of pre-sentence reports by the London Probation Service; and if he will make a statement. [68878]

  Hilary Benn
  The courts have a statutory duty and right to commission pre-sentence reports where they think it appropriate to do so and the area Probation Service has a statutory duty to provide them. A pre-sentence report may take the shorter form of a Specific Sentence Report where there is reason to believe that the offender presents a lower risk or the court has a specific sentence in mind. National Standards for the supervision of offenders in the community 2000 require pre-sentence reports to be prepared within a maximum of 15 working days of the court's request. This applies in London as elsewhere in England and Wales.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) budget and (b) spending has been of the London Probation Service since 1994; and if he will make a statement. [69427]

  Hilary Benn
  The budget for the London Probation Service from 1994–95 is set out in the table. This is based on the original main service grant allocation issued by the Home Office. The actual spending is not available as the former Inner-London Probation Service was part of the Metropolitan Police District and has not submitted grant claim forms to the Home Office.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Budget

  1994–95

  72.0

  1995–96

  72.1

  1996–97

  78.9

  1997–98

  77.8

  1998–99

  77.1

  1999–2000

  80.4

  2000–01

  84.7

  2001–02

  88.0

  2002–03

  92.8

  Notes:

  1. The sum of £2.7 million in 2001–02 and £3.7 million in 2002–03 were subsequently transferred to the Department of Health for expenditure relating to Drug Treatment and Testing Orders.

  2. The budgets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 exclude any provision for the Family Court Welfare Service which was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department from April 2001. It is estimated that such expenditure was about 7 per cent. of the budget in 2000–01.

  3. The budgets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 include small amounts for small capital works and the capital charges on freehold buildings. The 2002–03 budget also includes small amounts for depreciation of fixed assets and non-reclaimable VAT.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio is of staff to clients operated by the London Probation Service. [69432]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of clients (offenders) assigned to the staff in the London probation area is currently 32,000. Given that part time staff are on average 0.5 of the overall staffing structure, this gives full time equivalent staffing of 2,402 (including administrative and headquarters staff) giving a client/staff ratio of 13.3:1.
  845W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sex offenders, (b) drug abusers, (c) domestic violence offenders and (d) mentally ill persons are being dealt with by the London Probation Service. [69431]

  Hilary Benn
  At the end of December 2000, 1,500 offenders sentenced for indictable sexual offences and 5,400 offenders sentenced for indictable drugs offences were being supervised by the London probation area. Information on domestic violence offenders and mentally ill offenders is not available.

  Prison and Probation Service Investigations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the target to close 70 per cent. of prison and probation service investigations within 12 weeks was not met. [68783]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The target to which the hon. Member refers is set by the Ombudsman for Prisons and Probation. The Ombudsman sets a target of issuing a final report of his investigations within 12 weeks. In his annual report for 2000–01, published on 27 June, the Ombudsman reports a decline in performance in meeting this target in the case of complaints from prisoners, from 73 per cent. of cases dealt with in 1999–2000 to 63 per cent. of cases dealt with in 2000–01. As explained in his report, the drop in performance was largely brought about by a 53 per cent. increase in the number of eligible complaints, an increase which he attributes to a speeding up of the Prison Service complaints system so that more prisoners are prepared to complete the complaints process before going to the Ombudsman direct. Most complaints and appeals are now answered by the Prison Service within six weeks. The Ombudsman can only investigate once the internal complaints process has been completed.

  The Ombudsman was awarded additional resources to cope with the backlog in 2001–02 and it has now substantially decreased.

  The Ombudsman's remit did not extend to complaints relating to the National Probation Service until September 2001, and they are not covered in his annual report. All these complaints are being completed by his office on time.

  Probation Service
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the financial position of Bull/Integris was taken into account before the standard technical environment for the Probation Service contract was let on 1 January. [65420]

  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Directorate commissioned the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) to assess the financial position of Groupe Bull and its subsidiary Bull Information Systems (including the business division Integris) prior to the shortlisting of service providers for the STEPS contracts.

  After shortlisting and prior to award of the STEPS contracts, the National Probation Directorate commissioned a firm of forensic accountants to evaluate the financial risks regarding the sale of Integris by Bull Information Systems to Steria.
  846W
  On-going financial checks will be carried out on Integris (now renamed as Steria following the change of ownership) throughout the life of the STEPS contracts.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many computer terminals are operational within the National Probation Service in England and Wales. [65422]

  Hilary Benn
  There are currently 17,357 terminals in use in the National Probation Service.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the maintenance charges are for the probation STEPS contract during normal working hours; what the charge is(a) between 6.00 pm and 10.00 pm for an office and an area, (b) for a Saturday and a Sunday event, (c) in relation to an office relocation and (d) for the installation of a computer or printer; and whether the contract with Integris for these matters represents value for money. [65421]

  Hilary Benn
  It is normal in contracts such as these for the information requested to be covered by commercial confidentiality clauses. However, recent press reports on this subject have been so inaccurate and misleading that both the supplier and the National Probation Directorate felt it appropriate to correct some specific points.

  The Standard Technical Environment for the Probation Service (STEPS) contract provides the foundation for the development of IT in the Probation Service. Earlier this year it became one of the first contracts to pass through the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway process, set up to scrutinise Government contracts for value and purpose.

  The core support hours for the contract are Monday to Friday from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm. The 'maintenance charges' to extend these hours to provide full service cover for a whole office between 6.00 and 10.00 pm on a weeknight would be £2,661. On a Saturday the cost to support the entire network of 15,000 desktops across England and Wales would be £8,704. On a Sunday, the same cost would be £11,600. To deliver this service the supplier has to provide people on call around the country, responding to incidents and resolving problems. These costs would only be paid should this work be needed. To date, in the lifetime of this contract, it has not been. The cost to move a workstation would be £192. The contract represents good value for money.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the target for the proportion of cases under Probation Service supervision where the service responds to a breach of conditions by taking action in accordance with the national standards has not been met. [68785]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Probation Service national standards provide clear guidelines on what the Probation Service is expected to deliver in respect of enforcement of breach action. Performance is closely monitored and there is clear evidence of an improvement increases of breach action from 51 per cent. of cases in 1998 to 70 per cent. in September 2000 (the last date for validated returns). This is against a target of 90 per cent. This improvement has been achieved at the same time as the standard against which performance was measured was significantly toughened during the period.
  847W
  The enforcement target is one of a package of targets for which there is a direct cash-related link to performance. That link supports the work which is being undertaken by the Probation Service to improve performance in this area through the review of enforcement procedures.

  Child Protection (Sport)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what meetings he has had with Ministers in other Departments with regard to(a) child protection in sport and (b) inter-agency working on child protection in sport; [69127]

  (2) what measures he has put in place to facilitate other Departments' involvement in implementing the Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks with regard to child protection in sport. [69124]

  Hilary Benn
  Although the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has been set up as an executive agency of the Home Office, its work supports the policy objectives of several Departments including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) objectives of improving child protection in sport. Employers and other organisations taking forward the policies on child protection of DCMS and other Departments are already making substantial use of the CRB service.

  No ministerial meetings have been arranged specifically on these subjects. But sport was represented on the CRB's customer forum which advised on the implementation of the bureau. Officials have also had a number of ad hoc meetings with representatives of sports organisations with regard to checks for child protection purposes, as they have with other Departments and with a range of other organisations about checks for this and other purposes.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the status is of(a) referees and umpires, (b) referees' assistants, (c) match officials and (d) others who receive remuneration for their involvement in the context of the Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks; [69129]

  (2) what his definition is of a volunteer for whom Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks are necessary. [69128]

  Hilary Benn
  We announced in February of last year that standard and enhanced disclosures will be issued free of charge in the case of volunteers. The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 define a volunteer as a person engaged in an activity which involves spending time, unpaid (except for travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit some third party other than or in addition to a close relative. Those persons in the categories mentioned who met the criteria for these levels of Disclosure which are set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and section 115 of the Police Act 1997 and whose remuneration amounted only to travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses would, of course, be entitled to a free Disclosure.

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 896W, if he will list the services accessed by the public for which 0870 numbers are used; and what factors are considered in reaching a decision. [71130]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office and its agencies use a total of 11 0870 numbers:

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: 0870 606 7766

  United Kingdom Passport Service (Main): 0870 521 0410

  United Kingdom Passport Service (Textphone): 0870 240 8090

  United Kingdom Passport Service (High Street Partners): 0870 243 4477

  United Kingdom Passport Service (Complaints): 0870 241 1902

  Criminal Records Bureau (Main): 0870 909 0811

  Criminal Records Bureau (Registration line): 0870 909 0822

  Criminal Records Bureau (Disclosure application line): 0870 909 0844

  Criminal Records Bureau (Minicom line): 0870 909 0344

  Prison Service: 0870 000 1397

  Main Home Office public inquiry line: 0870 000 1585.

  Decisions in all cases were taken on the basis of estimates of the cost to the Department, the cost to the customer, the likely volume of calls that might be generated if 0800, 0845 or 0870 numbers were used, and the impact that volume of calls might have on the levels of service provided.

  Additionally, for the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau number, the use of an 0870 number was agreed on the grounds that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) would reinvest any money earned back into improving the telephone bureau operation and thereby customer service. This has been done and £0.75 million was invested this spring in the purchase of a new switchboard with increased functionality.

  Metropolitan Police Trainees
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainee Metropolitan Police officers have had their 18 weeks' training extended to allow them to repeat written and practical assessments in each year since 1997; how much this has cost; and if he will make a statement. [58559]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police the Metropolis Police has provided the information in the following table:

  Year ended

  Number of officers who have had their training extended

  Representing percentage of overall number of officers trained

  31 December 1997

  1—

  n/a

  31 December 1998

  33

  2.6

  31 December 1999

  39

  3.2

  31 December 2000

  76

  7

  31 December 2001

  310

  14

  1 Figures not available

  There are two reasons for the increase in the number of officers who have had their training extended in the years

  849W
  ending December 2000 and 2001. There has been a significant increase in the numbers of new recruits to the Metropolitan Police Service, and the training school now places more emphasis on helping those officers who do not achieve the required standard within 18 weeks to achieve the appropriate level of competence by extending the basic training period. This is more efficient and cost effective than the previous approach, where it was more generally the case that the force would dispense with the services of officers failing to meet the required standard by the end of the 18-week foundation training course.

  The costs are not available.

  Police (Negotiations)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the timing of the publication of the conciliation details following negotiations with the Police Federation, on his Department's website; and what negotiations he has had with the Police Negotiating Board as a result. [54886]

  Mr. Denham
  On 24 October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) to explore and agree a package to modernise police pay and conditions of service. On 27 December 2001, the PNB reached agreement in principle, subject to ratification by all parties following consultation with their members. On 25 February, PNB failed to ratify the agreement reached on 27 December 2001. As required by the PNB Constitution, a period of conciliation followed. On 26 April, the conciliators for the official and staff sides of the PNB agreed on a recommendation for settlement. The details of the recommended conciliated settlement were placed on the Home Office website on the same day.

  Under the PNB Constitution, the conciliated settlement recommended by the conciliators for both sides has to be ratified by the full PNB. PNB meetings took place on 1 and 9 May. At the meeting on 9 May, the recommended conciliated settlement was ratified.

  Prisoners (Feltham)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many qualified teachers are employed at Feltham Young Offenders Institute on(a) full-time permanent contracts, (b) part-time permanent contracts, (c) full-time temporary contracts, (d) part-time temporary contracts and (e) agency basis; and if he will make a statement. [67310]

  Hilary Benn
  At Feltham, there are currently 14 teachers, including the head and deputies, on full-time permanent contracts. There are 30 teachers on part-time permanent contracts and two on full time temporary contracts.

  There are no teachers at Feltham on part-time temporary contracts, nor are any employed on an agency basis.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases involving domestic violence have been brought to court in each of the past five years; [59855]
  850W
  (2) how many men have been convicted of offences connected with domestic violence in each of the past five years. [59851]

  Mr. Denham
  Offences involving domestic violence are not identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings database as no specific statute covers such offences.

  Prosecutions brought might range from common assault to homicide depending on the level of violence, and as the circumstances of the offences for which prosecutions are brought are not collected centrally, offences involving domestic violence cannot be distinguished from other offences within these categories.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultation he intends to undertake in respect of guidance to police authorities on dealing with perpetrators of domestic violence within their ranks; [60449]

  (2) when he intends to publish guidance to police authorities on dealing with perpetrators of domestic violence within their ranks. [60452]

  Mr. Denham
  Work is in progress, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), to produce guidance to police authorities on dealing with perpetrators of domestic violence within police ranks. A target date will be set for issuing the guidance once the new ACPO lead takes up his post and consultation will take place with relevant bodies once the guidance is drafted. In addition to this, work is being undertaken on ensuring that police discipline procedures complement any guidance to be issued. Some police forces already have procedures in place to ensure they respond effectively to any indication that police staff may be perpetrating domestic violence and evidence of good practice may be incorporated into the guidance where appropriate.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full time equivalents were employed by his press office and (b) secondees were placed in his press office in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [70541]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 397W which detailed the number of press officers employed during the years 1997 to 2002.

  Records of secondees to the press office are not routinely kept as often they are at nil cost to the Department and may only be for periods of six weeks. The press office has had over the period of time in question a number of fast stream policy officials and immigration officers on attachments to the press office, usually for periods of around six months.

  Police Numbers (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time police officers there were in 1997 and each subsequent year in(a) Preston, (b) Blackburn, (c) the north west of England and (d) England; and how many there were in Lancashire in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, and (iii) 2000. [40682]
  851W
  Mr. Denham
  Information on police numbers for each force in each year since 1997 for the north-west region is set out in the table.

  North West region

  Force

  19971

  19981

  19991

  20001

  20011

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,257

  3,245

  3,179

  3,255

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,042

  2,071

  2,011

  2,002

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,164

  1,126

  1,084

  1,048

  Greater

  Manchester

  6,922

  6,949

  6,810

  6,795

  6,909

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,216

  4,211

  4,085

  4,081

  Total

  17,588

  17,216

  17,463

  17,154

  17,296

  England

  118,459

  118,139

  117,195

  115,324

  116,549

  1 As at 31 March.

  Note:

  Figures are for full-time equivalent strength.

  I understand from the Chief Constable that Preston is part of Central (D) Division of Lancashire Constabulary and that Blackburn is part of Eastern (E) Division. It is not possible to separate police strength for Blackburn and Preston from divisional strength. Information for the strength of these divisions has been provided by the Chief Constable.

  D and E Divisions police strength

  Year1

  D Division2

  E Division2

  1997

  383

  554

  1998

  382

  552

  1999

  370

  531

  2000

  380

  543

  2001

  389

  558

  1 As at 31 March.

  2 As at 31 January.

  Note:

  Figures are for full-time equivalent strength.

  Police and Crime Reduction Funds
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed transfer of money from police and crime reduction funds

  Targets for domestic burglary, vehicle crime and robbery

  Domestic burglary target

  Robbery target

  Vehicle crime

  Police forces

  No. targets set

  No. targets met

  Set

  Met

  Set

  Met

  Set

  Met

  Avon and Somerset

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Bedfordshire

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cheshire

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  City of London

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cleveland

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Cumbria

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dorset

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Durham

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dyfed-Powys1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Essex

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Gloucestershire

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Gwent

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  852W
  to research and statistics current spending and on the (a) research and (b) evaluative projects which this funding is intended to support. [22135]

  Mr. Denham
  The transfer of £9.8 million from policing and crime reduction to research and statistics was a technical adjustment to place the funding in the budget of the Home Office Directorate that would be taking forward this previously agreed work. The £9.8 million breaks down as:

  £7.4 million to fund external evaluation of crime reduction initiatives; and
  £2.4 million to develop the evidence base for sentencing and enforcement practices.

  The £7.4 million provision will cover evaluation of the following initiatives:

  Reducing burglary;

  Targeted policing;

  Treatment of offenders;

  Drug arrest referrals;

  School intervention;

  Domestic violence;

  Sentencing;

  "Tackling Prostitution—What Works?";

  Closed circuit television (CCTV); and

  a range of initiatives centred on design against crime.

  Police Targets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate, for each police force in England, the number of policing plan targets(a) set and (b) achieved for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [66885]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Government require police authorities to set targets in respect of Best Value indicators for domestic burglary, vehicle crime and, in five metropolitan areas, robbery. These five areas are: Merseyside; Greater Manchester; West Midlands; West Yorkshire; and the Metropolitan police. The information requested is not available for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The information requested for 2001–02 is shown in the table. Targets for all other indicators may be set locally by the police authority following consultation with their communities. Performance data are published annually in police authorities' Best Value Performance Plans.
  853W

  Targets for domestic burglary, vehicle crime and robbery

  Domestic burglary target

  Robbery target

  Vehicle crime

  Police forces

  No. targets set

  No. targets met

  Set

  Met

  Set

  Met

  Set

  Met

  Hampshire

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Humberside

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Kent

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Leicestershire

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Merseyside

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Metropolitan police

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Norfolk

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  North Wales

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  North Yorkshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Northamptonshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Northumbria

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  South Wales

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  South Yorkshire

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Staffordshire

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Suffolk

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Surrey

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Sussex

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Thames Valley

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  West Mercia

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  West Yorkshire1

  3

  0

  1

  —

  1

  0

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  England and Wales

  107

  25

  43

  9

  21

  0

  43

  16

  1 Have set targets for 2004–05.

  Pre-Sentence Reports
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the target for the percentage of pre-sentence reports done within the 15-day national standard has not been met. [68786]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Probation service national standards set out what the probation service is expected to deliver in respect of providing pre-sentence reports to the court. Performance is closely monitored and there is clear evidence of improvement in magistrates courts from 54.6 per cent. in 1996–97 to 79.5 per cent. in 2001–02. This is against a target of 90 per cent. The probation service is working with the courts to improve further performance in this area.

  Race Hate Literature
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to improve liaison between the police and the CPS regarding the prosecution of those responsible for race hate literature; and if he will make a statement. [36870]

  Mr. Denham
  Following discussions in the Lawrence Inquiry Steering Group meeting in October 2001, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has issued further guidance to staff. All cases, whether submitted for preliminary advice or as files for prosecution under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986, will be considered by a small team of lawyers within the Casework Directorate at CPS headquarters, in order to ensure that best practice is followed and that there is consistency in decision making. Local Chief Crown Prosecutors will ensure that Chief
  854W
  Constables are aware of this situation and of the ability of the CPS Casework Directorate to provide advice at any stage of an investigation.

  The Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers will discuss other possible measures, in particular a mechanism for pooling experience concerning cases of successful prosecution, at their next bilateral meeting.

  In addition, the Government have introduced, in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, changes to the law on incitement to racial hatred which expand the coverage of the offences to include hatred against groups abroad and which increase the maximum penalty for these offences from two to seven years' imprisonment.

  Darren Cowdrey
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have taken place into the injuries suffered by Darren Cowdrey, prisoner HJ 5552, in Wandsworth prison. [68934]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The police have investigated the incident to which the hon. Member refers. They are satisfied that no crime was committed. A member of Prison Service Construction Unit also visited Wandsworth to look at health and safety aspects of the incident.

  Kainos Rehabilitation Units
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Kainos rehabilitation units have been closed; if he will list the closure dates of such units; and it he will make a statement. [69482]
  855W
  Hilary Benn
  The Kainos Community programmes at Highpoint South and North prisons closed by mutual agreement on 31 January 2002 and 30 April 2002 respectively.

  The Prison Service is considering a proposal from Kainos Community to continue to run modified versions of the existing programmes at Swaleside and the Verne prisons, on a self funding basis.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use is made of(a) safety nets and (b) CCTV to reduce prisoner harm and self-harm in Wandsworth Prison. [68935]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Wandsworth prison has safety nets on every wing which, in addition to its other safety purposes, prevents prisoners from falling from the landings to the ground floor. Closed Circuit television (CCTV) is present in some areas of the prison, but not in the residential areas. In those areas of the prison where CCTV is present it might contribute to the prevention of self-harm but this is not its primary purpose.

  Voluntary Constables
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of voluntary constables was in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [60716]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of special constables in England and Wales from 1991 to 2001 are given in the table. From 1990 to 1995, statistics on the strength of the special constabulary in England and Wales were collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Thee were compiled at the end of the calendar year until 1993, and then for the financial year 1994–95. Since 1995, these statistics have been collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. They are compiled at the end of March and September each year.

  Figures

  December 1991

  17,543

  December 1992

  19,035

  December 1993

  20,573

  March 1995

  20,026

  September 1995

  19,655

  September 1996

  19,451

  September 1997

  19,163

  September 1998

  17,296

  September 1999

  15,727

  September 2000

  13,487

  September 2001

  12,068

  Figures to March 1995 supplied by HMIC, figures from September 1995 supplied by Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate

  Figures to march 1995 supplied by HMIC, figures from September 1995 supplied by Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate

  Special Constables are a key element of our police reform agenda. We are working on a package of measures designed to help reverse the decline in numbers by improving the way they are recruited, managed and
  856W
  deployed. We are particularly keen to improve liaison with employers—after all, Specials bring a wealth of training and experience in to their wider workplace. We are also publishing guidance on good practice by the end of this year. And we have set aside £300,000 to help "specials champions" drive forward initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of specials.

  Prisoners (Literacy and Numeracy)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners discharged from their sentence were at level 1 or below for literacy and numeracy skills in each year since 1998 to the latest available date. [69300]

  Hilary Benn
  The figures published by the Prison Service are as follows:

  Percentage discharged at level 1 or below for

  Numeracy

  Literacy

  2000–01

  67.6

  76.5

  2001–02

  65.7

  77.6

  No comparable data were collected before 2000–01. From 2000–01, delivery targets for literacy and numeracy in prisons have been for the number of basic skills qualifications achieved annually by prisoners. In 2000–01, prisoners achieved 12,500 basic skills qualifications at level 2, rising to nearly 16,000 in 2001–02. Targets for this year and next have been widened to cover the achievement of basic skills qualifications at all levels. This will help establishments to be more responsive to the range of prisoners' basic skills needs.

  The Government expects prisoners to achieve 28,800 basic skills qualifications in 2002–03 rising to 32,000 in 2003–04. By helping to equip prisoners with the skills they need to resettle effectively back into the community on release, these achievements will contribute to reduced rates of re-offending and to making communities safer.

  Investigatory Branch CIB 3
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by the investigatory branch CIB 3 have been received in the last four years. [69331]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the Metropolitan Police Service complaints and discipline system indicates that there have been six allegations of breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by officers from the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service's Directorate of Professional Standards (formerly CIB3) in the last four years.

  Police Standards
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the functions and compatibility of the Standards Unit and HMIC. [61180]
  857W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and the Standards Unit have separate and complementary roles. They work together to identify where forces and basic command unit's (BCUs) need support to improve their performance. HMIC will continue to report on performance across the whole service, alerting the Police Standards Unit (PSUs) where it believes its support is needed to improve performance: PSU by contrast will focus on particular areas where BCUs and forces need help to improve performance.

  In doing this, PSU will draw on advice from HMIC, monthly crime data by BCU and the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) (and other sources where available). Its early work includes developing analysis and assessment frameworks to make best use of police performance data and quality assurance processes to ensure the accuracy and reliability of this data.

  The Standards Unit will begin a programme of targeting support for forces and BCUs in the autumn. It will also provide funding to help the best BCUs to innovate and develop best practice.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to encourage former officers to rejoin the police service; and

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Budgeted provision1

  Actual expenditure

  Budgeted provision1

  Actual expenditure

  Budgeted provision1,2

  Reducing burglary

  13,800

  2,067

  19,830

  9,137

  20,185

  Locks for the over-60s

  0

  0

  5,150

  927

  5,530

  Summer schemes

  0

  0

  1,500

  1,890

  2,058

  Prostitution—what works

  0

  0

  500

  42

  1,049

  Targeted policing

  6,000

  509

  12,450

  9,696

  21,880

  'On Track'3

  500

  169

  12,500

  4,943

  2,819

  Innovation fund4

  0

  0

  9,000

  0

  0

  Vehicle crime publicity

  0

  0

  8,000

  8,000

  0

  Treatment of offenders

  5,300

  2,298

  8,000

  7,732

  7,411

  Drug arrest referrals

  2,000

  306

  9,000

  8,941

  10,874

  Schools intervention

  4,000

  205

  6,000

  6,832

  5,438

  Violence against women

  0

  90

  5,000

  2,007

  10,880

  Vehicle crime

  0

  0

  4,000

  505

  3,883

  Youth inclusion

  0

  0

  2,750

  2,750

  5,870

  Sentencing practices

  675

  332

  575

  866

  4,565

  Neighbourhood wardens

  0

  0

  1,500

  922

  4,047

  Design against crime

  500

  589

  1,500

  551

  1,138

  Arson control forum

  0

  0

  165

  118

  0

  Offenders index

  75

  75

  75

  266

  0

  Suzy Lamplugh Trust

  0

  0

  205

  205

  295

  Rape Crisis Federation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  838

  CCTV initiative5

  20,000

  5

  60,000

  23,460

  150,841

  Total6

  52,850

  6,645

  167,700

  89,790

  259,601

  1 The voted provision for 1999–2000 and 2000–01—as published in the Home Office annual report for 2000—was £60 million and £160 million respectively. The budgeted provision figures for these years in the table above differ from those in that report because they reflect updated profiles of planned expenditure. The figures for 200–102 take into account the effects of the SR 2000 Settlement.

  2 Shows the amounts required to roll out the remaining projects under these initiatives. Some of this expenditure will be incurred in 2002–03.

  3 Balance of funding transferred to DfEE for completion of programme.

  4 Funding reallocated to other projects.

  5 Provision comes from the Capital Modemisation Fund. Includes £4.6 million for CCTV in police vehicles.

  6 The total figure excludes central and regional programme support costs, which are not allocated to particular initiatives.

  858W
  if applications from such people will be treated in the same way as those from (a) new recruits and (b) officers seeking a transfer from another force. [45874]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Home Office issues guidelines on recruitment which do not distinguish between new applicants and those seeking to rejoin the police service. Once appointed, depending on individual circumstances, officers rejoining may not be required to complete the full period of probation or to undertake the initial training programme.

  The Home Office does not issue guidance to forces about applications from transferees.

  The range of measures we have taken to improve recruitment and retention generally, and the reform we are implementing may encourage former offices to consider rejoining.

  Crime Reduction Fund
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each initiative in each year since the start of the Crime Reduction Fund, indicating(a) the amount budgeted for each initiative and in total in each year to date and (b) the total expended for each initiative and in total in each year of the initiative to date; and if he will make a statement. [37672]

  Mr. Denham
  The information, covering project grant, e valuation and running costs, is as follows:

  Heathrow (Security)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerning thefts and robberies at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement. [46203]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis meet regularly to discuss issues relevant at the time, including the Metropolitan police's response to high profile incidents. The Government are considering what further measures are necessary to improve airport security.

  Operation Rose
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to Operation Rose in Northumbria, how many individuals were(a) suspected of child abuse and (b) arrested in connection with charges of child abuse; of the people arrested, how many were subsequently released; how many of the suspects were charged; of the people charged, how many people had the charges against them dropped before going to court; how many individuals were taken to court who pleaded not guilty to the allegations made against them; how many people were taken to court who pleaded guilty to the allegations made against them; how many cases were discontinued and what were the reasons for discontinuance; how many complaints were received and how many suspects and complainants were identified; of the cases sent to the CPS, how many were (i) accepted, (ii) referred for further information and (iii) rejected; what the total cost associated with Operation Rose was, including direct costs of salaries and expenses of officers involved; what defence costs were awarded against the Crown; and who or which organisation has reviewed the way in which Operation Rose was conducted. [49833]

  Mr. Denham
  197 individuals were regarded by the police as possible suspects in the course of Operation Rose, of whom 60 were arrested in connection with charges of child abuse. 28 of these 60 were subsequently released and 32 charged. A further 26 cases were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for review, but no charges were laid in any of these cases. The CPS reviewed each case before charges were brought, with the result that no case in which charges had been brought was discontinued. 31 of those charged pleaded not guilty to the allegations made against them, and one pleaded guilty. Five of these 31 were convicted. In total 530 complaints were received in the course of the operation; all complainants were identified.

  The total cost associated with Operation Rose, including direct costs of salaries and expenses of officers involved, amounted to £5 million. No defence costs were awarded against the Crown—costs were awarded out of central funds. All the agencies involved in Operation Rose—police, CPS, social services and health—have since reviewed the processes involved in the investigation.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define working at the sharp end, as quoted in the Home Office police briefing, January 2001. [48289]
  860W
  Mr. Denham
  The briefing note stated that "we want to bring in a new scheme to target extra rewards at those working at the sharp end of public service, doing the most difficult and demanding jobs". On 9 May, the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) agreed a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service, including such a scheme.

  Under the special priority payment scheme, it will be for chief officers and police authorities to draw up local schemes, taking account of national criteria and any guidance issued by the Home Secretary. They will also have to consult local staff associations.

  Posts may qualify for payment where they:

  Carry a significantly higher responsibility level than the norm for the rank; or
  Present particular difficulties in recruitment and retention; or
  Have specially demanding working conditions or working environments.

  Officers in qualifying posts will receive a one-off payment at the end of the year of not less than £500 and not more than £3,000 normally, although exceptionally payments of up to £5,000 may be made.

  In the first year of the scheme's operation (2003), forces will have to spend a minimum of 1 per cent. of the force's annual basic paybill for all ranks up to and including chief superintendent, rising to 1.5 per cent. in the second year and 2 per cent. in the third year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy where family ties are claimed to the UK in third country cases. [72780]

  Beverley Hughes
  The policy on the exercise of discretion in safe third country cases where family ties to the United Kingdom are claimed is that potential third country cases would normally have their asylum claims considered substantively in this country where:

  (a) an applicant's spouse is in the United Kingdom;

  (b) the applicant is an unmarried minor and a parent is in the United Kingdom;

  (c) the applicant has an unmarried minor child in the United Kingdom.

  The policy in (a) would not be applied in cases where a marriage was contracted after the applicant's arrival in the United Kingdom. In all cases "in the United Kingdom" is to be taken as meaning with leave to enter or remain or on temporary admission to this country as an asylum seeker prior to an initial decision on their application.

  Discretion may be exercised according to the merits of the case where:

  (d) a married minor was involved but the criteria in (b) or (c) above were otherwise fulfilled. (We would be less likely to consider cases under (c) than (b) under these circumstances).

  (e) the applicant was an elderly or otherwise dependent parent;

  (f) the family link was not one which would normally be considered but there was clear evidence that the applicant was wholly or mainly dependent on the relative in the United Kingdom and that there was an absence of similar support elsewhere.

  861W
  I would expect cases falling into this latter category to be rare.

  Factors which might influence the exercise of discretion in these cases, such as language, cultural links or the number of family members in the United Kingdom may have a bearing, but there would need to be a compelling combination of such factors to ensure the exercise of discretion in favour of an applicant.

  Cases citing family ties which would not normally be considered and which did not display any of the features, which engaged the exercise of discretion, would not normally be considered substantively. This means that a brother, who was not dependent on his sibling(s), would not normally have his case considered here, no matter how strong his cultural or linguistic links with the United Kingdom.

  The intention of the policy is to re-unite members of an existing family unit who, through circumstances outside their control, had become fragmented. However, I emphasise that where the relationship did not exist prior to the person's arrival to the United Kingdom, the policy would only be applied in the most exceptionally compelling cases.

  I am satisfied that this policy complies with the United Kingdom's obligations as regards the European Convention on Human Rights and that it is consistent with our obligations under the Dublin Convention, as set out in Article 1 of Decision 1–2000 of the Committee set up by Article 18 of the Dublin Convention concerning the transfer of responsibility for family members in accordance with Article 3(4) and Article 9 of the Convention.

  Public Protection
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the first multi-agency public protection annual report; and if he will make a statement on the publication of local area reports. [72778]

  Hilary Benn
  I am today publishing the first Multi-Agency Public Protection Annual Report (MAPPA) annual report, a copy of which is being placed in the Library. Local police and probation areas will from tomorrow begin to publish their own reports, and these will provide the public with information on the number of offenders covered by the arrangements.

  The work done in the past year by the Multi Agency Public Protection Panel in managing risk has contributed to a higher level of public protection from potentially dangerous offenders in the community.

  Our aim is that the MAPPA process should be transparent and that members of the public should be able to see what is being done on its behalf. That is why the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 requires each area to publish a report detailing the work it has done in the past year. That is also why I announced last month that members of the public were being invited to apply to sit on the boards overseeing these arrangements in five pilot areas.
  862W
  In seeing the information which these reports now make available for the first time, I hope the public will be reassured by the work being done on their behalf.

  Nuclear Installations (Policing)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost of policing nuclear sites from terrorist attacks for the years(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [70891]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary's annual reports provide overall outturn for financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 which were £20.6 million and £21.2 million respectively. The annual report for 2001–02 has not yet been published. The figures are not broken down since the Constabulary's responsibilities include protecting material and sites from theft and sabotage.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the costs of his proposals to create a civil nuclear constabulary. [70892]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As affirmed in the White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy" the Government intend to separate the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary from the UKAEA and reconstitute it as a stand-alone force, overseen by a statutory Police Authority, in order to make it independent of the nuclear industry and provide improved governance arrangements. The constabulary's role, which has remained broadly unchanged since its inception in 1954, is to protect specified nuclear sites and escort sensitive nuclear material in transit. It is not envisaged that reconstitution will affect its size, role or the locations where it serves.

  Estimates of the costs associated with setting up and operating the constabulary as a standalone force are included in the report of the quinquennial review of the UKAEA which was placed in the Libraries of the House in November 2001. The estimated costs comprise (at 2000–01 levels):
  Additional running costs—£170,000 per annum.
  One-off costs on separation from UKAEA, including new hardware/software for finance/payroll management, legal and financial advice (including setting up a transfer scheme), project management support, transitional recruitment and training costs and rebadging—£1,120,000.

  Retail Crime
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 605W, on retail crime, if he will list for each regional crime reduction director the amount spent on business crime reduction in 2001–02. [69807]

  Mr. Denham
  The following table sets out the amounts spent by regional crime reduction directors on business, (Including retail) crime reduction initiatives in 2001–02 and shows these as a proportion of their total spending on
  863W
  crime reduction initiatives. These figures do not include funding spent on non-specific schemes, such as town centre close circuit television, which will usually benefit businesses in the areas where they operate and which will often have been identified as a priority in consultation with the business community.

  The Home Office does not record the amounts spent on retail crime partnerships in each of the 376 statutory crime and disorder partnerships.

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Rigion

  Spend on business crime, including retail crime, projects in 2001–02 (£)

  Column 2 as a proportion of annual spending of regional crime reduction directors in 2001–02 (Percentage)

  Eastern

  132,262

  1.0

  East Midlands

  221,064

  1.4

  London

  336,225

  1.1

  North East

  262,718

  2.4

  North West

  952,162

  3.9

  South East

  251,500

  1.4

  South West

  94,549

  0.7

  Wales

  132,262

  1.6

  West Midlands

  469,199

  2.6

  Yorkshire and Humber

  325,128

  1.7

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Howe Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 605W, to the hon. Member for Brighton. Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), on retail crime, if he will list for each regional crime reduction director the annual budget for crime reduction in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [69808]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  Region

  2001–02 (Expenditure)

  2002–03 (Budget)

  East

  13,569

  10,472

  East Midlands

  15,938

  13,277

  London

  31,911

  37,863

  North East

  11,063

  10,081

  North West

  24,496

  27,729

  South East

  18,409

  21,487

  South West

  12,826

  17,102

  Wales

  8,080

  10,162

  West Midlands

  18,297

  18,504

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,346

  23,593

  Total

  173,935

  190,270

  Funding covers measures and interventions under a range of programmes; the Crime Reduction Programme, Safer Communities Initiative, Communities Against Drugs, Partnership Development Fund (interim allocation for 2002–03), Security for Small Retailers in Deprived Areas.

  Crime Reduction Directors also work with their Colleagues in the Government Offices for the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales to ensure that crime
  864W
  reduction is reflected in the delivery of other Departments' programmes. Total funds spent on combating crime in the regions go wider than those administered through Regional Crime Directors.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority is given to protecting medical confidentiality in combating abusive sexual relations. [69758]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The circumstances in which confidential information about individuals can be disclosed are governed by the common law duty of confidence. This legal obligation in no way constrains health professionals and others who hold confidential information from disclosing such information appropriately where children are at risk.

  The Department issued guidance entitled "The Protection and Use of Patient Information" to the national health service in March 1996. This explains that patient information should only be released on a need to know basis if it is required by statute or the courts, is supported by the consent of the individual, or if it is judged that there is a strong public interest justification in disclosure which overrides the duty of confidence to the patient. For example, in circumstances where failure to do so may expose the patient or others to a risk of death or serious harm or the information is needed to prevent serious crime. Disclosure of information in the public interest is a matter of professional judgment and must be decided on a case by case basis by the health professional responsible for the patient's care.

  In child protection cases, the overriding principle is to secure the best interests of the child. Therefore, if a health professional has knowledge of abuse or neglect they may disclose relevant information to an appropriate person or authority where disclosure is felt to be in the medical interests of the child patient.

HEALTH

  Contraception
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of contraception and contraceptive devices have been prescribed(a) to persons over 16 and (b) to persons of each age group under 16 in each year since 1990. [44285]

  Ms Blears
  Tables showing first contacts with women at family planning clinics by primary method of birth control are as follows. It should be noted that family planning clinics account for only about one fifth of prescriptions for contraceptives to women of all ages; over two-thirds of contraceptive prescriptions in England are provided by general practitioners.

  It should also be noted that these figures count only once those women who have attended family planning clinics more than once in a 12 month period.
  865W

  First contacts with women at family planning clinics by primary method of birth control and age, 1991–92 to 2000–01

  Number of first contacts (thousand)

  1992–93

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Primary method

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Total all methods

  18.5

  882.7

  22.4

  858.7

  31.7

  835.2

  44.7

  832.4

  51.4

  835.7

  Oral contraceptives-total

  13.0

  506.8

  13.9

  482.3

  18.0

  464.0

  24.9

  461.2

  25.4

  433.7

  Combined preparation

  12.8

  448.4

  13.7

  427.6

  17.6

  411.9

  24.5

  410.7

  24.9

  385.0

  Progestogen-only

  0.2

  58.4

  0.2

  54.7

  0.3

  52.0

  0.4

  50.5

  0.5

  48.7

  IUD

  0.1

  94.9

  0.1

  81.7

  0.1

  73.2

  0.1

  64.2

  0.1

  59.5

  Cap/diaphragm

  0.1

  58.9

  0.1

  50.1

  0.1

  42.0

  0.1

  35.9

  0.1

  32.4

  Injectable contraceptive

  0.2

  19.7

  0.3

  23.1

  0.3

  27.7

  0.5

  35.1

  0.7

  40.7

  Other chemicals

  0.0

  5.1

  0.0

  5.2

  0.1

  4.9

  0.1

  5.6

  0.1

  5.3

  Male condom

  4.4

  167.8

  7.1

  189.0

  11.4

  185.3

  17.2

  205.9

  22.5

  234.5

  Female condom1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  11.8

  0.2

  2.5

  0.3

  3.1

  Rhythm method

  0.0

  1.1

  0.0

  1.2

  0.0

  0.8

  0.0

  0.9

  0.0

  0.7

  Female sterilisation

  0.0

  2.3

  0.0

  2.3

  0.0

  2.2

  0.0

  0.9

  0.0

  1.3

  Implant2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  1.9

  Other methods

  0.7

  26.0

  0.9

  23.8

  1.2

  23.3

  1.6

  20.0

  2.2

  22.8

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Primary method

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Under 16

  16 & over

  Total all methods

  54.6

  865.4

  55.0

  861.4

  53.8

  862.3

  56.3

  860.0

  62.1

  852.8

  Oral contraceptives-total

  23.0

  419.9

  22.7

  413.4

  21.8

  399.6

  22.7

  400.9

  23.9

  396.2

  Combined preparation

  22.5

  369.9

  22.2

  364.2

  21.1

  351.6

  21.7

  319.9

  22.8

  315.2

  Progestogen-only

  0.5

  50.1

  0.5

  49.2

  0.7

  48.0

  1.1

  30.8

  1.1

  32.0

  IUD

  0.1

  63.1

  0.1

  62.0

  0.2

  63.2

  0.2

  66.4

  0.2

  64.6

  Cap/diaphragm

  0.1

  28.8

  0.1

  22.7

  0.1

  18.2

  0.0

  14.9

  0.0

  12.4

  Injectable contraceptive

  1.0

  47.3

  1.2

  50.9

  1.3

  55.5

  1.5

  60.9

  2.0

  69.5

  Other chemicals

  0.1

  5.3

  0.1

  3.7

  0.1

  4.4

  0.1

  4.6

  0.1

  3.1

  Male condom

  27.1

  266.1

  27.0

  271.6

  26.2

  272.4

  27.6

  265.5

  30.9

  251.9

  Female condom

  0.2

  3.0

  0.3

  3.0

  0.2

  3.0

  0.2

  1.8

  0.2

  1.6

  Rhythm method

  0.0

  0.9

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  0.7

  0.1

  1.2

  Female sterilisation

  0.0

  1.3

  0.0

  1.4

  0.0

  1.2

  0.0

  1.3

  0.0

  1.3

  Implant2

  0.1

  4.2

  0.0

  l.3

  0.0

  1.3

  0.0

  2.4

  0.1

  3.3

  Other methods

  3.0

  25.5

  3.5

  31.0

  3.9

  43.1

  3.8

  40.7

  4.6

  47.7

  1 Information about the female condom was first collected from 1993–94

  2 Information about implants was first collected from 1995–96

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics Division SD2B, Form KT31

  NHS Trust Staff
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what positions the(a) Chief Executive and (b) Director of Performance Management at the South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust, criticised at the time of the publication of the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments of waiting lists, now hold in the NHS; [56925]

  (2) what positions the (a) Chief Executive and (b) Deputy Chief Executive at Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, criticised at the time of the publication of the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments of waiting lists, now hold in the NHS; [56922]

  (3) what positions the (a) Chief Executive and (b) General Manager in Surgery and Specialist Services at Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust, criticised at the time of the publication of the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments of waiting lists, now hold in the NHS; [56923]

  (4) what positions the (a) Chief Executive and (b) Assistant Director of Operations (Surgery) at the Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust criticised at the time of the publication of the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments of waiting lists now hold in the NHS; [56926]
  866W
  (5) what positions the (a) Admissions Department Manager, (b) two directors of operations and (c) Chief Executive, criticised at the time of the Trust inquiry into waiting list maladministration at the Barts and the London NHS Trust, now hold in the NHS; [56929]

  (6) what position the Chief Executive at the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust criticised at the time of publication of the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments of waiting lists now holds in he NHS; [56927]

  (7) what positions the (a) Chief Executive and (b) Director of Operations at the Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, criticised at the time of the publication of the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments of waiting lists, now hold in the NHS; [56924]

  (8) what positions the (a) Chief Executive and (b) the Chief Operating Officer at Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Crust, criticised in the Audit Commission report into inappropriate adjustments in waiting lists, now hold in the NHS. [56930]

  Mr. Hutton
  Part 2 paragraph 12 of the Open Government Code of Practice prohibits the disclosure of personal information about any person which would constitute or could facilitate an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
  867W
  Of the 17 postholders referred to in the hon. Member's parliamentary questions:

  three are working in national health service trusts

  two are working in primary care trusts

  four are working in health authorities

  and the remainder are not known to be working in the NHS.

  Regional Organisations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by his Department have a regional organisation; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58941]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is provided in the table which is in the Library. Of the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies, only the National Health Service Estates Agency had a regional structure in 1997. Currently only the National Care Standards Commission, which was established in 2002, has a regional structure.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 740W, on hospital discharges, (1) where and when the target for a reduction in the number of people experiencing delayed discharge by 20 per cent. between March 2002 and March 2003 was published; [65186]

  (2) what his target is for the reduction in the number of bed days lost through people experiencing delayed discharge from hospital. [65185]

  Jacqui Smith
  The 20 per cent. target figure was published in the Department's "Priorities and Planning Framework 2002–03" in December 2001, which is available on the Department's website. There is no target for bed days lost. We expect that there will be an increase in the number of available bed days as a consequence of the reduction in numbers of patients delayed, in line with that seen over the last two quarters of 2001–02.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when his Department last reviewed guidance on hospital discharge with respect to carers' needs; and what arrangements are in place to monitor compliance with the guidance; [65104]

  (2) if he will undertake an evaluation of the appropriateness of support offered to carers as part of strategies to reduce the number of delayed discharges from hospital. [65103]

  Jacqui Smith
  Carer support and strength of caring arrangements are two of the areas assessed when putting together a care plan for the patient leaving hospital. The written care plan which the patient is given includes the support carers are willing and able to offer.

  The Hospital Discharge Workbook, issued in 1994, gives guidance to the national health service, social services and other agencies on hospital discharge procedures. The Workbook emphasises that the patient
  868W
  and carer should be made fully aware of arrangements for discharge and understand fully what is going to happen. The chief executive of the hospital trust is responsible for ensuring that discharges take place appropriately. We are revising the workbook and will incorporate the needs of carers.

  Psycho-surgery
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into psycho-surgery in the last five years. [67610]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC has not supported any research in this area in the last five years. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  The Department directly funds research into policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care, and provides national health service support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities in the NHS. The Department has not supported any work in this area in the last five years.

  Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. Details of research projects funded by, or of interest to, the national health service are available on the National Research Register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm

  Consultant Psychiatrists
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy rate was for consultant psychiatrists in(a) England and (b) each region in each of the last six years. [67710]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of consultants in post in the psychiatry group has increased from 2,808 in September 1999 to 3,030 in March 2002. This is an increase of 8 per cent.

  The national health service vacancy survey has only been conducted in March each year since 1999. The survey collects information on the number of posts which trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more.

  There are six specialities within the psychiatry group. In 2001, the vacancy survey focused on specialties that were considered particularly problematic. For this reason, only four of the six specialties were collected.

  Increased vacancies are to be expected at a time when we are trying to dramatically increase the size of the workforce. New investment enables NHS trusts to create new posts; however, there can be a delay in providing sufficient staff for all the posts.

  Available information is shown in the tables.
  869W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 1999 Vacancies in NHS trusts by region, psychiatry group, 3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  Psychiatry group (consultant)

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  England

  6.7

  170

  2,360

  2,630

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7.3

  20

  290

  320

  Trent

  4.0

  10

  230

  250

  West Midlands

  9.0

  20

  220

  240

  North West

  10.5

  30

  280

  310

  Eastern

  4.4

  10

  210

  230

  London

  5.5

  30

  510

  600

  South East

  6.2

  20

  370

  420

  South West

  7.5

  20

  200

  230

  Special HAs

  0.0

  0

  40

  50

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 1999 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 1998 medical and dental census (whole time equivalent).

  3 Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  3. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  4. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 1999.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census 1998.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2000 Vacancies in NHS trusts by region, psychiatry group, 3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  Psychiatry group (consultant)

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  England

  6.9

  190

  2,520

  2,810

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7.7

  30

  310

  340

  Trent

  5.0

  10

  240

  260

  West Midlands

  11.4

  30

  240

  260

  North West

  7.9

  30

  290

  330

  Eastern

  6.0

  10

  210

  240

  London

  7.4

  40

  550

  640

  South East

  4.7

  20

  400

  460

  South West

  2.2

  10

  220

  250

  Special HAs

  15.6

  10

  50

  50

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2000 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three months vacancies plus staff in post from the September 1999 medical and dental workforce census (whole time equivalent).

  3 Vacancy and staff in post number are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  3. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  4. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2000.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census 1999.
  870W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2001 Vacancies in NHS trusts by region, consultants in the specified areas of work, 3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  Forensic psychiatry (consultants)

  England

  5.2

  10

  150

  160

  Northern and Yorkshire

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  Trent

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  West Midlands

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  North West

  18.2

  0

  10

  10

  Eastern

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  London

  8.5

  0

  40

  50

  South East

  7.7

  0

  10

  20

  South West

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Special HAs

  2.7

  0

  40

  40

  General psychiatry (consultants)

  England

  7.8

  130

  1,490

  1,650

  Northern and Yorkshire

  8.2

  20

  170

  180

  Trent

  4.0

  10

  140

  160

  West Midlands

  11.0

  20

  130

  140

  North West

  12.2

  30

  180

  190

  Eastern

  5.8

  10

  110

  120

  London

  7.5

  30

  380

  430

  South East

  10.2

  30

  230

  260

  South West

  1.3

  0

  150

  170

  Special HAs

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Darning disabilities (consultants)

  England

  13.3

  30

  170

  180

  Northern and Yorkshire

  13.5

  10

  30

  30

  Trent

  26.3

  10

  10

  20

  West Midlands

  8.3

  0

  20

  20

  North West

  21.7

  10

  20

  20

  Eastern

  10.3

  0

  30

  30

  London

  12.2

  0

  20

  20

  South East

  11.1

  0

  20

  30

  South West

  6.7

  0

  10

  10

  Special HAs

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Old age psychiatry (consultants)

  England

  9.3

  30

  310

  330

  Northern and Yorkshire

  10.0

  10

  60

  60

  Trent

  11.4

  0

  30

  30

  West Midlands

  7.9

  0

  30

  40

  North West

  14.6

  10

  40

  40

  Eastern

  16.1

  10

  30

  30

  London

  2.3

  0

  40

  50

  South East

  8.5

  10

  50

  60

  South West

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  Special HAs

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental workforce census (whole time equivalent).

  3 Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4 Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  5 Figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is less than 10.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  3. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  4. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census 2000.
  871W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002 Vacancies in NHS trusts by region, total psychiatry group of consultants, 3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers

  Psychiatry group (consultants)

  3 month vacancy rates (percentage)

  3 month vacancies

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  England

  8.5

  250

  2710

  3,030

  Northern and Yorkshire

  10.8

  40

  330

  350

  Trent

  6.1

  20

  280

  300

  West Midlands

  9.3

  30

  280

  290

  North West

  12.2

  40

  300

  330

  Eastern

  8.6

  20

  250

  280

  London

  6.8

  50

  620

  730

  South East

  7.5

  30

  390

  480

  South West

  7.7

  20

  250

  260

  Special HAs

  7.7

  0

  10

  10

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2002 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post form this survey.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  3. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  4. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Mini Census 2002.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been referred from the health authorities in Kent for operations abroad in the last 12 months; and of those completed(a) what proportion showed serious post-operative complications and (b) what the cost was in each case. [68859]

  Mr. Hutton
  Earlier this year East Kent Health Authority referred 96 patients to La Louvière Polyclinique in Lille as part of the pilot scheme to refer national health service patients overseas for routine elective surgery.

  Information about post-operative complication rates arising after surgery is not collected centrally from the NHS. NHS organisations may collect and analyse this kind of information, among other indicators of quality, as part of their local clinical governance arrangements designed to assure and continuously improve the quality of care for all NHS patients. The NHS is responsible for ensuring that NHS patients receive high clinical standards of care wherever they are treated.

  As is standard practice with contracts between the NHS and independent health care providers, the prices for particular procedures are confidential. The total cost of treatment and travel for the East Kent patients treated during the pilot was approximately £576,000.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the total cost to date has been of treating NHS patients abroad under contract; [68036]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the complication rates arising from (a) treatment carried out abroad under the NHS and (b) NHS treatment in the UK since NHS treatment abroad began. [68035]
  872W
  Mr. Hutton
  The total cost of treatment and travel for the patients treated between January and April 2002 during the pilot scheme in south east England to refer national health service patients overseas for routine elective surgery was approximately £1.1 million.

  Information about "complication rates" arising after surgery is not collected centrally from the NHS. NHS organisations may collect and analyse this kind of information, among other indicators of quality, as part of their local clinical governance arrangements designed to assure and continuously improve the quality of care for all NHS patients. The NHS is responsible for ensuring that NHS patients receive high clinical standards of care wherever they are treated.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Health Ministers of the devolved Administrations on the use of PFI and PPP in the health service. [68073]

  Mr. Hutton
  No discussions have been held with Health Ministers of the devolved Administrations on the use of private finance initiative and public private partnership in the health service.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly care homes were(a) publicly and (b) privately funded in the last five years, broken down by region. [68526]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authority staffed care homes are entirely funded by local authority social services while independent care homes are partially funded by social services through fees towards supported residents. Table 1 shows the number of residential local authority staffed homes and Table 2 the number of independent residential and nursing care homes for older people by national health service region from 1997 to 2001 at 31 March each year.

  Table 1: Number of local authority staffed residential care homes for older1 people from 1997 to 2001

  NHS regions

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Eastern

  160

  160

  140

  130

  120

  London

  160

  160

  140

  130

  110

  North West

  220

  220

  220

  200

  190

  Northern and Yorkshire

  250

  240

  220

  220

  210

  South East

  250

  210

  200

  190

  180

  South West

  120

  120

  120

  110

  100

  Trent

  190

  170

  160

  160

  150

  West Midlands

  140

  200

  160

  140

  140

  Total

  1,500

  1,470

  1,360

  1,270

  1,190

  1 Includes local authority staffed care homes for older mentally infirm people.

  Notes:

  1. Figures at 31 March each year.

  2. All figures are rounded numbers.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.
  873W

  Table 2: Number of independent residential and nursing1 care homes for older2 people from 1997 to 2001

  NHS regions

  19973

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Eastern

  1,510

  1,550

  1,540

  1.490

  1,470

  London

  1,290

  1,350

  1,340

  1,310

  1,300

  North West

  2,720

  2,920

  2,900

  2,840

  2,700

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,190

  2,370

  2,340

  2,310

  2,200

  South East

  3,630

  3,720

  3.640

  3,430

  3,170

  South West

  3,500

  3,120

  3,000

  2.790

  2,680

  Trent

  1,980

  3,030

  2,070

  2,020

  1,950

  West Midlands

  1,890

  1,870

  1,820

  1,740

  1,690

  Total

  18,700

  18,910

  18,650

  17,910

  17,160

  1 Includes private hospitals and clinics.

  2 Includes independent residential care homes for older mentally infinn people.

  3 Information on nursing beds relates to registered beds during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Notes:

  1. Figures at 31 March each year.

  2. All figures are rounded numbers.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.

  London Health Authorities
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was allocated to assist the provision of community mental health services by London health authorities in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; [69961]

  (2) how much was allocated to London health authorities to assist the provision of interpreting and translation services in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; [69960]

  (3) how much was allocated to assist the provision of services for rough sleepers by the London health authorities in (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [69962]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national weighted capitation formula, which sets target fair shares for health authorities, includes adjustments for rough sleepers, interpreting and translation services and community mental health services.

  However, no specific sums are identified separately in allocations.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what circumstances the moment(a) when an employee is confirmed in post, (b) when a provisional offer of a job is given and (c) any offer of employment is given will be the trigger for a registered person to seek a Criminal Records Bureau disclosure; and if he will make a statement. [70313]

  (2) how often registered persons will be required to review Criminal Records Bureau disclosures in respect of employees and other affected persons in connection with the Care Home Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [70320]

  (3) what investigations his Department made regarding the capacity of the Criminal Records Bureau to process requests for disclosure before he made his regulations for care home standards. [70312]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Care Homes Regulations require Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks to be satisfactorily completed before a person can be 874W
  permanently employed in a care home. The national care standards commission will need to satisfy itself that appropriate checks have been completed, in order to protect the care home's residents. Subject to this, it is for individual care home owners to decide when to apply for criminal record checks in respect of any person they plan to employ.

  There is no statutory requirement to review CRB checks once obtained. However, under the previous regulatory arrangements it was standard practice for further police checks to be undertaken after a three year period in respect of owners, managers and staff in children's homes.

  While drafting the Care Homes Regulations 2001, the department kept in contact with the Home Office about the establishment of the CRB. The department was satisfied that the CRB would be able to meet the demands for disclosures. The CRB has experienced early operating difficulties which have lead to delays in responding to applications for Disclosure, measures are being taken to overcome these. We are determined that the CRB will be in a position as soon as possible to meet the high standards of service that it has made clear it will deliver to its customers. The short-term implications for particular service areas using the CRB service are being closely monitored.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health ho has responsibility for(a) co-ordinating the international recruitment efforts throughout England's eight regions, (b) ensuring consistent standards and cost-effective best practice in employment, (c) developing agreements between Governments, (d) ensuring international co-operation and the recruitment and exchange of health care professionals and (e) ensuring that developing countries are protected from targeted recruitment. [71505]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service employment branch of the human resources directorate at the department has responsibility for the policies on international recruitment, including issuing guidance to the NHS and establishing government to government agreements.

  Workforce development confederations work with the NHS to ensure that recruitment is carried out in line with the Code of Practice for international recruitment and in a cost effective manner.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 781W, on international recruitment, how many international nurse recruitment agencies (a) have failed to adhere to the code of practice and (b) NHS organisations have been instructed not to deal with; [71573]

  (2) when the final list of nursing agencies which comply to the code of practice on ethical nursing recruitment will be posted on his website. [71506]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has written to 45 agencies inviting them to provide references from national health service employers to confirm that they are complying to the principles of the Code of Practice.

  The list of agencies who have submitted references will he placed on the website on 1 August.
  875W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many international recruitment co-ordinators there are in each NHS region; and what their budget is for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [71507]

  Mr. Hutton
  Work force development confederations employ individuals to lead on international recruitment. Some work force development confederations have pooled resources to appoint co-ordinators across boundaries. The table shows the number of co-ordinators in each directorate of health and social care.

  Number of co-ordinators

  South

  6

  Midlands and Eastern

  5

  North

  5

  London

  3

  The first regional international recruitment co-ordinators took up post late in 2000–01. £6 million was available to them for recruitment, retention and return. In 2002‱0 £1 million to date has been devolved to the national health service for international recruitment. Funding for 2003–04 has yet to be agreed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of the Director for International Recruitment in 2001–02. [71574]

  Mr. Hutton
  In accordance with the human resources policy of the Department, all staff working for the Department are appraised but the content and outcomes of the appraisal are confidential.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will publish their annual report and accounts. [72227]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual report and accounts has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those mental health trusts which have(a) expanded and (b) reduced the numbers of physiotherapists in the last 12 months. [70389]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of physiotherapists employed by the national health service is collected by the Department's non-medical work force census.

  In 2001,14 new mental health trusts were established. These new trusts are the result of restructuring parts of 30 other organisations where mental health services were provided in 2000. In some cases, the organisation that existed in 2000 has gone, split partly into a new mental health trust and partly into another acute trust. In other cases, the 2000 organisation still exists, but without its mental health services division.

  As a result of these changes, it is not possible to compare the latest available figures with those front previous reporting years.
  876W
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the role of physiotherapy in the treatment and rehabilitation of mental health patients; and if he will make a statement. [70394]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received six parliamentary questions from the hon. Member and one letter from Catherine Pope, chair of the Society of Chartered Physiotherapists. I can confirm that the national service framework for mental health emphasises the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to care and treatment, and that there is good evidence that regular physical activity reduces the risk of depression and has positive benefits for mental health. This is important for people with severe mental illness who may be at particular risk of physical ill health. However, decisions about the configuration of services are a local matter, in the context of national guidance, following "Shifting the Balance of Power".

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists are employed in mental health trusts in each strategic health authority. [70395]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of physiotherapists employed in mental health trusts listed by strategic health authority. It should be noted that physiotherapists are also employed in mental health units of other national health service trusts.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified physiotherapists employed by mental health trusts, by strategic health authority area, in England, as at 30 September 2001

  Head count

  All staff

  640

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  30

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  10

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  10

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  90

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1—

  Dorset and Somerset

  10

  Essex

  60

  Greater Manchester

  1—

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  10

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  20

  North Central London

  1—

  North East London

  1—

  North West London

  70

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  30

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  80

  South East London

  20

  South West London

  10

  South West Peninsula

  10

  Surrey and Sussex

  50

  Thames Valley

  10

  Trent

  50

  West Yorkshire

  80

  1 Five or less and greater than zero

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions the Mental Health Care Group Workforce team has had regarding the role of physiotherapy in the treatment of mental health patients and disseminating best practice. [70391]
  877W
  Jacqui Smith
  The mental health care group workforce team is looking at issues relating to the patient pathway through mental health services. As yet, no specific discussions have been held concerning the role of physiotherapists. However, issues relating to specific staff groups will be addressed in due course.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the planned closure of the specialist mental health physiotherapy team at Oxleas NHS Trust accords with the Government's national health service framework for mental health. [70387]

  Jacqui Smith
  Decisions about the configuration of services to meet the needs of people with mental health problems are a local matter, in the context of national guidance. The national service framework (NSF) for mental health emphasises the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to care and treatment. It also emphasises the importance of attention to physical health and the value of exercise. However, the NSF is not prescriptive about the numbers of different professionals needed. Instead, it emphasises the outcomes to be achieved, and the importance of evidence-based practise. I understand that services are being planned in order to ensure that mental health service users who require physiotherapy continue to receive this both now and in the future.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the evidence base for the value of physiotherapy in the treatment of mental health patients. [70392]

  Jacqui Smith
  Physiotherapists are experts in movement and mobility. They are trained to use their skills to promote good health, prevent disability and treat people who may have any of a wide range of health problems, including mental health. In order to use and apply the physiotherapeutic skill base with mental health patients, it is necessary for professionals to have a good understanding of mental illness and the health effects from mental illness, in this case particularly physical presentations as part of their condition.

  The physical needs of people with mental health problems are recognised in the mental health national service framework (NSF). Following publication of the NSF in 1999, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy commissioned an evidence-based bulletin of the role of physiotherapy in mental health.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether PFI contracts for mental health service schemes valued over £1 million have been signed since 13 February. [68060]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Cornwall Health National Health Service Trust reached financial close on 30 April 2002 for a mental health facility.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients claim to have Gulf War Syndrome; and what funds are available in 2002–03 for research into its cause and cure. [67805]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: I have ben asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence does not recognise "Gulf War Syndrome" as a medical condition. It accepts that some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict have become ill and that many believe this ill health is unusual and related to their Gulf experience. A large number of multi-system, multi-organ, non-specific, medically unexplained symptoms have been reported by some Gulf veterans as well as recognised medical conditions. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is that there is insufficient evidence to enable this ill-health to be characterised as a unique illness, condition or 'syndrome'.

  Nevertheless, a paper published in the British Medical Journal dated 1 September 2001 entitled: "Prevalence of Gulf war veterans who believe they have Gulf war syndrome: questionnaire study" suggested that approximately 17 per cent. (9,000) of United Kingdom Gulf veterans believed they have "Gulf War Syndrome".

  During financial year 2002–03, the MOD expects to spend approximately £1 million (including VAT) on Gulf veterans' illnesses research projects. This figure does not include current and planned MOD research into DU munitions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the correspondence from the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed dated 11 February and 18 April, with regard to the implications of the Data Protection Act 1998 for hospital chaplaincy work. [65094]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: A reply was sent on 19 July.

  Sausage Casings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Food Standards Agency complied with its obligation to consult those directly affected in the case of is proposed ban on sheep intestine on its decision. [68500]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: As no new legislation was being put forward the Food Standards Agency were under no statutory obligation to consult interested parties on the recommendations of the core stakeholder group. The agency did, however, consult over 1,000 interested parties in May of this year. The consultation gave the opportunity for a wide range of interested parties to comment on what was, in effect, a report considering the agency's possible policy options.

  As it is the agency's stated aim to conduct its business in an open and transparent way it decided to obtain the views of those most likely to be directly affected at the earliest opportunity, even though they were not proposing new legislation.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

European Union Budget
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which European Union countries are net contributors to the budget of the European Community and which accession countries are expected to be net contributors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, information published by the European Commission and European Court of Auditors shows all member states except Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Finland to have been net contributors to the EC budget in calendar year 2000, the last year for which information is available. It is too early to determine the net budgetary positions of the new member states on accession to the European Union. Negotiations on the financial aspects of enlargement are in progress.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that it is the view of senior figures in the Polish Government that, as things stand, Poland is likely to be a net contributor to the European Union budget on accession? They feel that that would be an absurd outcome, given that Poland would be one of the poorest countries in the European Union. Such a situation might give rise to strong opposition in Poland in any referendum on accession and could result in a negative outcome.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the difficulties to which my noble friend
2
Lord Dubs refers. The financial negotiations are, of course, incomplete. We do not yet have the budgetary chapter, nor do we have the amounts for the structural and cohesion funds. All those matters must be resolved at the summit in Copenhagen in December. Generous financial proposals are being made for accession candidates. No doubt Poland will benefit from those.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the accession negotiations are close to a conclusion, the two vital dossiers—budget and agriculture, which are two sides of the same coin—are still open? It is perfectly feasible to avoid demanding an unjust budget contribution from the acceding states, by the use of transitional or other arrangements. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to express figures not only in money but as a percentage of gross national product? Incidentally, that would show that the United Kingdom was the fourth or fifth largest contributor.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the last point made by the noble Lord. He is right to say that the negotiations are close to a conclusion on some issues. However, as I said, there are still major financial issues to be resolved.
We are happy with many of the details of what is being negotiated with regard to the common agricultural policy; we are not happy with the fact that no savings are proposed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while we are talking about budget contributions, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that, according to the latest figures, this country has been saved £29 billion because of the abatement negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1984.
I turn to the issue of the contribution to be made by new members. Does not the attempt to achieve enlargement without fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy present Poland—Polish

3
agriculture, in particular—with an enormous problem? It makes things difficult, if not impossible, and could undermine the entire accession process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge the value of the abatement negotiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. It was, of course, renewed by this Government. There is no doubt that there are huge difficulties in the accession countries with the common agricultural policy. That is why it has been proposed that payments should be at the rate of 25 per cent from 2004, rising to 100 per cent only in 2013.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the CAP is at the heart of the question? The best and fairest way forward available at the moment is the surprisingly radical reform of the CAP just proposed by the European Commission. Will the Minister give broad endorsement to that proposal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that we were disappointed at the fact that no savings were proposed. I could have said—and am happy to say now—that we are happy with the decoupling of payments from production and with the environmental, animal welfare and food safety provisions of the reforms.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, notwithstanding the important points made by my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, about mitigating the most serious costs to the accession countries, does my noble friend agree that we make a fundamental mistake in talking only about the cost of the European Union, when, in fact, it is a cost-benefit equation? We ought to put at least as much emphasis on the benefits of membership for the accession countries as on the costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that certainly applies to us. Three million jobs in this country are linked to exports to the European Union, and the best calculation is that the benefit to our gross domestic product is £1.75 billion. Such considerations apply equally to the accession countries, although the extent to which they apply is yet to be determined.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall not deny the Government their credit for having renewed the British abatement. However, does the Minister agree that, as the rule for voting on the abatement requires unanimity, there is no way that the Community could have secured it without our approval?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was part of the negotiation completed successfully in 1984 by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I have never denied that. I do not do so today and I have not done so when the issue has arisen on previous occasions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend see to it that steps are taken to ensure that the Commission does not try to take over the role of governments in this matter and thus may present all governments with a. fait accompli?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure what my noble friend means when he says, "in this matter". The European Commission is not going to take over the role of governments. Neither this country nor any other member state would agree to that. It is not even being proposed.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, while it is true that there was an upside to the question of abatement, is it not also true that there was a downside? During the negotiations with the European Union, we found repeatedly that we were compromised by the very existence of the abatement and thus we lost out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the point about our renewal of the abatement was that we succeeded in doing so while restoring ourselves to a position at the heart of the European Union. That was the significant achievement of this Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to Poland as one of the applicant countries likely to make a net contribution. Are any other countries from the nine applicants also likely to make a net contribution? Furthermore, will the countries that are currently net recipients lose out, thus meaning that those which are net contributors will have to pay more?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that Poland would be a net contributor. In response to my noble friend Lord Dubs I said we were still in financial negotiations and thus we do not yet know. We have made generous financial proposals to the candidate states, but we must acknowledge the difficulty that those countries will find that it takes time to put forward realistic proposals for the use of the funds which will become available to them, in particular the structural and cohesion funds. Those proposals may take time to develop. Thus there may be accession countries that are in deficit at the beginning, but which will recover their position as time goes on. That applies not only to Poland but to all the other accession countries.

Prison Education and Training
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider introducing a nationwide incentive scheme in HM Prisons and young offender institutions to encourage inmates to improve their educational skills and employment prospects.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, yes, we will consider a national policy as part of our longer-term strategy for improving the skills of prisoners. We want to see more prisoners involved in learning and benefiting from it. Our approach will be informed by existing good practice and by the outcomes of the current review of funding and procurement arrangements for prison education and training.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Does the Minister share my view that two weighty documents published this very month, the report on reoffending from the Social Exclusion Unit and the White Paper, Justice for All—in particular Chapter 6—should be required reading for everyone concerned with rehabilitation? Do not those documents provide compelling evidence that more offenders would take up education and training if they were not, in effect, lured into unskilled prison work by the better pay; that those on short sentences are often explicitly discouraged from training courses because it is said that it is not worth the bother; and that financial incentives should be provided after completion of sentence so that former offenders can continue with the courses they began while incarcerated?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, I agree with the proposition that the two reports should be required reading for anyone involved in the work of rehabilitation. Secondly, I agree with what was implied by the noble Lord in the second part of his question. We need to look again at how best to take steps with people in prison in order to reduce the risk of reoffending. Those steps should focus in particular on activities that will help them to secure gainful employment when they leave prison. Thirdly, I agree with the noble Lord in his point that simply leaving people without assistance after prison will often increase the chance of reoffending and reduce the chance of preventing it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I refer the Minister to the two reports cited by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. Does he accept that employment can reduce the rate of reoffending by between one-third and one-half? At present, approximately three in five offenders are reconvicted within two years of leaving prison. The process of dealing with reoffending by former prisoners costs this country over £11 billion a year. Given that, does he consider that prison sentences are not succeeding in turning the majority of offenders away from crime? Would not community penalties backed by education and employment projects be a better alternative for such offenders?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the best alternative would depend on the facts of a particular case. It is for sentencers to decide on the appropriate sentence in each individual case. However, I agree entirely with the estimated rate of reconviction referred to by the noble Lord. I agree that the cost to this country of reoffending is huge. Lastly, I agree with the proposition that we need to take a long, hard look
6
at how we seek to reduce the rate of reoffending. That would not mean no custodial sentences, but we must look at how we help people not to reoffend after they have served their prison sentences. Instead, they should be encouraged into gainful employment.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, will the Minister consider using prisoners as peer group tutors for the teaching of reading, as recommended in the report of the Social Exclusion Unit? That has been tried in at least six prisons and appears to work well.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to refer to what has been said by the Social Exclusion Unit about that issue. We need to look at that proposal and a whole range of other proposals in regard to rehabilitating prisoners and making it less likely that they will reoffend.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many writers-in-residence are in prison?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have never had an answer to any question asked by the noble Baroness. I do not know how many writers-in-residence are in prison. Perhaps I may write from my residence to the noble Baroness to indicate how many there are.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the target for education provision for children under school-leaving age who are in prison is 15 hours a week? Can he tell the House in how many cases that target is reached? What are the arrangements for young people who are held in police cells because of prison overcrowding to ensure that their education is continued?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that education is compulsory for offenders of compulsory school age. Fifteen hours is the target. I cannot help the noble Baroness in relation to the position of young people held in police cells. Perhaps I may write to her on that issue.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the most wonderful education provision in prisons is no good unless prisoners can get to it? Will he undertake that there will be a concentrated effort to ensure that prison officers are available to escort prisoners to education when they are, unfortunately, in prison rather than following the kind of course recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully accept that access is vital. As I indicated in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, the whole issue of education in prison, including funding, is being looked at. That will obviously cover physical access to educational facilities.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in addition to incentives to attend and complete basic education and

7
skills training courses—incentives which I hope will include the possibility of a reduction in the sentence served—does the Minister agree that where such courses genuinely cannot be provided within the prison itself, more use could be made of temporary release orders for suitably assessed prisoners to attend locally provided further education courses?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not want to comment on that particular proposal but I have made it absolutely clear that we wish to improve the quality of education provided, access to education and the range of educational opportunities available. We also want to improve incentives for people in prison to take educational courses. The noble Baroness's specific proposal obviously will be considered in relation to all of those issues.
Lord Addington: My Lords, a very high number of people within the prison population have special educational problems and other social communication problems, which is usually one of the reasons why they failed in education prior to finding themselves in prison. Do the Government undertake a comprehensive series of assessments of such people when they turn up? If the figures are right and one in two of the prison population in young offender units have these problems, then, no matter how much money is pumped in, it may well be wasted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with what underlies the question: there is a very wide range of educational needs in prison, many of them at the most basic level. That is why we are widening the targets for basic skills qualifications. That will enable establishments to be much more responsive. As I understand it, the point being made is that the most basic skills are required. We need to provide education for those basic skills. We are looking at how to widen the system to achieve that.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I spent six years on the Parole Board. I congratulate the Government and their predecessors on the educational programme they give to life prisoners. The educational programme for the remainder of prisoners is lamentable. Can the Minister assure the House that his department will consider giving the remainder of the prison service the kind of attention that life prisoners receive in their educational programme? For example, it is ridiculous that people follow school terms while they are in prison.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the assurance that the noble Lord seeks. All I can say is that we are looking at how we can improve educational provision for prisoners.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, will the Minister note that, unlike education, vocational training is not ring-fenced in prisons and that prison governors can, if they so choose, divert the money to other purposes? Will he
8
further note that the provision for construction industry training has been reduced by 50 per cent over the past seven years, in spite of it leading to jobs and there being an acute shortage of skills? Will the Minister look into that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated, the whole question of the funding of prison education will be looked at.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that credit should be given where credit is due? There are some excellent training courses in some prisons. I have been corresponding for four years with a young man who was given a life sentence and is due to be released shortly. He is concerned about what will happen to him when he comes out of prison. He has benefited wonderfully from what he has been taught in prison, but he is worried about what will happen when he comes out.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Countess that there are a number of extremely good courses in prison. The problem is—it concerns the Government just as much as it concerns many Members of the House—that they are not sufficiently widespread. There is not enough choice and not enough opportunity for people to get to them.

Zimbabwe: Sanctions
2.56 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What success has been achieved in freezing the personal assets held abroad by Mr Mugabe and other leading members of his administration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, since the imposition of the EU asset freeze on 18th February we have frozen personal assets to the value of £76,000. This is a small sum, but it is not surprising given the advance media publicity before sanctions were imposed. The key point is that Europe's financial markets are now off limits to those on the banned list.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, the Minister will be aware that additional names have today and over the past 24 hours been added to the original list by the EU. Do not these extra names and the extra measures announced reveal all too painfully that the earlier freezing of assets has entirely failed to deter Mr Mugabe and that much more pressure is now needed? Does the Minister agree that the earlier measures which have led to the freezing of £76,000—a tiny amount given the total assets involved—were clearly too little, too late? They were announced far too long in advance and assets were moved beyond reach by Zidco, ZANU-PF's trading company. Advice was received also from other

9
advisers. As Mr Mugabe has not in the least been deterred, and as the situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate, has not the moment clearly come for the international community to consider more direct action?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I should perhaps clarify that the General Affairs Council is meeting now and will make a decision this afternoon on whether or not to extend the travel ban list. That decision has not yet been taken.
I do not agree with the noble Lord. It is clear that sanctions have worked. There is a general isolation of the ZANU-PF regime and we have built an international consensus that includes the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United States and others. That will continue to be our strategy. We need to work very closely with our African colleagues on this matter. We shall continue to do so and to keep up the international pressure on the Mugabe regime. But, as I have said in the House a number of times, it is obvious that we are dealing with a regime that cares nothing for its own people given the humanitarian, political and economic crisis that we are seeing.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, will the Minister consider encouraging the Government and our partners in the EU and the Commonwealth to make greater use of independent investigators to investigate the funds which are held, often in nominee names, in banks and other financial institutions, not only in the developed world but in off-shore banking? This is not easy to do—it is not easy for governments to do—but the use of independent investigators has much helped Nigeria to trace illicitly-taken funds. I believe that this would benefit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who urgently need this help.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe need this help. They are facing a humanitarian crisis: up to half the population will require food aid by the end of the year. The situation means that farm workers will be thrown off farms, and will be out of a job. As regards independent investigators, I assure the noble Baroness that we are taking all the steps that we can.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the NePAD agreement contains provisions—as does the new treaty on African union—for human rights observation and good governance by the member countries. It also contains provision for peer pressure to be brought to bear by member countries on defaulters. Is not this the best potential source of pressure on Mr Mugabe? Are the African member countries of those two organisations exerting such pressure?
Baroness Amos: Yes, my Lords, the AU and the NePAD communiqués contain important elements relating to human rights, good governance and peer review. NePAD is an African-led initiative. It is an
10
inclusive initiative, not an exclusive one. African leaders have made it clear that, through the peer review process, they want to encourage those countries that are poor performers to improve their governance considerably. Yes, it is up to African leaders to put pressure on other African leaders in relation to these elements.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, as she indicated in a letter to me, the Zimbabwe authorities were allowed to import armoured cars from Germany for the exclusive use of Mr Mugabe and leading members of his regime? How did it happen that the assets that were used to pay for those expensive cars—at a cost of 250,000 dollars—were not confiscated by the Germans?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have no idea where the assets came from to pay for the vehicles. I gave the noble Lord as open an answer as I could. I shall check again, but I do not think that I have any further information that can help him.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the indications that the General Affairs Council will agree tougher sanctions this afternoon—although as she rightly says, it has not reached a decision yet? it is belated, but it is better than nothing. Will the sanctions now cover not merely the funds of individuals but also the funds of ZANU-PF and its various subsidiaries held in British and other banks? Has the Minister anything to tell the House about the reports that very substantial land allocations have now been made of seized land to the Libyan authorities and to Colonel Gaddafi?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said, the General Affairs Council is meeting as we speak, so I am unable to give the noble Lord any further information with regard to any possible extension of the travel ban and the assets freeze. As to the question of land allocation to the Libyan authorities, I have no further information. If information becomes available, I shall happily write to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on more than one occasion, I have heard the noble Baroness explain that, in spite of the travel ban, President Mugabe and some of his henchmen have been able to travel in order to attend international meetings of certain kinds. Should not that right be withdrawn and extended only to alternates attending on their behalf so that the effect of the ban becomes more widely real?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is an international agreement. The EU common position on the travel ban states:
"Member states may grant exemptions from these measures where travel is justified on the grounds of attending meetings of international bodies".
This position is not new. It applies in other cases where, for example, heads of state face travel bans in respect of individual countries. It means that countries

11
which host international organisations such as the UN are obliged to grant visas to enable individuals to attend such meetings. We do not like it, but that is the position.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would answer my question about ZANU-PF funds.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to repeat his question?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I asked whether the controls on assets held by individuals in Zimbabwe apply also to the funds of ZANU-PF, which are held in British and other overseas banks.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the current travel ban and assets freeze apply to the 19 named individuals. As I said, I cannot comment on a decision which is currently being taken by the General Affairs Council.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister agree to return to this House at a later stage with more details about the activities of Zidco, the trading arm of ZANU-PF—currently registered, I believe, in Liberia—and with details of advice that has been given in the past to Zidco by companies which have been managed out of Guernsey?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the House knows, if I am asked a specific question, I am always prepared to answer it.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately following this business statement, my noble friend Lord Bach will make a Statement on the Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident. Following that, my noble friend Lord Whitty will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the foot and mouth disease inquiries.

Chinook ZD576
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with permission, I should like make a Statement on the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre.
During a routine flight from Aldergrove to Inverness on 2nd June 1994, all on board—the 25 passengers and four crew—were killed.
What we must remember above all is that this was a tragedy. Twenty-nine families lost loved ones that day. The whole House will once again want to extend sympathy to them. This was also a blow felt
12
throughout the Royal Air Force and in the many other areas of the Armed Forces and the public service from which the passengers on board were drawn.
This has been the most extensively examined air crash in the history of British military aviation—not only by aviation and engineering experts but also by at least 10 Ministers from across two governments: from the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind to, most recently, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Ten Ministers have considered the case. Each new Minister has had the advantage of coming to this with an open mind. Every new Minister who has examined the facts of the case has come to the same conclusion.
The senior reviewing officers of the original RAF board of inquiry found the pilots grossly negligent. They concluded that the pilots had flown the aircraft at a consistently high speed at low level, and into poor weather that they had been warned to expect. These facts led the board of inquiry to believe that the only possible conclusion was that this accident was a result of a controlled flight into terrain.
Many have challenged this conclusion. As a result, in April last year, your Lordships set up a Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, to consider the justification for the findings by the senior reviewing officers. The Select Committee concluded that the reviewing officers were not justified in their findings that negligence on the part of the pilots "caused the crash".
The Government have now considered the Select Committee's report very carefully indeed. We have thoroughly examined the alternative explanations for the crash that were considered by the committee. We have painstakingly reviewed the complex technical, legal and airmanship issues which the report raises. We have sought further clarification from Boeing on the points made about its original work conducted as part of the RAF board of inquiry in 1994.
In order to leave no question unanswered, we have also asked Boeing to undertake further work to review its original analysis, including a full FADEC simulation. Those familiar with this case will know that the FADEC system, by controlling the fuel supply, maintains approximately 100 per cent rotor speed in all conditions and matches engine torque between the two engines on the aircraft. It has been argued that the failure of this system was a cause of the accident.
Our deliberations are now complete, and I am arranging to place copies of our response, together with copies of the further work by Boeing, in the Library of this House as well as in the Library of the other place. A number of theories have been put forward to explain the cause of this accident. Each depends on a particular interpretation of the evidence. That is why at the outset I want to try to set out those facts as best I can that are not in dispute.
We know that, as before every routine flight, the pilots received meteorological information, in this case warning them of poor weather conditions in the

13
vicinity of the Mull. They took this into account in planning their route, from Aldergrove to the Mull lighthouse, then on to Corran near Fort William, then up the Great Glen to Fort George, near Inverness.
We know that the first "way-point" entered on the aircraft's navigation computer was very close to the lighthouse on the western tip of the Mull. This way-point was the position where they needed to change or adjust their course to head towards Corran. Taking into account the weather conditions, they planned to fly their route at low-level under "visual flight rules", which means that they needed to maintain at least 1,000 metres of visibility. If during the flight they were unable to do so, then under the rules they would be required either to turn away from the poor conditions or to climb to a safe altitude of 1,000 feet above the height of any known obstacles. They would then have flown under "instrument flight rules"—which would require them to fly with sole reference to their cockpit instruments.
We know that the aircraft took off from RAF Aldergrove at 17.42 hours. We know—from an exchange between the crew and air traffic control—that, at just after 17.46 hours, the aircraft was seven nautical miles from the Aldergrove radio beacon. A number of witnesses reported the aircraft flying low as it headed for the coast. These sightings are consistent with a high-speed, low-level transit towards the Mull along the planned track.
We know—from the data in the SuperTANS navigation system on board every Chinook—that the aircraft was 0.81 nautical miles from the lighthouse when the pilots took the steps necessary to enter the second way—point89 miles away, at Corran—into the computer. Given their training and experience, the pilots would not have performed this task if they had been experiencing any significant difficulty in handling the aircraft. The Select Committee accepted that it was highly unlikely that the pilots would have entered the way-point change if they had thought they were not in control of their aircraft.
We know—from all the eye witnesses on the Mull—that the weather there was generally foggy and very bad. The lighthouse keeper estimated visibility to be 15 to 20 metres at most.
We know—from the power down recording in the Super TANS system—that the time of initial impact was 17.59 and 36 seconds; giving a total journey time of just under 18 minutes. From these facts we can calculate that the ground speed of the aircraft, from the air traffic control fix to impact, averaged 158 knots. This shows that the pilots had selected a high cruising speed for their crossing to the Mull.
We know that the ground speed at impact was at least 147 knots, from the evidence on the aircraft's instruments at the crash site, and corroborated by data extracted from the GPS system and the navigation computer.
We know that the aircraft hit the ground at a height of 810 feet above sea level. All the evidence clearly points to the aircraft having flared—or "pulled up" in layman's terms; with its nose upward at an angle of 30
14
degrees—in the final few seconds of flight. This is shown not only by the physical evidence at the crash site, in particular the alignment of the fuselage; it is also shown by the fact that the collective control, which controls power, was set at or near full travel at impact, with the cyclic control, which controls pitch and elevation, at 25 per cent aft and 23 per cent left of neutral, all indicating a demand for high power and nose-up attitude in a last desperate attempt to pull away. This evidence at the crash site also indicates that the aircraft was almost certainly responding properly to its controls, at least in the final seconds before impact.
These then are the facts which have not been seriously challenged by anyone. What remains at issue is what happened in the last 20 or so seconds of the flight from the point at which the pilots entered the way-point change into the navigation computer until moments before impact when they pulled hard up in a clear attempt to avoid hitting the ground. Various theories have been put forward and we have considered each in turn. They are examined in detail in our fuller response which has been placed in both Libraries.
One hypothesis suggests that, because of the low cloud, the pilots had slowed down for the way-point change, intending to turn left to hug the coast towards the way-point at Corran while remaining at low level. The Select Committee has accepted that the aircraft was performing satisfactorily up to and including the way-point change. The Committee suggests that, having performed the required deceleration successfully, some catastrophic failure occurred in the last 20 or more seconds of flight. This failure caused the aircraft to accelerate out of control so that it flew at high speed into the Mull, with the pilots unable to control the aircraft, at least until the final few seconds.
Was it the crew's intention to slow down significantly for the way-point change? Boeing's analysis shows that, given a normal rate of acceleration, it would not have been possible to achieve the speed conditions for the final flare if the ground speed was below 80 knots at the way-point change. If the aircraft had slowed to around 80 knots at that point, then an even higher average cruising ground speed from the air traffic control fix to the way-point change would have been necessary. And, crucially, the aircraft would have begun to decelerate about one mile prior to the way-point change, and in the process to reduce power considerably, adopting a nose-up attitude for a considerable period. Such a manoeuvre is not consistent with the evidence.
In addition, the further analysis from Boeing shows that, given a normal rate of acceleration, it would not have been possible to accelerate from below 80 knots and achieve the speed conditions necessary to be consistent with the final flare just before impact.
Even if the aircraft had performed the manoeuvres necessary to slow to 80 knots at the way-point change, what plausible explanations could account for the pilots not being able to execute the turn and cause the aircraft to accelerate to the known speed at impact?

15
What sort of incident could have cleared in time to allow the pilots to perform the final flare in the seconds just before impact?
It has been suggested that a control jam of some sort could have occurred. For that to have happened, the aircraft would first have had to have been rotated nose down to an accelerating attitude, the power set to full, and the controls "frozen" to such an extent that neither a heading change, nor a climb, nor a speed change was possible. Moreover, this condition would have had to have remained fixed throughout the significant period required to achieve the acceleration. To achieve these conditions either simultaneous multiple failures would have had to have occurred to the pitch of the aircraft and have frozen the controls, or the pilots would have had voluntarily to conduct at least some of the extraordinary control combinations needed.
The Select Committee also explored the possibility that the "thrust balance spring attachment bracket" and other inserts detached before impact, as some of these flying control components were found to be detached at the crash site. But because the controls are hydraulically powered such a fault would result in a change to the "feel" of the controls and would have been detected by the pilots. Moreover, the aircraft would still be controllable. It is not credible that this could have caused the accident. In any event, the report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch indicated that the brackets were likely to have become detached during the post-accident break up of the aircraft.
Despite suggestions from other commentators, the Select Committee accepted that the FADEC system and the trials of the Chinook Mark 2 that had been suspended at Boscombe Down had no bearing on this accident. In fact all the available evidence indicates that the engines were working normally up to the point of impact. The committee was also satisfied that the E5 software fault, which has also been the subject of much media speculation, had no relevance to this accident.
We have examined in detail all the alternative hypotheses put to the committee by witnesses. The question is, when taken in the context of the whole flight, are they—or any one of them—plausible against what was a strict standard of proof needed at that time before a finding of negligence could be made against deceased aircrew?
As the committee observes, the standard of proof of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" involves an even higher standard of proof than that applicable in criminal cases. I am, of course, aware that four of the five members of the Select Committee are distinguished lawyers.
It follows from this strict standard of proof that if there is another plausible explanation for what took place other than the one accepted by the board of inquiry, its conclusion cannot be allowed to stand.
16
The reviewing officers in this case were required to be in no doubt whatsoever that the pilots' negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident.
No investigation into a serious accident can ever hope to answer every question with absolute certainty. Negligence can itself be the cause of an accident or it can be one of a number of factors. The reviewing officers were charged with considering all of the evidence as a whole; they were entitled to call on their own knowledge and experience of military flying, and take proper recognition of the very high standard of airmanship that is required of RAF pilots.
It follows that if the senior reviewing officers were left with no "honest" doubt that the pilots were negligent, and that negligence was a causative factor in what happened, they would have failed in their duty if they had not found the pilots negligent. It would have been wrong of the reviewing officers to avoid such a finding on the basis of a hypothesis for which there was no plausible evidence.
The senior reviewing officers' finding of negligence was not dependent upon whether the pilots could see the Mull at the time of the way-point change. We can deduce that at some point the aircraft entered cloud—which the crew had been warned to expect—well below safety altitude. The issue is whether at the time they did so the aircraft was fully under the control of the pilots. There is no other plausible explanation for the accident. The only realistic explanation therefore is that found by the reviewing officers of the board of inquiry.
As they approached land, the pilots would have been aware that their visibility was about to reduce significantly. Had they been flying with the minimum visibility allowed for Visual Flight Rules, by the way-point change they would have seen the landmass of the Mull and should have recognised their perilous position. They should have taken prompt action by flying higher or turning away. The finding of negligence is therefore based on the fact that they failed to take such avoiding action.
This is a very sensitive and emotive case. I recognise that some people would like us to have reached a different conclusion from that of the reviewing officers. Some former Ministers have since changed their minds about their original interpretation of the facts.
However, we require senior military officers to make decisions on the facts at the time, applying their judgment as professional airmen against the high standard of airmanship to which the Royal Air Force adheres.
We have therefore reviewed the material put forward by the committee with the very greatest care. We have probed the alternative hypotheses rigorously to see if there is any other plausible explanation that fits with the facts. And we have agonised over whether there was some way that we could exonerate the pilots posthumously. But on the basis of all the evidence, I am unable to do so.

17
Apportioning blame for such a terrible accident to men who lost their lives in it was not an easy task for those responsible. Reviewing the circumstances of the case has been one of the hardest duties I have been asked to perform as a Minister.
None the less, where lives have been lost, we must be willing to examine the facts as carefully and dispassionately as possible, for the sake of all those involved. This we have done.
I know that this response to the Select Committee's report will be unwelcome to some. And, as I have consistently said before, should new evidence come to light the Secretary of State would be prepared to look at it again. Indeed, it was precisely the possibility of new evidence that led the Government to commission the further work from Boeing.
I hope that this Statement, and the supporting detailed analysis which is being published today, will assist the House in understanding the reasons why we have not been able to support the conclusions of the latest report into this tragic accident.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the Minister for repeating the long and detailed Statement on the tragic crash of the Chinook Helicopter ZD 576, but we very much regret and are disappointed that Her Majesty's Government are unable to provide time for a detailed debate by your Lordships before the Summer Recess. Once again, we on these Benches extend our deepest sympathy to all the families who suffered such tragic loss of life.
I have no intention of covering the facts and detail of the case in this debate. As your Lordships have heard, there are many technical facts in the Statement which need to be analysed carefully. I believe that the right and proper place to do so is when we eventually discuss Her Majesty's Government's response in full debate. However, it may be timely to remind your Lordships that the House of Lords Select Committee which was set up was tasked to consider the justification of those reviewing the conclusions. I repeat that it was tasked to consider the justification of those reviewing the conclusions of the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter were negligent. The Select Committee was satisfied that on the evidence brought before it and against the standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" as required by the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry rules, the air marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the crash.
How does the Ministry of Defence justify disagreeing with three other investigations into this matter? The Air Accidents Investigation Branch did not conclude that the pilots had been negligent. The fatal accident inquiry concluded that it had not been established to its satisfaction, and on the balance of probabilities, that the cause of the accident was the decision by the crew. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee found that the verdict of the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry was unsustainable and should be set aside.
18
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. When will a full debate be held to discuss Her Majesty's Government's response to your Lordships' Select Committee report? Will the Minister confirm that the evidence relied upon by the committee in coming to its conclusion was not limited to the evidence that was freshly before it and was not available to the air marshals but that there was other evidence, which it identifies, which led it to the conclusion that it reached? Why does the Ministry of Defence now accept that "no honest doubt" is a sufficient reason to support a finding of gross negligence when the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry rules require that there should be "no doubt whatsoever" to support a finding of gross negligence? I should be grateful if the Minister will answer those questions in his reply.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches, we thank the Minister for making this Statement in this House in advance of his noble friend in another place. It was, of course, a response to a Select Committee of this House.
There will no doubt be considerable disappointment among those noble Lords who served on the Select Committee that the Government have been unable to accept the fully argued conclusions in their report earlier this year. We on these Benches wish to join the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, in expressing our considerable sympathy with all the families of those who lost their lives so tragically on this occasion. We can well understand the serious feelings which the fathers of the pilots still hold. That is why this matter is one of continuing concern on these Benches as elsewhere.
It is a detailed analysis and I understand that further material is to be made available to us in the Library. We are grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for having spent so much time and care in reviewing the material and attempting to provide the House with a detailed analysis of each of the alternative hypotheses. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, it is too early to analyse that response in detail today. In the Statement, the Minister drew attention to the committee's observation that the standard of proof was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". A little later he says that no investigation into a serious accident can ever hope to answer every question with absolute certainty. That seems to suggest that the task facing such a board is almost impossible and that in the future the whole procedure will need to be re-examined.
We believe that noble Lords will wish to return to this subject after they have had a chance to study in detail the reply and remarks made today. I am pleased to see the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms on the Bench opposite. I hope that he and the usual channels will be able to arrange a full debate in this House as soon as possible after we return in October. We can then express in detail the views of the House not only on the important report of your Lordships' Select Committee but also the reply today from the Minister.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for their measured remarks today. I am grateful for what they said. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, that we are not repeating a Statement made in another place. Another place will follow us on this occasion—the noble Lord, Lord Roper, mentioned the reason—because a Select Committee of this House has reported. It is only right that a reply is made in this House, whether before or contemporaneously with a Statement in another place.
I understand that the usual channels will decide the date of a debate. That there will be a debate in the autumn has already been stated in this House in clear terms, and I confirm that today from the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I may point out that it is fairly unusual for a Statement to be made at the same time as a response from the Government to a Select Committee's report. The reason that we chose to do so is that we consider it a matter rightly of great import to this House, and a matter with which the House has been engaged for some time. Whatever noble Lords feel about the merits or demerits of what I have said, I hope that the House will accept that we are attempting to show the House some respect in making the Statement. Likewise, the Secretary of State is doing the same today in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, raised the point about "no honest doubt". We have taken advice from outside government, as one would expect a government department to do in these instances. I make this point also in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. The phrase "no doubt whatsoever" was a very high standard of proof. But it is, or was meant to be, achievable. We are satisfied that this standard was reached in this case as, after detailed examination, every other hypothesis was implausible and the only conclusion that the reviewing officers could reach, therefore, was a controlled flight into terrain.
As regards the details of the response and the extra evidence being made available, I agree with both noble Lords—it is, of course, a matter for noble Lords—that it is best to leave that until our important debate which will take place on another occasion.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome the thrust of the Government's Statement in response to the Select Committee report. The Government have not been persuaded to do a U-turn on the consistent support which has been given for the board of inquiry findings by Ministers of both political parties in both Houses at the Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords may agree that there will be much important detail in the Government's response to the Select Committee and I believe that it will be inappropriate to make snap responses or judgments until the Government's views have been studied. I welcome the opportunity for a debate in October when there will have been time for such study and reflection.
20
The Minister mentioned the importance of the airmanship aspect of this tragedy. Can he say why he feels that this is such a critical factor in the professional judgment of the board of inquiry and its findings? Does he agree that the attacks in the media and elsewhere outside Parliament on the integrity and professional judgment of the two air marshals are now without foundation and should not be continued?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and gallant Lord's remarks. I agree with him that the details announced can best be discussed during the debate.
The necessary level of airmanship was important to the rules as they then were. I cite the guide to the consideration of human failings which was attached to the regulations. It states that the duty to take care varies according to the operation being performed and the duty to take a very high degree of care is rightly imposed upon a pilot flying an aircraft or responsible for its maintenance or control. In such circumstances what might be trivial in other fields may, when associated with aircraft operations, amount to negligence. That amounts to severe criticism, but it was the standard that was set.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, it is a matter of great regret that this Statement has been made and the response received, leaving no time for a full debate in your Lordships' House. The Minister has promised a debate in the autumn when we shall go into further details of this whole affair.
The Statement is no surprise as it seems to underline the prevalent doctrine of infallibility in the Ministry of Defence. But the conclusion is astonishing. The ministry states that it has studied the report of the House of Lords Select Committee and cannot accept its opinion. That seems to indicate that the Secretary of State for Defence prefers the opinion of two air marshals which, despite what has been said, differed from the original board of inquiry. The Secretary of State prefers to accept their opinion on a verdict of manslaughter. I am not surprised that the noble Lord appears to wince at the word "manslaughter". If someone is found guilty of gross negligence, which leads to the death of 27 people, including himself, manslaughter is a fairly mild word to use. But that is what those young, dead pilots have been found guilty of.
It is odd that that opinion should be preferred over the judgment of a House of Lords Select Committee consisting mainly of legally qualified Peers, presided over by a distinguished former Lord of Appeal, which had all the evidence before it that the air marshals had. The Minister has said nothing new in his Statement today. All that evidence was before the House of Lords Select Committee too. The Ministry of Defence constantly asks for new evidence before it reconsiders its opinion. But, I repeat, the Ministry of Defence has said nothing new since the House of Lords Select Committee reached its conclusion.

21
This judgment flies in the face of the fatal accident inquiry, which was also held before a distinguished judge in Scotland, the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place and the views of the flight operations group of the Royal Aeronautical Society. It also flies in the face of the facts of the matter. To a large extent, many of the statements made to the air marshals were found by the Select Committee to be assumptions, not facts.
What is behind this conclusion? Why is the Ministry of Defence not prepared to accept the view of legally and aeronautically qualified people outside the Ministry of Defence? It prefers instead to rely on the judgment of two senior air force officers who, in their review of the board of inquiry, ignored findings which showed no evidence of human failing on the part of anyone involved in the matter. We shall now have to wait until the autumn to ask and receive answers to many questions that will go much further than the cause of the accident. Many such questions need to be asked about why this conclusion has been reached.
I shall not pose any of those questions now, and I do not expect answers today. There is, however, one question that I should like to put to the Minister. I hope that the House can be given an answer today; it deserves one. Are the Secretary of State and the noble Lord the Minister satisfied beyond any possible doubt whatever that there was gross negligence in this case? I ask not for air staff briefings or official advice, but for the views of the Ministers concerned. Ministers are responsible to Parliament, although that sometimes seems to be forgotten. Are they clear in their minds that there is no possible doubt whatever about the gross negligence of those two young men? We await the debate in the autumn with interest.
If we cannot be assured that the Ministers concerned are themselves satisfied beyond all possible doubt about the finding of gross negligence, I shall be suggesting to your Lordships' House and a wider public that perhaps it would be correct to ignore the response of the Ministry of Defence and that the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee should be regarded as exoneration of the two pilots. In effect, that would be a refusal to accept the view of the Ministry of Defence and the verdict of the two air marshals.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps I should remind your Lordships that we have only 20 minutes in total to discuss these matters.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall come straight to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Of course we have received advice and are persuaded on these matters. Therefore, the answer to his question is yes. I mentioned specifically in my Statement that that applies to all Ministers who have come to the Ministry of Defence since those tragic events took place. I can give the answer readily today. It is yes.
The response took so long to be published because the Select Committee's report deserved careful study. It rightly took a number of months to be prepared. It
22
was a very detailed report. We felt that the number of opinions that it expressed required further work, especially with regard to the original flight modelling conducted by Boeing, of which there was some criticism in the body of the report. Inevitably such work takes time, but it was important that the best possible advice was obtained to inform our response to the House. Of course it would have been preferable to publish it sooner and debate the issues before the Summer Recess, but we published it as soon as we could and are—unusually—making Statements about it in both Houses.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I join the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, in welcoming the detailed Statement made by the Minister. It is an issue of enormous pain for the families of the pilots and all the families of the victims of the crash. I really do not know why the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is making remarks from a sedentary position.
I remember the shock on hearing of the crash when I was abroad and not being able to find out from the initial media reports how many friends I might have had on board the Chinook. I have followed in great detail what has transpired since then in relation to the crash. For all of the bereaved, the wounds have been opened again and again.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend—that is all that one can do when responding to a Statement. Does my noble friend agree that the absolutely indisputable facts are that the Chinook was in a wrong and dangerous position, which in the event resulted in the crash; that the MoD has looked at all possible explanations why the Chinook was in the position; and that, all other possibilities having been eliminated, responsibility has to lie with the pilots?
I understand very well the desire for a debate in this House; of course there will be one. I put it to noble Lords that perhaps the time is approaching when a line should be drawn and the wounds of bereavement allowed to start to heal.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her comments and I shall try to answer her questions. Yes, it is right that the finding of the air marshals is based on the fact that the Chinook, which was obviously still under pilot control, found itself in a highly dangerous position. In a nutshell, that is precisely the case.
Lord Ackner: My Lords—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we should hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, what was the hypothesis that persuaded the Minister that two highly

23
experienced pilots, judged suitable to fly this most important group of people, should suddenly take leave of their senses and commit an error of airmanship so basic that if a student pilot were to attempt to do it, his instructor would stop him and probably fail him on the spot?
Secondly, did the Minister read the recent newspaper reports that the Ministry of Defence is inclined to argue that the failures of the SA-80 rifle are because the Marines who are trained to use it could not do so properly?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not intend to attempt to answer the second question, which has absolutely nothing to do with today's very serious Statement. However, the noble Lord's first question is entirely proper. The answer is that even the most distinguished airmen—these were fine pilots—can make serious errors. They do not always, thank goodness, end up in the kind of tragedy that we are discussing today, eight years later.
I shall explain briefly how I came to the view that I expressed earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. When the pilots were some 700 or 800 yards away from the way-point change, they were about one kilometre away from the coast. If they were below cloud, could see one kilometre ahead and were flying legally (they were under visual flight rules), it was negligent—here I rely to some extent on the script of the Select Committee's hearings, which I have read carefully, as I know the noble Lord will have done—that they did not start such a turn when they first made visual contact with the cliff. However, they flew on for another eight or nine seconds before the way-point change. That is the first alternative. The only other alternative is that at some point earlier than one kilometre away from the cliff, they went into cloud, either voluntarily or involuntarily. In those conditions, they should without doubt have taken immediate action to outclimb the Mull of Kintyre by carrying out an emergency low-level abort and, once established in that climb, turning away to the left. They did neither. I remind the noble Lord that it is clear that at the time of the way-point change, the aircraft was fully serviceable.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee, I have only one question for the Minister. As I understood him, he said that the Government have taken outside advice. Was the advice legal or technical? Before we have a debate in this House on the subject, will he identify from whom that advice came?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the advice was from outside government and that it was both technical—from Boeing—and legal. I shall have to consider carefully whether to tell the noble Lord at this stage who supplied that legal advice. He and the House can take it from me that it was from an extremely distinguished Queen's Counsel.
I take this opportunity—I have not done so previously—to thank the noble Lord and all the others who played their part in the committee for the
24
incredibly long hours and the huge amount of work that they put in on this very vexed subject. Although the Select Committee will be unhappy—if not worse—at our conclusions, the Government are genuinely grateful for what they did.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I find—
Lord Ackner: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, very briefly, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I forbear making any comment on the report. I confine myself to simple questions. First, the Minister accepts, I understand, that the air marshals had only very limited authority to find the airmen guilty. That was because the relevant words are "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". My central questions are these. Nowhere in their judgments did the air marshals recognise that vital limitation on the lawful exercise of that power. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps he will identify where it is so stated. Finally, nowhere in their judgment did the air marshals expressly or implicitly claim that they had "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that the deceased airmen—or one of them—Were guilty of negligence. If the Minister does not agree, will he please identify what was the relevant statement in this regard?
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course the standard was very high indeed, but it was, as I said earlier, achievable. Indeed, it had been achieved on previous occasions. I am afraid that I do not have immediately available before me the answers to the questions of the noble and learned Lord, and I shall not waste the House's time looking them up. I promise to write to him in very short order.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I begin by pointing out that, in parts, the Statement differs from the text available in the Printed Paper Office, largely as regards quotations, although the substance remains. The Statement is as follows:
"Following last week's publication by the Royal Society of its independent examination, chaired by Sir Brian Follett, of how we might prevent and combat future animal disease epidemics in the UK, today we publish the independent report of Dr Iain Anderson, identifying the lessons he believes can be learnt from the most recent of these—last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The Government are grateful to Dr Anderson for the

25
huge amount of work and effort he has put in and to all the 800 to 900 individuals and organisations that gave him evidence.
"Foot and mouth disease is a devastating and highly infectious animal disease, feared and loathed across the world because of its impact and virulence. In Britain alone, the experiences of the 1967 outbreak are a remembered nightmare in many rural communities. But what hit us in February 2001 was, as Dr Anderson notes, due to a,
'rare set of circumstances [which] had already determined that this would be one of the worst epidemics of FMD the modern world has ever seen. Numbers alone cannot capture the sense of what unfolded. The great epidemic of 2001 left an indelible mark on communities, businesses and people from all walks of life'.
"The Government are determined to learn the lessons of what happened in 2001. That is why we so quickly set up an inquiry process with three strands, each of them independent. That decision means that within six months of the outbreak ending, we already have the scientific review, the Policy Commission report charting the way forward for the industry and, now, the report of lessons we need to learn.
"Dr Anderson's report, which concentrates primarily on the early part of the outbreak, is a sombre and thoughtful document, for the most part measured in its tone and content, although unquestionably grave in its import. What is crucial to future policy is that he makes a large number of strong recommendations, most, if not all, of which I believe we shall he able to accept. Indeed, many suggest actions that the Government, while trying not to prejudge his report, have begun to address.
"Separately, in his comment and observations he draws on the views and evidence put before him. Here, there is certainly scope for different interpretation—even for disagreement. However, he asks in his introduction whether, as a first step,
'DEFRA [can] simply…admit that government made mistakes during its handling of the crisis and that all involved are determined to learn from these mistakes'.
I can and I do. The House will know that I have always acknowledged that, in the desperate circumstances faced not only by the farming community but by my department and its officials, as by our departmental and ministerial predecessors, mistakes were bound to have been made.
"Dr Anderson shows complete understanding and sympathy for the terrible experience of those in the field. But he also shows recognition of the dilemma of the centre, especially where there were clear or substantial deficiencies in management information. He suggests that for the first few weeks government did not realise the seriousness of the measures which would be needed to control the outbreak. I accept, although it is with hindsight, that that is so. But he also shows how often the action taken was entirely consistent with the information and advice then available.
26
"But if we are to learn the lessons from those dreadful months, we need most to consider whether, while, as I say, there are bound to have been mistakes, there were structural defects.
"Dr Anderson identifies what he regards as mistakes of strategy. I think it is right to say that many, if not all of these, we as government already acknowledge. Where there may be room for disagreement is on the question of how much of that was evident only, or at least primarily, with hindsight. As Dr Anderson himself says in the report on the issue of an immediate national ban on animal movements:
'Even today the State Veterinary Service believes it would not have had the justification or the support immediately to introduce widespread restrictions'.
"Throughout the report, the reader returns again and again to what was known and to what was without precedent and consequently unanticipated. Dr Anderson says, for example:
'The disease could have been present at Burnside Farm for weeks, but it went unreported, despite the requirement of farmers to report suspected cases of notifiable diseases'.
We now know, in fact, that there was virus present on at least 57 farms in 16 counties on the day that the first case was confirmed—20th February.
"As to the unknown origin of the first case, both inquiries stress the importance of effective import controls in order to prevent exotic infectious diseases entering the country. We have set in hand a wide-ranging programme of action against the risks posed by what have, I believe, been illegal imports of meat and animal products. But as both reports acknowledge, it will never be possible to reduce that risk to zero, so the necessary measures must be in place to limit the risks that, if disease enters the country, it will reach livestock and then subsequently spread.
"Both reports also highlight the importance of contingency planning. Dr Anderson examines the pre-existing contingency plan, which was followed, but he demonstrates that, although meeting the international standards then expected—the European Commission judged the UK's readiness for disease outbreak as among the best in Europe—we can see with hindsight its deficiencies. But that is an admission that make with hindsight. The European Commission is on record as having said recently:
'It cannot be reasonably expected from any Member State to design a contingency plan for the event of an epidemic causing more outbreaks within months than the 10 years' estimate for the whole Community'.
"On all these issues the analysis in the report is detailed. It shows that, in Dr Anderson's own words—words echoed, among others, by Commissioner Byrne—the outbreak in Britain in 2001 was of a kind unanticipated in any country in the world.
"Dr Anderson makes some trenchant criticisms to which I shall return, but he also deals comprehensively with the myriad conspiracy theories in circulation then and since. He does not

27
just dismiss them; he investigates and then dispels them. One in particular—the charge that the handling of the crisis was driven by concern over the general election—Iain Anderson explicitly rejects. He said,
'we found no evidence to support such a suggestion'.
Indeed, officials at all levels and in many locations are adamant that they were never exposed to any pressure other than the need to control a disease in the best possible way.
"While awaiting these reports, we have already published a draft interim contingency plan and have invited stakeholders and operational partners to comment. We shall now review it comprehensively in the light of the recommendations of the inquiries for regular updating, involvement of stakeholders and rehearsals, all of which the Government accept.
"Dr Anderson calls for a mechanism to assess potential domestic civil threats and steps to improve our capacity to handle an emergency of national proportions. We have set up the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, reporting to a Cabinet Committee chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, which is intended to do just that through horizon scanning, an assessment of capability and through work with departments facing disruptive challenges on how to prevent or manage crises. He also identifies the need to establish 'trigger points', where issues move to a new phase of crisis handling. Again, we agree.
"Also, both reports make important recommendations about how the Government should improve their ability to respond effectively in the event of a disease outbreak. Again, I can say that we support the thrust of these recommendations, especially where they relate to the need for high-quality management information systems.
"The Army is praised, rightly, for the role it played in helping to deal with the enormous logistical challenge—one it has identified as of larger dimensions logistically than the Gulf War. It did, indeed, do a remarkable job. I believe that, had we had better information systems in place, it would have been called into action earlier. But, as Dr Anderson demonstrates, that is not so in the context, as is so often claimed, of the Northumberland report, but when disposal options were failing to keep pace with slaughter.
"In addition, knowing what we now know, we would, on any future occasion, work on the presumption that a national ban on livestock movements would apply when the first FMD case was confirmed. But, because of the early silent spread of the disease in this outbreak, it is important not to assume that it would ever have been easy to check. Dr Anderson himself said that,
'even a perfectly implemented cull of infected premises within 24 hours of discovery would not, on its own, have controlled that epidemic until the disease itself had reduced the density of susceptible farms to such an extent that the epidemic ended naturally'.
28
"We would not intend, in the future, to permit local authorities to impose a widespread ban on the closure of footpaths. That, too, is a judgment made with the benefit of hindsight, and the House will know that it is a contested judgment. Some local authorities clung to a blanket ban long after government had encouraged its lifting.
"Both inquiries have called for a strategic approach to animal health and disease control policies, and endorsed the call in the report of the Policy Commission on Food and Farming, chaired by Sir Don Curry, for a comprehensive animal health strategy. My department will be opening discussions with industry and other interests on the content and coverage of such a strategy in the near future. It would need to deal with the protection of public health, animal disease prevention control, surveillance, animal identification, animal welfare and emergency preparedness.
"One other key issue which draws much comment is the contentious issue of vaccination, on which both inquiries made recommendations. There are two specific recommendations which we can immediately accept: that, as in 2001, we should ensure that the option of emergency vaccination forms part of any future strategy for the control of foot and mouth disease; and that any emergency vaccination policy should in future not be 'vaccinate to kill' but 'vaccinate to live'. But that does not require action from government alone. It requires acceptance that meat and meat products from vaccinated animals enter the food chain normally.
"Quite rightly, the inquiry reports address most of their recommendations to government. But they both also recognise that the farming industry shares responsibility for minimising disease risks. Dr Anderson concludes that the Government can do only so much to prevent a recurrence of the disease. The farming industry has a crucial role to play, particularly with regard to biosecurity.
"This reminder is particularly pertinent after last month's foot and mouth disease scare in the Midlands. It is not enough for government to have the right approach or proper rules to mitigate disease risk. Everyone in the industry must follow those rules and they must be properly enforced. In that recent episode, existing pig identification rules were not followed. Had the tests confirmed the disease, the effort to track down the source of the infection would have been severely hampered. This episode strengthens our resolve to continue to work with the livestock industry to establish better livestock identification.
"But both this episode and the report lend weight to the call by Sir Don Curry's Policy Commission for farm assurance schemes, owned and operated by the industry itself, to reward good farm management practice in biosecurity and other areas. The Government endorse this principle.
"While the Government will give full consideration to all the lessons in the two reports, there are two areas in which we can and will move

29
forward more quickly. The emphasis in the reports on the roles which might be played by emergency vaccination and pre-emptive culling underlines the importance of the passage of the Animal Health Bill, which my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be taking to Committee stage next week. The Bill contains powers which could be vital to the timely interventions for which the inquiries call.
"Secondly, the Government need to take an early decision on the animal movement rules to apply from the late summer, and in particular on the 20-day standstill. We will consult quickly with industry stakeholders in the next week or two, in the light of what the two reports say, on interim rules to apply from late August.
"This is a serious report into an outbreak of foot and mouth disease which was devastating for many parts of our country. I want to make one more quote from Dr Anderson. He said:
'Even had everything been done perfectly by all those concerned to tackle the disease, the country would have had a major epidemic with massive consequences. Second, many farmers, local people and government officials made heroic efforts to fight the disease and limits its effects. Through their efforts it was finally overcome and eradicated after 221 days, one day less than the epidemic in 1967–68'.
This inquiry does make many important recommendations. It accepts that everyone involved was doing their level best to deal with the outbreak. It makes criticisms which are accepted. It makes recommendations on which we will act. Above all, it fulfils its remit and gives us the basis on which to learn lessons, and learn lessons we will".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement. I apologise for the fact that the quotations were not in the original version.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place earlier today and for the facility of being able to look at the report at MAFF this morning. These three wide-ranging reports confirm that the Government's handling of the foot and mouth disease crisis, particularly at its onset, was, at best, inept—so inept that the outbreak was much deeper and lasted much longer than it perhaps may have done. At this stage, I remind the House of my family's farming interests.
The Royal Society makes a number of recommendations relating to its concern about the lack of research. Will the Minister indicate whether new money will be available for funding research into, for example, alternative methods of disease control, alternative methods of cleansing, and particularly vaccination? Does the Minister envisage the thorough testing and approval of vaccines and the concept of "vaccinate to live"—the particularly welcome comment at the end of the report—for animals to live afterwards and then to cull? Will the Government make use of some of the overseas vaccines that are available?
30
The Anderson report is scathing about the lack of funding at Pirbright. Do the Government's future contingency plans include an intention to expand the important role of Pirbright in having acceptable vaccines and the testing facilities to which I referred earlier? The question of vaccination arose at all stages as various Statements were made to the House. Noble Lords will want further clarification of that matter in addition to what the Minister has said.
The Northumberland report on 1967–68 showed that there were 24 almost simultaneous outbreaks at the beginning of that outbreak. Will the Minister indicate why the UK contingency plan this time limited it to a scenario of only 10 farms? I do not understand why it should be lessened. Who made that decision, and why was it made?
On decisions, will the Minister explain it took 25 days before COBRA was called in; why it took nearly 31 days to call in the Army, when in fact the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is in her place, and I raised the issue of the Army being called in on 8th March; and why the scientific group was not established until 35 days after the onset of the disease? Those are disturbing figures. Will the Minister explain why, according to Anderson, scientific decisions were taken outside of COBRA by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture in the middle of the outbreak?
The Anderson report is also outspoken on the failures of joined-up government—members of various departments did not talk to each other—and the failure of the IT system has also been highlighted. In the Statement that has just been repeated. Anderson said that substantial deficiencies in management systems added to the difficulties.
I turn to the question of meat imports, which I divide into two categories, as does Anderson. Anderson accepts that the disease was not caused by the legal importation of meat, but was much more likely to have been caused by the illegal importation of meat, in respect of which, as noble Lords will know, we have called many times for a tightening up of the rules. Will the Minister therefore say why it has taken almost a year for the Government to put into action some extra contingency plans to stop the import of illegal meat into our country?
Throughout the course of this disease, we have unfortunately experienced a breakdown of trust not only between the farming communities but also the rural communities and the general public. The devastation directly affected farmers. It also affected those farmers who could not move their animals but who were not directly affected themselves. It affected rural business, and particularly tourism. I should therefore like to ask the Minister what proposals the Government have to ensure that whatever plans they put forward appreciate the very close interlink between the health of our livestock and the health of the countryside and rural business and tourism.

31
I turn to the Animal Health Bill, which we shall debate later this week. I again quote from Anderson:
"The powers available in the Animal Health Act 1981 should be re-examined".
That is what we should be doing. Will the Minister assure us that the timetable for the current Animal Health Bill will allow such re-examination to be full and thorough? That is particularly important in the light of the research shortcomings, laid bare by the Follett report.
The Anderson report also shows that in the 1967 to 1968 FMD outbreak, 75 per cent of costs went in compensation to farmers. But in the 2001 outbreak that proportion was only 40 per cent. Can the Minister indicate how the Government will control that 60 per cent of costs in any future—heaven forbid—outbreak? Perhaps he may explain where the 60 per cent has gone.
I do not wish to shoot arrows. The report reflects that mistakes were made. I am grateful that the Statement and the Government accept that. However, we want to learn by those mistakes and to see where we can go.
All the reports reflect inadequate action at the start. Had there been more robust action the disease would not have spread as much. I call on the Minister and the Government to have a full debate when we return early in October. It is impossible in the short space of time left before the recess to do anything like justice to these three important reports. Indeed, it will not surprise the Minister when I say that however good these reports are, we should have had a full public inquiry.
The Government have expressed their regrets for some of the mistakes made and are determined to learn. Indeed, the industry should learn in order to find better ways forward. But I ask that we have regular updating; involvement of the stakeholders; and rehearsals of contingency plans. I understand that on a regular basis a review will be brought before Parliament.
It is impossible to pay tribute to all those who worked hard under difficult circumstances and to express sufficiently our sorrow and support for those who were devastated by the outbreak. The noble Lord, at the end of the Statement, referred to the 20-day standstill, which is still in being. As he knows, there is great concern in the industry about that being in effect long term. Can the noble Lord tell us more about the Government's position on the current 20-day standstill? I thank him for repeating the Statement. I look forward to his being able to assure the House that we shall have a full debate when we return in October.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the courtesy of allowing me to see the report this morning. I associate these Benches with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. I shall attempt not to repeat too much of it.
32
These three reports are an important stage in getting the farming industry and the countryside back to something like normal—or what normal will be in the future—after the devastation of the foot and mouth outbreak. They also will provide useful background for our discussions in the next few days and after the recess when the Animal Health Bill is in Committee.
The immediate issue raised in the Anderson report is the question of the 20-day standstill, to which the noble Baroness referred. There is a great feeling in the industry that not only would it be devastating to keep a 20-day standstill for a substantial period of time and through the autumn of this year, but that it is also almost unenforceable, placing farmers in a position where they would feel the need to break it on a large scale. It is important, therefore, that the Government find a compromise, which is accepted on all sides, which works, and which will do the job we want it to do. So we very much welcome the commitment in the Statement to a speedy review.
There are some interesting statistics in various parts of the report. On page 27, for example, it reveals that the State Veterinary Service has been run down. In 1979 to 1980 it employed 597 vets and in 1995 it employed 300. In that period it was believed—under the then Conservative government—that the state ought not to be doing things that other people could do them and that self-regulation was the way forward. It was also a time when efficiency savings were much in vogue. That is a good example of those two dogmas failing us badly. The reduced MAFF presence in the regions during that period and the cuts in research—not least at Pirbright—are other examples that should provide us with food for thought for policy in the future. I, too, ask the Government what they are doing to put more resources into those and similar areas.
The two sectors devastated more than any others by foot and mouth were farming and tourism. Tourism throughout the outbreak got a worse deal than farming. At least farmers whose animals were culled got compensation, although many others did not. On page 133 of the report, there are interesting statistics providing the sectoral economic effect of FMD 2001 to 2005. It suggests that for agricultural producers there will be a net loss of £710,000. For tourism, it is £5 billion. That indicates the huge impact on the whole of the varied tourist industry. It is absolutely vital that any future outbreak is not allowed to impact in that way on such an important industry, not just in terms of this country's economy but for the whole way in which the countryside now works.
The report's recommendations seem rather weak in the whole area of tourism and the rural economy in general. However, I very much welcome the statement from the Minister that in a future outbreak they would not be looking to impose any blanket ban on the closure of footpaths. There are all kinds of things which occurred during this outbreak which must never happen again. I cannot say that foot and mouth disease must never happen again. It is impossible to guarantee that. I mean the way that images of funeral pyres were beamed around the world; the way in which large areas of countryside were turned into war zones

33
where it was living hell, not just for the affected farmers but for many other people; the human misery and tragedy, the suicides that took place—and the many other people who must have been on the brink of suicide—and the huge mistakes made right at the beginning in declaring that the countryside was closed.
I believe that vaccination and what the Follett report refers to as "preventive vaccination to live" is a fundamental key to the future. It is a fundamental key in getting the trust of farmers as well as the rest of society. The recommendations set out in the Royal Society report are vital. Again I very much welcome the statement by the Government that preventive vaccination to live would form a key part of future strategy. The Follett report points out that the whole area of vaccination needs a great deal more research before it becomes a practical strategy. It suggests a timescale of 18 months. I ask the Government whether this will be an absolute top priority.
The publication of these reports is a turning point. It is a chance to lance the wounds and to start a healing process in the countryside based on developing a consensus for the future. But I believe the Government must go further than merely admitting that mistakes were made. It would help enormously if they could apologise for those mistakes in a fulsome and genuine kind of way, saying that they are sorry for the farmers who suffered; that they are sorry for the tourist industry; sorry for everything else that happened in the countryside last year; and sorry for their contribution to what happened. Have the Government the guts and the sense to face the countryside and say, "Yes, we didn't just make mistakes in hindsight, but we are deeply sorry for them. We want to work with you to stop them happening again"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. If I may, I shall grind quickly through the specific points made and then turn to the general points.
On research, we shall clearly have to take seriously the substantial recommendations of the Royal Society report. How we fund research is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the institutes and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Of course, there is also the question of whether that should be performed on a European scale, because we face the same problems across Europe and must take a consistent approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked why the contingency plan was based on 10 farms or 10 outbreaks. The reason for that was that for some years the European Union requirements for the contingency plan were for the most likely scenario. In the light of evidence, that was judged the most likely scenario. That is what the plan was based on, and it was clearly inadequate to deal with the massive outbreak that actually occurred. The key finding is that, before we knew it was there, the disease had entered 57 farms.
The noble Baroness asked several questions about the machinery and why there were delays in involving the military, COBRA and so on. We shall clearly have
34
to consider those areas carefully. Co-ordination of government is an important issue, which is one reason why we have now set up a Civil Contingencies Committee. When we face future crises, whether or not involving animal disease, we ought to be able to pull together the resources of government more rapidly. At the time, of course, it was not immediately evident that the disease was of such crisis proportions. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learnt.
On imports, the noble Baroness will have heard me say many times that there is more to be done. An action plan is in place and we are tightening up both on smuggling through passenger imports and on potential illegal imports through commercial channels. The reports, together with the risk assessment that we are completing, will give us more of a basis to act on that front.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, both referred to the involvement of the tourist industry and others, including the farming industry and government. It is important that future contingency plans not only take them into account but involve other elements of rural society and the rural economy in the rehearsals for and understanding of the plan.
The noble Baroness also asked about two immediate issues to which I referred at the end of the Statement: the Animal Health Bill and the 20-day standstill period. Clearly, the reports may have implications for the Animal Health Bill. That is one reason for the timetable on which we eventually reached consensus, which gives us the summer to think about the matter. There may also be other, wider implications for animal health legislation that may have to be dealt with more broadly. We shall need to consider that in the light of the findings and recommendations of the reports. I do not expect that that will seriously affect the timetable, but we will need to consider that after the summer. No doubt, noble Lords will also have amendments to propose and points to make about that.
The noble Baroness raised the question of the proportion of costs, which is an interesting point. One of the differences between the 1967 outbreak and the latest one was, first, that more animals were killed but, perhaps more importantly, that the costs of disposal and the need for disposal effectively to be undertaken by the Government made those non-compensation costs much higher. There is an issue about cost efficiency, about which both these reports and the National Audit Office report make points, and, frankly, about who will bear those risks in future, which the industry and the Government need to discuss. But that is the main change: the non-disposal costs—the cleansing and disinfection costs—which were borne by the Government separate from compensation, were substantially higher than in 1967.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness referred to the 20-day standstill period. Clearly, that is the issue that most concerns the industry and the department at present. As I have told the industry, our veterinary and scientific advice is that we should maintain the 20-day standstill, or something

35
like it. Indeed, the Anderson report states clearly that it should remain until an effective and thorough risk assessment is adopted. As I said in the Statement, we will continue to discuss with the livestock industry during the next few days what, if any, changes can be made to that regime in the immediate future and to consider the long-term regime that may be appropriate following that thorough risk assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the number of people employed by the State Veterinary Service. The figures are slightly misleading. Far be it from me to defend the previous Conservative government, but the numbers at the outset include all of the managerial, structural and research grades, some of which were removed from the State Veterinary Service when the regions were rationalised. So there has been a significant reduction in the management structure of the SVS; but the number of field veterinarians has not altered that much—certainly during the past 10 years—when they are counted on the same basis. Although there has been a reduction in the total size of the service over the long term, the reduction in the field service during the past 10 years has been much smaller. Of course, the field service is the key element in spotting and immediately dealing with the disease.
I echo the views of both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the need to establish trust and understanding. There has been a serious breakdown of trust and the Government recognise our responsibility in that respect. If we are to use a "vaccinate to live" rather than a "vaccinate to kill" policy, understanding must be established in the farming industry and elsewhere both domestically and internationally of how the vaccinated meat and meat products would move into the normal food chain. That was one difficulty during the epidemic.
Trust also needs to be established in a wider sense; as I said, the Government accept our responsibility in that regard. Mistakes were of many different sorts. In retrospect and with hindsight, some strategic mistakes were made, most of which we have acknowledged. In what was a massive logistical exercise, mistakes were made in implementing the policy. Those are identified in the reports.
How many strategic mistakes were made at the centre because of the information then available—given the constraints on that identified in the report—is a different matter. I do not accept the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to make a general apology in that respect. Things occurred that we regret, but I do not believe that my predecessors, senior or local departmental officials are culpable in any individual or collective sense for what happened. We were all faced with an unprecedented situation—in effect, a wartime situation. Mistakes are made in war, however effective or otherwise the strategic direction. That is the case here. The main thing now is not to go blaming each other but to continue to build that basis of trust in the countryside that has been sadly missing in the wake of the disease.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, I refer him back to his quotation at its end from the report, which states:
"Even had everything been done perfectly by all those concerned to tackle the disease, the country would have had a major epidemic with massive consequences".
Although no one would argue with that, Dr Anderson must have made a broad assessment of how many animals would have had to be slaughtered if everything had been done perfectly. Will the Minister tell us—in broad terms; clearly we cannot be precise—how many extra animals were slaughtered in that dreadful affair as a consequence of the unpreparedness, delay and incompetence to which he has admitted today?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without accepting the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, there are different forms of effect on the disease. There is no answer to his question. The lack of preparedness in certain respects relates to a wrong presumption of what was the most likely scenario. Clearly, had we made a different presumption, the level of preparedness and the speed with which we contained the disease would have been greater. However, the report states that, given where we were, it would have been more sensible to engage in a wider pre-emptive cull, in which case, per outbreak, more animals would have been slaughtered in order to contain the disease more rapidly. Similarly, given the fact that there were at least 57 seedings before we even knew of the existence of the disease, as well as others developing as we were trying to catch up with the spread, the balance between slaughtering more to contain the disease at the beginning and the total number involved will never be able to be calculated.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises that mistakes were made, though I am not interested in whether they were blameworthy or whether one can say, with the benefit of hindsight, that any mistakes were made. I also welcome the fact that the noble Lord accepts most of the recommendations, and agrees that there are lessons to be learned. However, in the light of that, I find it totally incomprehensible that he is intending to press on with the relevant part of the Animal Health Bill on the very first day of our October sittings.
Is the noble Lord suggesting that there is nothing contained in these reports that would alter the contents of those parts of the Animal Health Bill? In view of these recommendations, does he intend to deluge the House with a whole raft of amendments to bring the legislation up to date? Alternatively, is he leaving it to the Opposition, or to Back-Benchers, to amend his Bill and thereby bring it into line with the recommendations?
Bearing in mind all that is to be learnt from these reports, how does the Minister consider that the Bill can possibly proceed until we have had a debate on these reports, and he has brought forward either a re-drafted Bill or amendments to it so as to bring it in line with the recommendations that the Government

37
accept? If we do not follow that route, the entire postponement of the Bill's passage until such reports were made will have been a waste of time, and a farce.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said earlier in response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we shall need to consider what is in these reports that may require amendment to the proposed Animal Health Bill. No doubt other noble Lords will be doing likewise during the Committee and subsequent stages of the legislation. There are two items that are already in the Animal Health Bill that meet some of the anxieties expressed by Dr Anderson. In particular, he is concerned that the contiguous cull was not carried out rapidly enough. Of course, there are additional powers in the Bill that are intended to speed up that process.
In addition to the provisions in the Animal Health Bill, there is a need to make provision for pre-emptive culls. That is also, in part, covered by firebreak cullings in similar provisions, as well as being covered by this legislation. Moreover, it would be even more important for those provisions to be there were we to adopt a substantial policy of vaccination. Powers to impose both a contiguous vaccination and firebreak vaccination would be a consequence of us adopting vaccination in the way that both reports suggest we should now consider. Therefore, the Animal Health Bill already contains some powers that are fairly controversial in this House, but which meet some of Dr Anderson's anxieties. However, there may be others.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that hindsight is a weapon that everyone can take advantage of after the event has taken place, but that, nevertheless, lessons should be drawn from such experience, and consequently acted upon? One observation that must be made on all this is the number of cases that developed—I believe that my noble friend mentioned 57—before the disease was reported. Is there not something that the farming community can learn from that; namely, that surveillance is necessary and early reporting essential?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I absolutely agree with both those observations. Clearly, hindsight must not be used to suggest that decisions taken at the time based on the information available were unreasonable or inequitable. However, it is not only important for government to learn such lessons; industry must do likewise. The bulk of industry is responsible for observing biosecurity and for reporting any sign of disease. Regrettably, the incident mentioned in the Statement reaffirmed that fact. The rules are sometimes not being observed, and the process of reporting is not being undertaken. As we now know, the almost certain origin of the disease—the farm where this occurred—noble Lords, and others, cannot fail but to be horrified at the conditions at that farm and the trading process that followed. There are lessons to be learnt by both government and industry.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, which may come as
38
both a deep and a bad shock to him. Hindsight is a bad instrument. However, is the Minister aware that the use of the word "hindsight" on this occasion is totally irrelevant. Some of us were advocating vaccination as early as April, and the Prime Minister accepted the need for vaccination when he met the Soil Association, the National Trust, and four other bodies; but he then said "I've got to ask the farmers". Can the noble Lord imagine my noble friend Lady Thatcher taking that view once she had made up her mind? The answer is, no.
Vaccination was tried in Uruguay at the same time, where 10 million animals were vaccinated. As a result, they had to slaughter only 10,000 and the disease was contained and eradicated. The disease in that country started after our outbreak, but it finished before our outbreak was brought to a halt. That is not hindsight. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is nothing to apologise for; there jolly well is something to apologise for. After all, the Prime Minister apologised for the famine in Ireland for which he had absolutely no responsibility, but he cannot apologise—or get his act together—as regards the foot and mouth disease, which was prolonged, exacerbated and made worse by the fatuous incompetence of the Treasury Bench.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I strongly resent the noble Earl's last few remarks. Indeed, his comments are not in the spirit within which the rest of this discussion has taken place. I believe that we all have lessons to learn; and we intend to do so. Many wrongdoings occurred during the course of that period, some on the part of government and others on the part of industry. We all need to recognise that fact.
As regards vaccination, I can confirm that we did consider vaccination at various points during the outbreak. However, it was vaccination for very specific purposes. The events to which the noble Earl referred related to cattle only and were in respect of Cumbria only. Once the disease had broken out, we would not have had the logistical resources or the availability of vaccine to enable us to carry out vaccination on a scale equivalent to the Uruguayan experience. It was not a feasible option as an alternative to the cull. The Netherlands was the only country to follow that route. It very efficiently used that process as a supportive mechanism, but did so on a "vaccinate to kill" rather than a "vaccinate to live" basis.
It is important that any future strategy not only has the involvement of the farmers and the rest of the community; it must also have the understanding of the farmers and the rest of the community. Therefore, although the methods of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, may be appealing to the noble Earl, I believe that both industry and government together need, at least broadly, to agree the future strategy, without conflict, if disease—God help us!—ever breaks out again.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I refer to the Royal Society report, which I consider contains the

39
most important analysis and recommendations for the future in the history of the control of foot and mouth disease. Obviously, the question now is how to prevent another disaster occurring. Does the Minister agree that it is significant that the report shows important recent advances in vaccines, and that it is now possible to distinguish vaccinated from non-vaccinated animals? Does he also agree that it is an error to suppose that a carrier animal is automatically infectious; on the contrary, the carrier animal is not likely to be a significant risk factor in spreading and maintaining foot and mouth disease? Does he further agree that the report positively recommends that emergency vaccination should be seen as a major tool of first resort? Does the noble Lord consider those three points significant? I do.
I hope that we shall not spend too much time on apportioning blame for the past—indeed, I shall not—but rather that we concentrate on planning for the future. It would be a serious blunder if the Follett report is not acted upon, and acted upon fast.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that advances have been made over the course of the past year in some of the technology and in the provision of vaccine, some of which still has to be validated internationally in order for it to be fully effective. It is certainly true to say that some advances have been made that were not available—or would not have been accepted—had we wished to deploy them during the course of this epidemic.
It is also important that, in preparation, we use vaccination—emergency vaccination and firebreak vaccination—as a tool. At this stage, it is not possible to say that vaccination entirely replaces the culling system; we will not be at that stage for many years. However, vaccination ought to be one of the immediately available tools. Vaccination and its consequences must be understood in advance by the farming community, the rest of the food chain and the international regulators. Without that, vaccination will not be viable, but I believe that we can overcome those difficulties.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease was such as no other country has experienced. I can assure the Minister that the three reports into the handling of the outbreak and the lessons to be learnt will be read by people in many countries who will admire how we handled the problem. However, mistakes were made, including the lack of attention to the need for sufficient manpower to survey the health status of flocks and herds in this country; the dwindling level of research into highly infectious diseases; and the lack of control on imports, about which some of us have spoken. All those matters are mentioned in the three reports, each of which contains an enormous amount of information that requires careful study, as we consider the way ahead.
We did not know what sort of outbreak we faced. If it had been the sort of outbreak we experienced 20 years or more ago—a single outbreak—it would have
40
been acceptable and satisfactory to react as we did at that time. However, the outbreak got away from us, and it was several weeks before we knew precisely what we were dealing with. Therein lies the major problem, given the shortage of manpower and the absence of the tools we now have. We must face the fact: some of the technology that could be used now to differentiate between vaccinated animals and infected animals and the new vaccines have come on line only in past months. We did not have them a year ago when we could have used them to great advantage for pen-side diagnosis, as mentioned on the radio this morning. We did not have that sort of test, and we cannot criticise people for trying to diagnose foot and mouth disease using the old clinical methods.
The Government must convince the general public that there is nothing wrong with meat from vaccinated animals: we eat it every day. All our chickens, sheep, pigs and cattle are vaccinated one way or another. It is ludicrous that there should be any revulsion against eating meat from animals vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. We import meat from countries that use vaccines against foot and mouth disease. The Government must make a major effort to convince the general public that such meat is safe and edible.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his remarks about what must now be done and about the quality of the reports. The reports show that there has been a thorough examination, and the three areas that the noble Lord identified will be addressed.
The noble Lord's final point—about the public view of vaccinated meat—is also important. I came to the matter halfway through, and it always seemed illogical to me. One of the reasons we did not pursue a policy of vaccination was that there was a view among consumers, in the wholesale and retail trade and internationally, that there should be a difference. There is a difference internationally between FMD-free status and FMD-with-vaccination-free status. That issue must be addressed domestically and internationally.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as several noble Lords have said, the three reports are extremely important. Can my noble friend deal, once and for all, with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the absence of a public inquiry? Three reports, containing nearly 500 pages of closely argued scientific, logistical and policy argument, have been produced in six months. How long would a public inquiry have taken? What information would it have produced that is not already in those comprehensive reports?
The Royal Society report makes it clear that there was no alternative to the rapid culling of diseased animals and of those thought likely to have been infected. It supports the 24-hour and 48-hour policy, although it is hard to achieve in practice. To the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I say that the Anderson report says that, on vaccination, the science is not yet clear enough. How long will it take to get agreed EU and international protocols in place for emergency

41
vaccination? The National Audit Office report and the Anderson report refer to the widespread seeding of the virus before it was reported. Can my noble friend confirm that the failure to report the 57 outbreaks in 16 counties was the main factor in the speed and severity of the outbreak?
Can I also ask my noble friend to clarify, in the light of what we now know, what powers are required? It is an important point. It appears that the Government do not have sufficient powers to deal with another outbreak. What will happen if—please God it does not happen—there is another outbreak before the Animal Health Bill becomes law? I hope that we can get to the Committee stage when we return. The Anderson report was a little unclear about the issue; the Minister's Statement was clearer. Can the Minister confirm that the powers in the Bill and any other powers that the Government may wish to introduce will be sufficient to deal with another outbreak?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to answer my noble friend's last point, I shall expand on what I said earlier. The powers in the Bill now address some of the problems identified by Anderson. We will need to take careful note of other comments about the powers and how they are exercised or inhibited before we can say whether they are adequate. As part of the overall animal health strategy recommended by both reports, there must be a wholesale consideration of animal health legislation in general. Subject to that consideration, the Animal Health Bill would go some way to meeting the requirements.
My noble friend referred to undetected spread. I was not suggesting that 57 people failed to report; I said that, by the time that the outbreak was reported, 57 cases were already seeded, not all of which would have been apparent at that stage. That meant that we were running behind the disease until, eventually, it reached its peak. That was the major strategic disadvantage that we faced. The outbreak was unlike most other epidemics, including the Dutch outbreak. There, they identified the fact that there was a problem immediately and dealt with it quickly and strategically, but not without culling large numbers of animals.
I have covered the points about vaccination. It is true that vaccination could not be carried out unless there were domestic and international agreement on the implications. In introducing its report, the Royal Society said that we ought to be able to reach some agreement at the level of the European Union and the Office International des Epizooties by the end of 2003. That seems optimistic and is the minimum time that we would need to get an international understanding that vaccinated animals could go into the national and international food chain.
Turning to the question of a public inquiry, I refrained from responding to the noble Baroness earlier lest I descended into party politics. However, whatever one may have thought of a public inquiry at the time, we now have three very authoritative reports on the table—or even four if we include the Curry/National Audit Office report. As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, remarked, those reports will be read
42
throughout the world and will become the authoritative account of how the epidemic began, how overcoming it was conducted and how we should approach any future outbreak.
To be frank, I do not think that a public inquiry could have reached this stage in this length of time. The Phillips inquiry lasted for three years, and we know that other inquiries have lasted even longer. Moreover, I shall repeat a point that I have made before in this House. People were probably more frank in their discussions with Dr Anderson and the Royal Society than they would have been had they had to give evidence in the quasi-judicial procedure through which the public inquiry process would have put them. For that reason, I think that the good doctor and the Royal Society have reached conclusions on the basis of the experiences of many people who have aired their views and understanding of the situation. I am not sure that those views would have emerged in a public inquiry, even after three years. In that respect at least, the Government are vindicated in their decision on how to review the conduct of the disease.
Now we must move on and learn the lesson—in the Government, in industry and in society as a whole.

Commonwealth Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Proceeds of Crime Bill
5.2 p.m.
Proceeds of Crime Bill

  MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 57 as first printed for the Lords]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 4
  4 Clause 6, page 32, at end insert "unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so"
  The Commons disagreed to the amendment for the following Reason—
  4A Because it is not appropriate for the court to have a discretion to decide not to initiate proceedings for confiscation orders.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A, but do agree Amendments Nos. 4B to 4K in lieu thereof.
  4B. Clause 75, page 48, line 4 at end insert—
  "(3A) But an offence does not satisfy the test in subsection (2)(d) or (e) unless the defendant obtains relevant benefit of not less than £5000.(3B) Relevant benefit for the purposes of subsection (2)(d) is—

  (a) benefit from conduct which constitutes the offence,

  (b) benefit from any other conduct which forms part of the course of criminal activity and which constitutes an offence of which the defendant has been convicted;

  (c) benefit from conduct which constitutes an offence which has been or will be taken into consideration by the court in sentencing the defendant for an offence mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).

  (3C) Relevant benefit for the purposes of subsection (2)(e) is—

  (a) benefit from conduct which constitutes the offence;

  (b) benefit from conduct which constitutes an offence which has been or will be taken into consideration by the court in sentencing the defendant for the offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

  (3D) The Secretary of State may. by order vary the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3A)."
  4C Clause 341, page 200, line 3, at end insert—
  "(5) There must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be produced or for access to it to be given, having regard to—

  (a) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained;

  (b) the circumstances under which the person the application specifies as appearing to be in possession or control of the material holds it"

  4D Clause 348, page 203, line 18, after "sought," insert—
  "(aa) it is in the public interest for the material to be obtained, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained,"
  4E Page 203, line 31, after "(8)," insert—
  "(aa) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be obtained, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained,"
  4F Clause 353, page 206, line 41, at end insert—
  "(4) There must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained."
  4G Clause 360, page 211, line 19, at end insert—
  "(6) In the case of any investigation, there must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the customer information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation obtained."
  4H Clause 366, page 213, line 44, at end insert—
  "(6) In the case of any investigation, there must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the account information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained."
  4J Clause 451, Page 260, line 25, after "section" insert "75(3D)"
  4K Page 260, line 36, after "section" insert "75(3D)"
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A, but do agree Amendments Nos. 4B to 4K in lieu thereof. With these amendments I shall also speak to Lords Amendments Nos. 43 and 73 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 43A and 73A, and our proposed Amendments Nos. 43B to 43K inclusive and 73B to 73D in lieu thereof.
  These amendments return us to themes that will be quite familiar to noble Lords. Let me begin by discussing the question of mandatory versus discretionary confiscation procedures. In explaining our reasons for opposing the amendments, I should make it clear at the outset that the Government are not wedded to mandatory procedures. As was pointed out more than once during the recent debate in another place, the Bill contains many instances where discretion is granted to the courts.
  For example, the court has a discretion as to whether it makes a restraint or receivership order. Our preference is to retain where possible the traditional discretion of the courts. However, where it is necessary for good reason to fetter that discretion in the public interest, we shall have no hesitation in doing so. I think it fair to add that we are not the first government to have enunciated such a principle.
  The difficulty with the amendments, as we see it, is that they would reverse a steady historical development in favour of more mandatory confiscation procedures. This development took place over a number of statutes, beginning with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and ending with the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995. The main reason for increasingly mandatory confiscation procedures was the importance which successive governments and oppositions have placed on the recovery of criminal proceeds as a weapon against serious and acquisitive crime, coupled with advice from the enforcement authorities that the courts were not exercising their discretionary powers as rigorously as they should have done.
  Those concerns are as valid today as ever. The Bill comes against a background where that confiscation is still underused and where the Government have had to create a right of appeal for the prosecutor and director to deal with courts that refuse to apply the procedures at all, despite their mandatory terms. So, on this occasion, there is good reason for making an exception to the general rule in favour of the court's discretion.
  We accepted that the amendments are drafted in terms of exceptional cases, but we believe that courts will be tempted to expand the definition of "exceptional circumstances" to encompass cases that

  45
  are not truly exceptional. They would encourage different practices across the jurisdiction, there would be a decline in the benefit confiscated and their ultimate effect would be to discredit the legislation, not only with the public but also with the criminal.
  As we made clear when the point was previously discussed in this House, we are firmly opposed on principle to the notion that there can be exceptional reasons not to make a confiscation order. Recovery of benefit from crime can never be wrong. I must oppose the amendments to maintain the basic integrity of the Bill. For the reasons that I have given, I would ask the House not to insist upon its Amendments Nos. 4, 43 and 73, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Perhaps I may turn to the government amendments in lieu. During the long passage of the Bill the Government have on many occasions shown themselves ready and willing to listen to what the Opposition have been telling us. We continue to take the view that it is not appropriate for the court to have a discretion when it comes to making a confiscation order. However, we have considered the court's role in the earlier, investigatory stages before the prosecutor asks for a confiscation hearing. We think that the court has an important role at this stage in ensuring that inappropriate investigations are not mounted. That will ensure that cases that should not be brought before the case even gets to the stage of a confiscation hearing.
  That brings me to a related question which has also exercised the Opposition both here and in another place. It was objected that one of the requirements for the granting of the investigatory powers and warrants in Part 8 should be that it was in the public interest for the court to grant the order or warrant. We had previously reached the conclusion that, while a public interest test applied, it was not necessary to make that clear on the face of the Bill. Having reconsidered the point, we recognise that there are still some concerns. Accordingly we have prepared Amendments Nos. 4C to 4H inclusive and 43C to 43H which will put the matter beyond doubt.
  Part 8 of the Bill would now state explicitly that the court will have the discretion to make investigatory orders only where it would be in the public interest to do so. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will join with me in approving Amendments Nos. 4C to 4H and 43C to 43H inclusive.
  In considering the court's discretion, we have also accepted that there is some strength to the argument, which has been presented under various guises throughout the passage of the Bill, that some of the criminal lifestyle tests potentially expose a defendant convicted of very trivial offences to severe consequences. We accept that, as the Bill currently stands, it would be possible for the court to apply assumptions where an offender is convicted of one summary offence lasting for more than six months, or four summary offences of any description from which only a very small amount of benefit has been derived.
  The same is true where an offender is convicted of an offence from which he has benefited and has two other past convictions of the same kind. The benefit could be
  46
  trivial, but a confiscation order could still be made. As we pointed out, it is unthinkable that the director or the prosecutor would mount a confiscation proceeding in an obviously inappropriate case or that the court would apply the assumptions on its own motion in such cases. We are willing to concede, however, that some formal fetter to the authorities' powers will help to make it clear that confiscation orders will not be applied for unfairly against those offenders who have a criminal lifestyle as it is understood by the Bill.
  In order to meet the concerns that have been expressed, but at the same time preserve the integrity of confiscation as a mandatory procedure, we have tabled Amendments Nos. 4B, 43B and 73B to the criminal lifestyle scheme, which will have the following effect. The scheme will apply to those convicted of one of more scheduled offences exactly as at present. Instead of the present arrangements, however, we are now proposing that the court will be able to decide that the defendant satisfies one of the other criminal lifestyle tests only where the total benefit from the triggering offences and any other offences taken into account for sentencing exceeds £5,000.
  That will ensure that an offender who is not convicted of one of the special scheduled offences can be identified as a criminal lifestyle offender only if he has benefited significantly from offences of which he has been convicted, or which are taken into consideration by the court in determining sentence.
  Amendments Nos. 4J and 4K, 43J and 43K and 73C and 73D include a power for the Secretary of State to change the £5,000 threshold by order. This power will be used both to take account of inflation and to respond to different patterns and trends of offending. It is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure because we accept that Parliament should have full opportunity to scrutinise any changes to the criminal lifestyle tests.
  The change will meet concerns that have been expressed in both Houses about the breadth of the provisions and I hope therefore that the Opposition will be prepared to lend it their support and that they will join me in not insisting upon the amendments I discussed earlier.
  These amendments will also strengthen the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will join me in approving them. I commend them to the House.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A, but do agree Amendments Nos. 4B to 4K in lieu thereof.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 9
  9 After clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
  "Compensation of creditors

  (1) Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.

  47

  (2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

  (a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

  (b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

  (c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  9A Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 9A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 78 and 166, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 47A, 78A and 166A.
  As specified in their reasons, Amendments Nos. 9, 47, 78 and 166 involve privilege in that they would involve a charge on public funds. The amendments would require the law enforcement authorities to pay the debts of unsecured creditors and such authorities are not presently resourced to meet such expenditure.
  More specifically, the amendments would empower the courts to order the enforcement authorities to pay compensation to make up the amount of any debt the defendant was unable to repay because of the making of a confiscation order. On the face of it, the maximum possible cost of the amendments would be roughly the amount that is currently recovered under confiscation orders; that is, approximately £18 million a year.
  It is theoretically possible, however, for a defendant to have larger debts than the value of the confiscation order made against him. It is also possible for these debts to be to several different people. All the different creditors could argue with equal validity that it was their own debt that was unpaid because of the confiscation order. The maximum cost of the amendments could therefore be higher than the maximum recovered annually under confiscation orders.
  We do not know what debts defendants have, or the extent to which the availability of compensation would stimulate claims which cannot be made at present, so it is difficult to estimate accurately the financial effect of the amendments. But, as I have illustrated it could be considerable. I commend the Motion to the House.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 9A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 30
  30 Clause 42, page 28, line 29, at end insert—
  "() make provision for the payment of debts of the specified person incurred for full consideration before the restraint order was made,"
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  30A Because it is not appropriate to create a preference for unsecured creditors, which would be open to abuse by criminals.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 30A. With these amendments, I shall speak also to your Lordships' Amendments Nos. 66 and 99, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 66A and 99A.
  These amendments deal with an issue that has been debated very thoroughly both in this House and in the other place. The issue is the position of unsecured creditors under Parts 2 to 4 of the Bill. In this instance, the question is whether such creditors should have debts owed to them by a defendant paid from restrained assets.
  The Government fully agree with the arguments which were put forward in the other place for rejecting the amendments. We consider that there are a number of serious objections to the amendments, both practical and principled.
  To take the practical objections first, I must impress upon the House that we consulted the enforcement authorities about the effect of these amendments before we returned to the issue in the other place. They tell us that the amendments would seriously undermine the criminal confiscation parts of the Bill. On the basis of their day-to-day experience in operating the present confiscation laws, they believe the amendments would stimulate fraudulent claims, designed to engineer criminals' assets into the hands of their families and associates. We see no reason to disagree with the enforcement authorities' assessment of this issue. It is based on their practical experience of dealing with criminals and their assets.
  In our view, the amendments would also undermine the Bill by encouraging criminals to run up bone fide debts in order to frustrate the confiscation process. This too would undermine the operation of the legislation. Worst of all, perhaps, the amendments would overload the enforcement authorities and the courts with onerous and unnecessary litigation to determine whether claims were genuine or not. That cannot be in the public interest.
  My honourable friend in another place was asked towards the end of the most recent debate there whether he would confirm that the Government's only objections to the amendments were practical. He declined to do so. There are also objections of principle to them. Let me remind the House of them briefly. First, we know of no other disposal which places unsecured creditors in the specially favoured position which these amendments would.
  Secondly, the making and enforcement of a confiscation order do not relieve criminals of the obligation to pay their debts. We see no reason why criminals should not be required to pay their debts as well as their confiscation orders.

  49
  Thirdly, it is implicit in the amendments that it is acceptable for criminals to pay their debts with assets which they have derived from crime. We reject that suggestion. The proceeds of crime belong to the victim, where one is identifiable, and to society, where one cannot be identified. Criminals have no right to pay their debts with assets that they were never entitled to in the first place.
  We recognise that there are strongly held views on the other side and we have listened to them carefully. As so often, it is a question of where the balance of the argument lies. It is our considered conclusion that in this case it is firmly against the amendments passed by your Lordships' House. I commend the Motion to the House.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 30A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 30A,
  30B leave out "not".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment invites the House to restore an amendment originally passed at Report stage in your Lordships' House. In the form in which it now appears, it is a little unfortunate. The amendment leaves out only the word "not". If it were passed, the provision would read:
  "Because it is appropriate to create a preference for unsecured creditors, which would be open to abuse by criminals".
  That is obviously not the intention of the amendment. It would be necessary also to leave out the words:
  "which would be open to abuse by criminals".
  I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 66B and 99B. The purpose of the amendments is to allow the court, on making a restraining order, to make provision for payment of debts incurred in good faith out of the restrained assets of the person against whom a restraint order was made. In your Lordships' House, the three original amendments were passed as a part of a larger group directed to the same issue—that is, the payment of debts due to unsecured creditors of the defendant in priority to the seizure of those assets by the Government. The remainder of the amendments in the group have just been rejected on privilege grounds for the reasons numbered 9A, 47A, 78A and 166A—and obviously this House can do nothing about that.
  In principle the amendments we have put forward are matters of obvious and simple fairness. The Government do not have a proprietary claim to confiscated assets which is prior to or equal to that of creditors. The victims in these cases are unlikely to claim, particularly because a large part of the funds will arise out of drug dealing where, quite plainly, the purchaser of the drug has no claim for the money that he has paid over to buy the drugs. As for society, yes, in a sense it does have a claim—but that claim is quite remote and far less immediate than the claim of the unpaid creditor.
  The situation is quite different from that of tax, where there is undoubtedly a liability consisting of a debt owed by the taxpayer to the Government. It is worth noting that, up until now, the Government have had priority as a preferential creditor of the taxpayer but, under the Enterprise Bill now passing through your Lordships' House, the Government are giving up that priority and they will have, henceforth, only an equal right to recover tax debts as other unsecured creditors.
  In the debate in the other place when our amendments were being considered, Mr Bob Ainsworth, who was the responsible Minister, said:
  "The amendments would undermine the confiscation scheme so completely as to render it inoperable"—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/02; col. 508.]
  Those words deserve the McEnroe response—"You cannot be serious".
  Under our amendment, to get paid a creditor would have to show that the debt was incurred for full value and without knowledge of any possible confiscation proceedings against the debtor. The courts have plenty of experience in deciding whether or not debts are bogus. They have to do so all the time in bankruptcy proceedings.
  We are trying to protect the small creditor—the builder, the shopkeeper, the people who are unsecured creditors. The big creditors—the banks, the building societies—are all right. They are secured creditors, and secured creditors are repaid out of the proceeds of sale of confiscated assets. But the unsecured creditors, however innocent, end up being left out in the cold.
  The Government have a fanciful idea that Mr Big would run up a lot of unsecured debts, possibly bogus, possibly real. Let me tell the Government what Mr Big would do. He would do a deal with a dodgy bank in a dodgy tax haven and he would give the hank security over all his chargeable assets in the United Kingdom. That security would be fully documented and, when the confiscation order was made, the bank would claim its money under the security—and that money would reappear in some overseas company under the control of Mr Big or his friends or family.
  Why do not the Government follow the logic of their own argument and confiscate the security interests in the defendant's property as well as the unsecured rights? The big banks, I am afraid, carry more clout than Bob the Builder. The Government recognise the right of unsecured creditors to get paid out of property that is subject to a civil recovery order under Part 5 of the Bill. Why are a confiscation order and a civil recovery order so different?
  The Government are being blindly stubborn. They have convinced themselves that claims by unsecured creditors would undermine the scheme of the Bill. They consulted the Enforcement Authority—as no doubt they would. But that authority is a profoundly interested party. Why did not the Government consult more widely than that?
  There is no evidence that claims by unsecured creditors would undermine the scheme of the Bill and no reason whatever to believe that that is true. They

  51
  might involve a certain amount of additional expense in court proceedings but one would hope that whether or not a claim by an unsecured creditor was genuine could fairly quickly be identified. Unsecured creditors would be unlikely to take the risk of being saddled with the expenses of the proceedings if they fought on without a good case.
  As matters now stand, the Government will be punishing innocent creditors. In a sense, this is a minor point. It is not central to the Bill and the Government could have given way without damaging it. But the line taken by the Government is obviously unfair and unnecessary. Their defences, quite frankly, are utterly feeble. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 30A, leave out "not"—(Lord Goodhart.)
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will pay serious attention to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have the impression that the Government do not care about unsecured creditors. If I were in a charitable mood—which I am not particularly—I would say that the most charitable excuse for the drafting of the Government's reason for not agreeing to our Amendment No. 30—
  "Because it is not appropriate to create a preference for unsecured creditors, which would be open to abuse by criminals"—
  is that at that stage the Government were feeling tired and their intellectual resources could produce nothing better than this lame piece of verbiage.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is quite right not to be satisfied with the Government's reason. I should not like to anticipate what I intend to say when we come to the amendments where the Government have said with great frankness that the House of Commons have had no opportunity to debate them. Perhaps they should have said so in this case. At least that would have been a little more honest. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious attention.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I have not taken part in the consideration of these matters before. I see the force of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. This is not a question of creating a preference for unsecured creditors; the Government are giving themselves a preference over unsecured creditors by making a restraint order. Until now, they had no entitlement or right to these monies at all. As has been pointed out, they have no claim to the proceeds of crime save as created by the Bill. The victim has—the bank which has been robbed, and so on—but the state has no right at all. The Government are creating a preference for themselves.
  Let us consider the position of the unsecured creditor—whom the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has, rather nauseatingly, identified as Bob the Builder—in a situation where, for many years, Mr Big has
  52
  conducted very successful major criminal operations and the Government have until now failed to catch him. As a result he has been able to live in ample style and carry on as a man of great wealth and, because he was wealthy, Bob the Builder has been induced to extend credit to him. Had the police been more efficient, they would have caught him earlier and he would not have been able to "con" Bob the Builder. So it is the fault of the state that he has been able to get credit from Bob the Builder.
  As to the reason that such a provision would be open to abuse, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that that is rubbish. If Mr Big wants to put his money out of the way of the restraint order, he either puts it overseas, or he goes out and buys goods for cash and hands them to other people. He does no more by incurring credit than by spending the money. If he knows that the restraint order is coming, he spends the money—for example, in art galleries overseas—and leaves the assets there in the name of one of his friends. There are plenty of abuses that he could make. Incurring debts with Bob the Builder is not the obvious one.
  Indeed, the debt may not be one that he has run up specially. He may genuinely have had a new gold or platinum plated bath installed and it may simply not yet have been paid for. There may be nothing improper about it. Therefore, I urge the Government to think again. I find the House of Commons reason pretty unconvincing in this case.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the powerful speeches of my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, need no further embellishment from me. I support, entirely, both the amendment and the views expressed in support of it by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is a very serious point. Perhaps I may make four points in response. First, we consulted widely on the draft Bill before we produced the Bill. Noble Lords will know that for approximately 15 or 16 years there have been confiscation procedures in place which are quite similar, though not as widespread in terms of the crimes that they cover, as this Bill. We are unaware of any problem arising of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, identify.
  Secondly, while we pay great heed to what two distinguished insolvency lawyers such as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, say, we must also pay regard to people who are engaged on a daily basis in the process of seeking to recover assets from criminals.
  One pays regard to what the noble Lords say. But the enforcement authorities may say, "If you include this, it will have the effect of criminals running up debts with families and associates as a means of trying to avoid many of their assets being got rid of to the confiscation authority". If they also say to us that

  53
  bona fide debts will be run up, because in that way the criminal will get the benefit of the money, that is something to which we have to pay regard.
  Moreover, yes, of course it is true that the courts will be astute to identify those cases where there are not bona fide transactions but transactions which are designed in order to try to avoid the effect of confiscation. The first question is: will they spot every one of them? The second question is: should the courts be filled with cases in which those very issues are being debated? We think not. So it is a matter of practicality. After taking advice very carefully from those who know about these issues, we believe that the right course is not to agree to the unsecured creditors point.
  As I indicated earlier, there is a point of principle here. The state should not be paying the debts of these criminals. The criminals should not be paying the debts out of money that they have stolen. They should be paying them with untainted money. That, as a matter of principle, is the right approach.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is a matter about which I feel strongly. I have made my points and I shall not make them again. As regards taking the matter any further, we are in an impossible position. The really important amendments were those objected to by the Commons on grounds of privilege and they cannot be taken further. That being so, in practical terms it would be anomalous to propose that these amendments, which are not subject to the privilege rule, should be restored to the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 30B, as an amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 43
  43 Clause 94, page 56, line 7, at end insert "unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so"
  The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason:
  43A Because it is not appropriate for the court to have a discretion to decide not to initiate proceedings for confiscation orders.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 43A, but do propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  43B Clause 145, page 89, line 23, at end insert—
  "(2A) But an offence does not satisfy the test in subsection (1)(d) or (e) unless the accused obtains relevant benefit of not less than £5000.
  (2B) Relevant benefit for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) is—

  (a) benefit from conduct which constitutes the offence:

  (b) benefit from any other conduct which forms part of the course of criminal activity and which constitutes an offence of which the accused has been convicted.

  (2C) Relevant benefit for the purposes of subsection (1)(e) is benefit from conduct which constitutes the offence.
  (2D) The Scottish Ministers may by order vary the amount for the time being specified in subsection (2A)."
  43C Clause 375, page 218, line 6, at end insert—
  54
  "(5) There must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be produced or for access Wit to be given, having regard to—

  (a) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained,

  (b) the circumstances, under which the person the application specifies as appearing to be in possession or control of the material holds it."

  43D Clause 382, page 221, line 3, after "sought," insert—
  "(aa) it is in the public interest for the material to be obtained, having regard to benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained,"
  43E Page 221, line 17, after "(8)," insert—
  "(aa) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be obtained, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained,"
  43F Clause 386, page 223, line 35, at end insert—
  "(4) There must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained."
  43G Clause 393, page 227, line 47, at end insert—
  "(6) In the case of any investigation there must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the customer information to be provided having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained."
  43H Clause 399, page 230, line 21, at end insert—
  "(6) In the case of any investigation, there must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the account information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained."
  43J Clause 451, page 260, line 32. after "section" insert "145(2D)"
  43K Page 260, line 39, after "section" insert "145(2D)"
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 43A but do agree with Amendments Nos. 43B to 43K in lieu thereof.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 47
  After Clause 98, insert the following new clause—
  Compensation of creditors

  (1)Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, take an application to the court for compensation.

  (2)The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

  (a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt,

  (b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

  (c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  47A Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 47A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 47A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 66
  66 Clause 123 page 77, line 21, at end insert—
  "() make provision for the payment of debts of the specified person incurred for full consideration before the restraint order was made;"
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  66A Because it is not appropriate to create a preference for unsecured creditors, which would be open to abuse by criminals.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 66A. I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 66A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  [Amendment No. 66B, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 73
  73 Clause 161, page 96, line 13, at end insert "unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances; which justify its not doing so"
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  73A Because it is not appropriate for the court to have a discretion to decide not to initiate proceedings for confiscation orders.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 73 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 73A, but do propose Amendments Nos. 73B to 73D in lieu thereof.
  73B Clause 229, page 140, line 4, at end insert—
  "(3A) But an offence does not satisfy the test in subsection (2)(d) or (e) unless the defendant obtains relevant benefit of not less than £M.
  (M) Relevant benefit for the purposes of subsection (2)(d) is—

  (a) benefit from conduct which constitutes the offence,

  (b) benefit from any other conduct which forms part of the course of criminal activity and which constitutes an offence of which the defendant has been convicted;

  (c) benefit from conduct which constitutes an offence which has been or will be taken into consideration by the court in sentencing the defendant for an offence mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).

  (3C) Relevant benefit for the purposes of subsection (2)(e) is—

  (a) benefit from conduct which constitutes the offence;

  56

  (b) benefit from conduct which constitutes an offence which has been or will be taken into consideration by the court in sentencing the defendant for the offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

  (3D) The Secretary of State may by order vary the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3A)."
  73C Clause 451, page 260, line 25, after "section" insert "229(3D)"
  73D Page 260, line 36, after section" insert "229(3D)"
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 73 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 73A, but do propose Amendments Nos. 73B to 73D in lieu thereof.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 78
  After Clause 165, insert the following new clause—
  "Compensation of creditors"

  (1) Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.

  (2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

  (a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

  (b) the debt was incurred for full consideration, and

  (c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  78A Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 78 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 78A. I have already spoken to this amendment.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 78 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 78A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 99
  99 Clause 196, page 120, line 31, at end insert—
  "() make provision for the payment of debts of the specified person incurred for full consideration before the restraint order was made;"
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  99A Because it is not appropriate to create a preference for unsecured creditors, which would be open to abuse by criminals.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 99 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 99A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 99 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 99A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  [Amendment No. 99B, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 110
  110 Clause 251, page 148, line 29, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Proceedings brought under section 251: defence of respondent),"
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  110A Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions, the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate.
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) rose to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 110 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 110A but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  110B Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
  "(6) The guidance must indicate that the reduction in crime is in general best secured by means of criminal investigations and criminal proceedings."
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with these amendments I shall speak also to your Lordships' Amendment No. 113 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 113A.
  These amendments go to the heart of the civil recovery scheme contained in Part 5 of the Bill. The amendments made by this House were discussed fully on Report and at Third Reading in this House. Although the specific amendments were not in the event discussed in the other place—as reflected in the reasons for disagreement—the civil recovery scheme had been discussed there at some length previously.
  As specified in the reasons, the other place considers—although not with the benefit of debate on the point—that it would not be appropriate to provide the kind of exception to the civil recovery scheme that would result from the amendments.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has on other occasions explained in detail his concerns about the civil recovery scheme contained in the Bill and his reasons for proposing the amendments. For my part, I have made it clear, also in previous debates, that the Government do not share his views. We do not agree that civil recovery proceedings are analogous to a criminal trial. We therefore do not accept that there is an inevitable conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  We are clear that the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and supported by the opposition parties, would make the civil recovery scheme set out in Part 5 of the Bill unworkable. They would not improve the scheme. They would also certainly not make it less vulnerable to challenge in ECHR terms.
  Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 would prevent civil recovery proceedings being taken against any person whose own unlawful conduct was alleged to have generated the recoverable property at issue. This would be because such a person would have a right to demand a trial in the Crown Court. However, as civil
  58
  recovery proceedings will not be brought unless criminal proceedings are not appropriate—or have failed—the amendments would have an unacceptable effect in terms of some of the key intended targets of civil recovery.
  The amendments would also introduce into the civil recovery proceedings a focus on the guilt of an individual rather than the origins of the property, contrary to the intention of this part of the proposed legislation. However, we appreciate the concern of this House that the bringing of criminal prosecutions is to be preferred where the normal evidential and public interest tests are satisfied. We have stressed at all stages of the passage of the Bill that prosecution will remain the priority, and that the director will pursue civil recovery or taxation only where a prosecution is not appropriate. We accept, however, that there has been nothing on the face of the Bill to this effect. We therefore believe that Amendment No. 110B—an amendment to Clause 2 which we have proposed in lieu of Lords Amendments Nos. 110 and 113—will provide an important safeguard in this regard.
  The amendment will ensure that the guidance given to the director by the Secretary of State will make it clear that criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions will—in general—best secure the reduction of crime. This will, I hope, allay any concerns that civil recovery might be used in cases where criminal proceedings should properly be brought. That is a significant confirmation of the position and one that I trust will recommend itself to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 110 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 110A but do propose Amendment No. 110B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I rather wondered why the Attorney-General was on the Front Bench and whether it suggested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was not capable of making these points. As the Attorney-General continued, however, I understood that he was trying to tell us what should have been said in another place about why they would not accept your Lordships' amendment.
  I am left wondering on a point not so much of law but of good manners—which do not always carry the day in another place. I wonder why those in the other place should have included as a reason for not accepting your Lordships' amendment the statement,
  "Because it is not appropriate to provide any…exceptions".
  All right; that might be an argument. However, they go on to say:
  "the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate".
  The procedures in another place show that it has quite voluntarily cut down on the time that it is prepared to expend on legislation. Unhappily, the Government are not following such a precept at all. They are bombarding Parliament and the country with a cascade of legislation which has rarely been equalled.

  59
  We now have this plain statement, which I cannot construe in any other way:
  "the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate".
  In other words, the other place cares not a rat for any argument that may be put forward here; such argument is not worth our spending time on; they will just reject it.
  I very much hope that the Attorney-General will be able to explain. He has already explained the legal reasons for not wishing to accept your Lordships' amendment. However, if those in another place had to reject it, I think that they might have done so in slightly less rude and abrasive terms. Perhaps the Attorney-General will apply his mind to that.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I follow very much what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I am not so well versed in the procedure of this House as other noble Lords, certainly not with the procedure that should be followed when this House is considering amendments passed by this House but disagreed to by the other place. In the Companion, at paragraph 6.153, I read that the Commons are required to give their reasons for disagreeing with a Lords amendment. That does not surprise me in the least. I have spent my life in the law, and it is elementary that all courts, high or low, are required to give reasons for their decisions, simply so that the parties can know where they are. That duty to give reasons is part of what we understand by "a fair trial".
  As has been said on many occasions, the reasons given must be proper reasons. They must be adequate and, above all, they must be intelligible. That applies not only to courts required to give reasons; it applies also to Ministers who are required to give reasons and, indeed, to all who are required either by law or by custom to give reasons for their decisions. I assume that it applies equally to the Commons when they are giving their reasons for disagreeing with our amendments.
  So one looks to see what the reasons are for disagreeing with Amendments Nos. 110 and 113. But what does one find? It is said that to make "exceptions"—which are the exceptions covered by the two amendments—would be "inappropriate". That is a word that is always being used in many different contexts. It seems to me a word of very little meaning. However, whatever it means, it certainly does not import a reason for disagreeing with the Lords amendments. It is a conclusion; it is not a reason. It means, "We do not like the Lords amendments and we therefore propose to disagree with them". If one is permitted to quote Latin in this House—one is not allowed under the Woolf reforms to quote Latin in the law courts any more—I would remind noble Lords what was said, in Roman times, by Juvenal: Sic pro ratione voluntas; let my will stand in place of reasoned judgment. That appears to be the line being taken.
  So one looks further, and what does one find? Why is it said that the amendments are inappropriate? The answer is: "Because we did not have time to consider
  60
  them". As a reason for not agreeing to our amendments, that is simply unintelligible; it makes no sense. It is not a reason at all. It is at most an excuse. It is not a reason. How can we consider—as we are supposed to be doing on this occasion—the Commons reasons for disagreeing with our amendments unless we know what those reasons are? All we know is that they voted apparently without any consideration at all.
  We are often told that this House performs a valuable function as a revising Chamber, and I believe that to be true. It is all the more important, as has also been emphasised, that we should perform that function as scrupulously as we can when we are faced every year with a new flood of criminal legislation. I cannot remember whether at the last count that amounted to 10 new criminal justice Acts in as many years. I may be out of date; there may be more.
  As it happens, I am strongly in favour of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I have made that clear from the very start. However, Part 5 contains something entirely new; that is, provisions which in my opinion are capable of causing grave injustice as well as provisions which are clearly incompatible with the Human Rights Act. It was to eradicate those injustices that I drafted and moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 113. I am afraid that I explained my reasons in four speeches in your Lordships' House, each of which was probably much too long. In the course of the Third Reading debate your Lordships ultimately decided by a majority of 149 to 132 that those reasons were sound. They have now been disagreed to by the Commons without any reasons being given, save only one reason which is wholly unintelligible. I find that profoundly unsatisfactory and not the way in which one would have thought that communication should be conducted between the two Houses.
  I suggest that the proper course now is for this House to send back Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 with a request that they be reconsidered, or perhaps I should say considered for the first time, and, if rejected, or if disagreed to, that proper intelligible reasons be given which we can then consider. We cannot consider the reasons today because they are not available. We can guess what they may be—we have heard the Attorney-General on three or four occasions so we may guess them—but the reasons we want to be given are the Commons reasons.
  It may be said that I ought to have put down my thoughts in the form of a Motion. I do not know whether or not I should have done so. I am afraid that I only saw the Motion late last night but the circumstances in any event are peculiar because the noble and learned Lord's Motion is itself clearly defective. It asks us not to insist on an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for certain reasons. However, when one examines the matter, those reasons are not provided. For those reasons I shall vote against the Motion.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, far be it for me to do anything as improper as to criticise or cast aspersions upon the proceedings of another place. But had I

  61
  emerged from Mars and was not aware of the doctrine that the Commons could do no wrong, I might find it somewhat surprising that one part of the legislature rejected without debate an amendment passed in this House, having been moved by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and supported on all sides of the House by experienced and learned persons, without giving any reasons. But, of course, within the conventions of the House, that Martian would be entirely wrong because the Commons can do no wrong.
  Turning to the substance of the matter and the points made by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who is, I believe, called Lord Goldsmith rather than Lord Goodhart, as he knows, I have sympathy with part of his points. I agree that one cannot always require criminal proceedings partly because some of the offences in question may be committed abroad and are not triable in this country and partly because what is considered here is general unlawful conduct rather than a particular crime. However, I am perturbed that a judge trying such a matter can come to the conclusion that someone is guilty of very serious crimes, and do so upon the civil burden of proof. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General told us that the judge would, in accordance with the rules, take the matter seriously and would require the balance of probabilities to be well pressed down. However, that is not the same as saying that he should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. I do not see why the judge trying the matter should not be required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person in question had been guilty of unlawful conduct. I suggest that it would go some way to meet the noble and learned Lord's concern if the Government, even at this late stage, accepted that the judge in question had to decide the matter of unlawful conduct on the basis of its being beyond reasonable doubt.
  I accept, of course, that that is not a matter which is before the House at the moment. The noble and learned Lord may accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that the matter should not be pressed at the moment. Or, if the House decides to reject the Commons reasons and send the measure back, I urge the Government to consider, when it goes back to the Commons, whether they could not go some way towards meeting the noble and learned Lord's concern by saying that the burden of proof of deciding whether there had been unlawful conduct should be that of beyond reasonable doubt.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, feel obliged to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as my noble friend has done and as the noble Viscount, who has just spoken, has done. I am sorry to have to say that it seems to me that the Government have failed to apply a well established practice of the constitution. We in your Lordships' House have the right to ask the Members of another place to think again and to change any amendments we have passed. Surely, in doing so, it is not sufficient to deal with the matter in the way that it has been dealt with in this case.
  62
  I refer to House of Commons Hansard of 18th July at col. 530 which concerns Lords Amendment No. 110. That was the paving amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord at Third Reading. It is merely stated at col. 530 of Commons Hansard:
  "Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment".
  No reasons are given there; there is no prior discussion whatever giving reasons. The result of the Division is set out. In the Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments the Government have put forward a statement which Hansard does not support, stating that,
  "The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason—
  Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions".
  That was not mentioned in the House of Commons and not mentioned by the Government and not, so far as I know, put forward in any document that the Commons had to consider. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the reason continues,
  "the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate".
  That ignores a well-established practice of our constitution.
  Of course, Members of the House of Commons have the last word but we have the right to ask them to think again—although not again and again—so long as they give their reasons. On this occasion no such reason has been given. That applies to both the paving amendment and the amendment of substance put forward by the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, I most earnestly support the plea made by him and by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Instead of asking your Lordships merely to endorse what the Government have done—Members of another place have not been asked to consider the reasons—let the matter go back to the Members of another place to see what they decide.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, like my noble friend, I was struck by the repetition by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General of the second half of the Commons reason. He was sitting next to his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer when he said earlier that of course we pay regard to what noble Lords say. I emphasise the word "say". By extension, one assumes that this Government listen to what Members of another place say. Again, I stress the word "say".
  In this House, when discussing reasons for disagreeing to an amendment from another place, the main protagonists get into a little huddle, usually in the Prince's Chamber, and thrash out such a reason. It beggars belief that that procedure was followed in this case in another place. I cannot think of any little huddle coming up with such a crazy reason.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, what I find objectonable is that reason 110A is not true. The other place had plenty of time for debate. It simply chose not to take advantage of that. Members of another place could

  63
  have debated the issue for as long as they wished. It was not that they did not have the opportunity; they did not take the opportunity for debate. They passed a guillotine Motion which stopped them from having that debate. That reason is not the view of the House of Commons but of the Whips' Office of the House of Commons.
  I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give his reasons why we should not stand by the amendment we had made. It was very interesting. But those were not the reasons which impressed another place because Members did not hear them. The issue was not debated. Indeed, it might just as well have been said that this was agreed to by another place because it did not have the opportunity for debate. We do not know what Members of another place would have done had they listened to a debate. This place has a tradition that it listens to debate. It was because the debate was listened to in this Chamber that the Government lost in the proceedings. Perhaps the same would have happened in another place. We should not think so badly of them—that they always simply accept what the Whips tell them. Just occasionally, Members might rebel. Let us give them the chance.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the danger of the reason given is that it sets a precedent. It introduces the guillotine into this House. It means that if ever anything is left undebated in another place, that is a sufficient reason for disregarding any consideration that this House may give. Whatever may happen in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, this is a disgraceful procedure which should never be repeated.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, many years ago, when I was quite new to the Chamber, I remember towards the end of the Session that Whips on both sides colluded to get through a clearly defective clause in a Bill. They considered that it was not that important; it did not matter; and they would let it through.
  With pressure of time—another place is about to rise—there is a danger that we shall allow through potentially defective legislation. We say that Members of another place are democratically elected. But when the executive control another place, is there any democratic control? The situation is dangerous. I have experienced such a situation once before.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, after some hesitation in Committee, the Opposition supported strongly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on Report and at Third Reading. After the noble and learned Lord's victory in your Lordships' House, I assumed that, when the amendment returned to another place, it would be duly reversed and return again to your Lordships' House—as indeed has been the case.
  I imagined that I would then stand before noble Lords saying that, although I deeply regretted the vote of another place, there were two reasons why your Lordships should say that our constitutional
  64
  arrangements have taken their course. First, sooner or later the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House would have an opportunity to take a view on Part 5. Secondly, the task, constitutionally, of your Lordships' House is to ask another place to think again. Had another place thought again, and had the matter returned to your Lordships, I think we would have been prepared to accept that we had done our duty.
  However, as so many noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have said during the past 10 minutes, another place has not thought again. Indeed, another place has not thought at all. Another place has not fulfilled its constitutional duty. That is particularly grave when the matter before it was not a party political matter; it was a constitutional matter raised by a noble and learned Lord from your Lordships' Cross Benches.
  With great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I think he owes noble Lords a very convincing explanation as to why another place was not prepared to think about this matter and return it after careful consideration.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, having listened to noble Lords, I agree that it is necessary to explain how we are in this situation.
  A programme Motion was agreed with the Opposition in another place before the debate took place. It was an agreed programme Motion, not Government insisting on or forcing it. The programme Motion allowed three hours, if I correctly understand, to consider Lords amendments. That time was taken up with those matters which Members of another place wished to debate. Your Lordships have considered some of those other amendments today. When the guillotine Motion was put, it was not voted against so that matters of timing proceeded by way of agreement in another place. As it happens, which is plain from the reasons, this particular amendment was not debated. What happened thereafter, as those of your Lordships who have been in the other place will know, such as the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Tebbit, the Reasons Committee will have been charged with the job of assigning a reason as best it understood it as to why the amendment had not been accepted.
  The principal reason, which is both a proper and a good one, is:
  "Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions".
  That is the first half of the reason given. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will agree that that was submitted on behalf of the Government when I dealt with the matter at length both on Report and at Third Reading. There is nothing surprising or wrong about the proposition that the reason why the amendment is not acceptable is:
  "Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions".
  It is right to say, too, that the other place debated Part 5 of the Bill at some length prior to the proceedings in your Lordships' House. Its view on the provisions was formed at that time and the provisions did not include any exceptions.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I feel bound to correct the Minister. Having carefully studied Hansard, I cannot

  65
  find in such discussion as there was any reference whatever to the debate on the two amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I entirely accept that the Commons did not debate the matter; the time was used for other purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will recollect that there is a Reasons Committee in the other place which assigns reasons for declining to accept an amendment as best it can.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if the Government were to go to court on judicial review proceedings and gave as their reason for a decision that it was not appropriate to do something else, does the noble and learned Lord believe that that would stand up for a second? Why, therefore, should it stand up in these circumstances?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this part of the reason is no more brief than other reasons assigned by the Commons. For example, the reason in Lords Amendment No. 99 is:
  "Because it is not appropriate to create a preference for unsecured creditors, which would be open to abuse by criminals".
  Again, the same formulation of words, that it is not appropriate to provide exceptions, is used. Any Member of the House who listened or participated on Report and at Third Reading will know that whether it is appropriate to provide an exception is at the heart of the disagreement between the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
  Let me develop what the exception would be. Someone who is said to be the perpetrator of unlawful conduct that gives rise to the property should not be subject to Part 5 if the person says that he wants to be tried in the Crown Court, and such a trial does not take place, or it takes place but does not result in a conviction.
  That is an enormous exception, which is at the heart of the disagreement between us. While I regret the situation that has resulted from the points made by your Lordships today, but which will be studied with great care, the fact remains that there is a fundamental difference between what the noble and learned Lord proposed and what the Commons had previously agreed, which was a civil recovery procedure scheme that did not carve out a very important exception.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord and thank him for giving way again. In view of what he said about the matter having been considered, how is it that the Government Motion refers to
  "the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate"?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. When he said that the Reasons Committee assigned reasons, surely such reasons can only be assigned on the basis of a discussion having taken place, which in this case was
  66
  the original amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Would it be more accurate to say that the reason was invented?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not think that that would be right. Nor, is it right for us to inquire into what happened in the Reasons Committee. One must assume that the Reasons Committee, which is the procedure in another place, did its best to assign a reason knowing the view of the House. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, about the other place not debating the issue. No one is trying to hide that. I cannot stress enough that the reason was put forward by the Reasons Committee. It is not the Government's language but that of the Reasons Committee.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I wonder whether I have got it right when I suggest that the executive tells the other place to reject the amendment; it then appoints some of its own members to invent some reasons; and then it sends the amendment back here. Is that correct? Who appoints the Reasons Committee?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this is a Committee agreed by the parties in another place. I understand that the Government did not have a majority on the Reasons Committee. They are not the Government's reasons but the reasons of the Reasons Committee in another place.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, with the benefit of having the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, next to me, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister, about the other place, which is a little tough on him as he has never been there. Is it not the duty of the Reasons Committee to analyse the reasons given in the debate and then decide how to put them into a neat sentence? It is not its duty to invent reasons that are, in fact, the Government's reasons. They cannot be the reasons of the House because the House did not debate the amendment. The Reasons Committee is there not to make its own reasons but to analyse the debate and codify it.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have not been in the other place, but I have next to me my noble friend Lord Davies, who has. I understand that it is the duty of the Reasons Committee to assign a reason divining as best it can the will of the House. Sadly there was no debate on this occasion, but when a debate has taken place, I imagine that the Reasons Committee knows the will of the House from that. In the absence of a debate, when a programme Motion has been agreed to—not forced on the Opposition—the Reasons Committee has to find what it believes the will of the House to be. The strong argument against the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is that it would produce an exception that was not appropriate. Therefore, the reason that has been assigned is entirely appropriate.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would I be paraphrasing the Minister unfairly if I said that the

  67
  Reasons Committee, having no straw with which to make bricks, had to produce something that looked like a brick?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord ignores the fact that the other place had debated the Bill substantially before it came to this House and is able, from that, to know what the will of the House is in relation to this particularly important part of the Bill. This part of the Bill provides for a new form of civil recovery, which was supported in another place by all parties and in this place at Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, proposed an amendment to create an exception—a major exception—which the Government believe, as I have explained at great length on Report and at Third Reading, would make this part of the Bill unworkable.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord comes to the issue with the clarity of mind of a lawyer and he comes fresh not to the Bill but to the issue of the proceedings in another place. Would he be so kind as to tell us how long the debate was in the Reasons Committee? Did it discuss the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd? It had to have some reason; it had not got anything out of the debate in the Commons because that debate did not take place.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Goldsmith: I do not, my Lords; I am being perfectly frank with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I suggest that we should draw a line under the reasons why a properly constituted committee of another place reached the conclusion that it did. It has assigned its reasons. I entirely understand and appreciate that your Lordships' House regards this as a matter of discourtesy. I have indicated that people will have to look carefully at what has been said.
  However, the point before noble Lords is that, having debated the matter fully on other occasions, another place was of the view that Part 5 was an important part of the effort to produce a system that would prevent the proceeds of crime fuelling further crime in this country; that it was necessary to approach that by way of the new civil recovery process; and that it was necessary to prevent the corrosive effect of the proceeds of crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, described it, from continuing drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, bank robbery and serious organised crime. It is an important part. Everybody has accepted, with few exceptions—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was one of them—that Part 5 involves the right approach. Lords Amendment No. 110 would produce an exception—a huge exception—and would make this part of the Bill unworkable.
  I have done the best that I can to deal with what is, from my point of view, a difficulty. The fact remains that the other place knew what the Bill was about and
  68
  debated it at length. I have no reason to think that the Reasons Committee would not fully have understood what the will of the House was in relation to this particular exception. In those circumstances, I therefore invite noble Lords to accept the alternative amendment—the amendment in lieu proposed by the Government—and not to insist on Amendment No. 110.
  Lord Denham: My Lords, I almost cannot believe that this discussion is taking place in this way. The noble and learned Lord is producing a total "Alice in Wonderland" situation here. He is asking us to accept things that make a mockery of this House and of comity between the Houses. If this had happened in my days as Chief Whip, I should have advised my noble and learned friend who would have been on the Government Benches to take the matter away and to think it over again. I really do not think that we should have a Division on this. It should be taken back. That is the proper thing for the noble and learned Lord to do in these circumstances.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord's proposal. It is known that the other place is about to rise, before this House. I urge noble Lords to consider the underlying merits of the situation. The fact is that another place is of the view that Part 5 is an important part of the Bill. The debate on it—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would probably agree—was largely between him and me. Few others in this House participated in that debate; the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was an exception, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I interrupt the noble and learned Lord to say that I also participated in that debate. I intervene not to raise that point but to refer to his suggestion a moment ago that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was on his own or with very few others. Did the Reasons Committee in another place not take into account the fact that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord was passed and supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I should make clear what I was going to say. It was not that the amendment has not been agreed and supported by the House; it plainly was, as the noble Lord said. My point was rather narrower: that during the earlier stages of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was among the very few who objected to the concept of Part 5; others had supported it. The Government say now, and we said then, that with that exception, Part 5 would become unworkable. It is therefore inappropriate to have the exception in the Bill. I was not suggesting for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, had not spoken on this matter; he did so briefly at Third Reading.
  In the end, there is an exception, which the Reasons Committee said is inappropriate. That, ultimately, is the reason that lies behind the disagreement of the Commons to the amendment. I invite noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 110.
  6.28 p.m.
  On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 110 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 110A but do propose Amendment No. 110B in lieu thereof?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 44.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Jones, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Judd, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Bragg, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brett, L.

  Layard, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Carter, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Chandos, V.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Chester, Bp.

  Christopher, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  David, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ouseley, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Patel, L.

  Elder, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Paul, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Radice, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gale, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Rea, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Golding, B.

  Richard, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Simon, V.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  70

  Whitaker, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Whitty, L.

  Wilkins, B

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Lloyd of Berwick, L. [Teller]

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Marlesford, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Monson, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Condon, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Craigavon, V.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Denham, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller]

  Elton, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Renton, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Tebbit, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
  6.39 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 113
  113 After Clause 251, insert the following new clause—
  "Proceedings brought under section 251: defence of respondent

  (1) Where proceedings are brought against a person under section 251, that person (the respondent) is the person through whose unlawful conduct the property is said to have been obtained, the following provisions of this section shall apply.

  (2) If the respondent denies that he is guilty of the alleged unlawful conduct, he shall be entitled to have the question whether he is so guilty determined in a separate trial by the Crown Court, and the proceedings in the High Court shall be adjourned.

  (3) If he is acquitted by the Crown Court, the proceedings in the High Court shall be dismissed.

  (4) If he is convicted by the Crown Court, the Court must proceed under Part 2 of this Act, and the proceedings in the High Court shall stand adjourned until the proceedings in the Crown Court have been conducted whereupon the proceedings in the High Court shall be dismissed.

  (5) If the respondent elects not to exercise his rights under subsection (2), the question whether he is guilty of the alleged unlawful conduct shall be determined by the High Court on the criminal burden and standard of proof, and all other questions shall be determined on the civil standard of proof.

  (6) If the respondent is found guilty of unlawful conduct under subsection (5), and the court is satisfied that he is in possession of recoverable property, the court shall make a recovery order in accordance with this part of this Act, save that the recovery order shall not include property obtained by the respondent through unlawful conduct committed by him before the coming into force of this Part, and section 316(3) shall to that extent not apply."

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  113A Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions, the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate.
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 113 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 113A. I have already spoken to this amendment.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 113 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 113A.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 166
  166 After Clause 286, insert the following new clause—
  "Compensation of creditors

  (1) Any person who was a creditor of the respondent at the time when a recovery order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.

  (2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

  (a) as a result of the making of the order the respondent is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

  (b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

  (c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a recovery order could be made against the respondent."

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  166A Because it would involve a charge on public finds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 166 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 166A.
  Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 166 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 166A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons with amendments.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
6.40 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 127 as first printed for the Commons.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    1 Clause 4, page 4, line 45, at end insert—
    "(5) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section in relation to any police force unless—
    72

    (a) the police authority maintaining that force and the chief officer of that force have each such information about the Secretary of State's grounds for proposing to give that direction as he considers appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs of this subsection;

    (b).that police authority and chief officer have each been given an opportunity of making representations about those grounds;

    (c).that police authority has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures that would make the giving of the direction unnecessary; and

    (d).the Secretary of State has considered any such representations and any such proposals.

    (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases where a proposal is made for the giving of a direction under this section.
    (7) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

    (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

    (b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police, and

    (c) such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (8) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
    (9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It is perhaps fitting that we begin our consideration of the amendments made in the other place with the issue which has proved to be the most contentious throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses. Indeed, it is so contentious that this House decided at Report stage in April to remove the offending clause—that is, Clause 5, headed "Directions to chief officers"—from the Bill.
    In turn, the other place decided, as is their right, to restore the clause. But the clause that we are now considering is very different from the one first introduced into your Lordships' House. Indeed, it is so different that the clause now has a different title. Rather than "Directions to chief officers", it is now to be entitled "Directions as to action plans".
    It is fair to say that in the past three months since the Bill left this House, both sides have come a long way. During the earlier debates in this House, the opposition were not even prepared to accept that there were any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Home Secretary of the day to intervene to ensure that effective action was taken to address poor performance. There is now a general acceptance that there must be some last-resort mechanism for the Home Secretary to become involved where local remedies have failed to address serious weaknesses.
    For our part, we now accept that the trigger for intervention must be an adverse report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Evidence of poor performance from the Police Standards Unit or Audit Commission may cause the Home Secretary to

    73
    commission a special inspection, but the independent inspectorate would need to confirm that the initial concerns were fully justified.
    The Government also accept that the intervention powers, once triggered, should be applied through the local police authority. Hence there is no longer a power to direct a chief officer. We have instead built upon the existing power to direct police authorities. That was first introduced in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 by the previous Conservative administration.
    Under the revised clause, the Home Secretary will direct the police authority to submit an action plan. In turn, the police authority will direct the chief officer to prepare a draft of such a plan. It will then be for the police authority to adopt the plan, with or without modifications, and submit it to the Home Secretary.
    I should stress that the content of the action plan will be wholly a matter for the police authority, in consultation with the chief officer. However, we believe that it is entirely reasonable that the Home Secretary should see the plan and, if necessary, comment on it, to satisfy himself and, more importantly, those communities suffering from an inadequate policing service that adequate measures are to be taken. Again, it would be entirely a matter for the police authority to decide whether to change the plan in the light of the Home Secretary's comments.
    The House will no doubt recognise many of the features in the revised clause. They are not dissimilar to those contained in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey at both Committee and Report stages, which received general support from both Opposition Front Benches.
    Following further discussions with the Shadow Home Secretary, we have made some further adjustments to subsection (2) of new Section 41A, which are contained in government amendments to Amendment No. 2. Those adjustments seek to remove any lingering doubt that the Home Secretary would still be able to dictate the content of an action plan. We are happy to make it abundantly clear that that is not the case.
    I believe that, as a result of these and the earlier changes, there is now broad agreement to these amendments, and I commend them to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in rising to speak to this amendment, which, as the Minister has pointed out, goes to the heart of some of our original objections to parts of this Bill, I shall, with the leave of the House, take the rather unusual step of speaking generally and as briefly as possible on all remaining amendments before the House today. I have given notice of that intention to the Minister, to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and to the Chief Whips of both parties. It is to show good will to the Bill at this stage and to assist its speedy passage at a time when we have
    74
    much pressing business in this House. I hope that by speaking for about five or six minutes now, I shall not need to detain the House by speaking on any further matters today, unless, of course, it becomes necessary at some stage to correct any inaccuracies.
    I welcome the Bill as it is now being re-drafted by the Government. It goes far enough towards the position we have been seeking to be acceptable to us. If the Liberal Democrats press their amendments to a Division today, I am afraid that we shall not be able to support them.
    I pay tribute to the hard work done over the past few months by my noble friends, especially my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, and by my right honourable friend Mr Letwin and my honourable friend Mr Paice, in making these significant government concessions possible. I do not in any regard underestimate the extent of the hard talking that has taken place behind the scenes, as well as on the Floors of both Houses, nor the extent of the Government's recognition of the clear determination of this House to stick by its principled views expressed during our debates on the Bill.
    On other matters before us today, I should also like to take the opportunity now to welcome the new provisions on sex offender orders, which will ensure better protection for vulnerable people against convicted sex offenders.
    Of course, there is always a "but". In this instance, the "but" is that my noble friend Lord Attlee is still extremely unhappy with Amendment No. 142, which will be debated later. I am sure that the Minister will recognise, as I do, the depth and breadth of my noble friend's knowledge and expertise in these matters. Amendment No. 142 deals with the movement of abnormal loads. My noble friend believes that it facilitates a private person undertaking what is now a police function on a commercial, not a competitive, basis. I have not been briefed on this matter by the industry, as there has been no consultation by the Home Office. I am sure that both my noble friend and I will return to this matter in the future when the Bill is enacted, but I am most grateful to him for indicating to me that he will not pursue the matter in our debates today.
    When the Bill was debated in this House, noble Lords found three measures in particular objectionable: first, the Secretary of State's plans to intervene in constabularies where ministers believe they have failed in some respect; secondly, the provisions to invent community support officers; and, thirdly, the Henry VIII powers regarding the Secretary of State's powers to make orders and regulations.
    I shall deal briefly with the three points in reverse order. I welcome the concession made by the Government on Report on 9th July on the so-called Henry VIII powers, when they tabled an amendment which had the effect of adding their names to the amendment tabled by my honourable friend Mr James Paice and Mr Norman Baker. I welcome the Government's conversion to our view not only that the powers were indeed Henry VIII powers—far too extensive—but that they should be deleted, as they had

    75
    been by this House. If the Government had not made that concession, the Bill would have provided a power to enable the Home Secretary to amend and supplement the list of police powers, set out in the schedules, which civilians might possess under the Bill. We believed that that gave the Home Secretary too wide a power, and the clause was removed from the Bill at Third Reading.
    With regard to the CSOs, it is no secret that, had we started with a clean sheet of paper, we would not have invented them. We would have preferred to adopt another route, using the Special Constabulary. However, I welcome the Government's commitment, given on Report at columns 980 to 981 of Commons Hansard of 10th July, that the schemes will be piloted and that during the first two years after the commencement of this Act, the maximum number of forces allowed to deploy CSOs with the power to use detention with reasonable force will be six. It is acceptable because we are assured by the Government that they settled on that number after consultation with the chief inspector of the constabulary.
    I therefore come to the final and most intractable of the issues, which is the subject of the amendments in this group; that is, Clause 5 and the Government's initial plans to require chief officers in forces which Ministers consider to be failing in some way, to submit an action plan addressing the problem; and of course, as the noble and learned Lord the Minister has pointed out, Clause 5 was deleted by this House. It would have given central control of policing to the Home Secretary and undermined the tripartite system that gives a role to chief constables, Ministers and police authorities.
    When the Bill was debated on Report in another place, the Government's position was still not acceptable to us. Their offer was that the requirement for an action plan should be imposed only after an adverse report from independent inspectors and that it should be channelled through the police authorities. However, the Government would still have been able to indicate the relevant areas on which the plan should focus. That was not acceptable to us.
    The Government's amendments which they have brought forward today show that they have now dropped that objectionable requirement. The new clause gives the Home Secretary the power to initiate an action plan, but will give him no control over its contents and he will no longer be able to direct chief officers to draw one up.
    The Home Secretary will not now have the power to run every police force from his desk in Whitehall as we believed was initially proposed. As the old saying goes, "A week is a long time in politics", and in this week the Government have done their final and most welcome U-turn. They have listened properly to the concerns expressed first in this House and subsequently in another place. I therefore welcome the amendments.
    Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with a number of other amendments. I want particularly to speak to Amendments 2, 2A and 75A to D.
    76
    There have been a number of changes to the Bill in another place. I am delighted that much of what has now been achieved reflects the concern that we expressed in your Lordships' House. I am delighted with the contribution of my honourable friends Norman Baker and Simon Hughes, who were able to bring much pressure on the Government to achieve these changes. I welcome the amendment, but I intend to speak also in relation to CSOs later on during the relevant amendment.
    In the meantime, I confirm that our approach on Report in your Lordship's House was justified. We strenuously opposed Clause 5 then because we believed and still believe that the police authority should be at the heart of all changes proposed. To tamper with this well-established structure will not bring improvement in the way we deal with crime. Moreover there is a clear demonstration in a number of previous Bills before your Lordships' House that the Government have an insatiable appetite to control matters centrally. They took little notice of what we said on the Education Bill and on other Home Office matters, where central controls replaced many of the local initiatives.
    At the heart of police reforms must be an acceptance that police authorities are an essential element of the tripod that sustains local accountability and independence. More importantly, they are the guardians of the independence of police operational methods. Any interference in those aspects would erode the confidence of the public. I am glad that the Government have made a concession to uphold that principle. It is reflected in the way the amendment has been framed.
    The Bill now stops short of establishing the Home Secretary's position as the de facto head of policing. The Government failed to realise that the Bill as first drafted seemed to accord to the Home Secretary powers that go far beyond those traditionally accepted within our constitutional convention.
    The most obvious issue is that the Bill altered the historical constitutional balance of the relationship between central government, the local governance of policing and the so-called operational independence of chief constables. There has always been a recognisable separation—albeit now somewhat blurred—between the power, the responsibility and the accountability of each of the three institutions. Since the inception of the new model police from the late 1820s onwards, constitutional convention has stressed the importance of local accountability for the delivery of policing. That is one good reason why the amendment ought to be supported.
    Locally appointed police authorities—as they became—have jealously guarded against central interference. It must be recognised that the traditional tripartite" relationship was manipulated into a more lineal one following the Conservative sponsored Police and Magistrates' Court Act 1994. Ministers may well reflect the controversy surrounding those provisions and especially as they related to the perceived centralising of power. The current Bill, however, went

    77
    far further. Its net effect would have established the Home Secretary as the determining institution in and of policing.
    The original Bill all but eradicated the position of police authorities as the locally accountable governing body. It could well reduce their role to that of mere functionaries of interpretation. It also altered the relationship between the Home Secretary and Chief Constables. The Home Secretary accrues to himself the power to dismiss chief officers, having already the power to determine the suitability for appointment. Taken together with the other powers, it could be perceived that chief officers of police could be wholly dependent on and at the whim of the Home Secretary.
    That interference is wholly unacceptable. It is a dangerous development. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that if the Bill was passed in its original format, it would entrench more power and control in central government. I am glad to an extent that we have moved away from that. Save perhaps for the Armed Forces, the Police Service is the most powerful operational institution in any polity. We might not have a police state in the literal sense of the term, but we would be a long way towards establishing one. We would certainly have a ministry of policing in everything other than in name.
    The central question still remains: why does the present Home Secretary see the need for such measures? I find it difficult to understand his publicly-announced reasoning that because he is responsible to Parliament for policing he should have the power as well as the responsibility. While I do not want to rehearse the points already made in previous debates in your Lordships' House about the role of central government, it seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of the role of a Minister within a liberal democracy for the Home Secretary to assume such powers. It is, I believe, a sign of immature governance to presume that accruing such powers will positively assist the delivery of policing services.
    However, we know now that the buck stops with him. He has no escape route left. I am therefore a little happier that our concern is reflected—not totally but partially—in the Commons amendment and the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
    I turn to Commons Amendment No. 75. The argument that I have advanced about police authorities applies equally to the NCIS authority. The Government have gone some way in redefining their relationship in trying to tackle remedial measures realised by an inspection under Section 54 of the Act.
    For the time being we shall support these measures. But we shall watch developments with great care. So, although the powers of the Home Secretary to intervene in the actions of chief officers of police and police authorities have been greatly reduced—thanks to the combined opposition in both Houses of Parliament—I have no doubt that if we smell that the
    78
    local authority is eroded by centralised control we shall be back to propose suitable amendments in future legislation.
    Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I rise briefly to say how pleased I am with the amendments put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. It is important that the Government have listened to the arguments put by noble Lords, by police authorities externally and by chief police officers about the importance of the tripartite relationship between the Home Secretary, local police authorities and local chief officers of police.
    Essentially, the amendments in this group restore that balance. It is entirely legitimate for the Home Secretary to have concerns about the performance and delivery of policing services in local areas. However, it would not be legitimate for him to follow up that concern with the proposals that were originally in the Bill. The arrangements that have now been put before the House set the balance right. The local police authority will be required to ensure that an appropriate action plan is drawn up and that that action plan meets the concerns of local communities and the wider population, to whom the Home Secretary is responsible.
    So the balance has now been struck right. I would say that, having tabled an amendment on similar lines at an earlier stage, this is an important recognition that the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed and have now got the balance right, preserving the important principle of the tripartite relationship.
    7 p.m.
    Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, agree that we have come a long way from the original draft. I welcome much of what we have worked on in this House and what they have worked on in another place. But, like my noble friend Lord Dholakia, I ask why the Home Secretary still feels that he needs the powers, and what evidence he has that police authorities will not have regard to the national policing plan. They have a statutory duty to do so; if they do, there should be no need for the Home Secretary to issue an action plan. That could still be seen by police authorities to be undermining their role.
    On Amendment No. 75A, it is again the directions to the service authorities of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad that are difficult for us to accept. They are relatively new bodies and, to my knowledge, have thoroughly complied with their statutory responsibilities. As is the case with the police authorities for England and Wales, there can be no sensible reason for the Home Secretary to take to himself those powers. He has sufficient power to make police authorities and forces perform better. The intervention powers under Clause 4 achieve that. I still have considerable concerns about

    79
    the matter, as does my noble friend Lord Dholakia, but we agree that we have come a long way from the Bill as drafted.
    Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble and learned friend for not simply listening to concerns expressed in this House and another place about the Bill's provisions but, more importantly, responding to them. It is slightly churlish to start to throw around phrases such as U-turns, defeats and the rest of it. One of the reasons that this place is here is to review legislation with which we are presented and propose ways in which we collectively feel that it may be improved. It is then up to the Government of the day, who have a majority in the other place, to decide whether they will simply listen and reject those proposals or, as one hopes—and more sensibly, in my view—to listen and respond to what has been said.
    I do not want to reopen the argument, but although I understand many of the concerns expressed, they are exaggerated and overstated. But that is by the by, in a sense, because the whole debate at both ends of the Corridor has underlined the continuing importance of our tripartite arrangements for policing on behalf of communities up and down this island. That is what matters.
    What matters is that, as far as possible, we should try to proceed together on the path of reform. I have not heard any argument that policing is incapable of being reformed—least of all, let me immediately say, from the police themselves. There are arguments about the detail, but we are all signed up to the need to persuade, encourage and enable the police, with the proper provision of the resources that they need in terms of manpower, equipment and all the rest of it, to get better results in not just detecting but deterring crime, where possible. There is no argument between us about that. The amendments proposed by my noble and learned friend will help us to achieve that.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not think it discourteous of me not to reply to the debate, because we have gone through this many times. Although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, have reservations, the appropriate course is for us to proceed, because I shall deal with almost all of their points in the course of debate on other amendments.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    2. After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
    "Directions as to action plans
    After section 41 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted—
    "41A Power to give directions as to action plans

    (1) This section applies where a report to the Secretary of State on an inspection under section 54 states, in relation to a police force for a police area—

    (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the whole or any part of the force is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or

    80

    (b) that, in that person's opinion, the whole or a part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.

    (2) The Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to submit to the Secretary of State a plan ('an action plan') for taking remedial measures in relation to anything that the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters as to which he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1).

    (3) If a police authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the chief officer of police of the force in question to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the police authority for that authority to consider.

    (4) The police authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3) may subirtit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.

    (5) If the police authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3), it must consult with the chief officer of police.

    (6) On considering an action plan submitted to him in accordance with a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may, if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the police authority and the chief officer of the force in question of that opinion and of his reasons for it.

    (7) If a police authority is notified under subsection (6)—

    (a).it shall consider, after consultation with the chief officer of the police force in question about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan m the light of those matters; and

    (b).if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.

    (8) On giving a direction under this section to the police authority responsible for maintaining a police force, the Secretary of State shall notify the chief officer of police of that force that he has given that direction.

    (9) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.

    (10) The provision that a direction under this section may require to be included in an action plan to be submitted to the Secretary of State includes—

    (a) provision setting out the steps that the police authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;

    (b) provision setting out the authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;

    (c) provision for the making of progress reports to the Secretary of State about the implementation of the action plan,

    (d) provision as to the tirnes at which, and the manner in which, any progress report is to be made; and

    (e) provision for the duration of the plan and for it to cease to apply in the circumstances determined by the Secretary of State.

    (11) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State or a police authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft action plan of any requirement to do or not to do anything in a particular case identified for the purposes of the requirement, or in relation to a particular person so identified.

    81

    (12) In this section references, in relation to a case in which there is already an action plan in force, to the submission of a plan to the Secretary of State include references to the submission of revisions of the existing plan; and the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.

    (13) A police authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.

    (14) A chief officer of police of any police force shall comply with any direction given to him under this section.

    (15) Nothing in this section or in section 40 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same report under section 54 from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under section 40.

    41B Procedure for directions under section 41A

    (1) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under section 41A in relation to any police force unless—

    (a) the police authority maintaining that force and the chief officer of that force have each been given such information about the Secretary of State's grounds for proposing to give that direction as he considers appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs of this subsection;

    (b) that police authority and chief officer have each been given an opportunity of making representations about those grounds;

    (c) that police authority has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures that would make the giving of the direction unnecessary; and

    (d) the Secretary of State has considered any such representations and any such proposals.

    (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases where a proposal is made for the giving of a direction under section 41A.

    (3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

    (a) persons whom he considers to report the interests of police authorities;

    (b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

    (c) such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (4) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.

    (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

    (6) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under section 41A in relation to a police force—

    (a) he shall prepare a report in his exercise of that power in relation to that force; and

    (b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

    (7) A report under subsection (6)—

    (a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

    (b)may relate to more than one exercise of the power mentioned in that subsection.'"

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 2, Amendments Nos. 2A and 2B:
    2A Line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert—
    "(2) If the Secretary of State considers that remedial measures are required in relation to any matter identified by the report, he may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to submit an action plan to him.
    (2A) An action plan is a plan setting out the remedial measures which the police authority proposes to take in relation to the matters in respect of which the direction is given."
    2B Line 59, leave out "standards" and insert "targets"
    The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
    Moved, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 2, Amendments Nos. 2A and 2B.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    3 Clause 8, page 7, line 31, at end insert—
    "(bb) he is a person in relation to whom a designation under section (Police powers for contracted-out staff) is or has been in force;"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. As your Lordships will be aware, one of the key aims of the police reform programme is to free police officers from the bureaucratic burdens that keep them in the police station, in order to get them back onto the streets, fighting crime and providing a visible presence that reassures communities.
    Since the publication of the Bill, several police forces have been in touch with us about their plans to contract out custody services to private providers and told us that it would help to maximise the effectiveness of such plans if private providers could make use of the various custody-related powers that we are aiming to open up to civilians through the Bill.
    As an illustration of the potential benefits to the police, Cheshire Constabulary has suggested that contracting out escort duties relating to custody could save 27,000 police hours per annum, or the equivalent of 15 officers released to frontline operational duties. Further significant savings would be available from contracting out detention duties within custody suites. Cleveland Police is looking to free 23 police officers through a similar scheme.
    There are clearly potential benefits from civilianisation in improving efficiency, saving resources and freeing police officers for other duties. I see no reason why, with suitable safeguards in place,

    83
    some of the powers open to police authority-employed, designated persons should not also be available where civilians are employed by a private provider.
    The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 16 sets out the framework of powers for contracted-out staff. That third category of empowered civilian staff will be employees of companies contracted to provide detention and/or escort services to the police authority. Such a person would be able to apply to the chief constable for designation as either a detention officer or an escort officer, or both. Before granting designation, the chief officer would have to be satisfied that the person was suitable to exercise the relevant powers, capable of carrying out the associated functions and appropriately trained—as is the case for designated civilians employed by the police authority. Additionally, the chief officer must be satisfied that the contractor is a suitable person to supervise the designated person.
    As part of the designation process, the chief officer would be able to endow the contracted person with appropriate powers. The relevant sets of powers would be those currently described in those parts of Schedule 4 that cover detention officers and escort officers. The chief officer could choose freely from those lists of powers in respect of each individual designation, and each power would come with the capacity to use reasonable force, where such a capacity was available to a constable using the same power. Where a designated person ceased to be an employee of the relevant employer, or the contractual arrangement between the employer and the police authority was terminated, the designation would lapse.
    Much of the supporting infrastructure of provisions already envisaged for police authority-designated and accredited persons will also be applied to contracted-out persons: for example, the requirement to wear uniform; the offences of assaulting, obstructing or impersonating a designated officer; the obligation on contracted-out staff to have due regard to the relevant provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice; and the provision for the chief officer to modify or withdraw the designation at any time.
    In addition, the new clause includes provision for dealing with complaints or allegations of misconduct by contracted-out staff who are exercising police powers. Designated persons will work closely with the police—in the custody suite, for example—and will be recognised by many as part of the police service as they carry out what are traditionally police functions. We intend that when designated workers provide services to the police, complaints about them or allegations of misconduct should be handled in a manner which is as close as possible to the procedures followed when police officers and employees of the police authority are involved.
    Regulations under the new clause will ensure that there is one system for dealing with complaints involving police officers and designated persons. We want to avoid a member of the public having to pursue
    84
    several complaints through different avenues when they arise from a single incident involving both a police officer and a designated person. Because contracted-out staff have different employers, we cannot simply slot designated persons into the existing police complaints provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations under subsection (9) of the new clause to ensure that there is a system for dealing with misconduct that, as near as is practical, mirrors the procedure applicable to regular police officers. This will include bringing them within the remit of the independent police complaints commission. Subsection (10) of the new clause provides that those regulations may apply any provision of Part 2 with respect to complaints against the police to complaints against persons designated under this clause.
    Part of the chief officer's responsibility in determining the fitness of the relevant employer would be to ensure that he has satisfactory arrangements in place to deal with disciplinary issues that might arise. Of course, the chief officer will be able to remove a person's designation if, following an investigation, either he or the IPCC is not satisfied with the person's behaviour or the way that the employer has dealt with any misconduct.
    The other amendments in this group are largely consequential upon the new clause.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    4 Clause 9, page 9, line 8, after "constables);" insert—
    "(bb) any regulations under section (Police powers for contracted-out staff);
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    5 Page 9, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (ii)
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. The Government have long accepted the principle that the same level of protection as is provided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to employees and to workers should also be provided to police officers.
    Following the debate in Committee on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Borrie, who is not now in his place, the Government decided that the best course of action is to give police officers the full protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, rather than trying to create analogous provisions for police officers through regulations. These amendments make such provision. As a result, police officers, seconded police officers, cadets, special

    85
    constables, officers in constabularies maintained otherwise than by a police authority—such as the MoD Police and the British Transport Police—and police members of NCIS and NCS who blow the whistle, will have the same rights as other employees and workers.
    The latter will cease to be excluded from the provisions about protected disclosures in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. They will be able to have recourse to an employment tribunal if they feel that they have suffered detriment or been dismissed as a result of having made a protected disclosure, such as that another officer has committed a criminal offence or breached the code of conduct for police officers. We believe that this should bring about greater openness within the police service, and thereby lead to an increase in public confidence in it.
    During the Committee stage debate, my noble friend Lord Bassam said that if we brought forward an amendment to bring police officers within the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the provision in subsection (4)(b)(ii) of Clause 9 would become redundant. This provision sought to protect officers who report wrongdoing by an alternative route. It is accordingly removed by Amendment No. 5.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    6 Clause 13, page 12, line 42, leave out "or conduct matter"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. One of the key objectives of Part 2 of the Bill is to increase openness in the police complaints system by providing for the maximum disclosure of information to complainants, subject to a sensitivity test. However, there may be circumstances where a person—for example, the relative of someone who has died allegedly as a result of police conduct—does not wish to make a complaint.
    As the Bill stood before these amendments were brought forward, such a person would have had no right to information about the progress of the investigation into the conduct of those whose actions had allegedly led to the death of a relative. The Government believe that a relative of someone who has died allegedly as a result of police conduct, a relative of someone who has been seriously injured and rendered incapable of making a complaint allegedly as a result of police conduct, or someone who has been seriously injured allegedly as a result of police conduct, should automatically be treated as a complainant for the purposes of being kept informed. Amendments Nos. 7 and 78 to 93 provide for this. The amendments also allow the IPCC and the police to be proactive about offering to keep other people whom they consider have an interest in the handling of a complaint or recordable conduct matter informed.
    86
    Amendment No. 8 relates to the issue of officers who commit acts of misconduct not being identified, which has been much discussed of late. In particular, the case of one gentleman—I shall not mention his name without his permission—who was allegedly injured by police officers in the disturbances following the England/Germany game in Euro 1996 will be known to some noble Lords. It will be important for it to be possible to investigate any allegation of misconduct within the new complaints system, even if the person whose conduct is being complained about cannot be identified.
    Amendment No. 8 makes it explicit on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State will be able to apply the police complaints provisions in Part 2 in cases where the person whose conduct is being complained about cannot be identified. It will be possible to investigate such cases in exactly the same way as if the person could be identified.
    Amendment No. 6 is a technical amendment.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    7 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
    "Duty to provide information for other persons

    (1)A person has an interest in being kept properly informed about the handling of a complaint or recordable conduct matter if—

    (a) it appears to the Commission or to an appropriate authority that he is a person falling within subsection (2); and

    (b) that person has indicated that he consents to the provision of information to him in accordance with this section and that consent has not been withdrawn.

    (2) A person falls within this subsection if—

    (a) he is a relative of a person whose death is the alleged result from the conduct complained of or to which the recordable conduct matter relates;

    (b) he is a relative of a person whose serious injury is the alleged result from that conduct and that person is incapable of making a complaint.

    (c) he himself has suffered serious injury as the alleged result of that conduct.

    (3) A person who does not fall within subsection (2) has an interest in being kept properly informed about the handling of a complaint or recordable conduct matter if—

    (a) the Commission or an appropriate authority considers that he has an interest in the handling of the complaint or recordable conduct matter which is sufficient to make it appropriate for information to be provided to him in accordance with this section; and

    (b) he has indicated that he consents to the provision of information to him in accordance with this section.

    (4) In relation to a complaint this section confers no rights on the complainant.

    (5) A person who has an interest in being kept properly informed about the handling of a complaint or conduct matter is referred to in this section as an "Interested person".

    (6) In any case in which there is an investigation of the complaint or recordable conduct matter in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3

    (a) by the Commission, or

    87

    (b) under its management, it shall be the duty of the Commission to provide the interested person with all such information as will keep him properly informed, while the investigation is being carried out and subsequently, of all the matters mentioned in subsection (9).

    (7) In any case in which there is an investigation of the complaint or recordable conduct matter in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3

    (a) by the appropriate authority on its own behalf, or

    (b) under the supervision of the Commission, it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to provide the interested person with an such information as will keep him properly informed, while the investigation is being carried out and subsequently, of all the matters mentioned in subsection (9).

    (8) Where subsection (7) applies, it shall be the duty of the Commission to give the appropriate authority all such directions as it considers appropriate for securing that that authority complies with its duty under that subsection; and it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to comply with any direction given to it under this subsection.

    (9) The matters of which the interested person must be kept properly informed are—

    (a) the progress of the investigation;

    (b) any provisional findings of the person carrying out the investigation;

    (c) whether any report has been submitted under paragraph 22 of Schedule 3;

    (d) the action (if any) that is taken in respect of the matters dealt with in any such report, and

    (e) the outcome of any such action.

    (10) The duties imposed by this section on the Commission and the appropriate authority in relation to any complaint or recordable conduct matter shall be performed in such manner, and shall have effect subject to such exceptions, as may be provided for by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

    (11) Subsections (6) to (9) of section 19 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.

    (12) In this section "relative" means a person of a description prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State."

    8 Clause 21, page 21, line 47, at end insert—
    "(kk) for applying the provisions of this Part with such modifications as Secretary of State thinks fit in cases where a complaint or conduct matter relates to the conduct of a person—

    (i) whose identity is unascertained at the time at which a complaint is made or a conduct matter is recorded;

    (ii) whose identity is not ascertained during, or subsequent to, the investigation of a complaint or recordable conduct matter;"

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    7.15 p.m.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    9 Clause 31, page 32, line 34 at end insert "a notice in writing"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. These amendments, introduced by
    88
    the Government at Report stage in another place, clarify an aspect of the provisions in Clause 31 that are concerned with the removal of chief officers at the instance of the Secretary of State.
    Where the Secretary of State intends to require a police authority to exercise its power to call upon the chief officer to retire or resign, subsection (2) of Clause 31 provides that he shall give the chief officer concerned notice of his intention and an explanation of his reasons. In contrast, the provisions of the new Section 42(2A) of the Police Act 1996, as inserted by Clause 31(2), require the Secretary of State to give a copy of the notice to the police authority, but do not explicitly require that the notice should include his grounds for acting.
    The chief officer will receive both notice of the Secretary of State's intention and the grounds for doing so, and it is only right to ensure that the police authority has the same information. One would assume that this would normally happen, but the clause as originally drafted meant that there was a theoretical possibility that it might not. These amendments provide that notice given to the chief officer incorporates the Secretary of State's reasons for acting, so that when a copy of the notice is sent to the police authority it will be aware of those reasons.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    10 Page 31, line 33, leave out "a notice" and insert "informing him"
    11 Page 31, line 35, leave out "an explanation in writing of" and insert "explaining"
    12 Page 31, line 39, leave out "of his intention to require the exercise of any power"
    13 After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
    "Protected disclosures by police officers
    (1) After section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18), there shall be inserted—
    "43KA Application of this Part and related provisions to police
    (1) For the purposes of—

    (a) this Part,

    (b) section 47B and sections 48 and 49 so far as relating to that section, and

    (c) section 103A and the other provisions of Part 10 so far as relating to the right not to be unfairly dismissed in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of section 103A, a person who holds, otherwise than under a contract of employment, the office of constable or an appointment as a police cadet shall be treated as an employee employed by the relevant officer under a contract of employment; and any reference to a worker being 'employed' and to his 'employer' shall be construed accordingly.

    (2) In this section 'the relevant officer' means—

    (a) in relation to a member of a police force or a special constable appointed for a police am the chief officer of police;

    (b) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the NCIS, the Director General of NCIS,

    (c) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the NCS, the Director General of NCS;

    89

    (d) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable or an appointment as police cadet, the person who has the direction and control of the body of constables or cadets in question."

    (2) In section 200(1) of that Act (provisions which do not apply to persons engaged in police service under a contract of employment)—

    (a) the words "Part IVA" and "47B" shall be omitted;

    (b) after "sections 100" there shall be inserted "103A", and

    (c) after section 100 there shall be inserted "or 103A".

    (3) Section 13 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c. 23) (exclusion of police from provisions about protected disclosures) shall cease to effect."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    14 Clause 35, page 34, line 29, leave out from beginning to second "the", in line 30, and insert "Powers and duties may be conferred or imposed on a designated person by means only of the application to him by his designation of provisions of"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. All of the amendments in this group are minor drafting or technical amendments. Therefore, unless any noble Lord wishes to raise a question on them, I do not intend to speak to the amendments.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    15 Page 35, line 14, leave out subsection (10)
    16 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
    "Police powers for contracted-out staff
    (1) This section applies if a police authority has entered into a contract with a person ("the contractor") for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody.
    (2) The chief officer of police of the police force maintained by that police authority may designate any person who is an employee of the contractor as either or both of the following—
    (a) a detention officer; or (b) an escort officer.
    (3) A person designated under this section shall have the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by the designation.
    (4) A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person—

    (a) is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is designated;

    (b) is capable of effectively carrying out those functions; and

    (c) has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation.

    90
    (5) A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that the contractor is a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which that person is designated.
    (6) Powers and duties may be conferred or imposed on a designated person by means only of the application to him by his designation of provisions of the applicable Part of Schedule 4 that are to apply to the designated person; and for this purpose the applicable Part of that Schedule is—

    (a) in the case of a person designated as a detention officer, Part 3; and

    (b) in the case of a person designated as an escort officer, Part 4.

    (7) An employee of the contractor authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section—

    (a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of that employment; and

    (b) shall be so authorised or required subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his designation.

    (8) Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section is a power which, in the case of its exercise by a constable, includes or is supplemented by a power to use reasonable force, any person exercising that power in reliance on that designation shall have the same entitlement as a constable to use reasonable force.
    (9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the handling of complaints relating to, or other instances of misconduct involving, the carrying out by any person designated under this section of the functions for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed by his designation.
    (10) Regulations under subsection (9) may, in particular, provide that any provision made by Part 2 of this Act with respect to complaints against persons serving with the police is to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by them, with respect to complaints against persons designated under this section.
    (11) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

    (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

    (b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police;

    (c) the Independent Police Complaints Commission; and

    (d) such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (12) A designation under this section, unless it is previously withdrawn or ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (13), shall remain in force for such period as may be specified in the designation; but it may be renewed at any time with effect from the time when it would otherwise expire.
    (13) A designation under this section shall cease to have effect—

    (a) if the designated person ceases to be an employee of the contractor; or

    (b) if the contract between the police authority and the contractor is terminated or expires."

    17 Clause 36, page 35, line 29, leave out from "scheme") to "police", in line 30, and insert".
    (1A) A community safety accreditation scheme is a scheme for the exercise in the chief officer's"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 17.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    18 Page 35, line 37, after "force" insert "(other than the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. These amendments all relate to consultation in respect of various matters covered in Chapter 1 of Part 4 to the Bill. On Third Reading, your Lordships' House agreed a Liberal Democrat amendment that required a chief officer to consult the "principal local authority" before establishing a community safety accreditation scheme. We had no difficulty with the spirit of that amendment. It was always our intention that there should be such consultation. However, it has been necessary to tidy up the amendment, as it did not define the term, "principal local authority".
    Amendment No. 19 clarifies the nature of the duty on chief officers. In England, they will be required to consult with every district council or London borough in the force area. In Wales, consultation will be with the county councils or borough councils in the force area.
    This group of amendments also provides for consultation with the Mayor of London before the Metropolitan Police Commissioner establishes a community safety accreditation scheme, and before the Home Secretary issues a code of practice under Clause 40 of the Bill. These new consultation requirements recognise the Mayor's London-wide responsibilities for transport, economic development, and the environment, all of which impact on the provisions in this part of the Bill. For example, Transport for London will be funding the commissioner's plans for transport community support officers to work on policing bus routes in the capital.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    19 Clause 36, page 35, line 38, leave out "and the principal local authority for that area" and insert "and
    (b) every local authority any part of whose area lies within the police area.
    (3A) Before establishing a community safety accreditation scheme for the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult with—

    (a) the Metropolitan Police Authority;

    (b) the Mayor of London; and

    (c) every local authority any part of whose area lies within the metropolitan police district.

    (3B) In subsections (3)(b) and (3A)(c) "local authority" means—

    (a) in relation to England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and

    (b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council"

    20 Clause 38, page 37, line 23, leave out "or accreditation under section 35 or" and insert "under section 35 or (Police powers for contracted-out staff or his accreditation under section"
    21 Page 37, line 27, after "35" insert "or (Police powers for contracted-out staff"
    22 Page 37, line 37, after "35" insert "(Police powers for contracted-out staff"
    23 Page 37, line 40, at end insert—
    "(4A) Where any person's designation under section (Police powers for contracted-out staff) is modified or withdrawn, the chief officer giving notice of the modification or withdrawal shall send a copy of the notice to the contractor responsible for supervising that person in the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which the designation was granted."
    24 Page 37, line 46, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
    "(6) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of a police authority, conduct by such an employee in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 35 shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by the police authority; and, in the case of a tort, that authority shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly."
    25 Page 38, line 10, leave out "an employee" and insert "employees"
    26 Page 38, line 11 leave out "member" and insert "employee"
    27 Page 38, line 14, at end insert—
    "(8) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of a contractor (within the meaning of section (Police powers for contracted-out staff)), conduct by such an employee in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under that section shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by that contractor; and, in the case of a tort, that contractor shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly.
    (9) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of a person with whom a chief officer of police has entered into any arrangements for the purposes of a community safety accreditation scheme, conduct by such an employee in reliance or purported reliance on an accreditation under section 37 shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by that employer, and, in the case of a tort, that employer shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 27.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 27.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    28 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
    "Railway safety accreditation scheme

    (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of enabling the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force to establish and maintain a scheme ("a railway safety accreditation scheme").

    (2) A railway safety accreditation scheme is a scheme for the exercise in, on or in the vicinity of policed premises in England and Wales, by persons accredited by the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force under the scheme, of the powers conferred on those persons by their accreditation under that scheme.

    (3) The regulations may make provision—

    (a) as to the purposes for which a railway safety accreditation scheme may be established;

    (b) as to the procedure to be followed in the establishment of such a scheme; and

    93

    (c) as to matters for which such a scheme must contain provision.

    (4) The regulations may make provision as to the descriptions of persons who may be accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme and as to the procedure and criteria to be applied for the grant of any accreditation under such a scheme.

    (5) The regulations may make provision as to the powers which may be conferred on a person by an accreditation under such a scheme.

    (6) Subject to subsection (7), no regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) shall permit a power to be conferred on a person accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme which could not be conferred on an accredited person under a community safety accreditation scheme.

    (7) The regulations may provide that the powers which may be conferred on a person by an accreditation under a railway safety accreditation scheme include the powers of a constable in uniform and of an authorised constable to give a penalty notice under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (fixed penalty notices) in respect of the following offences—

    (a) an offence under section 55 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix) (trespassing on a railway);

    (b) an offence under section 56 of that Act (throwing stones etc. at trains or other things on railways).

    (8) In relation to a person accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme, the regulations may apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by them, any provision of this Chapter which applies in relation to an accredited person.

    (9) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with—

    (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police;

    (b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force;

    (c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

    (d) the British Transport Police Committee;

    (e) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities;

    (f) the Mayor of London; and

    (g) such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (10) In this section - "local authorities" means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London; and "policed premises" has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix)."

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
    This new clause will allow the British Transport Police to set up a railway safety accreditation scheme. The scheme will be closely modelled on our proposals for community safety accreditation schemes. It will allow the British Transport Police to benefit from the provisions in the Bill concerning community safety accreditation schemes. The clause creates two additional powers specific to the problems of safety on or near railways available to be conferred on persons accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme. They are the powers to issue on-the-spot fixed penalty notices for the offences of trespassing on a railway and throwing stones at trains.
    In Committee, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved an amendment designed to bring the British Transport Police within the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill. I trust that my noble friend will welcome
    94
    the amendment—sadly, he is not in his place—and that it will be welcomed by other noble Lords who spoke in support of his amendment in March.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    29 Clause 39, page 38, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—
    "(1) Section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (2)(c)(powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) which may be conferred on traffic wardens), after sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
    "(ia) section 67(3)(which relates to the power of a constable in uniform to stop vehicles for testing);".
    (3) In subsection (3)"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. The amendment covers the changes made in another place to the powers available to designated and accredited persons under Schedules 4 and 5. It also further tweaks the powers available to traffic wardens.
    The last time the Bill was in this House, there was extensive consideration of the enforcement powers that we proposed to extend to community support officers and accredited community safety officers. That consideration led, ultimately, to the removal by your Lordships' House of the powers of detention in Schedules 4 and 5. We debated long and hard the issues concerning the detention powers that would be exercised by community support officers—police authority employees—with the right to use reasonable force and by the wider police family—accredited organisations—without the use of reasonable force.
    The issue is how we give such people's enforcement powers appropriate teeth. Without the ability to identify the suspected offender, it will be difficult to enforce, say, a fixed penalty notice or to gather evidence for an anti-social behaviour order. What offender will identify himself to a CSO if he knows that failure to do so is unlikely to lead to further action? It is important to give those who will deal with even seemingly low-level offences the ability to identify offenders. The Met believes that it is essential to the effectiveness of CSOs.
    We accept that there is concern about making available a power to detain suspects to those who are not sworn constables. We weighed those concerns, expressed in both Houses, against the need for CSOs and accredited individuals to be effective. Consequently, in another place we restored to the Bill the power for accredited persons to request the name and address of someone who commits an offence. That was part of the power of detention that was lost from Schedule 5. As a result of those concerns, we have not sought to restore the power of detention to accredited individuals.

    95
    It remains the case that failure to give a true name and address will be an offence that could be handled by the police. Noble Lords opposite accept that accredited persons should have powers to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling and dropping litter. If an accredited person is to issue such a notice, he must be able to require the offending dog owner or litter lout to give his name and address. We cannot sensibly confer one power without the other. It is important that CSOs have the ability to detain an offender until the arrival of a constable. The Metropolitan Police, in particular, have made it clear to us that they see the power of detention to be an essential part of the CSO scheme in London. We have therefore reintroduced the detention power for CSOs.
    At the same time, the Government are keen to allay any remaining concerns about conferring the power of detention on non-police officers. We have therefore set on record our commitment to pilot the power before it is made available to all forces. Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has agreed to report on the evaluation of the pilots, and a copy of his report will be laid before Parliament. The pilots will run for two years in up to six forces, including the Met. I am confident that the detention power is appropriate, proportionate and workable, and the Met are confident that it is workable and necessary. The report of the pilots will, I anticipate, bear those views out.
    I turn to Amendments Nos. 29, 73, 109 and 142. At present, only the police have a general power to stop vehicles and only the police and traffic wardens have a power to direct traffic. That means that police officers must be employed to stop vehicles even though their only function is to flag vehicles down. The amendments will free up police officers to concentrate on their core activities.
    The Bill already removes restrictions on traffic wardens' power to stop. As traffic wardens already have a power to direct traffic, they will therefore now be able to undertake escorting duties. The amendments make it clear that their power to stop includes a power to stop vehicles for tests of their roadworthiness and compliance with construction and use regulations. That will benefit the other agencies and hauliers, as they will have a more guaranteed service. The amendments will also give community support officers and accredited persons a limited power to stop vehicles and direct traffic. The power will be solely for the same escorting and testing purposes.
    The amendments will allow for local authority parking attendants to be given the power to stop traffic for those specific purposes. It would not be necessary to confer on such local authority traffic personnel any of the other powers that may or may not be conferred on other accredited persons within the force area. They can be accredited and trained for the use of the power to stop traffic only. The amendments will free up police time for crime reduction, facilitate the enforcement of other legislation, promote road safety and provide a better service to other interests. I commend them to the House.
    96
    I confess to being somewhat surprised by the opposition from the Liberal Democrat Benches to Amendment No. 142. When it was debated on Report in another place, along with the parallel amendment to Schedule 4, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench home affairs spokesman, the honourable Member for Lewes, Mr Norman Baker, said:
    "The Government amendments seem eminently sensible. I have no problem with them. I am happy to support them".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/02; col. 816.]
    The other amendments in the group tidy up the powers of investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendment Nos. 140A and 142A, to which I shall speak.
    We opposed this aspect of the Bill on Report. Despite our efforts in the House of Commons, the issue remains unresolved. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has indicated that she is unable to support us on the amendment. However, I note that she still has concerns about the issue.
    Plans for accredited officers employed by a range of organisations are wrong in principle and practice. The public may welcome having extra eyes on policing matters, but the scheme is bound to cause muddle in practice. There is also a serious concern that there is no independent oversight of complaints against such officers. It is of paramount importance that anybody employed by the police or supporting the police should be subject to an independent complaints procedure, just like the police themselves.
    The amendment would improve the Bill. We do not oppose the proposals to have community support officers. That was shown in the quotation that the Minister used. We suggested such a scheme in our manifesto and have always supported the principle. Almost all research points to the fact that fear of crime is greater than crime itself. Society is entitled to protection, and there must be no ambiguity. That would be more meaningful if the vision were based on simplicity, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. We all recognise that crime is not simply a matter for the police. All of us are involved, and we are entitled to every available help to tackle it.
    The starting point of my argument is that our police are probably the best in the world and that we continue to train them to be even better. Training is an essential element. The police have far-reaching powers that could oppress citizens if wrongly used. Yet we will have community support officers with substantial powers but little training.
    Any arrangement should be simple and effective. It should encompass all officers who are not police officers, and it should include traffic wardens. In the House of Commons, the Minister said that we might get to that position in the long run. Surely, we should get it right in the first place. The danger of the

    97
    Government's proposal is that it will not offer simplicity. People will have different powers according to where in the country they operate. Borough or district boundaries may cross, and the powers could be different on either side of the road.
    The question uppermost in my mind is that of accountability, especially of accredited officers who are not even employed by a public authority. How do we measure efficiency and effectiveness—the Government's key indicators—if the public is not sure what powers they have? The questions will arise as to who employs whom and where one lodges a complaint, if need be.
    We attempted to ensure that CSOs, as well as being employed by the police, could also be employed by local authorities. Therein lies the democratic accountability which is lacking in the Government's proposals. It would also help to cement the Government's initiative on crime and disorder partnerships. This would be welcomed by such partnerships. That would be a good way to proceed since crime and disorder partnerships form an essential element of the crime reduction programme.
    The emphasis we place has three main ingredients: they are simpler, they are understandable and they are closer to the community. Let us look at the powers of traffic wardens. Those have been exercised locally. If they apply to traffic wardens, surely the analogy with CSOs is important. Local authorities need a clear role in the kinds of powers that they wish to give to CSOs. We do not dispute that CSOs will have to be approved by the local chief constable and that they would have to be properly trained. Thus police involvement is not ruled out.
    Perhaps I may turn to accredited officers, which is where the problem starts. There is a whole range of bodies with police forces. Does that mean that companies both good and not so good could have employees with police powers? The Government have introduced amendments to include the fragmented railway industry. Does not that sound like the part privatisation of the police? That is for the Government to defend. The question I must pose is that those who employ accredited officers will wish to have them act in the interests of their companies. Where does the general public fit in?
    We will have private companies undertaking public functions without being subject to the independent Police Complaints Commission, which we all approved in the Bill. The IPCA will deal with police officers and CSOs, but it will have no locus on accredited officers employed by the private sector. That must be a recipe for disaster. It is no good for the Government to try to convince us that these are low-level police powers. We do not disagree, but will the general public understand it?
    So there is the scenario: members of the public being confronted by a private sector employee with some police powers. That is unlikely to build the confidence that has stood the test of our policing methods. People are bound to resist enforcement measures which they do not see as coming from a police officer. We do not
    98
    object to private sector bodies which have trained their staff to be police officers, because there is evidence that some of them have been sworn in as special constables. The authority comes from training. Why are the Government silent on this?
    What we are doing here is giving private sector employees police powers. That is at the heart of our objections. The Government have not thought through this proposal and I trust that, even at this late stage, the Minister will see fit to amend it.
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the points put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have been raised and debated fully in the course of the passage of the Bill both through this House and the other place. I understand that what lies at the heart of the noble Lord's objections is the question of accountability and being able to hold those acquiring police powers to account. I wish to make it clear, as it has been made clear on a number of occasions, that before designating or accrediting any person, a chief officer must be satisfied that he is suitable to carry out the functions in respect of which he has been designated or accredited. He must be capable of exercising effectively the powers conferred on him and he must have been adequately trained. Furthermore, a chief officer may modify or withdraw a designation or accreditation at any time.
    CSOs will be accountable in the same way as police officers. In particular, they will be under the direction and control of the chief officer and subject to the new independent police complaints system when it comes into force. Any use of these powers by accredited persons will be subject to a protocol agreed between the chief officer and the employer—for example, a local authority or vehicle inspectorate—that the powers will be used only in strictly controlled circumstances. Finally, it will be a criminal offence to impersonate a designated or accredited person.
    I know that that does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would wish, but it provides levels both of protection and accountability. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    On Question, Motion agreed to
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    30 Clause 40, page 38, line 40, after "police;" insert—
    "(fa) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities;
    (fb) the Mayor of London,"
    31 Page 38, line 46, at end insert—
    "(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(fa), local authorities" means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly."
    32 Clause 42, page 39, line 40, after "35" insert "or (Police powers for contracted-out staff)
    33 Page 39, line 40, at end insert";
    "Director General" means—

    (a) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; or

    99

    (b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad,

    "Service Authority" means—

    (a)in relation to employment with the National Criminal Intelligence Service or to its Director General, the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and

    (b)in relation to employment with the National Crime Squad or to its Director General, the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad."

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 33.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 33.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    34 Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
    "Persons authorised to take intimate samples from persons in police detention
    (1) For subsection (9) of section 62 of the 1984 Act (persons who may take intimate samples) there shall be substituted
    "(9) In the case of an intimate sample which is a dental impression, the sample may be taken from a person only by a registered dentist.
    (9A) In the case of any other form of intimate sample, except in the case of a sample of urine, the sample may be taken from a person only by—

    (a) a registered medical practitioner, or

    (b) a registered health care professional."

    (2) In section 65 of the 1984 Act (interpretation of Part 5 of that Act), in subsection (1) after the definition of "registered dentist" there shall be inserted—
    "'registered health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is

    (a) a registered nurse; or

    (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State;".

    (3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
    "(1A) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999(c.8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing.
    (1B) An order under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. This amendment and those grouped with it extend to registered healthcare professionals the provision in the Bill for registered nurses to deal with the taking of blood specimens with consent in drink-driving cases. The group of registered healthcare professionals includes registered nurses but goes wider and includes, for example, registered paramedics.
    The new clause, inserted by Amendment No. 34, similarly amends PACE to cover non-drink-drive cases. It allows the full range of registered healthcare professionals to take blood and other intimate samples from suspects at police stations. Making it possible to
    100
    use the broad range of registered healthcare professionals rather than solely registered nurses is a practical measure that extends the benefits of the new provision already agreed without compromising standards.
    The amendments and the new clause will remove the need to call on the services of a police surgeon in police custody areas and so avoid delays and promote better value for money.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    35 Clause 49, page 43, line 26, leave out "nurse" and insert "health care" professional"
    36 Page 43, line 30, at end insert—
    "(2A) In subsection (2) of section II of that Act(interpretation of sections 3A to 10 of that Act), after the definition of "prescribed limit" there shall be inserted—
    "'registered health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is—

    (a) a registered nurse; or

    (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State.

    (2B) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
    "(2A) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing.
    (2B) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.""
    37 Page 43, line 31, leave "section 11 of that Act" and insert "that section".
    38 Page 43, line 36, leave out "nurse" and insert "health care professional".
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 38.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 38.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    39 Clause 50, page 45, line 1, after "patient" insert "no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 7A of this Act and".
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. This amendment and those grouped with it seek to protect a person unconscious after an accident by providing that a constable cannot ask for a blood specimen to be taken if the medical practitioner with clinical care of the person objects.
    The Bill already makes it lawful, not compulsory, for a medical practitioner to take a specimen when requested if he thinks fit. Clearly it would not be fitting

    101
    if the practitioner with clinical care objected or if it were against his own medical judgment. Thus it has never been the intention of the Bill to allow a specimen to be taken without consent where the clinician in charge objects. However, we need to ensure as far as possible the equality of treatment between conscious and unconscious patients at which the measures in the Bill are intended.
    At the moment a clinician can object to and so prevent a conscious patient from being required to provide a specimen. Under the terms of the Bill the clinician can also object to and so prevent an unconscious patient being required to consent to analysis of a specimen, but he cannot object to and so prevent the specimen from being taken in the first place. While this is technically allowed in the Bill as originally drafted, it is unlikely to happen in practice: a medical practitioner would not normally take a specimen if the clinician in charge of the patient objected for reasons of medical ethics and professional etiquette. It remains, however, a theoretical possibility. The amendments would remove that possibility.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    40 Page 45, line 3, leave out "section 7A of this Act" and insert "that section".
    41 Page 45, line 5, after "proposal" insert "to take the specimen or".
    42 Page 45, line 12, after "that" insert "the taking of the specimen,".
    43 Clause 51, page 46, line 20, leave out "nurse" and insert "health care professional".
    44 Page 46, line 38, leave out "section 16(1)" and insert "subsection (1) of section 16".
    45 Page 46, line 39, at end insert—
    "(6) In subsection (2) of that section (documentary evidence as to consent), after the words "medical practitioner", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted "or a registered health care professional.".
    46 Clause 52, page 47, line 8, leave out "nurse" and insert "health care professional".
    47 Page 47, line 12, at end insert—
    "(2A) After subsection (9) of that section there shall be inserted—
    "(9A) In this section 'health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is—

    (a) a registered nurse; or

    (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State.

    (9B)A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section ") of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing.
    (9C)An order under subsection (9A)(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."".
    48 Page 48, line 23, after "patient" insert "no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 31 A of this Act and".
    49 Page 48, line 25, leave out "section 31 A of this Act" and insert "that section".
    50 Page 48, line 27, after "proposal" insert "to take the specimen or".
    51 Page 48, line 34, after "that" insert "the taking of the specimen".
    52 Page 49, line 6, at end insert—
    "(7A) In section 35(3) of that. Act (documentary evidence as to consent) after the words "medical practitioner", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted "or a registered health care professional".
    (7B) After subsection (2) of section 38 of that Act (interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of that Act) there shall be inserted—
    "(2A) In this Chapter 'registered health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is

    (a) a registered nurse; or

    (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State.

    (2B) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing.
    (2C) An order under subsection (2A)(b) shall be made by statutory instrument and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."."
    53 Page 49, line 7, leave out "section 38 of that Act" and insert "that section".
    54 Page 49, line 13, leave out "nurse" and insert "health care professional".
    55 Clause 55, page 52, line 24, at end insert—
    "(7A) In subsection (10) of that section (penalty for contravention of order), for "shall be" there shall be substituted "is guilty of an offence and"".
    56 Clause 58, page 54, line 32, after "(6)" insert "for the discharge of an order".
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 56.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    57 Clause 59, page 55, line 24, leave out from "appeals)," to end of line 25 and insert "after "an anti-social behaviour order" there shall be inserted ", an order under section ID above,".".
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57. A sex offender order is a civil preventive order made by a magistrates' court. If the police consider that a sex offender has acted in a way that gives serious cause for concern that he may reoffend, then they can apply for an order. The order places a number of prohibitions on the offender designed to prevent him from engaging in behaviour that might lead him to reoffend. For example, he might be prevented from entering children's playgrounds or

    103
    visiting swimming baths. The breach of any of these prohibitions carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
    Sex offender orders were provided for in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with respect to England and Wales and Scotland and in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 with respect to Northern Ireland. A number of individual cases have highlighted some weaknesses in the existing legislation. This anecdotal evidence is backed up by recently published Home Office research. We have therefore taken the first opportunity to legislate to increase the effectiveness of sex offender orders by introducing a number of new clauses to the Bill.
    The new clauses give greater flexibility to the police in how they apply for and amend sex offender orders; they introduce interim sex offender orders to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and make breach of an order, whichever jurisdiction created it, an offence in the rest of the UK. In effect, they make sex offender orders enforceable throughout the UK.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    58 Clause 60, page 55, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
    "(1) This section applies to—

    (a) applications for an anti-social behaviour order; and

    (b) applications for an order under section IB.

    (2) Before making an application to which this section applies, the council for a local government area shall consult the chief officer of police of the police force maintained for the police area within which that local government area lies.
    (3) Before making an application to which this section applies, a chief officer of police shall consult the council for the local government area in which the person in relation to whom the application is to bemade resides or appears to reside.
    (4) Before making an application to which this section applies, a relevant authority other than a council for a local government area or a chief officer of police shall consult—

    (a) the council for the local government area in which the person in relation to whom the application is to be made resides or appears to reside; and

    (b) the chief officer of police of the police force maintained for the police area within which that local government area lies.""

    59 After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
    "Sex offenders: England and Wales
    (1) Section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (sex offender orders) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) in subsection (1) (application for a sex offender order)—

    (a) for "in his police area" there shall be substituted "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, his police area",

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

    (3) in subsection (2) (which identifies the court to which an application must be made)—

    (a) for "the magistrates' court" there shall be substituted (a) any magistrates'court; (b) at the end there shall be inserted ", or

    104

    (b) any magistrates' court whose commission area includes any part of the applicant's police area."

    (4) in subsection (4) (the prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom or any particular members of that public,".
    (5) In subsection (6) (variation or discharge of the order)—

    (a) after "the applicant" there shall be inserted, "any other relevant chief officer of police",.

    (b) for "the court which made a sex offender order for it" there shall be substituted "the appropriate court for the sex offender order".

    (6) After that subsection there shall be inserted
    "(6A) In subsection (6) above—
    'the appropriate court' means

    (a) the court which made the sex offender order, or

    (b) any magistrates' court whose commission area includes any part of the police area of the applicant or of any other relevant chief officer of police; 'relevant chief officer of police' means a chief officer of police who believes that the defendant is in, or is intending to come to, his police area."

    (7) In subsection (7) (discharge of orders), after "parties" there shall be inserted "and subject to subsection (7A) below".
    (8) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
    "(7A) Where any magistrates' court makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one."
    (9) In subsection (8) (offence for breach of order), for "shall be" there shall be substituted "is guilty of an offence and".
    (10) Subsections (4) to (6) apply in relation to applications and orders under section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section."
    60 Insert the following new Clause—
    "Interim orders for sex offenders: England and Wales
    (1) After section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) there shall be inserted—
    "2A Interim orders: sex offenders

    (1) This section applies where an application for a sex offender order ("the main application') to a magistrates' court has not been determined.

    (2) The applicant may apply by complaint to the court for an interim order, pending the determination of the main application.

    (3) The court may make an interim order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order if it considers that it is appropriate to do so.

    (4) An interim order

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

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

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

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

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

    (6) The applicant or the defendant may apply by complaint to the court which made the interim order for it to varied or discharged by a further order.

    (7) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an interim order, he is guilty of an offence.

    105

    (8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7) above shall be liable—

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

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

    (9) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (7) above, it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under subsection (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of section 12 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) in respect of the offence."

    (2) In section 4(1) of that Act (appeals), for "or sex offender order" there shall be substituted, "a sex offender order or an order under Section 2A above"."
    61 Insert the following new Clause—
    "Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland
    After section 2A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (which is inserted by section (Interim orders: sex offenders) there shall be inserted-"2B Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland
    (1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in England and Wales which he is prohibited from doing there by—

    (a) an order under section 20(4) below, or

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

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

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

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

    (3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under subsection (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of section 12 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) in respect of the offence.-."
    62 Insert the following new Clause—
    "Sex offenders: Scotland
    (1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 20(1) (application for a sex offender order in Scotland) for "in the area of his police force" there shall be substituted "who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force".
    (3) In section 20(2) (conditions to be fulfilled), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom or any particular members of that public".
    (4) In section 20(3) (court to which application must be made)—

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

    (b) at the end there shall be inserted "; or (b) the sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of the area of the applicant's police force.".

    (5) In section 20(5) (prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".
    (6) In Section 21(7) (time limit, variation and revocation of order)—

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

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

    106
    (7) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
    (7A) In subsection (7) above—
    'the appropriate court' means

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

    (b) the sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of thearea of the applicant's police force or of the police force of any other relevant chief constable;'relevant chief constable' means a chief constable who believes that the accused is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force."

    (8) After subsection (7A) (inserted by subsection (7)) there shall be inserted—
    "(7B) Where a sheriff makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of thesubsequent one."
    (9) Subsections (5) to (7) apply in relation to applications and orders under section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section."
    63 Insert the following new Clause—
    "Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Northern Ireland
    "After section 21 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) there shall be inserted-"21A Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Northern Ireland
    (1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in Scotland which he is prohibited from doing there by—

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

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

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

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

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

    64 Insert the following new clause
    "Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland
    (1) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) (sex offender orders) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph (1) (application for a sex offender order)—

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

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

    (3) In paragraph (2) (which identifies the court to which an application must be made), for the words following "1981 to" there shall be substituted "any court of summary jurisdiction".
    (4) In paragraph (4) (the prohibitions which may be imposed), for "the public" there shall be substituted "the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,".
    (5) In paragraph (7) (discharge of orders), after "parties" there shall be inserted "and subject to paragraph (7A)-.
    (6) After that paragraph there shall be inserted—
    "(7A) Where a court makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one."
    (7) Subsection (4) applies in relation to applications and orders under Article 6 of the Criminal. Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section."
    65 Insert the following new Clause—
    "Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland
    (1) After Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)) there shall be inserted—
    "6A Interim orders: sex offenders

    (1) This Article applies where an application for a sex offender order ("the main application") to a court of summary jurisdiction has not been determined.

    (2) The applicant may apply by way of complaint under Part VIII of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I.1981/1675 (N.I.26)) to the court for an interim order, pending the determination of the main application.

    (3) The court nay make an interim order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order if it considers that it is appropriate to do so.

    (4) An interim order—

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

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

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

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

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

    (6) The applicant or the defendant may apply for the variation or discharge of the interim order by a further order.

    (7) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an interim order, he is guilty of an offence.

    (8) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (7) shall be liable—

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

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

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

    (2) In Article 7(7) of that Order (sex offender orders: supplemental)—

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

    (b) after "Article 6(6)" there shall be inserted "or 6A(6)"."

    66 Insert the following new Clause—
    "Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland
    'After Article 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/2839 (N.I. 20)) (which is inserted by section (Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland) above) there shall be inserted—
    "6B Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland

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

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

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

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

    108

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

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 to 66.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 to 66.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    67 After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
    "Application of the Police (Property) Act 1897 to NCS
    (1) After section 2 of the Police (Property) Act 1897 (c. 30) there shall be inserted—
    "2A Application to NCS

    (1) This Act applies to property which has come into the possession of the National Crime Squad as it applies to property that has come into the possession of the police.

    (2) In relation to property that has come into the possession of the National Crime Squad—

    (a) the reference in section 1(1) to an officer of police is a reference to a member of that Squad, and

    (b) references in section 2 to the property remaining in the possession of the police are references to its remaining in the possession of that Squad.

    (3) The power to make regulations under section 2 has effect in relation to property that has come into the possession of the National Crime Squad as if—

    (a) the relevant authority for the purposes of subsection (2A) of that section were the Service Authority for that Squad, and

    (b) the reference in subsection (2A)(c) of that section to police purposes were a reference to the purposes of that Squad."

    (2) In section (2) of that Act (regulations), for subsection (2B) there shall be substituted-"
    (2B) The relevant authority for the purposes of subsection (2A) is the police authority."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. The new clause was introduced in another place by the Government to give effect to one of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee in its report on the Bill.
    The Police (Property) Act 1897 deals with the disposal of property that comes into police possession during the investigation of a suspected offence. Property may be sold or kept for use by the police. The proceeds of the sale are paid to the police authority. The clause extends the 1897 Act to cover the National Crime Squad. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    68 Clause 67, page 62, line 47, at end insert
    "and, in a case where the power to make provision with respect to qualification for appointment as a constable or as a special constable, or for membership of a force, Service or Squad, is exercisable by any such regulations as are mentioned in that subsection, the regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68. The purpose of Clause 67 is to remove unnecessary barriers to recruitment and allow police forces to select people on merit rather than on irrelevant factors that have no bearing on their ability to do the job. The clause also addresses the current anomaly whereby Irish citizens can become police officers while other EC nationals are barred.
    The effect will be to open up the police service to British citizens, EC nationals and to Commonwealth citizens and foreign nationals who are living here free of restrictions. It will widen the pool of potential recruits, helping the Police Service to improve its diversity and reflect better our society.
    In earlier debates, several noble Lords, among them the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Monson, expressed concern that Britain could be policed by people who did not have sufficient command of the English language or had little knowledge of this country. It had also been suggested that we should set a minimum residence period for foreign applicants before they could apply. Three and seven years were mentioned.
    Our response was that setting a minimum period of residency is rather arbitrary and very difficult to monitor. The same effect can be achieved by requiring foreign nationals and Commonwealth citizens to be resident here free of restrictions. Normally, residence is not attracted until people have lived here for a minimum of 12 months—often considerably longer.
    While we think that noble Lords' fears are misplaced, nevertheless, in response to those concerns we have now provided for regulations to be made which must impose requirements as to competence in English and immigration status. It is our intention that the regulations will include a requirement for applicants to be lawfully settled in the UK free of restrictions and able to communicate effectively in oral and written English.
    We also need the ability to reserve particular posts in the interests of national security. However, it would not be appropriate to make this provision mandatory as it would not be needed by all the police forces which this clause covers. The provision should be retained to reserve specific posts only as necessary. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    69 After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—
    "Duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
    (1) The following enactments shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)—

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

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

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

    (2) In subsection (1 of each of those sections, for "officer" there shall be substituted "authority".
    (3) For subsection (2) of each of those sections, there shall be substituted-"
    (2) In this section 'the relevant authority' means—

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

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

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

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

    (2A) The Commissioner of Police for the City of London shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if he were a member of the City of London police force."
    (4) After subsection (2A) of section 51A of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) (which is inserted by subsection (3)) there shall be inserted—
    "(2B) The following provisions (which impose the same liability for unlawful conduct of constables on persons with their direction and control as would arise if the constables were the employees of those persons) do not apply in relation to any liability arising in respect of a contravention of this Act—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (a) chief officer of police;

    (b) the Director General of the National Criminal intelligence Service,

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

    111

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

    (5) In each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of that section, for "chief officer of police there shall be substituted "police authority".
    (6) In subsection (4) of that section, for "or (c)" there shall be substituted "(c) or (d)".
    (7) Section 5 of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 (c. 42) (payments by police authorities etc. out of relevant funds in relation to contraventions of health and safety legislation) shall cease to have effect.
    (8) An order bringing this section into force may make such savings and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. The amendment, which received cross-party support when introduced at the Report stage in another place, has the effect of deeming police authorities and, in Scotland, police boards, to be employers of police officers for the purposes of health and safety legislation. Equivalent provision is made for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, where the service authority for each body will be deemed to be the employer of police officers for this purpose.
    Health and safety legislation, as it currently applies to the police, treats chief officers as the employers of police officers. This has created an anomaly whereby the chief officers of forces are personally liable where they are prosecuted as employers for alleged breaches of health and safety legislation. This situation arises because forces are not bodies corporate and consequently are not legal entitles in their own right.
    As a result, the chief officer may end up in the dock in a personal capacity rather than as the representative of his or her own force. If convicted, the chief officer would incur a criminal record. That is an invidious position in which to put a chief officer. What is more, it can damage the image of policing to no useful purpose.
    Following extensive consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and the Health and Safety Executive, we are, by these amendments, transferring the employers' liability for health and safety to the police authority. That will bring the position in respect of police officers into line with that which already exists for police support staff where police authorities are the employer.
    We will negotiate with ACPO, the APA and the Health and Safety Executive detailed arrangements, setting out the respective responsibilities of chief officers and police authorities for health and safety matters within the framework of police authority responsibilities and powers under the Police Act 1996.
    We will enshrine these arrangements in a statutory code of practice. The code will make clear that police authorities are responsible for ensuring that chief officers have in place suitable arrangements for dealing with health and safety issues, and that police authorities can call for reports if not satisfied that chief officers are carrying out their responsibilities in this area. The code will further provide that chief officers,
    112
    rather than police authorities, will be responsible as now for carrying out health and safety risk assessments. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    70 Clause 89, page 85, line 30, leave out "40(7)"
    71 Clause 92, page 86, line 25, leave out "sections 84," and insert
    (a) section 84, the entries in Schedule 8 relating to the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50), paragraphs 51 and 59 of Schedule 27 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) and paragraph 74 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) and section 91(2) (so far as relating to those entries); and (b) sections"
    72 Page 86, line 31, at beginning insert "Sections (Sex offender orders: Scotland) and (Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Northern Ireland"
    73 Page 87, line 6, leave out "96(3)" and insert "96
    74 Page 87, line 12 leave out subsection (11)
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 74.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 74.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I am advised that Amendments Nos. 75 to 75D should be taken en bloc.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    75 Schedule 1, page 91, line 41, at end insert—
    "Directions as to action plans
    3A (1) After section 31 there shall be inserted
    "31A Power to give directions as to action plans

    (1) This section applies where an inspection report made to the Secretary of State states -

    (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the whole or any part of NCIS is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or

    (b) that, in that person's opinion, the whole or a part of NCIS will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.

    (2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Scottish Ministers, direct the NCIS Service Authority to submit to the Secretary of State a plan ('an action plan') for taking remedial measures in relation to anything that the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters as to which he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1).

    (3) If the NCIS Service Authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the Director General of NCIS to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the NCIS Service Authority for that authority to consider.

    (4) The NCIS Service Authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.

    113

    (5) If the NCIS Service Authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3), it must consult with the Director General of NCIS.

    (6) On considering an action plan submitted to him in accordance with a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may, if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS of that opinion and of his reasons for it.

    (7) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Ministers.

    (8) If the NCIS Service Authority is notified under subsection (6) -

    (a) it shall consider, after consultation with the Director General of NCIS about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and

    (b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.

    (9) On giving a direction under this section to the NCIS Service Authority, the Secretary of State shall notify the Director General of NCIS that he has given that direction.

    (10) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.

    (11) The provision that a direction under this section may require to be included in an action plan to be submitted to the Secretary of State includes -

    (a) provision setting out the steps that the NCIS Service Authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met,

    (b) provision setting out that Authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;

    (c) provision for the making of progress reports to the Secretary of State about the implementation of the action plan;

    (d) provision as to the times at which, and the manner in which, any progress report is to be made; and

    (e), provision for the duration of the plan and for it to cease to apply in the circumstances determined by the Secretary of State.

    (12) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State or the NCIS Service Authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft action plan of any requirement to do or not to do anything in a particular case identified for the purposes of the requirement, or in relation to a particular person so identified.

    (13) In this section references, in relation to a case in which there is already an action plan in force, to the submission of a plan to the Secretary of State include references to the submission of revisions of the existing plan; and the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.

    (14) The NCIS Service Authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.

    (15) The Director General of NCIS shall comply with any direction given to him under this section.

    (16) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section -

    (a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power,

    (b) he shall lay a copy of that report before Parliament; and

    (c) he shall send a copy of that report to the Scottish Ministers.

    (17) The Scottish Ministers shall lay any copy of a report sent to them under subsection (16) before the Scottish Parliament.

    (18) A report under subsection (16) -

    (a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

    114

    (b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power mentioned in that subsection.

    (19) In this section 'an inspection report' means a report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1W (c. 77) or section 41 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32).

    (20) Nothing in this section or in section 30 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same inspection report from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under that section."

    (2) After section 76 there shall be inserted -
    "76A Power to give directions as to action plans

    (1) This section applies where a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection under section on 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) states

    (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report, the whole or any part of the National Crime Squad is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or

    (b) that, in that person's opinion, the whole or a part of the National Crime Squad will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.

    (2) The Secretary of State may direct the NCS Service Authority to submit to the Secretary of State a plan ('an action plan') for taking remedial measures in relation to anything that the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters as to which he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1).

    (3) If the NCS Service Authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the NCS Service Authority for that authority to consider.

    (4) The NCS Service Authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.

    (5) If the NCS Service Authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3), it must consult with the Director General of the National Crime Squad.

    (6) On considering an action plan submitted to him in accordance with a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may, if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the NCS Service Authority and the Director General of the National Crime Squad of that opinion and of his reasons for it.

    (7) If the NCS Service Authority is notified under subsection (6) -

    (a) it shall consider, after consultation with the Director General of the National Crime Squad about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and

    (b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.

    (8) On giving a direction under this section to the NCS Service Authority, the Secretary of State shall notify the Director General of the National Crime Squad that he has given that direction.

    (9) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.

    (10) The provision that a direction under this section may require to be included in an action plan to be submitted to the Secretary of State includes -

    (a) provision setting out the steps that the NCS Service Authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;

    115

    (b) provision setting out that Authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;

    (c) provision for the making of progress reports to the Secretary of State about the implementation of the action plan;

    (d) provision as to the times at which, and the manner in which, any progress report is to be made; and

    (e) provision for the duration of the plan and for it to cease to apply in the circumstances determined by the Secretary of State.

    (11) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State or the NCS Service Authority to direct the inclusion in m action plan or draft action plan of any requirement to do or not to do anything in a particular case identified for the purposes of the requirement, or in relation to a particular person so identified.

    (12) In this section references, in relation to a case in which there is already an action plan in force, to the submission of a plan to the Secretary of State include references to the submission of revisions of the existing plan; and the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.

    (13) The NCS Service Authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.

    (14) The Director General of the National Crime Squad shall comply with any direction given to him under this section.

    (15) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section—

    (a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power; and

    (b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

    (16) A report under subsection (15) -

    (a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

    (b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power mentioned in that subsection.

    (17) Nothing in this section or in section 75 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under section 75.

    Procedure for giving directions.
    3B (1) After section 31A (which is inserted by paragraph 3A(I)) there shall be inserted—
    "31B Procedure for giving directions by the Secretary of State

    (1) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under section 30 or 31 A unless—

    (a) the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS have each been given such information about the Secretary of State's grounds for proposing to give that direction as he considers appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs of this subsection;

    (b) the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS have each been given an opportunity of making representations about those grounds;

    (c) the NCIS Service Authority has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures that would make the giving of the direction unnecessary; and

    (d) the Secretary of State has considered any such representations and any such proposals.

    (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases where a proposal is made for the giving of a direction by him under section 30 or 31A.

    (3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with -

    (a) the Scottish Ministers;

    116

    (a) the NCIS Service Authority,

    (c) the Director General of NCIS;

    (d) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities in England and Wales;

    (e) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police of police forces in England and Wales; and

    (f) such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (4) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.

    (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

    31C Procedure for giving directions by the Scottish Ministers

    (1) The Scottish Ministers shall not give a direction under section 30 unless-

    (a) the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS have each been given such information about the Scottish Ministers' grounds for proposing to give that direction as they consider appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs of this subsection;

    (b) the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS have each been given an opportunity of making representations about those grounds;

    (c) the NCIS Service Authority has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures that would make the giving of the direction unnecessary; and

    (d) the Scottish Ministers have considered any such representations and any such proposals.

    (2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases where a proposal is made for the giving of a direction by them under section 30.

    (3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Scottish Ministers shall consult with-

    (a) the Secretary of State;

    (b) the NCIS Service Authority;

    (c) the Director General of NCIS;

    (d) persons whom they consider to represent the interests of police authorities in Scotland;

    (e) persons whom they consider to represent the interests of chief constables of police forces in Scotland; and

    (f) such other persons as they think fit.

    (4) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.

    (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Scottish Parliament."

    (2) In section 45 (orders and regulations under Part 1), after "Part" there shall be inserted "or of the Scottish Ministers to make regulations under this Part".
    (3) After section 76A (which is inserted by paragraph 3A(2)), there shall be inserted —
    "76B Procedure for giving directions under sections 75 and 76A

    (1) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under section 75 or 76A unless-

    (a) the NCS Service Authority and the Director General of the National Crime Squad have each been given such information about the Secretary of State's grounds for proposing to give that direction as he considers appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs of this subsection;

    117

    (b) the NCS Service Authority and the Director General of the National Crime Squad have each been given an opportunity of making representations about those grounds,

    (c) the NCS Service Authority has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures that would make the giving of the direction unnecessary; and

    (d) the Secretary of State has considered any such representations and any such proposals.

    (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases where a proposal is made for the giving of a direction by him under section 75 or 76A.

    (3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with -

    (a) the NCS Service Authority;

    (b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad;

    (c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

    (d) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police, and

    (e) such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (4) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.

    (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."."

    75A Line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert -
    "(2) If the Secretary of State considers that remedial measures are required in relation to any matter identified by the report, he may, after consultation with the Scottish Ministers, direct the NCIS Service Authority to submit an action plan to him.
    (2A) An action plan is a plan setting out the remedial measures which the NC IS Service Authority proposes to take in relation to the matters in respect of which the direction is given."
    75B Line 61, leave out "standards" and insert "targets"
    75C Line 120, leave out from beginning to end of line 124 and insert -
    "(2) If the Secretary of State considers that remedial measures are required in relation to any matter identified by the report, he may direct the NCS Service Authority to submit an action plan to him.
    (2A) An action plan is a plan setting out the remedial measures which the NCS Service Authority proposes to take in relation to the matters in respect of which the direction is given."
    75D Line 166, leave out "standards" and insert "targets"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75 and to Amendments Nos. 75A to 75D thereto standing in my name. I have already spoken to these amendments and I commend them to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75 and to Amendments Nos. 75A to 75D thereto.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    76 Clause 91, page 91, line 43, leave out "of the 1997 Act"
    77 Page 92, line 45, leave out "4 the 1997 Act"
    78 Schedule 3, page 115, line 40, after "authority;" insert -
    "(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the subject matter of the investigation under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);"
    79 Page 117, line 5, have out sub-paragraph (4) and insert -
    "(4) It shall be the duty of the Commission to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A) if criminal proceedings are brought against any person by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any matters dealt with in a report copied to him under sub-paragraph (2)(c).
    (4A) Those persons are-

    (a) in the case of a complaint the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons); and

    (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section."

    80 Page 117, line 46, leave out from "(7)(b)" to "setting". in line 48, and insert "the Commission shall give a notification to -

    (a) in the case of a complaint, to the complainant and to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons); and

    (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, to every person entitled to be kept properly Informed in relation to that matter under that section.

    (8A) The notification required by sub-paragraph (8) is one.
    81 Page 117, line 50, leave out "that determination"
    82 Page 118, line 10, leave out from "duty.' to "a" in line 11, and insert " to give a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (8) notification of the findings of the report by sending that person"
    83 Page 118, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert -
    "(4) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A) if criminal proceedings are brought against any person by Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any matters dealt with in a report copied to him under sub-paragraph (2)(b).
    (4A) Those persons are-

    (a) in the case of a complaint the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons); and

    (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section."

    84 Page 119, line 3, leave out from "(5)" to "setting", in line 5, and insert "the appropriate authority shall give a notification to-

    (a) in the case of a complaint, to the complainant and to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons); and

    (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section. (6A) The notification required

    85 Page 119, line 7, leave out "that sub-paragraph" and insert- sub-paragraph (5)"
    86 Page 119, line 18, leave out from "duty" to "a" in line 19, and insert " to give a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) notification of the findings of the report by sending that person"
    87 Page 119, line 36, after "authority" insert, "every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section
    88 Page 120, line 39, after "complainant;" insert -
    "(bb) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);"
    89 Page 120, line 45, after "complainant;" insert -
    "(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);
    90 Page 121, line 35, after "complainant;" insert-
    "(bb) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);"
    91 Page 121, line 41, after -complainant; insert -
    "(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);"
    92 Page 123, line 14, after "complainant" insert "and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);
    93 Page 123, line 24, after "complainant" insert "and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for other persons);
    94 Schedule 4, page 123, line 34, leave out "under section 35"
    95 Page 124, line 20, at end insert-
    "Power to detain etc.
    1A (1) This paragraph applies if a designation applies it to any person.
    (2) Where that person has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, he may require that other person to give him his name and address.
    (3) Where, in a case a which a requirement under sub-paragraph (2) has been imposed on another person -

    (a) that other person fails to comply with the requirement, or

    (b) the person who imposed the requirement has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the other person has given him a name or address that is false or inaccurate, the person who imposed the requirement may require the other person to wait with him, for a period not exceeding thirty minutes, for the arrival of a constable.

    (4) A person who has been required under sub-paragraph (3) to wait with a person to whom this Part of this Schedule applies may, if requested to do so, elect that (instead of waiting) he will accompany the person imposing the requirement to a police station in the relevant police area.
    (5) A person who-

    (a) fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (2),

    (b) makes off while subject to a requirement under sub-paragraph (3), or

    (c) makes off while accompanying a person to a police station in accordance with an election under sub-paragraph (4), is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

    (6) In this paragraph "relevant offence", in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies, means any offence which is -

    (a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to that person; or

    (b) an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused -

    (i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or

    (ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property; but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation."

    96 Page 124, line 22, leave out "under section 35"
    97 Page 124, line 28, leave out "2" and insert "1A"
    98 Page 124, line 32, after "where" insert "a designation"
    99 Page 124, line 33, leave out "a designation under section 35"
    100 Page 124, line 43, leave out"
    101 Page 125, line 2, leave out "2(2)" and insert "1A(2)"2" and insert "1A"
    102 Page 125, line 7, leave out "2" and insert "1A"
    103 Page 125, line 12, leave out "under section 35"
    104 Page 125, line 23, leave out "under section 35"
    105 Page 125, line 35, leave out "under section 35"
    106 Page 126, line 2, leave out "under section 35"
    107 Page 126, line 7, leave out "under section 35"
    108 Page 126, line 18, leave out "under section 35"
    109 Page 126, line 22, at end insert-
    "Power to stop vehicle for testing
    9A Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, that person shall, within the relevant police area, nave the power of a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle under subsection (3) of section 67 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the purposes of a test under subsection (1) of that section.
    Power to control traffic for purposes of escorting a load of exceptional dimensions
    9B (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, that person shall have, for the purpose of escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions either to or from the relevant police area, the. power of a constable engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road -

    (a) to direct a vehicle to stop;

    (b) to make a vehicle proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic; and

    (c) to direct pedestrians to stop.

    (2) Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (offences of failing to comply with directions of constable engaged in regulation of traffic in a road) shall have effect in relation to the exercise of those powers for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) by a person whose designation applies this paragraph to him as if the references to a constable engaged in regulation of traffic in a road were references to that person.
    (3) The powers conferred by virtue of this paragraph may be exercised in any police area in England and Wales.
    (4) In this paragraph "vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions" means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988."
    110 Page 12& line 24, leave out "under section 35"
    111 Page 126, line 33, leave out "under section 35"
    112 Page 126, line 39, leave out "under section 35"
    113 Page 127, line 21, leave out "under section 35"
    114 Page 128, line 18, leave out "under section 35"
    115 Page 129, line 13, leave out "under section 35"
    116 Page 130, line 2, leave out "under section 35"
    117 Page 130, line 32, leave out "under section 35"
    118 Page 130, line 37, at end insert -
    "Arrest at a police station for another offence
    17A (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, he shall have the power to make an arrest at any police station in the relevant police area in any case where an arrest -

    (a) is required to be made under section 31 of the 1984 Act (arrest for a further offence of a person already at a police station); or

    (b) would be so required if the reference in that section to a constable included a reference to a person to whom this paragraph applies.

    121
    (2) Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (consequences of failure by arrested person to account for objects etc.) shall apply (without prejudice to the effect of any designation applying paragraph 20) in the case of a person arrested in exercise of the power exercisable by virtue of this paragraph as it applies in the case of a person arrested by a constable.
    Power to transfer persons into custody of investigating officers
    17B (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, the custody officer for a designated police station in the relevant police area may transfer or permit the transfer to him of a person in police detention for an offence which is being investigated by the person to whom this paragraph applies.
    (2) A person into whose custody another person is transferred under subparagraph (1)-

    (a) shall be treated for all purposes as having that person in his lawful custody;

    (b) shall be under a duty to prevent his escape; and

    (c) shall be entitled to use reasonable force to keep that person in his custody.

    (3) Where a person is transferred into the custody of a person to whom this paragraph applies, in accordance with sub-paragraph (1), subsections (2) and (3) of section 39 of the 1984 Act shall have effect as if -

    (a) references to the tranfer of a person in police detention into the custody of a police officer investigating an offence for which that person is in police detention were references to that person's transfer into the custody of the person to whom this paragraph applies; and

    (b) references to the officer to whom the transfer is made and to the officer investigating the offence were references to the person to whom this paragraph applies.

    Power to require arrested person to account for certain matters
    17C Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person -

    (a) he shall have the powers of a constable under sections 36(1)(c) and 37(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) to request a person who -

    (i) has been arrested by a constable, or by any person to whom paragraph 20 applies, and

    (ii) is detained at any place in the relevant police area, to account for the presence of an object, substance or mark or for the presence of the arrested person at a particular place; and

    (b) the references to a constable in sections 36(1)(b) and (c) and (4) and 37(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of that Act shall have effect accordingly as including references to the person to whom this paragraph is applied."

    119 Page 130, line 39, leave out "under section 35"
    120 Page 131, line 8, leave out "under 35"
    121 Page 131, line 1, leave out "paragraph 20"
    122 Page 131, line 28, leave out "under section 35"
    123 Page 132, line 2, leave out "under section 35"
    124 Page 132, line 10, leave out "under section 35"
    125 Page 132, line 20, leave out "under section 35"
    126 Page 132, line 31, leave out "under section 35"
    127 Page 132, line 39, leave out "under section 35"
    128 Page 133, line 14, leave out "under section 35"
    129 Page 133, line 20, leave out "under section 35"
    130 Page 133, line 25, leave out paragraph 29
    131 Page 133, line 42, leave out "under section 35"
    132 Page 134, line 33, leave out "under section 35"
    133 Page 134, line 37, after second "that" insert "or any other police"
    134 Page 134, line 38, leave out "a place in that area that is" and insert "any other place"
    135 Page 134, line 40, after "area" insert "or in another police
    122
    area"
    136 Page 134, line 40, at end insert -
    "(1A) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, that person may be authorised by the custody officer for any designated police station outside the relevant police area to escort a person in police detention

    (a) from that police station to 4 designated police station in that area; or,

    (b) from that police station to any place in that arm specified by the custody officer and either back to that police station or on to another police station (whether in that area or elsewhere)."

    137 Page 134, line 42, after "(1)" insert "or (1A)"
    138 Page 135, line 25, after "35" insert "or (Police powers "for contracted-out staff"
    139 Page 135, line 29, at end Insert -
    "(1A) In this Schedule "a designation" means a designation under section 35.
    (1B) In Parts 3 and 4 of this Schedule "designation" also includes a designation under section (Police powers for contracted-out staff)."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76 to 139. I commend them to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76 to 139.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    140 Schedule 5, page 136, line 16, at end insert -
    "Power to require giving of name and address
    1A (1) Where an accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, he may require that other person to give him his name and address.
    (2) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
    (3) In this paragraph "relevant offence", in relation to any accredited person, means any offence which is-

    (a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of any powers exercisable by the accredited person by virtue of paragraph 1; or

    (b) an offence the commission of which appears to the accredited person to have caused-

    (i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or

    (ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property;but the accreditation of an accredited person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation."

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 29. I commend it to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    [Amendment No. 140A not moved.]
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    141 Page 136, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    142 Page 137, line 23, at end insert—
    "Power to stop vehicle for testing
    7A A person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall, within the relevant police area, have the power of a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle under subsection (3) of section 67 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the purposes of a test under subsection (1) of that section.
    Power to control traffic for purposes of escorting a load of exceptional dimensions
    7B (1) A person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall have, for the purpose of escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions either to or from the relevant police area, the power of a constable engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road-

    (a) to direct a vehicle to stop;

    (b) to make a vehicle proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic; and

    (c) to direct pedestrians to stop.

    (2) Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (offences of fading to comply with directions of constable engaged in regulation of traffic in a road) shall have effect in relation to the exercise of those powers for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) by a person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him as if the references to a constable engaged in regulation of traffic in a road were references to that person.
    (3) The powers conferred by virtue of this paragraph may be exercised in any police area in England and Wales.
    (4) In this paragraph "vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions" means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988."
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 29. I commend it to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    [Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    143 Schedule 7, page 41, line 27,at end insert—
    "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
    3A In section 7(2)(bb) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c. 53) limitations on rehabilitations under Act etc.), for "a sex offender order under section 2 or, as the case may be, 20" there shall be substituted "an order under section 2, 2A or 20"."
    144 Page 142, line 26, at end insert-
    "Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
    6A In Article 8(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/ 1908 (N.I. 27)) (limitations on rehabilitation underOrder etc.), after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted -
    (bb) in any proceedings on an application for an order under Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/2839 (N.I. 20)) or in any appeal against the making of such an order."."
    145 Page 143, line 6, after "35" insert "or (Police Powers for contracted-out staff)"
    146 Page 143, line 17, leave out "or accredited under section 35 or" and insert "under section 35 or (Police powers for contracted-out staff) or accredited under section"
    147 Page 143, line 26, leave out "31(1) or 32(2)" and insert "17B, 30(1) or 31(2)"
    148 Page 143, line 27, leave out from "detention" to end of line 30
    149 Schedule 8, page 147, line 36, at end insert -
    "Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) Section 54(5)
    150 Page 148, line 4, at end insert -
    "Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) In section 200(1), the words "Part IVA," and 47B."
    151 Page 148, line 6, at end insert -
    "Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 (c. 42) Section 5"
    152 Page 148, line 15, at end insert -
    "Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c. 23) Section 13"
    153 Page 148, line 16, column 2, leave out "7" and insert "4"
    154 Page 148, line 39, column 2, leave out "51" and insert "151"
    155 Page 148, line 43, column 2, at end insert "Section 80(2)".
    156 In the Title, line 5, after "orders;" insert "to amend the law relating to sex offender orders;"
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 to 156. I have already spoken to these amendments and I commend them to the House.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 to 156.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Enterprise Bill
7.48 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House has resolved that, notwithstanding the terms of Standing Order 39, business may be postponed without notice with the unanimous leave of the House until later in the same day. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that consideration in Committee of the Enterprise Bill be postponed until

125
after the orders and regulations have been dealt with. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage of the Enterprise Bill begins not earlier than 8.49 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Cessation of Effect of Section 76) Order 2002
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order will repeal Section 76 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 76 sets the standard for the admissibility of confession evidence in cases before the Diplock courts. In repealing Section 76, the standard set by the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will apply.
Noble Lords will be aware that Section 76 featured in the first report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act. The noble Lord recommended that consideration be given to the need for Section 76 and a consultation exercise was undertaken to gauge views on whether Section 76 should be retained. As a result of that consultation exercise, we are satisfied that Section 76 can and should be repealed.
Noble Lords may wish to raise points and I shall be happy to deal with them. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [34th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order to the House. The matter was well debated in another place. The Minister, Jane Kennedy, responded fully to questions put by my honourable friend Crispin Blunt and others, except in one area—that is, in regard to the formal advice that the Minister received from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. When my honourable friend pressed the Minister she replied:
"The hon. gentleman makes a fair point. Of course we have had formal advice from the police along the lines that he suggests. Indeed, I received a letter from the PSNI that confirms that. I was satisfied with that letter, but I also wished to test the matter for myself. I have had several conversations with those who take a close interest in the operation of the Act".—[Official Report, Delegated Legislation Standing Committee, Commons, 16/7/02; col. 10.]
Will the Minister place a copy of that letter in the Library of both Houses. Apart from that, I support the order.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the order follows the recommendation of the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000 that Section 76 should be repealed to conform with the message contained in the Belfast agreement 1998 that emergency powers should be
126
removed and that there should be a return to normal security arrangements as early as possible, consistent with the level of threat. In other words, this judgment should be made by Her Majesty's Government consistent with the level of threat. As there are now street riots every night in Belfast, as there was a bomb attack on the Police Service of Northern Ireland last week, a terrorist murder and several other armed terrorist attacks in Belfast last night, is the noble Baroness satisfied that this is consistent with the present level of peace in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should restate to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, the point made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that no level of violence is acceptable. The underlying point of the noble Lord's question is whether the current level of violence would allow us to pass the order with safety and confidence. The small step that we are taking with the order has been given extremely careful consideration. We have consulted on it and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is of the view that the repeal of Section 76 would have no adverse impact on future prosecutions.
While the security situation has improved dramatically we accept that it is not perfect. The issue before us is whether we can safely repeal Section 76 in those circumstances. We believe that that is possible at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of the advice that we get in regard to the current situation. We constantly take advice from security advisers, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are content with the repeal of Section 76.
The noble Lord asked whether a copy of the letter from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which was referred to in another place, could be placed in the Library. I hope that it will be possible to do that. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Kilclooney, to confirm whether it will be possible to place a copy of the entire letter in the Library. I hope that that answers the points that have been raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. In moving the regulations, I wish to speak also to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Amendment Order 2002. These two pieces of legislation arise from the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and the Representation of the People Act 2000. I should like to deal, first, with the Assembly elections Order.

127
This simply brings the relevant rules for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly into line with those made for parliamentary elections by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
The order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and is being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 34(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The amendments to the rules for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly will ensure that the returning officer will be satisfied that the date of birth and signature on the declaration of identity that is returned with a postal ballot paper matches the details supplied on registration.
There are two parts to the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations. First, they amend the 2001 regulations for Northern Ireland and prescribe the annual canvass form so as to comply with the registration requirements of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. This requires individuals to provide their date of birth, their signature and their national insurance number, or a statement saying that they do not have one.
The remainder of the regulations implement Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in respect of the sale of the electoral register. These mirror the regulations for England, Wales and Scotland. There is no difference, in principle or effect, from the remainder of the United Kingdom. They do, however, differ for organisational reasons, such as where it is necessary to refer to the Chief Electoral Officer, a position particular to Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will be aware that this section provides for two versions of the electoral registers to be compiled. One will be a full register containing, as now, the names and addresses of every elector. The second will be an edited version containing the details only of those electors who have not indicated on their registration form that they object to their details appearing on the version of the register which is available for commercial purposes.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the more important provisions in the regulations.
Regulation 4 prescribes the annual canvass form taking into account the requirements of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and will so provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a database of dates of birth, signatures and national insurance numbers.
Regulation 9 amends the parliamentary elections rules by adding the senior smartpass, issued under the Northern Ireland concessionary fares scheme, to the list of documents that may be presented in order to receive a ballot paper.
Regulation 8 provides for the description of those that may apply for an electoral identity card, and Regulation 11 provides for the disclosure of national insurance numbers to the Chief Electoral Officer by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Regulation 21 inserts new regulations to the 2001 regulations—"Part VI Supply of Register etc.". These new regulations deal with the free supply and sale of
128
the register of electors. As I have mentioned, they mirror provisions made for England, Wales and Scotland.
These regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and are being made in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions specified in Schedule 1 to these regulations.
In conclusion, I hope that the House can agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations, in conjunction with the Electoral Fraud Act will play an important part in combating fraud in Northern Ireland and that the provisions on the sale of the register strike the right balance between public and private interest. I commend the order and the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these two statutory instruments before the House. They largely put in place the Act that we passed some little time ago. I am certain that the regulations and the order will play a considerable part in getting rid of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. I am sure that they will not achieve that completely, but they will certainly improve the situation significantly.
However, there are one or two small areas of concern. I know that Her Majesty's Government probably share with me the concern about security problems, particularly in relation to the publication and availability of the electoral registers. I note that there are to be two different electoral registers: one to be sold and one to be kept for very restricted use—on which I commend the Government.
I note also that Jane Kennedy in another place said that she understood Members' concerns. I understood from reading her words in Hansard that she would keep the use of the registers under some kind of continuous monitoring. Presumably, if the registers are found to be drifting into the wrong hands, the Government will come forward with another order.
Turning to the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order, I have only one concern. It relates to national insurance numbers. They are clearly covered in the Act. I should merely like to be reassured that the order will in no way weaken their role as it was when the Bill left this House. That was in no small way thanks to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal in working with various departments to ensure that we were able to achieve this.
I have no hesitation in supporting these statutory instruments.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the regulations and the order. We are grateful that the Government accepted the use of national insurance numbers as part of an attempt to

129
eliminate or reduce fraud. I endorse much of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said. We broadly welcome these statutory instruments and commend their passage.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I should like to raise two points on which I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some comfort. First, Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the regulations includes a copy of the proposed electoral registration form.
The Government's recent decision to listen to advice and to introduce an electoral identity card was rightly commended by noble Lords. It was also given a widespread welcome in another place. However, the only reference in the draft registration form to the availability of electoral identity cards is by way of a tiny box beside a statement in even smaller print at the bottom of the document. For the benefit of noble Lords who do not have a copy of the regulations, perhaps I may read out the words in small print:
"Voters will be required to produce specified photographic ID…from May 2003. If you do not possess the specified photographic ID and will require an elector identity card which will be issued free of charge please tick this box".
As a businessman all my life, I have always had to read the small print. However, unfortunately, many people do not always take that trouble. Furthermore, the print is so small that it is likely that many elderly voters and those of us who are now 60 years of age or over—who often make the greatest effort to turn out and vote, but who are possibly least likely to have photographic identification—might find it very difficult to read.
In order to maximise the impact of the decision to introduce photographic ID, the Government should now agree to move this statement to the top of the electoral registration form, to ensure that everyone is aware of its existence. Given the tight schedule to which we are now working, I suggest that the Government should move quickly on this matter and rectify what I hope is simply an oversight.
Secondly, following the break-in at Castlereagh police station and the continuing suspicion that Republicans were involved in that incident, there is obvious unease among officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland about their own personal identity being made known. Indeed, it has been brought to my attention that a number of officers are keen for the Government to consider whether the new legislation ought to require police officers in Northern Ireland to disclose their names and addresses for the purposes of the electoral register, which will be available for public inspection.
This problem has been with us for some time and has been debated previously in this House and elsewhere. However, given that, following Patten, police officers in Northern Ireland may be required to wear name badges on their uniforms, I suggest that the matter has become more pressing than ever.
I go further, and request that the Government consider granting Police Service of Northern Ireland officers and other members of the security forces living
130
in Northern Ireland an opt-out clause so that their names need not appear on the electoral register if they so desire. At worst, they should be required to register only at a police station. The same should apply to members of the Royal Irish Regiment. I suggest that any other outcome could leave the Government open to the charge of acting irresponsibly.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I should like first to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I am surprised that the reference to the electoral identity card is in such small print at the bottom of the registration form. This electoral card is an innovation, and I am surprised that it is being treated in such a flimsy manner at the bottom of the form.
I have two short questions for the Minister. First, sometimes in Northern Ireland, certain deputy electoral officers are hesitant to hand out electoral registers. It is therefore important to have on the record what should happen on particular occasions. When the register is published each year, will that register be made available freely to each Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Secondly, when there is an election to the Northern Ireland Assembly, will the most recent full electoral register be made available to each candidate in the constituency and not just to each party? Sometimes in Northern Irish politics, parties have candidates who do not entirely agree with each other.
Will the Minister also confirm who will receive these full registers if a referendum in Northern Ireland is held not at the same time as an election either to the Assembly or to Parliament?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I realise that this order and these regulations arc necessary and I reluctantly support them. I believe that the requirement for photographic evidence of identity will cause great hardship for older people living in Northern Ireland. Older people are not known for rushing out to a photographic studio or for having someone come in to take their photograph. Many people have told me that that is so. Who will take older people's photographs? Will they be forced to have photographic identification? Will there be compulsion in the matter? If they refuse to have their photographs taken, will they be hindered in going to the polling stations?
I only reluctantly accept that such a burden has to be placed on the older members of our population in Northern Ireland. However, I recognise the necessity of the provisions. In Northern Ireland, unlike in any other part of the United Kingdom, the overall constitutional position can be changed by electoral fraud. The first past the post system used for elections to this Parliament does not have the same consequences in terms of fraud as the proportional representation system can give rise to in Northern Ireland. Some 20 or 30 votes cast in a certain way could decide who will be eliminated and who will go forward to the next count.
So it is of the utmost importance that this order and these regulations, and the guarantee that they offer, are implemented as effectively as possible in Northern

131
Ireland. As I said, however, I question the need to force older people to have their photographs taken as a means of identity.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall try to answer all of the questions that noble Lords have asked.
I have every sympathy with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. As one who is in the age group to which he referred when talking about small print—and as someone who has to keep a magnifying glass next to the fridge in order to check the sell-by date of the items inside—I do understand the points he raised. I do not know whether it is possible at this stage to consider putting the item at the top of the form. However, I undertake to raise that issue. Nevertheless, the size of the font has been considered and revised and is now as large as the form will allow. The form is, of course, larger than shown in the schedule to the regulations; it is A4 size. If it will help the noble Lord, I can arrange for a copy of the form to be shown to him. Perhaps we could look at it together, with magnifying glasses if necessary.
Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the issue of the electoral identity document. The guidance notes accompanying the form clearly state the forms of photographic identification that will be acceptable at the polling station. The question has also been moved to a more prominent position further up the page. The Electoral Commission will be running a publicity campaign to ensure that voters are aware of the changes to the registration process and the move to photographic ID.
I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made about who will have readily available the sort of information that will enable them to take full advantage of the new proposals. However, I would say to him that there is always a slight tension between tightening up to prevent fraud and ready accessibility for ordinary members of the public who are not interested in fraud at all.
I tell the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Rogan, that the essence of the electoral register is that the names of all those entitled to vote should appear on it. There is no opt-out for police officers or members of the security forces. However, I stress that neither the Secretary of State nor the Chief Electoral Officer have been contacted formally by the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the matter. Should the Police Service of Northern Ireland contact the Government or should a police representative organisation want to raise concerns, the Government would be very happy to consider those representations. I do not think that I can go further than that now. However, I hope that that offers reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the detailed implementation of assurances on national insurance provisions. I can assure him that these provisions have not been watered down in any way at all. If he has any remaining concerns and would like, I could write to him with all the details.
132
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, I assure the House that all Members of the Assembly are entitled to a copy of the full register, including copies of the updated register as it changes throughout the year due to rolling registration. Permitted participants will be entitled to receive a copy of the register prior to a referendum.
I hope that that answers noble Lords' questions. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2002
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.49 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 8.20 to 8.49 p.m.]

Enterprise Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In doing so, for the convenience of the House, perhaps I may inform the House that the usual channels have agreed to allocate some extra time to the Committee stage of the Bill. That will be next Monday, 29th July, instead of the Animal Health Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 185 [Cartel offence: penalty and prosecution]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 136, line 12, at end insert—
"() Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person who enters into a relevant confidential non-disclosure agreement shall commit an offence in relation to entering or putting into effect that agreement.
() In this section—

(a) "relevant confidential non-disclosure agreement" means an agreement entered into by any person to discuss an application for a written notice pursuant to section 183(4) or an application for leniency and to disclose pertinent information subject to obligations of

133
confidentiality which prevent the subsequent use or disclosure of such information if no application is subsequently made by a disclosee who would not otherwise have known such information.

(b) "application of leniency" means an application made by any person in relation to an agreement within the meaning of section 2 of the Act or Article 81 of the EC Treaty or any abusive conduct within the meaning of section 9 of the Act or Article 82 of the EC Treaty or any application in any other jurisdiction of similar effect."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the no-action leniency regime for individuals under the cartel offence can operate effectively with the leniency regime for companies under the civil infringement of Article 81/ Chapter 1.
It is policy in the European Community and in the United Kingdom to encourage all those involved in cartels to provide information on a cartel under amnesty policies. This policy requires full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Normally the executives are required to give an undertaking to co-operate but an individual who has committed an offence under Clause 181 is unlikely to assist with an application for leniency without obtaining a written notice from the Office of Fair Trading under Clause 185(4).
It may be necessary to assess what has happened in a cartel, for instance, which extends outside the borders of the United Kingdom. In the United States a Supreme Court mandated agreement permits a company or undertaking and individuals who may have personal criminal liability, together with their respective lawyers, to discuss whether any application should be made for amnesty in conditions of confidentiality.
Under the criminal law in the United Kingdom, any information coming into the hands of a defendant may be used at his trial and no agreement not to use it is enforceable. Furthermore, it is a crime of perversion of the course of justice to agree to conceal or do anything which may conceal the fact that a crime of breach of competition law has been committed. For those reasons, I believe that Amendment No. 188 is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to Clause 185(4), as the printed amendment says 183(4), which I thought was an error. Subsection (4) provides for the OFT to issue a "no action" letter to an individual who comes forward, whether alone or as part of a corporate application for leniency. The letter will guarantee that the individual will not be prosecuted provided that he meets and abides by certain conditions. The OFT has issued draft guidance, which noble Lords will have received as it was published last week, setting out the terms and including pro forma "no action" letters. The guidance makes it clear that leniency will be granted on the basis of an individual's need for it, and only in so far as it is necessary to gain evidence with which to investigate and prosecute cartels.
The drafting of the amendment does not make its intended effect entirely clear, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am relieved to know that it
134
concerns the position when an individual applies for leniency and the undertaking for which he works is not given an opportunity to make its own leniency application. Normally, the two will run hand in hand, but there are circumstances in which it might be necessary to dissociate them.
For instance, when an individual makes an initial approach to the OFT, some investigation is necessary before it is clear that the activity actually constitutes a cartel. If the OFT were to approach the company at this early stage the employee might be open to reprisals for making the allegation. Or an individual who had minor involvement in a cartel might blow the whistle on senior colleagues who were more deeply implicated. In those circumstances, it would not be a good idea to approach the company. It would tip them oil so that they could destroy evidence, which is not unheard of.
If the undertaking does not stop its involvement in the cartel, or if the undertaking has been a ringleader in the cartel, it will be ineligible for full leniency in any case.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to limit in advance the way in which the OFT can make use of intelligence gained from its leniency programme. But it is required by administrative law to act reasonably in all circumstances. It is also important to bear in mind that the OFT encourages businesses to put in place a compliance programme under which firms would become aware of cartel activity directly, so that a joint approach to the OFT could be made in the first place.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. In view of his reassurance on the question of reasonableness, in particular, I should like time to reflect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 185 agreed to.
Clause 186 [Extradition]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 136, line 17, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
The noble Lord said: I shall be extremely brief. This is a probing amendment to ask the Government whether they can be specific about the nature of the conspiracy offence and the attempt to commit such an offence. Clause 183 provides for a new offence in statute, the essence of which is a dishonest agreement. Will the Minister say what constitutes conspiracy and attempt, so as to fix criminal liability?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The clause is about extradition, but I shall not refer to that as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not done so. The dishonesty to which he referred is a new offence, which we have discussed, so I shall not go over that ground.
The inchoate offences of conspiracy and attempt are not new. They apply under the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 automatically to this offence. UK law recognises that conspiring to commit a crime and an attempt to commit a crime are serious and should not be beyond the reach of the law. Prosecuting such offences is an important aspect of

135
deterring criminals and enables investigatory bodies to step in and prevent the crime being implemented and harming potentially millions of customers.
I shall say a word about extradition because there was a misunderstanding about it in the Commons. We are talking about extradition to, not from other countries. The number of countries with whom we have regular extradition is limited. In particular, it is limited to the United States, as those who follow the affairs of Sotheby's and Christies know.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. As I said, my main object in moving the amendment was to probe the Minister on the precise nature of the offences of conspiracy and attempt in relation to the substantive offence. I do not know how far the Minister is prepared to speculate about the extent to which individuals would have to be engaged in negotiations on price-fixing before that constituted conspiracy or an attempt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can best deal with that with an example. Imagine two employees of a single company that is alleged to be part of a cartel and imagine if there were a director and sales manager who were conspiring to fix prices. They would be involved in a conspiracy. That would be an example of a conspiracy if the cartel had taken place; if it were being planned and had not taken place, it would be an attempt. Clearly, it is to the advantage of everyone, including the customers who would suffer if a cartel had effect, if one could proceed against them on that basis. That is why that arrangement has been in law for 25 years.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response, on which I shall reflect. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 186 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I turn to the Minister's comments on extradition. We well understand that in this regard we are talking primarily about the United States of America and that we therefore have to tread with a degree of caution because of the double effect about whatever we decide in relation to the Bill. As we extend criminality to cover an offence, a conspiracy to commit such an offence and an attempt to commit such an offence, under the doctrine of dual criminality, a request for extradition, once a country has criminal penalties for an activity, will apply, so far as a country's demands are concerned, where it has equivalent criminal penalties.
Will the Minister please confirm that there is no question of the extradition provisions in the clause applying retrospectively? I imagine that he will be able to confirm that. If so, it would be helpful if he could
136
identify exactly what he means when he says that it will not apply retrospectively. Does retrospection apply to a criminal conviction, for example, in the United States in absentia of a United Kingdom subject who is here or to the date of the alleged offence itself?
Following the comments of my noble friend the shadow Lord Chancellor, if we are making criminal a conspiracy or an attempt, it will immediately follow that in the United States there could be an attempt to extradite for a similar category of offence, which goes much wider in the United States than it would here; I refer, for example, to some form of limitation of production. If there was an attempt to limit production, it would be held to be an attempt in the United States although it might not be in this country. As he seeks to balance those two conflicting points, it would be helpful if the Minister would give us some reassurance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the point of limiting production, limiting a production is already provided for in Clause 183(2)(c). The definition of a cartel is not at issue.
On the issue of retrospection, the answer is that the provisions are not retrospective; the arrangement is determined according to the date of the offence. An offence that was committed before the Act came into force would not be extraditable. I believe that those were the two points on which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, sought reassurance.
Clause 186 agreed to.
Clause 187 [Investigation of offences under section 183]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 136, line 27, at end insert "insofar as relevant to the investigation of the offence under section 179 which it is suspected has been committed"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is self-evident. It seeks to focus the power in Clause 187 to the specific circumstances of the alleged offence. In my submission, it does not undermine the clause's intention; it simply makes sure that it has a proper purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: Is the amendment correct in referring to "section 179" or should it refer to "section 183"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I can answer for the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the amendment is meant to refer to Section 183. The version that went through the Commons referred to "section 179". I make no point of that.
The point I do make is that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is entirely right. The arrangement must be restricted in the way in which he suggests, and it is. Clause 187(2) states that the criminal investigatory powers,
"are exercisable, but only for the purposes of an investigation under subsection (1)".

137
Subsection (1) states:
"The OFT may conduct an investigation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 183 has been committed".
I hope that that provides what the noble Lord was seeking.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 187 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: Again, I shall be very brief. I am sure that the noble Lord will recall debate on the last amendment of the second Committee day, when I made a particular reference to Clause 187 and the contrasting use of expressions therein. Clause 187(1) contains the expression,
"if there arc reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 183 has been committed".
Clause 187(2) contains the expression,
"in any case where it appears to the OFT that there is a good reason to exercise them for the purpose of investigating the affairs".
In short, the discretion exercisable under Clause 187(1) is by way of being an objective discretion, whereas the discretion exercisable under Clause 187(2) is a subjectively exercised discretion.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the following interpretation is what is intended by the Government. Do the Government intend that the decision to make an investigation should be a decision which is predicated on reasonable grounds for suspecting but that thereafter, once those reasonable grounds are present, the means by which the investigation is conducted is based on a subjective view about what appears to be a good reason for exercising a particular power to pursue that investigation? Is that the distinction that the Government seek to make?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nearly. The first part of the proposition is certainly right. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is right in saying that the test for launching an investigation in Clause 187(1) is reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed. The test for using powers in Clause 187(2) for the purpose of an investigation under subsection (1) is in any case where it appears to the Office of Fair Trading that there is good reason to exercise them. Therefore, he has described the situation precisely.
The OFT can carry out an investigation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under Clause 183 has been committed. The power of investigation cannot be used unless the threshold has been met. Therefore, the use of the powers is subject to the test in Clause 187(1).
However, whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend on the information available. Examples of information that could be sources of
138
reasonable grounds for suspicion are records of secret meetings or statements from employees or complaints. I do not know that I would call those "subjective", but they will be unearthed only as an investigation under the strict test of Clause 187(1) proceeds. That is why we must have the complication of the succeeding clauses in the Bill. But certainly the noble Lord's principal proposition is entirely correct.
Lord Kingsland: In a sense, subsection (2) of Clause 187 comes before subsection (1). In order to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting, am I right in thinking that the Government are entitled to move straight to subsection (2) and, on the basis of the subjective test, to probe around?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. As subsection (2) says, that would be the case,
"only for the purposes of an investigation under subsection (1)".
Therefore, subsection (1) is the master, so to speak.
I believe it is being suggested that government could use subsection (2) for fishing expeditions. They cannot because they would have to apply the reasonable suspicion test, and that is subjective. That is why I resisted the word "subjective". Evidence is required.
Lord Kingsland: Subsection (2) can be triggered only by subsection (1)? I am most grateful. In those circumstances, I shall not press the Question whether the clause shall stand part.
Clause 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 [Powers when conducting an investigation]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 136, line 30, leave out from beginning to second ",to" and insert "past and present employees of the business of which the person under investigation is an officer or employee"
The noble Lord said: In Clause 188 we move to the subject of the powers of the Office of Fair Trading when conducting an investigation. Amendment No. 191 would leave out in the second line of subsection (1) the words,
"any other person who it has reason to believe has relevant information",
and insert in their place,
"past and present employees of the business of which the person under investigation is an officer or employee".
In many ways, I simply seek to test the Minister as to why such a wide power of conducting an investigation is necessary. It can cover anyone without limit in deciding whether or not a person may have been involved in the business which is the subject of the investigation. It is a probing amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The straightforward answer is that the information relevant to the investigation could be held by undertakings or individuals who are not and never have been formally connected to the business of the person under investigation. One could have difficulty with the

139
wording of this amendment. One could ask whether someone was an employee, a former employee, agency staff or a contractor. It could make effective investigations very difficult. But the fundamental answer I give to the noble Lord is that these are not new powers. They are powers comparable to those given to the Serious Fraud Office in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and to the Office of Fair Trading itself in the Competition Act 1998, and they have not caused any problems.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister has used the words, "One could have difficulty". He is referring to the people who will have the powers, if the amendment is passed. I am worried about the people against whom the powers, which seem to be rather sweeping, are exercised. This is not the first time that I have trodden this ground. I did so the other day with as reasonable a man as the noble Lord, the Minister for Science. I had hoped that he might at least recognise some of my anxieties. I felt deeply disappointed and downcast that his reply did not produce a word of comfort.
My anxieties about giving people wide powers to seek information have been greatly increased and enhanced by the recent conduct of the Financial Services Authority, which has stimulated banks, stockbrokers and chartered accountants to check whether clients whom they knew perfectly well may or may not be tempted to engage in money laundering. Many perfectly innocent people are badgered by authority, and people abuse authority—a point that does not really occur to anyone as reasonably minded as the noble Lord who is handling this Bill. It worries me that people in authority, having the power to obtain information, may decide to cast their nets as wide as possible, regardless of how many people that may annoy and irritate.
So far as I am concerned, the Financial Services Authority has been totally unresponsive to complaints, nor does it seem to be aware of the immense irritation that it causes. I cannot believe that those who sent the inquiry forms to me have, as a result of bothering people such as myself, been in any way successful in checking the undesirable habit of money laundering by criminals. The Government should be very careful before granting powers of this kind. They can be quite certain that they will be, and very often are, abused.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord well knows, I am instinctively sympathetic to what he says. I have spent all my life complaining about the abuse of authority—of Jacks-in-office, as they may be called. The fact that I am now a Jack-in-office myself has not stopped my objecting to the practice. I regret that I do not know about the FSA case to which the noble Lord has referred; no doubt I should.
My fundamental answer is that which I gave when we discussed the Question of whether Clause 187 should stand part; namely, that any investigation has to be constrained by Clause 187(1), which is that the
140
investigatory powers are exercisable only for the purpose of an investigation under that subsection. In other words, there has to be some good reason for it in the first place. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is consoled by that, or whether he is consoled by the fact that, as I said in my response to this amendment, these are not new powers at all. They are powers that have been given to the Serious Fraud Office since 1987 and to the Office of Fair Trading since 1998. Although I can never guarantee that they will not be misused, they will not be misused because of any failure of drafting in the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. It never occurred to me that I should be speaking to someone who would only offer deaf ears to a message. When he says that these are powers which have already been given, that does not set my anxieties at rest at all. They are powers that have been given previously and abused previously.
It would be very satisfactory to me if as a result of this very brief discussion—and I promise not to prolong it—the noble Lord would kindly communicate to the Financial Services Agency the fact that at least a large part of its inquiries have been addressed to people who are very wide of the mark. Therefore, people such as myself with nothing to do with money laundering have been vastly irritated and asked all kinds of absurd questions for no particular reason. As a result, here am I at this hour of the night badgering the Minister to give me an answer. Perhaps he could talk to Sir Howard Davies and tell him that he has personally been inconvenienced by my inquiries and that my inquiries are stimulated by the Financial Services Agency.
Lord Razzall: Before the Minister responds, perhaps he could explain to me what it is that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has just said which has any relevance to the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord seems to be inquisitive. Perhaps he would kindly read the clause. The Bill is about seeking information. I am merely saying that people who are given powers to seek information occasionally abuse them. I hope that I have got through to the noble Lord's consciousness—difficult as that is.
Lord Razzall: I thank the noble Lord for his polite response to my inquiry. I was not aware at twenty past nine that we were considering the correspondence between the noble Lord and the FSA. I apologise; I have obviously misunderstood the noble Lord's point.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My noble friend Lord Peyton needs no assistance or even support from me, but there is a great deal in what he says on which I should like to press the Minister a little further.
In supporting the opposition to Amendment No. 191 the Minister said that he cited existing powers as an example of why these powers went no further than the existing powers under the Competition Act and

141
those of the Serious Fraud Office. My noble friend Lord Peyton has given an example of where existing powers in his view are being abused. The purpose of the amendment was to try and seek some reassurance from the Minister that here although we are mirroring—and I recognise that—existing powers for the Financial Services Authority, the Serious Fraud Office and so on, we are however dealing with a new cartel offence. That is the importance of the debate.
With the new offence under Clause 183 we shall consider a whole range of powers passing to the Office of Fair Trading in connection with any investigation under Clause 183. I therefore support my noble friend. It is important in the early days of considering these powers to demonstrate that they will be exercised not only under the existing administrative law but also that they will be exercised with considerable discretion in favour of those who are accused.
I rehearse the fact that under Clause 187(1) the investigation can be conducted,
"if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence may have been committed".
But in Clause 188, which we are now debating, the OFT may by notice in writing require any person who it believes has relevant information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It has reason to believe.
Lord Hunt of Wirral:—whom it has reason to believe has relevant information. My noble friend Lord Peyton is questioning why it is necessary for this extensive power to be worded in such wide terms. Of course, I accept that the Office of Fair Trading will exercise good reason in any step that it may take, but what will be the checks and balances against it? Will there be any objective test; will there be any method by which the person who has received the notice can dispute it on the grounds that he does not have relevant information, or will he have to go to the trouble of responding—as every good citizen should—to the best of his ability, which may involve him in considerable time and trouble? That is the point being made by my noble friend Lord Peyton—not only from the example of his experience with the Financial Services Authority, but also when considering the wide wording that we are being asked to approve. I hope that the Minister will give us further reassurance on that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me refer first to the particular complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, about the harassment—I think that that is the correct word—to which he was subjected on the issue of money laundering by the Financial Services Authority. I imagine that he had that discussion in the Chamber with my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and that the matter and his views will have already been communicated to the Financial Services Authority. If they have not, I undertake to ensure that they are and that that is investigated. I shall ask to know the outcome, because I need to be satisfied.
142
In response to what the noble Lord said before, I said that I could not give an undertaking that that would never happen. These things do happen. What I can give is the undertaking that that cannot happen because it is permitted by the Bill. Not only are the provisions of the Bill not new, they have been in existence for 15 years. I know that that is insufficient consolation to the noble Lord, and, in a sense, I agree with him. But the provisions are quite precise.
In the House of Commons, in response to such concern, we added Clause 188(5). In other words, we made clear that any notice given to someone to answer questions must make clear the subject matter and purpose of the investigation and the nature of the offences created by Section 196. I do not know whether that happened to the noble Lord or whether the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives the same assurance. But we took account of that particular point, raised in Committee in the Commons, and amended the Bill for that purpose. Those powers have for many years been considered necessary for investigations. If someone came up against a brick wall of it being the wrong person—not an employee, for example, as in the case of the previous amendment—a damaging cartel, which we have agreed ought to be criminalised, could get away with it because the investigatory powers were insufficient.
Those powers are in any case constrained by the European Convention on Human Rights and, in many respects, by administrative law. I do not suppose that that answer satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—to whom I am sympathetic—but it is intended to do so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It is not wholly satisfactory, but the very attitude of the noble Lord eases my anxieties. I am most grateful to him for that. If I may say so, he has quite restored that balance and equanimity that I always wish to retain, which was temporarily disturbed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I join my noble friend Lord Peyton in thanking the Minister for his response, which does much to reassure noble Lords on this side of the Committee about the extent to which these powers will be exercised. In fact, it is under this amendment that the restriction to employees would apply. However, the Minister certainly responded to that. My noble friends and I would like time to reflect upon the Minister's words. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 137, line 6, at end insert—
"() Any person of whom information is sought pursuant to this section shall not be required to provide such information, if the provision of that information would infringe his right to silence or his right against self-incrimination or both."
The noble Lord said: This topic also arose at the end of proceedings on the second day of Committee. The terms of both Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 are self-evident. What has prompted them is the confusion in our minds between the role of the OFT as a civil investigator and its role as a criminal investigator. The Minister will note that Clause 187 begins after the title:
"Criminal investigations by OFT".
If the OFT is to make criminal investigations, it must conform not only with Article 6(1) of the human rights convention but also with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3). For that to be satisfied, an additional subsection needs to be added to Clause 188 in the sense set out in Amendments Nos. 192 and 193.
I believe that I drew to the Minister's attention last week the desirability of a proper temporal division of work between the criminal investigations body on the one hand, and the OFT on the other. I believe that it is desirable that the OFT should not move until the criminal investigations body decides that it is going to terminate its investigation. Otherwise, the measures set out in the Bill give insufficient protection to the party being investigated. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may return to what we were saying after midnight on Thursday—or rather Friday morning—about the interaction of civil and criminal proceedings. This is really quite important; and, indeed, deserves repetition. We already have the civil law in these cases: we have it under the Competition Act 1998 and, fundamentally, it targets the undertaking. Clearly, you have to target undertakings for cartels.
However, the criminal offence in the Bill, which is the extension of what I have just described, targets individuals. In the existing state of law in other respects, you also have to target individuals. The civil powers under the Competition Act focus on infringements by undertakings. The cartel provisions in the Enterprise Bill deal with criminal actions by individuals. One single cartel could involve both; in other words, it could involve both an undertaking and individuals.
The OFT will collect evidence for a new offence to criminal standards to ensure that it is admissible in a criminal trial. OFT investigators will abide by the various codes of conduct created by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the investigation of criminal offences. Suspects will be cautioned before being interviewed by OFT officers investigating the criminal offence. Clause 193, to which we will come shortly, will ensure that statements that are compelled under powers in the Competition Act 1998 may not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, except—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on Thursday night—in limited circumstances that we can go into. In conducting civil and criminal investigations, the OFT is in a similar position to that of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, each of which also successfully carries out successful parallel civil and criminal investigations.
144
The amendments in this lengthy group would provide a right to silence, a right against self-incrimination and a right to legal representation for persons being investigated for the cartel offence. Those are necessary and proper safeguards in cases in which evidence given by somebody under investigation may later be used in court against them. OFT officers investigating a criminal offence are already subject to those safeguards and will have regard to the codes of practice for criminal investigations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act says:
"Persons other than police officers"—
which is what OFT officers are—
"who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard to any relevant provision of such a code".
OFT and SFO officers are "persons other than police officers".
The purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is to protect suspects where investigators are trying to obtain evidence that can be used against them. If OFT investigators seek voluntary statements, they will be subject not only to the safeguards that the amendments would provide but to all the other requirements concerning breaks, embassy access, religious needs and so on. If they seek information under compulsion, using the powers conferred by Clauses 188 to 190, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act does not apply. However, Clause 192 provides protection against self-incrimination. In other words, information obtained under compulsion cannot be used in court against the person who gave it, except in limited circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to the Saunders case on Thursday night. That safeguard mirrors that provided to persons subject to a fraud investigation under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a suspect has no right to have a lawyer present when being interviewed under compulsory powers. However, in the interests of fairness and unless it would unduly delay or obstruct the investigation, the Serious Fraud Office advises persons under investigation that they may wish to seek legal representation. I can give an undertaking that the Office of Fair Trading will follow SFO practice in that respect.
Amendment No. 201 would remove the exception to the safeguard against self-incrimination. That safeguard prevents the use of statements obtained under compulsion in a civil investigation conducted under the Competition Act 1998 against the person who made them for the purposes of prosecuting for a new offence. However, it is common practice in criminal law for persons to lose that protection if they make inconsistent statements or voluntarily provide information. That approach is consistent with Sections 2(8) and (8AA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

145
I hope that that will address the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for that full explanation. On the basis that the provisions that he mentioned are either already incorporated in the Bill or are incorporated by implication, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 188 agreed to.
Clause 189 [Power to enter premises under a warrant]:
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 189 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Before moving on to Amendment No. 195A, I thought it would be worth considering whether Clause 189 should stand part of the Bill. I am concerned about certain aspects of this clause. As a whole the clause makes it clear that it would enable officers to enter premises and remove all material, even though it might be irrelevant or immaterial. The provisions would allow an officer to seize material if it was not reasonably practicable to determine while on the premises whether the material was seizable, or in the case of property some of which was seizable, which items the officer would be entitled to seize.
I recognise that the exercise of this power is subject to strict safeguards, including the requirement to give written notice and the duty to return legally privileged material, but we should be cautious about conferring such wide-ranging powers; that is, powers that would enable officers to seize any material at all. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister on these points.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did not mention the most important safeguard included in Clause 189, which is that the authority of the High Court or the sheriff in Scotland must be sought before a warrant can be issued. As I have said, that is the most important protection.
The definition of which documents may be seized and the consequences of a power to enter premises under a warrant are not new; what is new is the level of authority necessary here. Subsection (5) amends Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 so that it will apply to investigations of the offence. The investigatory procedures have not changed: what is new is the introduction of the new offence of engaging in a criminal cartel.
The amendment would enable officers of the OFT to remove material where it is not possible to examine it properly on the premises due to constraints of time and technology. Officers can remove anything which they would be entitled to seize in isolation, even if it is held within something that they have no power to seize, such as a hard drive or an entire disk. The exercise of
146
the power is subject to strict safeguards which include a requirement to provide a written notice and a duty to return legally privileged material.
This is always going to be a contentious issue, but it is on the basis of the judicial authority required that I defend the clause.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I recognise that it is on the basis of the judicial authority that the Minister seeks to defend the clause. Under Clause 189 an application must be made first to the High Court or, in the case of Scotland, by the procurator fiscal to the sheriff, but that application would set out the grounds for believing that there might be documents on the premises which are in any way material and would detail the reasonable grounds for so believing.
I am looking for further assurance, judicial authority having been persuaded that there might be documents. Under the clause as drafted, it would be possible to sweep up all the documents, go away and examine them, retain what is material and return what is not.
However, the Minister says that these powers mirror those to be found elsewhere, but the concern is that we are dealing with the Office of Fair Trading rather than duly authorised police officers. He has pointed out other examples and I would like to reflect on his words. I am grateful to him.
Clause 189 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 195A:
After Clause 189, insert the following new clause—
"189A APPLICTION FOR PRODUCTION ORDER

(1) A judge may on an application made to him by the prosecutor, make a production order if he is satisfied that each of the requirements for the making of the order is fulfilled.

(2) The application for a production order must state that a person specified in the application is believed to have committed an offence under section 183.

(3) The application must also state that—

(a) the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation;

(b) the order is sought in relation to material, or material of a description, specified in the application; and

(c) a person specified in the application appears to be in possession or control of the material.

(4) A production order is an order either—

(a) requiring the person the application for the order specifies as appearing to be in possession or control of material to produce it to an appropriate officer for him to take away; or

(b) requiring that person to give an appropriate officer access to the material, within the period stated in the order.

(5) The period stated in the production order must be a period of seven days beginning with the day on which the order is made, unless it appears to the judge by whom the order is made that a longer or shorter period would be appropriate in the particular circumstances."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 195A seeks to align the powers of the Office of Fair Trading in conducting investigations under the Bill with powers afforded to other authorities in similar circumstances conducting investigations.
Under the Bill as currently drafted, the Office of Fair Trading may conduct an investigation on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that an offence under Section 183 may have been committed. No recourse will be required to be made to the court to determine that the powers invoked under Section 188 are necessary for the purposes of the investigation and likely to be of substantial value to the investigation.
Is the Minister satisfied that those powers are compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? I recognise that his noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville has signed a statement on the face of the Bill stating that in his view the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but I would like reassurance from the Minister on that specific point.
I am concerned because in cases of search of property by officials for the purposes of the detection and prosecution of serious crime, the European Court of Human Rights has held that in order to satisfy the test of being necessary in democratic society so as to justify the exception under Article 8.2, prior authorisation by a judge would normally be required. A French law, which lacked a safeguard of that type, was condemned by the court in the case of Funke v. France (1993) 16EHRR 297, because it allowed the authorities exclusive competence to determine the scale, frequency and legality of searching in each case. The Minister will not therefore be surprised when I return to the point I raised earlier, drawing an analogy between that situation and cases in which the OFT will require the information under this clause.
It is the view of a number of distinguished lawyers that sufficient safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the new powers are proportionate to the intended outcome. The amendment seeks to achieve that and ensures that the same criteria as must be fulfilled before a court will, for example, grant production orders on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, will apply before a notice can be issued. I recognise that we have dealt with those points to some extent already, but I would be grateful if the Minister could reply in detail to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I recognise where these amendments have come from. These additional clauses are taken directly from the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which, since it has passed through your Lordships' House, will become the Proceeds of Crime Act within a few days.
The amendments seek to replace the provisions of Clause 198, the power to enter premises without a warrant. They contain, in essence, the same safeguards as those contained in Clause 189, as the noble Lord will recognise. Clause 189 has been drafted specifically to align the powers of the Office of Fair Trading in conducting investigations under this offence with the powers afforded to the Serious Fraud Office in the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
148
As I argued earlier, the Office of Fair Trading is best placed to investigate this offence as it draws on its experience of investigating very similar offences under the Competition Act 1998. It will work closely with the Serious Fraud Office, particularly as the Serious Fraud Office will be acting as prosecutor of the offence. So it is important—indeed, vital—to align the powers of investigation between the two authorities to avoid confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a specific point about ensuring that the powers under which an authority may obtain information and search premises are compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Not only has the Minister signed an assurance to that effect but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has scrutinised the Enterprise Bill and set out its views in its 18th report. The Joint Committee considered the provisions of Part 6 of the Bill and came to the conclusion that there are sufficient statutory safeguards in place to ensure that the powers would be exercised compatibly with human rights.
The proposed new clauses replicate all the safeguards that are already contained in part of Clause 189, with one substantial difference. I do not know whether or not it was intentional. The new clauses require that a production order can be issued only if a person specified in the application is believed to have committed an offence under Section 183, while Clause 189 requires the OFT to demonstrate to the judge that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are documents on the premises in question which are required for the purposes of an investigation.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will agree that it would be unjustified to require the OFT to identify an individual who has committed an offence under Clause 189 before going to the High Court for authority. You could well have a reasonable suspicion that there are documents on a company's premises without knowing who put them there or in whose charge they are. So, in so far as there is any difference between these amendments and Clause 189, I hope that it will be agreed that Clause 189 is to be preferred.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I should like to reflect on what the Minister said. Whenever powers of this nature are granted to such a wide extent it is important to ensure that there are necessary safeguards, particularly in regard to the right to privacy. I still have some concerns which the Minister has not completely allayed, but I should like time to reflect on them before taking them any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195B to 195H not moved.]
Clause 190 [Exercise of powers by authorised person]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 138, line 15, at end insert—
"() The OFT shall be responsible for all acts and omissions of any authorised person exercising powers under this section."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is unusual for a Bill of this complexity in that its words stand on their own. It is quite clear what we on these Benches are seeking. Clause 190 gives the OFT powers to appoint authorised people to exercise its powers under Clauses 188 or 189. We seek to amend that with a provision indicating that the OFT,
"shall be responsible for all acts and omissions of any authorised person exercising powers under this section".
This may seem to be a statement of the obvious. However, the concern has been expressed by a number of people—in particular with regard to potential damage to IT systems as a result of intervention by authorised persons—that the OFT should accept responsibility on the face of the Bill for the exercise of powers by authorised persons. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sympathetic to the thinking behind the amendment. Had I been in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I should have done exactly the same. I can quite appreciate that someone coming in and searching for information on a PC or on a network could do a great deal of damage for no justification. So the idea of making the OFT responsible for the acts and omissions of any authorised person exercising powers under this clause is entirely right.
The OFT already recognises that it is responsible for the actions of its staff and any authorised competent investigator. It is because it may have to subcontract that the noble Lord's concerns come to the fore. It could be subcontracting to IT specialists, who would not make that kind of mistake, because those skills might not be available to OFT staff. It could be subcontracting to accountancy firms, or to the FSA or to the National Audit Office under certain circumstances.
The contracts that the OFT will have with these persons who are not officials of the OFT will set out the nature of the functions that the contractor is undertaking on behalf of the OFT and deal with liability concerning any actions they commit which exceed the OFT's powers.
Any person under investigation would in the first instance seek recourse from the OFT as the authorising authority. The OFT might seek to recover any damages awarded against them from its contractors.
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. As I have said, the provisions of this clause are modelled against very similar provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1987. That Act does not contain a provision making the SFO expressly responsible for the actions of its contractors; however, the SFO takes responsibility and regulates its obligations and responsibilities with its contractors through separate
150
contracts. That seems to have worked for a considerable number of years and there is no good reason to suppose that it will not work now.
Lord Razzall: While expressing surprise that the Minister wants to take on the sins of his forefathers, I am happy to reflect on what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 190 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may briefly raise a similar point to one that I raised previously. It relates to Clause 190(1):
"The OFT may authorise any competent person who is not an officer of the OFT to exercise on its behalf all or any of the powers conferred by section 188 or 189".
Is not that provision slightly broad? Were it to be qualified, it would be somewhat better: "competent" to do what? I do not think that we do want to bring in anyone who might possibly be thought to be not entirely a lunatic. I do not wish to press the point, but I hope that the noble Lord might agree that this wording could be examined. I do not think that it is asking very much.
10 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My noble friend Lord Peyton has, at least partly, stolen my thunder; that was precisely the point that I wished to make about Clause 190. Moreover, Clause 190, as I think I said earlier in these proceedings, ought to be made subject to Clause 189(2). The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will recall that Clause 189(2) gives specific warrant-making powers. Unless Clause 190 is constrained in some way, it can be used to override or circumvent the requirements of Clause 189(2). In my submission the relationship between these two clauses should be tidied up by the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hoped that I had addressed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, when I was responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I did spell out the fact that some of the skills to which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred—which are not necessarily available to the staff of the OFT—would be necessary in certain circumstances. I spelled out the possibility that these could be information technology skills, or accountancy skills in order to enable them to interpret the documents that they might find. It seemed to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that it was reasonable that there should be the ability to subcontract in these circumstances.
As to the issue of their being "competent persons" rather than "qualified persons", I do not think that there is a very great distinction. "Competent persons" implies the same degree of skill and control; it just does not relate to a particular qualification. Competent investigators are already subject to OFT

151
authorisation. Clause 190 allows the OFT to authorise any competent investigator who is not an officer of the OFT to exercise the powers given under Clauses 188 and 199. The provisions under Clause 189(2) to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred, and the requirement that this should be a named officer of the OFT, applies also to Clause 190 where the OFT is authorising someone else who is not an officer of the OFT. In other words, they have to be named and they have to produce evidence of who they are. We have tabled separate amendments to secure that.
The limitation of this authority is set out at Clause 190(2)—that it can be granted only,
"for the purpose of investigating the affairs, or any aspect of the affairs, of a person specified in the authority".
So they are not just let loose. The authority specifies who they are; what they have to do; who they are authorised to investigate; and what the content of that investigation is. However, I think that the fundamental point behind Amendment No. 190 is that, in addition to those safeguards, as I have made clear, the OFT is responsible for the actions of its staff and of any authorised competent investigator. That responsibility is equivalent regardless of whether they are staff.
The contracts that the OFT will have with authorised persons who are not officials of the OFT will set out the nature of the functions they are undertaking on behalf of the OFT and deal with liability for any actions that they commit which exceed OFT powers. That is a red rag to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I know, because the possibility of anyone exceeding the powers is not acceptable to him. It happens; it should not happen; but it is not made any more possible by the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I certainly would not wish to go to the stake for the sake of "qualified" as opposed to "competent". It was only an idea and I am not strongly committed to it. I hope that the noble Lord will take the measure away. All I want him to do is to look at the wording. I accept what he said; namely, that elsewhere there is provision that the OFT is responsible for those who act on its behalf whether they are members of its staff or just named for a purpose.
Looking at the relevant subsection in isolation, I do not think that it ought to be included. There ought to be some kind of obligation on the OFT to ensure that the relevant person is competent or qualified. Simply to say that anyone that it considers competent will do is a little wide. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the measure. I am not asking for any more than that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall, as always, certainly think about the matter. However, I reread Clause 190 when the issue arose. It seems to me that it is explicit. It begins by stating that authority can be conferred on any competent person. However, subsection (2) of the clause restricts the purpose of that authority. Subsection (3) restricts the obligation of
152
anyone to comply with a requirement imposed by such a person unless the latter produces evidence of his authority. Those are real protections of which I shall take account as I consider the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Kingsland: I hope that the Minister will, in the light of what he has said, agree to introduce an amendment on Report expressly linking Clause 189(2) and Clause 190(1) in order to make it absolutely clear that any authorisations made under Clause 190(1) are subject to the procedure set out in Clause 189(2).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall certainly look at that linkage again.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful.
Clause 190 agreed to.
Clause 191 [Privileged information etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 138, line 18, leave out from "any" to end of line 21 and insert "item subject to legal privilege"
The noble Lord said: I should like to probe the definition of "legal privilege" for the purposes of this part of the Bill. As currently drafted the Bill restricts the circumstances in which legal privilege can be claimed. Under subsection (1) of Clause 191,
"A person may not under section 188 or 189 be required to disclose any information or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to disclose or produce on grounds of legal professional privilege".
The amendment seeks rather to reflect the existing definition of "legal privilege" which has operated successfully in other legislative measures. The amendment would alter the subsection to read:
"A person may not under section 188 or 189 be required to disclose any information or produce any item subject to legal privilege".
Grouped with the amendment I am discussing is Amendment No. 199. That amendment seeks to delete the words at line 28, page 138:
"the OFT has authorised the making of the requirement".
Amendment No. 200 seeks to insert at line 28, page 138 the words,
"for the purposes of this Part, 'privileged communications' has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Competition Act 1998".
Amendment No. 200A seeks to delete subsection (3) of Clause 191 to take account of Scottish practice.
I hope that the Minister will justify the different definition or accede to the amendments. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right to privacy. The law has shown a willingness to acknowledge that right through the doctrine of legal professional privilege. I hope the Minister will accept that these amendment seek to preserve that doctrine and to ensure that communications between a solicitor and client are privileged. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Two different issues are involved. One relates to the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 198A, 200A and 202A. They provide a different way of accounting for the

153
equivalent in Scotland of legal professional privilege. I understand that the amendments come from the Law Society of Scotland.
The Government's intention throughout Part 6 has been to model the OFT's investigatory powers and safeguards for those under investigation on those contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Clauses 191 and 197 follow the Criminal Justice Act 1987 precedent. That was to ensure consistency of approach regardless of whether the OFT or the SFO are investigating or prosecuting. We recognise that there are concerns that current Scottish customs and practice should be properly reflected in the Bill. Therefore, we should like to consider the three amendments and look again at the issue.
I cannot be quite so sympathetic to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200. Amendment No. 199 would seek to remove the OFT's power to override the protection in respect of banking professional privilege. We considered leaving out banking privilege altogether. To give it greater prominence, as the amendment would do, is not the direction in which we would be inclined to move.
The origins of this privilege lie in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 which we have used as a model for the investigatory powers for the cartel offence. Section 2 of that Act confers powers of investigation with respect to serious fraud investigations. Since the OFT and the SFO will be working closely together on cartel investigations, the Government want to ensure that the investigatory powers of the two bodies are aligned. Section 2(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 provides for banking professional privilege. Section 2(10)(b) provides the director of the SFO with the power to override this privilege. Clause 191(2) would replicate that arrangement. The amendment would deny that equivalent power to the Office of Fair Trading. We think that that hampers investigations and would destroy the alignment with the Criminal Justice Act.
In summary, I am prepared to consider Amendments Nos. 198A, 200A and 202A but I am much less sympathetic to the other two amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the application of the clause to Scotland. Although I did not detect much willingness to concede, he said that he would reflect on the remaining amendments. I should also like to reflect on his comments. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 200A not moved.]
Clause 191 agreed to.
Clause 192 agreed to.
Clause 193 [Use of statements obtained under competition Act 1998]:
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Clause 193 agreed to.
Clauses 194 and 195 agreed to.
Clause 196 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Clause 196 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 197 [Interpretation of sections 187 to 196]:
[Amendment No. 202A not moved.]
Clause 197 agreed to.
Clause 198 [Powers of entry]:
[Amendment No. 202B not moved.]
Clause 198 agreed to.
Clause 199 [Disqualification]:
[Amendments Nos. 203 to 212 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 212A:
Page 144, line 2, leave out from "person" to end of line and insert "an undertaking which is a company of which he is a director has committed or is committing a breach of competition law,
(ab) the OFT or the specified regulator thinks that the conduct of the person as a director makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company,"
The noble Lord said: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman—I hope that the message can be passed to him in case he does not read Hansard—for drawing attention to a technical defect in the provisions on competition disqualification undertakings. Amendments Nos. 212A and 215A make it clear that the OFT, or specified regulator, must consider that a person is unfit to be involved in the management of a company before it can accept a competition disqualification undertaking from an individual. In making its assessment, the OFT or a specified regulator will take into account the same considerations in relation to a director's conduct that a court would have to do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 144, line 10, at end insert "without leave of the court"
The noble Lord said: This straightforward amendment seeks to qualify the provisions in Part 7. We believe that the additional flexibility is desirable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Section 1 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was amended by the Insolvency Act 2000 to provide that an individual who is the subject of a disqualification order cannot obtain the leave of the court to act as an insolvency practitioner. That refers to the third part of the provisions in the clause. This was to make the CDDA consistent with Section 390(4)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides an absolute ban on an individual acting as an insolvency practitioner if he is subject to a disqualification order. The absolute ban is mirrored in Section 1A(1) of the CDDA in respect of disqualification undertakings. The drafting of new Section 911(4) is therefore designed to reflect the current provisions on leave to act in the CDDA.

155
We believe that a person who has committed serious economic misconduct as a company director should probably not be trusted in other capacities that involve the handling of other people's assets. We wish to avoid a situation whereby a disqualified person could submit reports to the Secretary of State under Section 7 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act on the conduct of a failed company's directors. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Kingsland: I am of course grateful to the Minister for his response. In our view, the mediation of the court in those circumstances would provide adequate protection and a desirable degree of flexibility. I shall reflect on the Minister's reply. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments. Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 144, line 24, at end insert—
"(7) Subsections (4) to (8) of section 9A apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section but in the application of subsection (5) of that section the reference to the court must be construed as a reference to the OFT or a specified regulator (as the case may be)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 199, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 200 to 203 agreed to.
Clause 204 [Reform of Community competition law]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 148, line 22, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 217 to 219.
A European Commission draft regulation, currently under negotiation by member states, is proposed to replace the current Regulation 17, which implements Articles 81 and 82: the competition articles of the European Community treaty. The UK's Competition Act is closely modelled on Articles 81 and 82, which prohibit restrictive agreements and the abuse of a dominant position. I am sorry to have to tell the Committee that "modernisation" is the accepted shorthand for the reform of Regulation 17, which will have the effect—to use a less offensive term—of decentralising the enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 to national courts and national competition authorities. The UK supports that initiative.
Clause 204 of the Enterprise Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations so that, post-modernisation, amendments may be made to our domestic competition regime in order to eliminate or reduce differences between the Competition Act 1998 and the EC's competition rules. But there are also exclusions from the application of the prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998 in other Acts. I support this set of amendments, which adds a power to remove or
156
modify these exclusions—for example, the exclusion in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for rules of a recognised investment exchange. EC competition law does not provide for similar exclusions and, while these differences between the application of domestic competition law and EC competition law already exist, after modernisation the domestic regime may become unworkable because the EC competition rules will be applied by the OFT along with our domestic regime So, after modernisation, OFT will have to operate two different but overlapping systems, both dealing with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant provision. That will create confusion for business over which regime applies to a particular case and prove unworkable for the OFT. So the power is needed so that our domestic regime and the EC competition regime may be made consistent.
The power provided for in Amendment No. 217 is tightly drawn. Amendments Nos. 216, 218 and 219 are consequential on Amendment No. 217. The affirmative resolution procedure applies to any use of the powers given by this clause—although the powers are tightly drawn, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any specific use of those powers.
Of course, that involves further use of delegated powers. I should tell the Committee that this week we are intending to send the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee a supplementary memorandum. That will detail the two government amendments which impact on delegated powers in the Bill. As always, we shall take extremely seriously any observations that the committee has. But we have no reason to suppose that it will object to this particular use of delegated powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 217 to 219:
Page 148, line 30, at end insert—
"(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal or otherwise modify any provision of an Act (other than the 1998 Act) which excludes any matter from the Chapter I prohibition or the Chapter II prohibition (within the meaning of Part 1 of the 1998 Act).
(2B) The power under subsection (2A) may not be exercised—

(a) before the power under subsection (1) has been exercised; or

(b) so as to extend the scope of any exclusion that is not being removed by the regulations."

Page 148, line 31, leave out "The regulations" and insert "Regulations under this section"
Page 148, line 36, after "power" insert "to make regulations"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 204, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 205 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 206 [Domestic infringements]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 150, line 4, after "(2)" insert "or is an unfair commercial practice"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 220, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 221 and 253. We now come to a different section of the Bill. I know that we have just spent a very happy hour talking about a number of detailed amendments. However, I fear that with these amendments we come to an area where we on these Benches disagree fundamentally with the position that the Government took at Second Reading on the form of the Bill. These amendments attempt to put into our legislation a general obligation for traders to trade fairly.
That obligation applies as a safety net in many industrialised countries—that is, most EU member states and certainly New Zealand, Australia and the United States. At Second Reading the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, indicated that the Government were not persuaded that English law—I hesitate on that point: I am not entirely clear whether it is English law or whether this is a devolved matter, but no matter—should have such a generalised duty. However, as the Minister is well aware, soon developments in the European Union are likely to lead us to a directive that will require considerable amendment to the law.
As we are approaching 10.30 p.m., I do not wish to over-press the point or speak for too long. However, for the purposes of the record, I believe that it would be useful to read into it examples of why existing consumer protection is inadequate. Our consumer protection legislation depends entirely on being able to catch rogue traders either with specific legislation or with regulations. I am very grateful to both the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council for providing me with examples of rogue traders whose behaviour is not currently caught by the existing law. Perhaps I may give two such examples in order that the Minister may explain to the Committee why he believes that a general duty not to trade unfairly would not catch such people.
The first example concerns the elderly disabled woman who responds to an advertisement for a therapeutic chair. The advertisement invites her to telephone for an information brochure. When she telephones, she is persuaded to invite a salesman to her home for a product demonstration. In doing so, she unknowingly loses her right to a seven-day cooling-off period and the trader has exploited the loophole in the legislation. There is no protection for that individual under existing law.
The second example, which no doubt will be dear to noble Lords as we approach our summer holidays, concerns the holiday brochure that states that the hotel is 25 metres from the sea. As the Minister proceeds to a Spanish beach on his holiday at the beginning of August, he realises that the brochure fails to mention that a motorway runs between his hotel and the beach—no offence under the Consumer Protection Act. Those are two examples—many more have been brought to our notice—of why we on these Benches feel that there should be a general duty not to trade unfairly.
We have no pride of authorship in the form of the amendment, which we have tabled as a probing amendment. We know from the Minister's remarks at Second Reading that the Government are not persuaded. We hope that they will be persuaded and, if they are, will return at Report stage with a better clause than we have drafted.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. If I did not, it would be surprising. I do so because in 1990, admittedly 12 years ago, when I was the Director-General of Fair Trading, a report was published in which I expressed myself as in favour of introducing into our law a general duty to trade fairly, for the same kinds of reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has put forward for his amendment; namely, because of gaps in the law.
The value of a general duty, whether expressed positively, as I did in 1990, or negatively, as in this amendment—a duty not to trade unfairly is that the law never quite catches up with the malpractices of traders. Some traders always seem to be a step ahead of the law. However, I admit today that, in principle, I prefer the law and the civil obligation to be precise. My general view is that if the law is to be respected and is not to impinge unfairly on traders, it needs to be clear and precise. Consumers, and their advisers, also need to know their precise rights.
I therefore believe that it is preferable that the malpractices of the kinds listed—I think it is a non-exhaustive list—in the noble Lord's amendment should as far as possible be covered by amendments to the existing law. In Amendment No. 253, in relation to misdescriptions of services as distinct from goods, the noble Lord has in fact proposed exactly that.
Another example, similar to that given by the noble Lord a few moments ago, is that if a contract is signed at a dealer's premises, there is in law a cooling-off period for customers and, therefore, there would be little point in the dealer trying to pressurise the customer into signing the contract. If that law were extended to contracts signed at home, even when a visit is solicited—it would not be too difficult—some of the examples of unfair trading used by the noble Lord in tabling his amendment to illustrate problems would disappear. In my view, several other examples of malpractice covered by the amendment could be dealt with by pepping up the law on undue influence and the law on misrepresentation, such as the example given by the noble Lord about the travel brochure.
It may be that the National Consumer Council, for which I have every respect—perhaps its distinguished former chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, could be persuaded to say a few words—will, despite the points that I have just made, still think that a general duty embodied in law is desirable, although it may lack the specificity that I have suggested is desirable. So I am glad that the Minister in another place at a late stage of the Bill offered a seminar on the subject. One may make fun of that—is this government by seminar instead of by legislation? But,

159
bearing in mind that she mentioned the summer, and that there is a gap between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill in this House, if there is a seminar in between times—say in September—it may help to take this discussion a little further.
My present view is one of agnosticism, but I am concerned that new fangled malpractices can emerge that no existing law deals with. I should like finally to quote the words of the great Francis Bacon. He said:
"He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator".
Baroness Wilcox: As the previous chairman of the National Consumer Council, I would be drummed out if I did not stand up to speak to this matter. As noble Lords have already said, there is a great sympathy around this, a sympathy for a desired general duty to trade fairly because of the gaps in the law. But 1, too, find it difficult. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. In my years at the National Consumer Council I worked happily with him on many things to bring them to a fruition so that we could cover some of these more difficult areas.
I was particularly interested in the points he made about a contract signed at a dealer's premises giving a cooling off period. I wondered whether that could not be extended to contracts signed at home—"pepping up", as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, calls it, such things as undue influence and the law on misrepresentation. Much as I have great sympathy for what the National Consumer Council proposed and wished to take forward, it lacks specificity. I do not like seminars either. But if there is a chance that something could work between Committee and Report stages, I should be keen to take part if I could and see whether we could not do something a little better after the Recess. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment at this time, but I have sympathy for the argument.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilcox for her words. I find myself very much in agreement with her conclusion. It was my honourable friend Nigel Waterson in the other place who took the lead on this issue and made a compelling and convincing argument, to which the Minister responded with the notion of a seminar. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in welcoming that development.
As I said in the debate at Second Reading, it is difficult to find a way through this situation, but it is important and imperative that we search every avenue that we can. I therefore very much agree with my noble friend that we now await the seminar, which I hope can be arranged as soon as possible, so that we can discuss possible ways forward at that seminar in time for us to debate the matter further on Report.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I speak to Amendments Nos. 220,221 and 253. Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 would introduce a general duty not to trade unfairly. That was debated at some length in the other place.
160
I am sure that everyone would agree that businesses should treat their customers fairly. In addition to meeting their legal obligations, it is clear that businesses which treat consumers fairly and well are the businesses which will succeed in a competitive marketplace. However, I am not convinced that enshrining a general duty not to trade unfairly in legislation is necessarily the right way to achieve a fair deal for consumers.
There is already a strong body of legislation protecting consumers' rights. Where that legislation is found to be ineffective, the answer is usually better enforcement. If traders do not comply with existing law, there is no more reason to think they will comply with a general duty. And if traders disappear and cannot be traced, a general duty will not help. That is why better enforcement of existing consumer protection law is vital, which is exactly what this part of the Bill will achieve.
It is also important that policies for any new laws are founded on robust evidence. They must be needed to deal with issues of consumer concern and detriment not already covered by existing law. They must not impose undue burdens on business.
As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, that is why my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets, Melanie Johnson, is inviting key stakeholders from consumer groups, enforcers and business to a seminar to explore the issue in more depth. They will consider in detail cases that consumer organisations have cited in support of a general duty, which were also raised in debate in the other place and an example of which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, also raised. I have noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, would like to be invited to the seminar, and I am sure that if that is possible, it will be done.
Once we have a clear picture of where are the real problems, we will consider what further action would be appropriate. Where necessary, that will of course need to take account of what is happening in the European Union. The European Commission has just published a communication outlining its plans to develop proposals for a framework directive covering fair trading. The Commission will undertake extensive consultation with member states and other stakeholders. It would be unfortunate if we were to legislate precipitately in this case, only to be faced with similar but different European proposals in due course.
I turn to Amendment No. 253 which would remove a discrepancy in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 whereby there is a requirement to prove Mens rea in order to establish an offence in relation to misdescribed services, although there is no parallel requirement to establish that in respect of misdescribed goods. In that context, mens rea means that the trader must be proved to have known that his statement was false or that he did not care whether it was true or not. Misdescriptions in relation to both goods and services will normally constitute a misleading advertisement under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1998.

161
"Advertisement" in those regulations has a wide definition and covers any form of representation to promote the supply of goods or services. Mens rea is not a consideration under those regulations, which are already covered by the stop now orders regulations and will be covered by Part 8 of the Bill.
Although I do not think that the Bill is the right place to amend Section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, my department will be happy further to consider the issue with the Local Government Association, the Local Authorities Co-ordinator of Regulatory Services and the Trading Standards Institute, which I understand support the amendment.
As I said at the beginning of my reply, the amendments all seek to amend the underlying framework of consumer protection legislation. As I said, that is not the intention of the Bill which focuses on improving the enforcement of existing legislation that protects consumers. I have explained why I think that that is right and important, and I have offered my department's help in working with interested bodies on trade descriptions issues. In view of that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Razzall: I listened with great interest not only to the Minister but to other noble Lords who have spoken from their vast experience of the issue. I shall obviously withdraw the amendment, but first I should like to make some general comments because the issue is important. The Government have defended their position with an approach that is completely different from that taken in most European Union countries, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.
I was going to say that I shall wager equally with the Minister, hut, bearing in mind our relative wealth, that is probably an unfortunate wager on my part. Instead, I will guarantee that, within the next two years, the Minister will rise here to introduce consumer protection legislation that will completely confound what he has just told us. The European Union will have developed its proposals and there will be a directive that the Government will implement. The Minister will turn on its head all of his case about why we should not have a general duty to trade fairly and tell us why the European Union is entirely right to introduce its directive including such a duty.
If the Minister had stood up and simply said that, although it is a little early for such a provision, he understood the comments made; and if he had then continued to say that the European Union was considering the matter and that the Government would, therefore, like a year or two to reflect upon what that consideration would produce—after which they would bring forward legislation—I should have completely understood the noble Lord's point. But, of course, he did not have to put consumer protection legislation in this Bill: this is an Enterprise Bill; in other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill, which is designed to do something about productivity.
The fact that the noble Lord's ministry wished to tack in consumer protection issues here prematurely is not my problem; it is his. Therefore, a year or two may
162
well elapse before he turns this argument on its head. As I said, I shall not seek to take the noble Lord's money because he earns more than me, but that will undoubtedly be the case in a few years' time.
Finally, I have never taken the view of the Conservative Party about this Government. I believe that government by focus group is not a bad idea. I certainly believe that government by seminar is a very good idea. Indeed, I look forward to the seminar. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 206 agreed to.
Clause 207 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 208 [Enforcers]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 221A:
Page 151, line 28, after "Investment" insert "in"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and 223A, together with Amendments Nos. 224 to 228. Amendment No. 221A makes a minor drafting change in the title of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and 233A are intended to remove any possible suggestion that the Secretary of State could exercise a subjective opinion that a body has, as one of its purposes, the protection of the collective interests of consumers in deciding whether or not to designate that body as an enforcer under this part of the Bill.
We are only resisting these amendments because we believe that the Bill does not allow for such a possibility. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary. There is no policy difference between us here. As it is the Secretary of State who will be designating the bodies, it must necessarily be her opinion that is relevant. But, although she can designate any body that she thinks has as one of its purposes the protection of the collective interests of consumers, her opinion must, as far as possible, be an objective one. It must satisfy the requirements of administrative law. So her opinion must be reached fairly. It must take into account all relevant factors, and no irrelevant ones. It must not be unreasonable.
I can therefore assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will indeed only designate a body under this part if she reaches the view on the basis I have described that it has, as one of its purposes, the protection of the collective interests of consumers. For public bodies this purpose will often be set out in the statute establishing the body. In addition, the criteria that the Secretary of State is required to specify for designating private consumer bodies will require evidence of a track record that is sufficient to demonstrate experience, competence and expertise in protecting the collective interests of consumers. The designation will be by order, so there will be parliamentary scrutiny and the opportunity for debate.
Any decision by the Secretary of State to designate a body that did not have as one of its purposes the protection of the collective interests of consumers, or to designate a private consumer organisation that did not meet the criteria that she is required to specify by order, would of course be open to challenge by way of judicial review.
Amendment No. 224 seeks to ensure consumer organisations with a trading interest are not designated as "enforcers" under this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 225 seeks to ensure that a consumer organisation is not designated in such a way as would allow it to bring applications for enforcement orders in areas where it carries on a commercial activity.
I fully understand business concerns about the potential conflict of interest if consumer organisations have the right to bring applications for enforcement orders in areas in which they have a commercial interest, for example by bringing an application for an enforcement order against a business carrying on the same commercial activities as its trading arm or in cases in which the trading arm could itself be the subject of an application for an enforcement order.
I reassure the House that the criteria that the Secretary of State is required to specify by order will guard against such an occurrence. The criteria for designating consumer organisations with trading arms will include provisions to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are properly dealt with. The fact that a body has a trading arm should not disqualify it from being designated as an enforcer under this part, provided that the trading arm does not control the body and that any profits made by the trading arm are used only to fund its consumer representation or other related work. Excluding bodies with trading arms would exclude many, if not most, charities, which use commercial activities to fund their stated objectives.
Regulation 4 of the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001 contains the existing power to designate private consumer organisations and sets out the criteria according to which they may be designated. That includes a requirement that the organisation be so constituted, managed and controlled that it can be expected to act independently, impartially and with complete integrity. If, having been designated, a consumer organisation fails to comply with the criteria, the Secretary of State would be required to remove its designation. We expect to set similar criteria for designating consumer organisations under this part, but we will consult widely on the draft criteria. That will give all interested parties the chance to raise their concerns. I will, of course, welcome comments from your Lordships on the consultation on the draft criteria.
Amendments Nos. 226, 227 and 228 seek—
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am so reluctant to interrupt the Minister. Rightly, he rose to move Amendment No. 221A, but he has now proceeded to respond to Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and 223A, even though they have not yet been moved. No doubt, the noble
164
Lord, Lord Razzall, will make a point about that. Now, he is proceeding to respond to my amendments, Amendments Nos. 226, 227 and 228. I would prefer him to respond once I put the case for the amendments, so that I might influence his response. I do not want to hear it in advance of mine.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I stand corrected. I thought that for me simply to propose that I would put the word "in" into the phrase "in Northern Ireland" would be a waste of the noble Lord's time, so I thought that I would cover the other amendments. I apologise to the noble Lord. I shall certainly listen to his arguments before I go any further.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am so grateful to the Minister for allowing me to get a word in edgeways: it is kind of him.
As we consider Part 8 of the Bill, I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, in Standing Committee in the other place, the whole of this important part of a complex Bill, which deals with the rights of and duties owed to consumers was allocated just a few moments because of the guillotine. There was no opportunity to deal properly with the amendments. As we have said on many previous occasions, it is incumbent on your Lordships' House to play an important part in scrutinising legislation that has not been considered in the other place because of the guillotine.
Amendment No. 226 is linked with Amendments Nos. 227 and 228. Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 are identical, and Amendment No. 226 is similar. I hope that the Minister will allow me to speak to the omnibus or generic amendment—the sum of those three parts. It is a routine request that orders such as those to be made under Clause 208 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, rather than the negative procedure. I should put it on the record immediately that I dislike intensely the negative procedure because it gives so little opportunity for proper scrutiny, while in any event the procedures of Parliament inhibit the possibility of amendment.
Clause 208 is the only clause in this part of the Bill to introduce secondary legislation. Those who have scrutinised this part will see that it enables the Secretary of State to designate persons or organisations as enforcers. I know that my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon would have wanted to be present as we scrutinise these provisions. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons she was unable to be present this evening. However, she told me how she felt—that the word "enforcers" was a term redolent of menace, conjuring up a picture of sinister men in trenchcoats and trilby hats making traders offers that they cannot possibly refuse.
Since those qualified to be enforcers include every weights and measures authority in Great Britain, a number of recent cases cause us to approach this part of the Bill with some degree of trepidation. The clause permits the Secretary of State to appoint what are called "general enforcers" and "designated enforcers".

165
As the Minister has already pointed out, "designated" enforcers could include any person or organisation that,
"the Secretary of State … thinks has as one of its purposes the … collective interests of consumers".
It need not necessarily be a body generally accepted as unarguably having such a purpose, but one which the Secretary of State in her wisdom and by some hitherto undisclosed subjective test thinks has such a purpose. In other words, under the present wording of the clause, any self-appointed pressure group able to create enough noise and fuss to come to the attention of the Secretary of State could be designated as an enforcer with powers to apply for enforcement orders under Clauses 209 and 210.
The enforcement powers are wide and far-reaching. However, I should like to point out that we do not object to them in principle, nor do we object to the Secretary of' State delegating enforcement powers to appropriate persons or organisations. Nor, indeed, do we object to the Secretary of State defining the extent of the infringements in which the enforcers may involve themselves in enforcing against, as provided in subsection (6)(b). The amendments seek to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny of the qualifications of the enforcer. Because the appointment is to be made by statutory instrument, we believe that it should automatically be open to debate by means of the positive resolution procedure.
That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will look on them favourably.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, but I do not think that the government position will change on this. Perhaps I may reiterate a point that I hope I explained in my earlier remarks; namely, that this is not simply a subjective test. We shall provide clear guidance. Furthermore, the Secretary of State can be held to ensuring that any actions coincide with that guidance.
The view held by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, of enforcers is rather wide of the mark in this instance. Of course it is always a matter of judgment and debate whether the affirmative resolution procedure is required in a particular case. We do not think that it is required here because these will be fairly routine situations. Furthermore, I should remind the noble Lord that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, having examined all the proposed delegated powers in the Bill, expressed itself content for the power in this clause to be made under the negative resolution procedure. I think that that was entirely right.
On the basis of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 222 to 228 not moved.]
Clause 208, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 209 agreed to.
Clause 210 [Applications]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 229:
166
Page 153, line 18, after "a" insert "domestic or"
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which is either significant or merely a drafting point. Either the words "domestic or" have been omitted as a drafting error, or they have been omitted as a result of a principle. If it is a drafting error, no doubt the Minister will say that it will be rectified on Report. If it is a point of principle, I shall be interested to know what it is. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox: I, too, am interested to hear the answer and hope that the Minister will enlighten the Committee on why Clause 210 does not refer to domestic infringements. It seems to be a discrepancy in the wording of the Bill, particularly as the 2001 regulations include that wording.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendment No. 229 would enable an enforcer to make an application for an enforcement order against a person who it was believed was likely to engage in conduct which would constitute a domestic infringement. That is already the case in respect of Community infringements because we believe that it is a requirement of the injunctions directive.
Officials have discussed the issue with the Office of Fair Trading and the local authorities' co-ordinating body on regulatory services. Although we fully understand the argument in favour of giving enforcers the power to make applications to stop domestic infringements before they occur, we have not been provided with sufficient convincing cases of when the power might be used to merit extending the scope of domestic infringements in this way.
A power to prevent infringements before they occur is likely to be most useful in the field of advertising where a single misleading advertisement has the potential to harm a large number of consumers. This would be a Community infringement and, as I have already mentioned, the Bill gives enforcers the power to take action to stop likely Community infringements if necessary by making an application for an interim enforcement order. On that basis, this is not a drafting error but a clear policy decision and we believe that it is the right one.
Lord Razzall: I thank the Minister for that answer and I am pleased that it is a policy issue. He says that the Government are not persuaded that there are sufficient examples to warrant the insertion of the words "domestic or", but I am sure that between now and the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I will be able to draw specific examples to the Government's attention. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 153, line 31, at end insert—

167
"() An application for an enforcement order shall comply with the appropriate pre-action protocol and civil procedure rules for the time being in force."
The noble Lord said: An enforcement order under Clause 210 is an important instrument for the purpose of giving effect to the Bill when it becomes an Act. Although the application for such an order is to the regular courts of this country, nowhere is it provided that the procedure to be used is the civil procedure rules—including the pre-action protocol instituted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which requires substantial disclosure of the complainant's claim and evidence right at the outset of the case.
The effect of this early disclosure of the claimant's case will be to concentrate the defendant's mind on the likelihood of his losing and, in the case of enforcement proceedings, of remedying the alleged wrong. The amendment seeks to ensure from the outset that enforcers exercise their powers under the same rules as apply to all other parties to the civil courts; and that the civil courts make the necessary additional rules if the present rules are for the moment inadequate to cover this novel course of action. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendment No. 231 has the same purpose as Amendment No. 232, which we did not debate, and seeks to ensure that enforcers could not bring applications to court without complying with the civil procedure rules and pre-action protocols, which are intended to enable parties to achieve an out-of-court settlement by encouraging early exchange of information by the parties.
The civil procedure rules will apply to applications under this part. The rules provide that the court will expect all parties to have complied with any relevant pre-action protocols, with non-compliance being taken into account by the court when considering costs. As such, it is unnecessary to have any additional reference to compliance within primary legislation. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister will understand that I am not entirely happy with his reply. I shall go away and think about what he said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 not moved.]
Clause 210 agreed to.
Clause 211 agreed to.
Clause 212 [Enforcement orders]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 154, line 33, at end insert—
"() The court must have regard to whether the information and advice published in pursuance of section 224(1) has been adhered to by the enforcer bringing the application."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 235, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharman, with one drafting exception is virtually
168
identical to Amendment No. 236, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Kingsland.
On the face of it, the amendment speaks for itself. On these Benches and on the Conservative Benches we believe that there should be an additional clause to the effect that the court must have regard to whether the information and advice published in pursuance of Clause 224(1) has been adhered to by the enforcer bringing the application. The wording of the amendments—subject to the small addition made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to his amendment—is self-explanatory. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: As the noble Lord indicated, the Secretary of State will be able to give wide enforcement powers to a large number of bodies and persons—any person or body in fact, to quote Clause 208(2)(b), which the Secretary of State,
"thinks has as one of its purposes the protection of the collective interests of consumers".
It is not difficult to conceive that, among the chosen ones, there will be pressure groups which are frequently interested in only single issues, or organisations with particular expertise in only one specialised field. It may not always be groups such as the Consumers' Association which possess, of course, a wide spectrum of interests.
At this juncture I do not want to give examples or to say anything which may seem to denigrate any organisations which the Secretary of State may see fit to designate as enforcers. But it is essential, when such pressure groups are given the wide powers that they are to have under the Bill—power to initiate and power to pursue, at the public expense, proceedings that may cost someone a vast amount of money and time to defend—that the enforcer acts in a quasi-judicial and impartial manner. That means not pursuing a particular personal agenda, however well-meaning the objective is. Impartiality in investigating, impartiality in taking proceedings and impartiality in the way in which they are pursued are all essential.
There must not be the slightest possibility suggested that—again to use the example of the OFT—the collective interest of the public, as stated in subsection (2)(a), is other than the only motivation. The interests of the supporters of a particular pressure group nominated to be an enforcer may not be the same as the collective interests of the public. That is why Clause 224 wisely stipulates that the OFT should give advice and information about the operation of this part of the Bill.
We cannot have a situation whereby different enforcers apply different criteria to the operation of the Bill and the way they perform the duties and exercise the powers that the Secretary of State gives to them. This amendment takes nothing away from the Bill or the powers that are given to the enforcers. It

169
simply ensures that the advice and guidance of the OFT is not ignored or flouted and that one enforcer acts consistently with others.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 seek to require the courts, in deciding whether to make an enforcement order, to have regard to whether the enforcer has complied with any information and advice published by the OFT.
One of the reasons for giving the OFT a duty to publish advice and information is to promote a consistent approach to enforcement by the various bodies which will have enforcement powers under this part. We would certainly expect all enforcers to follow any guidance published by the OFT. This will be reinforced by the Memorandum of Understanding which each enforcer will be expected to sign with the OFT. These will be similar to the Memoranda of Understanding which the OFT is near to finalising with enforcers under the stop now orders regulations. But we do not see that there is a need to enshrine this in legislation. We also have to recognise that in many respects each enforcer will have to make its own decision on enforcement action.
Furthermore, unscrupulous traders are notorious for trying to find any loophole in the law which they can wriggle through. This amendment would give them the opportunity to use any slight actual or alleged departure from the OFT guidance as grounds for challenging why an order should not be made against them. This could significantly weaken the provisions of this part if the courts spend more time on deciding whether the OFT guidance has been completely complied with rather than the real issue before them; that is, whether or not an infringement has occurred.
The courts in any case have a discretion as to whether to make an order. We can be confident in the ability of the courts to do justice. If a court is satisfied that, although an infringement has occurred, it will not be repeated, it can decide either not to make an order or accept an undertaking from the defendant. If the court is not satisfied that the infringement will not be repeated, or the defendant does not offer an undertaking, it is unlikely to be in the public interest for an order not to be made, even if the enforcer has not complied with the guidance in every particular respect.
In view of these arguments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Razzall: I have listened with interest to the Minister's response, and superficially I have some sympathy with it. I shall read his words carefully in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 237 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 155, line 8, at end insert —
"(8A) Where any person fails to comply (whether wholly or in part) with an order made under subsection (8) the OFT may take such steps as it considers reasonable—

(a) to publicise that failure, and

(b) to publish the order and a corrective statement complying with the order.

(8B)Any reasonable expenses incurred by the OFT under subsection (8A) may be recovered by it as a civil debt from the person whose failure it has publicised.
(8C)For the purposes of the law of defamation the publication of the order and the failure to comply therewith and a corrective statement pursuant to subsection (8A) shall be absolutely privileged."
The noble Lord said: Subsection (8) of Clause 212 very sensibly provides that, after the case has been made out for the issuing of an enforcement order, the court may require publication of the order and, if necessary, a corrective statement. The subsection explains that this is,
"for the purpose of eliminating any continuing effect of the infringement".
This is a very sensible provision which we applaud.
However, what happens if the infringer does not comply with the order? Well, the court has its own methods of enforcing its orders: proceedings for contempt of court, followed by sequestration of assets or imprisonment or fines. However, these all take a long time. In the meanwhile, the objective of eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement moves further into the distance.
I believe that the sensible provisions of this subsection are deficient because they do not provide a speedy remedy. This amendment, giving the OFT power to insert any necessary advertisement and to recover the cost from the infringer, remedies that defect. It also covers the situation where the infringer goes out of business or disappears or is out of the jurisdiction of the court, although here the OFT might not be able to recover the expense involved.
Lastly, proposed new subsection (8C) protects the OFT from any defamation proceedings in the remote case of someone taking action as a result of its publishing a judgment or a corrective statement.
I trust that noble Lords will accept that this is a wholly constructive amendment designed to improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Amendment No. 239 seeks to give the OFT a statutory power to publicise a failure by a person to comply with a court order requiring him to publish either its decision that he should not engage in conduct which constitutes an infringement, or a corrective statement. It would also give the OFT the power to publish the order and a corrective statement complying with the order. The OFT would be able to recover from that person any reasonable expenses it incurs in doing so and could not be sued under the law of defamation for any inaccuracy in the information published.

171
We believe that the court will make an order requiring the defendant to publish its decision or a corrective statement only when there is a real risk that consumers could continue to suffer harm from a past infringement. An obvious example would be where an advertisement had been found to be misleading. The court could then decide that the defendant should publish a corrective advertisement of equal prominence to the misleading advertisement, to stop consumers acting on the basis of the original misleading information.
Where the court makes such an order, I certainly agree that the defendant should comply with its decision as he should with any other order the court may make. However, where the OFT or the enforcer who made the original application believes that a person has failed to comply with the order, I believe that the appropriate and proportionate response would be for it to make a further application to the court, under Clause 214 of this Bill, to enforce the order. This further application might lead the court to find that its order had been breached and that the defendant is in contempt of court. The OFT or the enforcer may then wish to give publicity to those further proceedings. However, an express power to do so is not necessary because publication will be permitted under Clause 236 as it will facilitate the exercise by the OFT of its functions under this part.
As is already the case under the stop now orders regulations, it is the OFT's intention to publicise information on completed cases under this part, including details of the court's order and any order made in further proceedings to enforce the original order or undertaking to the court. In doing so, we would expect any publicity to be accurate, balanced and fair to the trader.
However, it is not clear whether this amendment is intended to apply only if the court holds that the person has not complied or whether the OFT's view is sufficient. Subsection (8C) of this amendment appears to give the OFT absolute privilege in relation to the law of defamation, even if the court later found there was no failure. This would have the potential to cause significant and irreparable harm to the reputation of a business if an alleged failure was publicised by an enforcer before a court had ruled on it, and the court subsequently did not uphold the enforcer's view, leaving the business with no redress. The OFT does not need absolute privilege if it is publishing details of a court order made in further proceedings because a claim for defamation could not possibly succeed in those circumstances.
I hope that on the basis of that argument the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I take the point about the proposed subsection (8C). I shall reflect on it between now and Report and on whether to bring back the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 155, line 26, at end insert—
"() Where the court determines that the person named in the application is not engaged in (or was not at the time of the application engaged in) conduct which constitutes an infringement and that therefore the application brought under section 210 or 213 has failed, the court shall make an order that the enforcer shall bear the costs of that application and reimburse the respondent for his reasonable costs and expenses in defending the claim."
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill, when it becomes law, any one of the enforcers appointed by the Secretary of State will be given the power to take any business to court for some alleged infringement of consumer rights. Supposing it loses, what happens then? There is nothing to prevent it from making repeated applications to the court, of course, based on slightly different facts. In other words, an enforcer can take several bites of the cherry.
But even if there is only one unsuccessful complaint, the person who has been exonerated should, in my submission, be entitled to recover the costs and expenses of defending the case. These claims will be brought in the regular courts which have power to award costs to successful parties. The amendment seeks to ensure that the courts will follow that procedure in cases brought under this Bill when enacted. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We believe that in court proceedings under Part 8, the normal rules as to costs, or in Scotland, expenses, should apply. The rules on costs in the Civil Procedure Rules will apply.
The general rule is that costs should follow the event, so that if the enforcer does not succeed and no order or undertaking to the court is made the enforcer will normally be ordered by the court to pay the business's costs. This will deter enforcers from behaving improperly or unreasonably, or from pursuing frivolous or ill-considered proceedings.
But the courts have discretion to depart from the general rule. For example, if a business has withheld important information from the enforcer which would have made proceedings unnecessary, it may be right for it to bear its own costs or part of them, even if no order is made. In other cases where an enforcer has not behaved reasonably in conducting a case it might be right for the enforcer to bear its own costs or even some of the business's costs even where an order is made. It is right that the court, which will know the circumstances of the particular case and the way it has been conducted by the parties, should have discretion. In those circumstances I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am entirely happy with that reply. I understand that the noble Lord is saying that the regime of costs which will apply to these actions will be exactly the same as the general regime applying to all civil actions. In those circumstances I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 212 agreed to.
Clause 213 [Interim enforcement order]:
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Clause 213 agreed to.
Clauses 214 to 218 agreed to.
Clause 219 [OFT]:
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Clause 219 agreed to.
Clause 220 [Other enforcers]:
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Clause 220 agreed to.
Clauses 221 to 223 agreed to.
Clause 224 [Advice and information]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 162, line 22, leave out from beginning to second "the" and insert "Before the Act comes into effect"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 244 to 249 and 251, some of which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharman; and some stand in the name of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches. Other noble Lords may wish to speak to them.
We want to probe the Government on the clarity, transparency and awareness of the community as regards the law. It is not an attempt to restrict or to disagree with the powers of the legislation. If the law is clear, we believe that it will be more readily observed. I give an example, relevant to Clause 224, in order to explain Amendment No. 244. Significant representations have been made to us, and no doubt the Government, regarding the operation of stop now orders by the Office of Fair Trading. It started to give them in. April/May or even June 2001. Guidance regarding those stop now orders was not apparent to certain elements of the business community until at least 12 months later. In those circumstances, the amendment gives the necessary clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 245. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. The advice and information referred to in Clause 224 will be crucially important in setting out the procedure and processes under which the enforcement orders will be operated. We have received advice from a number of organisations, in particular the CBI, stressing how essential it is that all parties should be clear about the way in which the new enforcement powers under Part 8 will be exercised. As the noble Lord and others have already pointed out, the powers are new and range widely.. They can be exercised by a number of different enforcers. It is our intention, therefore, that transparency of process and procedural safeguards are vital; and this part of the Bill should not come into force until the guidance is available.
The concerns which have arisen in relation to the stop now orders regulations remind us that full guidance was not available for a considerable time following the introduction of the regulations. I
174
understand that that guidance was not available for 10 months. Despite that, the Office of Fair Trading took action against business under the regulations from the day on which they came in to effect. Surely all parties, including business, are entitled to clarity of process. We look forward to receiving the reassurance from the Minister that we seek.
Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 leave out "may" and insert "must". It must be clear exactly how the OFT intends to exercise powers under this part of the Bill, including the criteria which the OFT will use in deciding whether to challenge business activity and how it will conduct that investigation. Business needs to know that standards of natural justice will be respected, which is why we contend that the OFT must have a positive obligation to publish information on those factors rather than the present permissive provision. I look forward to the Minister's response.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 244 to 249 and Amendment No. 251.
Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 would ensure that the Secretary of State does not bring this part of the Bill into force before the OFT has published advice and information explaining the provisions of this part and how it expects them to operate in practice. I fully understand why the amendments have been tabled given business concerns that it will be helpful to them to understand the OFT's approach to its functions under the part, including its co-ordinating role, before the Bill comes into force.
However, this part requires a number of orders to be made by the Secretary of State before it can be brought into force. Foremost among those are the orders listing the legislation and common late duties for the purpose of domestic infringements on which we shall certainly wish to consult widely. Our consultation will follow the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultation and allow 12 weeks for consultation. We also intend to follow the existing guidance to allow a further 12 weeks between making the orders and their coming into force. The result is that this part will not be brought into force hastily.
I can also reassure the Committee that it is the Government's intention that this part should not come into force before the OFT's guidance on the provisions and operation of this part are published. However, I do not think that it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 246 would ensure that guidance published by the OFT always includes guidance about the factors which the OFT may take into account in considering how to exercise the functions conferred on it under this part. Amendment No. 247 then seeks to ensure that the OFT always takes these factors into account when exercising its functions under this part. While I understand the reason for the amendments, I am not convinced that they would achieve their intended purpose.

175
Amendment No. 246 would by implication create a presumption that the list of factors published in the guidance was a complete and exhaustive list of the factors that the OFT would need to take into account. That would in effect require the OFT to attempt to forecast all the conceivable ways in which the power in this part may be used and then identify all the possible relevant factors that it may need to take into account in any particular case. I am sure that the Committee will agree that with the best will in the world that would be an unrealistic challenge for the OFT, at least until it had gained considerable experience of how this part will work in practice.
Amendment No. 247 would then effectively bind the OFT to taking those factors into account to the exclusion of all others. The OFT would have no discretion not to take a particular factor into account even when to do so would be in the interests of business. Also, because the list would by implication be exhaustive the OFT would not be able to take any other factors into account even if there were relevant factors in a particular case that would be beneficial to business. The normal principles of administrative law will require the OFT and other enforcers to take into account all relevant factors and disregard irrelevant factors in the circumstances of each case.
Amendment No. 248 would change the reference in subsection (5) from,
"If the OFT is preparing advice and information under this section" to "when" it is doing so. I agree with what the amendment seeks to achieve, given that this clause requires the OFT to produce such guidance. I shall therefore take this away and table a government amendment on Report.
Amendments Nos. 249 and 251 would ensure that the advice and information published by the OFT include guidance on the approach that should be followed by other enforcers when taking action under this part. I certainly agree that the OFT should be capable of giving general guidance on the approach of other enforcers as well as its own. That will be essential if there is to be a consistent approach to enforcement by the various parties that will have enforcement powers under this part. The OFT does not have a general power to direct the activities of trading standards departments, which are part of local authorities, and we do not think it would be appropriate to give the OFT such a power.
I expect that advice and information will set out the underlying principles that action should be appropriate and proportionate, brought by the appropriate body, and that businesses should be given a reasonable opportunity to put matters right with negotiation. It should also include advice on the procedures which should be followed by enforcement bodies when taking forward cases under this part. For example, we would expect the process to begin with a letter to the business, providing details of the business activity or practice giving cause for concern and inviting the business to enter into negotiation with the enforcer.
176
That is the type of information that the OFT has produced in its recently published guidance on the stop now orders regulations, which received broad support from business. We do not therefore see a need to enshrine that requirement in legislation. Subsection (6) does of course itself require the OFT to consult other enforcers in preparing its advice and information.
In view of those arguments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Razzall: It is late and I tried very hard to listen to what the Minister said. As I said earlier, the purpose of Amendment No. 244, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharman, and that of the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—although he will speak for himself—is to ensure that those who have to observe the legislation are clear about what the law says and about what guidance will be adopted. The Minister's comments on the various amendments suggest that the Government accept that general point. The Minister's approach—of not bringing into effect the relevant sections until the guidance is available or of bringing another provision back on Report—appears to meet our points. I shall read his response in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 245 to 249 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 250 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
Clause 224 agreed to.
Clauses 225 and 226 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 252:
After Clause 226, insert the following new clause—
"DESTINATION OF FINES IMPOSED BY THE OFT

(1)The OFT will consider whether any fines which it imposes under Chapter I or II of the 1998 Act might be applied for any purpose or purposes which could contribute towards remedying harm suffered by consumers generally (but not as individuals) as a result of the infringements of those provisions.

(2)The OFT may, in pursuance of subsection (1), make such directions as it considers appropriate.

(3)No action shall lie in any court (including for a judicial review) against any decision made by the OFT under subsections (1) and (2), including a decision not to apply to any fines for the purposes described in subsection (1)."

The noble Lord said: The amendment was first proposed by my honourable friends in the other place, led by John Whittingdale. However, it was not called there because of the operation of the guillotine. We have now added a further subsection: subsection (3), to which I shall return in a moment.
The new clause refers to the substantial fines—possibly running into millions of pounds—that the OFT can levy for breaches of the Competition Act 1998. Without specific provision, those fines will just alleviate the general burden of taxation. In this case, the fines would be levied because harm had been done to what Clause 208 refers to as,
"the collective interests of consumers".

177
In the very litigious United States of America, there is a whole industry for bringing class actions in such cases, which I hope we never see within the confines of the United Kingdom. There are already actions going on in respect of alleged mis-selling of various financial services products. In this regard, we are dealing with fines that have been imposed because harm has been done to the collective interests of consumers. When the Office of Fair Trading levies a huge fine, it is my contention that that fine should, wherever possible, be used to alleviate the wrong suffered by the public.
Of course, it is very difficult to identify the members of the public who have lost out or suffered damage. But we have seen instances where the regulator has made certain utilities reduce their charges when it was thought appropriate for them to do so, bringing direct benefit to the consumers involved.
Therefore, it is our contention that it should not be impossible for some imaginative mind to provide in some way for discounts against the future supply of goods and services or to inaugurate a simple claim for a limited fixed amount of compensation where people can prove that they bought goods or services from the offending company or organisation which has been subjected to a substantial fine. If consumers in a particular locality are involved, the fine could be distributed to local authorities for the improvement of specific services which fall within the tenor of the fine.
In this amendment, we are asking the Government to respond to the overall intention, which is to find some way of compensating those who have suffered. In the amendment, the OFT is asked only to consider whether the fines could be used in that way. Under proposed new subsection (2) it is given the discretion to make such directions as it thinks appropriate.
However, the amendment differs from that submitted in the other place in that a new subsection (3) has been added. That subsection protects the OFT from being sued by someone for the way in which it has or has not exercised its discretionary powers under the clause.
The new clause makes it clear that, in exercising its considerable powers of punishment for serious infractions of the 1998 Act, the OFT is not simply the gatherer of yet another tax and that it should exercise its powers when reasonable and possible for the benefit of those harmed by some wrongful conduct. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may make a quick comment. I had not really considered this matter before I saw the amendment earlier today. I can see in principle the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to make—that is, remedying harm suffered by consumers generally. The collective interests of consumers have been harmed and therefore they should be compensated.
But one or two examples that the noble Lord gave seemed to me to assist consumers as individuals or many individuals. Yet, in brackets in the amendment, he seeks not to do that. It seems to me that the main answer to the noble Lord—I hope that the amendment
178
will not be accepted—is that he is asking for something that is far too difficult to achieve in practice. He does not like the idea of the fines going to the general taxpayer, but, by and large, that is probably the best judgment of Solomon that could be made in the circumstances.
I do not believe that the example of the utilities is appropriate because almost everyone in an area has to take gas, electricity or water. Therefore, a discount on prices may be the most reasonable remedy if the utility has failed the public and broken its obligations. But I believe that the noble Lord is asking for the impossible, and the OFT would find it extremely difficult in almost any circumstance to come to a judgment that was seen to be fair and just.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These amendments would allow the OFT to direct that fines which it has imposed in respect of infringements of competition law be used for purposes that would help to remedy the harm suffered by a general class of consumer as a result of those infringements.
Like noble Lords opposite, I am keen to encourage projects or activities that benefit consumers. But Clause 270 already sets out the Secretary of State's power to do that. The new consumer grants fund that we shall establish for the purpose of that power could be used to give financial assistance to projects in areas where a general class of consumers has suffered harm but where it is not possible for all the individual consumers concerned either to be identified or to seek redress.
One of our priorities will be to fund projects relating to the markets in which the OFT has established a breach of competition law. A good example of the kind of work that we would like to mirror here comes from the 1980s when Rover Cars were found to be using anti-competitive practices. By the time that emerged, it was no longer possible to identify the consumers who had lost out. Rover donated £750,000 to the Consumers' Association to establish a self-financing information service for car buyers in the UK and £250,000 to the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs to help fund its ability car programme—a programme of research, information and action relating to goods and services for disabled motorists. Obviously, we would not be talking about company donations, but the work for which this donation was used is a helpful example of the kind of activity that we shall be considering.
Under our proposals, we shall also be able to use the fund for a wider range of projects or other work that would benefit consumers—not just those who have suffered from specific anti-competitive practices. That may include, for example, promoting knowledge and understanding of consumer rights and how to obtain redress when things go wrong; providing information and advice to assist consumers to decide which goods and services to buy—for example, through impartial product research and comparative surveys; projects to benefit socially or economically vulnerable consumers;

179
or projects to benefit disadvantaged groups who have special needs as consumers. But those are only illustrative examples.
The important point is that our proposals will already allow financial assistance to be given to projects that benefit consumers who have suffered from anti-competitive practices for which fines have been imposed under the Competition Act. But they will benefit consumers more widely, too, and will ensure that a more strategic view is taken both of the consumer issues that need addressing and of the funding available. By their very nature, fines are unpredictable, both in timing and amount. Therefore, consumer benefits linked to them would also necessarily be erratic and unpredictable. Furthermore, fines can be imposed under the Competition Act only where the undertaking concerned has acted intentionally or negligently. Although those will frequently be the cases in which most damage has been done to consumers, harm may also be done in other cases. In instances where the imposition of a fine is to act as a trigger for the use of the fund, given the scope for companies to dispute the fines, tenders for projects could be established as soon as the fine is levied, rather than paid, making the scheme more agile and timely.
All those measures are additional to our continuing ability under Clause 270 to fund bodies that promote the interests of consumers, such as the NCC. My department also has powers outside the Bill to spend money directly on consumer protection activities. For
180
those reasons, I believe that our proposals are better for consumers than the amendments and make the amendments unnecessary. I would add that subsection (3) of Amendment No. 252 attempts to remove the proposed fine-allocation decisions of the OFT from the scope of judicial review. I am not convinced that that would be found acceptable as a matter of propriety.
In view of those arguments, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am pleased that the Minister resisted the exhortation of his noble friend Lord Borrie to allow these sums to fall into the general body of taxation, but rather responded in a very constructive and positive manner, for which I am most grateful. I shall take time to reflect on what he said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
Clauses 227 to 232 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.

  Algeria
  Algeria
  Iceland: Visit by Chinese President
  Iceland: Visit by Chinese President
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Iran
  Iran
  Wilton Park
  Wilton Park
  Diplomatic Immunity: Serious Offences
  Diplomatic Immunity: Serious Offences
  Home Security Industry
  Home Security Industry
  Mental Health Bill, Clause 6 (4)
  Mental Health Bill, Clause 6 (4)
  Criminal Cases: Prosecution Disclosure
  Criminal Cases: Prosecution Disclosure
  Firearm Certificates: Gwent and Hampshire
  Firearm Certificates: Gwent and Hampshire
  Abnormal Loads on Motorways
  Abnormal Loads on Motorways
  Bus Drivers: Use of Mobile Phones
  Bus Drivers: Use of Mobile Phones
  MAPPA Annual Report
  MAPPA Annual Report
  Government Departments: Data Series for Anti-discrimination Purposes
  Government Departments: Data Series for Anti-discrimination Purposes
  Sexual Exploitation of Women
  Sexual Exploitation of Women
  Sangatte
  Sangatte
  Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
  Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers: Third Country Cases
  Asylum Seekers: Third Country Cases
  Government Agencies: Requirement for Original Documentation
  Government Agencies: Requirement for Original Documentation
  House of Lords Reform: Creation of Life Peers
  House of Lords Reform: Creation of Life Peers
  Investment in Industry
  Investment in Industry
  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Broadband: Lane Rental
  Broadband: Lane Rental
  Nuclear Facilities: Security Checks
  Nuclear Facilities: Security Checks
  Home Improvement Sector: Quality Mark Scheme
  Home Improvement Sector: Quality Mark Scheme
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate Targets
  Central Science Laboratory Targets
  Central Science Laboratory Targets
  Serious Fraud Office Annual Report
  Serious Fraud Office Annual Report
  Law Officer's Review of the Year
  Law Officer's Review of the Year
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Stakeholder Pensions
  Stakeholder Pensions
  Warrington: Pensioners
  Warrington: Pensioners
  School Exclusions
  School Exclusions
  School Children: Ofsted Consultation
  School Children: Ofsted Consultation
  People with Learning Disabilities: Older Carers
  People with Learning Disabilities: Older Carers
  East Kent NHS Trust: Consultant Cardiologists
  East Kent NHS Trust: Consultant Cardiologists
  Disability Equipment
  Disability Equipment
  Asylum Seekers: Healthcare
  Asylum Seekers: Healthcare
  Early Abortion Procedures
  Early Abortion Procedures
  NHS: EU Procurement Rules
  NHS: EU Procurement Rules
  Community Equipment Services
  Community Equipment Services
  NHS Bodies: Key Financial Duties
  NHS Bodies: Key Financial Duties
  Voluntary Hospices: Funding
  Voluntary Hospices: Funding
  NHS Estate
  NHS Estate
  Shipman Inquiry
  Shipman Inquiry
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency Annual Report and Accounts
  Appointment of Archbishop of Canterbury
  Appointment of Archbishop of Canterbury
  Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
  Afghanistan: Asylum Seekers
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Guns
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Guns
  Northern Ireland Parades Commission
  Northern Ireland Parades Commission
  Cabinet Office: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Cabinet Office: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Business Appointments Advisory Committee
  Business Appointments Advisory Committee
  Transport Infrastructure Projects: European Investment Bank Funding
  Transport Infrastructure Projects: European Investment Bank Funding
  Goods Vehicles: Community Authorisation
  Goods Vehicles: Community Authorisation
  London Underground: Air Conditioning
  London Underground: Air Conditioning
  Road Congestion
  Road Congestion
  Railways: Public Service Agreement
  Railways: Public Service Agreement
  Network Rail: Contingent Liabilities
  Network Rail: Contingent Liabilities